BlomenkampPermitReviewRequest.pdfRECEIVED
JUN 29 2015
Developrvient Ser,vlcos Department DEVELOFIMEN1 SEROUS'
121 5th Ave N COUNTER
Edmonds, WA 98020
This letter in lieu of an unavailable formal application per ECDC Section 20. 100.4013
subsection 3
Review of Approved Permits to request a review by the hearing examiner.
Per ECDC, Section 20.100.40A, We the Undersigned do hereby allege that Permit
PLN20130066 fulfills these requirements by the following:
1. By riot being compliant with ECDC 18.4115.050.H the project has Caused a large direct
financial and emotional hardship on the family at 23227 92nd Ave W. Edmonds WAS
98020. See attached estimates and Arborist reports.
2. It has caused a serious hazardous condition by excavating and causing 4. trees to
become a severe hazard per, the enclosed Arborist reports. Two of the trees are a direct
hazard to both private property and life of the family at 23227 92nd. Ave W.
3. This has become a severe nuisance to both the City and the land owner at 23227
92nd Ave W., 23229 92nd Ave W., and 23309 92nd Ave W.
4. The extent of the Fill/Grade/Excavation for tl'ie permit was hidden from the ADB
board by the staff.
it is state111 rr7ra „.
B. ECDC 20.11.030.B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the
nearby area
should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The
following
are elements of site treatment:
1. Grading, vegetation rernoval and other, changes to the site shall be minimized where
natural beauty exists, Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided.
Comments: Although the site will need to be cleared, which includes the removal of
many mature evergreens, the applicant has chosen to design the project so that it does
not max out the lot coverage required by roughly 10% (45% coverage is the rnax, while
this projectproposes roughly 36% coverage), Minimal grading is anticipated, rnosfly
to fill -the unusual hole that exists just north of the house.
11,i1o,,,,,f Staff Oearf klrlfrrl�w this �),u)as iil§,,ac,,,,cur,1,1.,,,,,,,?,t,�,.,I,,�, �j`( //- th�,,I�,,, wall to
Y
f�,,,Jlrii dwuleloper fws excava�red dowri� �Ororfn, olf 5" artf
the SW col""'foor to a I Ot Or"', the N11111 corl,ifJ;r a# -W fh%I,, corr,(IpIIete lot hws grl"",f!,,R6,,�"'d,
71`ds is wfmt the r`f,twithiti �,,`he 25'zonu'rrf code
by Steve Pri"ce of Kaliolz LLC fllw Mrated"They
considered the option of applying for a variance to exceed the 25 -foot height limit by
one foot to provide a ceiling height of nine feet so the units are more attractive and
comfortable. The property is located in a bit of a bowl so no view blockage would occur.
In addition, the apartment complex to the south is higher than the proposed buildings
would be, and the veterinary clinic to the north has a dog run and kennel located close
to the property line. After further discussion with staff, they decided not to pursue
a variance." 1r1,J,4s it was a and awalre ofthw ir,lweded
N� it rllt4)�,ghger4ly c,'JUd rwt take hnj acco�.,iri�t trees an 29227 9Z,,,'W,
5. In the staff comments during your hearing MS. Janicek represented that "'The
applicant appears to meet all of the applicbble code requirements and development
standards"
Flowever this is not accurate, the retaining wall on the west side is within about 5 -feet of
the property line. There are 4 trees within a Couple feet of the line on 23227 92nd Ave
W. One is 42" in diameter. Per 1X3.4 5.035 Projects requiring ADB approval
are PROCEDURALLY EXEMPTand do require clearing proposals be consistent with
and apply to the standards in 18.45.
18.45.035 Procedural exemption.
Projects requiring the approval of the Edmonds architectural design board ("ADIB")
under the provisions of Chapter 0.10 ECSI C shall be exernpt from the application and
procedural requirements of this chapter-; provided, however, that:
A. Clearing on such projects shall take place only after ADB approval and shall be in
accordance with such approval. Violations shall be subject to the remedies prescribed
by this chapter. See ECDC 18.45.070.
B. ADB review of clearing proposals shall be consistent with and apply to the
standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3507 § 2, 2004].
Howev((,,,,,rr Unili's proposal calrurwt be cotmidered i"),s coirpsistenit becm,,)),se per
18,45,5011 s(�,,,)§ian I "The applicant iay not fill, excavate, stack or store any
equipment, or cornpact the earth in any way within the area defined by tile drip
line of any tree to be retained." and 5 "The grade level around any tree to be
retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (a) the area
defined by the drip line of the tree, or (b) an area around the tree equal to one foot
in diameter for each one !rich of tree caliper."
Nowh,era it arr4y of ofik fhe pGroperty being
it Irefi,eluces whilicft m(ufs1i,,, be read all treos,
6. The grading has caused 3 significant trees to be required to be removed as
hazardous, one other has a high possibility of becoming so in the future. See attached
Arborist reports.
7. These actions by the permit holder significantly changes the required Type 1
Landscaping as required Comprehensive Pan and commented on in the enclosed Staff
Report, the ADB hearing minutes as expected to be preSE)nt. 117 In afring oril page 5
it "As per ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements), three types of
landscaping will apply to the project, and the landscaping plan (Attachment 7)
appears to meet all of the code requirements. However, she noted that there are a
number of significant trees located on the site, and the applicant is proposing to remove
all but one. Street trees will be provided consistent with the property to the north on
Edmonds Way." Further it states on page 8 "Comments: The RS -8 zoned residential
properties to the west will be buffered by the existing mature trees on the slope
above the development (oi �theik,owif The existing trees on the
slope essentially act as Type I landscaping, which according to ECDC 20.13.030
is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses
a n d land u s e d il s t r 1 cts. " .AIl,,a iri 1,iP e S It", a ft R rt it a I a s or,,: I e a/,r/ y aUII p a" , "h" 4 , 'A
V
ECD C 20.13.030.A describes Type I landscaping as:Type I landscaping is intended to
provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts.
1. -1 we rows of evergreen trees, a minimum of 10 feet in height and planted at intervals
of no greater than 20 feet on center. The trees must be backed by a sight -obscuring
fence a
minimum of five feet high or the required width of the planting area must be increased
by 10
feet; and
2. Shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height planted in an area at least five
feet in width, and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within
three
years;
3. Alternatively, the trees and shrubs may be planted on an earthen berm at least 15
feet inwidth and an average of five feet high along its midline.
'Type I landscaping is required along the northern and western project boundaries
where theproperty abuts residentially and commercially zoned property.
slope west, of developed area is hc,,Irc,,sted lrinjaftnre tale es. A5-6' tall solid
wood fence is proposed along the west property line to enhance the required screening,
while there is an existing 5-6' tall solid wood
fence along the northern property line. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Type I landscaping."
do Iniot the on/ oti'mrs lurolu a rliy 0 o
provide thd,!,,,,, 'T I hwj�vwleir you be concg,,,,rn�r,,"d that by
If �
of Ch tUs TYI_,,��e I t7c,,",'m DE&MOYED alntd H"m Cif,�I, Ar�,11"�'fl!,"�filtYistlt-�l��,,",��ti,(,,,"YlI"If is
rr,ilohn�g NO"I"HING to ri�r�Ufigate ru's, ft i's CLEARILY T/ E IN rENT OF THE ADB thlat
trees wetlt(,,;,�, to 10 'The s1,,,,,iff had an obfigatiorl) to.,
s(tsre happene�t,"/ f,�,Y �,,,'Johng th)w til�l"",",(",��,11(�,'IIW'i�Ill�,,�1,,-
Further 18.45H section 2 "The applicant shall erect and maintain rope barriers on the
drip line or place bales of hay to protect roots. In addition, the applicant shall provide
supervision whenever equipment or, trucks are moving near trees."
J -hese allegations require many major changes to the project plan that cannot be
reasonably changed in the project, otherwise the Development is not con'forming to
code. Per Lauer v. Pierce County, Flo® 85177-8, Washington Supreme Court (Dec. 15,
2011), Building permit applications coiitaining material irtisrepresentations or omissions of
fact do not give rise to vested rights.
We respectfully request Per 20.1 MOM.C.6 that the bearing exarniner revoke the perrnit for this
project.
Sincerly,
Scott Blomenkaiup
23227 92nd. Ave W.
Ednionds, WA 98020
Maij Peuderaft
23229 92nd. Ave W.
Edn-tonds, WA 98020
Andrew Baxter
23309 92nd Ave W.
Edrnonds, WA 98020