Fred Baxter letter.pdfSc,pfuriibr -1 1. 2009
Mr. Nfike Clo-gsion, Plaimer
Citi" of Edmonds
121; Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RF- SFR Remodel mid Deck �u 1012 kml, VvIV
Dc-,irMfle,-
I hjs IC110'r is ill response to our lc iter datou
flic obove referciiced proi Ci.
Timuilk You :for discussing the set -back cocroachmonts with the planning manager.
Before 1 change [lie pkllls fbi' the two cmerior stairs and their guardrails to comply with (lie City of'
Edincmid's interpretation of their code related to micovered clocks and steps that encroach into setbacks, I
would like you and your SLJPCfiOrS 10 Considci other local jurisclictions interpretations of shifflar clauses in
dicir codes. 1 have attached as copy of exccrpts from the Mukiflm Everett, and Snolionlish Zoning Codes
with those similar clauses duating with scl-back exceptions for micovered porches, clocks and steps. I have
dealt willi these clauses on various pro-iccis over the 20 nears I have practiced in (lie area. When comparing
[]lose clauses, all read similarly, referring to a liciglit above grade that the encroaching structure is allowed.
Al]]rough the height varies bet wcenjurisdictions, the ititerprel,,ition used by ahjul'isdictions eNCCpt
Edmonds is that the height flieflSUrcineiii is to die sud"ke of (lie porch, deck, or step and not any related
handrails or guardrails.
I understand that VOLI need to look at the consistency of your intupretations witlifit your City and not
necessarily in offiCrjUrisdictions. However I feel thit this does show that there is great precedent for
another waN to interpret this clause. Dtic to the consistency of (lie interpretation outside of Edmonds, I
befievect that I understood die intent of this clause amcl felt no need to clarify it.
I also understand the intent ofsel-back requirements is to regulale the "bulk" ol'development relative to
, adj�
acent properly and public Nvivs. Tlicciici,oicliiiici-itsilloA:%cdby the above clauses are limited to
"uncovered"" sirliCtUres, The other jurisdictions apparently allow the related railings because they are often
required by the building code and bmiuse their effect an the bulk of such structures is limited. It also
lot alln-w tlle raflilig v Naive proposed in the front and rear yards whell
fences and trellises that are 3'- 67 high are Alowed (oriel exist) in these yards.
I believe that the alternative designs we wil I have to implement with your current interpretation will be a
Con-'Pronlisc to I'llic qualih., oil I'lic udcsijgll, particularly It thle firolit porch where space 'for a nice POTCII is ver ' N
limited, In both cases Nvv hill probably create an intermediate design and (LIT11 (lie steps so, that no railing is
required oil the lower portion of the stairs (wbich I don't thinlc is q preferable solution).
Once again, 1 ask that vou consider allowing Ilic propose([ stair (-ilcroaclilliews'ls 10114 is the sud"'Ices of
steps are 0' or less w thin the set -back arca. In (his case I believe it 111COS the intent of the cocle, is
consistent with llow this issue is interproicd in other local jurisdictions- and allows for a more clesirablc
design solution.
I appreciate your considerationand look for�N ird to yon.- response,
Silicerel
Frei 1. 'Baxter, Q.I.A.
Architect
m Tom acid Deb Weiner