FW_ Follow up re_ 736 (_) Sprague - 2 of 2.pdf
From:Hope, Shane
To:Machuga, Jen
Subject:FW: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Date:Monday, May 05, 2014 5:34:26 PM
Attachments:MCGINNESS TOPO PLOT PLAN.pdf
Message 2 of 2
From: Chris McGinness \[mailto:chrism@hdm-cpa.com\]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:43 AM
To: Hope, Shane
Cc: LoewenHomes@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Good Morning Shane,
As we discussed, attached is a plot plan with the current 2013 survey information overlay the 1980
survey information from the drainage and grading plan. We believe this survey comparison
demonstrates that no re-grading has been completed on this property between 1980 and 2013,
given the fact that the contour lines match up so similarly. In some instances, the current 2013
survey information is lower than the 1980 survey information, which would indicate the settling of
soil over time. I know Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, is familiar with a similar survey comparison
because she commented to Mark and my house designer several weeks ago that the contour lines
are very close. The issue has always been with the “pre-existing contour” lines from the 1980
drainage and grading plan, which I believe we have proven to be inaccurate based on the Reid,
Middleton letter.
Thank you,
Chris J. McGinness, CPA
Huebner, Dooley & McGinness, P.S.
1424 NE 155th Street, Suite 100
Shoreline, WA 98155
p: 206.522.8000
f: 206.523.2978
e: chrism@hdm-cpa.com
www.hdm-cpa.com
This transmittal may contain confidential information intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by reply or by telephone (206-522-8000) and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, please immediately
delete this message and all attachments. Thank you.
From: Hope, Shane \[mailto:Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov\]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 3:20 PM
To: Chris McGinness
Cc:LoewenHomes@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Chris,
Your message has been received, thanks. After reviewing it, I will get back to you (within the next 3
days).
Regards,
Shane
From: Chris McGinness \[mailto:chrism@hdm-cpa.com\]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:41 PM
To: Hope, Shane
Cc:LoewenHomes@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Shane,
As discussed below, please find attached a PDF of the letter from Michael Yeoman, PLS, Survey
Group Director, of Reid, Middleton. This letter addresses the points I have detailed below in my
email response to you. If you need a hard copy of the letter, please let me know and I can get that
to you.
This letter from Reid, Middleton will hopefully address our concerns with the most recent
nd
“BLD20131404 Plan Review Comments – 2 Review” from Jen Machuga, Associate Planner, dated
March 18, 2014 (see attached), specially Point 2. Topography and Height, sub points a. and b. Based
on the attached letter from Reid, Middleton, we feel that, due to the inherent datum differences
and inaccuracies associated with the 1980 era aerial city-wide mapping, we should not be held to
the “pre-existing contour” grade per the 1980 grading and drainage plan (File S-8-80) when
determining height calculations. As such, we reasonably propose that our height calculations be
based on the existing grade per our 2013 survey (deemed to be “best available science”), which
closely matches the “existing elevations” from actual field measurements per the 1980 grading and
drainage plan. This is another point to demonstrate that the existing soil has not been “disturbed”
between the period from 1980 (per the 1980 grading and drainage plan) through today (per the
2013 survey). If this is consistent with your interpretation/determination, please have Jen Machuga
revise her plan review comments so that we know which comments still need to be addressed prior
to receiving approval of our plans from the City of Edmonds Planning Division. We are excited and
anxious to move forward with the plan-review process.
Thanks again for your assistance in this matter,
Chris J. McGinness, CPA
Huebner, Dooley & McGinness, P.S.
1424 NE 155th Street, Suite 100
Shoreline, WA 98155
p: 206.522.8000
f: 206.523.2978
e: chrism@hdm-cpa.com
www.hdm-cpa.com
This transmittal may contain confidential information intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by reply or by telephone (206-522-8000) and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, please immediately
delete this message and all attachments. Thank you.
From: Hope, Shane \[mailto:Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov\]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 9:53 AM
To: Chris McGinness; LoewenHomes@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Chris,
Your explanation is very helpful, especially since I’m not familiar with the history. I think all
the points you make below should be on the R-M letter(along with a reference to their
survey experience). That should be adequate for me to make the
interpretation/determination.
Thanks,
Shane
From: Chris McGinness \[mailto:chrism@hdm-cpa.com\]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 9:42 AM
To: Hope, Shane; LoewenHomes@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Shane,
I really do appreciate you meeting with Mark and I the other day. I did want to clarify a few things in
your email below. As we discussed at the meeting, there is a lot of history to this property. When
my grandfather developed the current location of city hall back in the late 1970’s, he moved some
of the fill dirt to the current location of our property (726 Sprague and surrounding properties). The
city allowed for some dirt to be moved there, but he ended up moving more than what was agreed
to, so was required to remove approximately 500 yards from that location, which he did. I don’t
believe the letter from Reid, Middleton will explain why the site elevation we would use for the
building appears to not be the result of soil disturbance—i.e., fill or regrading (at least for many
years) because the city did allow him to move some fill dirt to this location. I think with our survey
taken in 2013, we can prove that the soil has not been disturbed since 1980, since the actual field
measurements are approximately the same in the two surveys (1980 and 2013).
I think the purpose of the letter from Reid, Middleton is to question the accuracy of the “pre-
existing” contour taken from an aerial topo survey. The “pre-existing” contour line is what the City
has deemed to be “undisturbed” and is requiring us to use this in our average height calculation.
We are questioning the accuracy of the “pre-existing” contour, based on the following observations
from Reid, Middleton of the 1980 survey:
1. The 1980 survey used the NGVD of 1929 datum point, as compared to the NAVD of 1988
datum point that is currently used. This has an approximate impact of 3.61 feet on
measurement calculations (i.e. a measurement of 100.00 in the 1980 survey would be 103.61
in today’s measurements)
2. The “preexisting contour” dashed line in the 1980 survey was from an aerial topo survey from
a city-wide mapping plan, which was then scanned and scaled down to this survey – it was
not specific to this McGinness subdivision project
3. The “preexisting contour” dashed line in the 1980 survey is at 5 foot intervals, which means
there is a potential 2.5 foot error rate
At a minimum, with point 1 above, the 1980 “pre-existing” contour, using the NGVD 1929, should
be updated to the current NAVD 1988. Another point is if the “pre-existing” contour is from a city-
wide mapping plan, why wouldn’t every City of Edmonds property development project subsequent
to that mapping plan be held to that “pre-existing” contour line when assessing undisturbed soil for
purposes of calculating average height, like we are being required to do. We are being held to a
measurement (i.e. “pre-existing” contour) in the building of our house that has been proven to be
inaccurate.
Let me know your thoughts on the above, or if you need clarification. Reid, Middleton is ready to
produce the letter addressing the 3 points above, but if this does not clarify things, then we are
going to need to go in a different direction. As we mentioned before, I don’t think we are being
unreasonable in our request, given the fact that we are still going to be 1.5 feet below the maximum
building height level if we are able to use the 2013 survey measurements. We are anxious to move
forward in this building process, and are hopeful that the points above will be considered fairly and
reasonably.
Thanks again for your assistance in this matter,
Chris J. McGinness, CPA
Huebner, Dooley & McGinness, P.S.
1424 NE 155th Street, Suite 100
Shoreline, WA 98155
p: 206.522.8000
f: 206.523.2978
e: chrism@hdm-cpa.com
www.hdm-cpa.com
This transmittal may contain confidential information intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by reply or by telephone (206-522-8000) and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, please immediately
delete this message and all attachments. Thank you.
From: Hope, Shane \[mailto:Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov\]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 8:51 AM
To: Chris McGinness; LoewenHomes@hotmail.com
Subject: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Mark and Chris,
I appreciated our meeting the other day. I’m also just following up to make sure that your
survey firm (R-M) knows I will be looking for something from them that explains what they
think the correct building site elevation is and why (compared to the City’s old (circa 1929)
records). As you know, the city’s code (ECDC 21.40.030) defines “height” for building
purposes as :
…the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the
highest point of the structure. (italics added)
The apparent idea behind the “undisturbed” language in the code is to preclude owners
from adding fill to a site and then eventually building atop the fill at a new height level. So,
the letter or memo from your surveyor needs to explain why the site elevation you would
use for the building appears to not be the result of soil disturbance—i.e., fill or regrading (at
least for many years). Please let me know if questions.
Regards,
Shane
Shane Hope
Development Services Director
425.771-0220 ext. 1216
REVISIONS:
PRINTED:
12.16.13
2.24.14
5.1.14
MCGINNESS
EDMONDS, WA 98020
726 SPRAGUE STREET
CHRIS & LESLIE
LOCATION:
OWNERS:
N
SURVEY COMPARISON
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
SPRAGUE STREET
110
110
109.9
110
N 89³59'54" W 59.96
CLUSTER OF MAPLES 3"-16"
TO BE REMOVED
108.6
109.10
108
108
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
108
106
N 00³00'09" E 109.97
106
108
104
108
105.3
106.3
102
106
106
104
104.7
104
102
100
105.5
102
104
100
100
98
98
102
96
98
96
100
93.6
98
94
94
96
95.7
EXISTING FIELD MEASURMENTS
EXISTING PER 1980 SURVEY
EXISTING PER 2013 SURVEY
92
92
94
92
94
ALLEY
PER 1980 SURVEY
96
GRADE LINES
95.7
90