Staff Report APL2011-0005 Classico Homes (2).doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
th
121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
Project:
Classico Homes – Appeal of Building Official determination
File Number:
APL2011-0005
Date of Report:
November 29, 2011
From:
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Public Hearing:
December 8, 2011 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
th
250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
I. SUMMARY OF APPEAL
Classico Homes, represented by JBA consultants, has appealed a Type II administrative decision
by the City Building Official related to the interpretation of a previous Hearings Examiner decision
issued on September 22, 2011.
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Appellant:
Classico Homes
th
2. Site Location:
520 7 Ave. S., Edmonds WA APN: 27032500203400
3. Zoning:
RS-6
4. Staff Request:
That the City’s Building Official interpretation of the earlier Hearing Examiner
decision should be affirmed. \[Attachment 1\]
5. Review Process:
The Hearing Examiner conducts an open record appeal hearing on the appellant’s
request as specified in Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC. The Hearing Examiner’s decision is final and
is subject to judicial appeal within 21 days of the issuance of the decision pursuant to ECDC
20.07.006.
6. Notice:
Notice of the appeal was posted at the Edmonds Public Library, Public Safety Building and
City Hall on November 23, 2011. A legal notice was also published in The Herald on November 23,
2011.
III. BACKGROUND
The earlier decision by the Hearing Examiner was in response to an appeal relating to an interpretation and
application of the ‘undisturbed soil’ definition in the ECDC under section 21.105.010. The appellant
wished to reconstruct the contours on the site to reflect what he assumed they may have been in the past.
The building official denied the request and required the use of known contours. The Hearing Examiner
upheld the Building Officials determination stating, “The interpretation of the Building Official, as
Classico Homes Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0005
Page 2 of 3
outlined in Ex. 2, is affirmed. The contours on Ex. 4 represent the undisturbed soil for purposes of
building height calculation.” \[copy of full decision attachment 5\].
In late September Mr. Schmaus came into City Hall and presented a plan \[attachment 3\] to the building
official and asked him to consider the penciled-in contours for lot 2. These penciled contours had
apparently been extrapolated using as data points the building corners shown for lot 1. These extrapolated
contours were higher in elevation than the underlying existing contours. The southern property line contour
was shown as 6 feet higher than the contour that had been established as ‘undisturbed’ by the earlier
Hearing Examiner decision.
The building official stated that this was not consistent with the earlier Hearing Examiner decision and that
the contours shown on the original exhibit 4 represent the undisturbed soil condition. The proposal to
draw and use contours that ‘assumed’ a possible pre-existing condition was the bases of the original appeal
and decision. The building official reviewed the Hearing Examiner’s decision and then issued the letter
dated Oct. 5, 2011 \[attachment 1\].
IV. DISCUSSION
The current appeal appears to have arisen from the fact that exhibit 4 from the original decision shows
building corner points for lot 1, but not lot 2. The building corner points had been drawn in during the
short plat process in 2004 and had become a part of the record for that proceeding. In the course of the
original appeal it was noted that staff was providing consideration to the existence of these data points as
an indication that there likely had been discussion during the short plat process that lead to establishing
these points. In so doing staff did not want to be overly restrictive by not allowing what may have
previously been decided related to Lot 1. Indeed the building official’s original interpretation states: “The
building corner heights shown for the easterly building should be used for that structure. The westerly
building corners would need to be established consistent with the contours noted on the short plat
attachments.” The rationale was to allow previously agreed upon data points to be honored, but to defer to
the shown and verifiable contours for other structures. This is the position that staff believes was stated in
the Hearing Examiners decision, which had established these contours as being the ‘undisturbed soil’
condition.
The appellant argues that the contours shown on exhibit 4 from the earlier decision do not match either the
surveyed contours or the contours submitted by the appellant. However, examination of the documents
shows that the contours are in fact identical. The contours on the original exhibit 4 \[attachment 2 here\] are
in fact the same as those provided by the appellant on his submittals and appear to have been copied
directly from the survey by Higa-Burkholder, which was submitted by the appellant as being ‘correct
contours’.
The appellant also argues that the Hearing Examiner’s decision would agree that “the use of reconstructed
contours can be appropriate, but with some limitations in time.” Staff can find no support for this
conclusion in reading the Examiner’s decision.
The Hearing Examiner’s decision was clear in stating that “The contours on Ex. 4 represent the
undisturbed soil for purposes of height determination.” The building official’s determination is consistent
with the decision in requiring the use of the established contours and disallowing attempts to use points
based on reconstruction of assumed previous grade conditions. The plan provided by Mr. Schmaus
attempts to set new contours and is inconsistent with the Hearing Examiner’s previous decision.
Classico Homes Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0005
Page 3 of 3
V. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
DENIALAFFIRMED
Staff recommends of the appeal and that the Building Official’s determination be .
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD
nd
1.
Mr. Joseph Schmaus, Classico Homes 8552 202 St SW Edmonds, WA 98020
th
2.
Mr. John Bissell, JBA Consultants 8630 217 St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026
VII. ATTACHMENTS
1.
Building Official letter (determination)
2.
Plot plan with contours – Exhibit 4 from earlier decision
3.
Submittal by Mr. Schmaus with reconstructed contours for Lot 2
4.
Language from short plat S-04-113 (referenced in appellant’s discussion)
5.
Hearing Examiner decision dated September 22, 2011
6.
Letter from John Bissell received October 21, 2011
7.
Staff Report for APL20110004 dated August 30, 2011