FW_ Follow up re_ 736 (_) Sprague - 1 of 2.pdf
From:Hope, Shane
To:Machuga, Jen
Subject:FW: Follow up re: 736 (?) Sprague
Date:Monday, May 05, 2014 5:34:00 PM
Attachments:Letter 140428.pdf
BLD20131404 Plan Review Comments - 2nd Review.pdf
Message 1 of 2
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
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
•1215AN•E,WA98020
VENUE ORTH DMONDS
P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 • W:www.edmondswa.gov
HONEAXEB
DSD:P•E•B
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING NGINEERING UILDING
March 18, 2014
Mr.Chris McGinness
Email: cmcginness@frontier.com
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTSFOR PLANCHECK #BLD20131404
MCGINNESS RESIDENCELOCATED AT 726 SPRAGUE ST.
Dear Mr. McGinness:
I have reviewed your resubmittal of February 26, 2014 for the above building permit applicationfor the
Planning Division,and it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications will need to
be addressedbefore review can continue:
SitePlan:
1.Thank you for making the requested corrections to your site plan. Please further revise the
site plan to address the following:
a.In revising the site plan, the shading of the covered porch is the same color as the shading of the
front walkway and the walkway on the east side of the residence. For clarity, please update the
shading such that the shading of the portions of the structure (i.e. covered front porch and garage)is
different than the shading of the paved surfaces (i.e. driveway,front walkway, and walkway on east
side of residence).
b.When printing out the final copies of the site plan(Sheet P2), pleaseverify that the reduced copy
matches the full-sized copy. For example, some changes were made by hand to the full-sized
copies, but not the reduced copy such as the maximum allowed height and proposed height as well
as the removal of the previously proposed datum point.
Topographyand Height:
2.Please address the following comments regarding the topography of the site
as well as the height of the proposed residence:
a.January 29, 2014 comment:ECDC 21.40.030 defines “height” as “the average vertical distance
from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point
of the structure.” As such, height calculations must be based on the average originalgrade. This
was also included as a condition of approval when the property was subdivided in 1982 under File
No. S-8-80. The subdivision documents (S-8-80) include a grading and drainage plan that was
received by the City on March 26, 1980 (enclosed for reference). Please revise the site plan to
indicate original grade contours consistent with those indicated on the grading and drainage plan
from the subject subdivision. In addition to indicating original grade contours, please also indicate
contour lines for existing grade and proposed grade utilizing different line styles.
March 18, 2014 comment:Thank you for adjusting your site plan; however, the topography lines
that were added to your site plan from the 1980 grading and drainage plan from File S-8-80were the
proposed contour lines at that time, not the pre-existingcontours.The dashed lines on the 1980 plan
indicate the original (pre-existing) grades, and the bold lines on the 1980 plan indicate the contours
that were proposed at that timefollowing the proposed fillingactivities.Please re-adjust your site
th
plan to address the above commentfrom staff’s January 29letter, keeping in mind that the original
gradecontours are the dashed linesindicated on the 1980 grading and drainage plan (enclosed for
reference).Thus, your site plan will include three line styles for three different grades: proposed
grade, existing grade per 2013 survey, and original (pre-existing) grade per 1980 grading and
drainage plan(File S-8-80).
b.January 29, 2014 comment:Please correct the elevations of Points A through D of your height
rectangle to accurately reflect the originalgrades of each of these points and update the height
calculations accordingly. In updating your height calculations, please keep in mind that the
Page 1of 2
numbers cannot be rounded up. Additionally, all corrections to the elevations of the average grade,
maximum permitted height, and proposed height must be indicated on both the site plan and the
building elevations (Sheet A1).
March 18, 2014 comment:As discussed above, the incorrect grade lines were transferredto the site
plan from the 1980 grading and drainage plan from File S-8-80. After revising the site plan to
indicate the original (pre-existing) contours, please revise the elevations of Points A through D of
your height rectangle to reflect the original (pre-existing) grades at these corners.Once the
elevations of Points A through D are revised, please update the height calculations and indicate the
elevations of the averageoriginal grade, maximum allowed height, and proposed heighton both the
site plan and the building elevation views. Unfortunately,due to the previous filling activitieson
the site, this will decrease the maximum allowed height below that which was previously calculated
since the initial calculations were based on the existing grade,not the original gradefrom 1980.It
appearsthat the height of the proposed residence will need to be reduced in order to comply with the
corrected height calculations.
Please submit three copies of your revised site plan (including one reduced copy) and two copies of any
revised building plan sheets to a Development Services Permit Coordinator. Our office hours are Mondays,
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm,and Wednesdays between 8:00 am and noon.
If you have any questions, feel freeto contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department -Planning Division
JenMachuga
Associate Planner
Enclosure: Grading and Drainage Plan received 3/26/80(File No. S-8-80)
Page 2of 2