Staff Report with attachments APL20110004.pdfI /I C 18 9'1-,
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 o Fax: 425.771.0221 m Web: www.ci,cdnionds.wa.u,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
Project: Classico Homes — Appeal of Building Official determination
File Number: APL2011-0004
Date of Report: August 30, 2011
From: Leonard Yarberty, Building Official
Public hearing: September 8, 2011 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Classico Homes, represented by JBA consultants, has appealed a Type II administrative decision
by the City Building Official related to the determination of undisturbed soil (grade) on property
owned by Classico Homes. The Building Official determination was made in accordance with
the provisions of ECDC 21.105.010 as it applies to sites that may have been altered prior to
application for a building permit.
1. Appellant: Classico Homes
2. Site Location: 520 7"' Ave, Edmonds WA APN.• 27032500203400 [Site Map Attachment -1 ]
3. Zoning: RS -6
4. Staff Request: That the City's Building Official determination of the elevation of the 'undisturbed.
soil' on the site pursuant to ECDC 21.105.010 be affirmed and used to establish the grade. [final
determination Attachment 2]
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 and Public Safety Building
on August 25, 2011.
Classico Homes Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0004
Page 2 of 4
III. BACKGROUND
In October of 2004, Classico Homes applied for a 2 lot subdivision for the property located at
5207 1h Ave. The decision approving the subdivision was issued on March 10, 2005 [copy
attached Attachment 3]. At the time of the subdivision the property contain a single home that
according to the real estate listing was built in 1948 [Attachment 4]. The aerial photo labeled
attachment 5 shows the location of the pre-existing home as situated prior to demolition.
Subsequent to the short plat approval the single family residential structure was removed from
the property and improvements for the newly created lots were installed.
On March 1St of 2011 Mr. Schmaus of Classico Homes submitted a plan of the property prepared
by Emerald Land Surveying and dated 1/27/2011 [Attachment 6] . His request was to obtain
approval of the elevation points shown on the site plan for use in the design and construction of a
new home on Lot 1. The request was made in accordance with the provisions of ECDC
21.105.010 [copy attached as Attachment 7]. The code provision consists of a definition of
`undisturbed soil'. The defined term is used by ECDC 21.40.030 in the definition of height
[copy attached as Attachment 8]. The significance of undisturbed soil is in the establishment of
average level (of elevation) to be used for the determination of building height. This definition is
not use in any other sections of the code.
The Building Official provided his determination on March 4th 2011 [Attachment 9]), that
suggested the plan provided on 3/1/2011 did not adequately reflect the site conditions and that an
earlier plan by Higa-Burkholder [Attachment 10], submitted as part of the subdivision process,
more accurately displayed the conditions. The suggestion was that the elevations shown on the
Higa-Burkholder plan should be used for height determination.
In early April of 2011 Mr. Schmaus and Mr. Bissell visited the Building Official to discuss the
determination. The suggestion was made by the applicant(s) that the `undisturbed soil' should be
the condition of the site prior to the construction of the home in 1948 and that the grade points
used for height determination should be based upon the configuration of the site at that time.
The plan by Emerald Land Surveying was presented as reflecting the proposed reconstructed pre-
existing site condition. A letter [Attachment 11] was sent to Mr. Schmaus on April 14, 2011 that
disputed the idea of using the 1948 site condition to determine `undisturbed soil' elevation and
again suggested that the Higa-Burkholder plan should be employed.
In early June of 2011 Mr. Bissell submitted a revised site reconstruction plan [Attachment 12],
which had been prepared by Michael Ryan of hba design group. Included was a brief evaluation
by Mr. Ryan and a letter from Mr. Bissell [Attachment 13]. The Building Official reviewed
these documents and conferred with Mr. Rob Chave, Planning Manager and Mr. Stephen Clifton,
Acting Development Services Director. A final decision and summation was issued on June 29,
2011 [Attachment 2]. In this decision staff reaffirmed the disagreement with use of the
topography assumed to have existed in 1948 as a base for grade determination. In the June 291h
letter staff proposed using the elevation points shown on the plan submitted as Attachment A of
the Short Plat decision [Attachment 14]. The fact that this plan has specific elevation points
noted suggests that the issue had been considered with the Short Plat. Using these points
therefore provides some continuity with that earlier decision.
Classico Homes Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0004
Page 3 of 4
IV. DISCUSSION
The term "undisturbed soil" is only used in ECDC 21.40.030 for defining height and in ECDC 20.60.020
for determining height of signs. A word search of the ECDC finds no other references. The only
purpose for the definition is for use in height determination. The definition of the term acknowledges
that a site may be altered prior to application for a building permit, either by permitted activities or
unpermitted work. Such site modifications could have an impact upon how to determine the height of a
later constructed building and the code language works to clarify how this should be addressed.
A site can be intentionally re -graded in such a fashion that would accommodate a taller building, by
manipulating the contours, which would circumvent the code specified height limitations. The code
language clearly attempts to address the impact of this type of activity and it could be argued that the
prime intent of the code provision is to control this very activity. Some site work may also occur as a
part of permitted development activity, such as the construction of improvements as a part of a
subdivision process. This latter condition would seem to be applicable to the property at 520 7th , where
the site was modified as a part of the short plat. This work caused some minor alteration of the original
grade. In such a situation the builder of a future home should not be penalized and forced to build a
home shorter than what would have been permitted prior to the required site development work. The
code language works to provide this protection for the owner/builder.
The crux issue for this appeal is the point in time that reflects the undisturbed soil condition, as defined
by ECDC 21.105.010 and what work is considered to have altered that condition. The City position is
that the modifying work is that which occurred within the recent past as a part of the subdivision
development process. These modifications of grade were needed to complete the installation of the
utilities, access and other improvements as a part of the short plat. The `undisturbed soil', or pre-existing
grade conditions are those that existing prior to that work.
The appellant wishes to reconstruct the site contours prior to any development having occurred in the
area. In this case the `undisturbed soil' condition is suggested to be that in existence prior to the
construction of the home in 1948. Any attempt to reconstruct the condition of the particular hillside as it
may have existed in the 1940's would be difficult if not impossible. Such an effort would require review
of the complete records of all construction work in the vicinity over a period of time and not just that
needed to construct the single family residence. The appellant's engineer, Mr. Ryan, provided one
suggested variant of what this part of the hill may have looked like. However, the assumptions used are
not supported by evidence from a detailed geotechnical investigation, or other historical records that
could be used to validate the assumed reconstructed condition. Many potential variations of what the site
may have looked like prior to the 1948 construction could be presented, and without exhaustively
expensive and detailed work, none could be confirmed.
V. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the evidence provided and analysis given, staff recommends DENIAL of the appeal and that
the Building Official's determination be AFFIRMED.
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD
1. Mr. Joseph Schmaus, Classico Homes 8552 202nd St SW Edmonds, WA 98020
2. Mr. John Bissell, JBA Consultants 8630 217th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026
Classico Homes Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0004
Page 4 of 4
VII. " ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Final determination by Building Official
3. Short Plat decision for S-2004-113
4. Real Estate listing of property
5. Aerial photo of site prior to demolition
6. Emerald Land Surveying plan 1/27/2011
7. ECDC 21.105.010 text
8. ECDC 21.40.030 text
9. Building Official letter dated 3/4/2011
10. Higa-Burkholder plan 11/24/2004
11. Building Official letter dated 4/14/2011
12. Michael Ryan plan dated 6/6/2011
13. Letter from Mr. Bissell dated 6/1/2011
14. Attachment A of Short Plat S-2004-113 decision
15. Photos of site taken August 2011
Edmonds_; GtowfEdmonds
City of Edmonds 1 inch = 83 feet
i City of Lynnwood
C�. 121 5th Ave N City of Mountlake Terrace
�Edmonds, WA City of Wo odway
/ 98020 ATTACHMENT 1
File No. APL20110004
This document is forget)eral information purposes only and is provided on an as is
and 'as available' basis. The data used comes from a varietyof public sources and no
i warranty of any kind is given asto its accuracy. Users of this document agree
to indemnifyand save harmlessthe City of Edmonds, its officials, officers, 1:30:21 PM
�. employees and/or agents from and against any claim, demand or action, arising
0
of any use or possession of this document. A\imapserver\GIS\MapPyroducts\MapBook\Edmonds_Mal)bool<.rnx
Inc, 1S91)
June 29, 2011
121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 o FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Mr. John Bissell
8630 217th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
SUBJECT: 5207 1h Ave. —Undisturbed soil interpretation
Dear Mr. Bissell:
MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
Thank you for your efforts in working to have the revised topographic plans produced. The new
sheet does provide more detail than what was originally submitted.
As I promised in our earlier discussions, I did take the opportunity to review the complete file
and the proposal with the Planning Manager and the Director. I believe it is accurate to say that
we all agree that the language presented in ECDC 21.105.010, defining undisturbed soil, creates
some challenges. We carefully reviewed your interpretations of the provisions and considered
these in developing a position that is felt best reflects the intent of the code language, as viewed
through the overall zoning code provisions.
In your letter (dated June 1, 2011 and received June 15, 2011) you point to two reasons for
disagreement with my interpretation of the code provision outlined in my April 14, 2011 letter.
The first is that you believe that the City has consistently `read' this provision to allow a broader
time line to be applied for determining undisturbed soil (grade). I have been unable to locate
any previous policy statements or interpretations related to this topic. You did reference having
knowledge of many instances, but did not provide any project references for verification.
Without some clear policy decision for direction any antidotal references are difficult to support
and may have no validity to the circumstances at hand. It is best to judge the proposal upon its
merits and make a site specific determination.
The second, and primary, reason given was that you believe the interpretation of the code needs
to be broadly literal and that my interpretation is restrictive. It is here, with the intent of the
language, that we can, and should, reasonable focus our discussion. The definition in ECDC
21.105.010 begins by saying that:
Undisturbed soil means the condition of the site at the time a building permit application is made to the
city, before any site work occurs.
.
21M • 1 111,
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File S-2004-113
From: I
— --� C? ,�
Star Campbell, Panner
Date: March 10, 2005
File: S-2004-113
Applicant: Classico Homes, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 3
File No. APL20110004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application...............................................................................................................................................2
B. Decision...................................................................................................................................................
2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................
3
A. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................
2
B. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance...........................................................................................
3
C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan...............................................................................................6
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code...........................................................................................................
9
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions....................................................................
11
F. Environmental Assessment: ...................................................................................................................
I I
G. Critical Areas Review: ...........................................................................................................................
I I
H. Comments: ................................... .........................................................................................................
I I
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS........................................................................13
A. Request for Reconsideration..................................................................................................................13
B. Appeals...............................:..................................................................................................................13
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals.......................................................................................13
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL...................................................................................................13
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................13
VI.
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................13
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD....................................................................................................14
ATTACHMENT 3
File No. APL20110004
File No. 5-2004-113
Page 2 of 14
The applicant is proposing to subdivide what is currently one lot at 520 7a' Avenue South. See the Zoning
and Vicinity Map (Attachment 1). This lot is in a single-family (RS -6) zone that allows lots with a minimum
area of 6,000 square feet. The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 2). The
application includes a modification request to reduce the required 15' rear setback for proposed Lot 1 to 5'.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Classico Homes Inc.
2. Site Location: 520 7`h Ave. S. (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: To divide a lot with an area of 14,400 square feet into 2 lots in a Single -Family
Residential RS -6 zone (see Attachment 2).
4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff makes an administrative
decision. .
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030,
site development standards for the RS -6 zone.
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public
works requirements.
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15B,
Critical Areas.
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75,
subdivision requirements.
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95,
staff review requirements.
B. Decision on Subdivision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division:
The Subdivision should be APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans you
must address the following:
(1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 3.
b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents
shall have the following revisions made / information included:
(1) Revise the "total site area" in the "site information" so that it gives accurate
lot area.
(2) Remove references to setbacks or add a note that setbacks are not vested by
the subdivision but will be based on the current development standards.
(3) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be
found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in File S-2004-
113."
(4) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement, and staff s approval block.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 3 of 14
(Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have
been approved.)
2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the
recording number written on them.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" on Attachment 3.
3. The design of the house on proposed lot one shall be consistent with the plans that have
been submitted with the subdivision application. As reflected by these plans, the house's
main access shall be from the primary access easement along the south boundary of the
lot. The northern driveway proposed shall serve as a secondary access as reflected by the
plans for the house on lot one.
4. The location of the house footprints in relation to their distance from the north property
lines of each of the lots shall remain similar to those proposed on the map that shows the
house footprints submitted by the applicant. The building footprint of the house on Lot 2
shall be limited to those portions of the lot south of the 170' elevation line. The building
footprint of the house on Lot 1 shall maintain a distance of 20' from the north property
line.
5. Grading should not be used to create yards on the northern portions of each lot.
6. Rockeries and retaining walls that are not connected with the foundation walls of the
houses, should not be higher than 3' and multi -leveled retaining walls should be spaced a
minimum of 3' apart.
C. Decision on Modification Request:
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application
and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning
Division:
The Modification Request to reduce the 15' rear setback to 5' for proposed Lot 1 should be
APPROVED with the following condition:
1. The extent of the house footprint that is located 5' from the rear property line on Lot I is
limited to what is shown by the plans for the house on lot one.
A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
1. Introduction
a. Setting:
The subject property at 520 7"' Ave. S. is in the Single -Family Residential (RS -6) zone
(Attachment 1) and is surrounded by properties zoned RS -6 and developed with single-family
residences. The property is 120' wide and 120' deep and is bordered on the east by 7`f' Ave.
S. It is currently underdeveloped with one single family residence. The outline of this house
and its driveway is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 2).
M
U
File No. S-2004-113
Page 4 of 14
Topogranhy:
As shown by the topography lines on the subdivision map (Attachment 2), the southern
portion of the lot is fairly flat while the northern portion of the lot slopes steeply down to the
north with the exeception of a small flat area. Adjacent 7t' Ave. S. slopes up steeply toward
the south and crests at the top of a hill near the southern border of the property.
C. Lot Lgyouout:
The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 2). The lots are
oriented north to south lengthwise. The lot to the east (Lot 1) fronts on 7t' Ave. S. The other
lot (Lot 2) is to the west of Lot 1 and has no street frontage. The primary access proposed for
both lots is a shared 15' easement along the south side of Lot 1.
Lot and Street Layout
a. The subdivision ordinance contains criteria related to lot and street layout. These criteria
require staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional
requirements of the zoning ordinance including lot area and width and that the lots will each
contain usable building areas. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this
section staff agrees that a two lot short -plat is a reasonable use of the property.
b. Lot Area:
Required
Proposed
Proposed
Lot Area
Net sq. ft
Gross sq. ft
Lot 1 6,000
6,300
7,200
Lot 2 6,000
7,200
7,200
Lot Width:
The required lot width in the RS -6 zone is 60 feet. The proposed lots meet this requirement.
Setbacks and Lot Coverage:
a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on this, as well as the review of the
modification request as detailed in Section II.B. of the Staff Report below, setbacks for the
lots should be as follows:
Lot 1: Street Setback (20 feet): From the east property line
Side Setbacks (5 feet): From the edge of the access easement
adjacent to the south property line
Rear Setback (5 feet): From the west property line
Lot 2: Side Setbacks (5 feet): From all property lines
b. Corner Lots: Neither of the lots are Corner Lots.
C. Flag or Interior lot determination: Lot 2 is considered an Interior Lot which requires side
setbacks all the way around the property.
d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
1.) 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -6 zone.
2.) Any buildings or structures on the new lots will be allowed to cover no more than 35%
of the lot.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 5 of 14
4. Environmental Resources
a. On this site, the topography is considered to be an environmental resource. The subdivision
chapter states that a proposed subdivision should be designed to minimize significant adverse
impacts (ECDC 20.75.085). This chapter also states that grading should be minimized by
sharing driveways and making sure that road, house and lot placements relate to the
topography.
The proposed configuration appears to relate better to the site's topography than if the
subdivision were designed with the lots having an east to west orientation with both of the
lots fronting on 7"' Ave. W. This alternative configuration would result in the buildable area
of the lot to the north being located entirely on the slope. The proposed lot configuration
provides flat portions of the site for building on each lot. The map submitted by the applicant
that shows proposed house footprints for each lot helps to demonstrate that this is the case
(Attachment 4).
To ensure that the flat portions of each of the lots are adequately utilized and to help avoid
excess grading on much of the sloped portions of the lots, a condition to ensure that the
homes are ultimately constructed in a similar locations as those shown on Attachment 4, with
respect to the topography of the lots, would be appropriate.
Because of the slope on the north side of the property, conditions regarding rockery and
retaining wall construction would also assist in making sure that excessive grading is avoided.
In order for this subdivision to comply more fully with the criteria in the Subdivision
Ordinance and the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan (See below Section II.C. of
the Staff Report), the following conditions should be placed on the subdivision:
1. The location of the house footprints in relation to their distance from the north
property lines of each of the lots shall remain similar to those proposed on the map
that shows the house footprints submitted by the applicant (Attachment 4). The
building footprint of the house on Lot 2 shall be limited to those portions of the lot
south of the 170 elevation line. The building footprint of the house on Lot 1 shall
maintain a distance of 20' from the north property line.
2. Grading should not be used to create yards on the northern portions of each lot.
3. Rockeries and retaining walls that are not connected with the foundation walls should
not be higher than 3' and multi -leveled retaining walls should be spaced a minimum
of 3' apart.
5. Improvements
a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 3).
6. Flood Plain Management
a. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 6 of 14
B. Analysis of Requested Modification for Lot 1 Rear Setback to 5'
1. Criteria: The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the rear setback for proposed Lot
1 from 15' to 5'. The ability to request modifications is established by ECDC 20.75.075, which
requires all criteria of a variance to be met if the requested modification is to be approved. These
criteria are as follows:
a. Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the
zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense
which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic
view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
b. Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in
comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
C. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive pian,
the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d. Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and the same zone.
e. Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2. Applicant Declarations: The Applicant has presented declarations as to how he feels the
proposal meets these criteria (see Attachment 2).
a. The applicant points out that the site has a special circumstance related the topography of the
site in consideration of the steep slope that is primarily on the north half of the lot. The
applicant states that steep slopes can cause an excess amount of grading, houses that have to
hug the slope, steep driveways, and retaining walls that relate to environmental impact and
high construction costs.
b. The applicant states that the proposed lot layout allows for house orientation that is more
compatible with the steep slope on the property.
C. The applicant points out that the other standard way to orient the lots would be east to west,
lengthwise (one lot to the north and one to the south) with each lot having frontage on 7t'
Ave. S. This orientation though, would result in the need for two primary access points. It
would also mean that the buildable area for the northern of the two lots would be entirely on
the steep slope.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 7 of 14
d. The applicant states that a purpose for the proposed lot orientation is to enhance vehicle
safety along 7t' Ave. S. The applicant points out that the location of the site is next to the
intersection of 7h Ave. S. and Cedar St. near the top of a hill, and that the lot is in a location
with limited site distance. Minimizing the number of curb cuts an 7t' Ave. S. where primary
access should enhance safety. The applicant states that the proposed orientation will allow
for one shared primary access for the lots rather than an access for each lot. It is brought up
that having one primary access point will help minimize traffic and pedestrian accidents due
to limited site distance in the area.
e. The applicant points out that orienting the lots in the proposed manner results in a reduced
building pad width of proposed Lot 1. If the lots were oriented so that both front on 7th Ave.
S., the result is lots with potential building pads with depths of 85' and widths of 55'. With
the lots oriented as proposed, the depth of the potential building pad of the front lot is
reduced to 25' (with a width of 100'). The modification request will increase the depth to
35'. The applicant points out that this is still less than the narrower dimension of 55' that the
alternate layout would allow, but that it is still usable. Please see further explanation of this
in "Additional Findings" below, (Staff Report Section, II.B.3).
3. Additional Findings:
a. The city of Edmonds is able to accommodate additional growth through infill development.
Certain lots are large enough to develop but, because of shape, orientation or topography,
require some modifications in order for the subdivision to be designed consistent with the
City's adopted goals, policies and codes.
b. Some clarification can be provided insofar as how lot orientation relates to potential
buildable area depth and width as well as how the modification request relates to this. The
potential building area of a lot is determined by taking into consideration the proposed
dimensions of a lot and then reducing the setbacks from those dimensions. This is also
illustrated by Attachment 8 (a and b).
An alternative way to design this subdivision would be an orientation in which both lots have
frontage on 7`}' Ave. S. and are longer east to west. Refer to Attachment 8.a. This would
result in two lots that are each 120' deep and 60' wide. With this orientation, a 20' street
setback from the east property lines and a 15' rear setback from the west property lines would
apply. A depth of 85' for the potential building area results from subtracting the 20' street
setback and the 15' rear setback from the 120' depth of each lot. Side setbacks of 5' from the
north and south border of each lot also apply. Subtracting these from the 60' width of each
lot results in a 50' wide potential building area.
The proposed lot orientation, as shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 2), creates lots
with the same dimensions. Refer to Attachment 8.b. The orientation of these lots to the
street and, as a result, the way setbacks are applied reduce the depth of the potential building
area for the eastern, front lot (Lot 1). A 20' street setback from the the east property line,
adjacent to 7`t' Ave. S., is required for this lot as well as 15' rear setback from the west
property line. When these two setbacks are substracted from the 60' depth of Lot 1, the
result is a potential building area that is only 25' deep. The modification request to reduce
the rear setback for this lot from 15' to 5', adds 10' to the 25' depth of the potential building
area. This 35' depth is significantly less than the 50' width that the lot would have under the
alternate orientation described in the above paragraph. Also, since the rear setback
modification is for the property line between the two lots, it only significantly impacts the
two lots.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 8 of 14
C. The proposed lot layout could be approved without a modification request and would fully
comply with the subdivision criteria. The design provides adequate lot area area and lot
width and meets all other applicable code criteria. In addition, the modification request does
not affect how setbacks are applied to Lot 2 which has 5' side setbacks from all property lines
regardless of the setbacks that are ultimately approved for Lot 1.
d. City of Edmonds' engineering policies as well as the subdivision criteria, (See above Staff
Report Section II.A.4) do encourage the use of shared driveways wherever possible.
e. The lot configuration proposes a secondary access point for Lot 1. See Attachment 3.
Having one primary access was used by the applicant as a basis of reasoning for the proposed
layout. Because of this, Staff wanted to be sure that the second access point would pratically
function as a secondary access and required the applicant to submit building plans for the
residence proposed for Lot 1. In response, the applicant submitted a proposed plot plan for
both lots and floor plans for the house on lot one. These have been included as Attachment
4.
Through the review of these plans it is clear that the primary proposed access shared by the
two lots provides the main vehicular access to the residence on Lot 1. It provides access to a
two -car garage that provides access to the main floor of the residence. It is this access that
would also place visitors or residents at the front door and what is clearly the main entry to
the home. The secondary access is to the lower floor of the house. This is a floor that does
not appear to be the main living area of the home and is likely not how residents would come
in and out of the home on a daily basis.
It is important to note that the review of access was the only purpose of requiring house plans
for Lot 1. It is through the building permit application process that specific house plans are
reviewed to ensure that they meet the development standards including lot coverage,
setbacks, and height limit, not through the subdivision review. Additionally, single-family
residences are never reviewed for design.
f. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed access plan and feels like it is a
reasonable way to provide access for the site, given the site's topographic and and locational
constraints. The Traffic Engineer has indicated that the fact that the primary access is located
at the same place as the existing access to the home can be seen as a positive thing. This is an
access point that has been in use for a number of years and there is not a history of traffic
problems caused by this particular access location. Additionally, the Traffic Engineer feels
that having another access that functions as a secondary access may actually be beneficial in
that it will help offload a limited number of vehicular trips from the primary access.
g. The applicant has submitted a map that shows the proposed footprints of the houses on the
lots (Attachment 4). This map helps to demonstrate that a significantly greater area of the
footprints for the homes on the proposed lots is located located on the southern, flat portions
of the lots.
4. Conclusions:
a. The steeply sloping topography on a portion of the site as well as the slope of the road
adjacent to the site can be considered special circumstances. See above Staff Report sections
II.A. Lb.
b. The fact that building on steeper sites or steeper portions of a site can result in higher
construction costs cannot be used as a special circumstance.
C. Allowing the proposed lot layout would not be a special privilege for the property owner.
As pointed out above, there is an alternative layout that could be used to subdivide the
property. However, the proposed lot layout relates better to the topography and location of
this lot.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 9 of 14
The proposal will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning
ordinance. This is addressed in above section II.B. and below section II.C. of the staff report.
e. The modification will not be detrimental. It will allow for a subdivision layout that provides
lots with more usable area that relate better to the topography of the site and require less
grading. The map that shows the location of the proposed house footprints on each lot helps
to support this. A condition to ensure that the homes are ultimately constructed in a similar
locations with respect to the topography of the lots would be appropriate.
f. The reduction of the setback to 5' appears to be the minimum necessary. This is the distance
that is required for side setbacks in the RS -6 zone. Allowing this setback distance should not
result in house that is closer to a property line than other houses in the neighborhood. The
resulting development should be consistent with the way the surrounding neighborhood is
developed. Additionally, a 5' rear setback allows the depth of the potential building area to
be 35'. This depth does appear to be useable without being excessive.
g. It would not be inappropriate to include a condition on the decision of the modification
request that requires the house to be setback a greater distance from the north property line.
However, this is something that is not necessary to repeat since it was already accomplished
through a condition of approval of the subdivision.
C. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development
that apply to this project.
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse
lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in
accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes
with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the
surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability.
BA. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds
whenever it is economically feasible.
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon the
following principles:
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides,
etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 10 of 14
B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve
the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies:
C.1. Grading and Filling.
C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building
pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an
adjacent property.
C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15%
slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be
preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply
sloped property.
C.1.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
C.2, Building Construction.
C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used
they should be small and should not support construction of
improvements which do not conform to the topography. .
C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of
runoff at predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to
reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill
property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and
mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of
drainage ways.
2. Compliance with the Residential Development and Soils and Topography goals and policies: It
appears that both high quality homes that fit into the neighborhood will ultimately be constructed
on the property. The design of the subdivision takes into consideration the unique topography of
the site. Rather than placing one lot entirely on the sloped portion of the site, the layout provides
flat buildable areas for each of the lots. Additionally, a couple of conditions related to the
ultimate total amount of site grading and the use of retaining walls have been included in the
decision to ensure that the development is consistent with the above policies. These are covered
more fully in above Section II.A.4 of the Staff Report.
File No. S-2004-113
Page I 1 of 14
D. Compliance with the Zoning Code
1. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, particularly the
Subdivision regulations, and the development standards of the zone as detailed in section II.A.2.b.
E. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
1. The proposed project is not in a Flood Plain.
F. Environmental Assessment:
1. Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget
Sound)? No.
2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? If more than 500 cubic yards of
grading will be required, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point in time, the total
amount of grading for the subdivision improvements is not anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards.
If through the review of the civil plans, it is determined that more than 500 cubic yards of grading
will be required, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and issue an
Environmental Determination.
G. Critical Areas Review:
1. Critical Areas Review number: CA -2003-152.
2. Results of Critical Areas Review: The property contains slopes that are considered steep
enough to be critical areas as defined by ECDC 20.15B. In order to develop on or within a
certain distance of these steep slopes, the code requires the city to review a geotechnical report
that addresses some specific criteria related to the physical characteristics of the slope. Later on
in the development process, when building plans are under review through the review of a
building permit application, a follow-up geotechnical report will need to be submitted that
addresses specific aspects of the proposed plans. The ultimate goal of this review is to ensure that
the proposed development on the site will be done without affecting the safety and stability of the
property or adjacent properties.
When the developer was anticipating the subdivision of this property, the process by which this
review of geotechnical reports was done which is called a Steep Slope Exemption. A Steep Slope
Exemption was applied for and approved for the property. The decision and conditions of
approval are located in file number SD -04-41 on file at the Planning Division. Again, the goal of
this review is to ensure that the proposed development on the site will be done without affecting
the safety and stability of the property or adjacent properties.
H. Comments:
A number of comment letters were received during the review of the proposal. These have been
included as Attachment 7. The main issues that were brought up are as follows:
1. The proposed lot orientation will result in view obstruction for surrounding
properties.
It is inevitable that the further development of this lot will result in some view obstruction for
surrounding properties. Properties surrounding the subject site have views of Puget Sound and the
Olympic Peninsula beyond.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 12 of 14
Because of the topography surrounding the site, the majority of the views that may be impacted by
development on this site are from properties to the east and south of the site. However, any
development proposal, including a subdivision, that meets all the applicable criteria cannot be
denied because it will impact views. The approval of the subdivision proposal is something that
must be done based on the fact that it meets all the applicable criteria regardless of whether or not
it impacts views. The impact of views as a result of the modification request may be reviewed in
considering whether or not the modification will be detrimental. In consideration of the location of
the setback reduction in between the two lots of the subdivision and the overall extent of the
proposed modification, the modification request does not appear to be detrimental.
2. The Modification Request does not meet the modification and should not be
approved.
Section II.B. of the Staff Report, above, addresses the modification request and how the
application meets the modification criteria.
3. Approving the proposal would result in a change in zoning.
The proposal does not result in a change in zoning. Sections II.A.2.b and II.D.1 of the Staff
Report, above, demonstrate how the application development standards and purposes of the
Single -Family Residential (RS -6) zone where the site is located.
4. Allowing a 5' setback is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Allowing a 5' setback is not inconsistent with other setbacks in the surrounding neighborhood. A
5' setback is the allowed side setback in the RS -6 zone. Also see above Section II.13.4.f. of the
Staff Report.
5. There is an alternative lot layout possible for this site that would not require
a setback modification.
There is never just one way to design a subdivision or any development proposal. The City's
obligation is to review the proposed design to ensure that it meets all the applicable code criteria.
If the proposal is found to meet these criteria, then the proposal must be approved. The fact that
there could be another standard way to divide this lot into two lots and the issues that this
alternative layout causes are also addressed throughout the Staff Report.
6. The developer wants the modification request to make more profitable use of
the property.
Whether or not the proposal will allow the developer to make more profitable use of the property
is not something Staff can take into consideration in making a decision on the proposal. See
Section II.B.4.a. and II.B.4.b. of the Staff Report above.
7. Legality of Zoning Interpretations in applying setbacks.
The basis for applying side setbacks to rear or interior lots (see above Staff Report Section II.A.3)
is a long standing and consistently applied Code Interpretation. One letter brought up the legality
of official Interpretations of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Since this letter
brought up legal issues, it was forwarded to the City Attorney for response. The City Attorney's
response memorandum and Staff s response to this is included as Attachment 9.
8. Concern over slope stability.
The City has a Critical Areas ordinance that provides regulations to ensure that development on or
adjacent to slopes is done safely and does not compromise slope stability. For additional
information, see above Section II.G. of the Staff Report.
File No. S-2004-113
Page 13 of 14
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is fled
within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The
reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in
the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The
appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name
of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the
decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be
wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14)
calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal
period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their
decision on the reconsideration request.
Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have
no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat
approval within the five-year period."
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation
of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Subdivision Map
3. Lot Layout with Preliminary Access Plan
4. Proposed Plot Plan and House Plans for Lot 1
5. Applicant Letters
6. Engineering Requirements
7. Public Comment Letters
8. Lot Layout Exhibit with Potential Building Areas
a. Alternative Lot Orientation — Both Lots Front on 7`h
File No. S-2004-113
Page 14 of 14
b. Proposed Lot Orientation
9. City Attorney and Staff Reponse to Comment Letter with Legal Inquiry
Higa Burkholder Associates, LLC Classico Homes, Inc.
ATTN: Darla Reese C/O Joseph Schmaus
1721 Hewitt Ave., Suite 401 746 Edmonds St.
Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020
David and Darlene Newguist Don & Millie Morgan
717 Cedar St. 714 Walnut St.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmond, WA 98020
Patricia Bowman Raymond and Dorothy Sittauer
701 Cedar St. 612 7`h Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Robert and Janice Freeman Stephen Szwec
622 7`h Ave. S. 7007 1h Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Jean Sittauer Vaughn Sherman
9220 192 n Pl. SW 703 Spruce Street
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Charles Becker Frederick Gouge
524 Magnolia Lane 9220 192 n Pl. SW
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Mary and James S. Knowlson. David N. Eaden
711 Cedar Street 503 — 7`h Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Engineering Department
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
Planning Department
j,iovk r LJGIQll - 1\G3lu%,uucu
i -5, i vi t
Listing #
DOM
Listing Price
Price/SgFt
St # Address
BD Area City & ZIP Yr
Status
Type
Selling Price
SP % LP
Listing Office
BA Lot Sz Sq Ft Tax ID
23132558
160
$585,000
0.00
520 7th Ave S
3 730 Edmonds 98020 1948
Sold (04/29/04)
Residential
$482,000
82.39
Coldwell Banker Bain
1.75 14375sgft 27032500203400
of 6 1
LN
See Additional Pictures
Listing Price Selling Price
$535,000 $482,000
Agent
Office
Property Type
Status
DOM
Area
Community
Commission
Structure (approx sq ft)
Lot Sq Ft (approx)
County
Beds
Year Built
Map Book
Listing Date
Original Price
Occupant Type
Occupant Name
Owner Name
School District
Agent Remarks
Directions To Property
Selling Price
Listing Price
SP%LP
Financing
Comments
Selling Office
Selling Co -Office
Publish To Internet
Printer Friendly Version
Incredible view property! Situated on 1/3 acre high atop the
Edmonds Bowl with windows to the world and beyond.
Stunning Sound & Mountain views ... it doesn't get any better
than this! This home has a separate entrance to a spacious
living area in lower level complete with a 2nd kitchen, large
bedroom and 3/4 bath. This tri -level home is 2,590 ASF.
Imagine the possibilities!! Call for more information.
Address
520 7th Ave S, Edmonds 98020-3410
Kirk J Ble_v_ins i (ID: 15563) Primary:425-876-6944
Coldwell_Banker Bain (ID:7391) Phone: 425-771-6444, FAX: 425-672-9182
Residential Property Subtype(s) Residential
Sold (04/29/04)
160
730 -Southwest Snohom
Edmonds Bowl
Selling Office
—3"
See Map
Listing #
23132553
0 Price / SgFt
0.00
14a75- Lot Acres (approx)
0.330
Snohomish Tax ID
27032500203400
3 Baths
1.75
1948
Thomas Brothers Map Coordinates
454, G6
09/26/03
750,000
Owner
Chris & Ruth Phone To Show
425-876-6944
Chris & Ruth Owner Phone
000-000-0000
Edmonds (Senior High School: Unknown Snr HighName)
Bring your builders!! 140K price drop! Value is in the land -call list agent no keybox. Selling property as is. Huge
possibilities for this spectacular view property on 1/3 acre. The property extends to the north of home, down to
large evergreens.
At the bottom of Cedar on 7th Ave. S.
Selling Information
482,000 Selling Date
585,000 Pending Date
82.39 Original Price
Conventional
Windermere Real Estate GH -LLC 7356)
Yes
04/29/04
03/05/04
750,000
AirmoreviWK111111111111
http://locator.nwmis.com/scripts/mgrgispi.dll 12/23/2004
The code here is clearly suggesting that a site should not be modified to change (intentionally) the grade,
as this would allow for manipulation of height by artificial control. The code does recognize that there is
likely to be some work on a site prior to application for a building permit. Indeed we often see site
development work on a plat or short plat that would re -grade the site to accommodate necessary
infrastructure improvements. To provide some control on the extent of grading work while not being
overly restrictive the code goes on to say:
However, where the site has been altered by grading, cutting, or filling or similar activities before the
application for a building permit, the building official shall make the determination from then available
data of the mean elevation of the undisturbed soil.
The site in question was altered as a part of the short plat work and so this provision is
applicable. Here we separate on our interpretation. I see the focus of this language as being
limited in time to the recent work of development such as the short plat improvements. The
interpretation implied in your letter is that, "In fact no time limit is set at all" and that we should
look at grading activity that may have occurred in the past (63 years in this case). The
implication of this extremely liberal reading is that we can go as far back in time as desired to
make a determination. This is in no way practical and would, as is the case here, require
extrapolation(s) based upon unknown history. In this case that history includes the site
conditions prior to the construction of the pre-existing home built in 1948. Your proposal is to
base the undisturbed grade upon speculation of what those pre -developed 1948 site conditions
may have been. Your argument for this position seems to be based upon the continued definition
in the code that goes on to read:
If the undisturbed soil elevation is not readily determined due to demolition of an existing structure, the
contours may be reconstructed by the building official to coincide with adjoining topography to
determine the undisturbed soil elevations.
This expanded definition is clearly intended to allow some adjustment where a building
demolition would significantly alter the site to the point that is it not possible to `see' the pre-
existing grades. This is not the case here as the majority of the site, outside of the building
footprint, was not impacted by the demolition. This is supported by the plans submitted as part
of the short plat. I reference the preliminary short plat sheet 1 prepared by Higa-Burkholder and
dated 10/21/2004, which is Attachment 2 in the Short Plat decision (S-2004-113) dated
3/10/2005. This plan sheet shows the site conditions in existence prior to demolition. The
building, driveway, carport and other structures are depicted. The recent plan by Michael Ryan
(no date) submitted on June 15, 2011, shows the existing contours as being consistent with those
on the Higa-Burkholder plan. The 178 contour, for example, shows little change at the position
of the pre-existing house. Comparison of these plans (supported by on-site observation) suggests
that the demolition resulted in minimal disruption of the site grade. .
All of this brings us to the determination of what exactly should be the undisturbed soil (grade)
for use in building height determination. Mr. Ryan has presented a reconstruction of the site on
his plan showing what he deems to be the pre -1948 site conditions. Even if the idea of using the
topography from 1948 was considered valid, no evidence was provided to support his
conclusions. He references geotechnical reports, but these were not provided, therefore the
location and depth of any test pits is not available for study. Additionally, his assumption is that
the building pad was originally excavated and the material was hauled off-site. I agree that some
excavation most likely occurred to provide a level building site, but question the assumption that
the material was hauled off-site. This seems inconsistent with the construction methodology of
the time and the overburden was more likely left on site and used to re -grade the slope. The
possible re -grading may have increased the slope angle and not reduced them as shown on the
Ryan plan. I point this out to emphasize that this is very much conjecture and without some very
detailed and well researched forensic geotechnical evaluation the nature and extend of the 1948
work is an unknown.
What is known is the nature of the site as evaluated in the short plat process (5-04-113). I
carefully reviewed the short plat file for any references to grade determination and building
height. This was not discussed in any great detail that I could find. I did find a plot plan used to
display the potential building layouts for the lots. This plan, which was included as Attachment
4 in the Short Plat decision, shows potential building corner elevations for the easterly lot. The
inclusion of the building corner elevations suggests that consideration was being given the issue
of future building height measurement. The Attachment gives the northern corners as 158' and
160.5', which match up with the grade contours. The southern building corners are shown as
181' and 180', which are slightly higher than the post -demolition grades. The fact that these are
higher suggests that the level was modified to reflect the grade change brought on by the
demolition. This adjustment would be consistent with the code language noted above. Also
since the elevations were noted by hand written ink, this may be a response the note #5 (that you
referenced).
Based upon the review of the file and consideration of the information provided, it is our opinion
that the contours shown on Attachment 4 of the Short Plat decision represent the undisturbed soil
for purposes of building height calculation. 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.
This is considered as an administrative determination and is an appealable Type II staff decision
in accordance with ECDC 17.40.020 and will be enforced by the City unless a timely
administrative appeal is filed. Any appeal of this decision must be filed in accordance with the
requirements of ECDC 20.07.004 within fourteen (14) days of this decision as calculated using
ECDC 20.07.004(C). (language enclosed)
If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Si cerely
k
Leonard Yarberry
Building Official
s�$9
�♦.r. � . `.�" � .`.�� :�.�•:��� • F »tip. �. `,�� ^.:��.�� � .�•� '
—M --rt —N� s M—+
t11iWS 3f1N3/,V
g ♦I \ I t I N I— t l, I_ I _I I ,•AC's'[ :�''.'1—` 1
'�\ I I I �� I I 1 1/ r l ' � c 1' 1�";; �F•„�+'�s `•F aL I
11, 1 1� I _ I i l l f'/ t D. 'i•-. ,�. `• dw-
l�.•� {: p }"'''''� rte'
, , , I I �NN 1 7 , ( 1 f / o _ :. i;,•1 •t,;}iy `1; '�'qw.
L1
n ax�oo n
$ V , \ l . I S+r / t \ ♦--------:� 1�
Gia $ 7i1� I I I I I I I I, i I �,•�'���&; ,,
I t l' I, I I 1 1{ 1 , ♦
l�{ I f' l l l l� 1 ♦�
J i ', , 3 i, 1 t I,, ' ♦ �
i
--`----------I
1 1� , ,IX1'OZ1 M .ZY,61A0 N � 5
d,r�ae '� >�xr�o '•
y
,I
3
u s.
he{®"
cc Q i Y
C-
{n n
g 2 2F!
8 g
g o o m ®4
NM
I
w
Q�mH
z
a14
>
u�ii
g
d04
a$ z�o
og
G r�
`
� G
�
9� off$
."di
`s
A€r1 iK
o�
gig
iK
s�$9
�♦.r. � . `.�" � .`.�� :�.�•:��� • F »tip. �. `,�� ^.:��.�� � .�•� '
—M --rt —N� s M—+
t11iWS 3f1N3/,V
g ♦I \ I t I N I— t l, I_ I _I I ,•AC's'[ :�''.'1—` 1
'�\ I I I �� I I 1 1/ r l ' � c 1' 1�";; �F•„�+'�s `•F aL I
11, 1 1� I _ I i l l f'/ t D. 'i•-. ,�. `• dw-
l�.•� {: p }"'''''� rte'
, , , I I �NN 1 7 , ( 1 f / o _ :. i;,•1 •t,;}iy `1; '�'qw.
L1
n ax�oo n
$ V , \ l . I S+r / t \ ♦--------:� 1�
Gia $ 7i1� I I I I I I I I, i I �,•�'���&; ,,
I t l' I, I I 1 1{ 1 , ♦
l�{ I f' l l l l� 1 ♦�
J i ', , 3 i, 1 t I,, ' ♦ �
i
--`----------I
1 1� , ,IX1'OZ1 M .ZY,61A0 N � 5
d,r�ae '� >�xr�o '•
Q
(n w
0
Q O 0
57
LL V
O
U U J
W
w
Q
8
LU
,I
3
u s.
he{®"
cc Q i Y
C-
{n n
g 2 2F!
8 g
g o o m ®4
Q
(n w
0
Q O 0
57
LL V
O
U U J
W
w
Q
8
LU
IYU°__
:r
®MLU(roma
u s.
he{®"
cc Q i Y
C-
{n n
�a
,
9
a2, g
z �
[�s�a a3
h SE v i X4222 ![ v d d
A
t
\
Q`r
a
g o �
O °
SRO a
O aC a7PH E .1 it"IR Aglow
aHif 0 8$"7 • KRF o G
�'
150
ve a
RUH
tQg :s tit 113,12, M4tt
< a.m
ou <m aY����¢�8��°j$•a}.�9°�_ o W2u�eV mofl Hai 112,
5�3
Ndr
°°6
11
s 'sill
Ag
IN
44i h
:9°R
a X86
�9
FEES
JS
nag o
d
a d
till
a
.�SS. a 5 c W
I/SII/�,Y
CA
,
Il JI
�' ';
f/SII/�I
I' 1;•',1`,', i is
\
1 t \
9
a2, g
z �
[�s�a a3
h SE v i X4222 ![ v d d
A
t
\
Q`r
a
g o �
O °
SRO a
O aC a7PH E .1 it"IR Aglow
aHif 0 8$"7 • KRF o G
�'
150
ve a
RUH
tQg :s tit 113,12, M4tt
< a.m
ou <m aY����¢�8��°j$•a}.�9°�_ o W2u�eV mofl Hai 112,
5�3
Ndr
°°6
11
s 'sill
Ag
IN
44i h
:9°R
a X86
�9
FEES
JS
nag o
d
a d
till
a
.�SS. a 5 c W
9
a2, g
z �
[�s�a a3
h SE v i X4222 ![ v d d
A
t
\
Q`r
a
g o �
O °
SRO a
O aC a7PH E .1 it"IR Aglow
aHif 0 8$"7 • KRF o G
�'
150
ve a
RUH
tQg :s tit 113,12, M4tt
< a.m
ou <m aY����¢�8��°j$•a}.�9°�_ o W2u�eV mofl Hai 112,
5�3
Ndr
1 "700 . , mo "Im,
lu
LUdis
ON
ozo
L) ps
LU
Si
to lw-
6
gig
g'
gg �U .
='rd—
G3
z im
,4
4-
z w—
< zil
x V) �w chit
OE
lu
ON
35'
Si
gg E
2 o -,
6
gig
g'
gg �U .
='rd—
G3
z w—
< zil
x V) �w chit
OE
U)l !�K,
Uq w�L7m
LJ
lu
ON
35'
Si
gg E
2 o -,
6
gig
g'
gg �U .
='rd—
G3
z w—
< zil
x V) �w chit
OE
LJ
Chapter 21.105
"U" TERMS
Sections:
21.105.010 Undisturbed soil.
21.105.115 Usable satellite signal.
21.105.020 Use.
21.105.030 Used car lot (or sales).
21.105.010 Undisturbed soil.
Undisturbed soil means the condition of the site at the time a building permit application is made to the
city, before any site work occurs. However, where the site has been altered by grading, cutting, or filling
or similar activities before the application for a building permit, the building official shall make the
determination from then available data of the mean elevation of the undisturbed soil. If the undisturbed
soil elevation is not readily determined due to demolition of an existing structure, the contours may be
reconstructed by the building official to coincide with adjoining topography to determine the undisturbed
soil elevations. If the proposed structure occurs where no setbacks are required, the elevation of the
surface (sidewalk, alley, or soil) of the property line at or nearest the intersection of the sides of the
building height rectangle will be considered undisturbed soil. Where the building official deems it
necessary, he shall have the right to require establishment of a datum point from which all height
measurements shall be made.
Chapter 21.40
"H" TERMS
Sections:
21.40.005
Halfway house.
21.40.006
Hallway.
21.40.010
Hearing examiner.
21.40.020
Repealed.
21.40.030
Height.
21.40.040
Home occupation.
21.40.050
Horse.
21.40.055
Hospitals.
21.40.060
Hotel.
21.40.005 Halfway house.
A halfway house shall include state licensed group care homes for juvenile delinquents, halfway houses
providing residence in lieu of institutional sentencing, halfway houses providing residence to those
needing correctional institutionalization, and detoxification centers licensed by the state where alcohol
and drug abusers can be placed in lieu of incarceration for detoxification and treatment from the effects of
alcohol and drugs. [Ord. 2820 § 6, 1991].
21.40.006 Hallway.
Hallway, as used in ECDC 16.20.050, 21.05.010, and 21.40.030(C), means a wholly enclosed building
whose primary purpose is the connection of one building or portion thereof to another. A building or
portion thereof which connects one building to another and whose width is 60 percent or less of its length
shall be presumed to be a hallway. [Ord. 3728 § 4, 2009].
21.40.010 Hearing examiner.
Hearing examiner means the person employed by the city of Edmonds to hold hearings and make
recommendations or decisions on various land use applications.
21.40.020 Hedge.
Repealed by Ord. 3491.
21.40.030 Height.
A. Height means 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. (See subsection (D) of this section for
exceptions to this rule.)
B. "Average level" shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four
corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches
of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points
projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (D)(1)
of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar
connection so that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or leis from the main building shall be
considered to be part of the main building for purposes of determining the average level. For the
purposes of this section, in order for an accessory building to be considered to be attached to and a part
of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof and be constructed of similar materials to
both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a unified and consistently
designed building.
D. Height Exceptions.
1. (Reserved);
2. Church steeples;
3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in
height, for that portion above the height limit;
4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in
height, for that portion above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No
multiple -flue chimney shall exceed 39 square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall
not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and other chimneys shall not exceed six
square feet in horizontal section;
5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit; and
6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit. [Ord. 3728 § 2, 2009;
Ord. 3654 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3569 § 2, 2005].
March 4, 2011
Mr. Joseph Schmaus
Classico Homes
746 Edmonds St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
SUBJECT: 520 7"' Ave. — Grade determination
Dear Mr. Schmaus:
I have reviewed the plan that you provided the other day for determination of property contours to be used
for building height calculations. The plan was prepared by Emerald Land Surveying. To aid in my
determination I compared this plan to the one prepared by Higa-Burkholder Assoc. as part of the short
plat process. I also used some aerial photos from before the demolition of the pre-existing building, and I
made a site visit to confirm my observations.
The grades shown on the northern half of the properties appear to be consistent between the Emerald plan
and that of Higa-Burkholder. However, as we move south the contours indicate discrepancies. While it
appears that Emerald has tried to `reconstruct' the pre -developed grades, the numbers are not supportable
by the site conditions. Indeed there is a 10 foot difference shown for the height on the neighboring
property between one plan and the other. The contours on the Higa-Burkholder plan appear to be in
keeping with the contours shown on the aerial photo taken prior to the demolition of the house.
It is my determination that the contours of the Higa-Burkholder plan are a better reflection of the pre-
existing condition and should be used for determination of height with the building permit application.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Leonard Yarberry
Building Official
I a)
REV
egg
0a.
n0l
2YimM
LL.
I a)
REV
egg
0a.
n0l
2YimM
I a)
9
T -J
tL
tg! t g=
Ne
Ir
cc U.
LU ji
J
o
ilu
REV
9
T -J
tL
tg! t g=
Ne
Ir
cc U.
LU ji
J
o
ilu
April 14, 2011
Mr. Joseph Schmaus
Classico Homes
P.O. Box 5012
Lynnwood, WA 98046
SUBJECT: 520 7th Ave. — Grade determination
Dear Mr. Schmaus:
I am following up on our recent discussion about your short platted property at 520 7th Ave.
After reviewing the code provisions in detail and discussing this with the planning staff, I believe
that my original decision in my letter of March 4th is correct.
The code has very specific height limitations and in order to ensure that there is a consistent and
rational means to determine height, it provides criteria for measurement. Measurement needs to
be made from the `undisturbed soil', which is defined:
Undisturbed soil means the condition of the site at the time a building permit application is made
to the city, before any site work occurs. However, where the site has been altered by grading,
cutting, or filling or similar activities before the application for a building permit, the building
official shall make the determination from then available data of the mean elevation of the
undisturbed soil. If the undisturbed soil elevation is not readily determined due to demolition of
an existing structure, the contours may be reconstructed by the building official to coincide with
adjoining topography to determine the undisturbed soil elevations. If the proposed structure
occurs where no setbacks are required, the elevation of the surface (sidewalk, alley, or soil) of
the property line at or nearest the intersection of the sides of the building height rectangle will be
considered undisturbed soil. Where the building official deems it necessary, he shall have the
right to require establishment of a datum point from which all height measurements shall be
made. (21.105.010 ECDC)
A building permit application has not, as of yet, been submitted. There has been some alteration
of the site due to the work of the short plat, which included the demolition of the existing home.
That work has resulted in some minor grade change and the code language implication is that the
condition at the time of the short plat submittal (Oct of 2004) is the undisturbed condition. The
undisturbed condition is not that existing prior to the construction of the demolished home that
was built in 1948. Apparently the concept employed by Emerald Land Surveying in their plan
dated 1/27/11 was that the contours should be reconstructed to a condition prior to any
development including the neighboring property. It is not possible, or reasonable, to try to
reconstruct the site conditions that existed 61 years ago. Such an effort would require a study of
the complete hillside and could not be limited to the confines of a single lot as proposed.
As I stated in my letter of March 4t", the survey work of Higa-Burkholder Assoc. that was used
for the short plat in 2004 provides a good reflection of the pre-existing condition and should be
used for determination of `undisturbed soil' and ultimately the building heights for building
permit submittals.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Leonard Yarberry
Building Official
FT -/l �� o
NL P P
m
t a
tow
0
�g
� P„ I H-
I
LU0
--$a
znc
f9 j I N
O
20
o
NE
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 C `O 0? 0 0 0 0 0 0
4
A. C01 006 h r r r<
rn T r n� m a� r P P P P P
P P P P P P
Y'L' 1 �1Qi
1 ®I
� r 1 1� 1 ppyy
El
\ Sr �ZQ e 9
a I
HiL i m
Eiln'IDS'3hV I �-
z �a i I 1 � �nnL0 1ZZ 98Z1�❑ �
o� �If
} I�Poy
OV
0
0
�a
gal I
I
T�
T
t u
[O�O
as
a s w
li
AHdVUIDOdOi a3l`vwils3
SM®Fi �a.®ISSb/ Iaei
aNnoaa WNla'ao aaldwltsa
CL
z
ii
co
FT -/l �� o
NL P P
m
t a
tow
0
�g
� P„ I H-
I
LU0
--$a
znc
f9 j I N
O
20
o
NE
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 C `O 0? 0 0 0 0 0 0
4
A. C01 006 h r r r<
rn T r n� m a� r P P P P P
P P P P P P
Y'L' 1 �1Qi
1 ®I
� r 1 1� 1 ppyy
El
\ Sr �ZQ e 9
a I
HiL i m
Eiln'IDS'3hV I �-
z �a i I 1 � �nnL0 1ZZ 98Z1�❑ �
o� �If
} I�Poy
OV
0
0
c i PN�'�'�
gal I
I
[O�O
;.°�.igip',
i�I o .�..�
co
a
II
�1 1 o11OA Lar` M Zb,6l.aaN'
of w
Pi
�IIIi1 "i1 v�
I�
m
June 11, 2011
Leonard Yarberry
City ofEduionds Building Official
City of Edmonds Building Division
1215"' Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Interpretation of Undisturbed Soil ECDC 21,105,0 10
520 7"' Avenue South
Dear Mr. Yarberry:
I want to thank you For meeting wills me at the Counter a few weeks ago. Please think of this letter as a
follow up to our conversation. TO refresh you nicniory 1 1111 writing on behalf of Joseph Schinaus, Classico
Homes regarding the determination of undisturbed soil at 520 7"' Ave South.
As you may recall from our conversation at the counter we disagree(( with the promise that ECDC section
21.105.010 requires that the soil elevation to be as -found at the time preliminary short plat application (S.-
04-113) and cannot refor to soil elevation ata time prior to (Ito construction ora previously existing house
or a (late predating the previously existing house. We disagree with this position for two separate yet
connected reasons as fbIlows: First, the City has consistently read this section of code as we are asking lir
(lie code to be read. Secondly, reading of the code we are advocating is in-kind with the literal (ext of the
code. Below I will describe each of these
I have a rough knowledge of inmy instances, in which the, City has interpreted (lie code to allow the
elevation of tho undisAn-bed soil to be established after appatent grading. 1, have first hand knowledge or
two cases because of my direct involvernein, In one case a 17nilder tlrovided eviclr,rnce of grades dating to
approximately 70 years prior to the issuance of a building permit for a single family addition on a site on
Olympic View Drive. III (lie other instance old survey information predating house construction Was 11se'd
to allow undisturbed soil to be established at (lie top of retaining ivall to allow 6' tall fence on tot) of the,
wall.
As further evidence of tine previous interpretation used by the City, we need to look at the preliminary that
map for the, sijbjcct site (S-04-.113), Note 5 on the face of the approved preliminary short plat neap states
"Topography was altered (hiring previous cons[ruction. Evidence of original grade to be submitted with
building permit" As this note is on the face of the approved preliminary plat, it is clear that staff, at the
finic of short plat review and approval, agreed with (lie concept of re-establishing the grade based on data to
be provided. This very issue was discussed and agreed to when the preliminary plat was approved.
Furthermore, in 2008 1 called and discussed this issue with the then building official. lasked what data
would be acceptable as evidence of original grade oun site with apparent grading and absent of pre -grading
survey. I was told to provide a topographic imp prepared by a civil engineer experienced in site grading
using existing topographic data of a section of the hillsido greater than the subject lot. Such information is
provided attached to this letter, thus complying with both the previous City interpre(ation and (lie
requirements of the previous building official.
The following is our interpretation of what the code says and also a reasonable explao"Ition of how the City
has interpreted the definition of undisturbed soil in the past. As you noted in your letter to Mr. Sclullaus
dated April 14, 2011, the definition of undisturbed soil is found in ECIJC section 21.105.010. The
definition is very long as it makes its way through clarification of each idea. As noted in your letter the
code starts out by stating:
"Undisturbed soil means the condition of the site at the time a building permit application is made
to the city, before any site work occurs, "
This section on its own would indicate that the ground should be measured as is today. However the code
goes on to say
"However, where the site has been altered by grading, cutting, or filling or similar activities before
the application for a building permit, the building official shall make the determination from then
available data of the mean elevation of the undisturbed soil"
This portion of this code section seems pretty open where it states " the site has been altered ... before
the application". It is hard to ignore die words "Before the application". Further, those words are not
limited by modifiers like "the time of a short plat', or "the time of previous construction'. In fact no time
limit is set at all.
But it goes on to clarify:
". If the undisturbed soil elevation is not readily determined due to demolition of an existing
structure, the contours may be reconstructed by the building official to coincide with adjoining
topography to determine the undisturbed soil elevations."
This statement is clearly in contradiction with the assertion in the last paragraph of the first page of the
letter: "... the code language implication is that the condition at the time for the short plat submittal ... is
the undisturbed soil. The undisturbed condition is not that existing prior to the construction of the
demolished home that u>>as built in 1998." The code indicates that undisturbed soil is the condition prior
construction of a prior house, and it sets no time lin-it as to when that house was built.
We recognize the difficulty in using an interpolated survey map prepared by a surveyor. We believe that
the request made by the then building official in 2008 makes sense. We also understand that interpolated
topography can be challenging as a graphic on its own, thus we have provided slope cross sections in
addition to the topo maps, as well as a cover letter from the civil engineer explaining the reconstruction
process. The map is limited to die site area, however detailed topography of the entire hill was used to
create the interpolated topography.
During our conversation a few weeks ago you suggested that you might pass this letter to the Planning
Division for review. We welcome the possibility for this second opinion. And look forward to your
response
Sincerely _.
r
'John Bissell, AICP
JBA Consultants
fio%fflmmlp"'� 1ROWAmm.
oO'% 00,
Joe Schinaus
Classico Homes
8552 - 202nd St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Estimation of Native Slope and elevations.
Michael E. Ryan, P.E.
Principal, Director of Engineering
HBA Design Group, LLC.
,125,252.2826 phone
MRytiii@IIBADegigiiGroiij).coiii
In General:
Review of this site in the Edmonds bowl suggests that several home sites and roadways were excavated prior to
home or road construction. Compared to the general slope and shape of the greater bowl, a patchwork of terraced
and nearly level home sites can be observed in the vicinity of the subject site. Local roadways can also be observed
to have slopes (grades) more moderate than the ground immediately adjacent, suggesting that the roadways are oil
altered and likely cut terrain as well.
Lacking observation of small bodies of water, wetlands and other items that you would expect to find on naturally
occurring flat perches of ground on otherwise sloping terrain, It seems reasonable to assume that the home sites and
roadways received earth working activities prior to construction.
P 1, h. ➢h . .. . PN', d �Odwww;' VV%
w'WmOc n+.''o'mpxn I n
This subject site in particular:
Geotechnical reports on the subject site indicate no evidence of fill material in the locations tested. One test pit did
show a small amount of fill that is consistent with an obvious pile of dirt recently placed at that location, but is
otherwise inconsistent with the site in general. It is my conclusion that the site is not on fill, and therefore is either
native or is partially or wholly in cut. The observation of a nearly level home site, an absence of fill material on an
otherwise sloping area suggests that this home site was leveled by means of excavation prior to the construction of
the home. Although it would be expected that the site was leveled by attempts to balance excavated and embanked
materials, the absence of fill material indicates that the bulk of the excavated material at this location was hauled
off-site and not used as fill.
Lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to believe that the native ground minimum elevations prior to
home construction can be approximated as a slope by linear interpolation of the high points of the immediately
adjacent terraces. The existing terraces are likely to be local apexes of native ground with the duff removed. The
native ground was not likely to be smooth (straight lines), and presents no evidence of fill or ponding. The native
ground was also likely to have been gently rounded and slightly higher than the approximated section lines, Thus
the approximations are a likely minimal elevation of native soil. In all likelihood, the actual native soil would be
higher. This site would have been covered with duff: vegetation, ground cover, understory, and trees that result in
an unsuitable layer of soil ranging from 6" to 18" on average in this area. We assumed a 12" layer of duff was
removed from this site prior to grading.
Two section lines have been created along the face of the proposed building, on which the four building corners are
identified. These sections are linear approximations taken form apexes of existing ground immediately adjacent to
the home site (less the duff). These sections represent a minimal native ground elevation and are consistent with the
greater basin at this local.
Attached is a plan view showing the contours as seen today (2011), the section lines through the proposed home, and
the sections themselves.
Regards,
HBA Design Group, LLC
Michael 9. Ryan, PE
Principal, Director of Engineering
42.0<2dJQ i
Iffp BILLET 67119L,
WR
6KALLER BARB. 6HoP
NO WOMIT'ED TO THE
afkAPE (-V Fam4R8
OTIw-'A SPA -1
LEl
A" PROVIDED, BOTH
ACI 319.69, rLA66 15
5TEM, UNI -W NO"IED
.BE AM NIMUM-5
(N 1-
4� AT EA,,,
ITTEOUNLlZbO CALLED
6 No, OWOUN ON
0 I'm REINFORCED
> TO FOR PROPER
,FOR REINFORCEMENT A6
, BUT EXF'06W TO EARTH
14 WALL&
4L WWI 14 RSEAR
ATF- PROVIDE A MIN.
ME PLACED AT 40 D.C.
& AND REFER TO
:e'. ADDITIONALLY, ONE
EACH NDIYOUAL S:LL PLATE.
(6WARS) x 31W (TH10KNEW
OW. -FIR FOR 67VD6 AND
4 THE DRIWNG8 OR MLOQ
11-9 DRIED f6p EACH
RAC
! UIEbT COAST L R
.PROVED
EOI— 01`LER
WJA CONCRETE WALL 59
IN).
W MAI"ACTORER ONLY,
3I44 6KCIFIrATID4
TRW, MOUMAN OR OTHER
R OR 70 VIEW OR IN
AMMO.
TABLE #23-11-8-1
T E AMMANPLYWOOb rt,
L Uff Tkb';#�6BAN� t2cbv--
X$OD 6WALL DE �-
2
WZL EDC.S8 "A (0
ZNTSR ON ROOF AND
ALB, MANUFACT"Re AND
TH VOLUNTARY PRODUCT
T715M'.AND Al-�-
0..0" ALL PLII!b
ARE A6 64OLN ON THE
NATION 24P -V4 (6MPLK
WAN) Ab APPLICABLE,
AND 04ALL 116 CLU®
""N
HALL BE COMBINATION
TRADE.
Pf=01EDW.. PROVIDE
eUPPORT AND STIP"a66
FOR WALL OPENW.,
It 61'WDUK RID" TO
MNP LOCATION OF ALL
Ow
K ENN
LOT 1, MADR?*" TEFVk4CE ADD) -ICN
b9CTION I - T 23 N - MM, UM
KW COUNTY, W4NIWTON
Lot
Coverage
LOT AREA
x DQUAF-- FEET
;.01 OOVSRA4P-
X baLAREE FEET
161. sb
114, se f'L-�
6
LOT COvURA41E A$ A PE4CENTAME OF LOT AREA
10 .40 U VALUE
5 2c ul YALUE ATTACHMENT 14
File No. APL20110004
"covau
HORTN
Plot Plan
6CALF, P - W -W
aur 19 zoo
Exhibit 15 APL 2011-0004
Photo I from 7th Ave
Classico Homes Appeal - APL 2011-0004
520 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98026
rlA
Exhibit 15 APL 2011-0004
Photo 2 Access Drive
Classico Homes Appeal - APL 2011-0004
520 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 15 APL 2011-0004
Photo 3 Looking East toward 7th and Cedar
In
Classico Homes Appeal - APL 2011-0004
520 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 15 APL 2011-0004
Photo 4 from 7th
looping West
Classico Homes Appeal - APL 2011-0004
520 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 15 APL 2011-0004
Photo 5 looldng south at slope
Classico Homes Appeal - APL 2011-0004
520 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 15 APL 2011-0004
Photo 6 looking west from 7th
Classico Homes Appeal - APL 2011-0004
520 7th Ave. S.
Edmonds, WA 98026