10521 19TH PL W 2017-06-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

The lower patio area will also need to be reduced to six feet to be in compliance (it i5 currently eight).The cost of the patio reduction may not be covered by the insurance claim but it will need to be completed prior to final inspection. No other documents or revised documents are required at this time for planning. I will move your permit along to the building department. If they need any corrections they will send out a correction letter. Regards, Fouci-cu Plea" Asjiistc",tPla.wvw-r CLty of FverettPLanni4AgDepa.VtMe4Lt t 4,ect.' 425-257-7275 Pe,rnidtServLcea:, 425-2578810 NOTICE: All emoils,and attachments,sent to and from the City of Everett are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act(RCW 42.56) From: Mike Bramhall [mailto:MBramhall@case4n6.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:48 AM To: Felicia Medlen Subject: Kaile Fire Repair Good morning, Felicia. I came in last Friday to submit a set of drawings for the repair of fire damage to a SFR in south Everett (10521 19th PL W). I am afraid I do not have the file with me so I can't reference the permit number but the main issue that we discussed was the reconstruction of the deck and roof on the north side of the house. If you recall, the site plan on file with the City of Everett does not show a deck on the back side of the house. Aerial imagery available on Google Earth and photographs of the house after the fire indicate that there was a covered deck off the second floor. Given that there was a sliding glass door off the upper level to the deck, I am thinking the deck was added during construction or very soon after. Although the resolution is not very good, an image from November 2007 on Google Earth suggests an open deck This would have been a couple months after the house was completed. An image from May 2009 clearly shows a roof over the deck. Since the homeowners purchased the home in August 2007,this would suggest they were responsible for the addition of the roof. Study of the sizes and detailing of the structural members of the deck and roof suggest that the roof was added at some time after the construction of the deck. I reviewed the Everett Municipal Code on line. It calls for a minimum 20 foot setback in the rear yard and, according to the site plan on file with the city that you copied for me on Friday, the house is 20 feet from the property line. Thus,the whole back yard is considered in the setback area. Section 39.150 of the Everett Municipal Code states that no structure may be located in a required setback area; however it does provide for minor exceptions to this in Section 39.150 C. Section 39.150 C.9 allows a covered porch which is open on three sides to encroach a maximum of six feet into a required rear yard setback area. Since the deck extends 8 feet from the house, this provision does not apply. Section 39.150 C.12 allows uncovered decks over three feet in height and no higher than ten feet above the existing grade to encroach into the rear setback area by not more than fifty percent of the required setback depth. Since the deck extends 8 feet into the 20 foot setback,this provision is applicable. Thus, the deck would be legal if it were uncovered. I forwarded this interpretation to the insurance adjuster and she confirmed that it would be acceptable to have the roof over the deck deleted for repairing the building. I am not sure what the best way to affect this might be. Since the plans have already been submitted, would it be easier to address this as a corrections notice? Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. 2