Loading...
14-0918 plan review comments #3.pdf" Cin OF EDMONDS ® 1215" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ® BUILDING May 1, 2015 Keith Hall Rhall-55@yahoo.com RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS #3 FOR PLAN CHECK # 2014-0918 EXTERIOR ALTERATION AT 23405 84TH AVE. W Dear Mr. Hall, I have reviewed the information you resubmitted on April 22, 2015 and have found that the roof pitch did in fact change within the north setback area. You had indicated to me at the counter that the roof replacement was like -for -like. Based on the plans and documents submitted, however, that is not factually accurate. The elevation drawing shows the north roof was expanded and the structural calculations from CG Engineering indicate that the roof shape was changed from a hip roof to a gable roof. As a result, I cannot approve of the roof change on the north side of the building that encroaches into the required 25' setback from the north street property line at 234th Street. Because this work was done prior to permit, a variance could not be granted to allow the extra roof encroachment into the street setback. The new portion of the roof on the north side of the building that encroaches into the street setback area, along with the porch, must be demolished. The existing plans could be purple—lined to show the removal of the porch and north roof addition or the current plans could be withdrawn and a demo permit obtained to remove the unpermitted porch and both the north and south roof alterations. Please contact Linda Thornquist, Senior Permit Coordinator, to discuss how you wish to proceed. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner March 24, 2015 comments 1. Encroachments into north setback: Much of the new porch off the west side of the house is shown to be within the required 25' setback from the north street property line at 234th Street. Similarly, the new pitched roof at the north end of the house also encroaches into that setback. I've marked up your drawings showing the approximate area that now encroaches into the north street setback area. As referenced in my previous comment letter, the existing structure could be maintained as a nonconforming structure (in accordance with ECDC 17.40) but new construction in a required setback area is not permitted. As a result, the porch and roof must be reduced in size in order to meet the setback requirement. Please revise as applicable. October 2, 2014 comments 1. Critical area checklist: The City does not have a critical area determination on file for this parcel. Because ground disturbance is proposed by expanding the porch, a Critical Area Checklist must be submitted. You can apply for the checklist online (https:Hpermits.edmonds.wa.us/Citizen/Citizen_Home.aspx) or print it out and submit it with the revisions to the building permit application (http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Services/Permits_and_Development/Form s_and_Handouts/P20= _Critical—Areas_Checklist.pdf). The fee for the review is $155. 2. Scale: What is the scale on the Site Plan? 1" = 20' is preferred. 3. Lot shape: From the County Assessor's data, the parcel appears to be roughly rectangular —100' on the north and south property lines and about 110' east/west. Please verify and update the Site Plan as necessary. Show and label the existing fence. 4. Nonconforming house: It appears that the existing main house may encroach into one or more required setbacks. There is a required 25' setback from the north and west property lines and a 7.5' setback from the east and south property lines. As a result, the house would be considered nonconforming with respect to those setback(s) where it encroaches into a setback. New construction is not allowed within a required setback area. On the Site Plan, show the applicable setback lines required by the RS -8 zone noted above. The portions of roof within the required setbacks may not be altered in any way which increases the degree of nonconformity of the structure — e.g., additional roof structure in the setback area could not be permitted. The location of the proposed porch will also have to be verified to make sure it does not encroach into a required setback. 5. Detached MIL: Detached MILS or Accessory Dwelling Units are not allowed according to current Edmonds code. The existing MIL appears to have been established in the County prior to the site's annexation into the City of Edmonds in late 1994, however. As a result, the use is considered to be legally nonconforming and so may remain and continue in accordance with ECDC 17.40.010.6. If the use lapses according to ECDC 17.40.010.C, the MIL use may not be re-established: 17.40.010 Nonconforming uses. A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once allowed by applicable land use regulations, but is no longer allowed, due to the passage or later change of the ordinance codified in this chapter or a prior ordinance. B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (C) of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.050. C. Lapse of Time. 1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance. Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use. 2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., is filed within 18 months of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180 -day extension may be granted. 3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (C)(2) of this section shall not apply if.• a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agent. In the event that subsection (C)(3)(a) or (b) of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall be abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F).