BLD20141165 Plan Review Comments - 2nd Review.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
•1215AN•E,WA98020
VENUE ORTH DMONDS
P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 •W:www.edmondswa.gov
HONEAXEB
DSD:P•E•B
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING NGINEERING UILDING
February 27, 2015
Mr. Tony Shapiro
AD Shapiro Architects
Email: tonys@adshapiro.com
ND
RE: 2PLAN REVIEW COMMENTSFOR PLANCHECK #BLD20141165
RD
HESLOP ADDITION/REMODEL AT 652 3AVE. N
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
I have reviewed your resubmittal dated February 3, 2015 for the above building permit applicationfor the
Planning Division,and it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications will need
to be addressedbefore review can continue. Comments from my December 11, 2014 letter that remain
unaddressed or that were partially addressed are included for reference, and additional comments
addressing the resubmittal are provided in italics.
PropertyDimensions:
1.Addressed.
Site Plan:
2.Please make the following corrections to your site plan:
a.Addressed.
b.12/11/14 Comment: The lot area is indicated on the recorded short plat (AFN 8810140399, see
attached) as 6,655 square feet; however, it is indicated on the site plan as being 6,800 square
feet. Please correct this discrepancy.
2/27/15 Comment: When the site plan was revised, it appears that certain information
including the lot area was removed. Please indicate the lot area on the site plan.
c.12/11/14 Comment: Ensure thatthe width of the eaves on the site plan areconsistent with the
width indicated on the building plans. Impervious surface calculations must accurately reflect
the width of the eaves.
2/27/15 Comment: It was noted that the eaves indicated on the “Total House Area Plan”on
Sheet A102 are not consistent with those indicated on the site plan on Sheet A101, particularly
at the covered frontporch.
d.Addressed.
Setbacks:
3.Addressed.
Nonconforming Structure:
4.12/11/14 Comment: Thesite plan indicates that the existing structure
does not comply with the minimum required 5-foot side setback from the northern property line as
required by the RS-6 zone. According to Snohomish County Assessor records, the existing
residence was constructed in 1937,which was well before current zoning regulations. Although the
City’s code requirements related to nonconforming structures contained in ECDC17.40.020 allows
for the maintenance of an existing nonconforming structure, ECDC 17.40.020.F specifically states
the following: “If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount
equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not
be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.”Additionally, pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020.D, any alterations to a
nonconforming building must comply with current site development standards and must not expand
any nonconforming aspect of the building.
Page 1of 3
Therefore, it must be shown that the proposal does not include destroying/damaging the existing
structure in an amount equal to 75% or more of its replacement cost and that all new and/or
expanded portions of the structure comply with all minimum required setbacks. The existing
portion of the building that is being retained may not be altered in any way that expands the
nonconformity. For example, the height of the roof above the garage cannot be increased. In
order to ensure compliance with the current site development standards of ECDC 16.20.030 as
well as the nonconforming regulations of ECDC 17.40.020, please conduct the following:
a.12/11/14 Comment: Provide sufficient documentationthat the work proposed under the
subject application does not involve destroying/damaging the existing nonconforming
structure in an amount equal to 75% or more of its replacement cost. A contractor’s cost
estimate must be provided comparing the replacement cost of the demolished portion of the
structure to the replacement cost of the entire existing structure. The estimate must include a
breakdown of building elements sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the construction
drawings. If you find that the cost of replacement is equivalent to or exceeds75%, you will
need to modify the project design to retain a greater portion of the original structure.
Otherwise, the structure will need to meet all requirements of a new single-family home.The
permit drawings will need to accurately reflect the scope of work proposed. This information
will be reviewed by the City’s Building Official for a determination.
2/27/15 Comment: As requested in the comments provided by the Building Division on
February 18, 2015, additional information/clarification is necessary in order for the Building
Official to be able to determine whether the proposal exceeds the 75% threshold.Refer to the
Building Division’s comments dated February 18, 2015.
b.12/11/14 Comment: Clarify on the site plan the locations of all existing and new portions of
the structure. Clearly indicate the shortest distances from all existing and new portions of the
structure to all property lines.
2/27/15 Comment: It was noted that you are proposing to increase the width of the eaves
towards the east and west over the portion of the garage located within the minimum
required northern side setback. This, however, would increase the degree of the
nonconformity and is not allowed. Please reduce the width of the eaves on the northern,
eastern, and western sides of the portion of the garage located within the5-foot northern side
setback so that they extend no further than the existing eaves. Also, please clearly indicate
the widths of the existing eaves on this portion of the garage in order for staff to confirm that
the proposal will not include increasing the width of the eaves beyond existing.
c.12/11/14 Comment: Clearly indicate on all applicable building plan sheets which portions of
the structure are existing and which portions are new. All new portions of the structure must
be shown to comply with current setback requirements.
2/27/15 Comment: A bold line is indicatedon Section View #2on Sheet A401 that appears to
be indicating the existing pitched roof above the garage. If this is the case, please label it as
such. The new roof over the portion of the garage within the 5-foot northern side setback
cannot extend above the existing roof in any location(not onlythe highest point of the peak)
because this would increase the degree of the nonconformity. Thus, it appears that the
eastern and western sides of the proposed roof of the garage will need to be reduced in height
so thatthey do not extend above any portion of the existing roof.
Additionally, see comment under Item 4b above.All modifications made to the eaves on the
portion of the garage located within the 5-foot northern side setback must be indicated on all
applicable sheets of the site planand building plans.
Height Calculations:
5.Please respond to the following comments regarding the height calculations:
a.12/11/14 Comment: Indicate the datum point utilized for the height calculations on the site
plan. The datum point must be a permanent point that will not move during construction, such
Page 2of 3
as the top of a fire hydrant, water meter lid, catch basin, etc. Please indicate what was used as
the datum point on the site plan as well as its location and elevation.
2/27/15 Comment: Thank you for indicatingthe benchmark on the site plan.The site plan
refers to the survey documentfor a more specific description of the benchmark. Please add the
benchmark descriptionfrom the surveyto the site plan so that this information is in one
locationand so that it is clear on the site plan what portion of the fire hydrant was used as the
datum point.
b.Addressed.
c.Addressed.
d.12/11/14 Comment: After making all necessary revisions to the plans to address the above
comments, please indicate the elevations of the corrected average original grade, maximum
allowed height, and proposed height on both the site plan and the building elevations.
2/27/15 Comment: Please indicate the elevation of the average original grade on the building
elevation views. Also, since the proposed height is equivalent to the maximum allowed height,
please change the label of the “max roof ht”to “max and proposed roof ht”.
e.N/A.
Lot Coverage:
6.12/11/14 Comment:Lot coverage is defined as the total ground coverage of all
buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members
excluding a maximum of 30” of eaves. The maximum allowed lot coverage for the RS-6zone is 35
percent of the net lot area. Please separate out the lot coverage calculations on your site plan from
the “Site Area Calculations.” Additionally, itis unclear ifthe entire footprint of the structurewas
included in your calculations.After making any revisions to the layout of the residenceto address
the above comments, please ensure that the lot coverage calculationsclearly includethe entire
footprint of the residence, excluding up to 30 inches of eavesandincluding any uncovered decks
over 3 feetin height.The revised lot coverage calculations must also be calculatedas a percentage
of the corrected net lot area(gross area excluding any vehicular access easements).
2/27/15 Comment:Thank you for adding a “Total House Area Plan”to Sheet A102. It appears this
is your representationof theproposedlot coverage, butplease label it as such. Additionally,
please provide lot coverage calculations indicating compliance with the above definitionincluding
an indication of the proposed lot coverage calculated as a percentage of the net lot area.The lot
coverage calculations must include both upper floor decks as well as the covered front porch,
portions of which wereexcluded from your calculations.Based on staff’s calculations, it appears
that the proposal is over the maximum allowed lot coverage for the siteby approximately 70 feet,
so it may be necessary to reduce the footprint of the proposed residence.
Please submit three copies of your revised site plan (includingone reduced copy) and two copies of any
revised building plan sheets to a Development Services Permit Coordinator. Our office hours are
Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays between 8:00am and 4:30pm, and Wednesdays between
8:00am and noon.If you have any questions, feel freeto contact me at (425) 771-0220or
Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department -Planning Division
JenMachuga
Associate Planner
Page 3of 3