Mariner Condo pre app_planning.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
121 5 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DSD: PD
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING IVISION
Pre-Application Meeting
Pre-Application Meeting
Date: March 13, 2008
Review By: Mike Clugston, Planning Division
Project Name: Mariner Condo Rehab
Site Address: 555 Alder Street
Zone: Residential Multifamily (RM-1.5)
Contact: George Singer/Dan Rundle (206-547-7288)
Replace roof, windows/exterior materials, guardrails and awning on Mariner
Description:
Building B
Use
Use
Allowed Use: Yes. Multiple residential use is permitted pursuant to Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 16.30.010. No change from existing.
Development Standards
Development Standards
RM 1.5 Zone Alder (South) Sides (East and West) Rear (North)
15 feet 10 feet 15 feet
Setbacks Required
by ECDC
5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Setbacks
Determined by
V-139 (1964)
7 feet >10 feet 7 feet
Setbacks Shown
Height: 25 feet as measured from average original grade + 5 feet for roof having a slope of 4 in 12 or
greater. A variance, V-139 (1964), allowed the original buildings to be constructed to a height of 40.
Parking: The following table indicates the required number of parking spaces for multifamily residential
construction (ECDC 17.50.020):
Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking spaces per
dwelling unit
Studio 1.2
1 bedroom 1.5
2 bedrooms 1.8
3 or more bedrooms 2.0
Environmental Regulations
Environmental Regulations
SEPA Review: Not required.
Critical Area Determination: A critical area determination has yet to be performed for the subject parcel.
However, a determination would not be required for the proposed rehab work since the work would take
place within the developed footprint of the existing building.
Design
Design
Architectural Design Board (ADB) Review: Administrative design review.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi Family - High Density in the Downtown Activity Center.
Landscaping: No changes proposed. Any future changes to the landscaping must be approved pursuant
to ECDC 20.13.
Signage: Address sign proposed for canopy replacing awning - incidental. No other signage proposed.
Questions / Notes
Questions / Notes
The following section of the Edmonds Community Development Code describes nonconforming buildings.
Both Mariner A and B are considered nonconforming with respect to the current height and setback
requirements of the RM-1.5 zoning code. While the original buildings were constructed using the height
and setback variances of V-139 (1964), the proposed changes to the building must either meet todays
code or be covered by the nonconforming code.
17.40.020 Nonconforming buildings.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the
site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such
standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or
the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building may be maintained and continued, unless required
to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in any
manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building.
C. Historic Buildings. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration of a building
which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register of
Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory or the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places. Such reconstruction of historic buildings shall fully comply with the requirements
of the Washington State Building Code. By way of illustration and not limitation, the
reconstruction of all historic buildings shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State
Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building shall be permitted.
2. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site
development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the
building, shall be permitted.
3. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and
safety regulations shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming structure be moved for any reason for any distance
whatsoever, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage
requirements for the zone in which it is located. Movement alone of a nonconforming structure
shall not require the owner thereof to bring the structure into compliance with any other bulk or
site development standard of the city applicable solely to the building itself.
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to
50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be
reconstructed except in the conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made
by the building official and shall be appealable as a staff decision under the provisions of ECDC
20.105.030. Damage less than 50 percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building
returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but
only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit within one year
of the date such damage occurred. \[Ord. 3515 § 1, 2004\].
Roof. According to the plans provided, the Mariner B building is existing nonconforming with respect
·
to height with the entire penthouse being above height. According to ECDC 17.40.020, a
nonconforming building may be maintained and continued but it may not be changed or altered in any
manner which increases the degree nonconformity of the building. Several roof proposals are
suggested.
1. The new butterfly roof for the Mariner B roof expands the nonconformity of the roof when viewed
from the east/west elevation. While the overall height (and volume) of the roof may decrease, the
roof edge on the east/west elevation is more massive than with the existing barrel vaults. This
change effectively expands the nonconforming aspect at those elevations. To pursue this system
would require a variance.
2. The scalloped roof with gutter/scupper retains the current vaulted system. A sloping roof drain
system is added in the valleys between the vault peaks. This option is generally better than the
butterfly roof since the form of the existing roof is maintained. However, a portion of the vault
overhang on the eastern façade is replaced with a low slope metal roofed canopy w/braces. The
inclusion of this new overhang would occur above the height limit and therefore be expanding the
nonconformity.
3. The scalloped roof with new glu-lam retains the entirety of the existing structure of the roof. A
sloping roof drain system is added in the valleys between the vaults. In this system, the roof is
maintained in its current form and a system is included to resolve drainage issues, thereby
protecting the roofs integrity and allowing better maintenance.
Guardrails. Are they being replaced due to structural deficiency or for aesthetics? Particularly for the
·
Mariner B penthouse, if they must be replaced due to structural deficiency, 42 is OK if that is the size
required by the Building Code (alterations required by law). If the replacement is for aesthetics, they
would have to be replaced by 36 rails the 42 rails would not allowed without a variance.
Awning/Canopy. The regularly required street setback in the RM-1.5 zone is 15. V-139 (1964)
·
established all property line setbacks at 5. The applicant noted that Building B (as well as Building A)
is located 7 from the Alder Street (south) property line. The existing awning extends 4 from the
building. The applicant has stated the replacement awning would be the same size as the existing
and slightly lower. If that is the case, replacement of the fabric awning with a suspended metal
canopy is allowed since the nonconforming element is not increasing.
Storage Closets. The storage closets on the western side of both Mariner A & B are proposed to be
·
altered. While the proposed alteration meets setbacks, the top portion of the alteration is above
height in both cases. As a result, the proposed change would expand the nonconformity (volume) of
the storage closets and would not be allowed without a variance for that portion over height.
Fees
Fees
$100 Administrative Design Review
·
$15 City records surcharge
·
$1185 Variance (Hearing Examiner), if necessary
·
$150 Sign posting fee, if necessary
·
Attachments
Attachments
Land Use Application.
·
Administrative Design Review (ADB minor) handout.
·
Variance handout
·