Loading...
12-104902 FILE ` CITY OF Cf1Y HALL 33321 Feder 8th Avenue South ... Federal Way Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 www.cilyoffederalway.com November 8, 2012 Tim Giacometti BullivantlHouserjBailey,Attorneys at Law 1700 7th Avenue South, Suite 1810 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Permit#12-104902-00-AD; RESPONSE LETTER TO OWNER INQUIRY Lake Easter Estates-Dry Rot Repair,Deck Replacement,and Tree Removal Dear Mr.Giacometti, On October 25,2012,the City of Federal Way's Department of Community and Economic Development received your inquiry regarding the dry rot repair,deck replacement,and tree removal at Lake Faster Estates. Your letter inquires whether the City would require the replacement of entire decks under the circumstances described in the same letter. In the interest of clarity,the circumstances are paraphrased below,with staff response following. "It is necessary to repair dry rot on the exterior of several buildings on the Lake Easter Estates property.To gain access to portions of the deteriorating siding, it may be necessary to temporarily detach portions of exterior decks and deck stairs from the walls of the buildings.Once the siding is repaired,the decks are expected to be re-attached and restored to the configuration that existed immediately prior to the siding repairs." The repairing of dry rot on the building's exterior would be considered normal maintenance. Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) 19.30.090(d)"Nonconforming Development,"normal maintenance is exempt from needing to bring the deck into full compliance.Normal maintenance and repair;defined by FWRC 19.05.140 N definitions, includes, but is not limited to,painting, roof repair and replacement, plumbing,wiring and electrical systems, mechanical equipment replacement,and weatherization. It is the City's interpretation that siding repair should fall under this definition and does not trigger the nonconforming section of FWRC.Therefore,the City would not require the entire deck to come into conformance and it can be re-attached and restored to the configuration immediately prior to siding repairs. Your letter also requests an update on the status of the Association's application for tree removal. The Board of Directors for Lakes Easter Estates has submitted a plan to remove and/or replace trees on the East side of the lake near Units 1-16.The city is waiting on additional information before final approval is granted. It is my understanding that all of the London Plane Sycamore,Vine Maple,and Oak trees that are in close proximity to the decks are intended to be removed.There is no narrative on whether the stumps and roots will remain. The unit owner you represent is free to bring her concern to the board and request that the stump and roots remain after tree removal for her property. I trust this letter satisfies your inquiries. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding the responses in this letter at 253-835-2634 or kennith.george@cityoffederalway.com. Mr.Giacometti November 8,2012 Page 2 Sincerel , • Kennith George Planning Intern c: Grace Skidmore,Development Specialist 12-104902 Doc.ID.62539 Chapter 19.30 NONCONFORMANCE Page 1 of 2 19.30.090 Nonconforming development. (1) If any aspect, structure, improvement or development does not conform to the development regulations prescribed in this title, that aspect, structure, improvement or development must be brought into conformance or otherwise improved as set forth below. (a) Increase in gross floor area. If an applicant proposes to increase the gross floor area of any use on the subject property in any one of the following ways, the applicant shall comply with the development regulations in effect at the time of the proposal, as specified below: i if expansion of gross floor area of an existing building occurs either through addition of new floors within the structure or enlargement of the existing building footprint, the applicant shall comply with all development regulations in effect at the time the expansion is proposed. If the property on which the expansion is proposed is occupied by multiple tenants or uses, the applicant shall comply with those development regulations applicable to the geographic portion of the site on which the expansion is proposed; or If a new and separate structure is being constructed on an already developed site, the applicant shall comply with all development regulations applicable to the geographic portion of the site on which the new structure and any related improvements re to be constructed; or If the increase in gross floor area involves an existing single-family residential d elling, the applicant shall comply with the development regulations in effect at the time of the proposal. For single-family residences, existing nonconformities may remain and continue so long as the existing nonconformities are not being increased or expanded in any way. New construction or renovation which involves the increase in gross floor area of a nonconforming single-family structure is subject to all applicable requirements of this Code irioluding but not limited to provisions related to critical areas (Division V of this title), off-street parking (Chapter 19.130 FWRC), improvements (Chapter 19.135 FWRC), and landscaping (Chapter 19.125 FWRC). If the increase hit ross floor area involves an existing single-story building in t city center thatnconforming as to the ground floor size limits established in Chapter 19.225 WRC, the existing building footprint shall not be enlarged, except the director may approve minor additions such as entry structures, lobbies, seating or dining areas, bay windows, and similar features; provided, that such addition(s) shall not exceed 1,000 square feet per building in any one consecutive 12- month period, and shall not increase the extent of any other nonconformance. abandonment. If an applicant proposes any work, including tenant impro ments, on property that h4s been abandoned, the applicant shall comply with all development regulations applicable to the subject property, to the extent physically or technical! practicable on the site. The use conducted on the subject property has ceased for more than one year, i whi h case the applicant shall repair and/or restore the improvements on the site (e.g., drainage, landscaping, curbing, parking, parking lot landscaping, etc.) to a condition as near as physically possible to the cond)tion required by the requirements of approval Hof the existing development. — (d)The applicant is making any alteration or changes or doing any work, othe, than normal maintenance, tenant improvements, or minor additions noted in subsection (1)(a)(iv) of this section, in any one consecutive 12-month period to an improvement that is nonconforming and the fair market value of the alteration, change or other work exceeds 50 percent of the assessed or appraised value of that improvement. The appraisal must be from a state-certified real estate appraiser. In the event this subsection is triggered with respect to a single-tenant or single-occupant site, the applicant shall http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay 19/FederalWay 1930.ht... 11/2/2012 Chapter 19.30 NONCONFORM A NCE Page 2 of 2 meet all development regulations applicable to the property. In the event this Si,ce,G,az subsection is triggered with respect to a site occupied by multiple tenants or uses, the citrrjp �L applicant shall comply with those development regulations applicable to the geographic or- portion of the site on which the alteration, change or improvement is proposed. For 4‘k.c purposes of determining value under this section, improvements required pursuant to this section (nonconforming development), FWRC 19.30.110 (when public improvements must be installed), 19.30.120 (nonconforming water quality improvements) and 19.135.030 (when public improvements must be installed) shall not be counted towards the 50 percent threshold which would trigger application of this subsection. (2) This section does not govern application of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines; application of Chapter 19.115 FWRC is governed by FWRC 19.115.010 through 19.115.100, as amended. This section also does not govern application of development regulations relating to water quality, signs, or street/sidewalk improvements; application of those development regulations is governed by FWRC 19.30.100, 19.30.110, 19.30.120 and 19.135.020, all as amended. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay 19/FederalWay 1930.ht... 11/2/2012 1j -/oy 900za 410 Bullivant Houser BaileyFc Attorneys at Law TIM GIACOMETTI RECEIVED Addmittedd in in Washington and Oregon Direct Dial:(206)521-6430 E-mail:tim.giacometti@bullivant.com O C T 2 5 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY October 24, 2012 CDS Via E-mail Grace Skidmore Development Specialist Department of Community Services City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: Lake Easter Estates—Dry Rot Repair and Deck Replacement; Tree Removal Dear Grace: Thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding Lake Easter Estates' proposed deck replacement. As I have mentioned, we represent, Karen Mork, a unit owner at Lake Easter Estates and we have been in communications with the homeowners' association board(the "Board") regarding the repairing of dry rot on the exterior of several buildings, including the one in which Mrs. Mork resides. The Board appears now finally to be planning such repairs, but its plans implicate City zoning requirements in a way that significantly and, we think, unnecessarily, increase the cost to the unit owners. As I explained, to gain access to portions of the deteriorating siding, it may very well be necessary to temporarily detach portions of exterior decks and deck stairs from the walls of the buildings. If the deck components cannot be detached, it may be necessary to cut away portions of deck. Once the siding is repaired, however, we would expect the decks would be re-attached and restored to the configuration that existed immediately prior to the siding repairs. The Board has not yet provided any estimates, but we could see the cost of this work being in the range of$3,000 to $5,000 per unit. But what concerns Mrs. Mork and prompts this letter is that the Board informs us that she will also be required to replace—at her cost—her entire deck. In fact, the Board tells us that the City is requiring each unit owner to replace his or her entire deck in accordance with 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1810, Seattle, Washington 98101 Main 206 292 8930 Fax 206 386 5130 www.bullivant.com Offices in Washington,Oregon&California • Grace Skidmore October 24, 2012 Page 2 deck designs that have been approved by the City. This requirement is purportedly triggered by the need to "cut away" portions of the decks to replace the siding, As you can imagine, the cost of replacing an entire deck that is in very good condition —easily in the range of$15,000 or more—and the nuisance of such construction is both wasteful and objectionable, especially given that the only building component actually needing repair is the siding. We understand that this requirement will affect at least 16 unit owners, most of whom, we suspect, have not been informed of it by the Board(or this issue probably would have already come to your attention). Furthermore, while we have some of the communications between the Board and the City, we do not believe that the Board has accurately conveyed to the City the context in which the Board has sought the City's approval of replacement deck designs. To be clear, except for perhaps a few instances, the Lake Easter Estates unit owners are not asking to have their decks replaced. Mrs. Mork certainly isn't. Therefore, we are writing to seek the City's confirmation of whether or not it would require the replacement of entire decks under the circumstances described above. If the City does require the decks to be replaced simply on account of siding repairs, we would request the City's analysis of what zoning code provisions it relies on for that decision as well as the procedures for appealing such a decision. We also request an update on the status of the Association's application for tree removal on the Lake Easter Estates property. Mrs. Mork has two oak trees coming up through her deck. These particular trees are now pushing against the railings of her second floor balcony and, therefore, need to be removed. So she supports removing these trees, but is concerned that the stump and roots should remain in place to continue to provide soil stability along the lake. She is also concerned that the Association has sought approval to remove other trees that provide :oil stability, privacy and wildlife habitat. We look forward to your response. Very truly yo , Tim Giacometti TGG 13906517.I ® www.bullivant.com Washington I Oregon I California CITY OP Federal Way MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2012 TO: William McDaniel, President Lake Easter Estates COA FROM: Grace Skidmore, Development Specialist Community& Economic Development Department SUBJECT: Lake Easter Estates Condominiums Deck Repairs Approved Basic Plan #12-102024-00-MF 1301 S 308th Street The Basic plan showing the three potential design types for replacement decks at Lake Easter Estates Condominiums, Buildings 1 through 4,is approved and building permits for individual decks can be issued contingent upon the following: 1. This approval is valid until the adoption of a new edition of the International Building Code,anticipated on July 1, 2013. 2. Each deck shall require a separate building permit, but will not require plan review to utilize the approved designs. 3. Modifications to existing decks not in accordance with this approved plan must undergo a separate review process for building permit, including land use review, and modified decks will need to be brought into compliance with current building codes. 4. No additional land use review will be required to replace decks which are currently nonconforming as to setback from Lake Easter(25' minimum) if utilizing this plan. Approval is based on the replacement decks being the same size as existing approved decks. Available records indicate that the original structures were approximately 169 square feet (13' x 13'). In the absence of evidence showing approval of a larger deck (such as a building permit) subsequent to the original construction, nonconforming decks will be required to be brought into conformance if any work is done beyond normal maintenance. 5. Replacement decks proposed utilizing an alternative design will be required to undergo land use review prior to building permit. Grace Skidmore From: w mcdaniel[wmd@7thpower.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:39 PM To: Grace Skidmore Subject: RE: lake easter estates-decks Grace, I don't have any additional plans. We discussed the need to modify some decks due to building maintenance. During our meeting,you informed me that any modification to a nonconforming deck(due to previous work done without a permit and/or encroaching into the 25' setback from the Lake's OHM) will require that deck to be brought into compliance with the 13 x 13 deck size and city building codes.Will your letter contain wording covering this situation? I will try and stop by tomorrow and pick up the 'Dave Lee' letter. Thanks for all the time you and the staff have spent on this. Wm. McDaniel President, Lake Easter Estates COA office: (253)839-4641 cell:(253)332-4078 From: Grace Skidmore[mailto:Grace.Skidmore@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:12 PM To: 'w mcdaniel' Subject: RE: lake easter estates-decks Hello again,at last- I have been trying to coordinate some things with Isaac regarding the language for conditioning the individual permits. One thing we discussed is having all the site plans for 13 x 13 decks attached to the Basic deck plans so they would be (conditionally)pre-approved. That way,any of the residents who wanted a permit for a 13 x 13 deck as shown could walk in with an application and walk out with a permit. If an applicant wanted to go for a larger deck(for whatever reason),they would need to apply separately with drawings &site plans, and undergo land use and building permit review. If they were encroaching into the 25'setback from the Lake's OHM,they would also need to provide verification that there had been a previous permit and final approval of a deck of that size. I believe I have enough information in what you have given me to attach to the "master plan", unless you have different or more detailed site plans I should use. The condition on the permits will read something like: "Repair or replacement of a deck up to 13'x 13'in size will not require additional land use review and approval,and will maintain nonconforming status with regard to setback from the OHM of Lake Easter." Any changes/repairs to decks will trigger compliance with current International Building Code requirements. 1 Grace Skidmore To: w mcdaniel Subject: Lake Easter Estates-Deck Repair/Replacement Hello William- This is to clarify one of the conditions of approval for the proposed deck repair"Basic"plan,specifically item(4)relative to nonconformance. The Zoning Code differentiates between legal and illegal nonconformances based on whether or not the improvement was in compliance with regulations in place at the time of construction and required permits and approvals were obtained. Illegal nonconformances are theoretically required to be immediately abated;however,that is impractical in application. When work is performed on a nonconforming improvement that requires a building permit,the City becomes aware of the problem and would then require the nonconformance to be corrected as part of the approval process. Routine maintenance of existing improvements that would not require a building permit include such tasks as pressure washing,cosmetic repairs,painting,etc.where no aspect of the structure regulated by adopted Building Codes is impacted(eg.structural members,required guardrails,etc.). Let me know if you need additional information or clarification. Development Specialist (253)835-2607 or(253)835-2624 Fax: (253)835-2609 1