11-103437CITY OF CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Ak Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253)835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Mr. Robert T. Christensen September 19, 2011
204 SW 292d Street
Federal Way, WA 98023
Re: File #11-103437-00-AD; RESPONSE TO INQUIRY
Christensen; 204 SW 292 nd Street FILE
Dear Nit. Christensen:
This letter is in response to your August 19, 2011, e-mail inquiry. You inquire about making
improvements to an existing beach cabin on your property. You state that the cabin was constructed in the
early 1920s and is *in disrepair. You wish to replace the foundation, roof, windows, plumbing, interior
finishes, etc. and that you hope that your children could use the home or you might possibly rent it out in
the future. The following is a summary of the applicable land use requirements of the Federal Way
Revised Code (FV;RC).
1) Nonconforming Use and Development
The property is located along the Puget Sound shoreline. The property is zoned Residential Single -
Family (RS-9.6), which permits one dwelling unit on one lot. The 25,700 square foot lot contains two
separate dwelling units. There is a smaller dwelling unit built in the 1920s (beach cabin) and a larger,
primary dwelling unit built in 1959. The subject property is considered nonconforming with respect to
density as it contains two dwelling units.
Pursuant to FVY'RC 19.30.130(3), the nonconforming density must be corrected if the applicant is
making changes, alterations, adding improvements, or doing work other than normal maintenance in
any 36-month period, on the subject property containing a single-family use and fair market value of
these changes, alterations, additions, or other work exceeds 75 percent of the assessed or appraised
value of that single-family structure. If an appraisal is provided by the applicant or required by the
city, the larger of the two amounts shall be used. The appraisal must be from a source that is
acceptable to the city.
If improvements to the beach cabin necessitate that the nonconforming density be corrected, the only
option available to you to maintain the beach cabin as a residential unit would be to:
Legalize the beach cabin into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) under current code
requirements (see enclosed handouts). Detached ADU's can be located on a single-family lot
containing a principal dwelling unit as long as the ADU complies with applicable FWRC
requirements per FWRC 19.200.180.' The maximum size of a detached ADU is 800 square feet.
' ADU requirements include conformance with all applicable standards in the zoning, building, plumbing, electrical-, mechanical,
fire, health, and other applicable codes; uniform housing codes; septic certification from King County Health Department; water
certification from Lakehaven Utility District; one parking stall not located in the prinmry dwelling unit; shall be a maximum of
800 square feet and not greater than 40% of the primary dwelling square footage, excluding garage and other non -living space;
and the property owner shall reside in the primary or accessory dwelling unit for six months or more of each calendar year.
File #1 1-103437-00-AD Doc I.D. 58879
Mr. Robert T. Christensen
Page 2
September 19, 2011
Please note that alterations to any buildings will require building pennits.
In addition to the nonconforming density, the beach cabin is also nonconforming with regard to
development standards. The beach cabin is located withmi the required minimum shoreline setback
(see following section) and it also appears that a comer of the beach cabin is located within the
minimum required side yard setback. If the existing structure is located within the required side yard
setback, then P-WRC., 19.3 ' 0,09.0, "Nonconforming Development," will apply. Per FWRC
19.30.090(1)(f�if the applicarit is making any alteration or changes, or doing any work other than
normal maintenancr, in any one consecutive 12-month period to an improvement that is
nonconforming and the fair niarket value of the alteration, change, or other work exceeds 50 percent
of the assessed or appraised value of that improvement, then the nonconforming aspects must be
brought into conformance.
2) Shoreline Master Program Compliance
The proposal is subject to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program, and applicable Federal Way shoreline regulations. The beach cabin is located within
the required nummum. shoreline setback area. The minimum required shoreline setback in the Urban
Environment is 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The Federal Way Shoreline Master
Program does not allow any development within the required setback area except for small accessory
structures, such as storage sheds, that are limited to a maximum of 150 square feet and 08 feet in
height. FWRC 15.05.150(2) specifies that a use or development not conforming to existing
regulations, which is destroyed, deteriorated, or damaged more than 75 percent of its fair market
value, may be reconstructed only consistent with regulations set forth in this chapter.
It is important to note that the city will soon be adopting revisions to the Shoreline Master Program
that modify the existing nonconforming development language to eliminate the language currently
contained in FV�RC 15.05.150(2). The elimination of this language provides some relief in terms of
the amount of investment that can be made to the beach cabin with regard to the nonconforming
development condition. However, there will be no effect on the nonconforming density condition
outlined in Section 1 above, and that nonconformity must be corrected if the second dwelling unit is
to be improved to correct its deteriorated condition and maintained for use as a second dwelling unit.
The proposed activity would be eligible for an exemption from the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit. The applicant must request an exemption and approval of the exemption is
required prior to approving any related building permits.
3) Geotechnical Report Required
According to the city's critical areas map, the subject property is located in a geologically hazardous
area (GHA), more specifically, an erosion hazard area and steep slope hazard area. GHAs are areas
within the community that, because of the susceptibility to erosion, landslides, seismic, or other
geological events, are not suited for development or other activities.
Pursuant to FWRC 19.160.0 10 (enclosed), please submit a geotechnical soils report prepared by a
certified Washington State professional engineer that identifies whether the site qualifies as a
geologically hazardous area.
File #1 1-103437-00-AD Doc I D 58879
Mr. Robert T. Christensen
Page 3
September 19, 2011
Pursuant to FWRC 19.160.10(2), "...the director of community development may permit
development activities, land surface modifications, or the installation and maintenance of landscaping
norinally associated with residential, commercial, or park use on or within 25 feet of a geologically
hazardous area if no reasonable alternative exists and only if the development activity or land surface
modification will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic, or erosion hazard." Please
demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with FWRC 19.160.10(2) in your response.
If it is determined that any construction activity falls on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous
area, the following 'information is required:
(a) A soils report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the state, which
describes how the proposed development will impact each of the following on the subject
property and nearby properties:
(i) Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing.
(ii) Seismic hazards.
(ill) Groundwater.
(iv) Seeps, springs and other surface waters.
(v) Existing vegetation.
(b) Recommended foundation design and optimal location for roadway improvements.
(c) Recommended methods for mitigating identified impacts and a description of how these
mitigating measures may impact adjacent properties.
(d) Any other information the city deten-nines is reasonably necessary to evaluate the
proposal.
4) Preappfication Conference
Generally, proposals that trigger SEPA review require a preapplication conference. However, the
applicant may request a waiver to undergo a preapplication conference, and in this case, the city
would likely support a waiver. You may submit a written request to Planning Manager Isaac Conlen
for a preapplication waiver based on one or more of the following criteria:.
1. The simple nature of the proposal;
2. The project would be severely impacted by the preapplication process due to time or
financial constraints outside the control of the applicant;
3. The site has previously undergone preapplication, site plan, or other land use review
for the same or similar development proposal and it is unlikely further preapplication
review will provide any benefit to the city or applicant; and/or
4. The director determines preapplication review is not in the best interest of the city or
the applicant.
File #1 1-103437-00-AD Doc- I D- 58879
Mr. Robert T. Christensen
Page 4
September 19,2011
I hope the information contained in this letter is helpful to you. If you have any questions about the
content of this letter please contact meat 253-835-2644 or janet.shuIlLticit-voffedeTalwu.co -
Sincerely,
Cynet, B. Shull, AICP CSBA, LEED Green Associate
_ � �_�hul
Senior Planner
Enc: Bulletins 048 & 049, Accessory Dwelling Unit Information and Application
FWR-C 19.160.010
c: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen
File
File#] I- 103437-00-AD Doc I D 58879
Janet Shull
From:
rtchristen@comcast.net
Sent:
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:52 PM
To:
Janet Shull
Subject:
Fwd: Beach House Repair
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Janet, any thoughts on the below email?
M
From: rtchristen@comcast.net
To: "Janet Shull" <Janet. Shull@cityoffederalway.com>
Cc: "ervinwicklund" <ervinwicklund@comcast. net>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:47:21 PM
Subject: Beach House Repair
Janet, I spoke with Ery Wicklund, our contractor, regarding your meeting this week regarding the
repair work we are proposing to our Beach Cabin. Ery mentioned you were interested in
understanding our intentions for the property and general scope of the project.
As you may recall during discussions several years ago during the remodel of our main residence
that the property, and the two homes on the property, have been owned by my family since the early
1920's. The beach cabin was built by my grandfather and main residence was built by my father in
the late 1950's. While the property and homes mean much to us from a historical perspective,
essentially no major repair or upgrading ' work has been made to these structures for many years and
thus they had fallen into a state of disrepair. While we are very pleased with our remodeled main
residence we now need to address the long term physical condition and disrepair of our smaller
beach cabin.
Our goal is to continue to maintain this unique waterfront residence and allow for its use year round.
Currently, given the condition of the home, we cannot use the property during the winter months.
When repaired and updated we believe our grown children or other family might be in a position to
live on the property. Alternatively, we could rent out the home to thoughtful renters.
From a scope perspective, after discussion with Ery we believe the home can be repaired, although
the extent of the repairs are fairly significant. The scope of the project does not contemplate any
expansion of the home, adding of space, increasing of height or expanding beyond the existing
footprint of the home. The most significant repairs include; extensive foundational repair and
replacement work; removal and replacement of rotten support structures; re -roof and repair of roof
leaks; energy efficiency work including new windows, doors, and insulation; and replacement of major
mechanical systems (plumbing, heating and electrical). Other work will include replacement of aged
kitchen and bathroom cabinets and lighting and plumbing fixtures.
This project scope considers your thoughts of several years ago which limited the extent of any
significant "improvements" due to the relatively low value of the existing structure. While I am not
aware of any changes to land use regulations, waterfront restrictions or proposed changes in said
rules, we view our proposed work as major repair work that extends the life of the structure, allows for
the property to be used within its original and intended design and helps preserve the overall
economic value of our property.
I would appreciate getting your thoughts or concerns about our project in addition to thoughts as to
next steps.
If you would like to discuss further let me know. I hope to hear for you and the City soon regarding our
project
Sincerely,
Bob Christensen
(253) 405-7388