Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-102398
, . p), 1. %� ��— • City°,Federal Way 0ding - Single Family Permit #:04 - 102398 - 00 - SF Community Development Services 33530 1st Way S Federal Way,WA 98003-6210 Ph:253.661.4000 Fax:253.661.4129 Inspection request line: 253.835.3050 Project Name: BONIFACE Project Address: 3136 SW 302ND PL Parcel Number:012103 9083 Project Description: REPAIR-Repair existing third level deck in like size&configuration and replacing stairs&landing that access beach. Owner Applicant Contractor Lender Christopher D Boniface ECCO DESIGN,INC*TROY HUSSII NONE Christopher D Boniface 3136 SW 302ND PL ECCO DESIGN,INC 3136 SW 302ND PL FEDERAL WAY WA 5355 28TH DR NW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023-2342 SEATTLE WA 98107 98023-2342 Includes: Census category: 434-Reside #1 I #2 #3 #4 Occupancy Group: R-3 I Construction Type: Type V-NIR IROccupancy Load: Floor Area(Sq.Ft.): I H Census Category 434-Residential alt/add-no. Mechanical No Occupancy Group#1 R-3 Plumbing No Zoning Designation RS 7.2 PERMIT EXPIRES February 27,2005. Permit issued on August 31,2004 I hereby certify that the above information is correct and that the construction on the above described property and the occupancy and the use will be in accordance with the laws,rules and regulations of the State of Washington and the City of Federal Way. Owner or agent: Date: Nc. - ' 1 ) 2cx.a { • THIS CARD IS TAZEMAIN ON-SITE CITY OF -=--r` Community Developer ent Inspection 1\ecord Federal Way IVR INSPECTION REQUEST PHONE # (253) 835-3050 PERMIT #: 04-102398-00-SF Owner: CHRISTOPHER D BONIFACE Address: 3136 SW 302ND PL FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-2342 This card is part of your required inspection documents. Scheduled inspections may be failed if this card is not on-site. DO NOT LOSE THIS CARD. Inspections are listed as close to sequential order as possible(read left to right,top to bottom). Please schedule inspections as appropriate. Work must not be covered until it is approved. Check with your inspector if you are unsure about any of the inspections or the inspection sequence. On-going inspections are logged on the back of this card. 0 Temp.Erosion Control(4365) 0 Plumbing Groundwork(4190) 0 Underfloor Framing (4285) To be done prior to breaking ground Approved to cover Approved to sheath floor By Date By Date By Date • ❑ Floor Sheathing(4105) ❑ Shear Walls (4245) 0 Roof Sheathing(4220) Approved to install flooring Approved to install siding Approved to install roofing By Date By Date By Date • O Fire/Draft Stops(4095) NOTE: Prior to scheduling a Framing(4120) 0 Framing(4120) Approved inspection;Electrical,Plumbing&Mechanical Approved to insulate Rough-in and Fire/Draft Stop inspections must be By Date signed-off and approved. IBC 109.3.4/UBC 108.5.4 By Date ❑ Insulation (4150) 0 Gypsum Wallboard Nailing(4130) 0 Final- SWM(4375) Approved to install wallboard Approved to install mud&tape Approved By Date By Date By Date • ❑ Final-Building(4050) ['Temp. Erosion Maintenance(4370) Approved Approved By Date By Date • s Gize ive CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION i0-0 APPLICATION NUMBER: aq- Q 3�g"_ JUN 1 7 2004 APPLICATION NUMBER: CITY OF FEDERAL Ww APPLICATION NUMBER: **The tEotrowing is required information—Please print(in ink)or type** Please note: Electrical,Fire Prevention Systems and Engineerin \��A g permits may require a separate application. ■ PROPERTY INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: ?)1. (p 3t ) '7)0214C) Ch_Pa .. ASSESSOR'S TAX/PARCEL#: D 1 2 1 5 - 9. 0 27 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY(ATTACH SEPARATE DESCRIPTION IF LENGTHY): ?Lk AcL I0 • PROJECT INFORMATION TYPE OF PROJECT(This application): XBUILDING o PLUMBING ❑ MECHANICAL o DEMOLITION ❑ ELECTRICAL ❑ ENGINEERING ❑ FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION(Provide detailed description): ,-9PitQ, r- {f�l�lo - tea) 1.4.Niek p2, 1N' l qv.- 5 vi-t,4 eDiaft�QP�Tlt) L bee i.t c 1 al Z x tPr z.t 1.t LA( fin-�}1�,Jt� ;12*a pk * i Ato, eats, WI Nunn.46t_ 4g . Aiso &15'nul, 6-rty 4t c r)1 , Iscr.* , C2afsNe,A U.) L_ I/ tilt 4 coo VAG, _1 113,4 PROJECT NAME: �,,,1b tOP_r Q R#.Qt • PEOPLE INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: DAYTIME PHONE: rarer CW2a43 133OE1tfA4! (Z5,)924 - 2o�g MAILING ADDRESS(STREET ADDRESS;CITY,STATE,ZIP): 1 .41, L� d ,� Pt.n Wit•N. U) . F7003 CONTRACTOR: NAME: DAYTIME PHONE: C5q ) - MAILING ADDRESS(STREET ADDRESS;CITY,STATE,ZIP): EVENING PHONE: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION NUMBER: ( ) EXPIRATION DATE: (copy of card required) / / APPLICANT: NAME: DAYTIME PHONE: Us13, • ( oD1t MAILINGADDRESS - (STREET ADDRESS;CITY,STATE,ZIP); EVENING PHONE: 35 Z31 t) , t tLO - tCo rae- lrle_ gcad} ( ) - RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT: FAX NUMBER: ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ TENANT ❑ OTHER(DESCRIBE):V(ij71(vt..,LG,Q ( ZQo) 7c)co -5Z f E-MAIL ADDRESS: ��tP CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS PROJECT: o PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT ❑ CONTRACTOR }k0 ,,.5� aioL.cotih • DETAILED BUILDING INFORMATION EXISTING USE: CAICIk;att Q,ecsd. EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSED/APPRAISED VALUATION $ PROPOSED USE: .4t t �39 C. PROPOSED VALUATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS: $ SPRINKLERED BUILDING? o YES XNO FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM PROPOSED/REQUIRED: ❑ YES ':!,iCNO WATER SERVICE PROVIDER: LAKEHAVEN ❑ HIGHLINE o TACOMA o PRIVATE(WELL) SEWER SERVICE PROVIDER: ?(LAKEHAVEN ❑ HIGHLINE o PRIVATE(SEPTIC) • , , 1_, • e NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: N.)t ESTIMATED SELLING PRICE: $ • PROJECT FLOOR AREAS FLOOR EXISTING SQ.FT. PROPOSED SQ.FT. TOTAL BASEMENT N) q - FIRST NIA SECOND MIN --- THIRD NIA FOURTH Nt n s— OTHER FLOORS(DESCRIBE) I S DECK 3e1 licit 6NbaL 3'1 Yu:We 451340,5 (83) Lao) CZy?i Ci2ti) MoC Oka( 2l,'5) GARAGE HOW MANY FLOORS? N I TOTAL: Z 1 j 2,1 Mw.v.L • FIXTURES `�""�G Indicate number of each type of fixture MECHANICAL IA j N AIR HANDLING EVAPORATIVE GAS LOG(S) REFRIG.SYSTEM(S) UNIT(S) COOLER(S) BBQ(S) FAN(S) HOOD(S) WOODSTOVE(S) BOILER(S) FIREPLACE INSERT(S) RANGE(S) MISC.( ) COMPRESSOR(S) FURNACE(S) DUCT(S) GAS PIPE OUTLET(S) HEAT SOURCE: o ELECTRIC o GAS PLUMBING N I p1 BATHTUB(S) LAVATORY(S) URINAL(S) WATER HEATER(S) DISHWASHER(S) RAIN WATER VACUUM BREAKER(S) o ELECTRIC o GAS SYS. DRINKING SHOWERS) WASH MACHINE FOUNTAIN(S) OUTLET GAS PIPE OUTLET(S) SINK(S) WATER CLOSET(S) MISC.( ) INTERCEPTOR(S) SUMP(S) • DISCLAIMER/SIGNATURE BLOCK I certify under penalty of perjury that the information furnished by me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,and further,that I am authorized by the owner of the above premises to perform the work for which the permit application is made. I further agree to hold harmless the City of Federal Way as to any daim(induding costs,expenses,and attorneys'fees incurred in the investigation and defense of such daim),which may be made by any person,including the undersigned,and filed against the City of Federal Way,but only where such claim arises out of the reliance of the city,induding its officers and employees,upon the accuracy of the information supplied to the city a part of this application. NAME TITLE: -�'�I. NAME/TITLE: :L�/,ze. Q r 1 �_ _ DATE: Col 1q104 o PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT o CONTRACTOR FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: o NEW o ADDITION o ALTERATION 0 REPAIR 0 TENANT IMPROVEMENT CENSUS CODE: LOT SIZE: ZONING DESIGNATION : BUILDING SHELL ONLY? o YES o NO COMP PLAN DESIGNATION BASIC PLAN? o YES o NO SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE NEW ADDRESS REQUIRED? o YES 0 NO PLATTED LOT? o YES ❑ NO CHANGE OF USE? 0 YES ❑ NO • • • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES•33530 FIRST WAY SOUTH•PO BOX 9718•FEDERAL WAY,WA 98063-9718•253-661-4000•FAX:253-661-4129 www.citvoffed era lw ay.co m Construction Permit Fee Calculation Sheet *******PLEASE NOTE: ALL FEES MUST BE VERIFIED BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PAYMENT. CHECKS FOR INCORRECT AMOUNTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED!******* Building, mechanical, and fire prevention system fees are based on the following schedule. TABLE A TOTAL VALUATION FEE FACTOR (1)$1.00 to$500.00 (1)$26.00 (2)$501.00 to$2,000.00 (2)$26.00 for the first$500.00 plus$3.50 for each additional$100.00 or fraction thereof,to and including $2,000.00 (3)$2,001.00 to$25,000.00 (3)$78.50 for the first$2,000.00 plus$15.50 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$25,000.00 (4)$25,001.00 to$50,000.00 (4)$435.00 for the first$25,000.00 plus$11.00 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$50,000.00. (5)$50,001.00 to$100,000.00 (5)$710.00 for the first$50,000.00 plus$8.00 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$100,000.00. (6)$100,001.00 to$500,000.00 (6)$1,110.00 for the first$100,000.00 plus$6.00 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$500,000.00 (7)$500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 (7)$3,510.00 for the fist$500,000.00 plus$5.50 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$1,000,000.00. (8)$1,000,001.00 and up (8)$6,260.00 for the first$1,000,000.00 plus$4.00 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof. Bold number is the base fee for the specified increment Italicized,underlined number is the fee der additional specified increment PLUS: Add 65 percent of the base building permit fee for plan review fee. Add 25 percent of the base mechanical permit fee for mechanical plan review fee. Add 15 percent of the base building permit fee for Fire District#39 surcharge,commercial only. Add$4.50 for WA State Building Code Council,plus$2.00 per unit for duplex&above. **Electrical,plumbing,and mechanical fees are calculated separately** • BUILDING PROPOSED VALUATION: FEE FACTOR FROM TABLE A: Number: (3) (a)Base Fee: 1/4i-4 (b)Additional Increment Fee: crJ•OD Estimated Permit Fee: (1) 'P Il-1 .55t Estimated Plan Review Fee: (2) 1 • DC) Estimated FW Fire Department Surcharge: (3) (COMMERCIAL ONLY) • MECHANICAL PROPOSED VALUATION: FEE FACTOR FROM TABLE A: Number: (a)Base Fee: (b)Additional Increment Fee: Estimated Permit Fee: (4) Estimated Plan Review Fee: (5) ■ FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEM PROPOSED VALUATION: FEE FACTOR FROM TABLE A: Number: (a) Base Fee: (b)Additional Increment Fee: Estimated Permit Fee: (6) A PROJECT FLOOR AREAS AREA DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL _ SQ. FT. SQ.FT. SQ. FT. BM-S14+ i 2-ST l,v.lw IG 35 2 64 344 b-wot.... 1735+ 1 Ld°59 SECOND THIRD TiQ2 1 65 FOURTH ADDITIONAL FLOORS(DESCRIBE) • DECK(COVERED?) GARAGE ❑ CARPORT❑ EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL O'[AL EXIST P\ RPO$�Q /. g NUMBER OF FLOORS (//f—_j J (°i: )= /J\ "NEW HOMES ONLY** NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ESTIMATED SELLING PRICE $ • FIXTURES: Indicate number of each type of fixture to be installed or relocated as part of this project. Do not include existing fixtures to remain. MECHANICAL Value of Mechanical Work $ AIR HANDLING UNITS EVAPORATIVE COOLERS GAS LOGS REFRIG.SYSTEMS BBQS FANS HOODS(commercial) WOODSTOVES BOILERS FIREPLACE INSERTS RANGES MISC(Describe) COMPRESSORS FURNACES GAS WATER HEATERS DUCTS GAS PIPE OUTLETS PLUMBING BATHTUBS(or Tub/Shower Combo) SHOWERS WATER CLOSETS(Toilet) MISC(Describe) DISHWASHERS SINKS DRINKING FOUNTAINS GAS PIPE OUTLETS SUMPS RAINWATER SYST WASHING MACHINES URINALS HOSE BIBBS LAVS(Bathroom Si„ks) VACUUM BREAKERS ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS DISCLAIMER/SIGNATURE BLOCK I certify under penalty of perjury that the information furnished by me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and further, that I am authorized by the owner of the above premises to perform the work for which the permit application is made. I further agree to hold harmless the City of Federal Way as to any claim(including costs, expenses, and attorneys'fees incurred in the investigation and defense of such claim), which may be made by any person,including the undersigned,and filed against the City of Federal Way,but only where such claim arises out of the reliance of the city, including its officers and employees, upon the accuracy of the information supplied to the city as a part of this application. NAME/TITLE DATE (Signature) (Title) RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT ❑ Owner o Agent 0 Contractor ❑ Architect ❑ Other FOR OFFICE USE ONLY o NEW ❑ADDITION ❑ALTERATION 0 REPAIR ❑ 3TEfiANT IMPROVEION BUILDING SHELL ONLY? ❑YES o NO BASIC PLAN? ❑YES o NO ZONING DESIGNATION CHANGE OF USE a YES 0N NEW ADDRESS REQUIRED? o YES a NO UP/SEPA/SU? a YES ❑NO PLATTED LOT? ❑YES ❑NO DEMO PERMIT REQUIRED? ❑YES 0 NO Bulletin#100—January 7,2005 Page 2 of 4 k\Handouts\Permit Application • e c co January 26,2005 4 10x398 - c Architecture FEB�oA'3 2005 DI\REvis 'v Scott Sproul,City of Federal Way Building Inspector 33325 8th Ave. South Federal Way,WA. 98063-9718 RE: Building Permit File#04 102 398 Boniface-UBC/Shoreline Issue; 3136 SW 302nd Place,Federal Way Dear Mr. Sproul, Thank you for speaking with me last week. Per our conversation I am submitting the paperwork for the additional work to occur at the above reference property. We submitted the previous work for the rebuild of the stairs for the beach access below and for the rebuild of the upper level(third)deck. Since submitting for the building peiniit,we have received land use approval for the existing work at grade and the existing first level deck. The agreed upon approval is reflected in the attached drawings. We are currently working with the City of Federal Way Land Use Department on what will occur for the second level deck structure. As we discussed,the structural engineering firm of MC Squared did a site visit and reviewed the existing unpermitted structure. I have provided as-builts of the existing structure and I have attached the structural calculation¬es of the structural engineer. The existing structure was built and meets current code with the addition of a few items as spelled out on the enclosed drawings. I have indicated the additional work to be done(beyond the existing structure)by underlining the specific text box notes. You will note that the structural engineer reviewed the structure in terms of the"proposed second floor deck"remaining. We did this so that if it is determined that the second floor deck can remain it will have been taken into account in terms of gravity and lateral analysis. If it is determined that the second floor deck needs to be removed it will not affect the structural analysis of the existing at grade and first floor structures. The one revision to the original permit that we would like to make is the railing structure. The railing will remain similar to the original building permit proposal in that it is an aluminum and glass structure however the owner has found a manufacturer and style that he would like to use. I have attached(2)8'A" x 11" specification sheets from the railing firm of Brace Point Railings. The design is their"Kool"glass railing and it incorporates a S.S.cable. The owner would like to use this on his first,second(if approved by Land Use)&third floor decks. The railing for the stairs down to the beach is to remain as shown on the original building permit. I have tried to include all the information that might expedite your decision. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at 206.706.3937. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply. Thank you v / roy ' ssing U ecco design, inc. 5355 28`h Ave NW Suite 100 Seattle WA 98107 206 706 3937 FX 206 706 5276 1526177.3 F . ►VEiE O Z004 Associated Earth Sciences , Inc . O. FEDERAL WAS eUILpING DEPT. April 23, 2004 Project No. KE03538A Mr. Chris Boniface 3136 SW 302nd Place Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Deck Stability Assessment 3136 SW 302' Place Federal Way, Washington Dear Mr. Bortiface: As requested, an engineer from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) made a visit to the subject residence on August 27, 2003. The purpose of our visit was to observe site improvements made without a City permit, with respect to the effect on the stability of the adjacent steep, beach bluff slope, in accordance with FWCC Section 22-1286, "Geologically Hazardous Area Development," and the applicable project permit review criteria identified by the City of Federal Way Building Department in their July 15, 2003 correction letter. As discussed in this letter, "The required geotechnical report must address the impacts or the work that has been done as well as any measures that may be required to mitigate the effects of the unauthorized work." Observations • The subject residence is located above the beach of Puget Sound, within the Dumas Bay/Lakota vicinity of Federal Way, Washington. The residence consists of a multilevel structure, which was constructed in 1970. The residence has been sited on the crest of a low, beach bluff slope. Current improvement work made without a City permit consists of deck enlargements, and construction of a concrete patio slab and pier foundations. The northwest side of the residence faces out towards the beach, and contains three attached deck levels. The first level deck (lower level) originally covered a 9'3" x 23'3" area and has been replaced by a 13'91/2" x 22'11" deck. The second level deck originally covered a 6'0" x 14'41/2" area and has been replaced by a 15'9" x 20'93/4" deck. The third level deck has not been expanded. ------------- r S Below the first level deck, an open patio area has been has been paved with a concrete slab-on- grade floor, and framed-in to form an enclosure. Two drilled pier foundations were excavated to a depth of approximately 3 feet below the base of the adjacent house foundation. Additionally, the stairway landing adjacent to the enclosure has been paved with a concrete slab. The slab extends approximately 6 feet outward from the enclosure, over an adjacent gabion rock basket wall. The slab is approximately 4 inches thick. Below the patio slab, the bluff slope has been retained by previous construction of two gabion rock basket walls. The upper wall consists of three stacked baskets with a vertical relief of approximately 9 feet. The upper basket supports the above-mentioned patio slab. At the base of the lower basket, the ground surface extends horizontally outward 5 to 6 feet to the top of a lower gabion wall. The lower gabion wall consists of four stacked baskets with a vertical relief of approximately 12 feet. The ground surface at the base of this wall extends horizontally outward approximately 3 feet to a concrete bulkhead wall. The bulkhead wall is approximately 4.5 feet high and is armored with large rocks at the beach line. The baskets within both the upper and lower gabion walls are stepped back at each basket. Anecdotal information indicates that the gabions were installed by the previous owner, and have been in place for about 12 to 15 years. No signs of slope movement or erosion, or signs of past landsliding were noted. Thus, it appears that the gabion walls are adequately retaining the bluff slope. The slope surfaces to the north and south of the gabion walls are heavily vegetated and site soils appear well drained. The concrete bulkhead wall also appears to be providing good wave scour protection to the base of the bluff slope. Access between the first level deck and the patio area, and the patio area and the beach has been provided by wooden staircases. The lower staircase has been supported on wooden posts embedded in the ground above the bulkhead wall. This staircase (lower) is currently being rebuilt and is semi-detached from its foundation. To determine the general consistency of site soils, a hand auger hole was completed on the • slope adjacent to the north side of the residence. The hand auger hole was advanced to a depth of approximately 3 feet below the slope surface. The soil conditions encountered within the hole consisted of loose, dry to damp, brown, fine sand with silt. The sand became medium dense below a depth of 2 feet. Similar sandy soils were observed near the exterior of the enclosure slab, and on the slope adjacent to the gabion walls. Review of the area geologic map entitled Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay Quadrangle, Washington by Howard H. Waldron, 1962, indicates that site soils consist of glaciolacustrine deposits of chiefly sand. "Light-brown, fine to medium sand that underlies a terrace along Puget Sound at Lakota is believed to be of glaciolacustrine origin. It was deposited by streams from the upland that drained into a lake formed by ice that lay in the Puget Sound trough and dammed the valley. The sand is probably not more than 25 feet thick, but it extends as a mantle on Vashon drift up to an altitude of at least 100 feet." This information agrees generally with our site observations. 2 • • The State of Washington Depaituient of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, 1979, _shows the site bluff slope as mapped with a stable designation, and the beach area appears to be located in a sediment accretion zone. I -Discussions and Conclusions As described above, the existing bluff slope shows no indication of current or previous slope instability. The area geologic map and Costal Zone Atlas of Washington map indicate that the general site vicinity is not located within a known landslide area. The beach area is accreting rather than eroding, which should promote long-term stable slope conditions. The residence has been in place since the 1970's and is not known to have experienced unstable slope conditions. The gabion walls have been in place for approximately 15 years, and appear to be functioning well. Based on these site conditions, it appears that the site slopes have been stable, and are unlikely to become unstable unless site conditions change significantly. Typically, to destabilize a slope with these conditions would require significant changes in site drainage, loads applied to the slope, and/or dversteepening of the slope. Slope instability would occur if these changes could induce driving forces within the slope soils exceeding the soils in situ strength characteristics. The deck enlargements, and the patio slab and foundation pier construction have not significantly changed the slope drainage, loading, or grading. Therefore, it is AESI's opinion that site conditions do not warrant completion of further geotechnical investigation. The slope soils should provide continued adequate deck and foundation support. Further, due to the limited thickness of the patio concrete slab, and granular nature of the underlying soils, the small surcharge imposed by the slab should not significantly affect the stability of the gabion wall. Final construction of the decks and the new staircase may be completed without destabilizing the slope and gabion walls provided the following recommendations are implemented: • All deck surface runoff should be tightlined to the base of the slope using a continuous (non-segmented) drainpipe. No surface runoff should be allowed to flow uncontrolled over site Slopes. • The staircase footings may consist of slab-on-grade or precast block footings, or timber posts buried a minimum depth of 12 inches and bearing on firm and unyielding soil. • All footings and post supports should not be within 2 feet of the outside (beach side) edge of the gabion baskets or bulkhead wall. A 4 3 0 • Closure • - This letter has been prepared for Mr. Chris Boniface, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We trust that this letter will meet your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington ( f 1. 11' q{t3/2oo4 �p 'PE 33222 . 5;0w C f sTER SSIONAL ti�� nir / [EXPIRES 2/27/Lo%S 1 ,/ --,) !! Jon4. Sonder_:ard, P.G. P.E.G. G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G. As:•ciate Geo egist Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72°d Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Andrea Gates GA Mild KE03538A2 Projects\2003538\KE\WP-W2K A 4 4 01/31/2005 10: 19 120E7E75374 BRACE POINT RAILINGS PAGE 02 /0S opo I �'- rrn W �i , `.r'�` a_ 4- W I V W O 8 0) U) ,...... CJ! -t} W 0 ' >03 1 roe.k.,_u,_____t.f._ V tv. Q L:16:: . * tQz c) V X 0 -4 turn �CO 7 � s s � (�f) � r ; 1 rri V) 01. n 33 Iu. /-----, 7 L v) (n ( C T rlrl 0 min C!) rnel co iN) o .� - Co -V L j) ----4 a s • • Ny CD rl C) z * o 0 cn u) o r !r > • moo = CO _< u) •O X C rz z . Kmz U) --I � � o ' r1 Z IN zzfT v' v) app -DV) /� fI Q rnPo O r c_ C7 z rr O --.ars v Q Y, r 1I 11 i C) I I liii N \ , O O - n ?? r I co t - > -� Z1 _� cfl,„ D = v n \ c..,18 rr1 = N O 0 2 LOO C mZ c� -P CZ Q O O -7-1 4 X O 0 Z C co O CD m < < —4 � c v -i K -p --..I c.4. 0 i) t; o Z c m � M 1 —i C m z 7K E© ard S)NI1Idd INIOd IVVdS DLESL9L90:i ET :0T SCU: TE%Tc. • • RECEIVED BY Chris Boniface COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3136 SW 302nd Place SEP 1 1 2006 Federal Way Washington 98023 September 08, 2006 Kari Cimmer Lead Development Specialist Amy Jo Pearsall Assistant City Attorney Martin Nordby, CCEO Code Compliance Officer City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: Boniface Voluntary Correction Agreement Dear Mr. Nordby Thank you very much for your telephone conversations and correspondence to my Attorney, Al Wallace in relation to the forthcoming Notice of Violation to my residence at 3136 SW 302nd Place(July 31, 2006 letter from MK Martin). The purpose of this letter is to: (1) Review the background that has led up to this point as I believe a number of City Planners associated with this file have left City of Federal Way employment (2) Formally submit a Voluntary Compliance Action; and (3) Request any further guidance that you can give me as to how the City of Federal Way interprets the relevant sections once you review my Attorney's submission in regards to Code language and prior interpretations. At your suggestion, I have copied Kari Cimmer, Lead Development Specialist, and Amy Jo Pearsall, Assistant City Attorney. A couple of points before I begin: (a) My residence is unique in that it is extremely narrow at only 15' and is situated on a corresponding long and narrow lot—Approximately 12' wide at the road, finishing up at • • 25' wide at water edge(lot is 300'long). The house is positioned in about the only place that meets side yard setback clearance, built into a relatively steep bank overlooking the shoreline, and is split almost in half by the stringline setback regulation. A long driveway makes up access from 302' Place to the back of the house. There is basically no external living or recreation space. (b) I believe that I already am in agreement with the City of Federal Way as to all the remediation steps that must be taken to bring this residence in compliance with the City of Federal Way Building Code, except for the amount that must be removed from the waterward extension of Deck#2. This is discussed in the Voluntary Compliance Action. I am very willing to bring all the issues into compliance expeditiously(within 30 days) upon the issuance of a building permit including cutting Deck#2 back to the waterward extension of Deck#1. However, I do plan to go through the due process of appeal should you disagree that Deck#2 is in compliance at the same waterward extension as Deck#1 (c) As such, I have instructed my Attorney to pursue all appeal remedies at his disposal in regards to the waterward extension of Deck#2, should you not accept my offer of a Voluntary Correction Agreement. As described in(a) above, the unique features of the home and property(I would describe them as a"hardship")prevent me from having any useable outdoor yard. Deck 2 affords access to the outdoors and shoreline views from the living room, kitchen and dining areas. The prior configuration of Deck 2 simply was not of sufficient depth to be usable for my residents and guests to enjoy the outdoors and shoreline environment. The narrow shape of his lot and its steep slope mean that Deck 2 is critically important to providing usable outdoor space on this constrained lot. (1)Background As way of background, I took up residence in the US in 2000, and purchased the residence in April 2001. As a result of the pre-sale building inspection, I knew that the decks and stairs needed replacement due to fairly severe deterioration. I commenced work in April of 2003 without a building permit. While it is no defense,my reasoning was that if I kept the deck replacement and modifications to the same physical space as what existed in the Deck#1 structure, I would not be in any violation of Federal Way codes. Subsequently, a stop work order was issued by you in mid-June of 2003, and I retained Al Wallace of Williams, Kastner and Gibbs as counsel, and Troy Hussing of Ecco Design as architect to assist me in meeting Federal Way Building Code regulations. Without going through the whole timeline, as there have been numerous correspondence and meetings, I believe that reasonable progress and agreements has been made in resolving all outstanding issues, except for the amount that Deck#2 must be cut back to meet Federal Way regulations (waterward extension). I have complied with City of Federal Way requests for: • Legal surveys • Geo-technical reviews • Structural reviews And building permit#04-102398-00-SF was issued on August 31, 2004 for the continuation of the remodel project that included the replacement of stairs to the beach i • and Deck#3. During this period, ongoing discussions were held with City of Federal Way officials on compliance issues for Deck#1 and Deck#2. An amendment to the original building permit was applied for on February 3, 2005 to include Deck#1 as well as a change in the type of handrails for Deck#3. Our belief is that all code violation issues on Deck#1 were resolved when Jeff Johnson, Development Specialist issued a letter dated May 05, 2005 , stating that"work on first floor deck as depicted on plan A-5 and A-9 is in compliance with City Building Codes."Mr. Johnson went on to say"your current application is on hold, and no building permit will be issued until the second floor deck violation is addressed." After we received this letter, my architect, Troy Hussing, verbally contacted Greg Fewins and asked if the City would consider an exception due to safety concerns of no handrails on either Deck#1 or#3 —as these were addressed in the building permit amendment. Mr. Fewins indicated that they would listen to our concerns via letter,but in a response dated June 14, 2005 Jeff Johnson stated "I cannot proceed with my land-use review until you have addressed remediation of all unauthorized expansion such as the second-floor deck. Your current application is on hold, and no building permit will be issued until the second-floor deck violation is addressed" In regards to the Deck#2, I have no documentation from the City of Federal Way as to their concurrence to our side yard setback proposal,but we believe it should be acceptable in that it meets the 5' property line setback. The only outstanding land use review issue that we are aware of for Deck#2, is the amount that the Deck must be cut back to meet Federal Way regulations. Our contention is that City regulations require it be cut back to meet the pre-existing waterward extension of Deck#1, which marks the extent of my residential structure's nonconformance with the stringline setback. Mr. Wallace will review his interpretation of the Federal Way regulations and how they apply to this situation as well as prior City interpretations in his briefing. Specific remediation measures for Deck#1 and Deck#2 will be covered in the following section—Voluntary Compliance Agreement. (2) Voluntary Compliance Agreement The VCA proposes to complete the work on Deck#1 as depicted in the amended building permit and agreed to by Jeff Johnson in the May 05, 2002 letter as well as bring Deck 2's into compliance by(1)removing all expansion into side yard setbacks, and (2)by removing all expansion beyond the pre-existing extent of nonconformance established by the lower Deck 1. Attached plan sheet A7 depicts the Deck 2's reduction in the dark cross-hatched area, which I highlight in yellow. The remaining area of Deck 2 falls within the pre-existing extent of Deck 1. Plan sheet A9 aptly depicts this point by presenting elevations of the decks, illustrating their pre-existing, existing, and as proposed configuration achieved by implementation of the VCA. Again,please note the dark cross-hatching that depicts the area of Decks 1 and 2 that will be removed pursuant to the VCA. (3) Further Guidance As I believe that the only area of contention is in regards to the extent to which Deck#2 can extend waterward, I have asked Al Wallace to explain why we feel we are in total compliance with the Federal Way shoreline regulations. I am not trying to argue an abstract principle or obscure point of law,but merely applying the regulations as they are • written to my particular situation. Any further guidance you can give us in this regard would be welcomed. I respectfully request your approval of my VCA for repair and remodeling of my shoreline residence. I believe that your approval will fully comply with applicable shoreline regulations and the prior code interpretation made by Senior Planner Jim Harris. Practically speaking, your approval is very important to the functioning and usability of my residence. In closing, I earnestly hope you will approve my VCA, which will avoid the necessity of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner and possible LUPA action in Superior Court. Please contact me, my Attorney, Al Wallace or Architect, Troy Hussing should you require any further information concerning this important matter. Very truly yours, Chris Boniface Enclosures: 1. Voluntary Correction Agreement 2. Building Permit application plan set Y 4 0 Alan L. Wallace Attorney at Law (206) 628-677/ Williams,Kastner&Gibbs PLIC awallace@wkg.com A NORTHWEST LAW FIRM September 7, 2006 17326.0101 Kari Cimmer Lead Development Specialist Amy Jo Pearsall Assistant City Attorney ' • Martin Nordby, CCEO 1 1 X0 ' 6 Code Compliance Officer • +! `L... SEP _. 3 City of Federal Way 1 P.O. Box 9718 -- -- Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: Boniface Voluntary Correction Agreement Dear Ms. Cimmer, Ms. Pearsall and Mr. Nordby: I write to explain how Mr. Boniface's Voluntary Correction Agreement("VCA,"copy attached) will bring his residence into regulatory compliance. By way of background, the City of Federal Way previously approved two building permits for correction of Mr. Boniface's repair and remodeling of decks. Permit 1 authorized repair and remodeling of Deck 3, and a stairway from the residence to shoreline. This work has been completed. Permit 2 authorized correction of Deck 1 to conform to its pre-existing size and degree of nonconformance. However, unlike Permit 1, Permit 2, an application undertaken at the City's direction, was determined not be released until a resolution was made of Deck 2's code compliance. The VCA proposes to accomplish Deck 2's compliance by (1) removing all expansion into side yard setbacks, and (2) by removing all expansion beyond the pre-existing extent of nonconformance established by the lower Deck 1. Attached plan sheet A7 depicts the Deck 2's reduction in the dark cross-hatched area, which I highlight in yellow. The remaining area of Deck 2 falls within the pre-existing extent of Deck 1. Plan sheet A9 aptly depicts this point by presenting elevations of the decks, illustrating their pre-existing, existing, and as proposed configuration achieved by implementation of the VCA. Again, please note the dark cross-hatching that depicts the area of Decks 1 and 2 that will be removed pursuant to the VCA. 601 Union Street,Suite 4100 I Seattle,WA 98101-2380 I tel 206.628.6600 ( fax 206.628.6611 I www.wkg.com 1896486.4 SEATTLE I TACOMA I PORTLAND • r Martin Nordby September 7, 2006 Page 2 A. Regulatory compliance of corrected Deck 2. The following shoreline regulations and City interpretations discussed at Section B of this letter establish that the corrected Deck 2 will comply with Federal Way shoreline regulations. 1. FWMC § 18-163 Additional definitions. Stringline setback means a straight line drawn between the points on the primary buildings having the greatest projection (including appurtenant structures such as decks) waterward on the two adjacent properties. Of note with this definition is that(1) the definition speaks in a singular tense, "a straight line," and (2) the definition includes decks as the measure of"the primary buildings having the greatest projection . . . waterward." Accordingly, the pre-existing condition of Deck 1 is the"greatest projection waterward" of"the primary buildings"comprising the Boniface residence, and sets the measure for this residence's legal nonconformance with the stringline setback. 2. FWMC § 18-165 Urban Environment, (d) Residential Development, (3) Setbacks. a. Single-family residential development shall maintain a minimum setback behind the stringline setback, or 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater, except in the following cases: 2. If the property is developed with a single-family home beyond the stringline setback or within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark if there are no adjacent residences, then the residence can only be added to if the addition will not make the structure any more nonconforming as to its setback and the height of the addition within the setback area is not increased, or the applicant may request a shoreline variance and conditional use permit. [Emphasis added.] Several important points of this regulation speak to Mr. Boniface's circumstance. First, the "except" clause at FWMC § 18-165(d)(3)(a) clearly contemplates that residential development located beyond the "stringline setback" may be altered. Subsection(2) spells out when "a single family home beyond the setback" may be altered: "The residence can only be added to if the addition will not make the structure any more nonconforming as to its setback and the height of the addition . . . is not increased." [Emphasis added.] 1896486.4 1 • Martin Nordby September 7, 2006 Page 3 Here again, as set forth by the definition of stringline setback, the pre-existing condition of Deck 1 sets the measure of the Boniface residence's nonconformance "as to its setback." As made plain by plan sheet A9, the proposed correction to Deck 2 rigorously adheres to the pre-existing extent of Deck 1, and neither Deck 2's height or the height of the remainder of the structure are increased. As a result, Deck 2, as corrected, "will not make the [Boniface] structure any more nonconforming as to its setback." Id. Some prior discussions with City staff indicated a view that no addition to a single family home located beyond the stringline setback should be allowed. Our view is that, to the contrary, Federal Way's shoreline regulations clearly contemplate limited alteration to a nonconforming residence so long as "the addition will not make the residence any more nonconforming as to its setback." Id. The following shoreline regulation reaffirms our view. 3. FWMC § 18-175 Alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming use or development. (a) Applications for substantial development or building permits to modify a nonconforming use may be approved only if: (1) The modifications will make the use or development less nonconforming, or (2) The modifications will not make the use or development more nonconforming. [Emphasis added.] Again, this shoreline regulation, in concert with FWMC § 18-165(d)(3)(a)(2), authorizes an addition to the Boniface residence so long as the addition"will not make the use or development more nonconforming." FWMC § 18-175(a)(2). Interpreting the above-cited shoreline regulations to prohibit Deck 2's modest expansion to the extent of the pre-existing nonconformance set by Deck 1 wholly complies with these regulations. To say there can be no such addition is to ignore and fail to give effect to the plain words of the three cited shoreline regulations. Doing so would be contrary to a primary rule of statutory construction that all words of a regulation are to be given effect. An interpretation rendering certain words to be null and of no effect is disfavored. An interpretation that Deck 2, as corrected, will make the Boniface residence "more nonconforming"is contrary to Federal Way's plainly worded regulatory construct. 1896486.4 411 • Martin Nordby September 7, 2006 Page 4 B. Prior City authorization for additions "that will not make the use or development more nonconforming" as to the stringline setback. Jane Gamble, Associate Planner, kindly sent us several written decisions of City staff that she believed were pertinent to Mr. Boniface's circumstance. Of particular note is the letter from Jim Harris, Senior Planner, to Mr. Toby Taylor, dated February 15, 2001 (copy attached). Please first observe at footnote 1, page one, the letter states "City staff and you have mutually agreed that the entire existing residence is located waterward of the shoreline stringline setback." Thus, the same set of regulations that we cite above also apply to the Taylor residence. Page two of the Senior Planner's letter reviews every proposed addition to the Taylor residence. To summarize, additions within the confines of the existing structure, which set the measure of nonconformance with the stringline setback, are allowed. Additions resulting in expansion of the structure footprint are disallowed. The determination regarding the second floor addition is directly analogous to Boniface's Deck 2: Second Floor Addition: The second floor addition on the (approximately) front half of the house is permitted, as the addition is entirely within the existing building footprint, is no higher than established height of the existing structure, and complies with the maximum height allowed under the FWCC. As with the Taylor second floor addition, the proposed correction to Deck 2 "is permitted, as the addition is entirely within the existing building footprint, is no higher than established height of the existing structure, and complies with the maximum height of the FWCC." Id. The City determines that the existing structure's footprint sets the measure of nonconformance with the stringline setback. Doing so properly gives effect to FWCC § 18-165(d)(3)(a)(2) and the definition of stringline setback. Mr. Boniface and his architect, Troy Hussing of Ecco Designs, met with Jane Gamble in June 2004 to review submission of building permit plans to bring the deck repair and remodeling work into compliance with City Codes. Ms. Gamble stated words to the effect that "if the building footprint is not increased, then there should not be a problem," and that "the City of Federal Way wanted to resolve this issue." 1896486.4 • • • Martin Nordby September 7, 2006 Page 5 In closing, Mr. Boniface respectfully requests your approval of his VCA for repair and remodeling of his shoreline residence. Your approval will fully comply with applicable shoreline regulations and the prior code interpretation made by Senior Planner Jim Harris. Practically speaking, your approval is very important to the functioning and usability of the Boniface residence located on a steep and extremely narrow lot. Your approval of Mr. Boniface's VCA will also avoid our appeal to the Hearing Examiner and possible LUPA action in Superior Court. Please contact me should you require any further information concerning this important matter. Very truly yours, WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC Alan L. Wallace ALW:slr cc: Chris Boniface Enclosures: 1. Voluntary Correction Agreement (proposed) 2. Building Permit application plan set 3. Letter from Senior Planner Jim Harris, February 15, 2001 1896486.4