The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPI2008-00146 - SPI Inspections - 9/9/2008 SrAr MASON COUNTY ON F oP5 Mo N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT } s N Planning Division N Y ti P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 Site Inspection September 09, 2008 WILLIAM LATTA TO BE KEPT IN NE 10151 HWY SO SHORE HOOD CANAL BELFIAR WA 98584 PARCEL ILE Case No.: S P 12008-00146 Parcel No.: 322365100010 Project Description: FEASIBILITY OF REPLACING PRESENT SFR WITH LARGER SFR. HOW MUCH CAN BE ADDED TO FOOTPRINT AND SECOND STORY Dear Applicant: Pursuant to your application, a site pre-inspection (SPI)was performed on your property. Below you will find comments made regarding the proposed development and its critical values. In some cases,setbacks for development from shorelines, steep slopes, streams, and wetlands must be included in your specific proposal; these setbacks are included as part of the comments listed below. This information is based on County and State regulations as they exist to date. These regulations may change and may affect the requirements for development of the subject property. Please contact me at(360)427-9670, ext. 287 if you have questions. Sincerely, Pam Bennett-Cumming Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 9/912008 Page 1 of 3 SP12008-00146 Site Inspection 9/9/2008 Case No.: SP12008-00146 Comments: On September 5, 2008, planning staff Pam Bennett-Cumming met with owners Mr& Ms. Latta, together with their architect Len Williams of Foster& Williams. The purpose of the site review was to determine applicable planning regulations for repair, remodel - and potentially expansion - of a small cabin (approximately 700 sq ft footprint plus roof overhangs). This is a very small parcel with a concrete bulkhead on the waterward side, which wraps around the sides of the lot to about halfway along the side lot lines. The waterward wall of the cabin is 9 feet from the outer edge of the concrete bulkhead. The area between the house and the bulkhead consists of an at-grade wooden deck. Upstairs is an attic space which was converted into a cabin sleeping area. The ceiling height in this area would likely not meet current code, and from the outside staff could see that the roof ridge sagged in the middle. The applicants would like to adjust the roofline upward to give more space, move a staircase and some other internal maintenance and remodeling, and potentially have a small balcony inset into the current roofline. The applicant indicates that they have enough space to meet the 5ft sideyard setbacks, however the house may be near, at or over the State Highway 106 right-of-way, and may be within the utility easement. There is a septic tank to the east of the residence, which pumps under Highway 106 to a drainfield located in an easement on the property landward of Highway 106. The applicant should contact Mason County Health Department to learn how the remodel may or may not affect septic requirements. Survey: because of the site constraints, a survey will be needed to determine locations of property lines, easements, rights-of way, in relation to existing and remodeled structures. Apparently the applicant is already discussing this necessity with the architect, and proposes to work with Holman and Associates. The survey should also estimate the lot coverage. More than 60% lot coverage would trigger a shoreline variance. The applicant/agent will need to work directly with Washington state DOT Olympic Region to find out about requrements for setback from the highway right of way. They should also contact the beneficiaries of the utility easement to find out about any implications related to the power and/or phone lines and any other easements. Applicant/agent should note that it will be much easier for staff to provide more accurate information once the survey is completed. Mason County Development Regulations: Site is zoned Rural Residential 5. As located it appears the existing cabin would meet the minimum sideyard setbacks of 5 feet, but not the front yard setback. Also, depending on the outcome of the survey there may be a need to consider a Development Regulations 9/9/2008 Page 2 of 3 SP12008-00146 Site Inspection 9/9/2008 Case No.: SP12008-00146 Variance because of front or rear yard setbacks. This Variance would require application, public notice and notification, publication, and review in a public hearing before the Mason County Hearings Examiner. Shoreline Master Program: When there are residences on each side of the property, or within 150 feet of the roofline, shoreline setback is determined using the shoreline setback common line, as long as that is landward of the minimum 15 foot setback. In this case, while the house meets the common line, at 9ft landward of the bulkhead edge, it does not meet the default of 15 feet. This means that the most waterward 6ft of the residence is nonconforming to the shoreline setback. It could be maintained and repaired, but not enlarged or replaced or increased in height, without undergoing a Shoreline Variance. The variance process requires application, publication, public notice and adjacent property owner notification, and a public hearing before the Mason County Hearings Examiner. Under the shoreline regulations, if upward expansion is landward of the 15ft mark, that would be allowed, subject to minimum setbacks. The applicant asked about an inset balcony on the upper floor. If considered, no part of it could protrude beyond the existing . Mason County Resource Ordinance (R.O.): The R.O. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Area chapter 17.01.110 also addresses issues related to this proposal. Its location would be considered pre-existing nonconforming in relation to the more recent Chapter's minimum setback from the shoreline, which is 35 feet. As such - if the cabin retains the same footprint, it could be expanded vertically without a variance from this Chapter, up to a maximum height of 35 feet. The Chapter also allows for lateral expansion plus or minus 10% as long as not toward the resource. 9/9/2008 Page 3 of 3 SP12008-00146 St'i _0 o ` MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. PRE-INSPECTION APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT S240.00 Fee Required l. Owner: i H i Lm La,"0. Applicant: Site Address: IOISI E 5rhe#e. ?,+. IOio Unla+ Applicant Address: Owner Address: 2 02- rno-by fkrK Ln SE City: St Zip City: St W A Zip 9 0 3n* Phone:(_ d—ay Phone:{ ( 71M day Phone:( evening Planner: Email Address: SWtywn Co P1an T of Use - Water Body 2. Parcel No. 3 223(0 _ 5 I - Qo010 Parcel No. Legal Description: Pe-bblC 13 c cj, �Lr k -rV 10 <<,r'f. L. of R/W 3. Purpose of Pre-Inspection: �� Q�{'e rrn i n e -r�a�i bi I;+ o+ Y e a c ou La. c 1 b G1 Z •L-f e r 4. Use of building: G 5�d e nr—,t-- 5. Do any of the following exist on or adjacent to property?: slope( ) saltwater(4 lake( river( pond( ) wetland( ) seasonal runoff( ) other( ) stream( seasonal creek( Directions to Site: roc, d J0 Ke- R Kd r i o I c1r. k-tw v I o(�_O +-y i s e" I of t - 2.8 m�1 e s ous-- P" IAer 17v-- CLmA ►_ P&rn benn Ctamrni�9 e has been IlhcS*o-�- If the information is incomplete, t1kn Mason County must disclaim any errors resulting Trom deficiencies in the original Lbi* application. Pre-inspection reports remain valid only until development changes occur in the vicinity which affect the lot` ft-. evaluated in this inspection,or the laws regulating development of the site change after the time of inspection. i �dL Date: 8 27 Applicant Signature: Ifyou would like to be on site during inspection,please check here: (1f ertr1d,.. Or L er, ® � Return application to: Department of Community Development, g Division ! P.O. Box 186 Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 Please include a$240.00 check or money order payable to Mason County Treasurer When completed,this form becomes part of the parcel fide. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Accepted by: y C/,: i Date: MORE ON BACK SIDE r 9 122 -9'28. Revised: 01/15/08 Please illustrate below the proposed building site in relation to critical areas(slopes, streams,lakes,wetlands, etc.) existing improvements,as well as property lines. APPLICATIONS SUBNMTED WITHOUT ADEQUATE ILUSTRATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AND WILL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) Planning Department Findings: f g � sk�riz - c'r^wi ZP ceilv� 0 Case Activity Listing 5/30/2013 9:38:30AM Case #: SPI2008-00146 11P4 �j tiZ3� j . occ L Assigned Done Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 hold Disp To By Updated Updated By SPIA010 Application Received 8/27/2008 8/27/2008 None DONE KS 8/27/2008 KS SPIA600 SPI Letter-Field Review 9/9/2008 None PBC 9/9/2008 PBC SPIA600 SPI Letter-Field Review 9/9/2008 None DONE PBC 9/9/2008 PBC On September 5,2008,planning staff Pam Bennett-Cumming met with owners Mr&Ms.Latta,together with their architect Len Williams of Foster&Williams. The purpose of the site review was to determine applicable planning regulations for repair,remodel-and potentially expansion-of a small cabin(approximately 700 sq ft footprint plus roof overhangs).This is a very small parcel with a concrete bulkhead on the waterward side,which wraps around the sides of the lot to about halfway along the side lot lines. The waterward wall of the cabin is 9 feet from the outer edge of the concrete bulkhead. The area between the house and the bulkhead consists of an at-grade wooden deck. Upstairs is an attic space which was converted into a cabin sleeping area. The ceiling height in this area would likely not meet current code,and from the outside staff could see that the roof ridge sagged in the middle. The applicants would like to adjust the roofline upward to give more space,move a staircase and some other internal maintenance and remodeling,and potentially have a small balcony inset into the current roofline. The applicant indicates that they have enough space to meet the 5ft sideyard setbacks,however the house may be near,at or over the State Highway 106 right-of-way,and may be within the utility easement. There is a septic tank to the east of the residence,which pumps under Highway 106 to a drainfield located in an easement on the property landward of Highway 106. The applicant should contact Mason County Health Department to learn how the remodel may or may not affect septic requirements. Survey:because of the site constraints,a survey will be needed to determine locations of property lines,easements,rights-of way,in relation to existing and remodeled structures. Apparently the applicant is already discussing this necessity with the architect,and proposes to work with Holman and Associates. The survey should also estimate the lot coverage. More than 60%lot coverage would trigger a shoreline variance. The applicant/agent will need to work directly with Washington state DOT Olympic Region to find out about requrements for setback from the highway right of way. They should also contact the beneficiaries of the utility easement to find out about any implications related to the power and/or phone lines and any other easements. Applicant/agent should note that it will be much easier for staff to provide more accurate information once the survey is completed. Mason County Development Regulations:Site is zoned Rural Residential 5. As located it appears the existing cabin would meet the minimum sideyard setbacks of 5 feet,but not the front yard setback. Also, depending on the outcome of the survey there may be a need to consider a Development Regulations Variance because of front or rear yard setbacks. This Variance would require application,public notice and notification,publication,and review in a public hearing before the Mason County Hearings Examiner. Shoreline Master Program:When there are residences on each side of the property,or within 150 feet of the roofline,shoreline setback is determined using the shoreline setback common line,as long as that is landward of the minimum 15 foot setback. In this case,while the house meets the common line,at 9ft landward of the bulkhead edge,it does not meet the default of 15 feet. This means that the most waterward 6ft of the residence is nonconforming to the shoreline setback. It could be maintained and repaired,but not enlarged or replaced or increased in height,without undergoing a Shoreline Variance. The variance process requires application,publication,public notice and adjacent property owner notification,and a public hearing before the Mason County Hearings Examiner. Under the shoreline regulations,if upward expansion is landward of the 15ft mark,that would be allowed,subject to minimum setbacks. The applicant asked about an inset balcony on the upper floor. If considered,no part of it could protrude beyond the existing. Mason County Resource Ordinance(R.O.):The R.O.Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Area chapter 17.01.110 also addresses issues related to this proposal.Its location would be considered pre-existing nonconforming in relation to the more recent Chapter's minimum setback from the shoreline,which is 35 feet. As such-if the cabin retains the same footprint,it could be expanded vertically without a variance from this Chapter,up to a maximum height of 35 feet. The Chapter also allows for lateral expansion plus or minus 10%as long as not toward the resource. Page 1 of 2 CaseActivity..rpt