The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSHR2001-00016 BLD2001-00653 Beach Stairs - SHR Letters / Memos - 4/22/2002 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 April 22, 2002 Richard Funk 9015 172°d Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 RE: Shoreline permit application no. SHR2001-00016 51 foot stairway from bulkhead to top of bank — additional information per our site meeting, and conversation with Ms. Funk on 4/22/02. Dear Mr. & Ms. Funk: Thank you for the opportunity to meet recently with you and your contractor at your Stretch Island site. We hope that meeting with both Mason County and Department of Ecology staff at the same time, was of assistance to you in your work to develop and revise your project and application materials. From staff s point of view we now have a clearer understanding of your proposal, and changes you wish to make to it. As a follow- Ltp to both that discussion, and a recent phone conversation with Ms. Funk, we provide the information below. Geotech Report: Your geotech report will need to be revised to address changes to your proposal, and other items we discussed (listed below). Working closely with your geotechnical engineer as you redesign your location, stair configuration and site configuration, will be key as the report is updated. Observed changes to the slope since the original report also need to be addressed. Cut, fill, regrading and recontouring, relocation and modification to stairs: From the on-site discussions it is now clear that you wish to cut back a substantial amount of material back from your shoreline bank, and place it in a low area, while allowing natural drainage to continue flowing to the north corner of your property and onto the beach. We understand the filled area will be recontoured to ensure that the natural drainage of the site is not impeded, simply moved to an area slightly inland of its existing location. Please clearly show how this is to be accomplished in your plans, including: • Cross-sections of bank area and upland site (in several places) showing "before" and "after" grading. Show depth of cut and fill. • Profile views of bank showing before and after grading (include stairs in after). • Contoured plan views of the site showing drainage both before and after, with contours at close enough intervals to show the changes in the site configuration. 9 Show locations of"cut" and "fill" in detail. • Quantity of material to be moved (cu yd). We understand from you that the quantities will change per your decision to relocate the stairs to near the joint property line. • NOTE: Also provide a clear site plan which shows the project in relation to the entire two parcels. As discussed on site, once we have this information including revised quantities of fill, we will be able to determine the level of shoreline review process necessary for the project. Planting plan: per our on-site discussion with Kim Van Zwalenburg, the Department of Ecology website provides some guidance material. Revisions to stairway plans and location (provide also to the building department): MR?rcks In your shoreline permit revision materials show plan and profile views of the revised stairs in relation to the site. • lans examiner of the Mason County Building Department to discuss engineering requirements for stairs, stairway code including setbacks from property line, and engineering requirements related issues. She can be reached at (360) 427-9670 ext 510. Joint Use Stairway questions We understand this is to be a joint use stair,vay and you had questions about vrhether it would be possible to execute a joint use agreement if you owned both properties at the time. We suggest that you discuss this question with your legal advisor, who could discuss the various issues involved in crafting a document addressing the use of a structure by the current and future owners of the parcels in question. As you put together the additional information for submittal, please bear in mind that the application materials need to make your project completely understandable to shoreline permit reviewers who have never seen your site or your project before. We look forward to receiving your revisions and additional information, so we may continue review of your shoreline permit. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me at (360) 427-9670 extension 295. Sincerely, Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Cc: , Kim Van Zwalenburg, Department of Ecology Shorelines Section WtSON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS May S, 2002 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1 Second Floor. Y U 2 00031 TaAmes d- 0. Idy Ka c-; re �tYlaK�sK� �CA-)I lO l �� -emm , a-m�q - St-2�e Ll2, Ob LUz rv-edcl' c, C TauSev�o( C.LvZ3 Dr n lJ �-1 l ct ooao UM gy33r Iz:);S -N"ills 3q 3 UZ 001to - lam-, 1.U1A �( 2 000a0 `� 3 �� La �eshmre l7� cs-Cc�ssQ 1�d,��e � r'Ylr L4 723Cp- 135� Tu'-m' '\6 l7 Cockrav) �d S L-1 I 6�2 l . 21 1 I /4 81 G.L.* 5 816 SCALE I " = 200 ' S THE TCH l SL A ND �Z/��vU� 4290010 41 90021 4190023 SP 318 3P 2845 4290180 41 90022 4190024 ---- S 11114 1 I-U SOMERS FISHER RD. 4200032 ———— — BLA 96 4200033 ---—' 4100100 S 9116, 6 4200031 L. 6 41 T R 4 I 3' 4200160 yU �S S S S 23/126 4190063 42001 70 3 1� 41 Sp 2088 I I ,41 90062 190060 41 gQ S 22/19 BLA 00-01 SP 1497 393 Stye+cA j Ts (. 4 1 c 4200140 /��(� S 26/229 v BLA 01-36 SP 1756 4200090 ppJ s 22/245 4190112 S k iq or 6.[, pQO BLA 00-01 4190113 S 24/244 BLA 97-63 4190111 �5 4300020 fr✓� 44 00130 5 41 90114 4300120 G . L . 5 S 27/1 4300190 S 6146 4 00do0 4300180 P� 4300030 S 250 4390210 0P� �P 1 4390240 SAND R �►�G��$ 4390170 �Jp� 4300140 CASE INLET J / 4300230 MASON COUNTY ,r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 r+ (360) 427-9670 Belfair(360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle ( ) -6968 October 17, 2001 Richard Funk 9015 172"d Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 RE: Shoreline permit application no. SHR2001-00016, 51 foot stairway from bulkhead to top of bank. Dear Mr. Funk: Mason County Planning Department is contacting you regarding your proposal to install stairs to access the shoreline from your property located on Stretch Island, following field review of your recently submitted additional narrative information. Please take the time to review the information provided to you in this letter. Following your review, please feel free to contact staff at the number provided below. Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) provided a comment letter on your proposal (letter dated September 12, 2001). In that letter they raised several questions about the project, relating to: review of the stairway under the Residential Development and Piers and Docks chapter of Mason County's Shoreline Master Program (SMP),joint use of the stairs, the substantial size of the structure relative to Residential Development chapter policies, the site plan relative to adjacent residences and topography, and lowering of the bluff by 6 to 8 feet. Erosion control provisions for water quality were also discussed. You have responded with a narrative dated October 4, 2001, which planning staff has now reviewed. Following receipt of the narrative, planning staff scheduled a site re-visit to re-review the project location in light of both the DOE letter and your recently received additional narrative. We had originally understood from you that the beach was inaccessible from your upland property. However during this recent site visit we found a way to literally scramble down the cliff to verify the estimated location of the stair/deck complex with the benefit of your additional narrative, rather than simply viewing from above. To date there are the following unresolved issues: 1. Joint use: to date we have no documentation addressing joint use. Please provide a copy of the recorded joint use agreement for the two parcels. 2. It does not appear that the proposed stair/deck complex's horizontal size will fit within the space available for it, according to the plans submitted. The site plan completed by "Decks by JRW" shows the project extending outward from the top of the bank a total of 34 feet 10 inches. This would put the lower terminus of the stairs substantially waterward of the bulkhead, given the planned layout in relation to the actual cliff, which is almost vertical. While there is some space at the base of the cliff and landward of the bulkhead, it does not appear to allow for the horizontal distance of the project as proposed. Using deck-size areas between stair lengths, rather than landing-size areas appears to significantly increase the horizontal scale of the project, as well as the visual impact. 3. Your own site plan also shows the cliff as having a greater horizontal distance between its top and the base, than appears to occur on site (see also 1 above). 4. Now that the on-site survey stakes have been placed, staff was able to get a better idea of where the boundary line between your northerly (to be sold?) parcel, and your southerly (proposed stairs location) parcel will be. Using that information, the narrative response, and approximated information from the submitted site plans, staff attempted to estimate where the stairway would locate relative to the top of the bluff, where the bluff would be pulled back, and how topography may alter as a result. (At present this information is not well represented on any site plan, however the�,we�eeh r6rt re&tences removing 4to 6 vertical feat4soil, on page'A). It appears based on field observations of site topography that there would be a steep face at the northerly end of the southerly parcel (between there and the parcel to the north. This is not shown on the plans or addressed in the application. 21 accurate site plansf hich,show:"be€vre" and "after" configuration ofttt-- . ,�z viers.-.Please also provide information on the amount of fill to be graded. Your narrative indicates "significant amounts of soil", but we do not have a cubic yard estimate from you. Please provide this so we can make a determination as to whether a grading permit is necessary, and whether the project requires review under the Landfill chapter of the SMP. 5. Your narrative states that the bulding code requires there to be a maximum of 12 stairs between landings. You use this is part of the argument for the large number of decks in your project. This information is in error. Planning staff has verified from Mason County Building Inspector Tami Griffey that code actually states that there may be a maximum of a 12 FOOT vertical height between landings. Maximum individual stair rise (height) is 8 inches. It yo"'ffa_ve questions relating to this or other code issues, please feel free to call her-- she can be reached at (360)427-9670 extension 356. We appreciate your interest in working with the natural topography, however even with this in mind, applying the actual code could result in a structure which had significantly less visual impact. 6. Based on the above review, which included our field re-visit with the additional information from you, we concur with DOE's concern regarding the excessive scale of the project relative to Residential Development chapter Policy #6 and #12 which address the visual and other impacts of shoreline structures. Following additional site review we also concur with their concern about t eat RI f the gazebo forward of, any possible house location on this or adjacent sites, and therefore forward of the proposed shoreline setback common line. It appears that as many of the issues above are addressed, the result will be a revised project which more closely meets the policies and use regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. Our role in providing you with this information is to assist you in understanding the problematic issues relating to your project at this time. Our role in the public hearing process will be to represent your project in relation to the applicable policies and use regulations of the Shoreline Master Program, and to make recommendations accordingly. At present, even with the additional narrative information provided, and our ongoing office and field review, the project in its present form does not appear to be consistent with shoreline regulations. We also suggest that a scheduled site visit with yourself, planning staff, and the DOE shorelines representative may be possible to arrange. This may assist you as you work to resolve the issues. In the meantime, no further case action will occur until we receive the necessary revisions. We look forward to receiving them so we can move forward with your case. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me at(360) 427-9670 extension 295. Sincerely, Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Cc: Grace Miller, Lead Senior Planner Tami Griffey, Mason County Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector. Kim Van Zwalenburg, Department of Ecology Shorelines Section 1