Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZON2014-00039 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TYPE I LAND USE PERMIT APPLICANT: OKANOGAN HOLDINGS LTD C/O ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS 380 LAMPLIGHTER DRIVE MARCO ISLAND FL 34145-4542 DATE ISSUED: November 20,2014 DATE EXPIRES: November 20,2015 MLA NUMBER: MLA14-00077 PROJECT PLANNER: David Wayne Johnson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tree Removal PROJECT LOCATION: 170 N. Bay Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 CONDITIONS: 1.) The Applicant shall comply with the required mitigation plantings recommended in the Modification Study prepared by NTI dated Octboer 30, 2014. 2.) The project shall adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs)to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. FINDINGS: 1.) The Administrator finds that this application complies with applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code, all other applicable ordinances and regulations,and is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map. 2.) A Geotechnical Assessment prepared by NTI dated September 2014, and Modification Study prepared by NTI dated Octboer 30, 2014 have been submitted for review and approval of this application. 3.) The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff on October 24, 2013 for the potential presence of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) under the provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC). After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and an investigative site inspection, the following ESAs were confirmed to be present on the subject property: Conservancy Shoreline Designation; Coastal SIPZ. 4.) The application has been review under and is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25 5.) The site plan as submitted with the Tree Removal Zoning Permit application on September 30, 2014 has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated November 20, 2014 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 6.) This approval is for Removal of Subject Trees identified on the approved site plan only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on future permits. APPEALS: Pursuant to RCW 36.70C,the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal this final decision to Jefferson County Superior Court within twenty-one(21)calendar days of the date of issuance of this land use decision. For more information related to judical appeals see JCC 18.40.340. 6t< e) dig ° I '2-) 20/tf UDC Administrator MLA14-00077 Mr. Ron Gregory October 30, 2014 Page Two Large Douglas Fir (28 inch diameter) The large Douglas fir sits along the shoreline at the top of the bluff(see Figure 1 — Site map and Photograph #1 in Appendix A).. The tree is well over 100 feet in height and, according to NTI (2014) appears to lean to the west. This tree could constitute a "danger tree" in terms of its potential to fall on the home to be constructed on the site (to be located about 50 feet from the bluff). Due to potential for falling westward and its lack of significance for bluff stabilization, it is our conclusion that this tree should be removed. In order to achieve mitigation for this removal, it is our conclusion that three Douglas fir trees (3:1 replacement ratio), each 2-4 feet in height should be planted in order to compensate for the removal. These trees should be planted within the buffer and along the south property line, roughly 8-10 feet apart. The trees should be planted in the fall, following construction of the residence. The trees should be planted in adequate topsoil, topped with bark chips to limit erosion. Western Red Cedar (18 inch diameter) This tree lies along the south side of the trail to the beach. While it does not add significantly to bluff stability, it is a reasonable old tree, which does not appear to pose any hazard. We recommend that this tree first be trimmed in accordance with Jefferson County regulations to attempt to open the view within County guildelines. If this is not adequate, and the tree is removed with County approval, it should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, with small western red cedars, 2-4 feet in height. Planting techniques discussed above should be used. The new trees can also be planted along the southern property boundary. Conifer Grove (8-14 inch Western Red Cedars) These four trees lie in a grove on the northern side of the beach access (see Photograph 2, Appendix A). We agree with NTI that only two of these trees (preferably the smaller two) should be removed and the remaining two trimmed as necessary in compliance with Jefferson County requirements for trimming. For trees removed, plantings at a ratio of 2:1 should be done using 2-4 foot high Western Red Cedar seedlings. Planting should be done the fall following house construction in accordance to the planting requirements listed above. The replacement trees can be planted along the south property line, roughly 8-10 feet apart. In accordance with the recommendations of this report, 7-9 conifer tree seedlings would be planted along the south property line of the Site, during the fall following house construction. The new trees should be planted during the fall (preferably September 21 — November 15). The new trees will be planted in adequate topsoil to accommodate new roots and covered with bark chips to control evaporation and limit growth of weeds near the new seedlings. Other trees which are not removed may be trimmed in accordance with Jefferson County requirements, and maintaining a crown of at least 35 percent of current branches. CO O o N N >. Co A <, .............. _ , till II c3 o Q EUZ o ' ,,,se:N4A 0 .04 VL1 Q+ z w \ cu 0 AObt CD .4 § \ L o j a)' " 0 0 1** ,,,,/,:: ;:-/_,.,-;',":,/- .,;:,.yr.44*t f„-. ./, , ..,. ,/,/,tt) g-3,-a O "� �� 2 , ..04°C tet, 00, "r ,,d q Q;:j a)§ - x, .9,,, , jog.14( ofk ' Cn• ,*/.//- t ., \ = 4 4c (' ./' ,',/,'„:„*:„.„00e., ,I; 'N '',„ ' , i g ' /„7-,„,,,,,; ,,,„,,,,,„r,„e ,N,40 v ' tos * i ,i`.•;,,,:',.././f.,/,/'11/..,,,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,, ,..:.,„Ns' Al,,,LSNiiii.i, ..N � e % e* \4\v%so. X.,/, ./5„;;;;;,,..",, ">,:. .;..' -.". '' -7'., ds) 1 g /0/.„,„ .,,,: .'":::,,,,,,,li.,,,:.,:./.5,,,,,,,,;,5„-„,..,:„. ,,...-.„,-- . 0 1, , . ,, , - , :- t _ - , ..... __ I', i i "a Inn4 • 1 a 9 #�°' ate , r ,�� . -•.•+ba,Ar.:9Y �„'soN 0a-, 1~4 , JE FFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 : deb 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend,WA::368 t+Veti r xer� Tel:360.379. ( �etf@f&bn Wa trCimmm�u»r„ae r 4450(Fax:380.379.4451(Email:clod a co left ' i ire i:� Building Permits&Inspections(Development Consistency Review(Long Range Planning(Wateished Stewardsh' Master Permit Application to Resource Center Project Description(include separate sheets as necessary): MLA:Tree removal Tax Parcel Number: 976800(}13 Site Address and/or Direct'.ns to Pr** PropertY Size: 1.1 acres (acres/square feet) 17a " /-1., / ,,r_ ,e_ ,4. -., Property Owner(s)of Record. Robe "Hams,Okan n H©Idin s Ltd Telephone: Mailing Address: Fax: email Applicant/Agent(If different from owner): Telephone; 360-344'2 058 Ma ling Address:22 McCurdy Lane,Port Ludlow,WA 98365 email: builder@cablespeed.com What kind of Pernik?(Check each box that applies ❑Building 0 Lot or Road Segnsgation ❑ Demolition Permit 0 Critical Areas Stewardship Plan ❑Single tion Permit ❑Garage Attached/ 0 Variance(Minor,Major or Reasonable Economic Use) 0 Manufactured Home 0 Garage Detached O Conditional Use(C(a),C(d),or CI** 0 Mammerci r d 0 Discretionary'D.or Unnamed Use Classification ❑ Change Commercial Use 0 Special Use(Essential Public Facilities)•* 0 Address — 0 Read Approach 0 Boundary Line Adjustment ❑Home Business' D Cottage Indr "-- 0 Short gat** ❑Propane 0 Binding Site Plan • D Sign 0 Long Plat** 0 Showed"Yes"Use Consistency Analysis 0 Planned Rural Residential Development(PRRD)/Amendments** [7 Stormwater Management. ❑Plat Vacation/Alteration** D Site Plan water Management Advance Determination(SPAAr1 * 0 Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions** O Site Use ) 0 Shoreline Management Substantial Development** ❑Temporary ry Use * 0 Shoreline Management Variance 0 Forests Telecommunication municaasn of Six-Year Moratorium 0 Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map May require a Pre—Application Conference 0 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment dment Amendment ®Tree Vegetation Request ro9mm An►endment Please identify any other local,state or fie decal permits *rR.,rotes a Pre-, .'' don Conference required for this proposal, if known: I hereby designate Ronald reg: t4 A k WESTECH COMPANY Environmental Consulting-Site Permitting October 30, 2014 FP`"A , ' Mr. Ron Gregory 22 McCurdy Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 RE: Modification Study of Buffer Zone Conifers — 170 North Bay Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365, Jefferson County, Washington: APN #976800013 Dear Mr. Gregory: As you requested, Westech has reviewed site conditions on Mr. Williams' property at 170 North Bay Way. This has included review of site views and photographs on the property, house plans and location for the residence and a Geotechnical Assessment by Northwestern Territories, Inc., prepared in September 2014. In November 2013, Westech Company prepared a Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan for the property which included evaluation of the shoreline and buffer zone, along with a Planting Plan for re-establishing the buffer zone functions, following construction of a new residence on the Property. That Plan included removal of some invasive plants within the buffer zone and planting of about 140 shrubs, groundcover and small trees in the buffer zone. Various measures to control erosion were also recommended. Northwestern Territories, Inc. (NTI) has conducted a Geotechnical Assessment for the Property. In particular, that study looked at a large Douglas fir (28 inch diameter) on the bluff, located northeast of the house site, an 18 inch diameter western red cedar on the south side of the beach access and a group of 4 smaller trees (8-14 inch Douglas fir and western red cedar) located north of the beach access trail. The NTI study concluded that these particular trees did not add to bluff stability and that slope stability on the property was excellent. The bluff (escarpment) is composed of dense black siltstone overlain by lodgement till, both of which have high shear strength and are "unusually dense, impervious and strong" (NTI 2014). The property owners wish to remove six trees, the two large trees near the beach access and the four smaller trees north of it, to open up the view (Figure 1). An alder tree which is well- rooted into the center of the bluff would be left in place, but could be trimmed in accordance with County regulations. P.O. Box 2876, Port Angeles,Washington 98362-r Telephone: (360)565-1333 email: brad @westechcompany.com Mr. Ron Gregory October 30, 2014 Page Three This report constitutes our professional opinion. It may be treated as an addendum to the Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan, 170 North Bay Way, Port Ludlow, Washington, APN # 976800013 prepared by Westech Company during November 2013. Total plantings in the buffer zone should be the array of plantings in the Planting Plan of the 2013 report, plus the tree seedlings identified in this letter report. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Senior Environmental Scientist Westech Company GBS/ms • APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS WW1423-NBWTR.APPA/110314/mas A-1 IT - ' ' At, ' -11" -4 1 ++R f a., A. try fir' �i ,` ,3,„�rx s :,'.'%.,,,. '-' t _' .}fig � '� 1) View looking east showing trees to be removed or limbed. Ti� A+ "t ',, 5. �' tia "�Y m� .- . ....e4.,) 'A ..' ?Or a # " a , k S,; ake, I.•�k .3{ $ ��}q S . 4,:f... -, , 3 L k c .. airti.......,-. ... -"iik,104, -.. - ts ,4 ,. a if M1 .tit t. "'C . r,' _ •• gg x Us t _ {t 'S . ,„.::‘,.,,' i.4::- ;.„,4,.. t'l.„>117., 2) View looking northeast showing a grove of four conifers. A-2 WW1423-NBTR.APPA/110314/mas W 170 North Bay Way, Port Ludlow, Washington TPN: 976800013 Geotechnical Assessment Prepared For Mr. Ron Gregory September 2014 NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC. 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET.PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 t Engineers❑Land Surveyors❑Geologists ., Construction❑Inspection❑Materials Testing (360)452-8491 Email:infotiY.nti4u.com NTI NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC. 116' 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 f,( Engineers Land Surveyors Geologists ti Construction Inspection[D Materials Testing Port Angeles(360)452-8491 E-Mail:infoOnti4u.com NT/ September 11, 2014 Mr. Ron Gregory 22 McCurdy Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RELATED TO THE PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL AT 170 NORTH BAY WAY, PORT LUDLOW,WASHINGTON. JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL#976800013 Dear Mr. Gregory and Others Concerned, In September 2014, NTI Engineering and Land Surveying completed a follow up review of proposed removal of six trees at the subject parcel. The parcel lies on the shoreline of Oak Bay within Section 29, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, W.M., within Jefferson County, Washington. The site includes a low marine bluff that rises about 25 feet from sea level. In October of 203, NTI completed a geotechnical review of the slope stability at this parcel that is summarized below. 1.0 THE GEOLOGIC AND SLOPE STABILITY SETTING The subject parcel lies within a formation of dense Pleistocene lodgement till that overlies a formation of Tertiary siltstone. Well cemented, dense black siltstone forms the parent rock beneath the site, and it is well exposed along the shoreline. The till was evident in several test pits, an old cistern and in exposures along the shoreline. There is an unconformity between the Vashon glacial till and the older siltstone so that the subsurface at the site is unusually dense, impervious and strong. Due to the high shear strength of both the underlying rock and the overlying lodgement till,the site has excellent slope stability. For more details, see the October, 2013, report on the subject parcel by NTI. 2.0 TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED BY OWNERS Mr. Ron Gregory,the owner's agent, reported that the owners wish to open the view by removing several trees between the proposed house and the waterfront. The trees that have been proposed for removal include these trees: 1. A 28-inch Douglas Fir in the center of the photograph below, 2. A 18-inch Western Red Cedar to the left of Tree 1,the 28-inch Douglas Fir, 3. A grove of four (4) Western Red Cedars on the left in the photograph below, Geotechnical Assessment 12014 The tall Douglas Fir on the extreme right lies on the adjoining parcel. A Red Alder tree with attractive foliage that provides anchorage to the soil along the escarpment is also shown in the photograph below. V t -.d ' -4 . r�� I d i t '4µ ' �,I,',-,-,-4,-,' w ,, +' :` r ra *- '' t-,,, -, '... '4_, ' iv.s..,?' . '::4 U. *4''':::: :::'*'. :4 3 4'141 4 ' Itititzak.F' L • Photograph 1—View Looking East Showing the Trees Proposed to be Removed (Sep. 2014) The 28-inch Douglas Fire, Tree#1 above, is over 100 feet in height and it has been a feature of the site for the better part of a century. An old cable hitch high on the tree suggests that it may have provided support to the gangway that at one time gave access to the beach. Field examination showed that the tree is swayed to the west so that it seems it could fall in the direction of the house to b.e constructed at the site. Although, in our opinion, this tree adds to the aesthetics of the site, its removal would have only a small and likely insignificant impact on the on-going stability of the resistant shoreline escarpment at this site. Tree #2, an 18-inch Western Red Cedar lacks the aesthetic qualities of its taller companion. This tree's removal will have no impact on the gross stability of the shoreline, in our opinion. A Red Alder tree in the photograph above is well rooted into the central portion of the bluff at this site and it should be left in place to enhance bluff stability. Red Alder trees may be topped 2 1 , Geotechnical Assessment 12014 1 or pruned and they will sprout back without loss of root strength. If it is necessary to open the view,topping and selective pruning of this tree is suggested rather than complete removal. A grove of four smaller Cedar Trees is shown on the left in the photograph above and the four trees are shown in more detail in the photograph below. These four trees add a natural element to the site and our examination of this grove suggested that selective clearing of one or two of the trees may give the desired effect of a wider view field from the future house while preserving some of the wilderness character of the site. The removal of these four trees would, however, have little or no influence on the stability of the rock-like escarpment at this site. An undisturbed buffer was suggested in the 2013 Geotechnical Site Assessment for overall site aesthetics and to preserve the pleasing wilderness qualities of this site. The subject trees add to these values in our opinion but, except as noted above,they do not significantly participate in the stability of the shoreline escarpment at this site. . ' ,,.. v I , eite. ,,:v, ...z. ... t. .- J., , . , +.' + t $ ''•1:.k4':.` `rte . , � , ■ isle ..m '.�.� • a. -a IC .' n fr 1:,,,,,...,„ ,. „..,.... . ,, �. „.. i-' _ - c ,r'. te . a .t �,$r fi, n 7 ti,. y.., ,y o. : c s .� ` a 1c - 1 Ito. c 4 k , , ,INI4 Y Photograph 2—View Looking Northeast of the Four Red Cedars (Center and Right) 3 Geotechnical Assessment 12014 3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY AND REPORT The observations and conclusions of this report apply only to the subject property and they are not transferable to nearby or adjoining property. This report is the sole property of the client and may be used by others only with their permission. NTI Engineering and Land Surveying warrants that this report was conscientiously prepared in accordance with the practice of geotechnical engineering and according to the principals of geologic science. No other warranty is provided herewith. Please call on the undersigned Geotechnical Engineers if you have questions about this report or the observations in it. We appreciated the opportunity to perform this work for you. Sincerely, NTI Engineering and Land Surveying 0"1"4 TO jet A, q'it ry ANAL /Z:e Steve S. Luxton MSc, PE Trent T. Adams, EIT Senior Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Project Manager 4 APPENDIX w._ mss `S MEAN HIGH r_ WATER LINE xx "r = V ��' root TOE OF 4 i �re '- V �' BLUFF ,.,..,`4,■1,1-,,'''....',.1,-,A,...t..'4,-,''',Ar" :1,. . \\'‘,\ ‘ \\ '::`1V--.4..',-",..''.::-:'t--;.-, .',- . \\\ 4\\ 4\14 "' \ k\,,,,N,,k, ti OLD CONC. STEPS N. �� � .* v� �� % BOTTOM OF OLD WOOD STEPS � a t `\ �ra REMAINING STAIRWAY WAS .`sc�, \4 ~♦ WASHED OUT O.s 2 n �`\, v,,k. "x \ t 416 r` :2,., - t^'a : .- lam" VA.� J; .y '' \\\ `\\�« WEAN HIGH • ., .` rya \\.,, \� t 9 r y''�p ° v.� v v � TOE OF LINE s Ci }d \� �� \♦ �♦ BLUFF , 4.,,,t,.t.,%f JAA,C.55 1..1;5, - '.- • )is, v'd ," aIm , . 2 K i�, � FIN FLOOR Et.=50.25aZar tit, c. 136'FIR °' fi ��� PLASTIC SURVEY CAF MARKEJ -1'::41;141,,";:nr,&-',"::::.':';'1'--i-iilf': 4 "CARMAN 20642" SET PER VCN IO OF SURVEYS. PAGE 29 .,r,,, ,,,A ''" PLASTIC RAIL 1? ty ' il FENCE �� _ CONCRETE „A.'" f k RETAINING WALL €ii. ,.1C.,-',,,.44r an �3?k�* >r x'� APPROX. DRAIN FIELD AND k p i *a C. SEPTIC TANK LOCATION 1 ;aSCAPING PER OLYMPIC HEALTH DISTRICT �-, SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION IJSEP75-4O8 ��� -� DA TED 4/16/75 tie coG2 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ppattito -lit NG,o+ 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend,WA 98368 I Web:www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitydevelooment Tel:360.379.4450 Fax:360.379.4451 I Email:dcdta7.cojefferson.wa.us Building Permits&Inspections I Development Consistency Review I Long Range Planning I Watershed Stewardship Resource Center Master Permit Application MLA: Project Description(include separate sheets as necessary): Tree removal Tax Parcel Number: 976800013 Property Size: 1.1 acres (acres/square feet) Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Property Owner(s)of Record: Robert Williams,Okanogan Holdings Ltd Telephone: Fax: email: Mailing Address: Applicant/Agent(if different from owner): Telephone: 360-344-2058 Fax: email: builder @cablespeed.com Mailing Address: 22 McCurdy Lane,Port Ludlow,WA 98365 What kind of Permit?(Check each box that applies El Lot or Road Segregation :Mudding ❑Critical Areas Stewardship Plan ❑ Demolition Permit ❑Variance(Minor,Major or Reasonable Economic Use) ❑Single Family ❑Garage Attached/Detached ❑Conditional Use[C(a),C(d),or C]** ❑ Manufactured Home ❑ Modular ❑Discretionary"D"or Unnamed Use Classification ❑ Commercial* ❑Special Use(Essential Public Facilities)" ❑ Change of Use ❑Boundary Line Adjustment ❑ Address ❑ Road Approach ❑Short Plat** ❑Home Business ❑Cottage Industry ❑Binding Site Plan** ❑Propane ❑Long Plat** ❑Sign ❑Planned Rural Residential Development(PRRD)/Amendments** ❑Allowed"Yes"Use Consistency Analysis ❑Plat Vacation/Alteration** ❑Stormwater Management ❑Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions** ❑Site Plan Approval Advance Determination(SPAAD)* ❑Shoreline Management Substantial Development" ❑Temporary Use ❑Shoreline Management Variance ❑Wireless Telecommunication* ❑Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment ❑Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium ❑Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment *May require a Pre—Application Conference B Tree Vegetation Request **Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: Ronald Gregory DESIGNATION OF AGENT o re I hereby designate g ry to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). OWNER SIGNATURE Date: By signing this application form,the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein,and in any attachments,is true and correct to the best of his,her or its knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save,indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,judgments,court costs,reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees,representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Staff's access and right of entry will be assumed unless the applicant informs the County in writing at the time of the application that he or she wants prior notice. Signature: Date: The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential"take"of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Act"or"ESA."Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate the ESA. Any individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s)even if you are in compliance with the Jefferson County development code.The Applicant acknowledges that he,she or it holds individual and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. Signature: Date: 07/24/2013 Agent Authorization ,e m431, ler Whom it may concern ',Verret ftr:rbert L irViikarris Gregory Apti 45,2014 tars Tai Parcel 9 13,170 try Lane N,Port Ludbw 8835 This is my aidliortztrition for Ronald J ry lb act as my agent In m to detticr6tiorrfcon on this prvi:entir e Date: Robert L Wi. .. V~ . ,-4 - - - apa I, ., 1 ., .. .. .,• Jr. . •- . . 1F p f r• �, f 4n i M 4. ? '. ff 1 - - - . / '' �, . n"• •111 t .J' ' 44 t4 y_ _ 1 Y .4- t I 'a V♦ . tiv V t. . _l ice. C{Z ,: • :'"r3 -SY'` * e �` mss► ` ~... ` •t• • - • �•. ♦ .... to $ ..v •i � j V ,fir .,. s - � -' i. 1• r, [ .* • A'14...`'a 41.p i,. 'T 441 tf r r.x `+" . y4,. iiiiitT4c. lst jl _ ti j._ ,4,;=,. - ,., -Liv ,:f•t- - z„ , . *4:—. , ., .F K; /'M.. y Dr, TLV is 4 y \A t „`.: P. V •11';:`=r t 1; • ., , xr Fes' ,,il 1: : w- .aQ ._ 4• .■ ,. 4..* v T a %► . ,':y . E r YL';-a .i . r v �'. 4� : p I . - RRP K" r5� ,..!.%. .• i. "ear T li, ' s 4 �' v R4 : - Pte•t.4"V. � y. -` ?._ - */-ate. ' ' No Y,i '� �e�-`- d x i 4 Sr .....„.. ' -1„,- , 4°' ,II „iy.,. . _:. .... .., . ,..„.„ . .8, , , ,, -, 40-. „f_., ‘•,.. -. .. ,. -....-...--....\. 2,,..,__ „.....„ / ,%- t,.. i /- . . --4 • _ . ,.. ... „ . ..c., ..t..,,i ,, ..... ..-, ir i to % .�".. •. � • ^ $iii � '. :} - t Al' P'' w t d - ' . {. � t• 1 '.- - ' - - v'r-:-., , --„'V,i4S,, -,-,,,,,410.,-,-- -,,,,,;4., ' 4,„: . .1...,_,, ,, ,,,„.i. r,,,:i4 . , - - -4- -,t,,,,,,-_-_,-, ...1.. .„..,.. .,. . p.‘m -,..,• ....;/ .• . _ ,. . .,,_ .. •-•„..„, .„..,,-,. ..5w ;„-,-..,.--_ -,..1 .,-, -, — , -e . 3.1_, _i, - . ,- . _ .,.- -.:-.....,z.o.„-A,p5 ......,-. ,, ... . .r:F.,,,-.4-.*:,.-,q,, , „' 4„:4-! fa. ,,/ ' '44,7.--,:, ....,,-:,-- :':'„„"c,;,..'..--2, -----V-,,,,_-1,V, ,,-4.3.„..:.„,.,N •'.K •q,fi. " '4 3 'y 'ti '*v '>t• 1'• 4w x t¢ TEST PIT SHOWING DENSE GLACIAL TILL SUBSOIL Site Drainage Considerations Due to the widespread occurrence of nearly impervious lodgement till over the site,percolation into the soil will be P oor at this site. The underlying bedrock is also totally impervious. Percolation trenches and similar infiltrative devises will be ineffective during much of the year in the wet climate at this location. The tough rock at the beach cannot be eroded by a pipe discharge there, nor will the pipe affect the normal shoreline processes. For these reasons, we recommend the use of a tight drainage pipe to the beach rather than the construction of drywells or percolation trenches. The use of a fused polyethylene pipe is recommended due to its tensile strength. Fused polyethylene pipe will not separate as the earth around it moves down slope. Because of its strength, it may be used to suspend an energy dissipating tee above the high water level. Foundation Bearing Strength and Protection from Moisture Due to the large number of soil holes and test pits on the site in the vicinity of the proposed house, it is possible to recommend foundation bearing capacity at this time. If footings are carried down to the undisturbed, firm light-colored till,the prescriptive 2,500 pounds per square foot soil bearing capacity will be obtained. If footings are over-excavated,re-fill the footing area with imported clean pit run gravel and properly compact prior to placing concrete for footings. 3 °N JEFFERSON COUNTY 4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :26.e. 620167h940.eridan Street• Port Townsend •Washington 98368 /345360/379-4451 Fax http://www.cojefferson.wa.ustornmdevelopment/ Stormwater Calculation Worksheet MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: ire YJemc L18 /° 4/1/P/h DETERMINING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS:This stormwater calculation worksheet should be completed first to classify the proposal as"small,"medium,"or large." The size determines whether a Stormwater Site Plan is required in conjunction with a stand-alone stormwater management permit application, building permit application, or other land use approval application that involves stormwater review. The basic information will also be helpful for completing a Stormwater Site Plan,if required. PARCEL SIZE(I.E..SITE) Size of parcel I e 1 acres An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Multiply the acreage by this figure. Size of parcel in square feet At 7, 0/6 sq/ft Land-disturbing activity is any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover(both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, excavation,and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and road construction. Native vegetation is vegetation comprised on plant species,other than noxious weeds,that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples include species such as Douglas fir,western hemlock,western red cedar,alder,big-leaf maple,and vine maple;shrubs such as willow,elderberry,salmonberry, and salal;herbaceous plants such as sword fern,foam flower,and fireweed. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY.CONVERSION OF NATIVE VEGETATION.AND VOLUME OF CUT/FILL Calculate the total area to be cleared,graded,filled, Answer the following two questions related to excavated,and/or compacted for proposed development conversion of native vegetation: project. Include in this calculation the area to be cleared for: Does the project convert%acres or more of Construction site for structures sq/ft native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? Drainfield,septic tank,etc. -0" sq/ft Circle: Yes Well,utilities,etc. - sq/ft Does the project convert 2'/z acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Driveway,parking,roads,etc. . sq/ft Circle: Yes N Lawn,landscaping,etc. "®" _ sq/ft Other compacted surface,etc. � sq/ft Indicate Total Volumes of Proposed: Total Land Disturbance sq/ft Cut -6-- Fill -0' (cu/yd) [over) stormwater talc worksheet—REV.2202008 1 Impervious surface is a hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to roof tops,walkways, patios,driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled,macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. STORMWATER CALULATIONS–IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NEW EXISTING, Structures(all roof area) sq/ft Structures(all roof area) sq/ft Sidewalks sq/ft Sidewalks sg/ft Patios sq/ft Patios sg/ft Solid Decks sq/ft Solid Decks sq/ft (without infiltration below) (without infiltration below) Driveway,parking,roads,etc sq/ft Driveway,parking,roads,etc sq/ft Other sq/ft Other sq/ft Total New sgfft Total Existing _ei sq/ft TOTAL NEW+TOTAL EXISTING* sq/ft `This amount will be used to check total lot coverage. The following questions will help determine whether the proposed project is considered development or redevelopment. DEVELOPMENT v.REDEVELOPMENT Divide the total existinq impervious surface above by the size of the parcel and convert to a percentage: Does the site have 35%or more of existing impervious surface? Circle: Yes FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS: If the answer is yes, the proposal is considered redevelopment and the attached Figure 2 should be used to determine the applicable Minimum Requirements. If the answer is no,the proposal is considered new development and the attached Figure 1 should be used. At this juncture,the applicant should refer to the applicable Flow Chart to determine the Minimum Requirements for stormwater management. DCD staff will help verify the classification of the project and the application requirements. For proponents of "small projects who must comply only with Minimum Requirement #2—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention—an additional submittal is not required. The proponent is responsible for employing the 12 Elements to control erosion and prevent sediment and other pollutants from leaving the site during the construction phase of the project. Pick up the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Best Management Practices(BMPs) Packet. Proponents of"medium"projects—those that must meet only Minimum Requirements #1 through #5—and for "large" projects—those that must meet all 10 Minimum Requirements—are required to submit a Stormwater Site Plan. DCD has prepared a submittal template of a Stormwater Site Plan, principally for rural residential projects. Complete the template in the Stomiwater Site Plan Instructions and Submittal Template or prepare a Stormwater Site Plan using the step-by-step guidance in the Stormwater Management Manual. APPLICANT SIGNATURE By signing the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet, I as the applicant/owner attest that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property. (LA "0 R OR AUTHORIZ-rar'PR SENTATI IGNA�f) (OA ) stonmvater catc worksheet—REV.2120/2008 2 Parcel Print Page 1 of 1 Parcel Number:976800013 08/15/2014 Owner Mailing Address: OKANOGAN HOLDINGS LTD C/O ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS 380 LAMPLIGHTER DRIVE MARCO ISLAND FL 34145-4542 Site Address: 170 N BAY WAY PORT LUDLOW 34145-4542 Section: 29 School District: Chimacum(49) Qtr Section: SW 1/4 Fire Dist: Port Ludlow(3) Township: 29N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1E Tax Code: 0231 Planning area: 34145-4542 Sub Division: 9768 - OAK BAY WATERFRONT TRS. Land Use Code: 1100 34145-4542 Property Description: OAK BAY WATERFRONT TRACTS LOTS 26 & 27 (/°' l A khV v http://www.co.jefferson:wa us/assessors/parcel/parcelprint.asp?PARCEL NO=976800013 9/30/2014