Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZON2015-00007 11., :I, •'. • 81 tC4.934-Va . • 411::i t / '• ' • . ,, . ._,..- 1WW2241 9•LY../24143222 - Ilk ', i • ,, . Mt! 49430:3223 743.341,43120 , 4;43034.1021 a i ow 991430219 r 9410304)2% sw.300259 9`4534:4244 / .k. 99,)300272 54:113e.702!0 , . , . . 44 45:03,X121!T ci" .• ,t. .,• 9■403tx.21A A). WO V.:4J2.05 9•903M24.-rts 94A)3.20:1411 , 1 ,.N.c. .,.. ,A‘E. '•' ' '_ . i0v 930' 3CO204 1.190Ck202 sw...130-102,31 "'"•,...,.........i.w.., •-‘ • •P 941413C01 W. •91.k.P.CCe.'41 b ''''' ' 990300435 • 950.10,11',6 jo 9gocKy,3,4 itsa":,200•43.:1. SfiffYYJ 1 31 - ,gV4304.1/15 ' 9..b=0',7.7 `,..:••=e•L•,_'•.:'.',.. '42030013 =" . • %VICO ISS•qrsor.,:o:Is 9300 1'4-41 4c.k.734:•X..!• ' ,• W03430103 2 / , S9034:4Y:1 ' : 9`410Y.XPC.! •_. i 29.0341.11.22 = e...:!.t % 4 saltaxccee/rdScrcossaS . , Pri- 11 OFV ),\I mAll 1 6 2015 . .. . \, T I JEFF EiiSOli COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVROPMENT S • R/� __ ggON C, r~� '�1 \, I ,w �� JEFFERSON COUNTY { I 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I , `. `-,. 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend •Washington 98368 OrcO 360/379-4450 • 360/379-4451 Fax ic r r U�iY LI 13 SIN http://www.co.Jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ T nr C,IJ;f,k±1NITY DEt1ELOPNIFNT Stormwater Calculation Worksheet MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: 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) A r+r got Size of parcel a 6 acres nn�� An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Multiply the acreage by this figure. Size of parcel in square feet . L 9)47 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? Grainfield, septic tank,etc. sq/ft Circle: Yes No Well,utilities,etc. sq/ft Does the project convert 21/2 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Driveway, parking,roads,etc. sq/ft Circle: Yes No Lawn, landscaping,etc. sq/ft Other compacted surface,etc. sq/ft Indicate Total Volumes of Proposed: Total Land Disturbance sq/ft Cut Fill (cu/yd) [over] stormwater caic worksheet Rev 9-9-2010—REV 919/2010 1 • 0 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 of the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. C ommon 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) WA sq/ft Structures(all roof area) 25 1 sq/ft Sidewalks sq/ft Sidewalks sq/ft Patios sq/ft Patios sq/ft Solid Decks sq/ft Solid Decks (without infiltration below) • ;without infiltration below) sq/ft Driveway,parking, roads,etc sq/ft Driveway,parking, roads, etc 24.)44(p sq/ft Other sq/ft Other sq/ft Total New sqlft Total Existing ,246o qit s TOTAL NEW+TOTAL EXISTING* tO)246 sq/ft This amount will be used BY STAFF 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 existing impervious surface above by the size of the parcel and convert to a percentage: 25.2. Does the site have 35%or more of existing impervious surface? Circle: Yes No 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 Minrnum 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 Stormwater Site Plan Instructions and Submittal Template or prepare a Stormwater Site Plan using the step-by-step guidance in the Sto-mwater 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. r 11- 4-,,. .s,: . 3/4 15 (LANDOWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESEN •TIVE SIGNATURE) (DAT FQR OFFICE USE ONLY`;` . "., SMALL MEDIUM .LARGE Stormwater Site"Plan" Yes REDEVELOPIN�NT." . " No„_,,,_ stormwater calc worksheet Rev 9-9-2010—REV 9/9/2010 2 • 013, E '' . l' 11V El] I-}'; AD It Storm water Calculation (based on Google Earth satellite) Scale ! Inches Conversion Scale in Feet Total Feet u L , Acreage Calculation 1 ____; ;V ti Y 0.75 3.5 4.7 100 466.7 Jr r L,; N ;C.CCa i LIE ITY 7CVLO°MENT 0.75 4 5.3 100 533.3 0.75 2.5 3.3 100 333.3 0.75 1.5 2.0 100 200.0 132500 sq feet 0.75 1.25 1.7 100 166.7 0.75 3 4.0 100 400.0 0.75 2 2.7 100 266.7 0.75 1.5 2.0 100 200.0 0.75 0.0 100 0.0 66975 sq feet Total Square Footage 199475 sq feet Buildings, Decks and Patios Total Square Acres 4.58 sq acres 0.625 2 3.2 20 64.0 0.625 2.125 3.4 20 68.0 0.625 0.75 1.2 20 24.0 0.625 0.1875 l 0.3 20 6.0 4180 Sq feet/Bldg Shed 10x12 120 Sq feet Total of 6 Buildings 120 Sq feet Parking Lots&Road Lower 1 1.875 1.9 100 187.5 1 0.5 0.5 -100 50.0 9375 Sq feet Bldg 16 1 , 0.75 0.8 100 75.0 Top 1 0.625 0.6 100 62.5 Rt Side 1 0.5 0.5 100 50.0 Lf Side 1 1 1.0 100 100.0 Bottom 4118 Sq feet Bldg 15 1 0.75 0.8 100 75.0 Top 1 0.75 0.8 100 75.0 Rt Side 1 0.625 0.6 100 62.5 Lf Side 1 1 1.0 100 100.0 Bottom 5123 Sq feet Bldg 14+Entry Road 1 1 1.0 100 100.0 Top 1 0.625 0.6 100 62.5 Rt Side 1 0.5 0.5 100 50.0 Lf Side 1 1.875 1.9 100 187.5 Bottom 5030 Sq feet Entry road 800 Sq feet Buildings 25800 Sq feet Blacktop 24446 Sq feet Grand Total 50246 Sq feet Percentage 0.25189 Parcel Print Page 1 of 1 Parcel Number 990300299 08/15/2014 Owner Mailing Address: ADMIRALTY CONDO'S#2 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOC P.O. BOX 65402 PORT LUDLOW WA 98365 Site Address: 98365 Section: 16 School District: Chimacum(49) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Port Ludlow(3) Township: 28N Tax Status: CA Range: 1E Tax Code: 0231 Planning area: 98365 Sewer: PLSewer- ' Drai PLDD-YES Connected(No CWF) Bank: View 1: View 2: Zoning 1: MPR-RC/CF-MPR Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zoning 2: Zoning 3: Sub Division: 9903 - THE ADMIRALTY &ADMIRALTY #2 Land Use Code: 7600 98365 Property Description: THE ADMIRALTY #2 COMMON AREAS W__IN C)--- http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parcelprint.asp?PARCEL N0=990300299 3/20/2015 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TYPE I LAND USE PERMIT APPLICANT: ADMIRALTY CONDO'S#2 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOC PORT LUDLOW WA 98365 DATE ISSUED: March 20, 2015 DATE EXPIRES: March 20,2016 MLA NUMBER: MLA15-00015 PROJECT PLANNER: David Wayne Johnson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF HAZARDOUS PROBLEM TREES WITHIN SHORELINE PROJECT LOCATION: THE ADMIRALTY#2 COMMON AREAS - Section 16, Township 28N, Range 01 E, Located at 120 Admiralty Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 CONDITIONS: 1.) Trees removed shall be replaced in kind consistent with the recommendation in the"Landscape Consultation Tree Selection" letter by Savage Plant and Landscape dated October 14,2013. 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.) The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff on mARCH 20, 2015 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: Shoreline Residential Shoreline Designation; High Landslide Hazard Area. 3.) This proposal complies with JCC 18.22.070(13) & (21)and JCC 18.25.310(2)(d)(iii) & (vii). 4.) An Arborist's report field notes prepared by Richard Hefley dated March 16, 2015 were submitted with this application. 5.) A Geotechnical Report prepard by Jim Johannessen dated June 21, 2011 was submitted with this application to address the stability of the shoreline slope. 6.) The site plan as submitted with the Tree Removal Zoning application on March 16, 2015 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 March 20, 2015 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 7.) This approval is for Removal of Approximately 20 Aspen Trees to be Replaced Deciduous and Evergreen Trees 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. 5/2 .,/zet).— UDC Administra or MLA15-00015 \\tidemark\data\forms\F_MLT_IssuePermit_U.rpt 3/20/2015 Page 1 of 1 1 1),) gl . T L sir 0(I� 11 ' — . ,, ( _ L, , . • ,1 .,, ? C./ Z 41 i u (5' . . vi 1 cr,-,:, .,...0, i o-> . s - ilk . 41 co„ 6,1 oar. cD w El* '= !► \ 4r .1` a § c4` 4 A. • j c7 _ P` ; in _... -V.4 5Th g° 4 U III . to e rl ._. v < It?" . qi J 1 � (6 A L a to i 6 E L -ra _ C5 - z ---< . ,- <5 _ - • __.__.._.-.__--14QL - . _ i?+Y 02,d , ? 2 ::s _F � ' use the "Print" lints next to t 8 pr � i a as a? r _ F',:,,'-..' ' ,. , ‘,__ . - .--' . :-''' - ''.' ,y,,„....,....., Y r- t } 5 .rte " ITS,"+ - dri ' 77'1.7-:•• 1-'-' --:-.`"------1 ' It''' H 1 IH: 'I' ' ' 1 -.1.1 . •I're5 0 ' I '‹ • •■•■■ _!', ! .-- •'tf5 .: ,. .^^, c- 0 n A E fts 0 . 43 co vi V t 'Al Al E 1 . 0 - CI Z -at) c) , g_it :a 6 t ), V > 43 t •'t al › ‘*4 a- • \:‘ - . ' • CA I t 1 0) v•. 0 Ati 4 I 1.' CO • (1) • • '.-.: LCI'l 1* 44 44 CNI 111 • 1#' • 'it, -- • .0c7, : , ,. . , ' .-‹f - • , t W., N. .. , . ., - 3 14 0 ' 5Th ) to E PO C . . ---73 . . . , c . • 0 • it, .-‹ --t - )- . .3 o 0 1 0 ......) I .,,- • q • ..-6 I( go • ) . • go - :1 ri _ 4t) i L• trz, • > -- --- a. ,t 0 i •c fzt .1 d >•■ di ...... . L rti -4..) 71) 0) E - a- L / < ,.4.: 1 CS :--.-----.' ....0 4 3 . i ,.. _...‹, c .--licx • visibl( t the "Print"-, screen, use t • ,,. r rp3 . v [- -, 11-----s\lic i,„.......,....._ - 1 , ) To see all the detai.Istit,hliantk anreext to 81 _.,,, 1 11 ,. 1 r \11 MAR 1 6 2015 , 1 i L L----' ,-- p,‘• 4 - '`":',...„1- 4... ':',..•-•._ Ism'''. :... ... .. . . ... :...-7 •-r. - .• ..,.. ,..-„,„ • ._ ..,. .... ,•..„1.''..• - ,....,,,,.. - , ,.,. • •••' ._,., ,..•-, " . . .. _.. . - .,...,...,- ' ,,.... _ .•. ' ..,...-;"F•i'--.: "" " -'' - ' ',',''-'.",..,'- • - - - -• •• -. '"*14',;.•1 ----- -'''• .... . . .,.,..., - _ . . .. , .. ..._..„,. . , ,.... .. .. .,:-.,,t,,..,-._. • ;..-,---:,--,-,:,,,,, : , ... -:,:„...........-:... --. .. - - • !..,-.- -- ... . ,,-- :-..,./..--,- . -- .--.....: .;.--, . . . . . . ....,.... . .-,.. :-. ,, ,.....„...„,,,,,.....„.„ . _.: ..„...,. ..., ._. ..... „,,........::„:„„..........,_,........,-,_::::::„:„. ,,...- - : - ----e•-•"-,'.a.'"4: °-..>-. . . , . ....,...„.,...., .,,..,,,,,' 4 .. . :._..-„,..,.. .. . -,..... - ' ,- _•. , . ,•,,,rp ,, . -- r " ". ,,'''''■Z. .. ,,, r . • "... ' - r , . ., • . -,- , -• ••:,•.:- • .-'...,_.' . .. ., ,•-•:;.• •••• 1 - .- .:_. . ,. ,. . ,, -, •, , , ..2 . .,_ _ _ ,, , ■..,,, .__,, _. .. ' ■, '. , ■,' .. ., . ., .. . . , .. . ._•..... . . , .,,,,.. . • . .r.,.. - ,.:.:.,,,,,,--......., -,- ,,•.--„,. _ . :•,-.:...:, , ..,. . ,_ . ...,... ■, -' ",' ,, ,.,' •-,:r. ' . '. ',,, • _ s ' ' ■,' '' ' . ''' ..'-;',..g. .4.' ''::".''''7-;5;.a.' ''..*' ' •,...-V., . ---'.',. --- ''.'".... ..'• •',':-::'; ••••`.-' ,,:•''.--; '--'• ' . , "'.''.r.''. '',..7,.=' '''''' '.,,f';:;iO4"7 ';'.: .7',''-:". ,''„.1.;.r " ,., ,„.. , 6,,,,'a''''''''. "' ' ,-,.:.ri,=•.-t*wir' . •-.••••• --,-,:,'?•-,--,._T,_,•,".--,•-;i-':.,:,,,•• _. - .--:,_'-•.- . ,,,:ik:•;;4.1.1:bs•-'''.7°-;:,:ii.::-'-'7::::'-'''l .-:.,-'' 1 g 'Al''r. •- '-'"" '''-'- - . ' i'.*...--,:..--4.-gANT...0,-;4r..----.-.:•-•,--.:- ,..s.,:;•f-,,-,Akr.'1*.- . -, . -„•,,,,, ••,r--5-i•-.::-="1,4,-,..:•••d/e ' ---•••'.., -' ,', ,-• ,. ''''''-••••,;:••,44,0-• •,';-."-,•:.•.-,• -',•-,• ...'-'7';'''''''•'•'4'.../Z.'1;,..-k-•-• - -.---,',..:440„,'474,rtt,...•.'-. '''''• .••'-'..-',...,Itr.i.: '',--:•,:-.,-,r,-'--••-;" - ,,;,,L rnaaet,`,1r;01,z,::ffi,..],•„•...,:„•,, -,..„.,',.:,S,,,,,C„-;,.'•'-•;.5..=,',' .4',4„,,•=•-44-40.:* •'''•••:•=,,,,,-- '',..4,,,,,,i1.,igt,'-'4e'-',•_-,,,,•,. •••"''''. '' , .:,".",'.,•!,?-:•,f,:-';',,,,s, :-...,,i,, ,,,l'5,',,,:z4;:?.'!.:-.'..4.1,-7,4:'...:-.::...;- .-4:'-'1..,..-Y.:'.-0.-- '...; ..,,--":,:),-......i1.-,At?...':.,''.'..--:-.. -- - 4.',. - ---'•:' 1F,'-'',.;:f,:k..'- '7',.::,:-.`4.-7,24.4.,,, •••••=•-rr-,-----•.' •-- • , -,•>•,,,..,,.], . '?,._-., ._,•,, • - Up Front Parcel Review Parcel 990300299 Printed: March 20, 2015 ADMIRALTY CONDO'S#2 Site Address(es): HOMEOWNER'S ASSOC ADMIRALTY LN , WA PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365 Parcel Number: 990300299 S-T-R: 16-28N-1E Total Acreage 4 Legal Description THE ADMIRALTY#2 COMMON AREAS Land Use: 7600 Flood District: Fire District: 3 Planning Area: 7 Flood Map(FIRM)Panel No: School District 49 Zoning: /t (7 R-1 _ COMP PLAN C" DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY PLAN: UGA: UGA Trans [ ] Plot plan states "property line" [ Assessor's Map (Property line 'ubmitted plot plan must match the property lines as identified on the Assessor's 1/4 map) [ ] Legal Access to Property NO [ 1� Parcel Tags or Scanned Documents ES NO [ ESA's: Special Reports ► -arby YES .0 [ V]` Designated Ag YES • L [ ] Shoreline Designation, NO `E U—'(_ . [ ] Shoreline Slope Stabili NO S `Z Stream Type:YES NO FWHCA: YES NO Wetlands: YES NO Rare Plants:YES NO Seismic: YES NO Landsli : YES NO _ ,,,. t 1_,_ ,'she ?t/ Flood: S NO Erosion: YES NO Aquifer Recharge Area:YES NO SIPZ: none At Risk High Risk Coastal CMZ: none High Risk Moderate Risk Disconnected CMZ Stormwater site plan su i is itted: YesNo [ V Forest Lands: YES 0 Adjoining Forest Lands: Commercial/ Rural/ Inholding [ � Mineral Lands: YES [ VI Agricultural Lands: YES �0 [ VJ chaeology: YES ID [ �o Shooting Zone: YES o` V� A [ Stormwater: New Impervious Surface I� Land Disturbing Activity ESA's Stormwater Req's:Min Req#2 Min Re• #1 thru#5 Min Req#1 thru#10 Engineering [ f/l - Notice Provisions/Disclosure:Airport YES NO MRL YES NO Forest Lands YES NO [ yr Landscaping Required es No Nam,'uJ (A., vL2., rce,4 [ V Parking Spaces Require ir410 2 Other ( yr Building Height: 35' UBC Standard [ yr Impervious Surface coverage percentage: Resource Lands&Public: 10% Rural Residential: 25% Rural Industrial: Per UDC Sec 6.7 Rural Commercial: 60% f B ilding Coverage:60%in Rural Industrial Lands only [ Vr Total Building (s) Size: pra RVC:20,000 SF CC:5,000 SF NC:7,500 SF GC: 10,000 SF All others:subject to septic&water constraints/None specified [ i/ Setbacks: Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Shoreline Setback: LSHA Setback: [ vr Road Classification,: — Road Approach: R s T REQ'D RAP [ i',.]� SEPA Required: YES EXEMPT [ VI Flood Certificate: [ LY Existing Case(s) & Condition(s): Violations: Yes No [ 0/ Recorded Date of Subdivision: AFN Over 5yrs=UDC � /Plat Conditions: ,� <5yrs=Plat Conditions on plat or Old Ordinance [ (' Lots/Require Declaration of Restrictive ovenant YE ubmitted: YES NO [ UGA No Protest Agreement YEPsubmitted: YES NO [ t/]' Site Visit conducted szroP [ yr Require Final Zoning Approval YES [ (4 ADMIN: Setbacks entered in Permit Plan case 41010 ES New Parcel Tags entered in Permit Plan I, YES Special Reports Scanned YES Title Notes Updated Parcel tags found for parcel 990300299 1.) Custom Warning Flag SDP60 approved by the BOCC on September 4, 1973. No 11/17/2003 conditions on permit, however,application dated July 16, 1973,#14 identifies specific development criteria. Cases Associated with APN 990300299 Review Cases Name Type Status Planner CAM14-00555 LANKSBURY NA M David Wayne Johnson Application Received: 10/7/2014 Permit Issued/Case closed: 10/7/2014 Case Finaled: Permitting for new carports over existing asphalt CAM15-00109 ADMIRALTY CONDO'S#2 NA M Application Received: 3/3/2015 Permit Issued/Case closed: 3/3/2015 Case Finaled: Checking Tree Removal Application for Completeness M LA15-00015 ZON15-00007 MLA15-00015 ADMIRALTY CONDO'S#2 I P David Wayne Johnson Application Received: 3/16/2015 Permit Issued/Case closed: Case Finaled: REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS I KEE WITHIN SHORELINE SDP73-00060 POPE&TALBOT DEVELOPMEF A Application Received: 7/16/1973 Permit Issued/Case closed: 9/7/1973 Case Finaled: Construction of fifteen (15)tour(4) unit buildings in which individual apartments will be sold in condominium, recreational facilities, and parking areas for owners of said condominium. \\tidemark\data\forms\R_Parcel_CRMLA.rpt 3/20/2015 Page 2 of 2 Savage Plants and Landscape I ip P 6810 State H 104 :` 1:11]Kin ston W 98346 i r Kingston, MAR 1 6 2015 Landscape Consultation JL, i f;, GI)NTv Tree Selection G COMINITY DEW.'!OPMENT Skip Rasmussen For job site located at: Admiralty H Condominium Association Admiralty Lane 46 Village Way PMB 149 Port Ludlow,WA 98365 Port Ludlow,WA 98365 October 14,2013 Recommendations At our meeting on site on October 8,we discussed removal of the existing aspen trees and what qualities are needed in trees used to replace them. The trees I am recommending Will grow to be an appropriate height for the site, and have non-invasive root systems. After reviewing the site,I recommend a makeover for the whole development. The existing landscaping is overgrown and out of scale with the buildings. The laurel hedges by the entries to each unit are particularly problematic,and should be replaced with smaller-growing plants, such as dwarf conifers. The renovations could be done in phases,working on one section at a time. Recommended Trees Deciduous Trees Northern Glow Maple 20'high x 24'wide green foliage Fall color is bright orange-red to deep red Eddie's White Wonder Dogwood 25'high x 20'wide dark green foliage Large white flower,red fall color Snowcone Japanese Snowbell 25'high x 20' wide dark green foliage Pure white bell-shaped flower,yellow fall color "The Rising Sun"Redbud 16'high x 20' wide golden foliage New growth is orange,fall color yellow. Magenta-rose flower. Tan bark adds winter interest continued on next page Evergreen Trees Atrovirens Narrow Cedar 25'high x 15'wide emerald foliage Sekkan-sugi Cryptomeria 15'-30'high x 10'wide pale yellow foliage Kitayama Cryptomeria 18'high x 10' wide medium green foliage Joe Kozey Umbrella Pine 20'high x 8'wide emerald foliage Hicks Yew 15'high x 8'wide dark green foliage Golden Splendor Hemlock 15'high x 8'wide golden foliage �,I III MAR 1 0 2015 II I Field Notes 1 1E1 FLESG■:COUNTY Admiralty II Homeowner's Association ='T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dan Lanksbury - Manager These notes are written at the behest of Dan Lanksbury following a consultation and examination of Quaking Aspen (QA)trees at the Admiralty II community on 07/03/2014. I observed two groves of Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) located between three condominium buildings.One consisted of 9 trees in an area approx 20 x 30,the other consisting of 8 trees. I also accompanied Mr. Lanksbury beneath one building to observe Aspen roots that had extended throughout the area and underneath the vapor barrier. I was surprised to see roots nearly 3" in diameter lodged against the concrete footings of the building,and,frankly, unpleasantly amazed to see saplings trying to grow in the total darkness beneath the building. Other issues with the Aspens were more predictable;this included extensive suckering where a previously hazardous QA was removed, QA sprouts causing and erupting through pavement, and suckers springing up on the shoreline,almost 100'from the original grove. I have previously recommended using QAs as a landscape tree because of their adaptability and many aesthetic values. I am reevaluating my opinions. I will also attach a brief report from a Colorado State University horticulturalist which deals primarily with the potential issues of QAs with pathogens. Due to their overly aggressive nature,short life-span,susceptibility to pathogens and the real and growing possibility of damage done to the condominium buildings, both to the structure and water-lines located below, I urge the residents to consider removing these trees and replacing them with more suitable vegetation. Though they consist of two groves totaling 15 trees, I consider them two vegetative entities for the following reasons; First,they are presently confined to a small area (though new suckers are arising up to 100'away),and secondly,these trees readily graft their roots together and, in nature,often form genetic monoculture communities. For stormwater and erosion control, I recommend these trees be replaced with broadleaved or coniferous evergreen trees. The vast majority of our rainfall occurs in winter months when these trees are dormant,and so they contribute very little to stormwater control. Please feel free to use this letter to accompany my previous Vegetation Management report, and wherever you read of my recommending the use of Quaking Aspens in a landscape or urban setting, please strike it out. Thank you, Richard Hefley—Consulting Arborist ISA#PN-0784A Note: Following is the CSU report, as well as photos of your QAs taken on 08/15/2014. 1.4 ` ' .. 4 '-',1.,,, s M« 3 ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,:„:„t...t.4 ''At .t''46 ,14,10 '' ' .^" 'i'- '40,,L.4. ' i',..r "4:etirr/V),,,it, ',, ,. '''' Aspen Can Be a x ; r o Troublesome k ' ' Tree ';.,,,,,v' i.,.* 4:. *:-..,._- 1 'r°! ,k'''if". '''''' I 't'Aili„, *AI ,4 9-,' . •-•*, '' , ° ' ', 41..'„ f.. , ry By Robert Cox, horticulture agent, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Ask a horticulturist about the use of quaking aspens (Populus tremuloides) in the home landscape and the advice you likely will hear is "OK, but...." Forty years ago, aspen was seldom used in home landscapes. In the interim, however,the use of this tree has increased dramatically in Colorado's urban landscapes. Aspen grows fast, lending the landscape an early finished look, and it provides an informal touch of Colorado to the suburban home or urban landscape. Aspen is a small to medium-sized tree that won't overwhelm smaller yards so typical of today's urban subdivisions. It has attractive bark, leaves tremble in the slightest breeze and the tree can develop good fall foliage color. That's the good news.Now for a reality check: Aspen is affected by numerous insects,diseases and cultural problems. While there are plenty of good-looking aspen around the region, it also is the most common problem tree discussed in calls or samples brought to Colorado State University Cooperative Extension's Plant Diagnostic Clinic. Ecologically, aspen serves as a"succession"tree, quickly seeding in where other vegetation was lost because of erosion, fire, logging, insects or disease. It provides cover for seedlings of pine, fir and spruce, and as these become larger,the "nurse crop" of aspen may die out. Aspen reproduce not only by seed but also by extensive suckering. An aspen grove starts as suckers shoot off the roots of a mother tree, which arrived at the site by seed. This suckering habit can be a nuisance in the urban landscape, coming up in lawns and gardens. Aspens are short-lived trees, as expected from their role in forest ecology. In the urban landscape, even properly cared-for aspen may not reach 20 years. Life spans can be shortened further by one or more of several insects or diseases that attack aspen. Fungal diseases, such as Cytospora or other cankers which attack the trunk, are common, as are diseases of the foliage such as rusts, or leaf spots. Of the many insects that attack urban plantings of aspen, oystershell scale, aphids and aspen twiggall fly are most prevalent. Aspen prefers the moist but well-drained, slightly acidic soil found at higher elevations. Much of the soil in the Front Range of Colorado is compacted,poorly drained alkaline clay. Aspens transplanted to such soils are at a disadvantage, especially considering that much of the original root system was lost in the digging process. Aspens transplanted to landscapes are collected primarily from the mountains. A few nurseries offer nursery-grown aspens,which are grown to salable sizes in pots or in the field. While these should not experience the stress that mountain-collected aspens do, later insect and disease problems still are possible. Horticulturists and plant pathologists are hesitant to recommend aspen as a landscape tree for the Front Range. For those who insist, aspens should be planted on north or east slopes, or on north or east sides of the house, in soil well amended with organic materials and mulched after planting. Conditions often become extremely hot and dry on south or west exposures;this would further stress aspen. Should an aspen trunk become severely affected by Cytospora or oystershell scale, the gardener should be willing to cut down that trunk and allow other sucker shoots to develop into new trees. Another complaint about aspens in Front Range landscapes is that they do not develop as brilliant a yellow fall color as those in the mountains. Differences in soil chemistry and texture, soil moisture; day/night temperatures and sunlight intensity between the Front Range and the mountain areas all contribute to this. Should you plant aspen?Probably not, if you have space only on south or west exposures, or if the planting site is small and narrow. Yes, if you are willing to amend soils before planting a nursery-grown aspen and will monitor the aspen for problems. Remember that your nearby nursery or garden center carries many other tree choices f o r the landsca p e. For alternatives to planting aspen see: Aspens: Not the Only Small Tree in Town Cankers on Western Quaking Aspen, USDA Forest Service bulletin(off-site) Photo: Judy Sedbrook Back to T rees Home Page Ask a Colorado Master Gardener 1 Calendar 1 Children 1 Container Gardening 1 CSU Fact Sheets Credits ( Diseases 1 FAQ I Flowers 1 Fruits 1 Gardening 1 Glossary 1 Houseplants 1 Insects &Pests Lawn &Grasses 1 Links 1 New to Colorado ( PHC/IPM 1 Soil 1 Shrubs 1 Trees Vegetables 1 Water Gardening 1 Weeds 1 What's New 1 Who We Are 1 Xeriscape Search Contact Us I Disclaimer I Equal Opportunity ©CSU/Denv rt,s k '4$c_ w., a ,. Photos taken 08/15/2014'_ - '. .. e r+n;':' �: 4,' sx nom.. 5 - - 14 .4._.„ .... . : .,. .._ ;,,,..,,........ .. ._ _«- �.�I ------,,,,,-.....••••,;,„.„...fi . ",„ .•,•:.,,-,,..,..„....•,...,,, .,...„,,..„4„ ,•_....-,,,,,:,-..-;-, --. au, . w "...., . . ok,.,,, ,,. • .,„ , I.- ---- • • - ., ......... . ....•i.,:.‘,....:-,.--.7'.•,-- ';.,t -------- COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Coastal Geologic Site Assessment at Admiralty II Condominiums Port Ludlow, WA [FIVE- Prepared for: J Admiralty Condominium Association c/o Dan Lanksbury, D & D Services I I h Ari 1 b 2015 i P.Q. Box 65402 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Ahy iuNn O:PT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Jim Johannessen, Licensed Engineering Geologist, MS Coastal Geologic Services COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES June 21, 2011 introduction and Purpose Coastal Geologic Services is pleased to present this report summarizing site conditions and management recommendations for the Admiralty 11 bank property. Jim Johannessen, Licensed Engineering Geologist and MS,and Stephanie Williams of Coastal Geologic Services,visited the above-referenced medium bank property on May 24,2011 at your request.The beach at the property was walked along with you and two condominium owners.The geology and site conditions of the bank, beach,and the property uplands were investigated,and a series of fteld measurements and photos were taken during and after the site walk. The property is located at the north end of the developed condominium area near the Port Ludlow resort on 120 Admiralty Lane, in Port Ludlow,Jefferson County,WA. The property contains the east facing portion of the bank which has approximately 500 feet of water frontage.The roughly northern half of this bank area is the subject of this assessment. Site Conditions Geology and Bank The geology of the bank appeared to be composed almost entirely of till.This unit was interpreted as Vashon till,which was deposited during the most recent glaciation into the Puget Lowlands. Vashon till was also mapped in the area in the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington(WA Dept.of Ecology 1978).Till is a diamicton, or an unsorted mixture of sediment grain sizes(Easterbrook 1711 Ellis St,#103.,Bellingham, WA 98225(360)647-1845 jim@coastalgeo.com www.coastalgeo.com Coastal Geologic'Site Assessment,Admiralty 11 Condominiums June 21,2011,Page 2 of 8 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES,INC. 1992).Till was deposited under the most recent glacial ice sheet,and is therefore compacted and of moderately high strength.These soils were composed of gravelly,silty,clayey,SAND and gravelly,sandy,clayey,SILT.The till unit contained abundant pebble with minor granules and cobbles.These soils were very dense.Aside from small amounts of soil that appear to have been reworked on site(as mentioned above)native soils are generally located within 1-2 ft below existing grade. The property bank was mapped as unstable in the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington(WA Dept. of Ecology 1978)and specifically as"unstable old slide"."Unstable recent slide"was mapped along several short reaches immediately north of the buildings.These mapping designations were common around the banks/bluffs of the Port Ludlow area. The soil profile at the property from top to bottom consisted of approximately 1 foot of topsoil overlying 1-2 feet of gravelly, sandy, reworked soils which overlay the glacial till.The topsoil consisted of pebbly silty sand with a moderate amount of organics.The subsoil consisted of pebbly sand with silt and a small percentage of clay.This subsoil may contain reworked glacial deposits known as recessional outwash,which are generally weathered, unconsolidated sand and gravel. The till continued down to beach level and under the beach as exposed in isolated areas of the upper mid-tidal. Overall bank slopes were measured with a Suunto clinometer generally at 70-80 degrees from horizontal.Several smaller areas were on the order of 60 degree slopes and other small areas appeared to be as steep as vertical(90 degrees). Dispersed groundwater seepage was observed at the upper surface of the till unit as well as in limited quantities at several different elevations in the middle height of the bank face. Seepage was not at significant levels,but was slightly more concentrated in some areas in the middle elevation of the bluff face in the form of small`seeps and algae growing on the surface. Vegetation was intermittent in a number of different areas of the bluff face.This included: Nootka rose,western redcedar,ocean spray,sale!, red alder,and willow species. Several small landslides appeared to have occurred in the last winter(2010-11), also as supported by condominium owners and manager.The loss of bank crest in these small bank failures appeared to be limited to several feet landward and of limited length along the bank.The upper portions of the till as well as the topsoil and subsoil above the till were the areas of the bank that had failed.The type of landslides appeared to have been a debris fall or similar resulting in relatively coherent blocks of bank falling to the beach due to the saturation of loose soils surrounding the upper bank and the fact that the slopes are over steepened. Examination of oblique air photos form 4 years between 1977 and 2006(Figures 1-4)revealed that the changed in the appearance and location of major trees on the bank has not changed substantially in recent decades. However, scale and aspect variations make using oblique photos difficult for this purpose.The 2006 photo appears to show several very small recent landslides,and the 2001 photo shows more stability.The 1994 photos is of low quality.The bank face appeared mostly vegetated in the 1977 image,also suggesting limited bank recession in previous years. Running water was observed flowing over the lower bank face in a small ravine a short distance north of the northern property line.This water appeared to be draining from the south-central portion of the water treatment facility.The water had carved a small ravine through the upper and Coastal Geologic Site Assessment,Admiralty II Condominiums June 21,2011,Page 3 of 8 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. middle bank crest,with incision on the order of 5-10 feet visible.The area immediately below the drainage and above the riprap revetment was heavily vegetated and it was difficult to observe where the water originated. Riprap was used in the revetment as shore protection immediately north of the condominium property and is described in later sections of this report. Uplands The property contains 6 separate condominium buildings.The northern-most of these three are constructed near the bank, numbered 600, 700, and 800,from south to north.This assessment will focus on the area surrounding these three northern buildings. A small gently sloping yard was present immediately waterward of the three buildings.This area was covered with lawn and had a general slope of approximately 10 degrees toward the salt water. The northern building(number 800)was located 48.5 ft from the bank crest at the NE corner,and 55.0 ft from the SE corner,with the center as close as 26 ft.The central building was located 47.0 ft from the bank crest at the NE corner, and 67.0 ft from the SE corner, however the distance to the building to the edge of the near level yard was only 33.5 ft,above the slope and bench. A sewer line runs north-south and parallel with the bank crest through this area,as evidenced by several large,sewer manhole covers.The soils surrounding the sewer line, particularly on the waterward side,appeared to this geologist as fill soils,due to the unusual topography.Several shallow test holes were advanced into this area and gravelly sand was encountered in the upper few feet that also contained angular gravels.Angular gravels suggest that fill soil was indeed placed to cover and surround the sewer line.Sewer lines need to run at a relatively constant slope such that it appears this area may have been lower and was filled to allow for proper drainage of the line. Waterward of the southern two of the three buildings,a narrow lower elevation bench was present waterward of the sewer line.This bench appears to have been the original ground surface prior to site development. In other words,the sewer line area was filled above a sloping but lower elevation area. The bank crest was a very distinct line that went from very gently sloping uplands to the near vertical bank,as discussed in the previous section.Vegetation on the lower bench included salal, low Oregon grape,ornamental species, kinnick kinnick,and grasses. As previously stated, the condominium buildings were constructed on gently sloping ground, consistently sloping towards the marine waters. Moderate sized pine trees were present between the buildings.Small courtyard areas were present in the central and landward portion of the buildings.Reports of standing water accumulating in the 600 building(third from the northern-most building)during precipitation events was conveyed to us by the condominium owners at the site visit.Apparently this had not occurred at the other buildings.The property manager informed us that he was going to investigate if footing drain(perforated drain pipes)were installed along the footings of the buildings and determine if this footing drain area needed to be augmented with drain pipe. Further landward,and at higher elevation,a long parking lot was present.The parking lot drained toward the center of the long(north-south)axis.Three concrete catch basins with metal grated covers were located along this north-south center line.A series of corrugated metal culverts were present underground down the entry driveway into the first(southern)catch basin,and then Coastal Geologic Site Assessment Admiralty II Condominiums June 21,2011,Page 4 of 8 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES,INC. continued underground through to the northern parking lot catch basin.The culverts were either 10 or 12 inch inner diameter,corrugated aluminum.An additional similar pipe led from the northern catch basin angling toward the northeast off of the property.This was likely the same source of drainage that was observed in the small ravine immediately north of the property at the water treatment parcel. Beach and Coastal Processes The beach at the property consisted of a gently sloping, gravel and sand high-tide beach.The lower most intertidal and subtidal beach could not be observed due to the tide. Recent review of 2006 oblique aerial photos revealed that a sandy low tide terrace with boulders and cobble appears to be present further waterward in these lower tidal elevations. High-tide beach sediment was dominated by pebble and small cobble. However,at the upper-most •4 beach near the bank toe,coarse and very coarse sand generally dominated the beach sediment. The remainder of the upper high-tide beach contained generally 0.25-1.0 inch pebble.The mid intertidal portion of the beach was dominated by slightly larger gravel,on the order of 1-2.5 inch pebble and small cobble, along with lesser amounts of coarse sand. The high tide beach continued with a gentle slope all the way to the bank toe and no backshore was present at the subject property. No large woody debris/drift logs were observed along this beach and no backshore vegetation was present The beach met a near vertical,exposed till face at the uppermost end of the beach. At the northern property line and continuing further north,a fairly broad riprap revetment was present This revetment appears to have been in place for quite some time and may date to the construction of the adjacent water treatment facility.The riprap extended between 8 and 12 ft waterward of the trend of the bank toe on the subject property,well into the intertidal.No shore protection was present waterward of the lawn area just south of the Admiralty II Condominiums. Further south a shared beach stairway contained a short stretch of near vertical rockery wall. The beach at the subject property is part of a larger coastal system known as a net shore-drift cell. A net shore-drift cell describes a sediment transport pathway along the beach from source to transport area to sediment sink(deposition area;Johannessen and MacLennan 2007).This property is within a southward net shore-drift cell(Johannessen 1992).The property is located near the southern end of net shore-drift cell JE-5,which continues to the southern tip of the Port Ludlow (filled)spit(Johannessen 1992). This shore was part of a study by Johannessen(1999)which mapped"feeder bluffs"and other geomorphic shore types.A feeder bluff is a sediment source bluff that provides significant amounts of sediment to the beach and net shore-drift system.Bluff sediment input provides the large majorly of sediment for our beaches(Johannessen and MacLennan 2007).The entirety of the property shore was mapped as feeder bluff in the 1999 study.The original mapping was"contributing bluff", but the terminology was revised slightly soon after that study was completed and this site would currently be termed a feeder bluff(Johannessen and Chase 2005).This means that the bluff at the property is a significant sediment source for the beach system,among the higher sediment input bluffs in eastern Jefferson County. Coastal Geologic Site Assessment,Admiralty It Condominiums June 21,2011,Page 5 of COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES,INC. Conclusions and General Recommendations Overall,the erosion and retreat of the bank at the property appears to be fairly slow on a long-term basis. However, this is based on observations of conditions during the present time and observations of representatives from the condominium association,as well as several visits by Johannessen to the beaches north of the resort over the last 9 or so years. Evidence of recent landslides/bank failures was present at the time of the site visit such that some bank retreat is certainly occurring.However the horizontal retreat at these small areas appears to have been limited to 2-3 feet per slide event at most. There are multiple causes for bank recession at the subject property,as is typical for Puget Sound bluffs(Shipman 2004).These include wave attack, natural instability of soils,and altered vegetation and drainage patterns.The long-term driver of bank recession appears to be wave attack at the toe of the bank. However, it is typically saturated soil conditions following heavy precipitation events in winter that trigger these types of landslides(Tubbs 1974;Gerstel 1997).The steepness of the bank(generally 70-80 degrees)suggests that the erosion of the toe of the bank is occurring with adequate energy to keep the bank over steepened.This over steepening is possible due to the high density and fairly high strength of the till to stand at this steep an angle. Determining+the erosion rate through a very carefully completed aerial photo study would be very beneficial to measure past trends and project future trends in bank recession. It would be useful to determine the long term erosion rates at the three northern buildings,and determine if the erosion has generally been occurring at roughly the same rate or has been accelerating,or decelerating. This would give a more clear understanding of the long term erosion rates as well as the general size and character of landslides visible from air photos that would be expected to occur again in the future. Drainage management is very important at a coastal bank property. Improvements in drainage management would benefit the property in terms of decreasing the slope stability problem. .. However, since the till is fairly high strength and not as affected by saturation as other soils of the region,drainage improvements would not likely result in a dramatic change in bank erosion or landsliding, but would constitute a modest improvement in conditions through lowering the extent of saturation of upper bank soils. Specific recommendations are provided below. Specific Recommendations Drainage 1. it would be worth investigating the cost of installing gutters and`tightiines to collect and remove water from the roofs of the three northern buildings.The best solution would be to collect water from on the order of 2 points from each building(or possibly more if needed) and route the water through smooth walled pipes buried just under the ground surface.The pipes would be consolidated into 1-2 catch basins located waterward of the three buildings. Exiting the one or pair of catch basins would be a single, closed pipe(tightline)leading over the bank crest and down to the toe of the bank.These bank face tightline(s)are the most exposed and vulnerable portion of a drainage system,and need to be of adequate quality to ensure that they do not fail in the coming few decades in the winter,high- precipitation period. Coastal Geologic Site Assessment,Admiralty II Condominiums June 21,2011,Page 7of8 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. crest. Several small actions are recommended to further enhance the vegetative buffer above the bank crest: i. Preserve all fibrous-rooted native vegetation in the bench area and in an approximately 15 foot wide vegetation buffer landward of the bank crest. This includes conifers where they do not constitute a potential moderate to high hazard of wind throw that cold damage the buildings, Nootka/wild rose,willow,thimbleberry plants, saplings,and naturally established seedlings. ii. Remove and eliminate Himalayan blackberry growing in small patches on the bank crest buffer area. iii. Further enhance the vegetative buffer by planting areas with lower density with fibrous-rooted native species such as shore pine,ocean spray,salal and other native plants that occur at and near the property. iv. Additional vegetation species that would be useful should be researched through the Department of Ecology booklets. See http://www.ecy.wagovibiblio/9331.html and htto://www.ecy.wagov/programs/seatpubs/93-30/pitechOthtml. html. Limitations of This Report This report was prepared for the specific conditions present at the subject property to meet the needs of specific individuals. No one other than the client should apply this report for any purposes other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geologist who prepared this report.The findings and recommendations presented in this report were reached based on a brief field visit.The report does not reflect detailed examination of sub-surface conditions present at the site. It is based on examination of surface features, bank exposures,soils characteristics,beach features, and geologic processes. In addition,conditions may change at the site due to human influences,floods,earthquakes,groundwater regime changes,or other factors.This report may not be all that is required by a construction contractor to carry out recommended actions. Great care must be exercised when working on unstable slopes or close to foundations. Thank you for engaging the professional services of Coastal Geologic Services, Inc.if we can be of any additional assistance please contact our office at(360)647-1845. References Easterbrook, D.J., 1992.Advance and retreat of the Cordilleran ice sheets in Washington, U.S.A.Geographie Physique at Quatemaire,v.46:p.51-68. Gerstel,W.J.,M.J.Brunengo,W.S.Langley Jr.,R.L.Logan,H.S.Shipman,and T.J.Walsh, 1997,Puget Sound Banks:The Where,Why,and When of Landslides Following the Holiday 1996/97 Storms. Washington Geology.March 1997.Vol 25,no. 1. Johannessen,J.W., 1992.Net shore-drift on Washington State:volume 6,San Juan and parts of Jefferson, Island,and Snohomish counties.Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,WA Department of Ecology,Olympia. Coastal Geologic Site Assessment Admiralty 17 Condominiums June 21,2011,Page 8 of 8 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES,INC. Johannessen,J.W., 1999.Critical Shoreline Areas Relative to Critical Nearshore Habitats at Tala Point to Kali Point,Eastern Jefferson County,WA,Prepared for.Jefferson County Planning Department,27 p.,3 Maps. Johannessen,J.W.and M.A.Chase,2005.Island County feeder bluff and accretion shoreform mapping. Prepared for Island County Marine Resources Committee. Johannessen,J.W.and A.J.MacLennan,2007.Beaches and banks of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No.2007-04. Published by Seattle District,US Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle, Washington. Shipman,H.,2004,Coastal Banks and Sea Cliffs on Puget Sound,Washington.In Formation,Evolution,and Stability of Coastal Cliffs-Status and Trends.Edited by M.A.Hampton and G.B.Griggs.USGS Professional Paper 1693. United States Geological Survey.p 81-94. •+ Tubbs,D.W., 1974.Causes,Mechanisms and Prediction of Landsliding in Seattle.Unpublished dissertation, University of Washington,November 1975. Washington Department of Ecology,1978.Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington,vol. 11,Jefferson County: Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,WA Dept.of Ecology,Olympia. Coastal Geologic Services,Inc. Jim Johannessen, Licensed Engineering Geologist,MS Coastal Geologic Site Assessment,Admiralty II Condominiums June 21,2011 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. 6 „„ r. o o 1 rt' Figure 1.Oblique aerial photo `aAR f s .from 6/23/06(WA Dept.of Ecology) _ e i e .,4 f_ms 's K m ' MR s g cf• C1}t } i t,� " f L ' �' ue r t " _ ,�� 1�'10'► ..I�g.' ,. -Y s ra y k 15Jµ•of .` . < ' a, 3 �` J.ti t � " :' .✓i r y $s. <• f". . l+ ; S*^ —..– ca " f y "t�r s a Figure L Oblique aerial photo from 5/22/01 (WA Dept of Ecology) Coastal Geologic Site Assessment Admiralty H Condominiums June 21,2011 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. . ,. . i k — _, ,s 1 , ; 44., S .... '6,-F--• ",*,--., 4 Nit's. ** t. _ ,,,,,,,,.....-...140;,., --,..- 1`. ly,Ri. _..„. - VoNiff. L'i.vrliggf,i- ..Z' 4 ,, ...., . Figure 3.Oblique aerial photo from 7/24/94(WA Dept of Ecology) ... , - 'fif. ' •.„„,„.—, IT ..,...., ..., .., , - * -`1,■ '- ' - oir -4( - - ,, --- I, — - ..,*---5,. . -S -,- -0- V , 4 2, 701‘".. 'la - IV ''',„■$' 4"' * ' -. , -k- *.*•""*"--.,,,,-,....... , ,,,„,„„ , --= , . ft, -,, , , . , . , ,. Figure 4.Oblique aerial photo from 6/12/77(WA Dept. of Ecology) • S Admiralty II Condominium — Shoreline Permit for Removal of Aspens Contents: • Project Cover Letter 1 E O F Q V A • Master Permit Application J1 MAR 1 6 2015 d • Parcel Number • Parcel Map JEFF ERSTCOUNTY • Google Map I__._._ DFPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Site Map with Tree Locations • Arborist Field Notes Report (July 3, 2014) • Geologic Site Assessment (June 21, 2011) • Stormwater Calculation Worksheet • Stormwater Spreadsheet Calculations C;h I Contact— Dan Lanksbury—360-437-0394 (cell 360-301-2250) Email —ddsvcs.lanksbury @gmail.com i • Aspen Removal Project—Admiralty II Condominiums This project is to remove seventeen mature Aspen trees that are located between three four-plex condominiums. Removal is to eliminate potential damage to the building structures. These trees currently have large roots extending into the crawispace of the buildings and pushing through the blacktop parking surface. Aspen removal is a multi-step process that requires "girdling" the trees and applying concentrated "Round-up" to the cambium layer prior to cutting. This step should be done when the trees first bud out in late April to early May to maximize the effect on the root system. Approximately three weeks after girdling the trees will be cut down and another coat of "Round-up" will be applied to the stump within 30 minutes of cutting. Failure to apply "Round-up" causes the trees to regenerate through extensive suckering. ,\-\--..- .E,r:{17:1V....___, MA ,y \ 162015 ; JET rtRoGk(;;;UidTY OFT.Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t, d_ON15 --0001 4- JEFFERS OUNTY r` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D P -- 621 Sheridan Street• Port Townsend•Washington 98368 ' ' 360/379-4450. 360/379-4451 Fax I MAR 1 6 2015 --� www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment J Master Permit Application ML.A: JEFFERSE Couivry Project Description(include separate sheets as necessary): Perr.r•ve 17 AspP.n Tees tocai-nri batweps, 6ui(at..y Tax Parcel Number: Z�j+.tru,.l4,ile finewnaram ryesPmperty BFze: j L`,,acres (acres/square feet) Site Address and/or Directions to Property: 90)120 3n& 140 &I.m,r'cV1#t l)ne - area Ea ekuiven kniitci, Property Owner(s)of Record: _ .. _ . .. ► ,. t .i, Telephone: -437—o394 Fax. 3foLa�-�Z-4l email: _ e r. .. r.�' •.rt,jt,CQDI Mailing Address:Tae, Reim. 0402,,1 hit-" t.uc Io+al \41\ 3615 Applicant/Agent(if different from owner): =u M. - .• C, Telephone: (raG°-4'7-0',,x1- Fax; ees-437•-4li email: s .(mil Mailing Address: What kind of Permit?(Check each box that applies ❑Building ❑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 Tree Vegetation Request **Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please identify any other local,state or federal permits required for this proposal,if known: DESIGNATION OF AGENT I hereby designate • St to it an hie- r<.. to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). OWNER SIGNATURE l .�. I i-. Date:_441e By signing this application form,the owner/agent attests that the information provided h- ,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 I e 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 attorneys 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=�try to Jefferson County and its employees,representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and -ny req ired late nspections. S« s access and right of entry will be assumed unless the applicant informs the County in writing at the time of the -,•plicati. that -or she - is •'.r notice. rr Signature: _ Date: The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact u n one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential stake"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 E tori ny individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s)e ,n if you are in•• ,•lance ' fferson County development code.The Applicant acknowledges that he,she or it holds individual and non-tra - -rab responsi•lity for a.he,� .to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this discla' r art s pns and dates it below. Signature: JIM. . . Date: 3 4 15 G:\PeanitCenter\###FORMS###\DRD FORMS\Mas, '_- ; 'pplication 5-29-08.doc (( 2/26/2015 • Parcel Print Parcel Niznber.990300299 08/15/2014 Owner MaWnw Address: ADMIRALTY CONDOS#2 0 P HOMEOWNERS ASSOC i P.O. BOX 65402 MAR 16 2015 !;1 PORT LUDLOW WA 98365 _ Se Address: OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 98365 Section: 16 School Cistrict: Chirnacum(49) Qtr Section: NE1/4 Fire Dist: Port Ludlow(3) Township: 28N Tax Status: CA Range: 1E Tax Code: 0231 Planning area: 98365 PLSewer- Sewer Crainage: PLDD-YES Connected(No CWF) Bank: View 1: View 2: Zoning 1: Zonhg 2: Zonhg 3: Sub Division: 9903 - THE ADMIRALTY &ADMIRALTY #2 Land Use Code: 7600 98365 Property Description: THE ADMIRALTY #2 COMMON AREAS http://www.cajefferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parcel pri nt.asp?PARC EL NO=990300299 1/1