18-101834RECEIVED
REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
CITY OF APR 3 0 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(' Y 33325 8`�' Avenue South
Federal Way WY QF FEDERAL WAY Federal Way, WA 9800
COMl4l NFY DEVELOPMENT 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
FILE NIINBEttt� _ i .J~ Date 4Lod
Applicant
NAME
%Z Cz t�,�cz
PRIMARY PHONE
Z.f 3 - 26 / ,• 2 v c V-
BUSINESS/ OI&ANIZATION
�N-wND€ reJ C r�,z �i� e-
ALTERNATE PHONE
�25 3• Z a 8- F-733
MAILING ADDRESS \� 1
T%. D l 4-
E-MAIL r•
jY cecp nC�eYI✓t Uct�c.
CITY� STATE
lq&4 - ci iz
ZIP 2
T
FAX
�rJ ri S J 7
Property Addressll_.ncationU & �, 93 �� �' t t� e-LD 4`t j `
rec(eva Iyu LJl), _ 50
Description of Request��rn � lit r — /d �0'.-0- cj°S-e-
,2 1 �1 1-Cl .eA. C 4-1 n Wf / -t �'- fib dAr....� DfL&%A[A
10
List/Describe Atta
pS --�o YY1oSS
5
1?
I In
For Staff Use
❑ Code Interpretation/Clarification
❑ Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review
❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
VRevisions to Approved Permit
Tree Removal
❑ Zoning Compliance Letter
Bulletin #079 — January 4, 2016
Page 1 of I
- No Fee
No Fee (Actual Cost if'Applicable)
- Check Current Fee Schedule
Check Current Fee Schedule
No Fee
» Check Current Fee Schedule
k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision
�r
µ; - .-�
k fT-hunderm-g
--
Oak
ENTER PI?IsES
April 30, 2018
Nicole Ngonevolalath
106 S. 293" St.
Federal Way, Wa. 98003
Tree Conditions and Recommendations
P.O. BOX 1847
AUBURN, WA 98071-1847
OFFICE 253-288-TREE (8733)
FAX: 253.939.51 26
WWW.THUNDER]NGOAK.COM
Hi Nicole,
I visited your home in February to re-examine the remaining trees on your lot. Initially, you had
planned to retain the 60" diameter giant sequoia at the top of the slope. Now that the home is
finished, the proximity of the tree and several of the tops is very evident. Since the history of
this tree includes a massive topping event that happened 10-20 years ago, all of the new `tops'
are attached to the side of the main stem with a slowly decaying interior stem. There is no way
to know the extent of this decay, nor adequately `measure' the anchoring and holding capacity of
the `new' tops. Since several of them are directly facing the house and are only feet away, the
prudent measure would be to remove the tree and eliminate the hazard.
As mentioned in my May 30, 2017 letter, it is time to begin the stump management pruning of
the bigleaf maple stumps on the slope below the house. This activity should be minimal to
remove just the tallest 1/3 of the vertical shoots without damaging the other rapidly growing
native vegetation. All of the cut stumps have survived and are growing quickly; this process will
help slow the growth rate of the remaining shoots, which will in turn regulate the generation of
new shoots.
Respectfully submitt
Bryce Laiidrud
I.S.A. Certified Arborist #PN0232
P.O. Box 1 847
AUBURN, WA 98071-1 847
OFFICE 253-288-TREE (8733)
FAX: 253.838.2534
WWW.THUNDERINGOAK.COM
Thundering Oak
EKTERPRtSES
May 30, 2017
Nicole Ngonevolalath
106 S. 293ra St.
Federal Way, Wa. 98003
Re: Vegetation Management/Tree Cutting
Dear Nicole,
I visited your new home several weeks ago to assess the trees and other vegetation on the slope
below your house. I hope that by addressing the violations and concerns expressed by Ms.
Chapin in her emails and a phone message to me that we can get your matter resolved soon.
TREE REMOVAL
Though it appears that all of the bigleaf maples just below the home were indeed cut, they are far
from `cut down'. Every one of them has been systematically cut back for many years to retain
the views of the homeowners above you. This is evident by the large basal areas of several of
the trees and the numerous co -dominant stems originating from 2-10 feet above ground.
Naturally -grown maples would have 1-3 stems only.
In addition, all of said maple stems are currently producing (or reproducing) new shoots at a
rapid rate; some of these are already pushing 6 feet of new growth. There is certainly no need to
`finish' cutting them to ground level (which wouldn't kill them either), as within a few years
they will be right back up into the 20-30 foot tall range.
Managing these trees to limit the number and encourage the health of selected co -dominant
stems is much simpler and less damaging to the environment and slope than attempting to kill
them, remove the stumps, and create new planting spaces for a vegetation replacement effort.
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT/MAINTENANCE
i. The initial site plan developed for this site has all of the original tree units located. All of
these trees are still present and should count with their originally assigned tree unit
values.' Continuing maintenance activity shall include periodic thinning of the vertical
shoots to reduce crowding, competition and excessive shading, as well as to allow for
better tree form. Slashing of the existing tree tops on the ground and piling into 5'x 5'
piles will both speed decomposition and provide wildlife habitat. All native species
likely on site prior to cutting events are currently present, including Indian plum,
elderberry, horsetail, salal, huckleberry, vine maple and ferns. These are readily evident
growing through and above the downed material and should be avoided to the extent
possible when cutting & piling brush.
L
H. Since all of the trees are ill functioning and will regain `tree' status quickly, there is no
need to eliminate or reduce the tree unit count that applied when the initial site plan was
developed. Most trees were cut at or near previous cuts, and most of those were at 4.5
feet high or higher.
iii. Now that everything is in full growth mode, and summer is fast approaching, it is not an
opportune time to attempt to dig, install and water new plants, especially trees. Waiting
until leaf drop in the fall, then assessing any `bare spots' for vegetation needs and
addressing those then will reduce unnecessary efforts now and use them when and where
appropriate.
GEOTECHNICAL
Though I am not an engineer, and a follow-up report may still be required, I cannot see
how the presence of the brush (much of which has been there for years) would change
any earlier geotech reports. The foliage is still slowing rainfall to the surface, the
groundcover still slows erosion, and the roots still have the same effect on soil -holding
and water use as they did previously.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryce Landrud
I.S.A. Certified Arborist #PN0232
253.261.2094 cell.
G1
A2
D
•C w (2 Z
2.
�.No
o
'5 o 0
o
o
3
-� °Z°mO
n p z z
p O 0
■ m Z
D
/ 1
p
/ ■ ,
o
1jp' '. T'k •.V\-~op
Dpp A=Dox
IT 3 gym
O
If
-�
w
. p , ■
v�
y m n Z
o=�Ny� Z,
N O
o� g
1� 'mil n x o p O Z
! v y m
~ n D 4
w Z
p P
m
p O
=
y
Z
I
_
v
o
IOn
Ngonevolalath,Thip&Nichole Project#1"2
Feng Shoi Residence
DEONTOL06Y
114 ALASKAN WAY S SURE 200
SEATTLE, WA 98104
206.497.9603
info@deonllccom
0211.2✓714REV. 1
0415.2014 PERMIT BACK CHECK
S 293rd street, Federal Way PARCEL x 720250012005
100%Set PERMrr NUMBER I3-103554-00-SF
CITY OF
Federal Way
June 19, 2017
Thip and Nicole Ngonevolalath
2002 62nd Street SE
Auburn, WA 98092
thipn2k2@g7nail. com
Nicole.Ngonevolalath@hornestreet. corn
RE: File #13-103554-01-SF; BUILDING PERMIT STATUS UPDATE
Ngonevolalath Single Family, 106 South 293" ' Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ngonevolalath:
F ILE
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
This letter is provided to give you a status update regarding your single family building permit and update
on the recently submitted letter provided by Thundering Oak, your certified arborist. As of this date, the
single family building pen -nit has not been finalled and a certificate of occupancy has not been issued. In
December 2016, city staff was informed that trees had been cut down behind your house and along the
slope, clearing beyond the limits established in the building permit plans. In addition, when city staff
visited the site on December 22, 2016, a 2-foot concrete guard was added on top of the ecology blocks
along the edge of the driveway, which is not indicated on the approved plans. On December 23, 2016,
staff sent you an email detailing what is required to move forward and bring your site/building into
compliance before it can be finalled or occupied.
VIOLATIONS
The building pen -nit expired on June 14, 2017. Per Section R105.5 of the International Residential Code
(IRC), every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such pen -nit is commenced
within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for
a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The Building Official is authorized to grant,
in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall
be requested in writing and granted when justifiable cause is demonstrated. In order to keep the perm it
open, please provide a written extension request to the Building Official by June 27, 2017.
It appears that the home is being occupied and final inspections have not been completed. The home is in
violation of the IRC. The Building Official is authorized to issue a Notice of Violation for occupying the
home without certificate of occupancy and issue fines. Such order if issued shall direct the discontinuance
of the illegal action of occupying the home without a certificate of occupancy. To avoid any penalties
please refer to the back of your building permit and call the inspection line at 253-835-3050 to schedule
final inspections by June 27, 2017. If you have any questions, please contact Building Official Scott
Sproul at 253-835-2633.
BUILDING PERMIT
The original building permit drawings do not provide details regarding the retaining wall. A revision to
the building permit application is required in order to verify if the added load of the 2-foot +/- concrete
Mr, & Mrs. Ngonevolalath
Page 2
.Tune 19.2017
wall will impact the ecology block wall along the driveway. The following information is needed to be
resubmitted to the City for review:
• 2 copies of detailed plans of the wall and footing details
• 3 copies of scaled site plans
• 2 copies of engineering calculations for the additional wall added to the ecology block wall
■ 2 copies of a revised soils report
• 2 copies of the revised geotechnical report for the slope and soils conditions to allow the
structural engineer to determine footing sizes for the increase in height to the ecology block wall.
Please contact Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner, at 253-835-2621 if you have questions regarding the
concrete guard/retaining wall submittal requirements. The revisions above must be provided to the City
with the enclosed resubmittal by June 27, 2017. If revised plans cannot be provided to the city by this
time, please contact the Building Official, Scott Sproul, 253-835-2633, and provide a timeline as to when
the plans can be submitted.
VEGETATION MAINTENANCE/TREE REMOVAL
The City received the vegetation management/tree cutting letter from Mr. Landrud with Thundering Oak,
dated June 1, 2017. In the letter Mr. Landrud details the current conditions of the site including that the
trees have been systematically cut back for years to retain views of the homeowners above you. The
proposed vegetation management/maintenance plan states that all of the tree units located in the initial
site plan are still present and should count with their originally assigned tree units. Continuing
maintenance activity shall include periodic thinning of the vertical shoots to reduce crowing and allow for
better tree form. Slashing of the existing tree tops on the ground and piling into 5'x5' piles avoiding
native species growing through and above the downed material. Mr. Landrud states that all the trees are
still functioning and will regain `tree' status quickly and that there is no need to eliminate or reduce the
tree unit count that was initially established on the building site plans. Now is not an opportune time to
attempt to dig, install, and water new plants. Mr. Landrud recommends waiting until fall to assess bare
stops for vegetation needs.
The subject property is located within a Geologically Hazardous Area (GHA) subject to FWRC Chapter
19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. Pursuant to 19.145.120(7), vegetation maintenance is partially
exempt from the provisions of this chapter if the following is provided:
a) A site plan at appropriate scale denoting the extent of the proposed vegetation maintenance
activity;
b) Tree and vegetation location, type, and caliper of each tree within the area subject to the proposed
vegetation maintenance activity;
c) Identification of methods of vegetation maintenance (limited to hand tools and hand powered
tools); and
d) Proposed tree and/or vegetation replacement shown on the site plan.
The letter submitted by Mr. Landrud did not include a site plan denoting the extent of the vegetation
maintenance activity or provide a tree unit calculation for the remaining trees on site including location,
type, and caliper of each tree. The initial site plan prepared for the single family house did not locate all
the trees on site since a majority was located along the slope well beyond the clearing limit. Since this
area was disturbed, the city will need an accurate tree unit calculation of all the trees on site.
13-103554-01-SF Doc I D 76064
Mr. & Mrs. Ngonevolalath
Page 3
June 19.2017
Please note; the City does not have regulations for tree topping for view preservation. Per Federal Way
Revised Code (FWRC) 19.05.200, "Topping" means a pruning cut to the main stem of a mature tree.
Such cuts can result in serious decay and/or forcing out growth of weakly attached upright sprouts below
the cut. Topping also results in permanent alteration of tree architecture. For purposes of this chapter,
topping shall be treated the same as tree removal. Therefore, those trees that were topped cannot be
counted in the tree unit calculation.
By June 27, 2017, please provide either a timeline when the site plan will be submitted, or provide a site
plan showing tree location, type and caliper of each tree upon the site.
In addition, the subject property is subject to the regulations set forth in FWRC 19.145.250(1)(a)
requiring a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist that
describes how the proposed vegetation maintenance activity will impact the subject property and nearby
properties regarding:
i. Slope stability, landslide hazard, and sloughing;
H. Seismic hazards impacts from removal and replanting of the vegetation;
iii. Groundwater impacts from removal and replanting of the vegetation;
iv. Seeps, springs and other surface waters; and
V. Existing vegetation.
The report shall address any corrective actions found by the geotechnical engineer that are necessary to
mitigate impacts to slope stability, for the subject property and neighboring properties including any
ongoing vegetation. maintenance activities. Please contact Associate Planner Becky Chapin by June 27,
2017, to provide a timeline as to when the geotechnical report will be submitted to the City.
CLOSING
Please contact the City staff members as indicated in the letter by June 27, 2017, to bring your site into
compliance. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Associate Planner Becky
Chapin at 253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com. We wish to avoid compliance measures
and assist your completion of the project.
SlCer
r
d B_ -
Community Development Director
enc: Resubmittal Form
Becky Chapin, Associate Planner
Robert `Doc' Hansen, Planning Manager
Scott Sproul, Building Official
Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner
Andy Norton, Building Inspector/Plans Examiner
13-103554-01-SF
Doc. J.D. 76064
Becky Chapin
From: Becky Chapin
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 2:07 PM
To: 'Nicole Ngonevolalath'; 'thipn2k2@gmail.com'
Cc: 'Bryce'; BuildingInspectors
Subject: RE: 106 S 293rd St, File# 13-103554-01-UP
Hi Nicole,
Planning approves the submitted Vegetation Maintenance Plan, prepared by Thundering Oak dated July 18, 2017, and emailed
Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by AESI dated June 7, 2017. No additional planting or mitigation is needed at this time. Please
consider this an approval by Planning, you may proceed with final building inspections associated with file# 13-103554-01-UP. Let me
know if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
Federal way
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609
www.citVoffederalway.com
From: Nicole Ngonevolalath [mailto:Nicole.Ngonevolalath@hornestreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 1:23 PM
To: Becky Chapin; 'thipn2k2@gmail.com'
Cc: Bryce
Subject: RE: 106 S 293rd St, File# 13-103554-01-UP
Hello Becky,
I wanted to check in on my email that I sent last week. Could you please provide an update.
Thank you,
Nicole Ngonevolalath
Senior Loan Officer I NMLS #531816
0: 206.576.0933 1 C: 206.900.2523 1 F: 206.201.0064
16040 Christensen Rd, Suite 315 1 Tukwila, WA 98188
Nicole.Ngonevolalath@Ho_mestreet.com
Click Here To Apply Online:
HomeStreet] dank
From: Nicole Ngonevolalath
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 3:15 PM
To: 'Becky Chapin'; 'thipn2k2@gmail.com'
Cc: 'Bryce'
Subject: RE: 106 S 293rd St, File# 13-103554-01-UP
Hello Becky,
I wanted to follow up in regards to the letter dated June 191h regarding addition document needed for the tree site
plan. I understand our Arborist, Bryce Landrud, submitted a letter on our behalf on July 19th providing type and caliper
of each tree on our site and counts. In regards to the vegetation maintenance/tree removal correction, have we
satisfied the City's requirements and can move forward on our final site inspection?
Please advise.
Thank you,
Nicole Ngonevolalath
Senior Loan Officer I NMLS #531816
0: 206.576.0933 1 C: 206.900.2523 1 F: 206.201.0064
16040 Christensen Rd, Suite 315 1 Tukwila, WA 98188
Nicole.Ngonevolalath@Homestreet.com
Click Here To Apply Online:
HomeStreed Bci n
From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin(�)cityofFederalway.com]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Nicole Ngonevolalath; 'thipn2k2@gmail.com'
Subject: 106 S 293rd St, File# 13-103554-01-UP
Mr. and Mrs. Ngonevolalath,
Please find the attached letter prepare by the City regarding the status of your single family building permit. The original letter is in the
mail. To date, the building permit is expired and has outstanding inspections that requires your immediate attention. You are the only
ones receiving this letter so please forward City comments to your building contractor/arborist, as necessary. If you have any questions
regarding this letter please feel free to contact me.
Best,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
Federal )Alay
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609
www.cityoffederalwaV.com
a s s o c i a t e d
earth sciences
i n c o r p o r a t e d
June 7, 2017
Project No. 130576EO01
Thip and Nicole Ngonevolalath
c/o Self Builder Services
2218 North Huson Street
Tacoma, Washington 98406
Subject: Geotechnical Considerations —Slope Stability
Ngonevolalath Residence
South 293rd Street and 1st Avenue South
Federal Way, Washington
As requested, this letter summarizes geotechnical considerations associated with slope stability
at the Ngonevolalath residence. We are familiar with the project through our participation in
the design and construction phases of the project, which has included completion of subsurface
explorations, completion of slope stability modeling, design of the existing geogrid-reinforced
wall at the driveway, and on -call geotechnical construction observation services.
SLOPE STABILITY
During a recent visit, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) observed that multiple trees on the
north slope of the property had been trimmed. We also observed that the trimmings from the
trees were left on the slope. It was apparent that none of the trimmed trees had died, as new
growth was observed on the trimmed trees. We observed that all of the tree's root zones are
undisturbed and still intact. In our opinion, the underbrush was observed to be thick and
appears to provide effective groundcover to the soils on the slope. During our visit, we
observed no evidence of slope instability or recent erosion. We were supplied with a certified
arborist's letter by Thundering Oak Enterprises dated May 30, 2017, which details the certified
arborist's observations and their opinion of the current state of the tree's health and slope's
stability following the tree trimming. The certified arborist's letter also details a proactive long-
term management plan for the trees in question. The referenced letter concludes that the
trees that were cut are regrowing, that additional revegetation is not needed at this, and that
existing vegetation appears to be providing effective groundcover.
Kirkland Office 1911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland, WA 98033 P 1425.827.7701 F 1425.827.5424
Everett Office 1 2911 % Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 1 Everett, WA 98201 P 1425.259.0522 F 1425.827.5424
Tacoma Office 11552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 1 Tacoma, WA 98402 P 1253.722.2992 F 1253.722.2993
www.aesgeo.com
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is AESI's opinion that the trimming of the trees
has not caused any quantifiable reduction in slope stability. Existing groundcover appears to be
functioning adequately to control surficial erosion. From a geotechnical standpoint no further
work is recommended.
CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service. If we can answer any questions
regarding this letter please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
ruce W. Guenzler, L.E.G.
Associate Geologist
Kurt D. Merriman, P.E.
Senior Principal Engineer
BWG/pc
130576E001-4
Projects\20130576\KE\W P
2
a s s o c i a t e d
earth sciences
i n c o r p o r a t e d
February 23, 2017
Project No. KE130576B
Thip and Nicole Ngonevolalath
c/o Self Builder Services
2218 North Huson Street
Tacoma, Washington 98406
Attention: Mr. Dennis Lee
Subject: Geotechnical Considerations - Curb Above Driveway Retaining Wall
Ngonevolalath Residence
South 293rd Street and 1st Avenue South
Federal Way, Washington
Dear Mr. Lee:
As requested, this letter summarizes geotechnical considerations associated with construction
of a curb at the top of the geogrid-reinforced Ultrablock wall at the Ngonevolalath residence.
We are familiar with the project through our participation in the design and construction
phases of the project, which has included completion of subsurface explorations, completion of
slope stability modeling, design of the existing geogrid-reinforced wall at the driveway, and
on -call geotechnical construction observation services.
DRIVEWAY WALL AND CURB
The project includes an Ultrablock wall along the north side of the driveway, with a maximum
wall height including embedment of approximately 8 feet. The wall is a geogrid-reinforced
structure. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) provided geotechnical engineering
recommendations for the wall including wall height, toe embedment, batter angle,
geogrid-reinforcing schedule, and drainage. Our Ultrablock wall recommendations were
contained in a letter dated May 2, 2014. AESI completed on -call site visits during construction
to observe geotechnical engineering aspects of construction. Each of our site visits was
documented in a Daily Field Report. Daily Field Report numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 include
comments related to the Ultrablock wall on the north side of the driveway. Based on our
observations, the Ultrablock wall was constructed in accordance with project plans and we are
not aware of any unresolved geotechnical deficiencies.
Kirkland Office 1911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland, WA 98033 P 1425.827.7701 F 1425.827.5424
Everett Office 1 2911'% Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 1 Everett, WA 98201 P 1425.259.0522 F 1425.827.5424
Tacoma Office 1 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 1 Tacoma, WA 98402 P 1253.722.2992 F 1253.722.2993
www.aesgeo.com
C
After the Ultrablock wall was constructed, the owner added a vehicle curb at the top of the
wall. The curb is constructed of concrete and is up to approximately 18 inches tall.
A photograph attached with this letter illustrates the existing curb.
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the wall system was not designed to resist impact
loads in a manner consistent with a vehicle guardrail. Providing the curb is assumed to function
as a curb and not a guardrail the curb will not have a significant adverse effect on the
geotechnical design of the wall, in our opinion.
CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service. If we can answer any questions
regarding this letter please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
A '� /Z 0 L"
VrGic'evW. Guenzler, L.E.G.
Associate Geologist
ICrlrt D. Merriman, P.E.
Senior Principal Engineer
Attachment: Photograph of north driveway wall
BWG/Id
KE130576B2
Projects\20130576\KE\W P
2
16'
Al
i
V31
"W
akw�'. r'.i•, • rr
,,
. _ ', • ; : � �.+i'' ' °fin •'. at. r �/' � . i
rr r
• .. "-fir• _
W � Tau
r.
lop
Me
I �
IN
I
-16
Ire
14
y w
6p
op:
4jA
Becky Chapin
From: Nicole Ngonevolalath < Nicole. Ngonevolalath@ homestreet.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 12:24 PM
To: Becky Chapin
Subject: RE: Permit # 15-103343-00
Hi Becky,
Prior to trimming/cutting down the trees, I personally went to the Permit Center twice to ask if I need permits or
approval because we are not removing them or clearing the slope, just opening up the area. I was told we did not need
any approvals because of that. On the permit plan, tree #6 was approved to remove, however we decided to keep it.
Thank you for your time and please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Nicole Ngonevolalath
Senior Loan Officer I NMLS #531816
0: 206.576.0933 1 C: 206.900.2523 1 F: 206.201.0064
16040 Christensen Rd, Suite 315 1 Tukwila, WA 98188
Nicole. Ngonevo la I ath @ H o mestreet.co m
Click Here To Apply Online:
HameStreet] Bank
From: Becky Chapin [ma iIto: Becky.Chapin @cityofPederalway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:54 PM
To: Nicole Ngonevolalath
Subject: RE: Permit # 15-103343-00
Hi Nicole,
I was recently informed that trees have been cut down behind your house along the slope. Cutting trees beyond the clearing limits
established in the building permit plans requires separate approval from the City since the trees are located in a Geologically
Hazardous Area (GHA). I will need to verify which trees have been removed before I can sign -off on the Planning final.
Per FWRC 19.145.120, vegetation maintenance, such as pruning for view preservation, requires written approval from the Director of
Community Development. A Request for Administrative Decision (AD) is required to be submitted to the City for tree removal in a
Critical Area. Typically, a geotechnical report and/or arborist report (including a vegetation maintenance/replacement plan) must be
submitted to with the AD for review and approval. In this case, it would be an after the fact request for tree cutting since it already
occurred. The City has the option of sending any required geotechnical report to the City's third party consultant for peer review, at the
applicant cost. The City does not have record off tree removal activity being approved behind the house for views. The only tree that
was permitted to be removed outside the construction area was Tree #6 on the plans.
I have not been out to the site myself to see the extent of the tree cutting. I will have some time to do a site visit tomorrow or Friday.
After I take a look at the site I can establish what needs to be done, if anything. I will keep in touch.
Thanks,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
CeYY 9ed" Feral Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609
www.cbgffederalway.com
From: Nicole Ngonevolalath [mailto:Nicole.Ngonevolalath�7a homestreet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Becky Chapin
Subject: Permit # 15-103343-00
Hi Becky,
I was given your contact information to see if we will need to get final Planning inspection on our house located at 106 S.
293rd. St. Federal Way 98003. We are getting closer for final inspections, one being building inspection and want to be
prepare.
Thank you,
Nicole Ngonevolalath
Senior Loan Officer I NMLS #531816
0: 206.576.0933 1 C: 206.900.2523 1 F: 206.201.0064
16040 Christensen Rd, Suite 315 1 Tukwila, WA 98188
Nicole.Ngonevolalath@Homestreet.com
Click Here To Apply Online:
HomeStreet Bank
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this email is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to this email and deleting this email from your computer. Nothing contained in this email or any attachment
shall satisfy the requirements for contract formation or constitute an electronic signature.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this email is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to this email and deleting this email from your computer. Nothing contained in this email or any attachment
shall satisfy the requirements for contract formation or constitute an electronic signature.
Becky Chapin
From: Becky Chapin
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:15 AM
To: 'Thip Ngonevolalath'
Subject: RE: Ngonevolalath - Tree Removal Confirmation
Attachments: Temporary Intrusion in Critical Area.pdf
Thip and Nicole,
If you want to bring in the approved plans to the city, I have no problem adding a note regarding removal of tree #6.
Regarding your request to top the trees, the city does not have regulations for tree topping/removal for view preservation. Per Federal
Way Revised Code (FWRC)19.05.200, T definitions, tree topping is treated the same as tree removal. Since topping the trees in the
back of the property is not necessary for site development you will need to obtain the Director of Community Development's approval
for tree removal within the Geologically Hazardous Area (GHA). See attached code Interpretation for vegetation maintenance within a
critical area for guidance.
An arborist report detailing the extent of the maintenance activity, tree locations, and methods of removal (limited to hand tools and
hand powered tools). The site plan will also need to depict where the required 15 tree units for the site will be retained. Also, since the
site is within a GHA, a statement from the geotech that removal of the trees will not create any increase in slide, seismic, or erosion
hazards is required for review and approval before topping may take place. After review the of the documents the city will issue a
decision.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609
www.citVoffederalway.com
From: Thip Ngonevolalath [maiito:thipn2k20gmaiI.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Becky Chapin
Subject: Ngonevolalath - Tree Removal Confirmation
Hi Becky
We have attached your recent letter from your review and approval of demoing an additional tree. This was
requested by our Architect Ryan Cornwall. The tree is the conifer #6 on site plan page C1.0.
Currently our onsite approved plans, it says tree to remain. But your letter says we can demo the tree (we would
only remove the tree and leave the stump). We would like to bring our onsite approved plans in, so you can red
line on the plans that we can demo (remove) the conifer tree #6. We are requesting this because there was
neighbor complaint if we were to remove the tree. We want it to be clear on the plan that we can remove this
tree. Currently we have only trimmed the tree and we might keep it. But we would like the option to remove the
tree if we decide to later.
Also, we would like to top the trees in the back to enhance the view. We would do this under supervision with
our Geo Tech. company Associated Earth Science. The trees will not be taken down, only topped. We do have
professional tree company that can do this. They would chip all the branches and debris and leave on site per
geo tech. request and supervision. I should also note that it appears that almost all the trees on the property have
been topped before (by previous property owner), but have grown back.
Please advise and let us know.
Thip and Nicole Ngonevolalath
206.852.0484
Becky Chapin
From: Becky Chapin
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:06 AM
To: rcornwall@deonlic.com'
Subject: Tree Demo, 106 S 293rd St, Federal Way
Hi Ryan,
I reviewed your request to remove an additional tree associated with the construction of the Ngonevolalath single family home. It
appears the site will not fall below the required tree density of 15 tree units if the proposed tree is removed, therefore its
approved. Please make sure that all remaining trees within the construction area are protected with temporary fencing, per Federal
Way Revised Code (FWRC)19.120.160, Tree and vegetation protection during construction. If you have any questions please feel free
to contact me.
Thanks,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641
Becky. Ch a pi n Ocityoffederalway. co m
OEOMT®LOGY
11rnhit4altrr LIMA tM
114 Ab5ken Way S, Sufte 200
Seaft. WA 981 U4
infc*i neat -workshop com
REQUEST CONCERNING ADDITIONAL TREE DEMO
03.24.15
To whom it may concern,
It has been requested by my client that (1) additional tree be partially demolished beyond the current scope
of clearing that is currently permitted with the city of Federal Way building department. It is my
professional opinion that the removal of this tree is in keeping with the minimum tree density requirements
established for new uses on vacant sites per table 19.120.130-1 & 19.120.130-2
We propose the # 6 (54" caliper) tree as illustrated in table on G1.3 (lower left hand c omer) and on C1 0 be
called out for 'Partial Demo- Stump to remain This would afrae tour tree unit design for the project in such
a way that the previously 58 units provided will now be 55 units. 14 units are required in order to be
compliant with code- Our design retains 3 9 times the number of tree unites required. See tables on G1.3.
I have attached the revised sheets which apply to this change_
G7.3
C'L0
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me using the information in the Tooter of this letter.
Ryan Cornwall
Architect
Ryan Cornwall,
Architect / LEED AP / President
INVENT WORKSHOP
Architectural Design Services
www.invent-worksho .cam 1 0: 253.377.6737 1 E ream invent-worksho mm
114 Alaskan Way S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Dennis Lee <dennis selfbuilderservices.com> wrote:
MAR 2 5 2015
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CDS
Dennis Lee
Self Builder Services, Inc.
President
(253) 230-9411Mobde
dennis @seifbui;derser vices. corn
2218 N Huson St
Tacoma, WA 98406
www.selfbuilderservices.com
DEONTOLOGY
Dream + Design + Build
114 Alaskan Way S
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 497-9603
City of Federal Way
Attn: Becky Chapin
Associate Plans Reviewer
33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003
April 10, 2014
Deontology Project: 13-03
City of Seattle Project Number: 6364270
Re: Project# 13-1035544)0-SF
Project Address: 106 S 293rd Street, Federal Way
Dear Becky Chapin:
This letter is intended to address comments raised by the City during the
review of the Ngonevolalath project. Below, each comment is listed, followed
by a response from Deontology LLC.
Dept
RED- I_IBMIiED - -
APR162014
FEDERAL \NAY
Planning Division Comments
Department Comment Sheet # Design Team Response Team %
Member Comp
Planning 1 As depicted, the roof over the entry/concrete paver C1.0,
walkway extends into the 20' front yard setback and C1.2,
must be reduced in size. Per Federal Way Revised A1.3,
Code (FWRC) 19.125.160. No improvement or A2.2,
structure may be in a required yard except as AV,
follows: o (4) Chimneys, bay windows, greenhouse A3.2,
windows, eaves, awnings and similar elements of a A4.2
structure that customarily extend beyond the
exterior walls of a structure may extend up to 18
inches into any required yard. The total horizontal
dimension of the elements that extend into a
required yard, excluding eaves, may not exceed 25
percent of the length of the facade of the structure
from which the elements extend.
Planning 2 The proposed retaining wall height of 8 feet is not
C1.0,
allowed. Per FWRC 19.120.120, Rockeries and
C1.1,
retaining walls, When incorporating rockeries and
C1.2,
retaining walls into site design, the applicant shall
AV,
work with the site topography in order to minimize
A3.2
the need for rockeries and retaining walls. When
rockeries and/or retaining walls are utilized, the
following standards shall apply:
For single-family residential lots, rockeries and
retaining walls shall be:
(a) A maximum of six feet in height as measured
from finished grade at base of wall to tap of wall.
(b) Composed of brick, rockery, textured or
patteme[f concrete, or other masonry product that
complements the proposed building and site
development. Other materials may be used with the
approval of the community development services
and public works directors.
(c) There shall be a minimum setback of one foot
for every foot in rockery or retaining wall height
between the rear of a residential building and any
rockery or retaining wall; provided, that a usable
space equal to the rear yard setback must always
be maintained.
The roof eave over the entry / concrete paver ARC 100%
walkway now only extends a maximum of 18" into
the required front yard setback.
Retaining wall has been revised to a 6'-0" max ARC 100%
height as measured from the adjacent finished
grade at the base of the wall to the top of the wall.