Loading...
15-103612DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Community Development Department September 21, 2015 Filupp Kapustin, JK Monarch permits@jkmonarch.com Jim Harris, Planner LAKE HAVEN ESTATES - (15-103612-00-CO) Planning Division Review of Grading Permit Application The following represents the Planning Division review of the grading permit application for the Lake Haven Estates site. Each of the following comments must be adequately addressed prior to Planning Division approval of the permit application. Revise the plans to address each of the comments below and resubmit the plans at the Permit Center (4 copies). 1. The preliminary plat has a history of input from an adjacent neighboring property owner, which resulted in plat note number 1 on the final plat. Sheet C1.1 of the grading permit application does not fully comply with the plat note 1 and must be revised as follows: a. Based on review of the December 24, 2007 Tree Evaluation for Lake Haven Estates by Washington Forestry Consultants, the location of the proposed tree protection fence (TPF) adjacent to the three Cherry trees (adjacent to lot 6) does not meet the tree protection guidelines in the Tree Evaluation report. Sheet C 1.1 needs to be modified to clearly show a minimum 6-foot Root Protection Zone (RPZ) adjacent to tree number 15, and a minimum 9-foot RPZ must be provided for tree number 19. b. Sheet C 1.1 needs to be revised to eliminate the grading/finish contour line running directly though the 10-foot RPZ shown for tree number 1 near the SE corner of lot 11. c. The clearing limits shown on sheet C 1.1 needs to be revised to reflect the RPZ and tree protection fence. As currently shown on the plan, the clearing limit line is shown outside the tree protection fence. d. Plan sheet C1.1 needs to reference that tree protection measures are to be in accordance with the December 24, 2007 Tree Evaluation Report for Lake Haven Estates by Washington Forestry Consultants. e. Sheet C 1.1 provides the appropriate RPZ for the rest of the edge trees in compliance with the December 24, 2007 Tree Evaluation. f. We encourage you to have a representative from Washington Forestry Consultants on site during the site clearing along these property lines as recommended in the report. 2. The plan sheet C1.1 proposes to eliminate and remove all the trees on site. Pursuant to plat note number 2, a tree retention and replacement plan is required for each lot. Since the proposed grading plan is preceding the building permits, then the tree retention and replacement for each lot needs to be worked out at this time. Based on a review of the tree retention and replacement _--s=(:Iar_d ir,Lth,e_1=111[CC_tliat_the-project-is vested_to ttze..fallawi.ng_tabJe..iderttif'--the--quantit",f replacement trees that will be required to be planted on each lot (column 3). Note that replacement trees under this code to which the project is vested, requires replacement trees to be either evergreen trees a minimum 10 feet tall, or deciduous trees with a minimum 3-inch caliper measured 4.5 feet above the root ball. Lot No. Existing Significant Tree Count Number of Trees Proposed to be retained (Based on plan, it is implied all trees to be removed Number of Replacement Trees Required to be Planted 1 -0- -0- 2 -0- -0- 3 1or2 1 4 2 1 6 -0- -0- 7 2 1 8 7 2 9 -0- -0- 10 -0- -0- 11 1 or 2 1 12 1 -0- -0- 13 -0- -0- As an alternative v'e to planting the required iquaff SLILY of 6 replacement trees iuei �Lif ied ii I the tabic above, which must be evergreen trees a minimum 10 feet tall, or deciduous trees with. a minimum 3-inch caliper measured 4.5 feet above the root ball, City staff would agree to planting more trees of a smaller size. Specifically, City staff would support the tree replacement to be met by planting a total of 13 trees (one per lot), which meet the standards of the current Federal Way Revised Code, which are evergreen trees a minimum 6 feet tall, or deciduous trees with a minimum 2-inch caliper measured 4.5 feet above the root ball minimum. Let me know in writing which of the replacement tree alternatives you will be implementing and we will get the tree replacement conditions implemented into each of the building permit application conditions for the 13 lots. Contact me by email at Jim.harris@ci yofFederalway.com if you have any questions or need assistance. c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plan Reviewer Peter Lawrence, Plan Reviewer Scott Sproul, Building Official Kari Cimmer, Permit Center Supervisor 15-103612 Doc. I.D.70681 Tree Evaluation — Lakehaven Estates- Federal Way, WA APPENDIX II Lakehaven Estates - Edge Trees �'` f Lakehaven ' RPZ 51r RPF RPZ 20'r 27 22 r 11 VwMV am • ■ y. ""tl�s rlwm 10 1w X 17 1 24 . Grp Y ot 13 r T 12 i rderline 8 RPZ 7' ee — 6'r RPZ O f 40 _ ` v0 b 1 Bamboo—RPZ2'r 4 • Nelson ' 3 P� _ rr 7 4 Maple - RPZ 10'r North Y 2 No Scale I 1� 11 ' rim IL ....... Tree Protection Fence Locations — Minimum RPZ's listed for each Nelson Tree (If any Lakehaven trees are to be saved, then adjust the tree protection fence locations) Note: - Trees called alder on map by the surveyors are cherries. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Olympia, WA RECEIVED DEC 3 0 2014 CITY OF FEDE q WASMNGTON FORESTRY CONSiTI,'� �' ,'INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F C I 360/943-1723 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C FAX 360/943-4128 Olympia, WA 98501 -Tree Evaluation- LA-KEHAVEN ESTATES BQRIIER WITH,NEtiSC&' SW 341st Street Federal Way, WA Prepared for: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Date: December 24, 2007 Introduction I have reviewed the trees along both sides John Nelson's/Lakehaven Estates property line in Federal Way, WA. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the impact to the trees on the Nelson property from tree removal and construction on the Lakehaven Estates site. Observations Soils According to the King County Soil Survey there is one soil type along the subject property line. The soil type is the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, a moderately deep, moderately well drained soil found on glacial till plains. It is formed in ablation till overlying basal till. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow in the pan. Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth for trees is 20-40 inches. A perched seasonal high water table is at a depth of 18-36 inches from November to March. The potential for windthrow of trees is moderate under normal conditions. New trees require irrigation for establishment. URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY + TREE APPRAISAL r HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS ■ VEGETATION MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American Foresters Tree Evaluation — Lakehaven Estates- Federal Way, WA Existing Trees The trees on the site are a stand of native and introduced species. The species that are located along the property lines include Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga.Menzies ii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), apple (Malus sp.), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Port -Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) and two oak species (Quercus sp.). The diameters of the trees range between 6 to 44 inches at breast height (4.5 ft. above the groundline). Tree condition can be described as fair to good, with a few poor or dead trees. There were no visible signs of significant disease or insect problems in the stand. A total of 24 trees were evaluated on 3 properties. Eleven trees occurred on the Nelson parcel near the property line. A list of the Nelson trees by species, DBH, the potential impacts and necessary root protection are provided in Table 1. A list of all evaluated trees is provided in Appendix III. The root protection zones were determined by examination of the trees, the root systems, and competition between the, subject tree and surrounding trees for growing space under ground. Based on these tree evaluations, the necessary root protection zones (RPZ) were determined. Table 1 Sum ma of the Nelson tree param.eters and necessary root protection zones. # S ecies DBH in. Potential Impacts from Construction Minimum Root Distance Protection to Zone —Radius Property (ft) Line ft +. Mitigation 1 Bigleaf Maple 18 Possible 10 2 TPF at 10'r from stem** 3 Bamboo -- Low 2 1 TPF at 2'r from edge 4 Oak 12 None j 10 11 TPF at P/L 6 Douglas -fir 20 None 15 39,TPF at P/L 7 Oak 8 None 7 9 TPF at P/L 12 Douglas -fir 44 Possible 20 4 TPF at 20 ft. north of tree 13 Douglas -fir 8 Low 7 4 TPF at 7'r from stem 14 Dou las-fir 8 Low 7 6 TPF at 7'r from stem 15 Cherry 7 Possible 6 0 TPF at 6'r from stem 17 Cherry 6,7 Possible 5 1 TPF at 5'r from stem 19 Cherry 16 Possible 12 3 TPF at 12'r from stem *P/L =Property Line; TPF=Tree Protection Fence; DBH=Diameter at Breast Height (4.5 ft.), **Suggest removal of tree #1; A OL-,W't O � 51-0+ 01 "- ' rGi►.P� 14 le 10 + 1. r - to o t-_ V ot? L ~� N n rJ4 — NIM1 v✓ �iv wok �'� or �1-► N tJ QQ � rf { ef Tree #1, the bigleaf maple is under the powerlines and has been topped. It is in poor 'U(i condition. It is recommended that this tree be removed and replaced by the Nelson's, with a iyo utility friendly trees (<20 ft. mature height). Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 2 Olympia, WA Tree Evaluation — Lakehaven Estates- Federal Way, WA i Discussion Six trees on the Nelson property may be impacted by cuts or fills during the Lakehaven project. I have provided the necessary root protection zone distances in Table 1. Installation of the tree protection fences at these locations will provide adequate protection of the Nelson trees. The approximate locations of the tree protection fences are shown on the site plan in Appendix II, but the map is not to scale. Conclusions To reduce the risk of tree damage along the Nelson property line, I recommend that the following practices be considered: 1. Install a tree protection fence at the root protection zone distances prescribed in Table 1. 2. Potential activity to avoid along this edge includes: a. Excavation within the root protection zones. b. Care must be used during stump removal on the Lakehaven parcel to avoid damage to adjacent trees. It may be necessary to grind stumps that are within 10 ft. of a neighboring tree. c. If walls or fences are to be constructed, then care must be taken in digging footings for these structures. d. Fills may be possible, but should not impact more than 20% of the prescribed root protection zone. e. No trenching for underground utilities or other root or soil disturbing activity should occur in the root protection zone. f. If undesirable vegetation needs to be removed, then it should be carefully hand cut or `plucked' with an excavator sitting outside of this projected root protection zone. 3. Consider having WFCI present during site clearing along this north Be. In summary, if tree protection fences are installed as prescribed and care is used removing any adjacent Lakehaven trees as prescribed, then the potential impacts to the Nelson trees by the Lakehaven project is low. Please give me a call if you have further questions. Respectfully submitted, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Galen M. Wright, ACF, ASCA ISA Board Certified Master Arborist No. PN-129 Certified Forester No. 44 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Olympia, WA Tree Evaluation — Lakehaven Estates- Federal Way, WA APPENDIX I Lakehaven Estates Site Plan Impact Area h a 3 4 V s .•� `--'-- -� Vl Area of '�., � : luatioo '"` 7 N 10 li ili ;�� I t3• ! 12 Nelson� , , , ��� '•� Property W.3 t8lEia=7 IMAM North � No Scale I Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 4 Olympia, WA Tree Evaluation — Lakehaven Estates- Federal Way, WA APPENDIX II Lakehaven Estates - Edge Trees I Lakehaven ' RPZ 5'r RPZ 12'r RPZ 20'r ♦`* rr r■.♦♦ 16 !8 �� 21 22 I 1 +rwQ s r smar6L♦ .■■■.. i./�i4K 'YG waa u p 23 ❑ _ Y +fMnY Ifir�Y 10... 1713 24 x 12 14 Aa■ y 15 —Borderline RPZ 7'r Tree — 6'r RPZ ' I ra■ro ai+d� i Y �T ♦ 4 Bamboo—RPZ2'r Nelson ■cum 3 ❑ I PedMUL 1 ■ +rwru r Maple - RPZ 10'r North m cAsCWEM ■, . -31W12 No Scale + ....... Tree Protection Fence Locations — Minimum RPZ's listed for each Nelson Tree (If any Lakehaven trees are to be saved, then adjust the tree protection fence locations) Note: - Trees called alder on map by the surveyors are cherries. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Olympia, WA F1 v q -y Tree Evaluation — Lakehaven Estates- Federal Way, WA APPENDIX III Edge Tree List with all Tree Data Nelson Property Line at Lakehaven Estates # Species DBH in. Condition Crown Position Tree Potential Save/ Remove Owned By Potential Impacts from Construction 1 Bigleaf Maple 18 Poor- Topped P/I. Dominant Remove Nelson Possible 7 Giant: S.e uoia 20 Fair Llou�inarit . Save.' Lakehaven. I . =- 3 Bamboo Fair Intermediate Save Nelson [ Low 4 Oak 12 Fair it Codominant S Save Nelson None 5 Bamboo 'Fair ,F- Ititet�e'�iate Reinoye _ 6 Douglas -fir 20 Good Dominant Save Nelson None 7 Oak 8 Fair Intermediate Save Nelson None . InxetrnecIiafe' _ Remq= �►" ... ![3 1 ? Red C Pacific Ifadrone : Pt. Q[SI+6. 30 . i ". Ve'F;:� :1* E 100 _ fCaciiiiiih'ant`'_�: c i[ I}'OmEi3� Saave. ' Save: ' jvtrrt_ -• aLr 12 ^ Douglas -fir 44 Good Dominant Save Nelson i Possible 13 Dou las-fir 8 Good Codominant Save Nelson Low 14 Douglas -fir 8 Good Codominant Save Nelson Low 15 Cherry7 Fair Codominant Save Borderline Possible S `. _ •-111 - —_ 6. .l . 2 ". L7�v �al2eha• �TI �n� i :"1:.�xl 17 Fair Codominant Save Nelson Possible 1$ Gherry 7 r�� clr M MIL:, t'§ • ;++:: 19 Cherry 16 Fair Codominant Save Nelson Possible 0 .Cherry.-3 �loix� is3 lnt 5av e' -. --- - --- 21 `I��%':�lder n IG'i iV y(S :,k •�.. :.• I}� k` -. F s::,.: ea��.�i C .. t� Lif_:. �n _ .k.:., ..e.. .. L _... - tonwuo ."..:-_.__ � Cis - - --- • �-_ — e i sssiyze 24>; }3. Gotonj�oo'. :20:•' � . *Black cottonwood is a high risk tree near targets; Nelson trees are unshaded, Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual monitoring by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or the timing of the failure. It is considered an 'Act of God' when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by man's actions. a • � BCUTQ1115t4 • i I - •yip +1>�if �� - --- - _cm �, .1N► r;�w► tip. , iN,M �wE•,Rl r. f 3 W. Sat ST tlNATE] C� APE 1PNR 45-1 SUETY Ma OR WA * Rtrom Ram UM TOR 1: av TONE N Pa*= 711E ■ 5 TOR W-MM SRCCG 2 791E "Du TO SM TOYS p1R1 TREE PROTECTION FENCING DETAIL, MT 70 SME EXISTING IRE_ d Po EMIM 4 `EnsnHc GRADE To RET.wN �� 11PR*TTXCTK`N FENCING GRA0E0 LOT EXISTING TREE PRUNING DETAIL NOT TO SCAE.E tRG5�pE SIGNIRCANT TREE CALCULATIONS R°" a R Y �+° 51asTraxr TT�S xl n:I:f➢T TFU erRMINE sas SICMi1CW7 7RET3 RF7NdEDRLQUAM 2 TM TRM SAVED AND RM.ACFD 5 NOTES 2. FEC1101i 72-tS6a. tEEFS p O7F owim AN Yf O�j{[AI s s 41[MS A 1FICYi OEVETORNEF( OR W SLMW PAOPMY %" RFOLUE 7AE re MWL GY 7 �� �pR((yy�Ov���ppp pp wW7aRr{ Nay ♦. N TidIWJM&& {S 0 ME R MMM1V 11[�E[-N�CiI 5'S OR R�1ACE1ffM TRtE° CLt03�6.'0 YRFN THE 1NYB[R aC REI+YHfk SIC�[IGWI £rV�i1L 7AORy,� � 1� �� � ON-SrtE SIC}8F1ylyY 7WFS 'F11k1 S. NO CLW1.11 sIWE SE AIIDW'EO ON A 0EK10PTIi1TF SRE 1AlfI. 711E 71iq 7. F�ifO�� AHO G'TO5C4PE E1A1S luuE B�.i71 8T 1HE t0T OF FEOEWI' 1WT. � SHA1L � � & 7p 13E THE D ZP EPE OR 71 E SR2 d dN1 �R1pN Sf/GE RTTH A FEHt[ SEf 0a TH6 •• NO Ua005. %PL,L ETCAVATION, OR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION UATETG4.5 SHALL 6E PERIMED 71iC 110 OlSTIJRBMNCE AREA SIGNIFICANT TREE LEGEND M130L PIAM 512E LMAANTOY RFSTAw cas, c; TREE$ CEDAR AS NDTED 4 GREATER T1Wl 12. ONUEIE7L 70 TK RELOyFD _ FR AS NOTED 15 64W 1H+W 12• DYKTTR TO OE flom D Dal AS NOTED T GREATER THAN 12' OLLLETER. TO BE RADA D A9 ROTW -7 --- . 112. ONREIF]t, V , TD REPFAC}I,1{� TREE$ ��yjT�y�1, r'"!y 7RA70i uS tAnr" / ORiCOH AA1 O• CAL 2' STARE ! CUF ONE GROWING t `7 ;.l co o 5• � 2 SFASQY; NURSERY CROWN STAKE A GUY ONE GROWING p SEASON; NURSERY GROWN RECEIVED N M N N m i MAY 2 2 2007 _ a 6 � i v1 v1 U3 � CITY OF FEDERAL, Wqy BUILDING OF -PT, d° OWNER/DEVELOPER wA�SN"wGTr .7g o 101A VASMTOS �q5 LAND � Z. }-+ 16622 17WH AVENUE NZ [�pg ARiWyp1 >L Sxiy � SC 2 '�� ��2 [ram y r wAl >1G/�TW4j �� 1 GOO .€ E1+fQfNEERIPL,ANNI=RILANF] SURVEYOR 15215 72e7 GI ° HC. N� s ,,i.2xs�Hx51 sit8M 00HL5CT: AAY WA% P.E./.IOHV ENLM-WWAE AM PAS. � [V —i 9. .g