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