Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2008-00002 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 3/3/2008 CASEINDEX Rick Buechel, South Shore Enterprises VAR2008-00002 Index # Date Description 1 March 3, 2008 Exhibit 1: Staff Report 2 January 23, 2008 Exhibit 2: Resource Ordinance Variance Permit Application 3 January 23, 2008 Exhibit 3: Vicinity Map and Site Plan 4 January 28, 2008 Exhibit 4: Notice of Variance Application and Public Hearin 5 January 2008 Exhibit 5: Habitat Management Plan by The Wetland Corps 6 November 28, 2007 Exhibit 6: Geotechnical Report by Envirotech Engineering 7 January 23, 2008 Exhibit 7: HMP Letter to Skokomish Tribe 8 January 23, 2008 Exhibit 8: HMP Letter to WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife 9 January 23, 2008 Exhibit 9: Aerial Photo 10 February 4, 2008 Exhibit 10: Memo to Penny Orth — Environmental Health Department 11 February 7, 2008 Exhibit 11: Planning Department Request for Additional Information 12 February 26, 2008 Exhibit 12: Information Request from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hoit 13 March 5, 2008 Exhibit 13: Revised site plan from Envirotech Engineering addendum to geotechnical report) 14 February 19, 2008 Exhibit 14: Email from Penny Orth, EH 15 February 19, 2008 Exhibit 15: Septic Design Site Plan from EH I � -�teh Qdd;u�d,wn r�-4 i i Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 5tn Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 ext. 295 March 3, 2008 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Tammi Wright (Tammiw@co.mason.wa.us) RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2008-00002) STAFF REPORT I. Introduction/Project Description. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a single-family residence occupying 1,225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet within the regulated buffer of a Type Np stream. The Type Np stream requires a 100-foot buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback for a total buffer/setback of 115 feet. The stream buffer encompasses the entire parcel (see site plan marked Exhibit 3). The proposed residence will be 15 feet from the stream at the nearest point and the septic system will be 30 feet at the nearest point. There is currently a dilapidated residence on the site. The existing stream appears to have been heavily impacted by the recent events of the December 3, 2007 storm. The channel has recently shifted easterly and is currently draining over the edge of the deck on the existing building. The proposed project minimizes the impacts to the stream buffer by limiting the square footage of the residence to 1,225 square feet. To compensate for the displacement of riparian habitat associated with the project, the remainder of the parcel south of the proposed project shall be preserved as a Wildlife Conservation Area (WCA). A covenant shall be recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office that this portion of the parcel shall be preserved as a Wildlife Conservation Area. The total size of the WCA is approximately 240 feet by 85 feet, which occupies approximately 19,000 square feet of the 1.15-acre parcel. Staff recommends approval as conditioned. II. Applicant. Rick Buechel, South Shore Enterprises. III. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 9030 E. State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel #32235-31-00160. E 110' OF E 200' OF W 650' OF LOT 3 & TL. IV. Date of complete application: January 23, 2008 Buechel VAR2008-00002 V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site. The parcel is rectangular in shape and is approximately 1.15 acres in size with a north to south orientation. The Type Np enters the parcel on the northeast side, runs in a northerly direction and exits the parcel on the western side just short of the northern property line. Highway 106 borders the northern property line. The topography of the parcel is moderate to steep sloping terrain. The proposed site of the residence appears to be on relatively level terrain. Ascending grade is located to the south of the planned development. This slope is approximately 65% and therefore requires a Geotechnical Report. B. Characteristics of the area. The area is east of Union, WA along State Route 106. Hood Canal borders the highway to the north and moderate to steep slopes are on the landward side of State Route 106. The steep slopes are densely vegetated. Development in the area is comprised of single family residences mainly along Hood Canal, however there are residences on the upland side of the highway to the east and west. See aerial photo marked as P 9 Exhibit 9. C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) per the Mason County Development Areas Map. E. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation is Urban. VI. SEPA Compliance, public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (i). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on January 30, 2008 and notice was made in the Shelton-Mason Journal on January 31, 2008 (Exhibit 4). The proposal required review of the Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 5) and comment by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Notification was sent on January 24, 2008 (Exhibits 7 & 8). A 28-day comment period followed. A memo (Exhibit 10)was sent to Penny Orth, Environmental Health Department, requesting any comments/concerns regarding the placement of the septic system. The application, Habitat Management Plan, and Geotechnical Report were also provided. Penny emailed back with concerns about the placement of the septic system. In the design site plan the systems for both lots are located in the SW corner of lot 170. The submitted septic design for lot 160 has not been approved yet pending the resolution of the wetland report site plan, which currently does not show the correct septic location. I spoke with Mike Oblizalo about this issue and he indicated that the applicant wants to place the septic systems on each lot instead of both on one lot. I referred him to Penny Orth regarding this change. See condition #11. See Exhibits 14 & 15. See condition #11. Buechel VAR2008-00002 2 A letter was received from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hoit requesting copies of all applications, variance proposals and site plans for this project. Those copies were mailed out on February 29, 2008 (Exhibit 12). No other comments have been received to date. VII. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit for the construction of the single-family residence and a septic permit for the septic system installation. Vill. Analysis: (All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.) The required buffer for a Type Np stream is 100 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a total distance of 115 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria. The proposal is for the construction of a 1,225 square foot residence and a 900 square foot area for the septic system. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes variance procedures and criteria. The location of the additions within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer. Section 17.01.110.G.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.M. states that"except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Title 15 Development Code Section 15.09.057." Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) be prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation. Section 17.01.150 (E), Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations. Staff Response: Based on the Habitat Management Plan and site plan, the entire parcel is entirely within the stream buffer/setback. Due to the presence of this critical area within the property, the requirements listed in the Mason County Buechel VAR2008-00002 3 Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate residential use of the property without the variance. 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. Staff Response:As described in criteria #1, the hardship is specifically related to the property of the applicant and not from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment. Staff Response: The property is zoned Rural Residential 5. A single-family residence is a permitted use in this zoning. Per Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.150 Variance from Standards Section E `7n addition to the review criteria in Mason County Code 15.09.057, the minimum reasonable use for a residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a) 40% of the area of the lot, orb) 2, 250 square feet." The applicant more than meets this criterion as he has requested only a 1,225 square foot footprint. A Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 5) has been prepared and submitted which identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the environment. The findings in the HMP conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur. The proposal minimizes impacts by limiting the square footage for the building footprint to 1,225 square feet and keeping it somewhat in the footprint of the existing dilapidated building. The structures are proposed to be the greatest possible distance from the stream given the configuration of the lot, topography, and existing septic location. Enhancement of the buffer shall include removal of the existing dilapidated structure and removal of all nonnative debris and materials within and in proximity to the stream channel. The trees removed for the project shall be placed within the portion of the stream buffer that is outside of the project zone as nurse log habitat. Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy shall be removed from the stream buffer, should they invade. The remaining area between the proposed house and stream shall be planted with native shrubs to provide stabilization, wildlife habitat, and prevent invasive species from becoming established near the stream. As part of the mitigation, the remainder of the parcel, as identified on the site plan, shall be preserved as a Wildlife Conservation Area. This portion of the parcel contains mature forested components likely utilized by local wildlife, including Bald Eagle. A geotechnical report(Exhibit 6) has been submitted and presents geotechnical design guidelines for the proposed construction. The report addresses building foundation recommendations, earthwork construction recommendations, slope stability and erosion control, septic drainfield impacts, temporary and permanent Buechel VAR2008-00002 4 l erosion control, building and footing setbacks, surface and subsurface drainage, vegetation considerations, seismic considerations, and driveway considerations. Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of all recommendations provided within the report. The approval of this project is subject to the recommendations and specifications outlined in the attached geotechnical report. The report has been sent to an outside consulting firm for review and approval. The reviewing consultant sent back a memorandum identifying a number of issues related to the report that need to be addressed (Exhibit 11). A copy of this memo was sent to the applicant and Michael Staten, P.E., Envirotech Engineering. The building permit will not be issued until all of these issues are resolved. Envirotech Engineering also sent a revised site plan on March 5, 2008 as a replacement in the attachments of Addendum #1 (Exhibit 13). A memo (Exhibit 10) was sent to Penny Orth, Environmental Health Department, requesting any comments/concerns regarding the placement of the septic system. The application, Habitat Management Plan, and Geotechnical Report were also provided. A response was received regarding the placement of the septic system and the discrepancies in the septic design site plan and the wetland report site plan. 1 spoke with Mike Oblizalo about this issue and he indicated that the applicant wants to place the septic systems on each lot instead of both on one lot. I referred him to Penny Orth regarding this change. See condition #11. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. Staff Response:As noted in #3 above, the authorization of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area. The proposed footprint is designed to all features associated with a single-family residence. Residences in proximity to the project site are comprised of similar or greater footprints. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Staff Response:As noted in Response #3, there will be no detrimental effects to the public interest resulting from the proposed project. Mitigation Measures and Best Management practices have been identified to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the proposed construction. See the Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 5) and Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 6). 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Staff Response: The property is zoned for residential development. The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area. The project constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the stream. Buechel VAR2008-00002 5 Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a residence on the parcel due to the critical area buffer/setbacks as required by County regulations. IX. General Review Criteria Mason County Code 15.09.055(C) 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. The proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage the preservation and protection of water quality, critical areas, Resource Lands, and open space and the adoption of critical area regulations. This variance process is outlined in the Mason County Resource Ordinance. A Geotechnical Report has been submitted per the Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 Landslide Hazard Areas. The proposal will need to meet the requirements of Title 6. The proposed septic system will be reviewed by the Environmental Health Department prior to building permit issuance and will be a condition of variance approval. The proposal is being reviewed under a Resource Ordinance Variance. The project is categorically exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Title 16 does not apply. 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. Best management practices will be followed based on the submitted Habitat Management Plan and the Geotechnical Report to ensure there is no impact to public health, safety and welfare. 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed single-family residence does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residence will be accessed off of State Highway 106. This project does not lower the level of service for neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan Table V1.5-2. In most cases the population would have to more than double to exceed these standards. X. Conclusions. Upon the above discussion the construction of a single-family residence is consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed below. 1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 2. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any construction and/or development activities on the parcel. 3. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or straw matting). 4. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance Buechel VAR2008-00002 6 #VAR2008-00002 and that the Habitat Management Plan prepared b The g P p Y Wetland Corps dated January 2008 contains required mitigation measures for future development. 5. The applicant shall implement all mitigation measures, native plantings, and monitoring as proposed by the Habitat Management Plan prepared by The Wetland Corps dated January 2008. 6. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project. 7. The approval of this project is subject to the recommendations and specifications outlined in the approved geotechnical report. 8. The applicant shall record a covenant on the property identifying an area of 240 feet by 85 feet on the southern portion of the parcel to be preserved as a Wildlife Conservation Area. This is the remainder of the parcel south of the proposed project. 9. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a report detailing the condition of the restoration area. Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) determination of compliance with the mitigation recommendations in the Wetland Impact Report and Mitigation Plan; 2)the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on the protected zone and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the wetland buffer; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions; and 6) condition of installed shrubs. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. 10. A survival rate of 80% of plantings is required each year during the three-year monitoring period. If survival falls below 80%, the applicant shall replant to restore the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the necessary period to address the replanting. 11. Subject to Environmental Health Department approval for the septic system. XI. Choices of Action. 1. Approval of the Variance request. 2. Denial of the Variance request. 3. Conditional approval of the Variance request. 4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification. Buechel VAR2008-00002 7 VARIANCE APPLICATION MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Variance from Standards As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA, variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is met. Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special "exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance criteria listed below. Applicant name: Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, Inc.Telephone No. 360490- 7000 Mailing address: PO Box 249 Site address: No site address Owner Name (If different than applicant): Same as applicant Owner Address (If different than applicanty Same as applicant Tax Parcel # 322353100160 Legal Description: E 110'OF E 200'OF W 650'OF LOT 3 & TL Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X Mason County Development Regulations Subdivisions and Plats 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. Construction of 1,225 single family residence septic within regulated type Np stream buffer. Building will be constructed 15-feet from the stream at the nearest point. E:\Disk\TRAVELDRIVE(G)\Sheppard\Variance Application 2007 Sheppard.doc 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. The regulated stream buffer encompasses the entire ownership. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; Due to the presence of critical areas within the property, the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate residential use of the property. b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the limited size and presence of natural features. The regulated buffer associated with the stream captures the entire property leaving no space for a house. c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the environment. The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations, specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated type Np stream buffers. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will preserve and enhance the riparian area within the property and minimize potential for long term environmental impacts. d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate a single family residence. Residences in proximity to the project site are comprised of similar footprints. e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially effect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the Habitat Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the project site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest resulting from the proposed project. E:\Disk\TRAVELDRIVE(G)\Sheppard\Variance Application 2007 Sheppard.doc f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. The property is zoned for residential use. The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area. The project constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the stream. 14 Applicant Signature Date Owner Signature Date FEES: Development Regulate Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00 Subdivision and Plats Variance: 0.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00 Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,225.0C�--,h Hearings Examiner: $490.00 Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee: $86Q.00 NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached). E:\Disk\TRAVELDRIVE(G)\Sheppard\Variance Application 2007 Sheppard.doc LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS" WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST "Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor_ _Vo9lo,s L-vel ;�2u�ncke� 7-evv-y DUVtf �� Stake- �ZOuf- l p to l�v,n , ®� et13�a o�101-19 l lvLi e , WA q'$S9a--9 rM0 nt,bYo�- WcLv-av� ovv&�8 Vv\cvY� -g\cLvlcv1C04 L1vt�cM UJA P j c-na.Yd Gk i\AON i � �be� 1�lF1�1 T)C. V\a. Lam- E t3°�13 Mar\CVU5x za . L,, WM �W , 01 -pp 9533 CIL way X VvA c V iv1 -+- CACX-a I�vV��1�VYlGl�1 A ve- S W '1`o3 5q*vx .Ave, �n1 ec� , wA 9SMLo �-t�ia� Lclke.wood, wA 9M99- �655S u�d CCk-OV, ion Sc nAvck Erb I l to E S-k-� �211n S cv- cO -e s-�O Wn S+- (�be�rclee�n , WA 98520 Se��+1e wA ►�.�< �3Liec he Scut Shore ses E:\Disk\TRAVELDRlVE(G)\Sheppard\Variance Application 2007 Sheppard.doc f VARIANCE REQUEST Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I / WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. OWNER: - ` APPLICANT: DATE: E:\Disk\TRAVELDRIVE(G)\Sheppard\Variance Application 2007 Sheppard.doc t9 F�§WW*rs 0 1 mile 4 J CIS- FS•t nllr State Hwy 106 J a ss a Approximate Parcel Locations r..♦L.: s J i r.f.� ='/i'! � � y� -- �i� � 1 � 1� �. � A � �"� v;• ,'!C-f .{�' 1 fl f� U t 1 i fJ FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Project Name: Parcel 322353100160 HMP Location: Union,Washington Project: TWC2008-2 Client: Rick Buechel TfH WETLAND CORPS Date: 1/08 F- 0iJ3J 3 Existiv�.g Existi►n,g p,-;,vewa y buiLdiv�g proposed septic ` ` East State Route 106 area to be ` repLawted � proposed � SCR Type Np Streavu x 35' 100-foot b u f fer + 15"guil,div�.g Setba 15' �� 100' N r � `itt n r � �Ow��►�XA�=tf3tti,�t'�a r r � r r i r � r r 0 30' r i r i r � r FIGURE 2. SITE MAP Project Name: Parcel 322353100160 HMP Location: Union,Washington THE T, �,�ND CORPS Project: T k Buechel 2 w�-i Client: Rick Buechel Date: 1/08 PgON copes MASON COUNTY � rp Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning _ Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 7854 Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, Inc., who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93 is for the construction of a single-family residence occupying 1,225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet in a Type Np stream buffer (non-fish habitat with perennial water). Property location is 9030 East State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel #32235-31-00160. E 100' OF E 200' OF W 660' OF LOT 3 & TL. Date of complete application: January 23, 2008. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Tammi Wright of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. THE WETLAND CORPS 7 �' Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation PARCEL 32235 100160 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 9030 East State Route 106 Union,Washington Mason County Prepared for: South Shore Enterprises, LLC c/o Rick Beuchel PO Box 249 Union,WA 98592 Prepared by: Lee Boad and Heather Lane January, 2008 PO Box 2854 Bch'-&,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40@peoplepc.com THE r L' 1 AND CU"J 7 Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation PARCEL 3223553100160 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECTDESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................................i APPLICABLESETBACKS...........................................................................................................................................4 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES.............................................................................................................4 ANALYSISOF EFFECTS..............................................................................................................................................6 MITIGATION MEASURES...........................................................................................................................................8 MONITORING.............................................................................................................................................................11 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................12 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................12 Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Map Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey Map Figure 5. DNR Water Resource Map PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618�Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40@peoplepc.com THE WETLAND CORPS -fir Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation January, 2008 Project No. TWC2008-2 PARCEL 322353100160 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Highway 106 Union, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The details of a Habitat Management Plan for the above referenced property (Parcel No. 322353100160) are discussed in full in this report. The parcel is off of East State Route 106 in Union, Washington. The entire parcel is 1.15 acre in size. The site is found in the NW '/4 of Section 35 Township 22 North, Range 3 West (See Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map). The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to address potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a single-family residence (SFR) occupying 1225 square feet and septic occupying 900 square feet within a parcel encompassed by the regulated buffer of a type Np stream. The type Np stream requires a 100-foot buffer with additional 15-foot building setbacks. Therefore, a variance is necessary to complete the proposed project. The proposed SFR will be 15 feet from the stream at the nearest point, and the septic will be 30 feet from the stream at the nearest point. An access driveway already enters the property via Highway 106. The objectives of this HMP are as follows: ■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife habitat resulting from the establishment of the SFR and septic within the Type Np stream buffer. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be residing in the vicinity of the parcel. ■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse effects resulting from the establishment of the SFR and septic within the Type Np stream buffer. 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The vegetation theme for the parcel consists of mature western red cedar and Douglas Fir mixed with big leaf maple. The shrub layer is dominated by sword fern, salal and evergreen huckleberry. Existing structures within the parcel include a dilapidated building that is no longer usable, located just east of the proposed building location. The ownership is comprised of undulating moderate to high-gradient landscape (15 to 40 percent) which generally descends north, toward the Hood Canal. A steep swale crosses the parcel northwesterly, with a defined channel approximately 2-feet wide draining within the swale. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421•boad404peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January, 2008 Page No.2 The stream appears to have been heavily impacted by the recent flood event that occurred approximately tree weeks prior to the site visit. The channel has recently shifted easterly and is currently draining over the edge of the deck on the dilapidated building (See photo below). In addition, the northern portion of channel at the base of the slope has been washed out and is overlain with sediment (See photo below). At this point in the drainage the channel divides and drains over the pile of sediment as sheetflow, which will likely become several small drainage channels, then enters a ditch and into a culvert. The culvert which facilitates the drainage under State Highway 106 is inaccessible to fish from the Hood Canal due to its high placement along the bank near the shoreline (approximately 10 feet from the base of the bank). The channel has an average gradient of 16 to 20 percent, which does not meet criteria for fishbearing habitat according to WAC 16.222.031: (i)Waters having the following characteristics are presumed to have fish use: (A) Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 feet or greater within the bankfull width in Western Washington; or 3 feet or greater in width in Eastern Washington; and having a gradient of 16 percent or less. The source of hydrology for the stream appears to be fed from groundwater along the steep hill side, as well as surface water runoff. The stream meets criteria for a Type Np Stream because it is a perennial nonfishbearing habitat stream. The stream does not have contributing streams which are fish-inhabiting streams. Type Np streams in Mason County requires 100 feet of undisturbed buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback. No other regulated streams or wetlands were found in proximity to the project area. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40@peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January,2008 Page No.3 6-0 r k M ��1r '� � - tfl�i:►�6 4 Photo 1. Type Np stream draining over the deck of dilapidated building. ra as , �' qw• .,:fit 1 1 ; - �� h.., - _ v , Photo 2. Large amount of sediment at base of slope. Stream channel disperses as sheet flow over sediment. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421•boad40@peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January, 2008 Page No.4 i X, -4 _ Photo 3. Stream flows over sediment and down bank as a combination of sheetflow and several small channels. 3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS The project site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. The applicable setback for this project is as follows: Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer Type Np Stream 100, 15' 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES 4.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. Suitable habitat is not present due to the limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. The type Np stream is inaccessible to Puget Sound Chinook. Therefore, no impacts to Puget Sound Chinook or associated habitat are predicted with the proposed project. No impacts to aquatic habitat are expected to occur with the proposed project. No impacts to water quality or nearby shoreline habitat are predicted with proposed mitigation. 4.2 Hood Canal Summer Chum (Oncorhynchus keta)- Threatened Hood Canal Summer Chum spawning areas in proximity to the site include the Union River and the Tahuya River. Recovery efforts are in place to restore naturally spawning summer PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40 a)peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January,2008 Page No.5 chum populations to the Tahuya system while the Union stock remains healthy. Suitable habitat is not present due to the limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. The type Np stream is inaccessible to Puget Sound Chinook. Therefore, no impacts to Hood Canal Summer Chum or associated habitat are predicted with the proposed project. No impacts to aquatic habitat or water quality are expected to occur. 4.3 Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)- Threatened Listed as Threatened since May 2007, Puget Sound Stealhead spawn in several streams throughout Puget Sound. Spawning usually occurs in moderate to steep gradient sections of streams, usually in heads of riffles or the tails of pools where hydraulic conditions are conducive to intragravel flow. Side channels and the anterior portions of islands are also used. Spawn timing for summer steelhead runs typically ranges from mid May through October while winter run steelhead are present from December through May. Adequate cover from predation, water temperature, and spawning gravel are important factors for instream habitat, while little is currently known about specific marine habitat requirements. The Type Np stream within the parcel does not support suitable steelhead habitat due to lack of flow limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. The recommendations provided in this report are intended to protect water quality and aquatic habitat. 4.4 Bull Trout (Salvelinus malma)- Threatened Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel, relatively free of fine sediments. The nearest population of bull trout occurs as three subpopulations in the Skokomish Basin. No bull trout habitat is in proximity to or will be affected by the proposed project. 4.5 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)- Threatened Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old-growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations. The proposed project site will require the removal of two large trees. Although the trees to be removed do not contain nesting and roosting features important for the Bald Eagle, such as exposed lateral limbs or dead tops, the trees do offer an unobstructed view of nearby water, and has potential to be utilized by Bald Eagle. Preservation mitigation described Section 6.4 is recommended to compensate for the loss of overstory components, and the preserved mature overstory is expected to eventually provide habitat features important to the Bald Eagle in the future. With recommended mitigation, this project is not expected to adversely impact the use of the site or surrounding area by bald eagles. 4.6 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)- Threatened PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•boad40Apeoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January,2008 Page No.6 Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is roughly 5-miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No potential nesting trees are within the project area. This project will likely have no adverse impact on Marbled Murrelet given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees in the vicinity of the project area. 4.7 Northern Spotted Owl (Stria occidentalis caurina)- Threatened Spotted owls require a large amount of land for their nesting and hunting grounds, pairs may occupy up to 58 sq. km. They are territorial and do not migrate, but they may shift their ranges slightly in response to seasonal changes Suitable spotted owl habitat includes trees relatively large in diameter, multi-layered forest canopy with a moderate to high canopy closure in overstory, midstory, and understory, large, tall, live trees with cavities, broken tops, mistletoe, or platforms of branches capable of holding accumulated organic matter suitable for use as a nest. Dead standing trees and fallen decayed trees supporting abundant populations of prey species are critical to spotted owl populations. Currently there are no spotted owl nesting sites documented in proximity to the project site. There are no indicators of current utilization within the parcel. Mitigation measures such as preservation of a mature forested portion of the parcel and installation of nurse logs are recommended to preserve and enhance habitat components important to prey species often foraged on by Spotted Owl. 5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS The project lies within the regulated buffer of a type Np stream. Project scale in the protected area is as follows: Development Tye Habitat Tye Project scale SFR Type Np stream buffer 1225 square feet Septic Type Np stream buffer 900 square feet Total Type Np stream buffer 2125 square feet 5.1 Vegetation Disturbance The building footprint is located in a portion of the property that contains a portion of a dilapidated building and an open area and two large conifers, one Douglas fir and one western red cedar. The proposed project will require the removal of the two trees. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40@peoplepc.coin 1 Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January, 2008 Page No.7 Preservation mitigation and riparian enhancement are recommended in Section 6.2 and 6.4 to maintain vegetation abundance and diversity within the lot. :A. �" Nv a ' f f 'C r• f A ,4t Photo 4. Approximate location of SFR and Septic,two trees and building to be removed for SFR/septic. 5.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids Therefore, none of the proposed actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat associated with the shoreline of Hood Canal. Actions described in this plan are not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. 5.3 Noise Pollution A slight increase in noise from construction activities is likely to occur during daylight construction hours. No nesting sites are located within the radii of concern that would be impacted by noise associated with the establishment of the SFR. 5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended to avoid any adverse effects associated with sediment and turbidity during project implementation. 5.5 Light and Glare The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with residential construction and land use. It is recommended that outdoor lighting be directed away from the stream to reduce light and glare towards the stream area. No impacts to the PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40#peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January, 2008 Page No.8 use of the site by wildlife species is likely to result from light and glare associated with this project. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1 Minimization Mitigation The proposed project minimizes impacts to the stream buffer buffer by limiting the square footage of the building footprint of the SFR to 1225 square feet. The proposed SFR is located 15 feet from the stream at the nearest point, this is the furthest distance from the stream that the size and configuration of the lot will allow while meeting slope setback requirements and project objectives. 6.2 Preservation Mitigation To compensate for the displacement of riparian habitat associated with this project, it is recommended that the remainder of the parcel south of the proposed project be preserved as a Wildlife Conservation Area (WCA). This portion of the parcel contains mature forested components likely utilized by local wildlife, including Bald Eagle. It is recommended that this section of the parcel be recorded by the Mason County Tax Assessor as a Wildlife Conservation Area. The total size of the WCA is approximately 240 feet by 85 feet, occupying approximately 0.5 of the 1.15-acre parcel. 6.3 Best Management Practices Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows: • Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather. • Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and siltation of waters (See diagram below). • Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances outside overnight within the project area. • Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. • Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority. PO Box 2854 Belfair, Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40@peoplepc.cwm Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January, 2008 Page No.9 4 HIGH CONSTRUCTION STEEL POST FENCE TW 10 Fr VAX SPACOG wm1 wRE SUPPORT FENCE 6 FT MAX SPAC M.wR1pUT WNW SUPPORT FENCE FILTER FABRIC PONDING HT. / STEEL POST / Fl F ELY RUNOFF 1211* ;4! am Silt Fence Diagram 6.31 Silt fence Installation Exposed soil in proximity to regulated waters poses a risk of erosion and siltation during storm events. It is recommended that silt fencing be installed between the work areas and the stream to avoid siltation of waters. The silt fence should be inspected and repaired if necessary after each storm event. Sediment should be removed from the fence and deposited to an area that will not contribute to regulated waters. The fence can be removed once construction is complete and erodible soils are stabilized through a permanent erosion feature control such as grass seeding or woodchip placement. 6.4 Enhancement Recommendations 6.41 Dilapitated Building Removal To enhance the riparian corridor surrounding the type Np stream, it is recommended that the dilapidated building within the parcel be removed for the purposes of eliminated all nonnative debris and materials within and in proximity to the channel. The recent flood resulted in the shifting of the stream drainage, to actually drain over a corner of the deck associated with the dilapidated building. Best Management Practices should be strictly adhered during the removal of the building. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•boad40#,peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January,2008 Page No.10 .e l � r F. ; .�+ Photo 5. Dilapitated building to be removed. 6.42 Nurse Log Placement It is recommended that the trees removed for the project be placed within the portion of the stream buffer that is outside of the project zone as nurse log habitat. The trees should be cut into eight-foot sections and randomly situated throughout the riparian corridor to mimic natural dispersion. Natural cavities and dens are provided by nurse logs, creating foraging and nesting areas for birds and mammals. 6.43 Invasive Species Removal Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy may invade the stream buffer. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the stream buffer, should they invade. Herbicides should not be used to achieve this due to the proximity to the stream. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem. 6.5 Native Planting The remaining area between the proposed house and stream should be planted with native shrubs to provide stabilization, wildlife habitat, and prevent invasive spesies from becoming established near the stream. The following species are recommended due to their shade tolerant nature and occurrence within the surrounding area. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40 plepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January,2008 Page No.11 Shrubs: Oregon grape(Mahonia nervosa) salal (Gaultheria shallon) evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Ferns: sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Native Planting Guidelines It is recommended that plantings be installed within the identified area to achieve the following densities. shrubs- 5' on center ferns- 3' on center These densities will provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the mitigation zone. It is recommended that potted plants be used as opposed to g P P PP bare root seedlings, with two gallon trees and 1-gallon shrubs. Typically, planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March, however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner may call for planting to occur outside optimum time periods. A monitoring program is recommended to insure project effectiveness. Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy may invade the planted zone. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the mitigation zone should they invade. Herbicides should not be used to achieve this due to the proximity to the lake. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem. 7.0 MONITORING Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) determination of compliance with the mitigation recommendations in this report; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on the protected zone and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the planting zone; 5) condition of installed shrubs; 6) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Mason County Department of Community Development. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618 Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40@peoplepc.com Parcel 322353100160 Habitat Management Plan TWC No 2008-2 January, 2008 Page No.12 8.0 SUMMARY This report addresses the effects of the establishment of a SFR occupying an area of 1225 square feet and a septic occupying 900 square feet within a parcel encompassed by the regulated buffer of a Type Np stream. Given the size constraints, slope setbacks, and configuration of the parcel, the SFR will be 15-feet from the stream at the nearest point. The surface area and exact location of the septic drainfield may be smaller and further from the stream depending on the final design. An existing access road will be utilized. Due to the presence of an existing structure to be removed, the total additional displacement of the stream buffer entails 1125 square feet. Best Management Practices are recommended to avoid negative impacts to the riparian and aquatic habitat during project implementation. Two trees will need to be removed within the stream buffer to meet project objectives. Mitigation recommendations include preservation of approximately 0.5 acre of mature forested habitat south of the proposed development, placement of nurse logs within the stream buffer, shrub plantings within the riparian area, and the removal of a dilapidated building between the proposed building location and the stream. No impacts to water quality or aquatic habitat are predicted. Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices, have been identified to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction. We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing The Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, Lee Boad Senior Ecologist �� 6D(J - Heather Lane Staff Wetland &Natural Resource Specialist PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-CCll Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40C),peoplepc.com REFERENCES Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press.. 730 pp. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone PinePublishing. 528 pp. Vancouver, British Columbia. Speare-Cooke, S., 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 417 pp. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Mason County Area, Washington, September, 1951. US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1978. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad40 a@,peoplepc.com 3 yh1'994M MAP aorw ks G A O �!,n 4 •�t�}i" n l mile ' 0 Z. • 1. fJ �} �r - '� • I ® State Hwy 106 r q �5 — J J � — p t 0 rRt t..r % ; /� Approximate Parcel f � Locations '' '�+c'� f7 �JY• l , •✓ SS rr i �/��``�-r ;4 `fI//��/jam ��` 1 . •• � t• 1 f+ �y� �r - ��1 � �s � F!U // it FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Project Name: Parcel 322353100160 HMP Location: Union,Washington Project: TWC2008-2 Client: Rick Buechel TfM WETLAND CURDS Date: 1108 EXistiv"O 6Xistiv� DY6VeWA1.� buildiv�g proposed �. septic ` East state Route 106 Area to be ` repLavuted ► ► ► ► proposed ► ► SFR ► Type Np Stream 'K 3s' ► ioo-foot buffer + ► 15'guildiv� Setba ► ► ► 100, ► ► ► + N ► ► i : ?i '44i: i i i i i i i i ► , 0 - 30' ' FIGURE 2. SITE MAP Project Name: Parcel 322353100160 HMP Location: Union,Washington TUT WETLAND 1 1 LAND CORPS Project: TWC2008-2 Client: Rick Buechel Date: 1/08 . ....................... J h.. •+lrJ,xYr!'r.... ,y�'i{.};?5;.};:,'rx{r{r:.}:'}•Uv{:+v}}i}y}:ti�}}::!�ii!?::::J}�f:}i}}i:;7if:}•}E �yXt�ll,+f•?'f�y}r,., :>?iiJ3fff Y {�frs' f 1y wc}v. '�Ui}:?{•;f'+'n53v •. - `5�1..1.h..•.51 f?.++{}.'nvn },p x,}i.5.': - 'yr}'9vY}{fifyi,n.!,•}r.Y1i`r{}n. GYf 1.t•v r �!t r�Y ,`yr .h'. fh•.�:i /.fM1 1�'l.1 � lN.... 5ri{.lr':!+iJ5:^:ny:.�yy1}5�;+rx:?:t!n:{v5 fwy?�?1:::}{::ly:vy'ni:Nrn'.A'.i;Q}.'.V}'Jk:hS rS'•r}}'ivh,1.S}v.i.;l5y;n.5}{.fk}{{o..:Lt}rYi;;+y.}.Yv{},:::7'.:try�f"{+ynA1:y}v!lY�J�.lL4'jSr{,iv,S.n%}vY�i:ll'�i'.iYf`.,�+.SO vf+�,.iY+f4•.RrS.h}r.i y,,5i.��,,1'?�N;r,,.:x7yv,.y+•r.5}r`•f5.i�,�y}.,5}r�l7rxrlff<�r{.r1{+l..};:nV\y}}�.l+l�r•:}.;,,r;f..f!'.h.JxYr'/':!xS�J;'rVvnY,''N?}y.{'+{ix5:�'ArtxxfnY1:li.x•:'•r:'}.rv}'•::`v:r��r:1:''.:•.�::?••,Yt::{.:':Y.h'v1/rI{ur�•�:?.x1.w5'l',.x}'Y}:h'.::5:'}.:N}nv.::�:r}r'lt,r;:•,{.rN':y'}•.?•�r1V;.;55.,n%55••,.;.•''l}r?}.5'h:'i}k}5l.1'iJ},:ifS{Slnn+:{r,J,YnHV{n�xjn{5'¢.,.5}a}}•�p ,r'''!x5r;y{;:;�:'%:xif•.Y}:}•:iVl4 ............... : .:r.'}::r.•+Y.vpn}nr';;:¢}{i•.n;+':rj}1;i,. i!G.5.•j'k}::•..lr':x::.{v.:v'�•}l:,�.nl}nJf/v.x}'r?l,}..y/+. r�.r./ti••}6; v.;7.......Y h;+ vVIM.lI� ll ..%::j.5};{y^;}}.r iC:?O>..... �{�.... :.ni:r!�:{`n:i5{1y}Y.y;r rt}�YlrvY:m5:f:Iv.+S,I:+::{{::{J:r•:rr.y:I.yi/v xry�5y}T ��;a.{�+}'Y5?;{�Y.y�i�+?USX{�!5'ri'r.{{?;'i.�ti,��n?x.:h7 ii{iir,.r.,xi�;;��4{{�;.!•?fhr'r!!�'':..+Nr}}�.�.R.yN.{ ESI,��,,55y;,' r:{E{1,•f�fi!�?:+i{'ilfJ.}V!'4�';.,5i h:�M�} .,',i f+�i.•1if25+`f!I:•+?d vtv,J. ,{�f�ylr!}•I}}!y}?{xi}{5. ii7 rf YlY?y}{ v,�r i!+ r.h,i„rfr�}t14�}�r'f.5{W •s • - . 1)s+,..Ryh..r•!;}Jf y:54y(�•}vti�!/�r,+V!{��51r�ry1�/J; r�5• J�5r r.5'+r � lf•�IfS• Y'+;.r�.:. � - ';'J.i:'x' `!!,!ly�tiy''V?�+.;..ry y�r��r�tx�v�S,tJ,+Y!{y?f '� � ?�.l'f r�?iy�!•.,�y ���y' ..•` •;rv+4����,r�r�r}��+�,}55+ii r rb,+�,pkv�}r 5l fp+N;;+2+5i N Ar�r{ft�Y,t••� t, •)r •�Tl�-�- hv:!!v•y,{,5�{V"�''�/���l�n�Y�r�':v:�J�{"�.W'i/r�,.K'hR^ x{{n+ly,�5�;.�: 5 i5'A,,,L.../ ?.Jnv1.•n?;ti'+rN l:: � - +ti' rxr r' v;U.•+rr ' • , • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approximate Parcel Locations w } a 106 Soil Onsite Conditions based on Mason County Soil Survey Subject Site Soils: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 30 to 45 percent slopes (Ad)- The Alderwood series consists of brown, well-drained, upland soils. They have developed from mixed gravelly glacial till dominated by acid igneous rock. The imbedded gravel is mainly granite and quartzite. Rainfall is 45 to 60 inches a year. The native vegetation is a dense forest consisting almost entirely of Douglas-fir and a dense understory of salal, Oregon-grape, vine maple, and huckleberry. Northeast of the Hood Canal the understory is mainly rhododendron. Alderwood soils occupy the extensive rolling glacial moraines, and they are the dominant soils in the eastern part of the county. The Alderwood soils are associated with the somewhat excessively drained Everett and Indianola soils and with the moderately well drained Kitsap soils. Shelton and Hoodsport soils differ from the Alderwood soils in that they have developed under high rainfall and from glacial till having a much higher content of basic igneous rock. FIGURE 4 SOIL SURVEY Project Name: Parcel 322353100160 HMP Location: Union,Washington Project: TWC2008-2 Client: Rick Buechel THE ITT ETL_-i N D CORPS Date: 1/08 Note: No hydric soils mapped in parcel vicinity. '9705008 -N'17 100 `7705102x.� -9T951 -1705r1W -9705108.44 -971�5200 \'' f 7, t C �LL r• 1 ' ti 1704088 1704180 1704182 1794 4 1704180 7 188 170428 $Puget Sound �,•` $Puget$wand 417040M +704100 t1704102 #i 041 f 416 170426 116 G 2 +� � � t + Approximate 1704240 _N *. ?� Parcel Location 028 1704120 t 2 i17 4124 0 t 70412 t17 4220 ti 4170410 �17 fi,J"+70 04108 1704200 T` SIRE ALMS SOILS l " Stream Water Type 1-5(East side) Hydtic Soils Scream Type U known(East side) jfig11y Unstabk Stream Rater Type 1-5(W..stde) Higtth-Erodible 1 Suwm Type Ur]mown(Wen side) mSfiv Unstable& 3iahlc Enodcbk Rater T}pe t hange No Data or Gravel Pits FIGURE 5 DNR STREAM MAP Project Name: Parcel 322353100160 HMP Location: Union, Washington —iVT Project: TWC2008-2 THE WET LAkND CORPS Client: Rick Buechel Date: 1/08 Note: One type N stream within parcel vicinity. Pe°V co MASON COUNTY �. rp Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County 81dg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 f854 January 23, 2008 Skokomish Indian Tribal Center ATTN: Marty Ereth N 80 Tribal Center Road Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2008-00002, to construct a residence occupying 1,225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet within a Type Np stream buffer. Property location is 9030 E. State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel #32235-31-00160. E 110' of E 200' of W 650' of LOT 3 & TL. Dear Marty: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, Inc., who is applying for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan. The proposed activity is to construct a 1,225 square foot residence with a 900 square foot septic system in a Type Np unnamed stream buffer. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 115' total setback for the site (100' buffer + 15' building setback). Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the SkokomishTribe. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. 1 can adopt your comments as conditions into any approval that the County may grant. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is February 20, 2008. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, &,�� I! Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development (360) 427-9670 x295 tammic@co.mason.wa.us Enclosure: Habitat Management Plan LA&t Prp0N Copes MASON COUNTY � Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 January 23, 2008 Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ATTN: Gloria Rogers 48 Devonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563-9618 RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2008-00002, to construct a residence occupying 1,225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet within a Type Np stream buffer. Property location is 9030 E. State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel #32235-31-00160. E 110' of E 200' of W 650' of LOT 3 & TL. Dear Gloria: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, Inc., who is applying for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan. The proposed activity is to construct a 1,225 square foot residence with a 900 square foot septic system in a Type Np unnamed stream buffer. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 115' total setback for the site (100' buffer + 15' building setback). Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the SkokomishTribe. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I can adopt your comments as conditions into any approval that the County may grant. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is February 20, 2008. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 5 Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development (360) 427-9670 x295 tammic@co.mason.wa.us Enclosure: Habitat Management Plan i T23 R3 0 AL 4. F " � ► "ON coal MASON COUNTY � ap Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning _ Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 7854 DATE: February 4, 2008 TO: Penny Orth — Environmental Health Dept. FROM: Tammi Wright, Planning Dept. (F RE: Variance Request in Type Np Stream Buffer Parcel #32235-31-00160 I am sending you this Variance application for construction of a SFR and septic system within a regulated Type Np stream buffer. I have included the Habitat Management Plan and Geotechnical Report for your review. Can you please provide me any comments/concerns you may have regarding the installation of the septic system as identified on the enclosed site plan? The hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2008. (2/19/2008)Tammi Wright- 322353100170 HEX2008-00007 Page 1 From: Penny Orth To: Tammi Wright Date: 2/19/2008 9:05 AM Subject: 322353100170 HEX2008-00007 Hi Tammi, I reviewed the Wetland report and the geo report you sent to me. The geo report addresses the septic system for both lot 160 and 170 in the same location as the septic design. However the wetland report misrepresents the location of the proposed septic system. In the design,systems for both lots are located in the SW corner of lot 170. The submitted septic design for lot 160 has not been approved, pending resolution of the wetland management plan which currently does not show the correct septic location. I put a copy of the septic plot plan in the Planning mail bin. Penny Orth Mason County Public Health Phone: (360)427-9670 ext. 547 Fax: (360)427-8442 "Always working for a safer and healthier Mason County" (3/14/2008)Tammi Wright- Re: 32235-31-00170 Page 1 j From: Penny Orth To: Tammi Wright Date: 3/14/2008 1:09 PM Subject: Re: 32235-31-00170 Tammi, The septic designer called to indicate that the drainfield location for both lot 106 and lot 107 would be in the same location as the original septic designs showed.This location is on the south-eastern corner of lot 170. This is the location shown on the geotech report.. The habitat plan map I have only shows lot 160. The septic is not planned in the area depicted on the HMP. Is there a similar wildlife conservation area on lot 170?which would pose a problem for the proposed drainfields? Another concern I have is the septic transport line crossing the stream.What do they need to do about this. Are these issues covered in the MEP? >>>Tammi Wright 2/26/2008 2:49 PM >>> Penny, You reviewed the Habitat Management Plan and geo for the variance request related to this parcel.You had concerns regarding the septic system for lots 160 and 170--it appears the location in the Habitat Management Plan is different than what was identified in the design. I believe the applicant may want to make a change and I suggested he contact you regarding the issues related to this. His name is Mike Oblizalo.Just wanted to give you a heads up... Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County DCD PO Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ext.295 tarnmiwO.co.mason.wa.us KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES { UD - PLANNING CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS er_.-—_ 3314 Gibraltar Ct.S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 �e of Wash. \ e-mail: kengneal@aoLcom � April 17, 2008 0� MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development ATTENTION: Robert D. Fink,AICP,Planning Manager eng�e ring Geologist is 100 •�g'� ehs� Geoff° FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist KENNETH G -' SUBJECT: Review Comments-VAR 2008-00002,MEP 200 8-00007 "RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences, Parcel Numbers 32235 31.0015n,.32235.3100160,and 32235 3100170,Mason County, Washington, Addendum #2," letter, prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, LLC, dated April 3, 2008 This geotechnical report and addenda have provided sufficient geotechnical information for development of these parcels. No additional information is needed. We recommend that if new residences are allowed on the lower two lots,that the property titles be labeled such that a prospective purchaser will be informed that a potential exists for flooding. While completing our review of this project, we identified several non-geotechnical issues that warrant consideration: 1. In order to develop Lot 160, the consultant has stated, in Section 4.4.1, Paragraph 2 of Addendum 1, that the drainfield on Lot 170 will serve, and is approved for both Lots 160 and 170. Based on the site plan attached to Addendum 1, the water well for Lot 170 is located at the upslope property boundary immediately west of the line between Lots 160 and 170. The proposed location for the drainfield shown on the site plan does not provide the 100-foot separation required under Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC. 2. It is our impression, from the geotechnical report, that the stream flowing through the site is perennial. In order for the septic system to serve the residence on Lot 160, a buried, pressurized sewer line will extend from the house on Lot 160 beneath the stream and upslope to the drainfield site. Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC requires a 10-foot separation between -a non-perforated distribution line and the ordinary high-water mark of a surface water body. 3. A suitable drainfield location is apparently not available on Lot 150. The consultant assumes the drainfield proposed for Lot 170 will ultimately be used for all three lots. The suitability of the proposed drainfield site for use for all three lots should be evaluated prior to approval. 4. The proposed driveway accessing Lot 170 will be constructed with grades which, in some locations, will likely be 20 percent or steeper. This will likely preclude at least some emergency vehicle access. If you have any questions, please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted � III REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2/7/2008 Case No.: VAR2008-00002 Comments: Enclosed are the results of the review of the Geotechnical Report for Mr. Rick Buechel, South Shore Enterprises, LLC., for the proposed residence and driveway construction on parcels 32235-31-00160 and 32235-31-00170. There are several items Ken Neal, Ken Neal & Associates, has listed as needing to be addressed. Please send the required information to: Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 cc: Michael Staten, P.E., Envirotech Engineering 2/7/2008 Page 2 of 2 VAR2008-00002 ��oN Co MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning _ Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 DATE: April 16, 2008 TO: Penny Orth — Environmental Heal ept. FROM: Tammi Wright, Planning Dep�p RE: Variance Request in Type Np Stream Buffer Parcel #32235-31-00160 1 am sending this Geotechnical Report back to you regarding the last comment letter by Ken Neal dated April 15, 2008. There seems to be many comments regarding the septic system and I want to be sure you have no issues. Please let me know if you have any comments. (5/13/2008)Ti Wright 22353100160/170 IL arnm - 3 Buechel Page 1 From: Penny Orth To: Tarnmi Wright Date: 5/1/2008 3:46 PIVI Subject: 322353100160/170 Buechel Tammi, Yes I have concerns about the septic designs for these lots. The discrepancy between the proposed location of the septic for lot 160 and the location shown on the wetlands report has never been addressed. The wetlands report does not delineate lot 170, the location of both drainfields. Can I assume that the area shown on the wetlands map as the "Proposed Wildlife Conservation do not encroach on lot 170. The proposed location of the well for lot 170 (as shown on the Geo technical report does not provide the required 100' setback to the drainfield areas. The designer must address the creek crossing for the septic transport line from lot 160 to the drainfield on lot 170. 1 have left word with the designer for the septic systems inquiring with any issues had been addressed yet. No answer yet. I will not be in the office tomorrow, but will be back on Monday. Penny Orth Mason County Public Health Phone: (360) 427-9670 ext. 547 Fax: (360) 427-8442 "Always working for a safer and healthier Mason County" l �v�virotecl� Ew %vtieert,v�g ��, g c�eotechw%caL° Ewv�rowvuewtaL °Ara%waae°R.oOdwa� ECIVE August 10, 2009 AUG 13 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL Rick Buechel HEALTH South Shore Enterprises, LLC PO Box 249 Union,Washington 98592 Reference: Engineering Assessment of the boring beneath stream for the Single Family Residential Lot Located on Highway 106, Parcel 32235 31 00160,Mason County,Washington Dear Mr. Buechel, Envirotech Engineering has completed this engineering assessment for the proposed water and septic conduits to be extended beneath a stream at the referenced project utilizing trenchless technology. Per the project owner, the aforesaid water and sewer pipes will be at least 12 feet below the stream using trenchless pipe installation. This is acceptable from both a geotechnieal and environmental perspective for this project provided that regulated water and sewer line separation is adhered to. The trenchless construction procedure does not conflict with the geotechnical report that we prepared for this property. In addition,the 12-foot vertical separation between the stream and pipes is adequate protection from an environmental position. A very dense glacial till layer between the stream and conduits provide a relatively impermeable separation protecting both the stream and utilities. Proper compaction/ sealing at both the entrance and exit points of the conduits is recommended. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, 64 Envirotech Engineering EL CLYpF G OV As 43045 Fcrs �SS�CNALENG` (Y Ov Michael Staten, P.E. Project Manager n�� V 74 NE Ftu rd Roa d getfa�r, wasti%wgtow,9g52g Off: 360-275_9374 CELL: 360-689-6045 Fay,: 360-27.5-4789 ewv%ratech@Aeotech�+,icali.w fo.co�. Pagel of 3 PERMIT NO.:(Y(-- DATE RECEIVED: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE ORDINANCE(Chapter 17.01 MCC) 'CEIVED 411 N.5TH Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton, WA 98584 IC1N 41u09 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT, MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT N CONDITIONAL USE❑ The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. PLEASE PRINT 1.APPLICANT South Shore Enterprises NAME: Rick Buechel SIGNATURE: MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 249 Union, WA 98592 WORK PHONE 360-898-3995 E-MAILADDRESS rbuechel@hcc.net HOME PHONE 360-898-4455 FAX# 360-898-3995 /f an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process,complete#2. 2.AUTHORIZED AGENT NAME: SIGNATURE: MAILING ADDRESS WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PHONE FAX# 3.SITE ADDRESS 9130 HWY 106 Union PARCEL NUMBER 32235 31 00160 LEGAL DESCRIPTION DIRECTIONS TO SITE: From the intersection of Hwy 101 and 106 go East 9.31 miles the site is on the right hand side. 4. State which section requires permit: ❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10,060 ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01,090 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17,01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 ❑ Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17,01.110 RECE .QQ4N 0'1 03`� MASOi� �0. PI_APm'NG DEPT. Page 2 of 3 5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements: Unimproved building site 6. Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions, and other pertinent information(attach additional sheets,if needed): Installation of well 7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided. No other water source available 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑ No I@ 9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property: M Saltwater ❑ Lake 121 Stream ❑ Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Drainage Ditch 10. If septic is located on project site,include records. ❑ Connect to Septic ❑ Community Septic ❑ Public Water Supply ❑ Well 11. Type of Job: ® New ❑ Add ❑ Alteration ❑Repair ❑ Demolition ❑ Other: This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01 MCC) and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance. The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply with the conditions of this ordinance. MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT: $630.0 $380.00(with another permit) MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVIR.P IT: $1,520.00 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW: $455.00 1APLANNINGTACTORMS REVISED Dec.2008 Page 3 of 3 Show the following on the site elan Lot Dimensions Flood Zones Existing Structures Fences Water Lines Driveways Drainage Plans Shorelines Indicate Directional by (N,S,E,W,etc.) Septic System Topography Proposed Improvements Easements In relation to plot plan Name if Flanking Street APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PL N BELOW: 00F AM N� ogIVEw+V llf SNoR�u ' 10� 10ROP05eo Wei 1- Sim vIATf,R LINE 804'tu en CAPW X) PFor oc e.D /+C)rc y l�uG S1-ofF- IVC yE>�i� LINE O/V A/EIooal c; 1) No Ev5T11v(; 5F✓c-rL eel Z) NO F6voo ZoNf� PeR rp�R�n FIFMA (1990) PPAX) 3) No Exis-riA/G r6Nc.Cs. jlo-t APP NT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPHY BELOW: PRn C, ���✓ - N (APEX) AA -Aj" CO SE Fri c r N 70 00 1 evuvwoteah E4A OL n,eerwt O ceotechv Kcal° Ev�virov�w,ev�taL°pra�v�age°R.oac{wa� May 28, 2009 Rick Buechel South Shore Enterprises, LLC PO Box 249 Union,Washington 98592 Reference: Geotechnical Assessment with Relation to the Proposed Water Well and Septic Tank for the Single Family Residential Lot Located on Highway 106, Parcel 32235 31 00160, Mason County,Washington Dear Mr. Buechel, Envirotech Engineering has completed this geotechnical assessment for the proposed water well and septic tank location at the referenced project. From a geotechnical position, both the proposed water well and septic tank locations are acceptable. This includes potential impacts from locating the aforesaid residential features within geotechnical setbacks and/or buffers. Specifically,the water well and septic tank may be located anywhere on the referenced parcel if all other recommendations are adhered to as provided in the "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences," dated November 28, 2007. This conclusion is from a geotechnical standpoint only, and does not consider specific regulations adopted by Mason County for water wells and on-site septic systems. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Envirotech Engineering CLYDE WASy�� A� 43045 �4 ok �ss��NALti�G` Michael Staten, P.E. Project Manager �4 N�F-Furd tz.oad gelfAir,Washivetov- 2522 D f f: 360-275-93,-4 CetL: 360-689-6045 FOX: 360-2.5-47 89 evev�ratech@aeotechv+a,caliv+,fo.covu. i Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance Affidavit of Publication and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, Inc., who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed STATE OF WASHINGTON I SS. an application for a Variance. COUNTY OF MASON The request for a variance from the Ma- son County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 Julie G.Orme being first duly sworn is for the construction of a single-family resi- dence occupying 1,225 square feet and a on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk septic system occupying 900 on-square feet i a of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a week) newspaper. That Type Ni stream buffer(non-fish habitat with said newspaper is a le al newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six perennial water). Property location is 9030g East State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in #32235-31-00160. E 100' OF E 200' OF W the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason 660'OF LOT 3&TL. County, Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an Date of complete application:January 23, office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That 2008. the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Re- August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Mason County. Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Variance and Public buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Stdndards,which establishes Hearine-Rick Buechel,South Shore Enterprises,LLC Variance procedures and criteria. The pro- posal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said Mason County Hearing Examiner on the pro- posed project on Tuesday,March 25,2008, newspaper once each week for a period of one at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners consecutive weeks,commencing on the Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shel- ton,WA. 31st day of January 2008 and ending on the Please contact Tammi Wright of the Ma- son County Department of Community De- velopment at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with 31st day of January ­2008 both dates inclusive, any questions or comments on this develop- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of ment and variance. 1/31 it the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of$ 42.00 • Owe, ```�lltttlllflff���/�� Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of `�\.xPeos%E A. .� ►iiio.�, s'•s, '�% January 2008 OOTA?y �' .� = Notary PublAinfor the State of Washington Nam, U8LIC ;'_ ` Residing at Shelton,Washington 0a OS-2QN\ 'G'��\�`� My commission expires C ,20 . nc 1n,p ���� 5�N STArj O MASON COUNTY o P A o - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 70 o N z Planning Division 7 N Y ti P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 1864 (360)427-9670 MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT June 24, 2009 RICK BUECHEL PO BOX 249 UNION WA 98592 Parcel No.: 322353100160 Issued: 6/24/2009 Case No.: MEP2009-00038 Project Description: Installation of well in stream buffer. Proposed single family residence already approved. Lot constraints provide for location of well. Proposed well site is furthest distance possible from stream. The following critical areas are present on this property: Long-Term Commercial Forest x FWHCA Ch. 17.10.060; Ch. 17.01.110; Mineral Resource Lands Frequently Flooded Areas Ch. 17.01.066; Ch. 17.01.090; Inholding Lands Landslide Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.062; Ch. 17.01.100; Wetlands Seismic Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.070; Ch. 17.01.102; Critical Aquifer Recharge Erosion Hazard Areas Ch. 17.01.080; Ch. 17.01.104. This permit, with conditions, is granted pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01 MCC.) Nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project This permit may be rescinded if the permitee fails to complete the project as proposed or fails to compl h the standards of this ordinance. Authorized Local Government Official Date i Mason Environmental Permit 6/24/2009 Case No.: MEP2009-00038 Conditions: -� 1.) All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or straw matting). V1 2.) Temporary erosion control measures must be implemented to prevent water quality degradation of adjacent waters or wetlands. Silt fencing must be installed and maintained until upland vegetation has become established. Y?] 3.) Approved per dimensions and setbacks on submitted site plan. 6/24/2009 Page 2 of 2 MEP2009-00038 I rugs.3 vi.7 Show the following on the site plan Lot Dimensions Flood Zones Existing Structures Fences Water Lines Driveways Drainage Plans Shorelines Indicate Directional by (N,S,E,W,etc.) Septic System Topography In relation to plot plan Proposed Improvements Easements Name if Flanking Street APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PL. N BELOW: 9DOP f(>'� N� pk 1 v�AY llJ Sf4000 00005vn weti- SIDE /".o',-d �,��,k' VIATF,Q L-I'VE- p9j,txv 6cprtc TARNkS CAFf!`X) PFoFoS�,p NovSE PRoP�TY Ch>'Px� /�rNG SLoF� ToE Ta 001010��� (APF'A) +i �o�s pN A/Cloo� kA m �� No Ev5r►NG �Fuc-ry eq FRpP TY N 5)(19rIN6 2) Np FG000 ZoNtf PER rKC-ANI F�510A (199R) PPRX) 3) No 6X15T►A/6 rC-NcEs. APPL NT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPHY BELOW: pRoP05E0 Vial, N (APPx) 4-0 50 60 EPriC,Tr kfJK9 00 1 oN-STATE MASON COUNTY BPS c DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 MO oNUZ Planning Division P N y ° P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 y (360)427-9670 1864 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION February 07, 2008 RICK BUECHEL PO BOX 249 UNION WA 98592 Parcel No.: 322353100160 Project Description: Construct a SFR occupying 1225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet within a type Np stream buffer. Dear Applicant: h1Lp&'Uo -c:cuol You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2008-00002) for proposed construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require additional information to complete the permit review process. Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on the proposed development shall take place. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295 if you have questions. Sincerely, Tammi Wright Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 2/7/2008 Page 1 of 2 VAR2008-00002 RECEIVED M NIQ KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES - PLANNI CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct. S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 of Wallis e-mail: kengneal@aoLcom April 17,2008 °� ` MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager Engine e r ng Geol gist is 100 �'�. FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist ehsed SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 KENNETH G "RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150,32235 3100160 and 32235 31 00170,Mason County, Washington, Addendum #2," letter, prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, LLC, dated April 3, 2008 This geotechnical report and addenda have provided sufficient geotechnical information for development of these parcels. No additional information is needed. We recommend that if new residences are allowed on the lower two lots,that the property titles be labeled such that a prospective purchaser will be informed that a potential exists for flooding. While completing our review of this project, we identified several non-geotechnical issues that warrant consideration: 1. In order to develop Lot 160,the consultant has stated, in Section 4.4.1, Paragraph 2 of Addendum 1, that the drainfield on Lot 170 will serve, and is approved for both Lots 160 and 170. Based on the site plan attached to Addendum 1, the water well for Lot 170 is located at the upslope property boundary immediately west of the line between Lots 160 and 170. The proposed location for the drainfield shown on the site plan does not provide the 100-foot separation required under Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC. 2. It is our impression, from the geotechnical report, that the stream flowing through the site is perennial. In order for the septic system to serve the residence on Lot 160, a buried, pressurized sewer line will extend from the house on Lot 160 beneath the stream and upslope to the drainfield site. Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC requires a 10-foot separation between a non-perforated distribution line and the ordinary high-water mark of a surface water body. 3. A suitable drainfield location is apparently not available on Lot 150. The consultant assumes the drainfield proposed for Lot 170 will ultimately be used for all three lots. The suitability of the proposed drainfield site for use for all three lots should be evaluated prior to approval. 4. The proposed driveway accessing Lot 170 will be constructed with grades which, in some locations, will likely be 20 percent or steeper. This will likely preclude at least some emergency vehicle access. If you have any questions, please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted Envirotech Engineering 74 NE Hurd Road, ' Belfair, WA 98528 April 3, 2008 Rick Buechel South Shore Enterprises, LLC PO Box 249 Union, Washington 98592 RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150, 32235 3100160 and 32235 31 00170, Mason County, Washington, Addendum#2 INTORDUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this second geotechnical addendum for the above referenced "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences..." The original report was submitted November 28, 2007 by Envirotech (Project #0759), with a subsequent addendum on February 28, 2008. This addendum was prepared in order to provide additional information concerning the project and the geotechnical report. The following sections include Site Characteristics; Evaluation and Analysis; and, Recommendations and Design Criteria that correspond to comments received from Keneth Neal& Associates that was mailed by Mason County in a letter dated March 26, 2008. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The proposed residence on Lot 160 is located within the flood path of a small stream. The top of ground at the planned residence is well above the ordinary high water mark (in contrary to addendum #1), and below the maximum possible water level. Several residences along Hood Canal are located within flood paths of both larger streams and convergences where the water flows only a portion of the year. As a result, many homes and property are damaged by flooding with water and outwash during excessive storm events such as that experienced in December 2007. This implies that the proposed residence or property could be damaged due to impending flooding. The recent storm exceeding the 100yr, 24-hr rainfall event did not cause major concern to the existing residence on Lot 160. However, successive flooding events may present different results. Furthermore, the upslope drainage pattern from this residence indicates that the stream could naturally change coarse over time, and will most likely be directed towards the development on Lot 160. Predicting and quantifying these hazards are unfeasible, and it is Em irotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#2 Ph 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 3 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-27?-4789 Lot 1-50. Lot 160 &Lot 170 April 3, 2008 possible that the development could remain unscathed for its entire design life. Streambank control such as riprap and concrete revetment walls, as previously recommended in the geotechnical report, that are constructed on or beyond the east bank of the stream are typical erosion prevention and stream control. These types of controls, if properly maintained, have proven to be successful in the past. However, a guaranteed type of stream control is not possible, and could be rendered useless at anytime during its design life by extreme flooding and debris flow. The fine subgrade soils as previously described in the original geotechnical report, and indicated on the water well report in the ensuing appendix of the geotechnical report was not properly shown on the soil profile. This soil strata is shown in the revised soil profile attached to this addendum. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS The original slope stability analysis for this project was completed utilizing a spreadsheet iterative approach. This method is basically hand calculations from the simplified Bishop method using 10 slices. For Addendum #l, 'STABLE' software was used for the same slope stability analysis. This software automatically selects various centers and radii with over 100 slices, and subsequently numerous slip planes are estimated for factors of safety from the geometry specified. Initiation points vary, and are located within the extents of the geometry specified. Depending on the specific location of the center and the length of radius, the initiation point includes numerous points from 50 feet beyond the top of the slope, the slope face, and 50 feet beyond the slope toe. Factors of safety are similar for both the STABLE software and hand calculations. The fine soils as indicated on the well report are far below any potential slip planes for this project. The fine soils were conservatively shown to be closer to the ground surface near the toe of the steep slope. A slope analysis with the finer soils is provided as an attachment to this addendum. Extremely conservative strength parameters were used for this analysis. These parameters include 400 psf cohesion, 0 angle of internal friction and a unit weight of 120 pcf. RECOMMENDATIONS AND DESIGN CRITERIA Native soils may be used as fill material per the recommendations that are outlined in the geotechnical report. Alternatively, engineered fill may also be used for both building and road foundations. These soils will perform appropriately if the fill placement and compaction recommendations are followed per the geotechnical report. For soils used as fill, it is suggested that they are protected from wet weather by appropriate means and Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#2 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 2 of 3 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 April 3,2008 methods in order to reduce the potential for soil saturation. Although these soils are not extremely susceptible to wet weather, saturated conditions could cause extra time and delay during development. General cross sections of the proposed driveway to Lot 170 is depicted as an attachment to this addendum with general notes. The proposed driveway consists of about 150 feet of new driveway, and approximately 100 feet of new driveway in the same location of an existing driveway. The geotechnical report provides a pavement structural section, stability of cut slopes and embankments, and general erosion control recommendations. General surface water management is also provided. In addition, catch basins or speed bumps could be utilized in order to manage stormwater and prevent rapid runoff from leaving the paved areas. Current Mason County regulations will require a stormwater management plan to address the water quality and quantity of the roof and driveway due to the amount of impervious surfaces on Lot 170. In addition extensive temporary and permanent erosion control will also be required in conjunction with the stormwater management plan. It is recommended that a qualified professional specializing in geotechnical engineering reviews the stormwater management plan to assure that the final drainage design complies with the geotechnical expectations for this project. CONSLUSION Envirotech is pleased to submit this addendum for the Buechel single family residential lots. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Best Regards, Envirotech eering by CLXD'PS wary��TyJ+ N. GI SI�NA1- �iAs ,y ro, Zoo9 Michael Staten, P.E. Project Manager Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#2 Ph 360-275 9 37 l Page 3 of 3 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150. Lot 160& Lot 170 April 3. 2008' ATTACHMENTS 1. GEOLOGIC MAP 2. SOIL PROFILE 3. SLOPE STABILITY 4. ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS 5. KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES REVIEW COMMENTS CREEK PROPERTY LINE SCALE. 1 INCH 60 FEET LOT 150 1 LOT 160 LOT 170 A OPOSED DRAIh FIELD OPTIONAL DRAINP GE OUTFALL v N cv SLIGHTLY PROPO ED HOME (TYP) SLOPIN G� P S�Q P�9 p�Q` �JtiO�SFS. ++ EXISTING SF SKIDDER ROAD v (PROPOSE F�FF. G O DRIVEWAY Sv Q g1. A�j SLOPE TO T / top OF Pp 100 pf 5 OPTIONAL DRAINAGE t TFALL EXISTING xs ROAD •�` 60 RELATIVE FLAT BEGINNING PROPOSED D EWAY 60 �' (�r S R a� A ,SFR GNPNN G 40 le L, �RPtNP S4'��P t�S, ROVt6l StPtT` SOILS: MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POORLY Jt�,OF �pR GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP—SM) OVERLYING VERY DENSE TILL HOOD CANAL LSp 20 B PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION: THREE LOT GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT BUECHEL AND TEMPLEMAN PARCEL 32235 31 00150, -160, R -170 NOTES, LEGEND MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED ENGINEER- FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD BUFFER ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING MEASUREMENTS. SLOPE DIRECTION 74 NE HURD ROAD 2. VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UPLSOPE FROM LOT BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 9852E 150 AND 160 UNLESS HAZARDOUS. VEGETATION BUFFER IS so EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374 LOCATED ON THE RIDGE FOR LOT 170 WITH EXCEPTIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT. GE❑L❑GIC MAP MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POSSIBLE RIDGE PROPOSED HOUSE REMOVAL SCALE 1 INCH 60 FEET POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CREEK EXISTING GRADE SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) 1 30 90 HIGHWAY 106 LOFT BANK 4%t DENSE TO VERY 56FT L� DENSE SILTY SAND HOOD CANAL AND GRAVEL — — - - — — — — — — — — — — CLAY OR SILTY— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - CLAY — — — — — — — — — — — — — 15FT SECTION AzA MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POORLY GRADED SAND WITH EXISTING GRADE SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) 65%, 12FT SLOPE a2/I/ PROPOSED HOUSE NOTES, HIGHWAY 106 k' 1) EXCEPT FOR POSSIBLE RIDGE REMOVAL ON LOT LOFT BANK DENSE TO VERY 170, MINIMAL GRADE CHANGES ARE EXPECTED .;.,.,. .:.. DENSE SILTY SAND DUE TO BUILDINGS FOUNDED ON NEARLY FLAT TO HOOD CANAL SLIGHTLY SLOPING SURFACES. LIGHT GRADING AND GRAVEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM BUILDINGS. CLAY OR SILTY CLAY— — SECTION B-B EXISTING GRADE MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) 65%, 6FT SLOPE PROPOSED HOUSE 8%t HIGHWAY 106 lOFT BANK DENSE TO VERY PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION- HOOD CANAL DENSE SILTY SAND THREE LOT AND GRAVEL GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT BUECHEL AND TEMPLEMAN CLAY OR SILTY CLAY— — — — — — — — — — PARCEL 32235 31 00150, -160, & -170 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SECTION C-C ENGINEERi ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 S❑IL PR❑FILE 1 . 00 1 . 10 1 . 20 1 . 30 1 . 40 1 . 50 1 . 60 1 . 70 1 . 80 1 . 90 02 . 00 I . 791 Project Buechel Datafile Lot 170 downslope revised Analysis Bishop STABLE.2002 MZ Associates Ltd 2' ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 6' BASE COARSE 95% COMPACTION (SEE REPORT) 2X MIN rL STRUCTURAL FILL 957 COMPACTION (SEE REPORT) 2 ORIGINAL GRADE 1 CREEK�► NOTES, THIS SEGMENT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE PREPARED SUBGRADE GRADES OF 5%. EXCAVATION IS (SEE REPORT) REQUIRED ONLY TO REMOVE DELETERIOUS MATERIAL ON THE SURFACE. THIS SEGMENT CONSISTS OF EMBANKMENT ONLY. DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE CREEK. TYPr-4LL ROAD CRM SECTION FROM STA 0+00 OM 106)TO STA.1+10(A10 n NOT TO SCALE ORIGINAL GRADE 2' ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 6' BASE COARSE 2�1 MAX � 95% COMPACTION (SEE REPORT) 10FT MAX 2% MIN (L CREEK�► NOTES- 2 THIS SEGMENT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE GRADES OF 23X, AND IS PRIMARILY A FULL BENCH CUT. CUT SLOPE HEIGHT SHOULD NOT EXCEED 10 FEET. RETAINING WALLS ON THE UPSLOPE PREPARED SUBGRADE SIDE OF THE ROAD MAY BE UTILIZED (SEE REPORT) TO REDUCE CUT SLOPES. DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE CREEK. TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION STA.1+10 TO STA.1+50(30FT) NOT TO SCALE 2' ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 6' BASE COARSE 95% COMPACTION (SEE REPORT) 2% MIN STRUCTURAL FILL 95% COMPACTION �— (SEE REPORT) 2 ORIGINAL GRADE 1 CREEK NOTES THIS SEGMENT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE GRADES OF 23%. EXCAVATION IS PREPARED SUBGRADE REQUIRED ONLY TO REMOVE (SEE REPORT) DELETERIOUS MATERIAL ON THE SURFACE OR ACHIEVE APPROPRIATE ELEVATION. THIS SEGMENT CONSISTS OF EMBANKMENT ONLY. DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE CREEK. TYPICAL TiOAD CROSS SE(,MN FROM STA L4 P _ TO STA.2t EC•-11 NOT M SCALE PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, THREE LOT GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT GENERAL NOTES BUECHEL AND TEMPLEMAN 1. ROAD WIDTHS AND GRADES SHALL BE IN PARCEL 32235 31 00150, -160, & -170 ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING GOVERNMENT MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON STANDARDS OR VARIANCES. 2. MATERIALS, PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION SHALL ENGINEER- BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DOT ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 74 NE HURD ROAD 3. THE PREPARED SUBGRADE SHALL EXTEND AT BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 9652E LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW THE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 360-275-9374 AND FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ROAD CROSS-SECTION KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Was Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 e-mail: kengneal@a.aoLcom 7 March 25,2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development 100 c°° e ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager •�c,'� FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist KENNETH G. NEAL SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 ARE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 3100150,32235 3100160 and 32235 3100170,Mason County, Washington, Addendum #1," letter, prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,dated February 28,2008 The consultant made a concerted effort to address the issues outlined in our February 8, 2008 memorandum. There are,however,a number of unanswered questions that remain: Issues Related to Site Characteristics: 1. "2.3 Surface Drainage"provides a much-improved description over the previous report. If recent flooding "produced substantial outwash on the highway," and "less than 1-foot of outwash and sediments were accumulated adjacent to the(existing) structure," it appears that the stream must have overtopped the banks in the vicinity of the existing structure. The letter implies that the lower two building sites are in the flood plain of the stream. Further, the recommendations outlined in "4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade (new paragraph)" indicate that the building sites are below the ordinary high water mark for the stream and should be protected by some type of revetment. While this site is not listed by FEMA and, therefore, does not meet the criteria outlined in Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.090, it would not seem prudent to construct two residences at sites known to be within the flood channel of a small stream. The one remaining question regarding the stream is whether the channel in which the stream is currently located is temporary, given that the topography indicates that the current channel is actually higher than some locations adjacent to the channel to the east. 2. There are a number of questions remaining about geological interpretation at the site. We concur with the comment in Response 2, that the "Soil characteristics and geological process located downslope from an area of concern could be similar to the upslope geology." The question is whether the soil characteristics and geological processes are the same at both locations. The consultant is responsible to provide a site-specific geological interpretation of the site, and to present a reliable (if not accurate) portrayal of horizontal and vertical distribution of soil materials. The well location is now shown on the site plan, but the geology shown on the well log is not projected into the plane of the section. The cross-sections contained in the addendum do not reconcile the fine-grained deposit shown on the well log and site characteristics observed by the consultant. Fine-grained glaciolacustrine deposits are not that uncommon along Hood Canal. If the depth of the glaciolacustrine deposit shown on the well log is below the depth of any potential slope movement, then the only remaining question would be the potential for Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 March 25,2008 Page 2 perching of ground water. The information should all be reconciled, and presented clearly on the cross-sections,which need elevation and horizontal control and a larger portrayal to be helpful. Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. We are unfamiliar with the type of graphics used to portray the slope stability analyses used in this report. It appears, from looking at the graphics,that all of the analyses extended from the top of the slope to beyond the base of the slope and the highway. If such is the case,then the factors of safety(FS)would likely be higher than those that extend only down to the toe of the slope. If the pie-shaped wedge shown on each graphic represents the actual slope segment analyzed, then the program likely selected the most sensitive slope for analysis. 2. The position of the glaciolacustrine deposit may influence ground water distribution beneath the slope. This possibility should be evaluated once the cross-section and well log are reconciled. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria 1. Under Item 3, we understand and concur that on-site soils will perform appropriately if soil moisture contents are within three percent of optimum. Again, there is no contingency plan described in the report for importing fill material in the event of wet weather construction. Perhaps the expectation is that, in the event of inclement weather,the construction contractor will spread the soil and wait for it to air dry prior to use, in lieu of importing structural fill materials having few or no fines. 2. Questions regarding the driveway remain. In order for the county to be able to assess site suitability for a variance, in our judgment, there should be a clear plan in terms of location, grade, and construction method(s). Again,once the location of the driveway is known(based on the grade needed to access the site), the driveway should be divided into terrain segments, and cuts,fills,and drainage needs should be at least estimated for each segment. Typical cross-sections for each segment should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation or filling. Design criteria for cuts, fills, and drainage, both general and segment-specific, should be provided as part of the report. We also question whether the cross-section shown for the road is realistic, given that a near-vertical cut slope four or five feet high could be constructed in lieu of excavating and exposing the entire height of the slope. Some of these issues could likely be resolved by telephone. Each of the issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct. S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 �e Wash's '�`� e-mail: kengnea!@aoLcom Gj �07 March 25,2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development Eng{nee Geo st ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager �% 100 nsad Ge°� FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist KENNETH G. WEAL SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 "RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 3100150,32235 3100160 and 32235 3100170,Mason County, Washington, Addendum #1," letter, prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,dated February 28,2008 The consultant made a concerted effort to address the issues outlined in our February 8, 2008 memorandum. There are, however, a number of unanswered questions that remain: Issues Related to Site Characteristics: 1. "2.3 Surface Drainage"provides a much-improved description over the previous report. If recent flooding "produced substantial outwash on the highway," and "less than 1-foot of outwash and sediments were accumulated adjacent to the (existing) structure," it appears that the stream must have overtopped the banks in the vicinity of the existing structure. The letter implies that the lower two building sites are in the flood plain of the stream. Further, the recommendations outlined in "4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade (new paragraph)" indicate that the building sites are below the ordinary high water mark for the stream and should be protected by some type of revetment. While this site is not listed by FEMA and, therefore, does not meet the criteria outlined in Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.090, it would not seem prudent to construct two residences at sites known to be within the flood channel of a small stream. The one remaining question regarding the stream is whether the channel in which the stream is currently located is temporary, given that the topography indicates that the current channel is actually higher than some locations adjacent to the channel to the east. 2. There are a number of questions remaining about geological interpretation at the site. We concur with the comment in Response 2, that the "Soil characteristics and geological process located downslope from an area of concern could be similar to the upslope geology." The question is whether the soil characteristics and geological processes are the same at both locations. The consultant is responsible to provide a site-specific geological interpretation of the site, and to present a reliable (if not accurate) portrayal of horizontal and vertical distribution of soil materials. The well location is now shown on the site plan, but the geology shown on the well log is not projected into the plane of the section. The cross-sections contained in the addendum do not reconcile the fine-grained deposit shown on the well log and site characteristics observed by the consultant. Fine-grained glaciolacustrine deposits are not that uncommon along Hood Canal. If the depth of the glaciolacustrine deposit shown on the well log is below the depth of any potential slope movement, then the only remaining question would be the potential for Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 March 25,2008 Page 2 perching of ground water. The information should all be reconciled, and presented clearly on the cross-sections, which need elevation and horizontal control and a larger portrayal to be helpful. Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. We are unfamiliar with the type of graphics used to portray the slope stability analyses used in this report. It appears, from looking at the graphics,that all of the analyses extended from the top of the slope to beyond the base of the slope and the highway. If such is the case,then the factors of safety (FS) would likely be higher than those that extend only down to the toe of the slope. If the pie-shaped wedge shown on each graphic represents the actual slope segment analyzed, then the program likely selected the most sensitive slope for analysis. 2. The position of the glaciolacustrine deposit may influence ground water distribution beneath the slope. This possibility should be evaluated once the cross-section and well log are reconciled. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria 1. Under Item 3, we understand and concur that on-site soils will perform appropriately if soil moisture contents are within three percent of optimum. Again, there is no contingency plan described in the report for importing fill material in the event of wet weather construction. Perhaps the expectation is that, in the event of inclement weather,the construction contractor will spread the soil and wait for it to air dry prior to use, in lieu of importing structural fill materials having few or no fines. 2. Questions regarding the driveway remain. In order for the county to be able to assess site suitability for a variance, in our judgment, there should be a clear plan in terms of location, grade, and construction method(s). Again,once the location of the driveway is known(based on the grade needed to access the site), the driveway should be divided into terrain segments, and cuts, fills,and drainage needs should be at least estimated for each segment. Typical cross-sections for each segment should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation or filling. Design criteria for cuts, fills, and drainage, both general and segment-specific, should be provided as part of the report. We also question whether the cross-section shown for the road is realistic, given that a near-vertical cut slope four or five feet high could be constructed in lieu of excavating and exposing the entire height of the slope. Some of these issues could likely be resolved by telephone. Each of the issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 _ Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 ,0 Wash e-mail: kengneal@aoLcom e' �9 February 6, 2008 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development Engineering ceo, ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager °g'S` is 10-0 FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist ins ` KFNNFTH G. SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150, 32235 31 00160 and 32235 31 00170, Mason County, Washington,"report prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,and Mel Templeman,dated November 28, There are a number of issues related to this report that must be addressed prior to approval. Issues Related to Site Characteristics: 1. On Pages 3 and 4, under"2.3 Surface Drainage,"there is virtually no description of the drainage characteristics of the stream bisecting the properties. Since the stream course appears, based on the site plans, to turn just above the proposed building site on Lot 160, stream characteristics at that location should be described and evaluated. 2. On Page 4, the comment "...the adjacent paved roadway had not indication of longitudinal cracking, which is a good indicator of earth movement." has little to do with landslide processes on the slope above the road that might affect slope stability adjacent to the building sites. 3. On Page 5, under"3.3 Geologic Conditions,"the description of bedrock does not fit the area or the site. The nearest rock is exposed along the west side of Hood Canal. 4. The well log contained in Appendix C is reportedly on one of the parcels,but is not shown on the site plan. The well log appears to be the primary basis for soils relationships shown on the cross- sections. 5. The site plans are oriented opposite the direction shown(the north arrow points south). 6. The soils relationships shown on the cross-sections do not reflect likely geologic processes in this area. The cross-sections must be correlated with known geologic relationships. Further, the cross-sections and topographic characteristics shown on the site plans do not match (not even close). If the cross-sections are correct, then the LiDAR topography is not accurate (and, visa versa). A vertical and horizontal scale should be provided on the cross-sections for reference. 7. Cross-Section B-B' is not drawn even close to the fall line of the slope (which would reflect the critical conditions to be analyzed, if an analysis was completed). Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. There is no explanation for either cross-section as to what portions of the slope were analyzed. If the initiation points of the analyses were located across the highway, then the more likely Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 February 6,2008 Page 2 locations of potential slope movement initiation (like the toe of the slope) were not analyzed. A graphic representation of the slope analyzed and the location of the arcs analyzed (in particular, the one that appears to be most critical)would be helpful to the client and to the reviewer. Page 12 states that the"minimum factors of safeties are estimated,"not calculated as required. 2. Section 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks(Page 13) specifies a 35-foot setback from the top of the slope on Lot 170, but does not specify a setback from the 65-percent slopes above the proposed building sites on Lots 150 and 160. Since a 65-percent slope meets the criteria for a "landslide hazard area" (MCRO 17.01.100A1f), a buffer is required. Further, the report indicates on the geologic map that the single-family residence on Lot 150 would require excavation into the toe of the slope, analyses of slope stability characteristics, both under static and dynamic conditions, appear warranted. The analyses should use a model based on a cross-section that reflects accurate soil and slope characteristics,and the extent of excavation proposed. 3. The report discusses the predicted impact of septic drainfields on slope stability (Page 12, Section 4.4.1), but does not discuss whether there is a potential for discharging effluents into the stream bisecting the properties or into the ditch along State Route 106. Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC Location, Table I, specifies a 30-foot minim separation between a septic drainfield, including reserve area, and various types of drainage facilities, including drainage ditches, when the drainage facility is down-gradient of the septic drainfield. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria 1. On Page 8,under"4.1.1 Bearing Capacity,"there does not seem to be any rationale for the selection 12-inch and 17-inch minimum footing widths for the downslope and upslope houses, respectively, since both sites are underlain by medium dense SP-SM soils. Also, 12 inches, in our judgment, is very narrow for a footing. Use of 12 inches as a minimum footing width requires an assumption that all footings would placed as recommended in the report. Since there is no requirement stating that the soils underlying the foundation excavations must be observed or tested prior to placement of footings,there appears, in our judgment,to be a potential for placement on soils that do not meet the stated criteria, in turn leading to possible future differential foundation settlement. 2. On Page 10, under 4.3.1 Excavation,the consultant states that"The top of the ridge on Lot 170 may be removed..." If a 35-foot buffer is established as outlined in this report for Lot 170, then this excavation would take place within the buffer. This is inconsistent with the concept of buffer as outlined under MCRO 17.01.104D6a. 3. Page 10, "Section 4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fills"does not deal with the moisture sensitivity of the SP-SM soils found on site and the likelihood that they would not be suitable for use under wet weather conditions. There is a discussion of wet weather conditions in Section 4.3.4 on Page 11, but the discussion does not deal with the use of native soils as engineered fill. KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 February 6,2008 Page 3 4. Page 12, Section 4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage provides recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage at the site. There is a subtle suggestion, but no specific recommendation, that drainage plans should be developed for these residences. We question the wisdom of the statement "...both perimeter footing drains and roof drains are optional for all three single family residence (sic)," given the SP-SM soil classification, underlain by very dense GM and SM "hardpan" at shallow depths. 5. There are questions regarding Section 4.6 Driveway on Page 15, and Section 4.6.1 Surface Course on Pages 16 and 17: • There are questions regarding the relationship between the 2:1 maximum cut slope shown and the 45-percent slope crossed by the driveway accessing Lot 170. The consultant states that there will be no structural fills beneath the driveway, indicating that the entire driveway crossing the property would either be full-bench or turnpike construction. This means that the cut slopes along the full-bench sections may be extensive, and could potentially be more of a threat to slope stability than construction on the proposed Lot 170 building site. Typical cross-sections along the driveway should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation. • If the driveway location and the topography shown on the site plan are correct,the grade would range from 20 to 25 percent over much of the driveway route. We understand these grades would exceed the maximum grade allowed for emergency vehicle access. • We question the use of a 3-inch minus, open-graded aggregate gradation as a surfacing course for this driveway. Given the steep grades, the ability to access the site would be marginal at best. There would likely be rutting, and resultant erosion along the steep ruts. This is a location where construction of a paved surface course would appear warranted. • Capture and conveyance of runoff along the driveway would be essential if access is to be maintained. The report should provide recommendations on how runoff along and from the driveway will be managed, and how potential impacts to the stream and other downslope resources can be mitigated. These issues should be addressed prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar CL SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 Envirotech Engineering 74 NE Hurd Road, Belfair, WA 98528 February 28, 2008 Rick Buechel South Shore Enterprises, LLC PO Box 249 Union, Washington 98592 RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150, 32235 31 00160 and 32235 31 00170, Mason County, Washington, Addendum#I INTORDUCTION Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed this geotechnical addendum for the above referenced "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences..." The original report was submitted November 28, 2007 by Envirotech (Project #0759). This addendum was prepared in order to fulfill Mason County requirements and provide additional information requested by a third party review. This review came from Keneth Neal & Associates, and was mailed by Mason County in a letter dated February 7, 2008. This addendum is presented by providing responses to the review comments in a numbered format below. The corresponding review comments may be found in Attachment A of this addendum. Following the responses to the review comments, specific amendments to the original geotechnical report are provided. Additional information and revisions to the appendix of the original geotechnical report are provided in Attachment B of this addendum. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS Issues Related to Site Characteristics 1. Description of the drainage characteristics have been expanded, and are presented in the Specific Amendments Section of this addendum. In addition, an evaluation of the stream and recommendations with respect to the proposed development is also provided. 2. Observations of the existing roadway was only one of several listed surface condition indicators for slope instability. Envirotech respectfully disagrees with this comment. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 1 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28,2008 Soil characteristics and geological process located downslope from an area of concern could be similar to the upslope geology. 3. The geologic conditions presented in the report were defined by published geological maps, and are intended to be "general" per the requirements in the Mason County Resource Ordinance (17.01.100.E.5.(1)). Specific surface and subsurface conditions for this project are provided in 2.0 Surface Conditions, and 3.4 Specific Subsurface Conditions of the original geotechnical report. 4. The location of the water well used during the geotechnical investigation is shown on the Site Plan in this addendum. The well log was used as the primary basis for soil relationships at depths greater than 6 feet because soil descriptions provided on the well log correspond to the subsurface profile of nearby properties as a result of geotechnical drilling, well drilling observation and other reviewed water well reports. 5. The revised Site Plan and Geological Map are attached to this addendum. 6. The soil properties indicated on the cross-sections are a result from the soil profiles from the well log on the property, and are considered to be conservative with relation to actual conditions (See response 94, above). Experience with geotechnical drilling coupled with additional well reports within the vicinity of the project indicates 50 to 90 feet of very dense glacial till overlain by a 2 feet to 6 feet layer of loose to medium dense overburden. Typically in this area, the glacial till is directly above a consolidated, poorly-graded, sand and/or gravel layer. The well report used for this project indicates a 15-foot layer of brown clay, which is inconsistent with past experience. The clay has minimal influence on slope stability due to the indicated depth below the ground surface and extents of the clay, if any. A combination of the depicted lidar and the cross-sections were out of sync with actual conditions, and have been improved. See the Site Plan and Soil Cross Section attachments in this addendum. Analysis results are similar to the original geotechnical investigation. See the slope stability output that is attached to this addendum. The scale provided in the soil cross-section is for both vertical and horizontal directions. 7. See the response to issue#6, above. Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. A computer analysis using STABLE software was used for this addendum to show a more comprehensive analysis of the slopes. These analyses consider the entire critical slopes from at least 50 feet from the top to 50 feet beyond highway 106. The slope stability output shows the circle with the least factor of safety. The colored grids indicate the center of the circle with the corresponding factor of safety. Factor of safeties below 1.5 are basically limited to the face and within 5 feet from the top of the descending slope on Lot 170. Factor of safeties in the range of 1.3 and 1.5 were calculated on the ascending slope for Lot 150 as a result of the existing cut of 12 feet in height near the slope toe. The critical ascending slope on Lot 160 is has a cut slope of only 6 feet in height near the residence, and critical grades are located over 50 feet Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 2 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28, 2008 from the planned building footprint. 2. Building setbacks are specified on the Geologic Map attached to this addendum. Additional geotechnical recommendations are provided in the Specific Amendments Section below. 3. The environmental issues concerning septic drainfields are significant, and is included in the Specific Amendments Section below. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria: 1. Settlement should not be a concern for this project because bearing soils are primarily coarse-grained. Dissipation of pore water can be ignored due to the relatively high permeability rate in this type of soil. Bearing capacity was calculated utilizing the basic Terzhagi ultimate bearing capacity equation in which the cohesion and depth term were eliminated, and a factor of safety of 3 was used. An allowable bearing pressure of over 1500 psf was calculated by using a unit weight of 136 psf, a footing width of 1 foot, and a Vesic bearing capacity factor of 67.2. These soil parameters are conservative for Lot 150 and Lot 160 because building areas are located in an old cut with dense soils located at 12 inches or less below the existing grade. Very dense soils were encountered at 2.5 feet bgs. 2. Envirotech understands the inconsistency of the buffer recommendations with relation to allowing the removal of the ridge. Additional recommendations are provided in the Specific Amendments Section below. Unloading the soil mass at the top of the slope should increase the deep-seated capabilities of the steep slope. However, additional recommendations should be provided in order to reduce the potential for shallow translational landslides. It is our opinion that the removal of the ridge within the buffer is justified within a geotechnical standpoint, if the engineering recommendations are followed. Disturbing the buffer may have to be an administrative decision by Mason County. 3. Native soils utilized as engineered fill is discussed in Section 4.3.2 of the original geotechnical report. SP-SM soils have a low to moderate sensitivity to moisture because the fines content range from 5% to 12%. Specifically, the soils on-site exhibited 10% fines or less with coarse fragments retained on the #200 sieve (insignificant fine sands). Section 4.3.2 provides specifications for compacting native soils used as fill, and includes a placement of 3% within optimal moisture content. 4. Envirotech erred in not recommending roof drains for Lot 170. It is our opinion that footing perimeter drains are not necessary for shallow foundations due to the lack of upslope subsurface flow on Lot 170, and the absence of descending slopes on Lot 150 and Lot 160. Roof drains on Lot 150 and Lot 160 should not be required because the building locations are close to street level with no descending slopes. See roof drain recommendations for Lot 170, below. 5. Envirotech agrees that a paved surface is warranted for this project. The owner plans to construct the driveway as an asphalt paved surface. Additional recommendations Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 3 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28,2008 for the driveway are provided in the Specific Amendments Section below. If even feasible, major earthwork construction would be required for this site in order to reduce driveway grades for allowing emergency vehicle access. If a variance cannot be obtained for the driveway recommendations presented in this geotechnical investigation, an additional feasibility study and subsequent engineered driveway plan will be required. The first 60 to 75 feet of driveway is anticipated to be bearing on prepared native soils and fill. Bench cuts will be required where the driveway is closest to the stream. The proposed driveway will be aligned with the existing driveway beginning on Lot 160 where it diverges with the stream and extend to the planned residence on Lot 170. The most significant slope modification is located near the stream, and is depicted as an attachment to this addendum. A slope stability analysis was performed on the slope modification with an acceptable factor of safety. See the driveway data file attachment in this addendum. SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT The following amendments to the original geotechnical report are provided below. The numbered subheadings indicate the section and location of the amendment with respect to the original geotechnical report. Bold print designates additions or changes to the original text of the report. 2.3 Surface Drainage(new paragraph) The existing stream averages about 2 inches of flow depth during the wet season (2008). A subsequent site visit was performed after the intense rainfall and rapid snowmelt in December 2007, which exceeded the current 100yr-24hr precipitation depth. Observations revealed that the stream depth may rise to 3 feet within selected locations of the property due to this storm event. These locations include areas over 50 feet upstream of the proposed residence in which the stream incision is approximately 4.5 feet deep and about 5 feet in width. The stream is much more shallow and wider towards the existing roadway. The recent flooding caused very little minor calving within the property, and produced substantial outwash on the highway. Although scouring problems were not exhibited around the existing structure, less than 1-foot of outwash and sediments were accumulated adjacent to the structure. 4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade(new paragraph) Planning for Lot 150 and Lot 160 should consider establishing the top of slab or finished floor elevations at higher than the ordinary high water elevation of the stream. If finish floor elevations are not increased, revetment should be established between the residence and stream in order to prevent potential flooding. See the Retaining Walls Section below. Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 4 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150.Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28, 2008 4.3.1 Excavation(3'd paragraph) The top of the ridge on Lot 170 may be removed for this Project. See the Soil Profile in Appendix C for an illustration. If removed, disturbed areas shall be compacted, and additional recommendations shall be adhered to as presented in the Erosion Control Section, and Vegetation Considerations Section of this report. A 2% minimum slope is required in order to direct runoff towards the stream and away from the face of the steep slope. 4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts (]"paragraph and new paragraph) The approximate location of the proposed septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan in Appendix A of this report for Lot 170. See the following paragraph for information on Lot 150 and Lot 160. To account for the presence of a drainfield for this Project, the slope stability analysis accounted for saturation in the upper subsoil. Saturation of the subsoil induces a greater soil unit weight, reduces cohesion, and reduces the angle of internal friction. Based on the septic drainfield location and slope stability analysis for this Project, the drainfield is not expected to adversely influence the stability of any slopes within and near the Project, or negatively impact the planned single family residence. This is based on the general drainfield location depicted on the Site Plan. The immediate development will include Lot 160 and Lot 170 only. The planned drainfield located on Lot 170 will also serve Lot 160, and has been approved by the Mason County Department of Health. It is assumed that this was approved based on a sufficient distance from the nearby stream, and/or the septic design included appropriate pretreatment. A septic system located on the downslope area of Lot 150 may not be feasible, and is not planned to be constructed at this time. An additional geotechnical evaluation with respect to septic drain field impacts, will be required for Lot 150 after the septic system type is selected, and an acceptable location is determined. 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks(2"d paragraph) Lot 150 and Lot 160 do not have critical descending slopes with relation to the planned buildings. There are no minimum setback requirements for the ascending slopes on Lot 160. The 65% cut slope on Lot 150 creates a minor hazard, and subsequently, a building setback of 10 feet is required for this Lot. Alternatively, this setback may be eliminated if the planned building is cut into this toe of the slope, appropriate revetment is provided, and additional recommendations are followed as provided in the Retaining Walls Section of this addendum. 4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage(2"d paragraph) From a geotechnical perspective, both perimeter footing drains and roof drains are optional for Lot 150 and Lot 160. If footings are established at depths greater than 2 feet below final grade, then perimeter footing drains are recommended. If utilized on Lots 150 and 160, subsurface water intercepted in the perimeter footing drains, and stormwater collected from roof drains shall be tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration area or outlet protection area located downslope and at Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 5 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28,2008 least 10 feet from any structure. The development on Lot 170 requires a roof drain. Stormwater collected from roof drains shall be tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration location within the gentle slopes near the creek or beyond the toe of the steep slope. If subsurface infiltration is not utilized, an energy dissipater is required at the outlet. Recommended infiltration locations are delineated on the Geologic Map in Appendix B, with drainage details in Appendix F. 4.4.5 Vegetation Considerations (2"d paragraph) For this Project, the removal of vegetation is anticipated to be minimal. Only a few trees within the building envelopes will be removed. Where removal outside the building envelope is necessary, stumps and roots shall remain undisturbed as much as possible. Vegetation shall not be removed within and beyond the vegetation buffer delineated in the Geologic Map in Appendix B of this report, except as permitted herein. However, any tree deemed dangerous to life and/ or property should be removed. If the ridge is removed,tree removal may extend to the top of the modified slope, and follow additional recommendations. These recommendations include light grading as presented in the Excavation Section and moderate compaction to achieve a relatively smooth surface for surface water drainage away from the face of the steep slope. 4.6 Driveway Considerations(new paragraphs) An asphalt paved driveway is planned for access to Lot 170. The structural section of the driveway should consist of 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of base coarse, over prepared subgrade. Base coarse construction (materials, placement, compaction, etc.) should meet the requirements of Class B foundation material from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. Alternatively, a 2-inch top layer of crushed surfacing coarse may be substituted for the top 2 inches of base coarse per WDOT requirements. The 6-inch base coarse layer may be reduced by a geotechnical engineer after inspecting the prepared subgrade prior to base coarse placement. A Stormwater management plan may be required for this project. General guidelines include, sloping the driveway surface at 2% in order to direct water into a roadside ditch as presented in the original geotechnical report. The ditch should be on the opposite side of the road with respect to the stream. Curbs, berms, or other raised sections may be advisable on the outside of the driveway where the road turns at the stream. Rock check dams are recommended in the roadside ditch where grades are greater than 5% in order to reduce erosion. Rock check dams should be spaced 25 feet apart on slopes over 15%, and 50 feet apart on lesser grades. Rock dam details may be found in the applicable "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. A portion of the proposed driveway will be near the stream. Although the stream currently bends away from the driveway at this location, turbulent flow during high intensity storms could compromise the driveway embankment. For this reason, it is suggested to place half Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 6 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28, 2008 man to one man rock along the driveway embankment where the stream high water level may encroach the roadside embankment. Rock specifications are provided by WSDOT. The rock should be placed at least 1 foot below the final subgrade, and extend to the pavement section or to an elevation at or above the expected high water level of the nearby stream. 4.7 Retaining Walls (new section) In order to reduce the 10 feet minimum building setback for Lot 150, retaining structures are necessary. A retaining wall should be designed by a structural engineer or other qualified professional in order to withstand a minimum soil equivalent fluid unit weight of 75 pcf. Other retaining wall requirements shall include appropriate drainage and backfill as presented in the original geotechnical report. If the building is to be constructed into the toe of the ascending slope, the building will serve as a retaining structure, and building walls shall be designed by a structural engineer accordingly. Revetment between the residences on the lower lots and the stream is a second option for preventing potential flooding. Revetment walls should be designed by a qualified professional with the following considerations. The top of the wall should exceed the maximum high water elevation of the stream, and the wall should have appropriate depth and reinforcement to withstand water and debris flow. CONSLUSION Envirotech appreciates a thorough review of our work by a third party, and the opportunity to improve our communication and engineering recommendations in our services. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Bes 43045 O 1 ` ss�°cism�v� I�NAL ©cPIREFS-J-4N 1 4, 2009 Michael Staten, P.E. Project Manager Envirotech Engineering Geotechnical Addendum#1 Ph. 360-275-9374 Page 7 of 7 Three Single Family Residence Fax 360-275-4789 Lot 150,Lot 160&Lot 170 February 28, 2008 ATTACHMENT A KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES REVIEW COMMENTS KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fag: (360)236-0201 01 Wash e-mail: kengneal@a aolcom February 6,2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development Enyrm,�,�G,0100st ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager i 100 .5't FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist KFNNFTH G. NF-41- SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150, 32235 31 00160 and 32235 31 00170, Mason County, Washington,"report prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,and Mel Templeman,dated November 28, There are a number of issues related to this report that must be addressed prior to approval. Issues Related to Site Characteristics: 1. On Pages 3 and 4, under"2.3 Surface Drainage,"there is virtually no description of the drainage characteristics of the stream bisecting the properties. Since the stream course appears, based on the site plans, to turn just above the proposed building site on Lot 160, stream characteristics at that location should be described and evaluated. 2. On Page 4, the comment "...the adjacent paved roadway had not indication of longitudinal cracking, which is a good indicator of earth movement."has little to do with landslide processes on the slope above the road that might affect slope stability adjacent to the building sites. 3. On Page 5, under"3.3 Geologic Conditions,"the description of bedrock does not fit the area or the site. The nearest rock is exposed along the west side of Hood Canal. 4. The well log contained in Appendix C is reportedly on one of the parcels, but is not shown on the site plan. The well log appears to be the primary basis for soils relationships shown on the cross- sections. 5. The site plans are oriented opposite the direction shown (the north arrow points south). 6. The soils relationships shown on the cross-sections do not reflect likely geologic processes in this area. The cross-sections must be correlated with known geologic relationships. Further, the cross-sections and topographic characteristics shown on the site plans do not match (not even close). If the cross-sections are correct, then the LiDAR topography is not accurate (and, visa versa). A vertical and horizontal scale should be provided on the cross-sections for reference. 7. Cross-Section B-B' is not drawn even close to the fall line of the slope (which would reflect the critical conditions to be analyzed, if an analysis was completed). Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. There is no explanation for either cross-section as to what portions of the slope were analyzed. If the initiation points of the analyses were located across the highway, then the more likely Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 February 6, 2008 Page 2 locations of potential slope movement initiation (like the toe of the slope) were not analyzed. A graphic representation of the slope analyzed and the location of the arcs analyzed (in particular, the one that appears to be most critical) would be helpful to the client and to the reviewer. Page 12 states that the minimum factors of safeties are estimated, not calculated as required. 2. Section 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks(Page 13) specifies a 35-foot setback from the top of the slope on Lot 170, but does not specify a setback from the 65-percent slopes above the proposed building sites on Lots 150 and 160. Since a 65-percent slope meets the criteria for a "landslide hazard area" (MCRO 17.01.100A1f), a buffer is required. Further, the report indicates on the geologic map that the single-family residence on Lot 150 would require excavation into the toe of the slope, analyses of slope stability characteristics, both under static and dynamic conditions, appear warranted. The analyses should use a model based on a cross-section that reflects accurate soil and slope characteristics,and the extent of excavation proposed. 3. The report discusses the predicted impact of septic drainfields on slope stability (Page 12, Section 4.4.1), but does not discuss whether there is a potential for discharging effluents into the stream bisecting the properties or into the ditch along State Route 106. Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC Location, Table I, specifies a 30-foot minim separation between a septic drainfield, including reserve area, and various types of drainage facilities, including drainage ditches, when the drainage facility is down-gradient of the septic drainfield. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria 1. On Page 8, under"4.1.1 Bearing Capacity,"there does not seem to be any rationale for the selection 12-inch and 17-inch minimum footing widths for the downslope and upslope houses, respectively, since both sites are underlain by medium dense SP-SM soils. Also, 12 inches, in our judgment, is very narrow for a footing. Use of 12 inches as a minimum footing width requires an assumption that all footings would placed as recommended in the report. Since there is no requirement stating that the soils underlying the foundation excavations must be observed or tested prior to placement of footings,there appears, in our judgment, to be a potential for placement on soils that do not meet the stated criteria, in turn leading to possible future differential foundation settlement. 2. On Page 10, under 4.3.1 Excavation,the consultant states that"The top of the ridge on Lot 170 may be removed..." If a 35-foot buffer is established as outlined in this report for Lot 170, then this excavation would take place within the buffer. This is inconsistent with the concept of buffer as outlined under MCRO 17.01.104D6a. 3. Page 10, "Section 4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fills"does not deal with the moisture sensitivity of the SP-SM soils found on site and the likelihood that they would not be suitable for use under wet weather conditions. There is a discussion of wet weather conditions in Section 4.3.4 on Page 11, but the discussion does not deal with the use of native soils as engineered fill. KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Cf.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)3S2-5125 Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 February 6,2008 Page 3 4. Page 12, Section 4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage provides recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage at the site. There is a subtle suggestion, but no specific recommendation, that drainage plans should be developed for these residences. We question the wisdom of the statement "...both perimeter footing drains and roof drains are optional for all three single family residence (sic)," given the SP-SM soil classification, underlain by very dense GM and SM "hardpan" at shallow depths. 5. There are questions regarding Section 4.6 Driveway on Page 15, and Section 4.6.1 Surface Course on Pages 16 and 17: • There are questions regarding the relationship between the 2:1 maximum cut slope shown and the 45-percent slope crossed by the driveway accessing Lot 170. The consultant states that there will be no structural fills beneath the driveway, indicating that the entire driveway crossing the property would either be full-bench or turnpike constriction. This means that the cut slopes along the full-bench sections may be extensive, and could potentially be more of a threat to slope stability than construction on the proposed Lot 170 building site. Typical cross-sections along the driveway should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation. • If the driveway location and the topography shown on the site plan are correct, the grade would range from 20 to 25 percent over much of the driveway route. We understand these grades would exceed the maximum grade allowed for emergency vehicle access. • We question the use of a 3-inch minus, open-graded aggregate gradation as a surfacing course for this driveway. Given the steep grades,the ability to access the site would be marginal at best. There would likely be rutting, and resultant erosion along the steep ruts. This is a location where construction of a paved surface course would appear warranted. • Capture and conveyance of runoff along the driveway would be essential if access is to be maintained. The report should provide recommendations on how runoff along and from the driveway will be managed, and how potential impacts to the stream and other downslope resources can be mitigated. These issues should be addressed prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGIM 3314 Gibraltar Cf.SE,Olympia,Washington 98-501-3968 (360)352-512.5 ATTACHMENT B GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX INFORMATION N SCALE, I INCH 60 FEET WATER WELL CREEK PROPERTY LINE LOT 150 LOT 160 LOT 170 PROPOSED DRAIhFIELD v N ROPOSED HOME C P> a SILT FENCE IF TP2 A NECESSARY CTYP T P1 V� SFR �02 / * REQUIRED PERMANENT ROSION 100 CONTROL ON CUT SLOPES OF �$ DRIVEWAY ir 80 V PRO OSED DRIVEWAY \V' 4 e 60 SFR \'as SFR V k GNPNN PVC` 40 TP3 9 Ro v06 PROPOSED DRAINFIELDS EXISTING STRUCTURE HOOD CANAL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DRIVEW Y PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, 20 THREE LOT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BUECHEL AND TEMPLEMAN PARCEL 32235 31 00150, -160, 6 -170 NOTES- LEGEND MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS NECESSARY. GENERAL SILT FENCE ENGINEER- LOCATIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES TO SILT FENCES MAY BE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. -> SLOPE DIRECTION 74 NE HURD ROAD 2. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED so EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374 FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS. TPIe TEST PIT SITE PLAN 1 SCALES 1 INCH 60 FEET CREEK PROPERTY LINE FOT 150 LOT 160 LOT 170 A OPOSED DRAI IELD +1 OPTIONAL DRAIN GE OUTFAL v un fU SLIGHTLY PROPO ED HOME (TYP) SLOPIN P SOQ P�� O�Q` Apti�O�SFS• SF �QQ F�/FQ�QSS G O � W S / 8 �0 SLOPE T T VVV 100 20 E OF 5 OPTIONAL DRAINAGE 1 TFALL FS B0 RELATIVE FLAT 60 Vw SFR VV Q� ,8FR GNPNN A �R ZNPG 6 4050�0 1�5, ROvtE , SOILS, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POORLY GRAED SAND WITH SILT SP DSM) OVERLYING VERYAND DENSEAVEL ILL Q E� O HOOD CANAL LSF' 20 $ PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION- THREE LOT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BUECHEL AND TEMPLEMAN PARCEL 32235 31 00150, —160, 6 —170 NOTES, LEGEND MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS, CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED ENGINEER- FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD BUFFER ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING MEASUREMENTS. 74 NE HURD ROAD 2. VEGETATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UPLSOPE FROM LOT SLOPE DIRECTION BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 150 AND 160 UNLESS HAZARDOUS. VEGETATION BUFFER IS 0 EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374 LOCATED ON THE RIDGE FOR LOT 170 WITH EXCEPTIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT. GEOLOGIC MAP MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POSSIBLE RIDGE PROPOSED HOUSE SCALE, t DICH 60 FEET POORLY GRADED SAND WITH REMOVAL CREEK EXISTING GRADE SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) HIGHWAY 106 $/> 00000000000 0 O 0 0 0 LOFT BANK 4%t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O " O O O O O O O O O O O O O O HOOD CANAL 0 0 O O OOOOODENSE'TO VERY000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O O O DENSE GLACIAL3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O TILL O O O O O O O O O O v v v J0000000000 O O O 00000000000000000000-0-000000000000000000000 SECTION A-A MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POORLY GRADED SAND WITH EXISTING GRADE SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) 65%, 12FT SLOPE '` O O 0 O O O PROPOSED HOUSE `_.,.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O HIGHWAY 106 �:.. 0 00�020 00000 DENSE TO VY' O 0 10FT BANK . 0 O ER 0 0 ODENSE GLACIAL O O NOTES, N� ,,,. .•• ...• O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTILL 0 0 0 0 HOOD CANAL 1) EXCEPT FOR POSSIBLE RIDGE REMOVAL ON LOT O O O O O O O O O v O v O v O O O 170, MINIMAL GRADE CHANGES ARE EXPECTED 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O DUE TO BUILDINGS FOUNDED ON NEARLY FLAT TO 0000000000000000000000000000000000 SLIGHTLY SLOPING SURFACES. LIGHT GRADING O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 WILL BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM BUILDINGS. SECTION B-B EXISTING GRADE MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) * ' O O O 0`Y~ 65%, 6FT SLOPE OOOOOOOO PROPOSED HOUSE a5 /.t !/ _t00000000000000 HIGHWAY 106 0000000000000000 IOFT BANK r.:- ~<'•'� ` O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0(DENSE TO VERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, HOOD CANAL 0 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 (DENSE GLACIAL > O O 0 O THREE LOT O O O0O0O0O0O0O0O0OOO000O0 TILLv v �000000000 GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT OOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PARCEL AND 32235 LT31 0150, -160, s -170 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SECTION C-C ENGINEER- ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD ROAD BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 360-275-9374 SOIL PROFILE J 1 . 00 1 . 1 0 1 . 20 1 . 30 { 1 . 40 1 . 50 1 . 6 1 . 7 : 1 O 1 . 0 2 00 a 99 Project Buechel Datafile Lot 160 upslope Analysis Bishop STABLE.2002 MZ Associctes Ltd 1 . 00 1 . 1 0 1 . 20 1 . 30 1 . 40 1 . 50 1 . 60 1 . 70 1 . 80 1 . 90 2 . 00 32 Project Buechel Datafile : Lot 1 SO upslope Analysis Bishop STABLE.2002 MZ Associates Ltd 1 . 00 1 . 1 0 1 . 20 1 . 30 1 . 40 1 . 50 1 . 60 1 . 70 1 . 80 1 . 90 12 . 00 . 791 Project Buechel Datafile Lot 1 70 downslope Analysis Bishop STABLE.2002 KAZ Associates Ltd 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 20 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 60 1 . 70 . 80 1 . 90 2 . 00 . 569 Project Buechel Datafile : Driveway Analysis : Bishop STABLE.2002 MZ Associates Ltd �(An,' Ex 15T]/V CG $LUG PRoPoS�p z� GV+ s IOf PROPoy�O �� �ir�H EkbSfON �WIVEvmy Srf CA M ConrTQcK � ECEP,V D FEB 2 6 T MCCD -�PLANNING T D&nr Yl, ell p7aw7' 46161 - r-OS ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING 74 NE HURD RD . BELFAIR , WA 98528 OFF : 360 - 275 - 9374 CELL : 360 - 689 - 6045 FAX : 360 - 275 - 4789 EMAIL : envirotech@geotechnicalinfo . com FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: TAMMY WRIGHT FROM: MICHAEL STATEN COMPANY: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DATE: MARCH 4, 2008 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: 2 PHONE NUMBER: RE: BUECHEL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ❑ URGENT ❑FOR REVIEW ❑PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: The revised geotechnical report for the Rick Buechel three Lot Development was mailed to you last week. The Site Plan had a slight error by depicting a proposed septic drainfield on Lot 150. The text of the addendum explains that this system will need further study after the type and location is determined. Attached is a copy of the revised Site Plan as a replacement in the attachments of Addendum #1 . Please call Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you need additional information. -Ex UA 13 SCALE- I INCH 60 FEET WATER WELL CREEK zz PROPERTY LINE Cr LOT 150 LOT 160 LOT 170 PROPOSED DRAI IELD t N ROPOSED HOME CT(P) N SILT FENCE IF TP2 9 NECESSARY CTYP T P1 V� �— SFR �OQ VR 100 + REQUIRED PERMANENT R❑SION CONTROL ON CUT SLOPES OF CD DRIVEWAY v ro ns j 80 \V, / PRO OSED DRIVEWAY l N \V, T 4 e 60 SFR \'ems SFR PVE GN 40 TP3 �RR��tE �06 Sj PtE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED HOOD CANAL EXISTING DRIVEW Y PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATION, 20 THREE LOT GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT BUECHEL AND TEMPLEMAN PARCEL 32235 31 00150, -160, & -170 NOTES, LEGEND MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SITE. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS NECESSARY. GENERAL ENGINEER LOCATIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES TO SILT FENCES MAY BE SILT FENCE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING UTILIZED AS EXPLAINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. DIRECTION 74 NE HURD ROAD SLOPE DIREC 2. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98WB TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED so EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374 FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD MEASUREMENTS. TPIe TEST PIT SITE PLAN I (2/26/2008)Tammi Wright- 322353100170 HEX2008-00007 Page 1 { From: Penny Orth To: Tammi Wright Date: 2/19/2008 9:05 AM Subject: 322353100170 HEX2008-00007 Hi Tammi, I reviewed the Wetland report and the geo report you sent to me. The geo report addresses the septic system for both lot 160 and 170 in the same location as the septic design. However the wetland report misrepresents the location of the proposed septic system. In the design,systems for both lots are located in the SW corner of lot 170. The submitted septic design for lot 160 has not been approved, pending resolution of the wetland management plan which currently does not show the correct septic location. I put a copy of the septic plot plan in the Planning mail bin. Penny Orth Mason County Public Health Phone: (360)427-9670 ext. 547 Fax: (360)427-8442 "Always working for a safer and healthier Mason County" 3a .1, 3kS-31- 001 (,o RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST Application received and logged: Notice sent to WDFW/Tribe AMP stitV / - A A4-0'1 Notice of app. & hearing delivered to SMJ: rot-fd 1 -)8-n Y fo Mn 0 31 l o 8 Notice of app. & hearing posted and mailed: MaLW 1-0-08 Paskc� Photos? SEPA?: o Circulated on: _ Report to HEX by: — A� HEX hearing date: 3 —as -O g Decision: Notice of Final Decision sent on: Notes & Comments: i �, �'i�Kc _ � �-�d V�pO✓� (�ru his �c�n dons ,2 -�-0 V Tait/L wl Gcee-ndej C4shton UpO1(crJ-1oi �(z Alwd it fnLh A)o3eyt e: 1041AoV� a� scph� Dtsir v,e, d lovaha,% I:\PLANNING\Checklists&templates\RO VARIANCE CHECKLIST.doc.ram f °N.srgrF MASON COUNTY o P� A o N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT > s N Planning Division o Y y P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION March 26, 2008 RICK BUECHEL PO BOX 249 UNION WA 98592 Parcel No.: 322353100160 Project Description: Construct a SFR occupying 1225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet within a type Np stream buffer. Dear Applicant: You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2008-00002) for proposed construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require additional information to complete the permit review process. Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on the proposed development shall take place. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295 if you have questions. Sincerely, i � 1�� o- Tammi Wright Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 3/26/2008 Page 1 of 2 VAR2008-00002 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3/26/2008 Case No.: VAR2008-00002 Comments: Enclosed are the results of the review of the Geotechnical Report for Mr. Rick Buechel, South Shore Enterprises, LLC., for the proposed residence and driveway construction on parcels 32235-31-00160 and 32235-31-00170. There are several items Ken Neal, Ken Neal & Associates, has listed as needing to be addressed. Please send the required information to: Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 cc: Michael Staten, P.E., Envirotech Engineering 3/26/2008 Page 2 of 2 VAR2008-00002 1 KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct. S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Wa Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 Shi,� e-mail: kengneal@aoLcom March 25,2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development Enginee Geo st ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager ���ons T00 ed Geo FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist KENNETH G. NEAL SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 "RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 3100150,32235 3100160 and 32235 31 00170,Mason County, Washington, Addendum #1," letter, prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,dated February 28,2008 The consultant made a concerted effort to address the issues outlined in our February 8, 2008 memorandum. There are, however, a number of unanswered questions that remain: Issues Related to Site Characteristics: 1. "2.3 Surface Drainage"provides a much-improved description over the previous report. If recent flooding "produced substantial outwash on the highway," and "less than 1-foot of outwash and sediments were accumulated adjacent to the(existing) structure," it appears that the stream must have overtopped the banks in the vicinity of the existing structure. The letter implies that the lower two building sites are in the flood plain of the stream. Further, the recommendations outlined in "4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade (new paragraph)" indicate that the building sites are below the ordinary high water mark for the stream and should be protected by some type of revetment. While this site is not listed by FEMA and, therefore, does not meet the criteria outlined in Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.090, it would not seem prudent to construct two residences at sites known to be within the flood channel of a small stream. The one remaining question regarding the stream is whether the channel in which the stream is currently located is temporary, given that the topography indicates that the current channel is actually higher than some locations adjacent to the channel to the east. 2. There are a number of questions remaining about geological interpretation at the site. We concur with the comment in Response 2, that the "Soil characteristics and geological process located downslope from an area of concern could be similar to the upslope geology." The question is whether the soil characteristics and geological processes are the same at both locations. The consultant is responsible to provide a site-specific geological interpretation of the site, and to present a reliable (if not accurate) portrayal of horizontal and vertical distribution of soil materials. The well location is now shown on the site plan, but the geology shown on the well log is not projected into the plane of the section. The cross-sections contained in the addendum do not reconcile the fine-grained deposit shown on the well log and site characteristics observed by the consultant. Fine-grained glaciolacustrine deposits are not that uncommon along Hood Canal. If the depth of the glaciolacustrine deposit shown on the well log is below the depth of any potential slope movement, then the only remaining question would be the potential for Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 March 25,2008 Page 2 perching of ground water. The information should all be reconciled, and presented clearly on the cross-sections,which need elevation and horizontal control and a larger portrayal to be helpful. Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. We are unfamiliar with the type of graphics used to portray the slope stability analyses used in this report. It appears, from looking at the graphics,that all of the analyses extended from the top of the slope to beyond the base of the slope and the highway. If such is the case,then the factors of safety (FS) would likely be higher than those that extend only down to the toe of the slope. If the pie-shaped wedge shown on each graphic represents the actual slope segment analyzed, then the program likely selected the most sensitive slope for analysis. 2. The position of the glaciolacustrine deposit may influence ground water distribution beneath the slope. This possibility should be evaluated once the cross-section and well log are reconciled. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria I. Under Item 3, we understand and concur that on-site soils will perform appropriately if soil moisture contents are within three percent of optimum. Again, there is no contingency plan described in the report for importing fill material in the event of wet weather construction. Perhaps the expectation is that, in the event of inclement weather,the construction contractor will spread the soil and wait for it to air dry prior to use, in lieu of importing structural fill materials having few or no fines. 2. Questions regarding the driveway remain. In order for the county to be able to assess site suitability for a variance, in our judgment, there should be a clear plan in terms of location, grade, and construction method(s). Again,once the location of the driveway is known(based on the grade needed to access the site),the driveway should be divided into terrain segments, and cuts, fills,and drainage needs should be at least estimated for each segment. Typical cross-sections for each segment should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation or filling. Design criteria for cuts, fills, and drainage, both general and segment-specific, should be provided as part of the report. We also question whether the cross-section shown for the road is realistic, given that a near-vertical cut slope four or five feet high could be constructed in lieu of excavating and exposing the entire height of the slope. Some of these issues could likely be resolved by telephone. Each of the issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 Comments about septic proposal, ref. #77-93 Page 1 of 1 Tammi Wright- Comments about septic proposal, ref. #77-93 From: <erunckel@samhealth.org> To: <tammiw@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 3/25/2008 12:24 PM Subject: Comments about septic proposal, ref #77-93 Dear Tammi: have a few concerns about the proposed building at 9030 East 106th. We are neighbors at 9021 East 106th. We have been there around 12 years. I don't know about the septic proposal or house construction, but I do know that the location of the construction is on a very unstable hillside. In the time we have been there, there have been at least 2 sizable rock and mudslides. One slide completely blocked highway 106, spilling over the bank, and covering the oyster bed below under many cubic yards of rock and sand. They all died. A second time, only a few months ago, rocks and mud came down the same stream bed and covered our yard again. It seems something happened at the ridge, logging or building,which has made that stream bed and valley very unstable. The last thing that hillside needs is to be further disturbed. Those people could not sleep soundly in their beds. Every time it rained they would be listening for the sound of rocks on the move again, tumbling and tugging at their foundation. Thank you for entering my concerns into the record. Sincerely, Evelyn Ruckel 9021 East Hwy. 106 Union, WA Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47E8EF17Ma... 3/25/2008 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 3 No. VAR2008-00002 4 RE: Rick Buechel 5 DECLARATION OF MAILING Mason County Resource Ordinance 77-93 6 Section 17.01.150(E) Variance VAR2007-00009 7 8 9 10 I, Tammi Wright, declare and state as follows: 11 On April 10, 2008, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the 12 documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this 13 declaration is attached to: 14 Rick Buechel 15 PO Box 249 Union, WA 98592 16 1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the 17 foregoing information is true and correct. 18 19 Dated this 10th DAY of APRIL, 2008 at Shelton, Washington. 20 21 � 22 Tammi S. Wright 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T"AVE. P.O. BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 98584 360-427-9670 TEL. 360-427-8425 FAX �eoN CO MASON COUNTY � rp Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 854 April 9, 2008 Notice of Decision Case: VAR2008-00002 Applicant: Rick Beuchel Notice is hereby given that Rick Buechel, who is the applicant for the above-referenced variance, has been granted the variance. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93, specifically for the construction of a 1,225 square foot residence in a Type Np stream buffer. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (i). This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Tammi Wright, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x295. 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner RE: Rick Buechel 4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION (MCC 17.01.150) 6 VAR 2008-00002 7 INTRODUCTION 8 9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in order to build a 1,225-square-foot single-family residence within a Type Np stream buffer, which requires a 100-foot buffer in addition to a 15-foot building setback. The Hearing Examiner approves the application subject to conditions recommended 1 1 by staff. ORAL TESTIMONY 13 Tammi Wright entered the Staff Report and exhibits. She and the applicant answered 14 questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. See tape of Hearing. 15 EXHIBITS 16 See exhibit list attached to the March 3, 2008, Staff Report. In addition, Exhibits 16 17 (email from Evelyn Ruckel dated 3/25/2008) and 17 (memorandum from Kenneth Neal & Associates dated 3/25/2008)were admitted during the public hearing. 18 FINDINGS OF FACT 1�) 20 Procedural: 21 1. Applicant. The applicant is Rick Buechel. 22 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 23 on March 25, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners chambers, Building I. 24 Substantive: 25 3. Site/Proposal Description. The stream buffer encompasses the entire parcel (see site plan marked Exhibit 3). The proposed residence will be 15 feet from the stream at the nearest point and the septic system will be 30 feet at the nearest (BFF%92432.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision point. There is currently a dilapidated residence on the site. The existing stream I appears to have been heavily impacted by the recent events of the December 3, 2007 storm. The channel has recently shifted easterly and is currently draining over the edge of the deck on the existing building. The proposed project minimizes the impacts to the stream buffer by limiting the square footage of the residence to 1,225 square feet. To compensate for the displacement of riparian habitat associated with 4 the project, the remainder of the parcel south of the proposed project will be preserved as a Wildlife Conservation Area (WCA) under a covenant to be recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office. The total size of the WCA is approximately 6 240 feet by 85 feet, which occupies approximately 19,000 square feet of the 1.15-acre parcel. The parcel is rectangular in shape and is approximately 1.15 acres in size with a north to south orientation. The Type Np stream enters the parcel on the northeast side, runs in a northerly direction and exits the parcel on the western side just short of 8 the northern property line. Highway 106 borders the northern property line. The topography of the parcel is moderate to steep sloping terrain. The proposed site of the 9 residence appears to be on relatively level terrain. Ascending grade is located to the 10 south of the planned development. This slope is approximately 65%; as a result, a Geotechnical Report has been prepared. 11 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is east of Union, WA along State 12 Route 106. Hood Canal borders the highway to the north and moderate to steep slopes are on the landward side of State Route 106. The steep slopes are densely vegetated. 13 Development in the area is comprised of single family residences mainly along Hood 14 Canal, however there are residences on the upland side of the highway to the east and west. See aerial photo marked as Exhibit 9. 15 5. Adverse Impacts. Potential adverse impacts have been identified and 16 evaluated in the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). According to the HMP, the project will require removal of two large trees. There does not appear to be any I significant impact to designated critical habitat for salmonoids. Noise pollution and 1 light and glare from the project should not be significant enough to disturb habitat. As a condition of approval BMP must be employed to mitigate temporary increase in <) sediment and turbidity during construction. In addition, the HMP recommends several mitigation measures, which, combined with additional conditions 20 recommended by staff, should mitigate significant adverse impacts to the environment. 21 22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 24 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. Substantive: {BM92432.D0C;I/13009.900000/) Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Desi and. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5. 3 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1). According to staff,notice 4 of variance was given by newspaper postings and by mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW, and the Skokomish Tribe. No comment was received from the WSDFW or 5 Skokomish Tribe. According to staff, a memo (Exhibit 10) was sent to Penny Orth, 6 Environmental Health Department, requesting any comments/concerns regarding the placement of the septic system. The application, Habitat Management Plan, and 7 Geotechnical Report were also provided. Ms. Orth emailed back with concerns about the placement of the septic system. In the design site plan, the systems for both lots 8 are located in the SW corner of lot 170. According to staff, the submitted septic design for lot 160 has not yet been approved pending the resolution of the wetland report site plan, which currently does not show the correct septic location. l0 4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the l 1 100-foot buffer and the 15-foot building setback from the ordinary high-water mark required for a Type Np stream. The buffer requirement is imposed through MCC 12 17.01.110. MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Variance application from 13 Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC 14 15.09.050(C) requires compliance with review criteria for all Type III permit applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the 1; general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable Conclusions of Law. 16 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance 1 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property 18 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 19 5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to 20 accommodate them. Without the variance, applicant would be left with insufficient 21 buildable space for a SFR. The buffer and setback encumbers the entire property. Consequently, the Resource Ordinance precludes the property owner's reasonable use 22 of the property. 23 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 24 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 25 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the applicant's own action. {BFK92432.D0C;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision r 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the protected stream t and its buffer, which encumbers the subject lot. The lot is not otherwise restricted by 2 deed or applicant's own action. 3 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 4 properties or the environment. 5 7. The property is zoned rural residential 5. A single-family residence with a 6 garage is a permitted use in this zoning. The surrounding area is characterized by vacant lots and single-family residential development, and as mitigated, there appears 7 to be no discernable adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the environment. The proposed placement of the dwelling is the most logical choice in that it places the 8 structure as far away as possible from the resource. The proposed SFR is less than 40% of the area of the lot or 2,250 feet. As noted above, possible adverse impacts 9 have been identified and evaluated in the HMP, and mitigation measures thereto 10 proposed. As required, a geotechnical report was prepared. According to staff, all outstanding issues raised by the County's geotechnical consultant will be I I satisfactorily addressed before a building permit is issued. 12 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 13 necessary to afford relief. 14 8. SFR's are allowed in RR-5 zone. For these reasons, the variance does not 15 constitute a grant of special privilege. The size of the proposed SFR is within the limitations of the Resource Ordinance. According to staff, use on neighboring lots is 16 similar. The proposed placement of the dwelling is the most logical choice in that it places the structure as far away as possible from the resource. The proposed SFR is 17 much smaller than 40% of the area of the lot or 2,250 feet. For these reasons, 18 approval of the variance will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. 19 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 20 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and condition of the Type Np 21 stream, as well as in applicant's opportunity to have reasonable use of his property. As mitigated in the HMP and by staff in the recommended conditions of approval, the 22 project's adverse impact on environmental resources should be minimal; therefore, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 23 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 24 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 25 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. t BM92432.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 10. But for the resource ordinance, the applicant would not be restricted from 1 building a SFR on the site. Without the variance, the applicant will not be able to build within the resource ordinance buffer. If the applicant cannot build within the resource ordinance buffer, he cannot build a SFR on the site. Given that the size of 3 the lot is suitable for a SFR, the property is zoned to accommodate one, and the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by such developments, the property owner 4 would lack a reasonable use of his land with anything short of a SFR. The proposal is not inconsistent with any other Mason County Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, or 5 the GMA. 6 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 7 proposed development according to the following criteria: 8 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 9 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. II 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 1 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 13 Comprehensive Plan. 14 11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report, the project is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR 15 developments at the subject location. It also meets the requirement and intent of the Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated the project should not harm 16 environmental resources. It, therefore, does not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. As further noted in the Staff Report, the 17 development will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood 18 park facilities. 19 DECISION The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions 21 identified and recommended in the Habitat Management Plan, as well as those in the Staff Report for VAR2008-00002. 22 Dated this 8th day of April, 2008. 23 24 25 Phil A. Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner I BFP692432.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision INC. PARCEL#: 32235-3 1-00 1 60 SOIL LOGS: �P �p �sno/-,vim s IbNEER DIGGING, SLI-o-5s GS SL2-a6o"Ls 360'426-1803 CUSTOMER: RICK BUECHEL ROOTS TO56" ROOTS To6O" ROOTSTo60" Bob Poy�3e(On-wgrer) DRAWING: PLOT PLAN N x Pay-x CDrnffei� SCALE: 1 "=50' i 1,, / Q 10 ��� Wit: WK1 / o 5 Oulu WILL 6L WWN From i ' WAt;(MY 5MAM NSW 50, LONG 5/1 24"0 CAI wklr �� P/f I I \\ I L � 1\1 � Ill o co 111 5/T 1 Ill I ,� C)* p/1 1 Ws Y �► 2 BERT PAY SSE � I I III I III I NI 2- Wt;M, npAiNfI�LnS i III 613PPM. fOfPi, \\ I III \\ \ III I 100, �� \\ I 5�TC3ACK NI 19PAINrEW�A5MN1 Li0' S0' —___- i !.---- 100 i isi 1 KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct. S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3968 Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 ati10 °{ Wash% e-mail: kengnea!@aolcom ` o� March 25,2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development Engtneedq Geo 5t ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager %e too ed FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist ~ KN:N:E:TH G. NEA_L SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 "RE: Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 3100150,32235 3100160 and 32235 3100170,Mason County, Washington, Addendum #1," letter, prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,dated February 28,2008 The consultant made a concerted effort to address the issues outlined in our February 8, 2008 memorandum. There are, however, a number of unanswered questions that remain: Issues Related to Site Characteristics: I. "2.3 Surface Drainage" provides a much-improved description over the previous report. if recent flooding "produced substantial outwash on the highway," and "less than 1-foot of outwash and sediments were accumulated adjacent to the (existing) structure," it appears that the stream must have overtopped the banks in the vicinity of the existing structure. The letter implies that the lower two building sites are in the flood plain of the stream. Further, the recommendations outlined in "4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade (new paragraph)" indicate that the building sites are below the ordinary high water mark for the stream and should be protected by some type of revetment. While this site is not listed by FEMA and, therefore, does not meet the criteria outlined in Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.090, it would not seem prudent to construct two residences at sites known to be within the flood channel of a small stream. The one remaining question regarding the stream is whether the channel in which the stream is currently located is temporary, given that the topography indicates that the current channel is actually higher than some locations adjacent to the channel to the east. 2. There are a number of questions remaining about geological interpretation at the site. We concur with the comment in Response 2, that the "Soil characteristics and geological process located downslope from an area of concern could be similar to the upslope geology." The question is whether the soil characteristics and geological processes are the same at both locations. The consultant is responsible to provide a site-specific geological interpretation of the site, and to present a reliable (if not accurate) portrayal of horizontal and vertical distribution of soil materials. The well location is now shown on the site plan, but the geology shown on the well log is not projected into the plane of the section. The cross-sections contained in the addendum do not reconcile the fine-grained deposit shown on the well log and site characteristics observed by the consultant. Fine-grained glaciolacustrine deposits are not that uncommon along Hood Canal. If the depth of the glaciolacustrine deposit shown on the well log is below the depth of any potential slope movement, then the only remaining question would be the potential for Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 March 25,2008 Page 2 perching of ground water. The information should all be reconciled, and presented clearly on the cross-sections,which need elevation and horizontal control and a larger portrayal to be helpful. Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. We are unfamiliar with the type of graphics used to portray the slope stability analyses used in this report. It appears, from looking at the graphics, that all of the analyses extended from the top of the slope to beyond the base of the slope and the highway. If such is the case,then the factors of safety(FS)would likely be higher than those that extend only down to the toe of the slope. If the pie-shaped wedge shown on each graphic represents the actual slope segment analyzed, then the program likely selected the most sensitive slope for analysis. 2. The position of the glaciolacustrine deposit may influence ground water distribution beneath the slope. This possibility should be evaluated once the cross-section and well log are reconciled. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria 1. Under Item 3, we understand and concur that on-site soils will perform appropriately if soil moisture contents are within three percent of optimum. Again, there is no contingency plan described in the report for importing fill material in the event of wet weather construction. Perhaps the expectation is that, in the event of inclement weather,the construction contractor will spread the soil and wait for it to air dry prior to use, in lieu of importing structural fill materials having few or no fines. 2. Questions regarding the driveway remain. In order for the county to be able to assess site suitability for a variance, in our judgment, there should be a clear plan in terms of location, grade, and construction method(s). Again,once the location of the driveway is known(based on the grade needed to access the site), the driveway should be divided into terrain segments, and cuts, fills, and drainage needs should be at least estimated for each segment. Typical cross-sections for each segment should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation or filling. Design criteria for cuts, fills, and drainage, both general and segment-specific, should be provided as part of the report. We also question whether the cross-section shown for the road is realistic, given that a near-vertical cut slope four or five feet high could be constructed in lieu of excavating and exposing the entire height of the slope. Some of these issues could likely be resolved by telephone. Each of the issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions,please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 Envirote ch Engineering 74 NE Hurd Road, Belfair, WA 98528 February 28, 2008 Att. Tammy Wright ��,-.; Mason County Department of Community Development MAR - 4 K, PO Box 279 INAC ` Shelton, Washington 98584 RE: Geotechnical Report Revision/Addendum for Application# VAR2008-0000i and MEP 2008-00007, Geotechnical Report for Rick Buechel Single Family Residential Lots, Mason County, Washington Dear Ms. Wright, Envirotech Engineering (Envirotech) has completed comments and revisions to the original geotechnical report for the referenced permit. See the enclosed "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residences, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150, 32235 31 00160 and 32235 31 00170, Mason County, Washington, Addendum #1. Enclosed are three copies of this addendum which was prepared in order to fulfill Mason County requirements and provide additional information requested by a third party review. Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions or require additional information. Yours Truly, EnvirotFcp Engineering Michael Staten, P.E. Project Director OFFICE: 360-275-9374 CELL: 360-689-6045 FAX: 360-275-4789 EMAIL: envirotech@geotechnicalinfo.com iiii ll � 's1 '^U a KENNETH NEAL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS NPICCD - PLf`M,41NG 3314 Gibraltar Ct. S.E.,Olympia,WA 98501-3 Telephone: (360)352-5125 Fax: (360)236-0201 Wash%,� e-mail: kengneal@aobcom Gj'�� 0 February 6,2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mason County Department of Community Development ngineedn Geologis ATTENTION: Robert D.Fink,AICP,Planning Manager 100 FROM: Kenneth G.Neal,L.G.,L.E.G.,Principal Engineering Geologist KENNE_TH G. NEAL SUBJECT: Review Comments—VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 "Geotechnical Report for Three Single Family Residenes, Parcel Numbers 32235 31 00150, 32235 31 00160 and 32235 31 00170, Mason County, Washington," report prepared by Envirotech Engineering for Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises,LLC,and Mel Templeman,dated November 28, There are a number of issues related to this report that must be addressed prior to approval. Issues Related to Site Characteristics: 1. On Pages 3 and 4, under"2.3 Surface Drainage,"there is virtually no description of the drainage characteristics of the stream bisecting the properties. Since the stream course appears, based on the site plans, to turn just above the proposed building site on Lot 160, stream characteristics at that location should be described and evaluated. 2. On Page 4, the comment "...the adjacent paved roadway had not indication of longitudinal cracking, which is a good indicator of earth movement." has little to do with landslide processes on the slope above the road that might affect slope stability adjacent to the building sites. 3. On Page 5, under"3.3 Geologic Conditions,"the description of bedrock does not fit the area or the site. The nearest rock is exposed along the west side of Hood Canal. 4. The well log contained in Appendix C is reportedly on one of the parcels, but is not shown on the site plan. The well log appears to be the primary basis for soils relationships shown on the cross- sections. 5. The site plans are oriented opposite the direction shown (the north arrow points south). 6. The soils relationships shown on the cross-sections do not reflect likely geologic processes in this area. The cross-sections must be correlated with known geologic relationships. Further, the cross-sections and topographic characteristics shown on the site plans do not match (not even close). If the cross-sections are correct, then the LiDAR topography is not accurate (and, visa versa). A vertical and horizontal scale should be provided on the cross-sections for reference. 7. Cross-Section B-B' is not drawn even close to the fall line of the slope (which would reflect the critical conditions to be analyzed, if an analysis was completed). Issues Related to Evaluations and Analyses: 1. There is no explanation for either cross-section as to what portions of the slope were analyzed. If the initiation points of the analyses were located across the highway, then the more likely J Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002, MEP 2008-00007 February 6, 2008 Page 2 locations of potential slope movement initiation (like the toe of the slope) were not analyzed. A graphic representation of the slope analyzed and the location of the arcs analyzed (in particular, the one that appears to be most critical) would be helpful to the client and to the reviewer. Page 12 states that the"minimum factors of safeties are estimated,"not calculated as required. 2. Section 4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks (Page 13) specifies a 35-foot setback from the top of the slope on Lot 170, but does not specify a setback from the 65-percent slopes above the proposed building sites on Lots 150 and 160. Since a 65-percent slope meets the criteria for a "landslide hazard area" (MCRO 17.01.100A1f), a buffer is required. Further, the report indicates on the geologic map that the single-family residence on Lot 150 would require excavation into the toe of the slope, analyses of slope stability characteristics, both under static and dynamic conditions, appear warranted. The analyses should use a model based on a cross-section that reflects accurate soil and slope characteristics,and the extent of excavation proposed. 3. The report discusses the predicted impact of septic drainfields on slope stability (Page 12, Section 4.4.1), but does not discuss whether there is a potential for discharging effluents into the stream bisecting the properties or into the ditch along State Route 106. Chapter 246-272-09501 WAC Location, Table I, specifies a 30-foot minim separation between a septic drainfield, including reserve area, and various types of drainage facilities, including drainage ditches, when the drainage facility is down-gradient of the septic drainfield. Issues Related to Recommendations and Design Criteria 1. On Page 8, under"4.1.1 Bearing Capacity,"there does not seem to be any rationale for the selection 12-inch and 17-inch minimum footing widths for the downslope and upslope houses, respectively, since both sites are underlain by medium dense SP-SM soils. Also, 12 inches, in our judgment, is very narrow for a footing. Use of 12 inches as a minimum footing width requires an assumption that all footings would placed as recommended in the report. Since there is no requirement stating that the soils underlying the foundation excavations must be observed or tested prior to placement of footings,there appears, in our judgment,to be a potential for placement on soils that do not meet the stated criteria, in turn leading to possible future differential foundation settlement. 2. On Page 10, under 4.3.1 Excavation,the consultant states that"The top of the ridge on Lot 170 may be removed..." If a 35-foot buffer is established as outlined in this report for Lot 170, then this excavation would take place within the buffer. This is inconsistent with the concept of buffer as outlined under MCRO 17.01.104D6a. 3. Page 10, "Section 4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fills"does not deal with the moisture sensitivity of the SP-SM soils found on site and the likelihood that they would not be suitable for use under wet weather conditions. There is a discussion of wet weather conditions in Section 4.3.4 on Page 11, but the discussion does not deal with the use of native soils as engineered fill. KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3968 (360)352-5125 l Mason County Department of Community Development VAR 2008-00002,MEP 2008-00007 February 6, 2008 Page 3 4. Page 12, Section 4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage provides recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage at the site. There is a subtle suggestion, but no specific recommendation, that drainage plans should be developed for these residences. We question the wisdom of the statement "...both perimeter footing drains and roof drains are optional for all three single family residence (sic)," given the SP-SM soil classification, underlain by very dense GM and SM "hardpan" at shallow depths. 5. There are questions regarding Section 4.6 Driveway on Page 15, and Section 4.6.1 Surface Course on Pages 16 and 17: • There are questions regarding the relationship between the 2:1 maximum cut slope shown and the 45-percent slope crossed by the driveway accessing Lot 170. The consultant states that there will be no structural fills beneath the driveway, indicating that the entire driveway crossing the property would either be full-bench or turnpike construction. This means that the cut slopes along the full-bench sections may be extensive,and could potentially be more of a threat to slope stability than construction on the proposed Lot 170 building site. Typical cross-sections along the driveway should be measured and analyzed for stability characteristics following excavation. • If the driveway location and the topography shown on the site plan are correct, the grade would range from 20 to 25 percent over much of the driveway route. We understand these grades would exceed the maximum grade allowed for emergency vehicle access. • We question the use of a 3-inch minus, open-graded aggregate gradation as a surfacing course for this driveway. Given the steep grades, the ability to access the site would be marginal at best. There would likely be rutting, and resultant erosion along the steep ruts. This is a location where construction of a paved surface course would appear warranted. • Capture and conveyance of runoff along the driveway would be essential if access is to be maintained. The report should provide recommendations on how runoff along and from the driveway will be managed, and how potential impacts to the stream and other downslope resources can be mitigated. These issues should be addressed prior to acceptance of this report and issuance of a variance and environmental permit. If you have any questions, please call. I can most easily be reached on my cell phone at 360-280-6180. 2 copies submitted KENNETH NEAL&ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 3314 Gibraltar Ct.SE,Olympia,Washington 98501-3%8 (360)352-5125 t oN-STATE MASON COUNTY �Py c 16� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 MO ° s"N Planning Division 7 N y Y P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION February 07, 2008 RICK BUECHEL PO BOX 249 UNION WA 98592 Parcel No.: 322353100160 Project Description: Construct a SFR occupying 1225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet within a type Np stream buffer. Dear Applicant: MEP z00% -00001 You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2008-00002) for proposed construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require uire additional information to complete the permit review process. Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County III within 180 pp days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on q the proposed development shall take place. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295 if you have questions. Sincerely, Tammi Wright Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 2/7/2008 Page 1 of 2 VAR2008-00002 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2/7/2008 Case No.: VAR2008-00002 Comments: Enclosed are the results of the review of the Geotechnical Report for Mr. Rick Buechel, South Shore Enterprises, LLC., for the proposed residence and driveway construction on parcels 32235-31-00160 and 32235-31-00170. There are several items Ken Neal, Ken Neal & Associates, has listed as needing to be addressed. Please send the required information to: Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 cc: Michael Staten, P.E., Envirotech Engineering 2/7/2008 Page 2 of 2 VAR2008-00002 MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mason County Sul lding.1 411 N. 6th St. P.O. Box 676 Shelton,WA 98684 (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8426 LAND.USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE: - -A Please publish the attached On the following day(s) Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to pick up from your office and send i copies to the following: �it)C 8(14t 'i Please send a bill for publication costs to: Thank you, Mason County Planning Staff I P6oN coP� MASON COUNTY � rp Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning _ Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises, Inc., who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93 is for the construction of a single-family residence occupying 1,225 square feet and a septic system occupying 900 square feet in a Type Np stream buffer (non-fish habitat with perennial water). Property location is 9030 East State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel #32235-31-00160. E 100' OF E 200' OF W 660' OF LOT 3 & TL. Date of complete application: January 23, 2008. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Tammi Wright of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance.