HomeMy WebLinkAboutLarge Lot Development to Short Plat - LRG Letters / Memos - 2/12/2002 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE
Olympia, WA 98513
To- Michael MacSems
From-. Jerry Vermillion
Date- February 12, 2002
Subject- Hood Canal Large Lot / Short Plat
The purpose of this letter is to:
1. Request an application change from Large Lot development to Short Plat
2. Request a meeting with you to discuss the complications of these issues, the new
regulations and becoming vested in my application that has gone on for such a long
time.
3. Additionally, if a 4 parcel short plat is acceptable it will include surveyed in building
envelopes with a complete topographical map showing 40% slopes for each parcel,
and location of drain fields.
At a future time if anyone wants to build outside the designated site, he would be
required to have a full geotech survey consistent with local ordinances. I will call you
for a meeting time.
cc-, Shawn Williams, Krazan & Assoc
o -3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1, 2001
TO: Michael Mac Sems
FROM: Pam Bennett-Cumming
RE. Preliminary site review for Vermillion Large Lot Subdivision
Michael, thank you for the opportunity to accompany you as you performed your
preliminary site review for the Vermillion Large Lot Subdivision (site visit October 30,
2001). Working together on a proposal such as this one is an example of how we can
combine our knowledge to assist the applicant, so they can further develop their proposal
to be consistent with applicable Mason County Regulations.
This clearly was an initial visit, and I recognize the applicant still has work to do to bring
this proposal to reviewable stage, but thus far I have the following comments based on
our site visit. The information below is mainly specific to wetlands, streams and slopes
issues on the site, as observed to date.
1. The majority of the site is sloping, with many areas exceeding 40% slopes. The
proposal will require a geotechnical report which meets the standards set forth in
Landslide Hazard Area Chapter 17.01.100. The report will need to address both the
proposed subdivision and the appropriate areas for development on each site,
providing information relating to the site both pre- during- and post- construction.
The Landslide Hazard Area chapter has specific provisions relating to the siting of
structures in relation to slopes. It is not clear without additional information, whether
the lots as originally submitted meet the provisions.
2. As proposed, some of he c locations no ear to e possible
p p e t access do t appear b poss b e based on the
slopes on site close to Highway 106. As located extensive engineering would be
P g Y � g g
necessary to demonstrate how the accesses, particularly on the eastern end, would
work. The level of proposed access grading on these steep would require a project-
specific geotechnical report, an engineered grading plan, a grading permit, and SEPA
review.
3. There appear to be several wetland seeps on the site, located in the draws of the
slopes. Wetlands will need to be delineated and typed using methodologies provided
in Chapter 17.01.070, and buffers and setbacks appropriately identified, and applied
accordingly.
4. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Biologist Jeff Davis has
informed planning staff that there is a Type IV stream on this site. We will need
verification from F&W as to how far upslope(and how) the stream is typed. Then
buffers and setbacks can be identified and applied to the project accordingly.
5. There appears to be an extensive existing network of recently graded roads on the
site. Grading of roads has occurred through the critical areas of the site. Such
activity requires prior review and approval of a Mason Environmental Permit, a
project specific geotechnical report by an engineer licensed in the state of
Washington, and consistency with Landslide Hazard Areas Chapter 17.01.100. It
appears that grading to date involves greater than 500 cubic yards, which requires
SEPA review.
6. It does not appear that it will be possible to determine if the number of lots proposed
is appropriate to the site until the critical areas are identified (see below).
7. Proposed lots within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Hood Canal wi 11
need to meet provisions of the Mason County.Shoreline Master Program.
Wetlands and streams (and setbacks) will need to be identified and delineated first, so
they can be shown on the current proposed subdivision map. From this that staff can
objectively determine the project's consistency with those applicable critical areas
regulations and make recommendations for any modifications accordingly. Information
on the apparent violation of the Landslide Hazard Areas chapter will be passed on to
Enforcement Planner Kristin French.
cc: Kristin French Enforcement Planner
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968
Jerry Vermillion
Montana Reach
10237 Kiwa Drive SE
Olympia, WA 98513
October 31, 2001
Letter of Incompleteness
Dear Mr. Vermillion,
This letter is to acknowledge that the Mason County Planning Department has received
the Large Lot Subdivision application known as Mountain Reach. This is formal notice
that the package has been determined to be incomplete for the following reasons:
1) The names and address of all property owners within 300 feet are required as part of a
complete LLS application (per Title 16, sec.16.38.015).
2) Closure tapes are required for all subdivisions, these were not provided for this
application. It is necessary to provide the County with exact acreage for each lot
proposed. As I understand it, this has not been provided on Lots 4 through 7, because
the surveyor was uncertain as to the northern limits of the property. Based on a
meeting with the Planning Manager the rules are as follows: State law allows lots that
are five acres or larger(or 1/128 of a section) to count up to the centerline of the road
for lot size computation purposes. If a lot lays on both sides of the road then the entire
road may be calculated. However tidelands are not considered "land" under Title 16,
so if a proposed lot has nothing that can be considered "land" on the water side of the
road, then you may only calculated lot size to the centerline of the road. Since the SR
106 right-of-way is 60 feet wide, it does not appear to me that you have any"land"
north of the highway. It is entirely possible that using this method you may end up
with less than 35 acres of"land" and therefore may have too reduce the number of
lots that you've proposed to six.
3) The inclusion of critical features such as the Type IV stream should be shown on the
map. The map will also require 20 foot contours for the entire parcel. A conforming
signature approval block should also be fitted on to the map.
Other items that are not necessarily items of incompleteness, but which will need to be
addressed at some point in the review include the following:
f
I am concerned with your third driveway proposal. In a letter dated 6/13/01, you correctly
stated that this access did not meet DOT standards but said that DOT had told you that an
access at this location was a possibility due to special circumstances. In talking with Mr.
Diemer of DOT, he informed me that no third access permit has been granted or even
applied for and that there was no guarantee that this non-conforming access would be
approved. I am also concerned that even at the proposed location, the access may be too
steep to be practical. I would also think that you would want to secure such an access,
and ensure that it is feasible from an engineering standpoint, prior to spending much
more time and money on this project. There is no way that this project can be approved,
as proposed without DOT approval.
I have recently re-read the Preliminary Soil & Slope Survey done by Krazan &
Associates. In comparing the contents of the document to the geo-technical report
requirements spelled out in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, sec 17.01.100.5, this
report does not qualify as a geo-technical report. A geo-technical report will be an
eventual requirement of SEPA. I've enclosed those requirements for your perusal.
As you know, a recent inspection of a portion of your property (due to a shoreline permit)
indicated that a Type IV stream exist on the property. I am currently exploring how this
affects your proposal and what options you may have.
During an initial visit to your site on October 25"" I noticed a number of recent cat roads
running up some of the steeper portions of your site. This activity appears to be a
violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, sec 17.01.100. Planning Department
staff is looking into this further to see what, if anything, should be done about it.
Your SEPA environmental checklist appears to be in order, but a SEPA determination
can not be made until this application is deemed complete.
Recording fees were not submitted, but this amount can vary, so I don't consider it part of
your incompleteness.
When the above item(s) has been submitted I can issue a Letter of Completeness, which
will start a 120-day clock as, specified under Mason County Title 15 (15.09.100).
The review clock does not start until the application is deemed complete.
If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 571.
Sincerely.
W At��_
�i
Michael MacSems
Subdivision Planner
cc: Kevin Bluhm, File
qualified by Mason County. The Geotechnical Report shall be prepared at the discretion of the
Director by a licensed civil engineer with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological
engineering. The Geotechnical Report may also be prepared by a practicing engineering geologist
with special knowledge of the local conditions, provided the work is performed under the
supervision of a licensed civil engineer who will stamp the report and attest to the competency of
the engineering geologist to perform landslide evaluations in accordance with the prevailing
standard of practice.
4. Content of the Geological Assessment u b1'oe,�l G S I V e IPI t'Y1
A Geological Assessment shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the project, and specific soil
types at the project site. Soil type identifications shall be consistent with terminology
used in the Coastal Zone Atlas (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1980) or
in applicable U.S. Geologic Survey maps (e.g. Geological Map of North Central Mason
County, by R.J. Carson, 1976, U.S. Geologic Survey OFR 76-2). Use of Soil Conservation
Service soil layer terminology is considered inappropriate for this assessment.
(2) A discussion of the ground water conditions at the site, including the depth to water and
the quantity of surface seepage.
(3) The approximate depth to hard or dense competent soil, e.g. glacial till or outwash sand.
(4) A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the Coastal
Zone Atlas, the map of "Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area,
Washington" by M. Smith and R.J. Carson, 1977; and the landslide records on file with
the Mason County Department of Community Development.
(5) An opinion on the potential for landslide activity at the site in light of the proposed
development.
5. Content of a Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) A discussion of general geologic conditions, specific soil types, ground water conditions
and history of landslide activity in the vicinity as required for the Geologic Assessment
described above.
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
(4) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface
profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
(5) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic
loading conditions.
(6) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, septic drain fields and
compacted fills and footings, including recommended setbacks from shoreline bluffs and
the tops of other slopes on the property.
(7) A detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed,
a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal.
(8) A detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures
to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and
harmful construction methods.
(9) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
(10) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage,
erosion control, and buffer widths.
6. Applicable Standards
Geological Assessments and Geotechnical Reports shall be prepared using terminology,
descriptions, evaluation methods and mitigation approaches that reflect the current standard of
care for practitioners in the field of geologic hazards. The standard of care shall be considered to
be represented by , but not limited to, Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. (1996; "Landslides,
Investigation and Mitigation", Transportation Research Board Special Report 247, National
Mason County Resource Ordinance Revised 8129100
48