HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2004-00216 and SHR2004-00032 Post Office Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 2/1/2005 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
February 1, 2005
Notice of Decision
Case: SHR2004-00032
Applicant: John & Bernadine Straatman
Notice is hereby given that John & Bernadine Straatman, who are the
applicants for the above-referenced Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit/Shoreline Variance, have been granted the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit/Shoreline Variance. The request was approved
1
pursuant to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, specifically for
commercial development on the Hood Canal shoreline and the parcel of
land to be developed not meeting the minimum of 100 feet from Ordinary
High Water Mark. A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was
issued on November 28, 2000.
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 Clark, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-
9670 x295.
MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mason County Building l 411 N. 5th St.
P.O. Box 578 Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8425
LAND USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING
TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
DATE: I / — 5 - ( �
Please publish the attached
,
On the following day(s)
lot,
Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to
pick up from your office and send copies to the following:
JOhr1 Sf1C" t �)ytCe ,,.
Li � lI ,u_ W14
Please send a bill for publication costs to:
� rrie Asa v e
Thank you,
Mason County Planning Staff
i
SHORELINE CHECKLIST
Application received and logged: f l S -OLq
Legal notice delivered to Journal:
Legal notice posted and mailed:
Photos taken:
Environmental Checklist required: Circulated: ��O
Hearing dates set:
SHORELINE- N�
COUNT*=G Ai��� &/4
Packets-•m /\//4
Transmittals written: 3 f yl0S
Packets delivered to C Nn
Local decisien: /feX D��ican
PO h U ef
NOTES:
EdMASON 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
February 1, 2005
Notice of Decision
Case: DDR2004-00216
Applicant: John & Bernadine Straatman
Notice is hereby given that John & Bernadine Straatman, who are the
applicants for the above-referenced Special Use Permit, have been granted
the Special Use Permit. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason
County Development Regulations Ordinance No. 82-96, specifically for the
construction of an essential public facility any development area (1.03.028).
A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on
November 28, 2000.
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 Clark, Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x295.
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning 360 Elma
Mason County Bldg. 1411 N. 5th ( ) 482-5269
P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
February 1, 2005
John & Bernadine Straatman
PO Box 68
Lilliwaup WA 98555
Dear John & Bernadine Straatman:
Enclosed are the Notice of Decision and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Final Decision from the Hearings Examiner regarding the Special Use
Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and the Shoreline Variance
for the proposed Lilliwaup Post Office. The Hearings Examiner approved all three
permit applications.
There is a twenty-one day appeal period at the County level. After that period of
time has elapsed, if there are no appeals filed, the case will be sent to the
Department of Ecology for review. Per WAC 173-27-190 "Each permit for a
substantial development, conditional use or variance, issued by local government
shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin
and is not authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing..." The
Department of Ecology has thirty days to make a decision.
If you have any questions, please call.
Since ly,
Tammi Clark
Land Use Planner
Mason County DCD
(360) 427-9670 ext. 295
cc: Len Williams, Foster & Williams Architects
1843138
IIII II 0Pa I 7!2112006 09 48A
I III I f
JOHN STRAATMAN EPSMT 23 OC Mason Co, UA
etu Address:
Inderdng information required by the Washington State Auditoes/Recorder s Office,(RCW 30.18 and RCW 65.64)1/97: (please print lut name first)
Reference tl(If applicable): __ L
Grantor(.):(1)��rknAR T,-' ,t 1 ?(2)� C1�1' a. �Q� f�C �1t,Addl'.on pit
Grantse(s):(1kST A#T_Add I1� J n (2)SAA Q QJtVVTA YN -)0;f\ '11 -k— Addl'.on pg
Legal Description(abbreviated): t 1 Alj� h C `r s OL LEI—Addl'.legal is on pg_
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account 8 3233 0 S 1 ?Q
For a valuable consideration,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,the Grantor(s), A o_n p PE
hereby grant_and convey_to the Grantee(s),. '
F2�A3R itNF ,-Tger^ ,,rµ _h_successors and assi8ns,the right,privilege and authority
to construct,improve,repair and maintain SR 1C--, U& ik) F (L. _
across,over and upon feet to the following land,located in
County, State of WASH I to-wit:
The Grantors)shall ake no use of the land occupied by saidKD11
�:�g AT �A-A� except for 115
In xe ising the rights herein ranted, the Grantee(s), _h successors and assigns, may pass and repass over
said ) L-O 1 \ and may cut and remove brush,trees and other
obstructions which intheopinion oftheGrantes(s)interfere(s)with Ar�IJ F i r L Q
Easement
CWashington Legal Blank,Inc.,Issaquah,WA Form No.1 10/66
MATERIAL MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED tN WHOLE OR IN PART IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER.
r
1843138
Paps� 2 of 2 07 t 2 L/2005 09:480
JOHN STRAATMAN ! EASM7 20 00 Mason Co, WA
The covenants herein contained shall run with the land and are binding upon all subsequent owners thereof.
In Witness Whereof,the said Grantors executed this instrument this_± day of cL ,' '
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS. (INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
County )+-of - _
kt, A-4 .L ILSCn sLQ..Lti n,c
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that pis the person
who appeared before me,and said person acknowledged that�t signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be
"' _v free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentilyhed in the instrument.
r
Dated this day of
o
Print Name
�PES�•''•, r `�
Notary Public in and for the State of 7,04
•r
W.4 Q .�
: *J • Q My appointment expires: ? ��i
, 1Nnpp N
Osd W
Ora
r
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CHECKLIST
Application received and logged: /- y`-/
Legal notice delivered to Journal: K-0 4
Legal notice posted and mailed: /1—F(-O y
Shelton UGA notice: "A
SEPA: II �,e-L� Circulated on: Il I Gov
Other permits or variances: j ( � m
Hearing date:
Packets to HEX: I - 3 -0 S
Decision:
Notice of Final Decision sent: -7 ) i7 S'
Appeal to BOCC:
Notes:
IAPLANNING\Checklists&templates\SUP CHECKLIST.doc.ram
MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mason County Building l 411 N. 5th St.
P.O. Box 578 Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8425
LAND USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING
TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
DATE: I )- `> - c
Please publish the attached
A)Ohu of c 4tai,w
On the following day(s)
11 ,1 �,o q
Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to
pick up from your office and send �_copies to the following:
�J 1
fox g
III
Please send a bill for publication costs to:
c�211'V��t Ct S uG
Thank you,
Mason County Planning Staff
Affidavit of Publication
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS.
USE PERMIT AND COUNTY OF MASON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that John Straat-
man has filed an application for a Special
Use Permit number DDR2004-00216 for the Julie G. Orme being first duly swom
construction of a new Post Office in Rural
Residential 5 zoning.This permit is required on oath deposes and says that she is the c lerk
because of the requirements of the Mason of THE COUNTY JOURNAL,aweekl newspaper.Thatsaidnews-
County Development Regulations, Section y
1.03.028,which states that"Essential Public paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
Facilities shall require a Special Use Permit date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
in any development area." ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
Site Address and Project Location: Just and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
south of Lllllwaup Store/Motel on High- publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
way 101. was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
Parcel Numbers: 32330-51-56013, of said Mason County.
32330-51-26013, 32330-51-26001, 32330-
51-26002, 32330-51-26004. Lots will be combined Into a single parcel prior to That the annexed is a ttve copy of a N o f i P of Appl _ Fn r
permitting. Special Use Permit and Public Hearinq
Date of Application:November 5,2004
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the John Straatman
Mason County Hearings Examiner regarding
the proposed project on January 11, 2005 as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
at 1:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's Cham-
bers Building I, 411 North Fifth Street, Shel- newspaper once each week for a period of o nP
ton, WA. If special accommodations are consecutive weeks,commencing on the
needed, contact the Commissioner's Office,
(360)427-9670. 18 th day of November , 0 4 ,and ending on the
Any person desiring to express their y 2p g
views or to be notified of the action taken on
the application should come to the public 18 th day of November ,20 0 4 ,both dates inclusive,
hearing on January 11, 2005 or mail com- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
ments to Bob Fink, Planning Manager, Ma- period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
son County Dept. of Community Develop-
ment, PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584. foregoing publication is the sum of$ 41- 2 5
A SEPA Determination of Nonsignifi-
cance was issued on 11128/2000.
Please contact Tammi Clark of the Ma-
son County Dept. of Community Develop-
ment at (360) 427-9670 ext. 295, or at the Subscribed and swom to before me this 1 8 t-h `` 'day of
address listed above, with questions regard —
ing this permit application. 11/18 1t November ,2 04 10 tk ETTE �������
Notary Public in an or the State of WE on N 1'
Residing at Shelton,,I Waasshington
My commission expires
10!% of
y7
FEE 0 L0051N]
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUN WCCD - FNN
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: John and Bernadine Straatman FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit/Variance Permit
6 &
Special Use Permit
7
8 INTRODUCTION
9 The applicant has applied for three permits to construct a new post office building.
10 The post office will be placed in a rural residential zoning district, which requires a
Special Use Permit. The post office will also be built less than 100 feet from the
11 ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal, necessitating a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and a Shoreline Variance. The Examiner grants all three permit
12 applications subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
13 ORAL TESTIMONY
14
See transcript.
15
EXHIBITS
16
17 Exhibit 1: December 29, 2004 staff report
18 Exhibit 2: October 25, 2004 application for special use dated October 25,
2004
19
Exhibit 3: Notice of application
20
Exhibit 4: Five photographs
21
Exhibit 5: Shoreline Permit Application dated October 25, 2004
22
23 Exhibit 6: Notice of Shoreline Management Permit
24 Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Posting Notice dated November 5, 2004
25 Exhibit 8: October 18, 2000 geotechnical report
Exhibit 9: Soils investigation report dated August 2, 2000
Straatman P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Exhibit 10: October 24, 2000 memo from Allen A. Tahja, plus attached report
1
Exhibit 11: November 28, 2000 Determination of Non-Significance plus
2 attached environmental checklist
3 Exhibit 12: December 13, 2000 comment letter from Department of Ecology
4
Exhibit 13: January 29, 2001 comment letter from Department of
5 Transportation
6 Exhibit 14: October 5, 2000 Archaeological Survey
7 Exhibit 15: June 10, 2004 Solicitation for Proposals
8 Exhibit 16: Mason County Resolution 79-00
9 Exhibit 17: December 29, 2004 letter from Wesley Johnson
10 Exhibit 18: December 30,2004 letter from Vance Bennett
11
12 FINDINGS OF FACT
13 Procedural:
14 1. Applicant. The applicant is John and Bernadine Straatman.
15 2 Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the applications
16 subject to this Decision on January 11, 2005 at the Mason County Board of
Commissioners meeting chambers
17
Substantive:
18
19 3. Site/Proposal Description. The proposed site is comprised of five parcels
that will be combined into one parcel prior to permitting. The development site is
20 approximately 35,600 square feet. The project site is a former gravel borrow area and
is now vacant. There is an existing well that will be reused. There is also an existing
21 small building that will be removed and a septic tank that will be abandoned.
Highway 101 and Hood Canal run along approximately the eastern parcel line.
22 Lilliwaup Motel/Store is north of the site. The western side of the parcel contains
23 steep slopes. The site is overgrown with small trees, scotch broom and grasses.
There is a cut slope to the southwest from previous gravel borrow operations. There
24 is forest line of vegetation, predominantly Douglas fir, growing on the slope.
25 The project involves the construction of a 1,480 square foot building to
serve as the new Lilliwaup main post office; replacing the existing post office nearby.
Straatman p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
About 10,000 square feet of driveway and parking area will also be developed. All
I storm water will be collected into a bioswale onsite, for total onsite
2 retention/infiltration. The proposed post office will be across the street from SR 101
from Hood Canal but will be within 100 feet of Hood Canal.
3
4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is located in the town of Lilliwaup
4 along the shoreline of Hood Canal. Highway 101 runs north/south along the Canal
and land to the west of the road contains steep slopes. The slopes are heavily
5 vegetated with Douglas fir trees. Land use upland of the proposed site is residential.
6 The old post office is located at the northern portion of the parcel, which is south of
the Lilliwaup Motel/Store.
7
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. None. The project will be a benefit to
8 the public by providing more space for postal services. The post office solicited bids
for real property throughout the service area for a new post office site. The proposed
9 location was the only bid submitted to the postal service.
10
11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12 Procedural:
13
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner
14 with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon all permit applications
submitted.
15
16 Substantive:
17 2. ZoninDesignation. The five parcels are zoned either Rural Residential 5
or Rural Commercial 2. The five parcels will be consolidated into one lot. MMC
18 1.02.062(F) provides that where a zoning district line divides a lot of single
19 ownership, the less restrictive development regulations shall apply as long as the lot
has free frontage in the less restrictive development area. In this case, consequently,
20 the zoning designation will be Rural Residential 5, since that is the least restrictive
designation and part of the site has street frontage within the Rural Residential 5
21 zoning district.
22 SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
23 3. Review Criteria and Application. The review criteria for a Special Use
24 Application are governed by MCC 1.05.044, which are laid out below with applicable
Conclusions of Law. The need for the Special Use Permit is triggered by MCC
25 1.04.222(C), which requires a special use permit for essential public facilities. Mason
County staff consider the post office to be an essential public facility.
Straatman p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
MCC 1.05.044(A): The proposed use will not be detrimental to public health, safety
1 and welfare.
2 4. The proposed project will have no detrimental effect to the public health,
3 safety and welfare. The addition of the post office will provide improved access to
postal services for a residence, will improve the safety of that access. Current postal
4 services are provided out of an older store facility that is inadequate. For the old post
office, there is poor accessibility for the handicapped and vehicular access is unsafe
5 due to dangerous parking approaches from the highway. In the SEPA analysis for the
6 project and a staff report, staff identifies no adverse environmental impacts by
construction of the facility near the Hood Canal shoreline and none is ascertainable
7 from the evidence in the record. SR101 does separate the building site from Hood
Canal. For these reasons, there is no discernible reason why the proposed use would
8 be construed as detrimental to public health, safety and welfare.
9 MCC 1.05.044(B): The proposed use is consistent and compatible with the intent of
10 the Comprehensive Plan.
11 5. Staff have determined that the proposed project is consistent with the
compatible Comprehensive Plan. The proposed post office is consistent with Rural
12 Residential use, including adjoining uses, especially those along SR 105. Given that
the proposed project is both rural in nature and compatible with surrounding uses, the
13 purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied.
14
MCC 1.05.044(C): The proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at the
15 site that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent
properties and the community at large.
16
17 6. No hazardous conditions would be expected as a result of the proposal.
18 MCC 1.05.044 (D): The proposed use is served by adequate public facilities which
were in place, or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the
19 County's Capital Facilities Plan.
20 7. Access to the proposed site is currently served by State Highway 101.
21 Water service will be provided by an existing well, serving other portions of the
Lilliwaup commercial area. Sewage will be handled by an existing septic system just
22 outside. Stormwater treatment and disposal will be done on site and has already been
engineered. All necessary public facilities are currently in place to serve this project.
23
MCC 1.05.044 (E): The proposed use won't have a significant impact upon existing
24 uses on adjacent lands.
25 8. The most significant impact the proposal will have upon existing uses on
adjacent lands is the improvement of unsafe and other adverse conditions which are
Straatman p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
currently caused by the provision of postal services in the existing inadequate store
1 facilities nearby. No other impacts are anticipated.
2 MCC 1.05.044 (F): The proposed use will not result in a need to extend urban
3 services.
4 9. As previously discussed, the proposed project will be served by all
necessary urban services and there will be no need to extend urban services to serve
5 the project..
6 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
7
MCC 15.09.055(A) requires a substantial development permit for any
8 substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. MCC 15.09.055(F)
requires that permit for substantial development permits be subject to review by the
9 Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(F)(2)(c) provides that the Examiner shall base a
10 decision on a substantial development permit application on the Shoreline Master
Program for Mason County and the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW,
11 the Shoreline Management Act. MCC 7.08 defines a substantial development as any
development of which total cost for market value exceeds $5,000 or any development
12 which material interferes with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the
state. As testified by staff and as is inherently obvious from the nature of the project,
13 the improvements proposed by the applicant exceed $5,000 and, therefore, require a
14 shoreline substantial development permit. The Mason County Shoreline Master
Program is codified as Title 7 to the Mason County Code.
15
The applicable shoreline policies and regulations, as well as state shoreline
16 policies, are listed below with accompanying analyses:
17 MCC 7.16.040(1)(Policy): Commercial development on shorelines should be
18 encouraged to provide physical and visual access to the shoreline, and other
opportunities for the public to enjoy the shoreline.
19
10. Patrons of the proposed post office will have an unobstructed view (with
20 the exception of some trees) of the Hood Canal shoreline across SR101. The post
21 office itself will apparently not block any views to the shoreline given that the steep
slopes to the west apparently exceed the height of the proposed building.
22
MCC 7.16.040(2)(Policy): Multiple use concepts which include open space and
23 recreation should be encouraged in commercial developments.
24 11. The proposed post office apparently does not have any open space or
25 recreational amenities. Given that the post office is separated from the shoreline by
SR101, requiring any such amenities would not be appropriate, nor could Mason
Straatman p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
County constitutionally require such amenities, since the amenities would not be
1 necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts created by the post office.
2 MCC 7.16.040(3)(Policy): Commercial development should be aesthetically
3 compatible with the surrounding area. Structures should not significantly impact
views from upland properties,public roadways or from the water.
4
12. The proposal is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding areas.
5 There is a motel/store immediately adjacent to the proposal. The proposal is upland
6 of the shoreline and highway, setback against a steep slope. Upland properties are all
above the proposed project.
7
MCC 7.16.040(4)(Policy): The location of commercial developments along
8 shorelines should insure the protection of natural areas or system identified as having
9 geological, ecological, biological or cultural significance.
10 13. The location is upland of the shoreline and highway and there are no
indications of any adverse impacts on natural areas or systems. Approved septic and
11 stormwater retention will be required prior to final approval. An archaeological
survey (Exhibit 14) was done for the site in October 2000. No significant cultural
12 materials were identified.
13 MCC 7.16.040(5)(Policy): Commercial development should be encouraged to be
14 located inland from the shoreline area unless they are dependent on a shoreline
location. Commercial development should be discouraged over-water or in marshes,
15 bogs, swamps and flood plains.
16 14. The proposal is located inland on the upland side of the highway. There is
17 no development proposed over-water, or in marshes, bogs, swamps and flood plains.
18 MCC 7.16.040(6)(Policy): New commercial development in shorelines should be
encouraged to locate in those areas with existing commercial development that will
19 minimize sprawl and the inefficient use of shoreline areas.
20 15. The proposal is located adjacent to the Lilliwaup Motel/Store and in the
21 same area as the old abandoned post office.
22 MCC 7.16.040(7)(Policy): Parking facilities should be placed inland, away from
immediate waters edge and recreational beaches.
23
16. The parking facilities are outside the shoreline jurisdiction.
24
25 MCC 7.16.040(8)(Policy): Commercial development should be designed and
located to minimize impacts of noise and/or light generated by the development upon
Straatman p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
adjacent properties. Commercial developments which generate significant noise
1 impacts should be discouraged.
2 17. The proposal is a post office and no noise impacts are anticipated from
3 this project. Parking lot lighting will consist of pole mounted cutoff type luminaries.
These are designed to minimize glare and focus light in the parking areas without
4 light spillage off site. There will also be limited exterior building mounted lighting
for the entry and loading area. Every attempt will be made to minimize glare and
5 place fixtures to eliminate offsite impact.
6 MCC 7.16.040(1)(Use Regulation): The County shall utilize the following
7 information in its review of commercial development proposals:
8 • Nature of activity;
• Need for shore frontage;
9 • Special considerations for enhancing the relationship of the activity to the
10 shoreline;
• Provisions for public visual or physical access to the shoreline;
11 . Provisions to insure that development will not cause severe adverse
environmental impact;
12 • Provisions to mitigate any significant noise impacts; and
13 ' Provisions to mitigate light or glare impacts.
14 18. The proposal is a post office, and essential public facility. The proposal
does not require shore frontage, nor does the property have shoreline frontage. The
15 proposal does not require physical access to the shoreline, nor will the location
16 interfere with the visual access due to the location being upland of the shoreline and
roadway. Post office patrons will have visual access of the shoreline. The proposal
17 will not cause any severe adverse environmental impacts. The applicant will still
have to acquire the Mason County Environmental Permits, which will require a
18 Habitat Management Plan to be prepared. Stormwater and septic plans have already
been reviewed and approved by Public Works and Environmental Health. An
19 existing drain fill will be used. No noise impacts are expected. Parking lot lighting
20 will be controlled by pole mounted cutoff type luminaries that focus light in the
parking areas without light spillage off site.
21
MCC 7.16.040(2)(Use Regulation): Commercial development may be permitted on
22 the shoreline in the following descending order of priority: water dependent, water
related and water oriented. Non-water related, non-water depending and non-water
23 oriented developments in an urban and rural environment may be permitted by
24 substantial development permit when: the parcel of land to be developed is a
minimum of 100 feet from OHWM, and is located on the up-line side of a public
25 roadway, railroad right-of-way or government controlled property.
Straatman p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
19. The proposal does not meet this use regulation and requires a shoreline
1 variance in order to locate closer than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark
2 (OHWM)of Hood Canal.
3 MCC 7.16.040(3)(Use Regulation): Parking and loading areas shall be located
well away from the immediate waters' edge and beaches, unless there is no other
4 practical location for parking. Perimeters of parking areas shall be landscaped to
minimize visual impacts of the shorelines, roadways and adjacent properties subject
5 to approval by Public Works and/or Department of Transportation. Permit
6 applications shall identify the size, general type and location of landscaping. Design
of parking loading areas shall insure that surface run-off does not pollute adjacent
7 waters or cause soil or beach erosion. Design shall provide for storm water
retention. Parking plans shall be reviewed by Mason County Department of Public
8 Works for compliance with applicable County Ordinances. Creation of parking areas
9 by landfilling beyond the OHW mark or in biological wetlands is prohibited.
10 20. The parking area is located upland of the shoreline and roadway.
Landscaping has been identified on the site plan. The landscaping will incorporate a
11 few deciduous "street trees" along with shrubs that are native and require minimal
maintenance. There will be grasses in the stormwater swale as well. A stormwater
12 site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department,
conditioned on the recording of an operation and maintenance covenant. There will
13 be no land filling beyond the OHWM or in biological wetlands.
14
MCC 7.16.040(4)(Use Regulation): Those portions of a commercial development
15 which are not water dependent are prohibited over the water.
16 21. No art of the project is proposed over water.
P P J P P
17 MCC 7.16.040(5)(Use Regulation): Water supply and waste facilities shall comply
18 with the strictest established guidelines, standards and regulations.
19 22• Septic system shall be subject to approval of Mason County
Environmental Health. The project is also served by an existing well, that will be
20 reviewed by Mason County staff to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
21 MCC 7.16.040(6)(Use Regulation): New commercial developments shall be located
22 adjacent to existing commercial developments whenever possible.
23 23. The proposal is located adjacent to the Lilliwaup Motel/Store.
24 MCC 7.16.040(7)(Use Regulation): New or expanded structures shall not extend
25 more than 35 feet in height above average grade level.
24. The project will be conditioned not to exceed 35 feet in height.
Straatman p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
1 MCC 7.16.040(8)(Use Regulation): Commercial developments adjacent to aqua-
2 culture operations shall practice strict pollution control procedures.
3 25. No aqua-culture operations are identified near the site.
4 MCC 7.16.040(9)(Use Regulation): Commercial development shall be located and
5 designed to minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties.
6 26. As previously discussed, the project has no noise impacts.
7 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local
interests.
8
27. The proposed post office has no discernible adverse impacts on the Hood
9 Canal Shoreline, located across SR101. Further, given that there were no other
10 feasible locations for a new post office, the state-wide interest over providing an
accessible and efficient postal service is served over any competing local interests.
11
RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
12
28. The post office, since it is upland of SR101, will have no impact on the
13 natural character of the shoreline.
14
RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
15
29. The project has no discernible adverse impacts and will provide a little bit
16 more efficient and safer postal services to the surrounding community, thus resulting
17 in long-term over short-term benefit.
18 RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
19 30. As previously discussed, the natural features and ecology of the shoreline
are not adversely impacted by the project.
20
21 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline.
22 31. The proposed postal office has no relation to public access. SR101
already serves as a barrier to public access and the post office cannot be
23 constitutionally required to overcome this barrier.
24 RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public from the
25 shoreline.
Straatman P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
32. Mason County cannot constitutionally condition the proposed project on
1 increasing recreational opportunities for the public. The project will not decrease
2 recreational opportunities for the public.
3 SHORELINE VARIANCE:
4 MCC 7.16.040(2)(Use Regulation) provides that the parcel of land to be developed
for commercial purposes in a shoreline area shall be a minimum of 100 feet from the
5 OHWM. The subject parcel is less than 100 feet from the OHWM, therefore
6 requiring a shoreline variance. Shoreline variances are governed by MCC 7.28.020
as follows:
7
MCC 7.28.020(1): That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or
8 performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly
interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the
9 Master Program;
10 33. Because the property is located on the upland side of the state highway
11 and is not a shoreline lot, it is not really suitable for water dependent or water related
use. Due to its limited size and proximity to the adjacent commercial development, it
12 is not suitable for agriculture, aquaculture mining, mining or forest related uses.
Given the small parcel size and the fact that approximately 50% of the site is
13 encumbered by steep slopes, it is unlikely that the site would be economically viable
14 as a recreational use.
15 The only buildable area for residential use is very close to Highway 101. Most
residences in this area that are close to the highway are on the water side, affording
16 privacy on the water side and having fences, landscaping, or other barriers to the
traffic impacts on the road side. Homes located on the upland side of the road are
17 generally located farther back up the hill to mitigate the impact of traffic noise, while
18 maintaining a view of the water. Due to the severe topography of the site, this would
be very difficult to accomplish.
19
Since the land used directly to the north of the proposed site is commercial, and the
20 shoreline designation is Urban Commercial, this property is better suited for
21 commercial development than residential. Current residential use is located away
from the proposed site at the top of the steep slope.
22
When the United States Postal Service solicited bids for the new post office to
23 preferred area was bounded by a half mile north of the current facility, a half mile
south of the current facility, 200 feet off Highway 101 East, and 200 feet off Highway
24 101 West. The only proposal the U.S. Postal Service received was for the subject
25 property. The service area is a small area that is limited by Hood Canal shoreline,
Highway 101, and steep slopes, so there were not many available areas to place the
new post office.
Straatman P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
1 Given that the dimensional standards of the master program, specifically the hundred
2 foot commercial development limitation, essentially precludes any reasonable use of
the property, the above variance criterion is satisfied.
3
MCC 7.28.020(2): That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of a
4 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 in the
5 application of the Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or
6 the applicant's own actions;
7 34. As noted in the proceeding Conclusion of Law, the small size of the
property and its proximity to SR101 are the reasons why the variance is necessary.
8
MCC 7.28.020(3): That the design of the project will be compatible with other
9 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
10 properties or the shoreline environment;
11 35. As discussed on several prior occasions, the project will be located next to
other commercial uses and will not create any adverse impacts upon adjacent
12 properties.
13 MCC 7.28.030(4): That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of
14 special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the
minimum necessary to afford relief;
15
36. Commercial use is an allowed use per the Shoreline Master Program. The
16 adjacent Lilliwaup Motel/Store is a commercial business that has the same set of
circumstances, i.e., the parcel of land the store is on is less than 100 feet from the
17 OHWM of Hood Canal and it is located on the upland side of a public roadway.
18
MCC 7.28.050(5): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
19 effect.
20 37. As identified several times previously, there are no discernible adverse
21 impacts created by this project. The net impacts are probably positive due to safer
and more accessible postal services to the public.
22
MCC 7.28.020(6): The public rights of navigation and use of this shoreline will not
23 be adversely affected by the granting of a variance.
24 38. The proposed post office will have no bearing whatsoever on public
25 navigation.
Straatman P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
•t �
39. Cumulative Impacts. Since the post office has no discernible adverse
I impacts on the shoreline, even at a cumulative level, no adverse impacts are
2 anticipated. Since the post office will be across the street from Hood Canal and its
septic and water systems will comply with local regulations, no cumulative adverse
3 impacts are anticipated.
4 DECISION
5 The Examiner approves the Special Use Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development
6 Permit and Shoreline Variance subject to the following conditions.
7 1. Parking lot lighting will consist of pole mounted cutoff type luminaries. These
lights will be designed and installed to minimize glare and focus light on the parking
8 areas without light spillage off-site. Limited exterior building-mounted lighting will
also be allowed for the entry and loading areas. Every attempt will be made to
9 minimize glare and place fixtures to eliminate off-site impacts.
10 2 The septic system design shall comply with all applicable (as vested) Mason
11 County Environmental Health regulations in addition to any other applicable law.
12 3. Landscaping shall be installed as depicted in the October 21, 2004 site plan
13 proposed for the project.
14 4. An operation and maintenance covenant shall be recorded as identified in Exhibit
10.
15
5. The building shall not exceed 35 feet in height above grade.
16
17 Dated this 25`h nuary, 2005
18
19
Phil Olbrechts
20 Mason County Hearing Examiner
21
22
23
24
25
Straatman p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591705.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
December 29, 2004
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Tammi Clark
RE: Special Use Permit (DDR2004-00216) for a Post Office (Essential Public Facility)
in Rural Residential 5 and Rural Commercial 2 (RC2) Zoning and Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit/Variance (SHR2004-00025) due to value of $300,000 and the
parcel being less than 100 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark on the upland side of a
public roadway.
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal for the construction of a Post
Office (Essential Public Facility) in Rural Residential 5 zoning which requires a
Special Use Permit. This report also evaluates the placement of the Essential
Public Facility valued at $300,000 and less than 100 feet from Ordinary High
Water Mark on the upland side of a public roadway, which requires a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and a Shoreline Variance. The applicant has
requested a consolidated review. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use
Permit, the Substantial Development Permit and the Shoreline Variance.
II. Applicant. John & Bernadine Straatman.
III. Property Location. The property is located on the upland side of Highway 101
within 200 feet of Hood Canal just south of the Lilliwaup Store/Motel. Parcel
numbers 323305126001, 323305126002, 323305126004, 323305126013, and
323305156013. These parcels will be combined into a single parcel prior to
permitting.
IV. Project Description. The proposal is to construct a 1,480 square foot building
to serve as the new Lilliwaup Main Post Office; replacing the existing Post Office
nearby. About 10,000 square feet of driveway and parking area will also be
developed. All stormwater will be collected into a bioswale onsite, for total onsite
retention/infiltration. See site plan (Attachment B of the Special Use Permit
Application).
Y ktbLk
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The proposed site is comprised of 5 parcels that
will be combined into 1 parcel prior to permitting. Parcel numbers 32330-51-
26013, 32330-51-26004 and 32330-51-26002 are zoned Rural Commercial 2
(RC2) and the other lots are zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR5). Mason County
Development Regulations 1.02.062 (F) states "Where a boundary line divides
a lot of single ownership, the less restrictive development requirements shall
apply; provided, however, that the lot has street frontage in the less restrictive
Development Area." In this case the development regulations will be those of
RR5 zoning, which is the less restrictive. The site is approximately 35,600
square feet (.82 acres). The project site is a former gravel borrow area and is
now vacant. There is an existing well that will be reused. There is also an
existing small building that will be removed and a septic tank that will be
abandoned. Highway 101 and Hood Canal run along approximately the
eastern parcel line. Lilliwaup Motel/Store is north of the site. The western side
of the parcel contains steep slopes. The site is overgrown with small trees,
Scotch Broom and grasses. There is a cut slope to the southwest from
previous gravel borrow operations. There is forestland vegetation,
predominately Douglas Fir, growing on the slope. Photographs of the site are
marked Exhibit 4.
B. Characteristics of the area. The site is located in the town of Lilliwaup along
the Shoreline of Hood Canal. Highway 101 runs north/south along the canal
and the land to the west of the road contain steep slopes. The slopes are
heavily vegetated with Douglas Fir trees. Land use upslope of the proposed
site is residential. The old Post Office is located at the northern portion of the
parcel, just south of the Lilliwaup Motel/Store.
C. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation is urban commercial.
D. Comprehensive Plan Designation / Zoning. The Mason County
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural Residential 5 and Rural
Commercial 2.
VI. SEPA Compliance. This is a reactivation of a prior Substantial Development
Permit/Variance application made in 2000. A Determination of Nonsignificance
(SEP2000-00138) was issued on 11/28/00 (Exhibit 11). Comments were
received by Department of Ecology and Washington Department of
Transportation (Exhibits 12 & 13).
VII. Other Permits/Approvals. The proposal will require Mason County Building
Permit for Post Office construction, a Mason Environmental Permit for utilities
and roadways in FWHCA buffers, a Habitat Management Plan, and a Geological
Assessment (Exhibit 8). A Soils Investigation Report was done and is attached
2
as Exhibit 9. A Notice of Application and Public Hearing for the Special Use
Permit (Exhibit 3) was posted in the Mason County Journal on November 18,
2004. A Notice of Application and Public Hearing for the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit/Variance was published in the Mason County Journal on
November 12 and 18, 2004 (Exhibit 6). Legal notice was posted and mailed for
both applications on November 8, 2004. Affidavit of Posting Notice is attached as
Exhibit 7. A letter was received from Wes Johnson, Commissioner, District No. 2,
in support of the Lilliwaup Post Office (Exhibit 17). A letter was received from
Vance Bennett, Real Estate Contracting Officer, United States Postal Service,
discussing the inadequacy of the former post office, the temporary operation from
the Lilliwaup Store, and the need for a new facility (Exhibit 18). The project will
require review under a Mason Environmental Permit for the construction of the
bioswale and roads within the shoreline buffer. A Habitat Management Plan will
be required for the road construction. An approved geotechnical report will be
required prior to final building permit approval.
Vill. Analysis of Special Use Permit. This proposal requires a Special Use Permit
due to the requirements of the Mason County Development Regulations, dated
June 15, 2004, section 1.03.028 requiring Special Use Permits for essential
public facilities in any development area.
IX. Applicable Special Use review criteria: See the applicant's answers to these
criteria, marked Attachment A.
1. Will the proposed use be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare?
Staff Response: The proposed project will have no detrimental effect to the
public health, safety, and welfare. The addition of the Post Office will provide
improved access to postal services for area residents, and will improve the
safety of that access. Current postal services are provided out of an older
store facility that is inadequate. There is poor accessibility for the
handicapped, and vehicular access is unsafe due to dangerous parking
approaches from the highway. The proposed project will actually improve
public health, safety, and welfare.
2. Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan?
Staff Response: There are 5 parcels that will be combined prior to
development. A few of the parcels are zoned Rural Commercial 2 and the
others are zoned Rural Residential 5. The Mason County Development
Regulations allow for Essential Public Facilities in Rural Residential 5 zoning
with a Special Use Permit. The proposed project is consistent and compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan.
3
3. Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions at the site that cannot
be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and
the community at large?
Staff Response: No hazardous conditions would be expected as a result of
the proposal.
4. Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place,
or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's
Capital Facilities Plan?
Staff Response:Access to the proposed site is currently served by State
Highway 101. Water service will be provided by an existing well, serving other
portions of the Lilliwaup commercial area. Sewage will be handled by an
existing septic system just off site. Stormwater treatment and disposal will be
done on site and has already been engineered. All necessary public facilities
are currently in place to serve this project.
5. Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on
adjacent lands?
Staff Response: The most significant impact the proposal will have upon
existing uses on adjacent lands is the improvement of unsafe and other
adverse conditions which are currently caused by the provision of postal
services in the existing store facilities. No other impacts are anticipated.
6. If located outside an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the need
to extend urban services?
Staff Response: No urban services will need to be extended to serve this
proposal.
X. Analysis of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The proposal
requires a Substantial Development Permit because the total cost of the
development exceeds five thousand ($5,000) dollars.
XI. Applicable Commercial Policies.
3. Commercial development should be aesthetically compatible with the
surrounding area. Structures should not significantly impact views from upland
properties, public roadways or from the water.
The proposal is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding areas. There is a
motel/store immediately adjacent to the proposal. The proposal is upland of
the shoreline and highway, set back against a steep slope. Upland properties
are well above the proposed project.
4
e
4. The location of commercial developments along shorelines should ensure the
protection of natural areas or systems identified as having geological,
ecological, biological, or cultural significance.
The location is upland of the shoreline and highway and there are no
indications of any adverse effects on natural areas or systems. Approved
septic and stormwater retention will be required prior to final approval. An
Archaeological Survey (Exhibit 14) was done for the site in October 2000. No
significant cultural materials were identified.
5. Commercial developments should be encouraged to be located inland from
the shoreline area unless they are dependent on a shoreline location.
Commercial developments should be discourage over-water or in marshes,
bogs, swamps and floodplains.
The proposal is located inland on the upland side of the highway. There is no
development proposed over-water or in marshes, bogs, swamps and
floodplains.
6. New commercial development in shorelines should be encouraged to locate in
those areas with existing commercial development that will minimize sprawl
and the inefficient use of shoreline areas.
The proposal is located adjacent to the Lilliwaup Motel/Store and in the same
area as the old abandoned post office.
7. Parking facilities should be placed inland, away from the immediate water's
edge and recreational beaches.
Parking facilities will be placed upland of the shoreline and roadway.
8. Commercial development should be designed and located to minimize impacts
of noise and/or light generated by the development upon adjacent properties.
Commercial developments which generate significant noise impacts should be
discouraged.
The proposal is a post office and no noise impacts are anticipated from this
project. Parking lot lighting will consist of pole mounted cutoff type luminaries.
These are designed to minimized glare and focus light in the parking areas
without light spillage off site. There will also be limited exterior building-
mounted lighting for the entry and loading area. Every attempt will be made to
minimize glare and place fixtures to eliminate off site impact.
XII. Applicable Use Regulations.
1. The County shall utilize the following information in its review of commercial
development proposals:
nature of the activity; The proposal is a Post Office; an essential public
facility.
need for shore frontage; The proposal does not require shore frontage, nor
does the property have shoreline frontage.
5
special considerations for enhancing the relationship of the activityto o the
shoreline; Again, the proposal is not on the shoreline, nor is it water related.
provisions for public visual or physical access to the shoreline; The proposal
does not physical re uire access to the shoreline, nor will the location
q
interfere with the visual access due to the location being upland of the
shoreline and roadway.
provisions to ensure that the development will not cause severe adverse
environmental impacts; The proposal will not cause severe adverse
p
environmental impacts. The structure will be located 100'from OHWM and the
parking area and bioswale will be reviewed under a Mason Environmental
Permit. A Habitat Management Plan will be required. A stormwater site plan
has been received and reviewed by Public Works. Environmental Health has
reviewed the septic plans. An existing drainfield will be used. New tanks will be
installed and operation and maintenance will be performed.
• provisions to mitigate any significant noise impacts; No noise impacts are
expected.
• provisions to mitigate light or glare impacts; Parking lot lighting will consist of
pole mounted cutoff type luminaries. These will minimize glare and focus light
in the parking areas without light spillage off site. There will be limited exterior
building-mounted lighting for the entry and loading areas. Every attempt will be
made to minimize glare and place fixtures to eliminate off site impact.
2. Commercial development may be permitted on the shoreline in the following
descending order of priority: water dependent, water related and water
oriented. Non-water related, non-water dependent and non-water oriented
developments in an urban and rural environment may be
permitted by Substantial Development Permit when:
• The parcel of land to be developed is a minimum of 100 feet from OHWM
and is located on the upland side of a public roadway, railroad right of way or
government controlled property.
The proposal does not meet this use regulation and requires a Shoreline
Variance. The variance has been applied for and is being reviewed along
with the Special Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
3. Parking and loading areas shall be located well away from the immediate
waters' edge and beaches, unless there is no other practical location for
parking. Perimeters of parking areas shall be landscaped to minimize visual
impacts to the shorelines, roadways and adjacent properties subject to
approval by Public Works and/or Department of Transportation. Permit
application shall identify the size, general type and location of landscaping.
Design of parking and loading areas shall ensure that surface runoff does not
pollute adjacent waters or cause soil or beach erosion. Design shall provide
for storm water retention. Parking plans shall be reviewed by Mason County
Department of Public Works for compliance with all applicable County
Ordinances. Creation of parking areas by landfilling beyond OHW mark or in
biological wetlands is prohibited.
The parking area is located upland of the shoreline and roadway.
Landscaping has been identified on the site plan. The landscaping will
6
incorporate a few deciduous "street trees"along with shrubs that are native
and require minimal maintenance. There will be grasses in the stormwater
swale are as well. During a pre-submission conference, there were no
issues/concerns raised from Public Works regarding the landscaping plan. A
Stormwater Site Plan has been reviewed by Public Works (Exhibit 10). An
Operation & Maintenance covenant will be required. The proposed bio-swale
will be in the State Highway's right-of-way and will require authorization from
the State. The Public Works Engineer expects that an agreement will be
worked out regarding this issue. A WSDOT application will be made once the
current planning process is completed. There will be no landfilling beyond
OHWM or in biological wetlands.
5. Water supply and waste facilities shall comply with the strictest established
guidelines, standards and regulations.
Water adequacy will be considered replacement. The existing drainfield will
accommodate the proposed post office. The system will require operation and
maintenance recording. Environmental Health staff indicate these systems
will meet the established guidelines, standards and regulations.
7. New commercial developments shall be located adjacent to existing
commercial developments whenever possible.
This proposal is located adjacent to the Lilliwaup Motel/Store.
9. Commercial developments shall be located and designed to minimize noise
impacts on adjacent properties.
No noise impacts are anticipated.
XIII. Analysis of Shoreline Variance. The proposal requires a Shoreline Variance
due the Shoreline Master Program Use Regulation #2 in Chapter 7.16.040
Commercial Development that states "Commercial development may be
permitted on the shoreline in descending order of priority: water dependent,
water related and water oriented. Non-water related, non-water dependent and
non-water oriented developments in an urban and rural environment may be
permitted by Substantial Development Permit when: The parcel of land to be
developed is a minimum of 100 feet from OHWM and is located on the upland
side of a public roadway, railroad right of way or government controlled
property." This parcel is less than 100 feet from OHWM, therefore requiring a
Shoreline Variance.
XIV. Applicable Variance Criteria. To qualify for a variance to the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program a proposal must be consistent with specific criteria
listed in Chapter 7.28.020. The project is consistent with the 6 (six) variance
criteria required for approval.
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a
reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master
Program;
Staff Response: The only reason the variance is required is related to
Chapter 7.16.040, Commercial Development, use regulation 2, which states
that "Commercial development may be permitted on the shoreline in the
following descending order of priority: water dependent, water related and
water oriented. Non-water related, non-water dependent, and non water
oriented developments in an urban and rural environment may be permitted
by Substantial Development Permit when: The parcel of land to be developed
is a minimum of 100 feet from OHWM and is located on the upland side of a
public roadway, railroad right of way, or government controlled property." The
parcel of land to be developed meets all requirements of the Shoreline Master
Program except that the parcel is less than 100 feet from OHWM of Hood
Canal. The parcel is a minimum of 63 feet from OHWM. The placement of the
building will be 100'from OHWM.
Because the property is located on the upland side of the state highway and
is not a shoreline lot, it is not really suitable for water dependent or water-
related use. This would make it difficult for uses such as marinas or ports.
Due to its limited size (appx. 0.85 acres) and proximity to the adjacent
commercial development, it is not suitable for agriculture, aquaculture,
mining, or forest related uses.
Given the small parcel size and the fact that approximately 50% of the site is
encumbered by steep slopes makes it unlikely that this site would be
economically viable as recreational use. When looking at increased sewage
system demands accompanying a recreational use, along with storm water
issues, there would be little property left for structures and parking areas.
The only buildable area for residential use is very close to Highway 101. Most
residences in this area that are close to the highway are on the water side,
affording privacy on the water side and having fences, landscaping, or other
barriers to the traffic impacts on the road side. Homes located on the upland
side of the road are generally located farther back up the hill to mitigate the
impact of traffic noise, while maintaining a view of the water. Due to the
severe topography at this site, this would be very difficult to accomplish.
Actually, the combination of these parcels could potentially reduce the
amount of development that could occur along the shoreline.
Since the land use directly to the north of the proposed site is commercial,
and the shoreline designation is urban commercial, this property is better
suited for commercial development than residential. Current residential use is
located away from the proposed site at the top of the steep slope.
When the United States Postal Service solicited bids for the new Post Office
the preferred area was % mile North of the current facility, % mile south of the
current facility, 200 feet off Hwy 101 east, and 200'off Hwy 101 west (Exhibit
15). The only proposal the US Postal Service received was this one offered
s
by John Straatman. This service area is a small area that is limited by Hood
Canal shoreline, Highway 101, and steep slopes, so there were not many
available areas to place the new Post Office.
2. 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 Master Program, and not, for example from deed
restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
Staff Response:As noted in the response to criteria #1, there are several
factors that are unique to this site. The property is located on the upland side
of the road, as the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulation stipulates, but
because of the close proximity of the parcel to the water, does not meet the
minimum 100'from the OHWM. Otherwise, this site meets the shore setbacks
in the SMP of 50'for non-water dependent uses on an urban shoreline. The
site is steeply sloped, with a narrow plateau along the highway at the base of
the slope, severely limiting the buildable area on site. The hardship is clearly
a result of unique conditions of the site and not from deed restrictions or the
applicant's 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
shoreline environment;
Staff Response: Other activities in the immediate area are commercial uses.
This would be very compatible with the proposed project. The commercial
uses adjacent to the proposal include a store, small motel, and post office
(located in the same building as the store). This project is replacing the
adjacent old post office facility that was used for many years, until it became
outdated and postal activities were relocated into the Lilliwaup store building.
The only other use in the immediate area is a residence, owned and inhabited
by the proponent of this project. The residence is located at the top of the hill.
The surrounding area is very compatible with the proposed project.
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: Commercial use is an allowed use per the Shoreline Master
Program. In fact, the adjacent Lilliwaup Motel/Store is a commercial business
that has the same set of circumstances. The parcel of land the store is on is a
minimum of 100 feet from OHWM and is located on the upland side of a
public roadway, railroad right of way, or government controlled property. This
parcel has no shoreline frontage either. The commercial development
requested is small in size (1,480-sq. ft.). It is not extreme in its type of use
(essential public facility/post office) or its density relative to site area and
nearby development.
9
J
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Staff Response: Since the proposal is located upland of the shoreline and
highway and is small is scale for commercial development, there will be no
adverse impact on the public's ability to access, view, or enjoy the Hood
Canal waterfront. As indicated in earlier discussion, by combining parcels for
one small scale commercial development, the sewage impacts will be far less
than if all the parcels were developed individually as residential use. A site
visit was done on December 16, 2004 with Kim VanZwalenberg, Shoreline
Specialist, Department of Ecology. She indicated that she had no concerns
regarding the project as proposed.
The existing postal facility at Lilliwaup is inadequate and unsafe in certain
ways. The current parking does not provide enough spaces and is set up so
that patrons have to back out into the highway. A new post office would
improve the postal services for the residents of Lilliwaup, and to locate the
facility outside of the service area would require patrons to travel long
distances for those services. The United States Postal Service (USPS)
moved to the current temporary facility (Lilliwaup Store) several years ago
because the former post office was determined to be unfit for occupancy. The
plan was to operate out of the temporary facility for four to six months, but
due to a capital freeze imposed in 2001, the USPS has operated out of the
store for over four years. Early in 2004 the owner of the store requested that
the USPS move out of the facility. Initially, the USPS went through a process
to attempt to close the facility, however, politically, it was not a popular idea
and a new replacement project was initiated. The US Postal Service has gone
through an extensive site selection process, and has determined that this site
is the only viable option for this facility. Mr. Straatman's site was the only
response received to the solicitation by USPS. The Mason County
Commissioners have given their support to the project and location by
adopting Resolution No. 77-00, August 1, 2000 (Exhibit 16).
Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of the
ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, may be authorized provided the
applicant can demonstrate, in addition to Items 1-5 above, that:
6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected by the granting of the variance.
Staff Response: This proposal is not located waterward of the ordinary high
water mark or within wetlands. The project will not interfere with public rights
of navigation and use of the shorelines.
XV. Conclusions. As designed, the project is consistent with the Mason County
Development Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Staff recommends
approval of the Special Use Permit, the Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, and the Shoreline Variance.
10
XVI. Choices of Action.
1. Approval.
2. Denial.
3. Conditional approval.
4. Postpone the decision for further information.
11
MASON COUNTY
AL)t?avv ova
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE
A Special Use is one that possesses unique characteristics due to size, nature, intensity of use,
technological processes involved, demands upon public services, relationship to surrounding
lands, or other factors. The purpose of this application is to provide for adequate oversight and
review of such development proposals, in order to assure that such uses are developed in
harmony with surrounding land uses, and in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Development Regulations for Mason County; Ordinance No. 82-96.
Applicant name John & Bernadine Straatman Telephone# 360 877-5188
Mailing address
P.O. Box 68, Lilliwaup, WA 98555
Site address
To Be Determined
Tax Parcel # See Attached List _
Legal Description
See Attached List
Type of Special Use Permit:
Communications Tower
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Oversize Construction
Other Essential Public Facility X
On a separate piece of paper,please state your reasons for requesting a Special Use
Permit. Be sure to address the following six criteria, your request will be evaluated based on
these criteria.
1) Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare?
2) Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan?
3) Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions, at the site, that can not be
mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community
at large?
4) Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place, planned as a
condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan?
Special Use Permit: $920.00 - Hearings Examiner: $350.00 -F-y-h( b L+ a
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs. Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee approval.
I:\PLANNING\C&RPAC\SPECIALUSE.PER REVISED: 08-25-03
1 '
Application for Special Use
John & Bernadine Straatman
Tax Parcel Number Legal Description
32330 51 56013 Lilliwaup Block 56 & Lot 13-18 all TL in Front of that Ptn of Lot 8
32330 51 26013 Lilliwaup Block 26 Vac Cable Ave Adj to Lots 2-5
32330 51 26001 Lilliwaup Block 26 Lot 1 & 5-11 & S1/2 Vac Phelps St. EX - TR A& B of
SP #233 AF#315840
32330 51 26002 Lilliwaup Block 25 Lot 2-3
32330 51 26004 Lilliwaup Bock 26 Lot 4
5) Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands?
6) If located outside of an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the need to extend
urban services?
7) Please provide a site plan that includes the following:
❑ Indicate Scale and North Arrow
❑ Property line dimensions,easements,and right-of-ways.
❑ The location of all existing and proposed structures.Include square footage of existing and proposed
structures.
❑ Setback distance,in feet from all property lines and structures.
❑ Existing and proposed road access to and from the site.
❑ Parking sites
❑ Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields.
❑ Location of drinking water supply.Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels.
❑ Steep bluffs,wetlands,streams,and bodies of water
❑ Location of fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access roads,including grade.
❑ Surface and storm water run-off routes.
Applicant(s) signature
Special Use Pemvt: $900.00 - Hearings Examiner: $200.00
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs. Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee approval.
I:\PLANNING\C&RPAC\SPECIALUSE.PER REVISED:08-25-03
r
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS May 5,2002
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.
lobs � � �I
DATE
R
APPLICANT
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Criteria:
1) Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare?
There are no characteristics of the proposed use that could be detrimental to public health, safety,
and welfare. In fact, the addition of the proposed facility will provide improved access to postal
services for area residents, and will improve the safety of that access.Currently,these services are
provided from an old store facility that is inadequate and, in some ways, unsafe. It provides poor
accessibility for the handicapped, and vehicular access that is subject to dangerous parking
approaches from the highway. The proposed use will provide improved public health, safety, and
welfare.
2) Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan?
The zoning of the parcel, which is currently divided into several lots, is RC2 for some lots and RR5
for others (there will be a parcel combination or boundary line adjustment done prior to
development). In the RC2 zone, a post office is a permitted use. In the RR5 zone, a post office is
allowed by special use permit, as an "essential public facility". The Comprehensive Plan has
foreseen the need for these kinds of public facilities to be sited in residential zones.
In addition,the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the integrity of the rural lands
while locating essential public facilities where they are needed geographically. The Lilliwaup Post
Office will be located adjacent to existing commercial development,which protects the surrounding
rural lands,while locating the public facility for easy access where other public services are located.
3) Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions, at the site, that can not be mitigated through
appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community at large?
The proposed use will introduce no hazardous conditions of any type.
4) Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place, planned as a condition
of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan?
The proposed site is served directly by State Highway 101. Water service will be provided by an
existing well, serving other portions of the Lilliwaup commercial area. Sewage will be handled by
an existing septic system just off site. Storm water treatment and disposal will be handled on site,
and has already been engineered, based on soil studies already completed. All necessary public
facilities are currently in place to serve this project.
5) Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands?
The most significant impact to be anticipated in adjacent areas is the improvement of unsafe and
other adverse conditions which are currently caused by the provision of postal services in the
existing store facilities. No other impacts to adjacent lands are anticipated.
6) If located outside of an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the need to extend urban
services?
No urban services will need to be extended to serve this project.
Property Owner Within 300'
32330 51 26001, 32330 51 26002, 32330 51 26004, 32330 51 26013, 32330 51 56013
32330 51 56013 (Subject Property) 32330 21 90014
Lilliwaup Block 56 & Lot 13-18 all TL in TR 1-D of Govt Lot 8 & Tax 952 & 954 TR B of
Front of that Ptn of Lot 8 SP #201
Douglas & Winifred Ferguson
32330 51 26013 (Subject Property) P.O. Box 193
Lilliwaup Block 26 Vac Cable Ave Adj to Lots 2-5 Lilliwaup, WA 98555-0193
32330 51 26001 (Subject Property) 32330 51 58001
Lilliwaup Block 26 Lot 1 & 5-11 & S1/2 Vac Lilliwaup Falls Undiv '/z Int in Hotel Reserve S
Phelps St. EX-TR A& B of SP#233 AF#315840 29/189
Kim H Roberts ET AL
32330 51 26002 (Subject Property) 1308 SW Melrose Ave
Lilliwaup Block 25 Lot 2-3 McMinnville, OR 97128-6621
32330 51 26004 (Subject Property) 32330 51 58003
Lilliwaup Bock 26 Lot 4 Lilliwaup Falls Undiv 1/4 Int in Hotel Reserve S
29/189
322330 51 56001 Jo Robinson-Burns
Lilliwaup Block 56 Lots 1-8 29428 - 129th Ave SW
John & Bernadine Straatman Vashon, WA 98070-8824
P.O. Box 68
Lilliwaup, WA 98555 32330 51 58004
Lilliwaup Falls Undiv 1/4 Int in Hotel Reserve S
32330 51 56010 29/189
Lilliwaup Block 56 Lots 9-10 Tax 1240 Sharon L Morris
Betty L Gray 23623 - 77th Ave SW
P.O. Box 123 Vashon, Wa 98070-7139
Lilliwaup, WA 98555-0123
32330 51 24001
32330 51 56011 Lilliwaup TR A of Blocks 24 & 25
Lilliwaup Block 56 Lots 11-12 Paul Kolengrander ET UX
Matthew N Kamin ET AL Tanya Roberts
Phet Ly 11717 King Street Street
90 W Delight Park Ct Wheaton, MD 20902-2636
Shelton, WA 98584-7869
32330 51 25001
32330 21 80560 Lilliwaup TR B of Block 24 & 25 '/2 Int
Tax 956-A John W Robinson
Anita M Haddon 2401 N Cedar St
7801 A Street Tacoma, WA 98406-6640
Tacoma, WA 98408-7008
3220 21 90013
TR 1-C of Lot 8 & Tax 1104 TR A of SP #201
James W & Karen F Nelson
P.O. Box 195
Lilliwaup, WA 98555-0195
Ir
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
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that John Straatman has filed an application for a Special Use
Permit number DDR2004-00216 for the construction of a new Post Office in Rural
Residential 5 zoning. This permit is required because of the requirements of the Mason
County Development Regulations, Section 1.03.028, which states that"Essential Public
Facilities shall require a Special Use Permit in any development area."
Site Address and Project Location: Just south of Lilliwaup Store/Motel on Highway
101.
Parcel Numbers: 32330-51-56013,32330-51-26013,32330-51-26001,32330-51-26002,
32330-51-26004. Lots will be combined into a single parcel prior to permitting.
Date of Application: November 5,2004
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearings Examiner regarding
the proposed project on January 11, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers
Building I, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, WA. If special accommodations are needed,
contact the Commissioner's Office, (360) 427-9670.
Any person desiring to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the
application should come to the public hearing on January 11, 2005 or mail comments to
Bob Fink, Planning Manager,Mason County Dept. of Community Development,PO Box
279, Shelton, WA 98584.
A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 11/28/2000.
Please contact Tammi Clark of the Mason County Dept. of Community Development at
(360) 427-9670 ext. 295, or at the address listed above, with questions regarding this
permit application.
1
D
r
to colon d alalmonpct pjsl Ofiu . 7k Qmo
wtbmts ivui POA OFhu sLflb
r f'.
lo(c.hon fo f�t,.) pos o(6u .
pyhltiv 4
fi
EK�S�i r� d ri v Pro pose is tvf
i
I
�}RQ004-poo3a
MASON COUNTY i
i
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Courthouse Annex i
P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 9858k—
(360)427-9670
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
PERMIT NO. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE VARIANCE
DATE RECEIVED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE
SHORELINE EXEMPTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within
designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the
Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the
state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total
cost or fair market value exceeds $5,000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in thel Master
Program
Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed I
development. Incomplete applications will be returned.
APPLICANT: John & Bernadine Straatman
I
P.O. Box 68
ADDRESS:
(street) '
Lilliwaup WA 98555
(city) (state) (zip)
i
TELEPHONE: 360-877-5188
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Foster & Williams Architects (Len Williams)
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 102
(street)
Shelton WA 985184-0102
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: 360-426-0511
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: i
General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the
shoreline):
The project is located on the upland side of Highway 101 within the
community of Lilliwaup, within 200 feet of Hood Canal . � .
i
i
Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and
longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude
location)—include all parcel numbers:
This project is a re—activation of the application made in 2000.
See attached parcel listing. Lots will be combined into one parcel
prior to permitting.
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant X Owner X Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other _
Owner:
John & Bernadine Straatman
P.O. Box 68
Lilliwaup ( Meet) 98555
(city) (state) (23p)
I:\PLANNINGICHARELL&RENEE/SHORELINEPERMIT.APP REVISED: 06-2.5-03
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON
Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction
methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information):
The project involves the construction of a 1,480 square foot building to
serve as the new Lilliwaup Main Post Office; replacing the existing post
office nearby. About 10,000 square feet of driveway and parking area will
also be developed. All stormwater will be collected into a bioswale
onsite, for total onsite retention/infiltration.
Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements:
The project site is a former gravel borrow area and is now vacant. There
is an existing well that will be reused on the site. There is also an
existing small building that will be removed and a septic tank that will
be abandoned.
Reason for requesting development:
The current post office facilties do not meet the postal service needs
of the community and require replacement.
ACKOWLEDGEMENT
i
I hereby declare,to the,best of my knowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is
true and correct.
slo
(applicant or authorized representative) (date)
TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL
Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area:
If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade level,indicate the location of any
residential units that will have an obstructive view:
I
i
If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested,make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program:
I:\PLANNINGICHARELL&RENEE/SHORELINEPERMIT.APP REVISED: 06-25-03
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Telephone: (360) 427-9670
THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS
WITH APPLICATION
Complete the application form and Environmental Checklist, where applicable, and submit to the
Department of Community Development. Other permits may be required by State and Federal
agencies for shoreline development (see list of contacts below).
Legal notice is placed in the "Shelton-Mason County Journal" for two consecutive weeks.
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur
until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper.
A thirty(30) day public comment period begins from the second legal notice publication date;
notices are sent to all adjacent property owners within 300 feet of applicant's property boundary
lines.
For Substantial Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits or Variance requests a public
hearing is typically held before the Mason County Hearing Examiner. Hearings are scheduled
on the first regularly scheduled Tuesday hearing day following the 30 day public comment
period.
Following the Hearing Examiner hearing and decisions, the permit and findings are transmitted
to the applicant, Department of Ecology, and the Attorney General. A twenty-one to thirty(21-
30) day review period commences when the Department of Ecology receives the permit, during
which appeals to local government decisions can be made. Construction pursuant to the permit
shall not begin, and is not authorized, until twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing with
Ecology.
If there is no appeal to the permit decisions, either by the Department of Ecology or by other, the
Department of Ecology will allow the decision of the local government to stand and at the e4d of
the twenty-one (21) day period, if the local government decision was to approve. If no other
permits are needed or other required permits have been granted, the project may proceed. The
Department of Ecology will render and transmit to the County and applicant its final decision
approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the permit within thirty(30) days of the
date of submittal in the case of Conditional Use and Variance permits. The final action to
approve, deny, or modify, the Variance and Conditional Use request is determined by the
Department of Ecology. Should there be an appeal, the project applied for may not begin until
all appeals are settled by the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings Board.
No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five (5) years. If actual
construction of a development, for which a permit has been granted, has not begun within two
years after the approval of the permit by the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner shall, at
the expiration of the two year period, review the permit, and upon a showing of good cause,
extend the permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates. Provided, that no permit shall-
be extended unless the applicant has requested in writing such review and extension prior to the
last regular meeting of the Hearing Examiner, coming before the permit expiration date.
Although not inclusive, the following identifies the primary contact a person may need to make
when developing within a shoreline area:
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES South Puget,
950 Farman Avenue North, Enumclaw, WA 98022-9282, Phone: (360) 825-1631.
Applications for a Forest Practices Permit for cutting of all merchantable timber for sale
are made with the Department of Natural Resources. Applications include map
specification. No fee is charged. Applications for bedland leasing are also available.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH &WILDLIFE (all shorelines,
rivers and streams) 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, _
� y ympia, WA 98501 1091, Phone: 360
902-2534 - saltwater, (360) 753-2600— freshwater. Applications for Hydraulic Permit to
I:\PLANNING\CHARELL&RENEE\.SHO�ELINEPERMrr.PRO REVISED: 06-25-03
• THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS—Page 2
construct any form of hydraulic project or other work that would use, divert, obstruct, or
utilize any waters of the state of materials from within the ordinary high water line are
processed by the Department of Fish&Wildlife. Applications must be submitted with
map and drawing. No fee is charged.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Seattle District,P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, W�
98124, Phone: (206) 764-3495. Applications are made for permits from the Corps!for
any development within navigable waters (Section 10 Permit), discharge of dredged or
fill materials into waters or on their adjacent wetlands(Section 404 Permit) and
transportation of dredge materials for disposal in ocean waters (Section 103 Permit.
Applications include drawing specifications. A fee is required for permit issuance.
In addition to the information requested on the application, the applicant shall provide, at a
minimum, the following information.
l. Site Plan—drawn to scale and including:
a. Site boundary. i
i
b. Property dimensions in vicinity of project.
C. Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) located adjacent to or within the project.
Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to or within the boundary
of the project plan shall indicate distance and direction to the nearest ordinaryy
high water mark of the shoreline.
i
d. Typical cross section or sections showing:
1) existing ground elevation
2) proposed ground elevation
3) height of existing structure
4) height of proposed structures
i
e. Where appropriate,proposed land contours using five foot intervals in water area
and ten foot intervals on areas landward of ordinary high water mark, if
development involves grading, cutting, filling or other alteration of land contours.
Contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing
character of the property and the extent of the proposed change to the land that is
necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary that will not be altered
by the development may be indicated as such and contours applied.
f. A delineation of all wetland areas that will be altered or used as part of the
development.
I
g. A general indication of the characters of vegetation found on site.
h. Show the dimensions and locations of all existing structures which will be
maintained, including; but,not limited to buildings,paved or graveled areas,
roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields,material stockpiles or surcharge, and
stormwater management facilities.
i
i. A landscaping play for the project.
j. Where applicable,plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation
for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain
information consistent with the requirements of this section.
k. Quantity, source, and composition of any fill material that is to be placed on the
site whether temporary or permanent.
1. Quantity, source, and destination of any excavated or dredged material.
m. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed
development or use to roads, utilities, existing developments and uses on adjacent
properties.
THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS—Page 3
n. Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential
uses.
o. On all variance applications, the plan shall clearly indicate where development
could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and
circumstances on the property that provides a basis for the request, and the
location of adjacent structures and uses.
2. Vicinity Map
a. Indicate site location using natural points of reference (roads, state highways,
prominent landmarks, etc.).
b. If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise,
identify the proposed disposal site on the map. If disposal site is beyond the
confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the precise
location of the disposal site and its distance to nearest city or town.
C. Give brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements a4d
land use within 1,000 feet in all directions from development site.
3. Adjacent Land Owners
Provide names and addresses of all real property owners within 300 feet of property
where development is proposed. When adjacent property widths exceed 100 feet, at least
three (3) adjacent property owners' names and addresses shall be provided.
PLEASE NOTE: Completed application and documents shall be submitted to the Administrator
of the Department of Community Development for processing and review. The applicant prior
to further processing shall correct deficiencies in the application or submittal documents
Applications considered as incomplete will be returned to the applicant
FEE STRUCTURE - will be based on current fees, see fee chart for reference.
Types of permits that require fees:
Substantial Development Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Variance Request
Conditional Use/Substantial Development.Permit
Variance/Substantial Development Permit
Variance/Conditional Use Permit
Substantial Development/Conditional Use/Variance
Permit Revisions
Exemptions
In addition to the above fees, a State Environmental Policy Act fee(SEPA)will be required for
the environmental checklist processing (including site inspection).
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.
Applicant must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating that they understand this
to be their responsibility. Applicant must submit the signed page as part of application in order
for it to be considered complete.
THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS--Page-4"
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occ
until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Maso
County Journal will bill the applicant directly.
UWE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgement indicating that
I/WE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. WE must submit the signed page as part of
this application in order for it to be considered as complete.
i
I
to f
DATE
QM- WIA
WNER
APPLICANT
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
I
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VARIANCE
1. Show that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the
Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by the Master Program.
The only reason that a variance is being required for this project appears to be the wording of
Chapter 7.16.040, Commercial Development, use regulation 2, which states that "Commercial
development may be permitted on the shoreline in the following descending order of priority: water
dependent, water related, and water oriented. Non-water related, non-water dependent, and non-
water oriented developments in an urban and rural environment may be permitted by Substantial
Development Permit when: - The parcel of land to be developed is a minimum of 100 feet from
OHWM and is located on the upland side of a public roadway, railroad right of way, or government
controlled property."The only portion of this wording which is at issue is the stipulation that "the
parcel of land to be developed is a minimum of 100 feet from OHWM"-all the other requirements
for a non-water oriented commercial use are met by the proposal. This parcel is a minimum of 63
feet from the OHWM.
In looking at the Shoreline Master Program for other potential uses of this property, there are very
few other options. Because the property is located on the upland side of the state highway, it is not
suitable for any type of water dependent or water related use. It is highly unlikely that a water
oriented use would be located on this property, because of the significant barrier posed by the state
highway to any kind of direct relationship with the water. Similarly, it is unsuitable for a marina, pier,
or port use, because it is not on the water. It is unsuitable for any kind of agricultural, aquacultural,
mining, or forest related use, due to its limited size and proximity to the adjacent commercial
development. Its somewhat isolated location relative to the county population centers makes it
undesirable for any kind of transportation facility.
The only other uses that could be reasonably considered are recreational and residential uses. In
regard to recreational usage,the site's limited size(approx. 0.85 acres)makes it highly unlikely that
any type of recreational development could be practical for this site. First, much of the site
(approximately 50%) is steeply sloped and would be cost prohibitive or unusable for development.
Particularly when increased sewage system demands accompanying a recreational use are
considered, along with significant storm water issues,there would be little property left for buildings
and parking areas. These factors would severely limit the size and scope of a recreational project,
making it impossible to achieve the scale needed to make such a project economically viable.
In regard to residential usage, there are two areas of incompatibility. First, the property is not very
desirable for residential use because its only buildable area is so close to the highway. While there
are many homes along Highway 101 that are very close to the highway, most of those are on the
water side of the road, affording privacy on the water side and allowing for fences, landscaping,
and other barriers to the traffic impacts on the road side.Where homes are located across the road
from the water, they are generally located further back or up the hill so as to mitigate the impact
of traffic noise and visual activity to the residence, while maintaining water views. This approach
would be very difficult to accomplish on this site, due to the severe topography.
Perhaps more important,the property is not well suited for residential use because of its adjacency
to the commercial development of Lilliwaup. Though this adjacent development is not intensely
urban, it is commercial in nature and supports the activities of the residents of the surrounding
area. Because of the limited area available for commercial development in Lilliwaup, particularly
along the highway (where it would most naturally occur with minimal adverse impacts to both
natural and built environments), this property clearly is better suited for commercial development
than residential, and should be developed for commercial uses. AHOC fqmft� A
Sho rely ry Awl l a hoy)
2. Show 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 Master Program, and not, for example
from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
The responses to the previous question have noted several factors that are unique to this site.
First, the property is located on the upland side of the road, as the Shoreline regulation stipulates,
but because of the close proximity of the road to the water in this area, does not meet the minimum
100' setback from parcel to water. (It may be worth noting that while there is clear precedent and
defensible reasons for locating non-water oriented businesses on the upland side of the road, it is
less clear what the more arbitrary 100' setback requirement contributes to the quality of
development and the protection of the shoreline, at least in this case). Second, the property is
located directly adjacent to the existing commercial uses of Lilliwaup. Third, the site is steeply
sloped,with a narrow plateau along the road at the base of the slope, severely limiting the buildable
area of the site. All of these conditions, as built-in characteristics of the site, are unique factors
which determine development options, apart from the actions of the property owner.
3. Show 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 shoreline environment.
The other activities in the immediate area are commercial uses very compatible with the proposed
project. In fact, this project will provide a facility to replace the adjacent old post office facility that
was used for many years, until it became outdated and postal activities were relocated into the
Lilliwaup store building. These activities will be relocated into the new building at the completion
of this project, and will remain compatible with adjacent uses, as they have been for many years.
The adjacent uses include a small motel, a store, and the post office located in the same building
with the store. The only other uses in the immediate area are a residence, owned and inhabited
by the proponent of this project, and located in privacy on the top of the hill above the site. The
surrounding area is very compatible with the proposed project,which will enhance the appearance
of Lilliwaup's developed environment, maintain the central location and availability of services for
residents of the Lilliwaup area, and improve postal services so as to minimize undesirable trips for
services to urban centers located some distance away.
4. Show that the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by
other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
The variance requested is due to the uniqueness of this property's physical characteristics, its
location relative to existing development,the proximity of the highway to the water, and the overall
development situation in the area.There are no other properties with a similar set of circumstances
in the nearby area. However, if other properties were positioned to seek variances for the same
reasons,the arguments presented here should also be deemed valid in those situations. No special
privilege is requested for this project.
It is difficult to state categorically that any variance request is the minimum necessary to afford
relief. However, it is clear that the development requested here meets shoreline regulations in
every way, except that its parcel border is closer to the water than the regulation stipulates, making
it a relatively minor variation from regulation. It is also clear that the commercial development
requested is small in size (1,480 sq. ft.); that it is not extreme in its type of use (public use facility)
or its density relative to site area and nearby development; and that it is in character with its
surroundings.The proposed variance is a reasonable and minimal response to the unique site, and
a solution beneficial to all while affording relief to the property owner.
r
5. Show that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
The primary public interest of concern to the Shoreline Master Program involves the protection of
the shorelines for long term public benefit, access, and usage. The proposed project, because of
its upland location and small size, will have no impact on the public's ability to access, view, or
enjoy the Hood Canal waterfront, even the shoreline directly across the highway. For long term
protection of water quality or other shoreline related environmental qualities, it is hard to imagine
a commercial use that would be less impacting. In fact, the sewage system impacts would be much
greater for a residence than for this project. Storm water impacts, which are admittedly greater for
a commercial development than residential, are still minimized under this proposal, due to its
limited scope and the extensive storm watertreatment and storage system already designed. Other
potential impacts are minimized by the property's location in an already commercially developed
area.
In fact, there are other benefits to the public interest if this project is approved. It has already been
alluded to that there is real benefit to the improvement of postal services for the residents of the
Lilliwaup area. This benefit is not only for the convenience of individuals, but has transportation
system, environmental quality, and land use planning impacts that are for the good of the public.
The existing postal facility in Lilliwaup is inadequate at best, and unsafe in certain ways that need
to be addressed. And it would not be in the public's best interest for the facility needs to have to
be addressed outside the immediate Lilliwaup area. The US Postal Service has determined,
through an extensive site selection process, that this site is the only viable option for a facility that
will provide these advantages in the immediate area; the Mason County Commission has given its
support to the project and location (Resolution No. 77-00, August 1, 2000); and it is clearly in the
best interests of the public to grant the variance.
Shoreline Permit Process - Page 5
Property Owner Within 300'
32330 51 26001, 32330 51 26002, 32330 51 26004, 32330 51 26013, 32330 51 56013
32330 51 56013 (Subject Property)
Lilliwaup Block 56 & Lot 13-18 all TL in
Front of that Ptn of Lot 8 32330 21 90014
TR 1-D of Govt Lot 8 & Tax 952 & 954 TR B of
32330 51 26013 (Subject Property) SP #201
Lilliwaup Block 26 Vac Cable Ave Adj to Lots 2-5 Douglas & Winifred Ferguson
P.O. Box 193
32330 51 26001 (Subject Property) Lilliwaup, WA 98555-0193
Lilliwaup Block 26 Lot 1 & 5-11 & S1/2 Vac
Phelps St. EX-TR A& B of SP#233 AF#315840 32330 51 58001
Lilliwaup Falls Undiv % Int in Hotel Reserve S
32330 51 26002 (Subject Property) 29/189
Lilliwaup Block 25 Lot 2-3 Kim H Roberts ET AL
1308 SW Melrose Ave
32330 51 26004 (Subject Property) McMinnville, OR 97128-6621
Lilliwaup Bock 26 Lot 4
32330 51 58003
322330 51 56001 Lilliwaup Falls Undiv 1/4 Int in Hotel Reserve S
Lilliwaup Block 56 Lots 1-8 29/189
John & Bernadine Straatman Jo Robinson-Burns
P.O. Box 68 29428 - 129'h Ave SW
Lilliwaup, WA 98555 Vashon, WA 98070-8824
32330 51 56010 32330 51 58004
Lilliwaup Block 56 Lots 9-10 Tax 1240 Lilliwaup Falls Undiv 1/4 Int in Hotel Reserve S
Betty L Gray 29/189
P.O. Box 123 Sharon L Morris
Lilliwaup, WA 98555-0123 23623 - 77`h Ave SW
Vashon, Wa 98070-7139
32330 51 56011
Lilliwaup Block 56 Lots 11-12 32330 51 24001
Matthew N Kamin ET AL Lilliwaup TR A of Blocks 24 & 25
Phet Ly Paul Kolengrander ET UX
90 W Delight Park Ct Tanya Roberts
Shelton, WA 98584-7869 11717 King Street Street
Wheaton, MD 20902-2636
32330 21 80560
Tax 956-A 32330 51 25001
Anita M Haddon Lilliwaup TR B of Block 24 & 25 V2 Int
7801 A Street John W Robinson
Tacoma, WA 98408-7008 2401 N Cedar St
Tacoma, WA 98406-6640
3220 21 90013
TR 1-C of Lot 8 & Tax 1104 TR A of SP #201
James W & Karen F Nelson
P.O. Box 195
Lilliwaup, WA 98555-0195C
f)h0veILru hpllc�Oo
SON STA MASON COUNTY
PMo DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
O A v►
U
z� o Y Planning Division
0 0~ P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
J `1
1864 (360)427-9670
SHR2004-00025 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Notice is hereby given that US POSTAL SERVICE, who is the owner of the described property,
has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of:
Sub. Dev./Variance
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POST OFFICE FACILITIES COMPRISED OF PLACEMENT OF A 28,
X 56.5' MODULAR BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 5,000 sf OF
PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY. THIS IS A RENEWAL OF SHR2000-00032
Site Address:
Parcel Number: 323305156013
Location of Project: NORTH ON 101TO LILLIWAUP ON LEFT HAND SIDE ADJACENT TO
EXISTING POST OFFICE
Within: (quarter section)of Section: 30 Township: 23 N Range: 03 W, W.M.
in , Mason County Washington.
Said deve
lopment ment is proposed
p ro within HOODCANAL
p p and/or its associated wetlands. Any person
desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P0 BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
in writing of their interest within 30 days of the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC
173-14-020. The final date of publication, posting, or mailing of notice is 11/18/2004.
Written comments must be received by 12/18/2004,
A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at (360)427-9670, ext. 295 for
date and time of hearing.
SHR2004-00025
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE DATE: ,� �=04
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
:SS
COUNTY OF MASON )
(IA-I, , do hereby certify that I hosted copies of the
attached ko- (-, in public places as follows:
1 at J l S A31 f
61" 't,
1 at `�C it add- Z. on Df- 101
1 at 0 /h-onu Pta
WITNESS my hand and seal this day of
Name
Address
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
:SS
COUNTY OF MASON171
)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me this day of AID V3 02 .�
i Notary Public for the State
0• BONNIE L. CAP
0 of Washington residing at
0 NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE Iry %My Commission Expires June 6,2006 0
R
Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services
A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc.
2401 Bristol Court SW, Olympia, WA 98502 Phone 360-357-7883
PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 FAX 360-754-4240
e-mail: bradleynoble@juno.com
18 October 2000
Mr. Paul Ouellette
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
Federal Services
2401 4th Avenue, Suite 808
Seattle, Washington 98121-1459
Subject: Geotechnical assessment of slope
stability at the Lilliwaup Post Office
site.
Dear Mr. Ouellette:
As requested, we are preparing a specific discussion
of the site geology and presenting an opinion of
present slope stability and future slope stability
after construction of the new facility. Many of these
issues are presented in the geotechnical report we
prepared for this project.
Three geologic reference maps were used in preparing
this report. The Coastal Zone Atlas for Mason County
is a compilation of known geologic information. It
relies heavily on the work of the next two
references . The Geologic Map of the Olympic
Peninsulas, Washington by R. W. Tabor and W. M. Cady
1978 published by the Department of the Interior, U.
S. Geologic Survey in the Miscellaneous Investigation
Series Map I-994 (East Half) . A more detailed mapping
of the geology of the area is presented in the
Geologic Map of the North Central Mason County,
Washington by R. J. Carson, 1976 .
In the general area, mapped Quaternary and Holocene
landslides are found. Recent landslides to the north
of this area have blocked Highway 101. The
instability of the slopes can be attributed to area
geology. We have found permeable sands and gravels
over impermeable glacial lacustrine deposits where
ground water perched on the lacustrine deposits cause
slope instability. The second major cause of slope
instability in the area are the oversteepened slopes
00071603
Page 1 of 3
00071603
Page 2 of 3
that have not yet reached equilibrium since the
retreat of the Vashon continental glacier from the
Puget Sound Lowland, about 11,000 years ago. We find
major current active landsliding along the slopes of
the Hood Canal because of the oversteepened slopes .
In all three references we find mapped landslides to
the project south and along the north side of
Lilliwaup Bay. The project site is located in mapped
deposits associated with delta and alluvial fans of
the recessional outwash of the Vashon glacier. This
is consistent with our interpretation of the site
geology in the project area. We have found no
indication that at this site or in the general area,
recent or active landsliding is occurring. The site
soils of delta and alluvial outwash can stand steeply
with apparent stability. This is because of the grain
size distribution and consolidation of the material.
We expect that high natural angles of internal
friction and high coefficients of friction are found
in these soils . These contribute to the stability of
the slopes in the project area.
In our exploration of the site, we did not encounter
ground water. In Test Pit Four, we did encounter
soils that we associate with either beach or bar
deposits . During periods of high tide, it may be
found that these soils are hydraulically connected to
the Hood Canal if they are continuous to the north.
The soils forming the slopes and explored by the first
three test pits in our report are considered to be
both permeable and porous . We do not expect that
ground water would be a destabilizing influence at
this site as the soils are expected to drain rapidly.
The previous use of this property as a borrow pit has
created steep cut face walls in the west area adjacent
to the driveway serving the residence to the
northwest. Examination of these faces during our site
work suggest that the site soils can stand steeply for
some time with apparent stability. This is consistent
with our interpretation of the site geology and
engineering geology interpretation of the soils .
We do not consider that the site will be destabilized
by the proposed development. Based on our
understanding of the project, unrestricted slopes will
00071603
Page 3 of 3
be constructed per our recommendations in the
geotechnical report prepared for this project. The
project plans now include the construction of
retaining walls . We have presented design
recommendations for these walls. In our opinion, the
site development will not affect slope stability, and,
in fact, the proposed construction will stabilize the
present oversteepened slopes created by the former
gravel extraction at this site.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of
additional service to you, please contact us at our
Olympia office.
Cordially,
BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
l `
David C. trong
Engineering Geologist
:r-
ry
I -- — t17216L 'n
a
?24-I Is 1 T EPA
[461
?57 I --2-73 ---
Al
I
39T
=56
7/ BM 8464
I _ •9.8
I �
BM A464
'55 a - -3a7 -------
�`�` .,- BMD16
25.S
BM Z4b3 I
12.7
8 E i 3 C.. T.o,1e, PAR
Y
6 "
Figure 1. Proposed Project Vicinity,Lilliwaup, Washington.
Soils Investigation Report
The New Lilliwaup Post Office
Lilliwaup, Washington
_1V
<
Bradley- Noble Geotechnical Services
A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc.
2401 Bristol Court SW - PO Box 12267 - Olympia WA 98508 - 360-357-7883
" Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services
A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc.
2401 Bristol Court SW, Olympia, WA 98502 Phone 360-357-7883
PO Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508-2267 FAX 360-754-4240
e-mail: bradleynoble@juno.com
SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR THE NEW LILLIWAUP POST OFFICE
LILLIWAUP, WASHINGTON
This report presents the results of our subsurface
investigation for the proposed 1600-square foot
modular post office and associated parking to be
constructed on property shown on the enclosed site
plan. Our purposes in exploring the subsurface soil
conditions were to evaluate the bearing capacity of
the site soils, to present recommendations for site
development work, and to address other geotechnical
considerations for this project.
From the information provided to us, we understand
that the new structure will be a double-wide modular
building. The sanitary drainfield that serves the
existing structure will be used for new structure.
New asphalt parking and drive areas will be
constructed. On-site infiltration of storm water will
be included in the project. Work was authorized by
the project design consultant, URS Greiner Woodward
Clyde.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The area of proposed construction of the new facility
is of low relief. It appears to have been used as a
gravel borrow site in the past. In our field
discussion with Mrs. Straatman, the property owner, we
understand that this borrow area has not been used
during the time of their ownership of the property.
The site is overgrown with small trees, Scotch broom,
and grasses . The area of Lots 5 and 6 are overgrown
with a dense stand of Scotch broom. The underground
locate service was not able to locate the telephone
line that services the Straatman residence in this
area.
Underground telephone lines are found in the area of
the driveway from Highway 101 to the Straatman
residence and along the right-of-way of Highway 101 on
the northeast property line. No other underground
00071601
Page 1 of 8
00071601
Page 2 of 8
utilities were marked, though we understand that a
private water line to the existing post office does
exist.
A cut slope from the former gravel borrow operation
has been constructed on the southwest side of the
project. This slope appears to be stable with no
major sloughing or erosion of soil from the slope
observed. Above the cut slope, we found forest land
vegetation, predominantly Douglas firs growing on the
slope.
Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface soil conditions were explored by four test
pits excavated under our supervision by a
tractor-mounted backhoe. These test pits were logged,
and the soils exposed were evaluated for their
engineering properties . All test pits were loosely
backfilled. During site preparation, these test pits
should be re-excavated and re-backfilled as discussed
in the Earthwork Criteria section of this report.
This will prevent "soft" areas under structures or
pavement.
Because of the inability of the utility locate service
to locate the telephone line in Lots 5 and 6 , we did
not conducted explorations there. We did find two
shallow and partially filled test pits that were still
open on Lot 6 . Soils in these test pits are similar
to the native soils found in Test Pits 1 and 2 .
To confirm our interpretation of the site geology, we
referred to the Geologic Map of North Central Mason
County, Washington by R. J. Carson, 1976 . This area
is mapped as Vrd, delta and alluvial fans of
recessional outwash, in part, your alluvial fans of
sand and gravel . At this site, we found three soil
units . On the surface in the area of proposed
construction, we found a fill section comprised of
topsoil and debris . This fill section varied rapidly
in thickness and composition. In our Test Pits 1, 2 ,
and 3, and exposed in the existing test pits on Lot 6 ,
we found silty, coarse sands and gravels with cobbles
and boulders . In Test Pit 3, the coarse sands and
gravels had a little silt adhering to the clasts . In
Test Pit 4 , under the fill section, we found rounded,
00071601
Page 3 of 8
coarse sands and small gravels with few fines and some
cobbles . These are interpreted as being either beach
or river bar deposits .
No ground water or seepage were encountered in the
test pits . We did not observe indication of high
ground water levels at this site in the test pits . We
do not expect that ground water levels would
adversely affect the project as we understand the
design concept. We do not expect that the site work
will be adversely affected by rain except in the
heaviest downpours, as infiltration of water should be
rapid at this site.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We expect that only minimal site grading and removal
of existing fill material will be required to develop
the site. Site clearing, grubbing and removal of
unsuitable soils will reduce the present surface
elevation from one to three feet. We do not expect
that significant subsidence resulting from
densification of the native soils will occur during
the site development work as these are dense, coarse,
granular materials .
After removal of the topsoil and existing fill, the
native soils are suitable for support of structural
fill sections supporting paving sections and
foundations . We do recommend that prior to placement
of structural fill, the native soils be subjected to a
heavy proof-roll as discussed in the Earthwork
Criteria section of this report.
In Test Pits 1 through 3, we found cobbles and
boulders . The presence of oversized material and the
soil being cohesionless limited depth of the test pits
because of sloughing of the trench walls . During
construction of underground utilities, the contractor
should expect that excavation on neat trench walls
will not be feasible. The coarse, pebbly sands in
Test Pit 4 are cohesionless, and the depth of the test
pit was limited by the sloughing of the trench walls
into the excavation faster than the backhoe could
remove material . All underground utility trench work
00071601
Page 4 of 8
must conform to the requirements of the Department of
Labor and Industries standards for a Type C soil.
Even shallow trenches into these soils can fail
suddenly and without warning.
There are numerous trees growing at the top of the cut
slope. We recommend that the services of a forester
be provided to determine if any of these trees are
prone to wind toss resulting from loss of root support
by the cut slope. This will minimize the potential
risk of damage to the structure from future wind or
ice storm caused by falling trees .
Footings
Footings placed on or into the proof-rolled and
densified native soils or structural fill sections
meeting the recommendations of the Earthwork Criteria
section may be designed to a bearing value of 3000
pounds per square foot. A one-third increase in this
value is permissible for short-term wind or seismic
loadings .
For support of the modular building, we expect that
strip footings with tie downs or continuous perimeter
footings with a strip footing for support of the
marriage line of the double wide will be used. We
recommend that continuous or strip footings have a
minimum width of 16 inches . Footings should be
founded a minimum of 1. 5 feet below planned finish
grade for frost protection and confinement.
Paving Sections
Paving sections placed on the dense native soils may
be designed to a CBR value of 50 based on soil
classification. This design value requires that a
uniform minimum density of 95% of ASTM D 698 be
achieved on the subgrade. We recommend a minimum
paving section of eight inches of ballast, two inches
of 5/8-inch minus crushed rock for the leveling
course, and two inches of Class B asphaltic concrete.
All material used for the paving section should
conform to the requirements of the current edition of
the WSDOT/APWA specifications The project 's civil
engineer should review the recommended minimum paving
sections to ensure that the section meets the minimum
00071601
Page 5 of 8
design requirements based on the project's expected
traffic loads and project pavement service life.
Lateral Soil Pressure
It is our understanding that no retaining walls or
loading dock walls, or foundation walls over four feet
high and restraining earth are to be incorporated in
the design. If walls meeting these criteria are to be
built, we should be consulted for design information
Lateral loads may be resisted either by passive soil
pressures or by friction between footings and native
soil or structural fill sections . For passive soil
pressures for footings cast and backfilled according
to the Earthwork Criteria, a design value of 300
pounds per cubic foot may be used. A coefficient of
friction of 0 . 5 is permissible between footings and
native soils or structural fill sections .
Infiltration
We understand that the existing sanitary drainfield
will be used for this new structure. Infiltration of
storm water on site is practical . Coarse sands and
gravels or coarse sands with pebbles are found along
the property line where it fronts onto Highway 101 .
We recommend that the native soils found in Test Pit 4
be used for storm water infiltration. These soils
infiltrated water rapidly, and a stabilized rate in
free draining soils could not be determined. We
estimate the rate of infiltration using the EPA
standard test method is in excess of 10 seconds per
inch. For design of infiltration systems, we
recommend that a conservative rate of infiltration of
six inches per hour be used.
Seismic Site Period
The project area is in Seismic Zone 3 as shown by
Figure 18-2 , Seismic Zone Map of the United States, in
the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code. Actual
ground motion during a seismic event is influenced by
the distance from the epicenter, the depth to bedrock
under the site, and the condition (degree of
consolidation and saturation) of the soils supporting
the structure. We do not believe that the underlying
00071601
Page 6 of 8
soils are prone to spontaneous liquefaction under
seismic loadings . Available geologic information, as
presented in Thickness of Unconsolidated Sediments,
Puget Lowland, Washington by Hall and Othberg, 1974,
shows a sediment thickness of about 400 feet under the
project area. We believe that these soils are
granular and are well consolidated as a result of
loading by the Vashon glacial ice mass and overburden
pressure. We recommend that a soil profile type SC
be used for seismic design.
Earthwork Criteria
In areas under structures, paving sections, and
sidewalks, strip all topsoil and organic material and
existing fill material . For structural fill in areas
under footings and slabs-on-grade, we recommend that
all soils be compacted to a minimum density of 90
percent of ASTM D-1557 . This includes proofrolling
native soils exposed in the bottom of the excavation
before placing fill . Materials under the paving
section should also be compacted to the minimum
density specified in the Paving Section by
proofrolling before placing the paving section. This
includes proofrolling in-place soils, soils that have
been disturbed during construction, and all structural
fill materials .
For imported structural fill, we recommend that a
clean, six-inch minus, well graded gravel or gravelly
sand (classifying as GW or SW as determined by
ANSI/ASTM test method D-2487 ) , conforming to APWA
specification 9-03 . 14 for gravel borrow, be used. We
also recommend that no more than 7% by weight pass the
number 200 screen as tested by ANSI/ASTM D-1140 test
procedure. Other material may be used after the
review and written approval by the soils engineer or
engineering geologist.
All fill should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts
of six- to eight- inch loose thickness . Each lift
should be conditioned to the optimum moisture content
and compacted to the specified minimum density before
placing the next lift. We further recommend that all
utility trench backfill be compacted as specified
above. Earthwork should be performed by an approved
testing laboratory under the supervision of
Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services to ensure
compliance with the compaction requirements .
00071601
Page 7 of 8
Placement of fill sections on slopes greater that 4 : 1
(horizontal to vertical) will be benched as directed
into the native soils . Height and width of the bench
will be determined in the field by the soils engineer
or engineering geologist.
Unrestricted slopes shall not exceed 2 : 1 (horizontal
to vertical) for fill embankments and cuts that expose
native soils . All fill slopes will be rolled. The
project ' s civil engineer is responsible for the
protection of the constructed fill slopes from
uncollected runoff . We recommend that all
cut-and-fill slopes be seeded as soon as possible
after construction, so that vegetation can protect the
slopes from sheet washing.
No fill is to be placed during periods of unfavorable
weather or while the fill is frozen or thawing. When
work is stopped by rain, placement of fill will not
resume until the soils engineer or engineering
geologist determines that the moisture content is
suitable for compactive effort and that the previously
placed fill has not been loosened. The contractor
will take appropriate measures during unfavorable
weather to protect the fill already placed. Measures
that may be required include limiting wheeled traffic
and grading to provide temporary drainage of the
fill . At the direction of the soils engineer or
engineering geologist, the contractor will be
responsible for the removal and reworking of fill that
has softened or has less than the required compaction.
LIMITS OF LIABILITY
BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES is responsible for
the opinions and conclusions contained in this
report. These are based on the data relating only to
the specific project and locations discussed herein.
This report was prepared within the standard and
accepted practices of our industry. In the event
conclusions and recommendations based on these data
are made by others, such conclusions and
recommendations are not the responsibility of the
soils engineer or engineering geologist unless he has
been given an opportunity to review them and concurs
in such conclusions or recommendations in writing.
00071601
Page 8 of 8
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this
report are based upon the data obtained in the
explorations at the locations indicated on the
attached plan. This report does not reflect any
variations that may occur between these explorations .
The nature and extent of variations between
explorations may not become evident until construction
is underway.
Bradley-Noble is to be given the opportunity to review
the final plans and specifications for soils work.
This is to verify that our geotechnical engineering
recommendations have been correctly interpreted and
implemented in the final design and specifications .
We also recommend that we be retained to provide
geotechnical services during the foundation
construction and trenching. These services would
include review of backfill operations, excavations,
and other geotechnical considerations that may arise
during construction. We would observe compliance with
the design concept and project specifications . If the
subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated in
our explorations, we would also evaluate changes in
construction specifications.
BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
Report prepared by:
A'&--
Davidong
Engineering Geologist
Please see attached soil engineer's review letter.
2 August 2000
1235 EAST 4TH AVE
SUITE 101
OLYMPIA,WA 98506
(360)754-9339
FAX(360)3nc.co 4
MC SQUARED
E-mail:eng®mc2-inc. m
I N C O R P O R A T E D
August 1, 2000
David Strong
Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Service
PO Box 12267
Olympia, WA 98508-2267
RE: SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR THE LILLIWAUP POST OFFICE
LILLIWAUP, WASHINGTON
Dear David:
We have reviewed the attached eight page soils report entitled "Soils Investigation Report for
the New Lilliwaup Post Office" located in Lilliwaup, Washington.
This report was prepared by you based on field work performed by you and your firm. MC
Squared, Incorporated has reviewed this report and the conclusions contained therein. It is our
opinion that the report and the conclusions meet the standards of good geotechnical practice for
this place and time.
MC Squared's recommendations and opinion are based on our review of the field information
and soils logs presented to us. MC Squared has made recommendations to you regarding
allowing bearing stresses, lateral resistance and loads, site period, and other items of an
engineering nature. These recommendations and conclusions have been included in the
attached report.
I I'you have any questions, or I may he of further help, please call me at (360) 754-9339.
Sincerely yours,
MC SQUARED, INC.
�v .
OF W AS.,
p,A
Vince McClure, Ph.D_ PE .� � o
Principal z
0��96GI ST EPA
SS�OPIAL
(':MyFi ICs\Misc FIIesUlllwauh POsi OIl)Ie.OK-0I-2000.w)d Expims 08/17/ 0 I
STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION 0 CIVIL ENGINEERS
TEST PIT LOGS
Project number: 00 . 07-16
Lilliwaup Post Office Site
Test pits excavated, logged, and backfilled on 26 July
2000 .
Test Pit One:
0 to -3 .5 feet Fill of gravelly sands with trash
and debris, layers of organic soils
with wood.
-3 . 5 to -8 . 0 feet Reddish brown dense coarse slightly
silty sandy gravels with cobbles
and boulders .
Test Pit Two:
0 to -2 . 2 feet Fill and topsoil comprised of a
light brown silty sandy gravel with
roots .
-2 . 2 to -7 . 5 feet Reddish brown dense coarse slightly
silty sandy gravels with cobbles
and boulders .
Test Pit Three:
0 to -1 . 0 feet Topsoil and roots, brown sandy
gravel .
-1 . 0 to -7 . 8 feet Reddish brown dense clean coarse
sandy gravels with cobbles and
boulders .
Test Pit Four:
0 to -3 . 5 feet Fill of mixed sandy gravels with
topsoil and organics .
-3 . 5 to -8 . 0 feet Reddish brown pebbly coarse sand
with scattered cobbles . Little
fine sand fraction below a number
20 screen.
No seepage or ground water was observed in the test
pits . Below 4 to 5 feet from the surface, the soils
became moist. Sloughing of the trench walls and
undermining of the surface soils occurred in all the
test pits .
isaj He-�naow
It'll, .•,R,.t . 1LYOtlr 011V Nr4 W1
i
~ '
Ell
fA,
10
.. � , / �`'•-•.. 1,
l _
4�
MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Shelton,Washington 98584
DATE: Oct. 24lh, 2000
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Jason Manassee, DCD—Planner
FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W - Co. Hydr. Engr.
SUBJ: Stormwater Site Plan Review NAME: Ouellette—Lilliwaup Post Office
A Stormwater Site Plan(SSP) prepared for the proposed Lilliwaup Post Office has been received
and reviewed by Public Works.
The plan conforms to standards of good engineering practices and principles for this time and
place, and appears to meet present standards for stormwater quality and quantity control.
I've been in contact with the project engineer, Lorna Taylor, and requested that they provide a
letter of concurrence or authorization to site their proposed bio-swale in the State Highway's
right-of-way. Authorization from the State to construct the swale in the right-of-way complicates
who is to maintain the swale, but I expect Ouellette and WSDOT to be able to work something
out.
Akin to the right-of-way issue is completion of the Operation and Maintenance Covenant, its
recording, and delivery of a copy of the recorded document to Public Works for monitoring and
administration.
The right-of-way issue and O&M Covenant are the only details I see that still need addressing,
otherwise the SSP can be considered complete.
Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding this
department's review or these comments. I will keep you informed of any materials I receive
pertaining to the two remaining issues.
Si cerelyI
Al n A. Tahja
File: H:\WP\STRMWTR\REVIEWS\Lilliwp-PO.doc �JC �' �L� Iv
,1
Taylor
Engineering RECEIVED
Consultants OCT 0 4 2000
URS OREINER
SEATrLE
PRELIMINARY
STORMWATER SITE PLAN REPORT
Post Office
in
Lilliwaup, Washington
OF NVA Sfil p
'P 29351
I TE���,`��v
s�aNAL��
�OlZlpo
EXPIRES 1141 of
Prepared by: Lorna M. Taylor, P.E.
Date: September 8, 2000
Revised: October 2, 2000
P.O.Box 1787 Issaquah,Washington 98027-0073 telephone(425)391-1415 fax(425)391-1551
Stormwater Site Plan Report
Lilliwaup P.O.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page Number
I. Project Overview..............................................:...... 1
II. Plot Plan................................................................ 1
III. Preliminary Conditions Summary................................ 1
IV. Off-Site Analysis..................................................... 1
V. Analysis and Design................................................ 1
VI. Special Reports and Studies...................................... 2
VII. Basin and Community Planning Areas........................ 2
Vill. Other Permits......................................................... 2
IX. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan............................ 2
X. Bond Quantities Worksheet, Retention/Detention
Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch, and Declaration of
Covenant.............................................................. 3
XI. Maintenance and Operations Manual.......................... 3
Appendices
Appendix A: Site Plan
Appendix B: Calculations
Appendix C: Soils Investigation Report
Appendix D: Declaration of Covenants Associated with Privately Maintained
Storm Drainage Facilities
TEC
Stormwater Site Plan Report
Lilliwaup P.O.
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
This Stormwater Site Plan Report is submitted to Mason County in accordance with the
County-adopted Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (Ecology
Manual). The project site is located southwest of Lilliwaup Bay, west of SR 101 and Hood
Canal in Lilliwaup, Washington. See Figure 1 in Appendix B for a map of the vicinity.
The proposed project will construct a modular post office building and associated access,
parking, utilities, drainage features, and landscaping. The building sewer will be connected to
the existing septic system currently serving the existing post office building to the north. The
new development will cover approximately 0.57 acres spanning several leased lots, all fronting
on SR 101.
If. PLOT PLAN
The proposed site plan is shown in Appendix A.
III. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
Most of the 0.57 acre area to be developed is covered with small trees, brush, and grass. The
area is relatively flat and reportedly was a gravel borrow pit long ago. There is an existing post
office building just to the north of the proposed new building site. USGS mapping (see Figure
1 in Appendix B) shows that the site is just across SR 101 from Hood Canal at the base of a
steep hillside to the west. The soils underlying the site are very permeable with no signs of
high groundwater. The soils investigation report prepared by Bradley-Noble Geotechnical
Services for the project is included in Appendix C.
IV. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
The site is adjacent to SR 101, which abuts Lilliwaup Bay on Hood Canal. There is no
downstream runoff path. Currently, runoff from the site infiltrates into the highly permeable
soil. There is a small ditch along the highway frontage, but it has no outlet. Any runoff from
the site that does occur would flow in the roadside ditch or across SR 101 to Hood Canal.
Uphill of the proposed development, is a steep slope, which extends approximately 250
vertical feet above the site.
V. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The runoff from the proposed project (including pervious and impervious areas) was analyzed
with the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method, using the King County Surface
Water Management Design Manual computer program HYD.EXE and precipitation data from
the Ecology Manual. The developed system was modeled with a total of:
0.040 acres of roof surface
0.180 acres of asphalt paving
0.004 acres of concrete, and
0.346 acres of landscaping
compared with a bare dirt and brush pre-developed condition, which was modeled as fully
forested, to provide a conservative detention sizing.
The following table summarizes the pre-developed and post-developed flows generated by the
SBUH routine. The runoff was calculated for both the "pre-development" and "post-
1
TEC
Stormwater Site Plan Report
Lilliwaup P.O.
X. BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET, RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY
SHEET AND SKETCH, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
Mason County's Declaration of Covenants Associated with Privately Maintained Storm
Drainage Facilities form is included in Appendix D. This form must be completed, notarized,
and filed with Mason County.
XI. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
Retention/Detention Facilities
The detention/infiltration facility is a surface pond, located south of the new parking area. The
purpose of the pond is to infiltrate the runoff from the new impervious surfaces on the site into
the underlying soil. The pond has been sized to store some water when the infiltration
capacity of the soil is exceeded during extreme runoff events.
In order to function properly, the pond must be kept free of accumulated sediment, which will
reduce the infiltration rate into the underlying soil. The facility should be visually inspected for
sediment accumulation at least once each year and also after every major storm greater than
or equal to a 10-year return frequency. If the facility remains full of water for extended periods
of time, then the sediments should be removed from the pond.
Conveyance Systems
Pipes, trench drains, and swales/ditches transport runoff from one place to another, in this
case from catch basins and downspouts to the pond. To work properly, pipes must be kept
free of silt and other debris. If pipes become blocked, surface flooding will usually occur.
Catch Basins
Catch basins collect surface drainage and direct it into storm conveyance pipes. They help
prevent downstream drainage problems by trapping sediment and other debris that would
otherwise flow downstream with the runoff. It is important to keep catch basins clean so
accumulated silt is not flushed into the infiltration pond during a significant storm. All catch
basins should be inspected at least once each year and after major storms.
3
TEC
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND:
- J
d FRT)
� ASPHALT PAVEMENT
( ® rETAWPMG WALL
1
\ be\ 20
\ oo �— /
ROOF DRAM
• \ ` \ \,F \ O ® GRAVEL _-FD_-_ FOOT DRAIN
O SIORY DRN i QlNACE LINE(SD) 1�tA1R..
SHOULDER
► ; HOOD CANAL
CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROJECT
LOCATION
ASPHALT ` 0,
UTQI OR SrAIE FLOW ILINE '
G 7
If � r Spy AREA IXtAM 10 C O
RIPRAP ARMORED CATCH BASIN W OVERFLOW `.
S TM. ® ' VICINITY MAP
aCTION CLEANOUT
. ,(J/ F .ITa ( ,• 4.GAVEL ` N.T S.
lASPER$gN\TRJMCN PER ABBREVIATIONS:
• \/ `\ \ �' /! ` .DETAIL 1/fI —RIPRAP N7YCVr Ar PIPE
I ❑U iFALL PER OE`A0. AO AREA::RAM
C'TYPE
(LN `` I/CT APWA AYERICAH rJBLIC WORKS ASSMAnON
13
Cd I�CURB \ DEv OE[.,TENI
DWI DISPERSION
\ / OE'K I IL
_ \ E JIST
O
COL TYPEJ 1 AP. Ex :xISLNG F
NOOIWC DRAIN En
�OETAL--.1- ! ' \ . IE NVERT E VAN, d
E
\ ( , - S0 ' ` \ LF _KAL FOG: Q
DAD5 nJK \ i L. aNOSCA
PE'DESIGN ;m
'\ MIS NOT.O SCALE
�
RD V RGG-RAIN O;r
:/w xGHT-OF-WAY
! `
� s sa;1H
SD •:CRY DRNN
/ \ • / X STO iTANUATyp RO
` \\.__ / I YSDOr WASIINGTd/S?A1E E{FARTYENT DF
-" - `•, _ ,' _ / J ; RETAIN C WALL CONCRETE TOP OF C01 _\` 'A—
DRAINAGE; :AN�CAiA`:GN �I�
ZE IOEu CGNUE'E CLRB
N! I T P) r SET rN EPDXY �IV
SITE PLAN INFILTRATION PON
0�
.. ; SCALE: r=ly L r A - - _ \ �g
O
... . .. .... . V. .. .. ... .. . .. .. . .. .I. ......A.... .. ... � �/\11
R - ' TA TCH - - R/W - t�
Zia
f 15'ASSLYEO .
WILDING SLOPE
rl 1 �CAA55 - I -
' f+ -
' � ASF•yACT DRIVE RIP
. GRASS L R I I
I.IE
OF EXISTht
1 ( 1 - • � •• SLOTTED CURB >
s
.L FLDII pREADER /-AP
201- . . . DR(RDIVEC:LID • . . - .. 1. . . .. .. . .TRI'YN OITM :L-4-GRAVEL lAILAS'T DETkI:/CI.D FOR SHOULDER .YPERYEABLE CIA+JFME Q___ r,-SLOr-EO.Ex TRUCE: Q
L-5•ASPHALT CLASS a SILT S IL BARRIER : _CNC'zE f _...RIB
.. . .. . .OVER.:'-u�t.5f..�SAATFAONG. . . . . ... .. . .. . .. . . .. ..
-..
• - - •• AS7HM T DR,vEWAv O
FILTER STRIP ^ ... .. .. =A\f}AE r
.«.. SCALE. ! �J,)
- — .. . . . . . . . . . - ... . - - . . ... - .. . . .. .. :.L1l.Ir. ..... ..... ..... ... . .. . - .. . .. - . . .. - -... - ,• O0 0 C.V GRASS nL TER
f. r 00 0 `SIRw
En nK GRADE I a(� 0 0 O
30. . �. ... ..... ...... .... . ... 00 0 °
OOQ p I Z
nllt�l GRACE
-
:. :.. . . . ..;. . . B TREATED wood
BOARD
•.•.: •.' : SIMILAR NOTCHED
TO DEFLRI/Cl 1
___9_�'� WATER______________ -
lr
POND BOTTOM EIEv .lOSQ I I-I/2 To 3/4
20. . . . .... .... . ... .... .... ...... .... ...... ..... .... . . . .... .. . .. ... ..... . . ... WASHED RIVER ROCK J i
DISPERSION TRENCH
INFILTRATION POND �rs 2
J
.. .. $GALE 1•.5" O / -
SS$1 Version 4.0 3/17/0D
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS
Lilliaup P.O. hyd.out
Preliminary Hydrology AnaljLsis
Date: 8/09/00
RING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Surface Water Management Division
HYDROGRAPH PROGRAMS
Version 4.21B
1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM
2 - SBUHYD
3 - MODIFIED SBUHYD
4 - ROUTE
5 - ROUTE2
6 - ADDHYD
7 - BASEFLOW
8 - PLOTHYD
9 - DATA
10 - RDFAC
11 - RETURN TO DOS
ENTER OPTION:
SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH
STORM OPTIONS:
1 - S.C.S. TYPE-1A
2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM
3 - STORM DATA FILE
SPECIFY STORM OPTION:
1
S.C.S. TYPE-IA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION
ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES)
1 24.00 3.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
************1t*R****fie S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION ********************
24-HOUR STORM **** 3.00" TOTAL PRECIP. *********
ro
-------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
.4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.6 .4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
PEAR-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.25 7.83 3953
.ENTER (d:) [path)filename(.ext) FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
6mu.hyd
SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP
c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 2
.3 66.0 .2 98.0 6.9
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.6 .3 86.0 .2 90.0 6.9
Page 1
hyd.out
ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES)
10 24.00 6.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------
f*!!!!!**!!!***!!!** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION ********************
*<***!*!! 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 6.50" TOTAL PRECIP. *********
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
.4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.6 .4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.70 7.83 10739
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
10yu.hyd
S13FUEY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP
c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 2
.3 86.0 .2 98.0 6.9
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
� 6 .3 66.0 .2 98.0 6.9
PEAK-Q(CF6, T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.81 7.83 11227
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext) FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
l0yd.hyd
SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP
n
STORM OPTIONS:
1 - S.C.S. TYPE-lA
2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM
3 - STORM DATA FILE
SPECIFY STORM OPTION:
1
S.C.S. TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION
ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES)
100 24.00 9.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
******!!**!********* S.C.S. TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION ****!****!!***!!!***
*!***!*** 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 9.00" TOTAL PRECIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
.4 66.0 .1 98.0 15.0
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
_ A CN A CN
.6. .4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
1.03 7.83 15771
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
Page 3
�E ..•
. ..................
.........::.....
jf .. I ...
Rik
•Y'
�:`::Eii �i`�:�:f' : :.;'?::;: iiiii:':! .�;:�.':. � 'i �.:�.i.•:.i ii�• -.':':.:..:L:..,,'�'N:'�wr•..:::��.. �` ..= �c.:E� f yf.: ;Tt�.T;..
.....:..: .........................
K'
•:tom::
T
v •.
.. ::.:
..........
................":. .
........... .
.... ......
:
f
gtJ•.27-
P ..
.... .. ......... �.. cam. ` 4 � �x
... F t . .. .. F.
Figure 1
Site Location/USGS Map
Scale as Shown
D TopoQoads Ce�ef�10 IM DeLotme Yarmodh,ME 04W6 So=e Data:USGS
F'—"--�400 R Scale:1:10,400 Detaff:143 Datmn:WCS84
ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES)hyd.out
10 24.00 6.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------
******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION ********************
********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 6.50" TOTAL PRECIP. *********
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
.4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
.6 .4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
PEAR-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.70 7.83 10739
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
l0yu.hyd
SBE•C,UY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP
c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 2
.3 86.0 .2 98.0 6.9
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
A CN A CN
_� .3 86.0 .2 98.0 6.9
PEAK-Q(CF6 T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
.81 7.83 11227
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
lOyd.hyd
SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP
n
STORM OPTIONS:
1 - S.C.S. TYPE-IA
2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM
3 - STORM DATA FILE
SPECIFY STORM OPTION:
1
S.C.S. TYPE-IA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION
ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES)
100 24.00 9.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*+!**+tlr*****f,***y,y,*** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION ********************
********* 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 9.00" TOTAL PRECIP. *********
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1
.4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
DATA PRINT-OUT:
AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES)
_ A CN A CN
8• .4 86.0 .1 98.0 15.0
PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT)
1.03 7.83 15771
ENTER [d:] (path]filename[.ext) FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH:
Page 3
rdfac.out
Lilliwaup P.O.
Preliminary Infiltration Pond Anal;sja
Date: 08/15/00
RING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Surface Water Management Division
HYDROGRAPH PROGRAMS
Version 4.21E
1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM
2 - SBUHYD
3 - MODIFIED SBUHYD
4 - ROUTE
5 - ROUTE2
6 - ADDHYD
7 - BASEFLOW
8 - PLOTHYD
9 - DATA
10 - RDFAC
11 - RETURN TO DOS
ENTER OPTION:
R/D FACILITY DESIGN ROUTINE
SPECIFY TYPE OF R/D FACILITY:
1 - POND 4 - INFILTRATION POND
2 - TANK 5 - INFILTRATION TANK
3 - VAULT 6 - GRAVEL TRENCH/BED
ENTER: POND SIDE SLOPE (HORIZ. COMPONENT)
ENTER: EFFECTIVE STORAGE DEPTH(ft) BEFORE OVERFLOW
ENTER: VERT-PERM(min/in), PERM-SURFACE (0 = SIDES ONLY, 1 = SIDES AND BOTTOM)
ENTER [d:] [path]filename(.ext] OF PRIMARY DESIGN INFLOW HYDROGRAPH:
PRIMARY DESIGN INFLOW PEAK = 1.17 CFS
ENTER PRIMARY DESIGN RELEASE RATE(cfs):
ENTER NUMBER OF INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS TO BE TESTED FOR PERFORMANCE (5 MAXIMUM) :
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] OF HYDROGRAPH 1:
ENTER TARGET RELEASE RATE(cfs):
ENTER [d:] [path]filename[.ext] OF HYDROGRAPH 2:
ENTER TARGET RELEASE RATE(cfs):
ENTER: NUMBER OF ORIFICES, RISER-HEAD(ft), RISER-DIAMETER(in)
RISER OVERFLOW DEPTH FOR PRIMARY PEAK INFLOW = .19 FT
SPECIFY ITERATION DISPLAY: Y - YES, N - NO
SPECIFY: R - REVIEW/REVISE INPUT, C - CONTINUE
SUMMARY OF INPUT ITEMS
1) TYPE OF FACILITY: INFILTRATION POND (2.00:1 SIDE SLOPES)
2) STORAGE DEPTH(ft): 2.00
3) VERTICAL PERMEABILITY(min/in) : .50
PERMEABLE SURFACE: SIDES AND BOTTOM
Page 1
rdfac.out
1.20 .00 308.4 340.8
1.40 .00 379.6 372.0
1.60 .00 457.3 404.4
1.60 .00 541.5 438.1
2.00 .00 632.6 473.1
2.10 .46 680.8 491.0
2.20 1.31 730.8 509.3
2.30 2.40 782.6 527.9
2.40 3.69 836.3 546.8
2.50 5.16 892.0 566.1
AVERAGE VERTICAL PERMEABILITY: .5 MINUTES/INCH
SPECIFY: F - FILE, N - NEAJOB, P - PRINT IF/OF, R - REVISE, S - STOP
Stop - Program terminated.
Page 3
Flow
t
AVvz'cac
Ir
cti
c
a
ICncA
0
K,G.
L - 6 -
6.3.5 NARROW AREA FILTER STRIPS
FIGURE 6.3S.A FILTER STRIP LENGTHS FOR NARROW RIGHT-OF-WAY
20.0
15.0
wFlowpath
30 feet
00
t:
10.0
a. 20 feet
L
.r
10 feet
5.0
0.0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Filter Strip Slope
Note. minimum allowable filter strip length is 4 feet
6.3.5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Required and recommended design criteria for narrow area filter strips are the same as specified for basic
filter strips. Note that for roadway applications,gravel spreaders must meet the specification for shoulder
ballast given in Section 9-03.9(2)of the current Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal
Construction, 1994compacted to 90 percent standard proctor.
1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/l/98
6-65
�o,,.srgTFo� MASON COUNTY
N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T Planning Division
o Y o~ P O Box 578, Shelton, WA 98684
0 1864 (360)427-9670
SFP?nnn nn1_,iR
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
Description of Proposal:
Replace existing Lilliwaup Post Office with new 1600 square foot modular building. Project to include a
paved parking area w/10 stalls and mail truck access w/loading and unloading operations. Bioswale
system for retention and total infiltration on onsite stormwater.
Proponent: US POSTAL SERVICE
Location of Proposal:
Parcel Number: 323305156013
Legal Description: LILLIWAUP BLK: 56+ LOT: 13-18 ALL TL IN FRONT OF THAT
Directions to Site: MI'Mcent to existing lilliwaup post office.
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on
the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This
decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the
Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request.
Please contact /I�QG`��'�, at ext. .&0 with any questions.
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date
below. Comments must be sumitted by 12/12/00.
Authorized al Go ernment Official Date
0,�- DOC- <1w 4
'D0�C -__6
us�ro�.
lot
,4PPt ICA0T
Flee A-*tks HA'L aJ/S77Zi(!�
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(WAC 197-11-960)
Action:
Receipt:
Received By: Date:
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project(if applicable):
Lilliwaup, Washington—Lilliwaup Main Post Office Relocation
2. Name of Applicant:US Postal Service—Seattle Facilities Field Office
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
PO Box 9724
Federal Way WA 98063-9724
253-925-9735
Contact: Paul Ouellette—URS Greiner
2401 4th Ave. Ste 808
Seattle WA 98121-1459
Ph: 206-674-1895 Fax: 206-674-1801
4. Date checklist prepared: August 14, 2000
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Mason County Planning and Land Services Department
6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable):
Construction is planned for completion by the end of July 2001.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes,explain:
There are no plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity
associated with this project.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,or will be
prepared,directly related to this proposal.
A Soils Investigation Report(August 1, 2000) has been prepared by
Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services, Olympia, Washington.
1
� � 1
A Biological Assessment (BA) is being prepared for this project.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,explain.
There are no other known applications pending for government approvals.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
A Biological Opinion, favorable to this project, will be required from the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and possibly the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS).
11. Give brief,complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you
to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific
information on project description.)
This project involves development of a 1/3-acre parcel near the
community of Lilliwaup, on Hood Canal, upon which a 1,600 square foot
modular building will be erected to replace the existing main Lilliwaup
Post Office that currently serves this area. The project will include a
paved parking area, with 8 customer stalls and 2 employee stalls. The
paved area will also accommodate mail truck access and
loading/unloading operations. Site development will also include an
onsite bioswale system for retention and total infiltration of onsite storm
water. (See attached site plan.)
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project,including a street address, if any,and section,
township,and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide
the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description,site plan,vicinity map,
and topographic map,if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans
required by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or details plans submitted
with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The project is located along Hwy 101 just south of the community of
Lilliwaup, in Mason County, Washington. The site is situated in Section
1, Township 23N, Range 3W, W.M. (see attached vicinity map).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site(underline one): flat, ,hilly,steep slopes,
mountainous,other: gently sloping to the southwest.
The site is located on a relatively flat area at the base of a steep
slope. The finished site will be graded level.
2
b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)?
Maximum slopes on the site are less than 5 percent.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example;clay,sand,
gravel,peat,muck)? If you know the classification of the agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
According to the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Mason County
Soil Survey, the soils at the site consist primarily of Hoodsport soil
material. This soil type consists of well-drained, reddish soils that
have developed from granitic till that is highly stained by iron and
contains considerable gravel and stone. This soil is typically
coarse to medium-textured and associated with steep slopes.
Site soil samples discovered a top layer of topsoil and debris.
Below this layer were a mixture of the following soil types:
• Silty, coarse sands and gravels with cobbles and
boulders
• Coarse sands and gravels, with some silt adherences
• Coarse sands and small gravels with some cobbles (i.e.,
either river bar or beach deposits)
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so,describe.
There are presently no indications of unstable soils on or adjacent
to the site.
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Minimal grading (less than 500 cubic yards) would be associated
with project site preparation work. No filling activity is
anticipated.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally
describe.
There is minimal potential for erosion during the construction
activities associated with this project.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)?
The impervious surfaces created by this project will cover
approximately 55 percent of the site. This will include the
approximately 1,580 square foot roof of the building itself,
together with about 5,000 square feet of associated paved areas.
3
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if
any:
During construction, site erosion will be controlled using Best
Management Practices (BMP's). Construction of the project
would typically be performed during dry periods between May and
early October followed by immediate restoration of affected
ground contours, features, and substrates. An erosion/runoff
control plan will be developed and approved by the County prior to
any construction activities. Elements of this plan would include
vegetative controls, structural controls such as fabric filter fences,
and gravel berms, and other BMP's. Monitoring and maintenance
of such control measures would be conducted throughout project
construction to ensure proper performance.
Once the facility is constructed, landscaping and onsite detention
will control all potential erosion from the site. The project will
incorporate permanent erosion-control measures, including
vegetative controls for embankments, where necessary.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e.,dust,
automobile,odors,industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the
project is completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate
quantities,if known.
During construction there will be emissions of engine-related air
pollutants emanating from construction worker vehicles and
construction material trucks. In addition fugitive dust from the
construction site is anticipated. These emissions will be short term
in duration, however, and are anticipated to result in minimal
impacts to the air quality in the region. There should be no
increases in air emissions in this area resulting from facility
operations.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so,generally describe.
No off-site sources of air pollution or odors will affect this facility.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Air emissions during construction activities are regulated by the
Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA). Any
emission requires best available control technology.
4
Construction impacts would be reduced by incorporating
mitigation measures into construction specifications for the project.
Mitigation measures to control particulate matter, and emissions of
engine-related air pollutants during construction would include the
following:
• Spraying exposed soil with water to reduce emissions and
deposition of particulate matter.
• Covering all trucks transporting materials to eliminate
particulates blowing off trucks during transportation.
• Wetting materials in trucks or providing adequate freeboard
(space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to
reduce generation and deposition of particulates during
transportation.
• Removing particulate matter deposited on paved,public roads
to reduce mud on area roadways.
• Routing and scheduling construction trucks so as to reduce
traffic delays during peak travel times and thereby reduce
secondary air quality impacts caused by reduction of traffic
speeds while waiting for construction trucks.
• Requiring appropriate emission control devices on all
construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel fuel to
reduce CO emissions in vehicular exhaust.
• Using relatively new,well-maintained equipment to reduce CO
emissions.
No emission control measures would be required for the completed
project.
3. WATER
a. Surface:
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the
site(including year-round and seasonal streams,salt water,lakes,
ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type and provide names. If
appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into.
Hood Canal is located within 100 feet of the site.
2. Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200
feet)the described waters? If yes,please describe and attach available
plans for this work.
The entire project will require work within 200 feet of
Hood Canal.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in
or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
5
site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material and/or
disposal site.
There will be no fill or dredge activities associated with this
project.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities, if
known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions will result from
this project.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,note
floodplain location on the site plan.
The proposed project is not located within the 100-year
floodplain.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so,describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.
No discharges of waste materials into surface waters will
occur as a result of the development of this project.
b. Ground:
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to
groundwater? Give general description,purpose,and approximate
quantities of withdrawals or discharges, if known.
Groundwater will not be withdrawn as a consequence of
the development of this postal facility. Other than post-
construction stormwater infiltration, no water will be
discharged to groundwater by this project.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources,if any(for example,domestic sewage;
industrial,containing the following chemicals. . . ;agricultural;etc.).
Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number of
animals or humans the system(s)is/are expected to serve.
The project will not involve any ground discharges of
waste materials.
C. Water Runoff(including stormwater):
1. Describe the source of runoff(including stormwater)and method of
collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where
will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
6
Runoff will consist exclusively of stormwater runoff from
the roof and parking lot areas of the site.
2. Will this project generate waste materials which,if not handled
properly,could enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally
describe.
No waste materials will enter local ground or surface
waters as a consequence of this project.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water
impacts,if any:
An onsite retention/infiltration system proposed as part of the
project design would control all stormwater generated at the
facility. The new facility will connect into the existing wastewater
system to handle the nominal amount of wastewater(a volume less
than that of one residential unit) generated by this operation.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site and list specific
species:
X deciduous tree: alder,maple,aspen,other:
evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other:
X shrubs
X grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bulrush,skunk cabbage,other
water plants: water lily,eelgrass,milfoil,other
other type of vegetation:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
The project site is currently an open grassy embankment along
Hwy 101. Existing grasses and incidental shrubs will be removed
by project development.
C. List threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered plant species exist on the project site.
d. Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site,if any:
Open unpaved areas of the site will be planted with lawn and
landscape shrubs. No other mitigation would be necessary.
5. ANIMALS
a. Underline any birds or animals that have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk,heron,eagle,songbirds,other:
mammals: deer,bear,elk,beaver,other: racoon,rabbit,rodents
fish: bass,salmon,trout,herring,shellfish,other:
The project site, a roadway embankment containing tall grasses
with incidental shrub stands, offers minimal value as wildlife
habitat for smaller mammals. Rare incidental use by larger
mammals would be expected since the site is adjacent to a major
state highway(Hwy 101). Bird use of the area is limited owing to
a general lack of larger shrubs for perching. Nearby vacant parcels
are likely utilized by these same wildlife species. However, impact
to wildlife use of these adjacent areas is not expected to be
significant.
b. List any threatened or endangered animal species known to be on or near the
site.
Aside from occasional observations of bald eagle, no threatened or
endangered animal species have been observed on or in the vicinity
of the site. Threatened salmonid species that occur in Hood Canal
(within one hundred feet of the site)will not be impacted by this
proj ect.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,explain.
The site does not appear to be part of a migration route due to its
close proximity to Hwy 101.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None are needed. Although native vegetation appropriate to the
area could be used as wildlife-friendly landscaping features.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy(electric,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used
to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating,manufacturing,etc.
8
Electricity will be used for lighting. Energy would be required for
construction of the proposed facility (i.e., diesel and gasoline for
construction vehicles and equipment).
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so,generally describe.
This project would not affect potential use of solar energy by any
adjacent properties.
• C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
Energy-efficient building materials (in accordance with current
building codes) will be used in the construction of the building.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals,risk of fire and explosion,spill,or hazardous waste,that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so,describe..
Some minimal potential exists for diesel or gasoline spills from
equipment during construction. If a spill occurs, the contractor
would be required to clean it up. There is also a potential for
construction-related accidents and injuries to construction workers.
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required(for
example,chemical spills or explosions).
No special emergency services would be required. The
construction contractor will adhere to standard construction
safety procedures. Existing emergency response services
are available in the area and can respond to any medical
emergency within 20 to 30 minutes.
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,
if any:
None are needed.
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for
example: traffic,construction,or production equipment,other)?
Hwy 101 is a significant source of noise immediately
adjacent to the facility. Large trucks and automobiles
create noise levels that dominate the local noise
environment.
9
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with
the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic,
construction,or production equipment,other)? Indicate what hours
noise would come from the site.
Customer/employee vehicles and Postal Service delivery
trucks will access the facility. The effect of site-related
traffic noise is anticipated to be insignificant, given the
proximity of local highway-generated noise.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any:
The project would not require special mitigation for on-site
noise.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Currently, the site is a vacant gravel borrow area. There is
currently no evidence of any incidental use.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe.
There is no evidence that the site was ever used for agriculture.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
There are no structures on the proposed post office location.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what?
No structures will be removed and relocated as a result of this
project.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
There is currently no zoning designation for the site.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The current comprehensive plan designation of the site is Hamlet.
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
The current shoreline designation for the site is Urban
Commercial.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"area?
If so, specify.
10
No part of the site has been classified as environmentally sensitive.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Approximately 2 to 3 operations personnel may work at this site on
a daily basis.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
No one will be displaced by this project.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None are needed.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
This project is consistent with local land use plans and policies.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high,middle,or low-income housing.
Not applicable.
b. Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high,middle,or low-income housing.
No housing will be eliminated by this project.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None are needed.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas or
chimneys;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed?
The tallest height of the proposed structure is approximately 12
feet.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
This project will result in no view blockage impacts.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None are needed.
I1
i
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would
it mainly occur?
Security lighting will be established around the post office.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard, interfere with
views,or affect wildlife?
Light and glare from the finished project would not present safety
or other impact issues.
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
No other light sources would affect this project.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
None are needed.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
The project site currently experiences no active recreational use or
incidental recreational access.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
No significant recreational use impacts would result from this
project.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None are needed.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on,proposed for,or eligible for listing in
national,state,or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site?
If so,generally describe.
No historical resources are known to exist on this site which is part
of the original road cut established during construction of Hwy
101.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological,
scientific,or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
12
No cultural resources are known to exist on this site.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None are necessary. If cultural artifacts or historical resources are
uncovered during construction, site work will be suspended.
Authorities at the County and State levels will be notified and
appropriate measures will be taken to protect these resources.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on-site plans, if any.
The site will be accessed directly from Hwy 101.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
The site is not currently served by transit.
C. How many parking spaces would the complete project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
The proposed project would have a parking area that could
accommodate up to 8 customer vehicles and 2 employee vehicles.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing
roads or streets,not including driveways? If so,generally describe(indicate
whether public or private).
No new roads or streets would be required for this project. Access
to the site directly off of Hwy 101 will be established.
e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,or air
transportation? If so,generally describe.
The project will not utilize water or air transportation.
f. How many vehicular trips per hour would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volume would occur.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual (5t' Edition), a 1600-square foot post office
facility could be expected to generate approximately 65 vehicular
trips per average weekday. The traffic generated by this facility
would be the same traffic volumes experienced by the nearby
existing post office. Significant traffic volume increases are not
anticipated.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
13
None are needed.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:
fire protection,police protection,health care,schools,other)? If so,generally
describe:
No increased need for public services, above exiting conditions,
will result from this project.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any.
None are needed.
16. UTILITIES
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electrici ,natural gas,water,
refuse service,telephone,sanitary sewer,se tic system,other?
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the
service and the general utility construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity,which might be needed.
The only utilities required by this facility are electrical, water, and
telephone service,provided by local service purveyors. The water
service will be extended from existing Post Office to the new
location. The new facility will be hooked up to the existing
sanitary septic system associated with the existing post office,
nearby. There is no public storm water system available for this
site. Total infiltration of onsite runoff is part of the facility and site
design.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency/agencies is/ ere ying on them to make its/their decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: O g oD
14
LILLIWAUP WA—POST OFFICE RELOCATION
9/27/00
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
1. YES. Anadromous salmon, in addition to ESA listed marine mammals,and birds. ESA status is
provided.
Anadromous fishes that use Lilliwaup Bay as a migration corridor to spawn in LilliwaupCreek.
ESA Listed.- Chinook Salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),Puget Sound ESU-Threatened
Chum Salmon(O. keta),Hood Canal Summer Run ESU-Threatened
Bull Trout(Salvelinus conjluentus)Coastal-Puget Sound DPS-Threatened
ESA Candidate: Coho Salmon,(O. kisutch)Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU
Marine Mammals listed below may use Lilliwaup Bay and Hood Canal for foraging.
Nearest rookery is at Race Rocks near Vancouver Island, and another south of Vashon Island.
ESA Listed: Stellar Sea Lions(Eumetopias jubatus)-Threatened
Birds that may use Lilliwaup Creek and Bay for foraging. Nearest breeding nest is 2 miles away
near Eagle Creek.
ESA Listed: Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus)-Threatened
2. YES, same species as above
3. Watershed name:
Under the EPA(Environmental Protection Agency) it's the Hood Canal Watershed, USGS
Catalog Unit 17110018.
Under the Department of Ecology WRIA(Watershed Resource Inventory Areas)catalog its
WRL4 Watershed 16 Skokomish-Dosewallips
4. Nearest water body is Lilliwaup Bay that connects with Hood Canal. The nearest creek is
Lilliwaup Creek at the northern end of the bay.
5. Distance from project site to nearest body of water varies from 60-100 feet.
6. Highway 101 is between the project site and Lilliwaup Bay.
7. The project site is not above a permanent barrier,temporary barrier, nor a culvert or dam. The
project is not above any barriers,natural or manmade.
R. Not applicable. There are no blocka"es or barriers.
9, Combining all proposed Lots with the existing paved road gives a'total proposed land use area of
34,071 square, feet. The final site plan, including the existing road(1219 square feet),results in
O,Fi65 squaiv feet of impervious surface of 3V1%of the,sites(4%of wliieh is the existing paved
oad).
10. No surface water withdrawals will be necessary for this project.
11. No groundwater withdrawals will be necessary for this project.
12. Surface water runoff from the north lot that would have infiltrated onsite will now be discharged
to the south lot filter strip and retention/infiltration pond. Water on the larger south lot will
infiltrate through the retention pond rather than throughout the site under undeveloped conditions.
13. There will be a retention and total infiltration pond for surface water runoff from the impervious
surface.
14. No surface water discharge. Surface water runoff from the impervious surface will infiltrate into
the groundwater through the retention/infiltration pond.
Lilliwaup-ESA checklist
9/27/00
page 2
15. No new roads will be built. There is access to the site off Highway 101.
17. Currently,the site is relatively flat. Water that currently infiltrates on site will run over the
impervious surface and infiltrate into the groundwater via the infiltration pond located on the
main south lot.
18. No,no reduction in floodway or floodplain will occur. Not applicable.
19. No,no water quality issues with Lilliwaup Bay or Lilliwaup Creek have been found.
20. There may be minor changes in shade associated with a single story modular structure, but this
would be over the land, not the nearest waterbody. The shrubs(scotchbroom)currently on the
site provide minimal filtered shade. The change in shade would be from filtered shade from the
shrubs to direct shade or sunlight areas around the building.
21. The oils and contaminants from the small north parking lot will flow into a catch basin and then
be directed into the retention/infiltration pond after passing though the filter strip and oil/water
separator. Runoff from the main parking lot will discharge into the grassy filter strip followed by
the oil water separator before entering the infiltration pond. After a heavy rain fertilizers and
pesticides used onsite during or after landscaping would also runoff into the filter strip before
entering the retention/infiltration pond. Wastewater is discharged to a new septic tank, but
existing septic drainfield.
22. No,Best Management Practices will be in place to prevent sediments and contaminants from
entering Lilliwaup Bay during construction. Runoff during construction will be contained by
temporary silt fencing, stabilized construction entrance,and other temporary erosion and
sedimentation control measures.
23. No instream or water work is necessary for this project.
24. There will be minimal maintenance required for keeping up the lawn and shrubs. Plantings of
native vegetation over ornamental decorative plants would reduce the need and usage for
pesticides. In winter,the parking lot and postal access drives may or may not need minimal
salting to be kept clear.
25. No vegetation will be removed from any water body banks.
26. Vegetation onsite(currently scotchbroom and grasses)will be removed. One to two trees at the
base of the slope may need to be removed for construction. After construction, landscaping of
some lawn and shrubs will occur. Minimal lawn and more native plants should be planted over
ornamental plants.
END OF REPORT
r
STATg
O
A y�z RECEIV
p ° ED
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEC 15 2000
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.D. Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300N '�G DER
December 13,2000
Ms. Grace Miller
Mason County
Department of Community Development
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance to replace
the existing Lilliwaup Post Office with a new 1,600 square foot modular building to include a
paved parking area with 10 stalls and mail truck access with loading and unloading
operations (Case No. SEP2000-00138)located along Highway 101 just sough of the
community of Lilliwaup, adjacent to the existing post office as proposed by the US Postal
Service. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments:
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction.
These control measures must be effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface
water by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are
considered pollutants.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments,please call Ms. Kerry
Carroll (Water Quality) at(360)407-6294 or with any other questions regarding this
proposal I can be reached at(360)407-6787.
incerely,
an Rokstad
SEPA Coordinator
Southwest Regional Office
KR:aw(00-8020)
cc: Kerry Carroll, SWRO/WQ
AM
Washington State Olympic Region Headquarters
Department of Transportation 5720 Capitol Boulevard,Tumwater
P.O. Box 47440
Sid Morrison
Olympia,WA 98504 7440
Secretary of Transportation
(360)357-2600
Fax(360)357-2601
January 29, 2001 R E C E i Y
FEB 0 1 2001
Ms. Grace Miller MC
CD - PLANNING
Mason Co. Dept. of Community Development
Planning Division
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Lilliwaup Post Office
EC File No. 2000-087 M
SR 101 MP 327.46 Right Vicinity
Your File No. SEP 2000-00138
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for sending the DNS, Environmental Checklist, and Stormwater Site Plan
Report for the above project. We have reviewed these documents and have the
following comments:
• Section"A"of drawing C 1 shows the centerline of the ditch. It appears that
this is actually the centerline of SR 101.
• The same section shows that this section of SR 101 has 15 foot lanes with 4
foot shoulders. Our Highway Log shows this section of SR 101 has 11 foot
lanes and 3 foot shoulders.
• Under normal circumstances, WSDOT does not allow Developer's
stormwater treatment facilities on our right-of-way. Has permission been
given to allow treatment facilities on our right-of-way? If it is permissible to
construct this in the WSDOT Right-of-Way, then we require that the 4:1 slope
be located 16 foot away from the centerline. Is it possible to have the
treatment facilities onsite?
• It appears that the flow of the ditch is running uphill. Please have the
proponent provide profiles of the drainage facilities similar to what is shown
on the enclosed drawings. (English units are okay.)
bc t bLf
3
Ms. Grace Miller
January 29, 2001
Page 2
• As shown on page 1 of appendix rdfac.out,the consultant used a vertical
permeability of 0.5 min/inch. Page 5 of the soils investigation report
recommends that a conservative rate of infiltration of six inches per hour be
used.
• Please design the treatment area as a bio-Swale.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above project. We have enclosed
examples of drainage plans and profiles with the proponent's copy of this letter for
their use. If there are any questions,please call me at(360) 357-2709.
Sincerely,
Larry iLlrson
Development Services Senior Reviewer
WSDOT, Olympic Region
LLA;Ing
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Paul Ouellette—URS Greiner/2401 4d'Ave. Ste 808/Seattle WA 98121-
1459
RECEIVED
OCT 18 2000
BOAS, Inc. URS GREINER
2001 East Lynn
Seattle, Washington 98112
Tel. (206) 323-1343
Fax (206) 328-7578
October 5, 2000
Paul Ouellette
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Federal Services
2401 4th Avenue, Suite 808
Seattle, Washington 98121-1459
Dear Mr. Oulellette,
This letter report describes the archaeological survey conducted at the proposed Lilliwaup Post
Office Relocation site in Section 30 of Township 23 North, Range 3 West, in Lilliwaup,
Washington (Figure 1). It also includes our professional conclusions regarding possible impacts
on cultural resources that would result from ground disturbing activities associated with the Post
Office relocation.
Prior to the archaeological survey, BOAS, Inc. visited the Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (OAHP)in Lacey to conduct a detailed review of documented cultural resources in the
immediate area of the proposed project. The literature search identified no previously documented
sites within or near the project area.
The archaeological survey of the proposed project area was conducted October 4. The proposed
project area(Figure 2)begins at the site of the former Lilliwaup Post Office building, and extends
southeast for a distance of approximately 120 meters (400 feet) parallel to Highway 101. The
boundary extends from the edge of Highway 101 southwest a maximum distance of approximately
55 meters (180 feet). Most of the property identified for development is situated on a flat area
covered with Scotch Broom and blackberries. The area west of this flat is a steep slope covered
with dense vegetation and trees. This area appears to have at one time been used as a small
g borrow
PP
pit.
The archaeological investigation consisted of walking across the entire project area and scraping off
the ground cover at approximately 25 to 30 locations to expose the underlying soil. At these
exposures, a 20 to 30-centimeter diameter hole was excavated to varying depths depending on the
depth to the sterile gravels. The excavated soil was examined for the presence of cultural material
and then backfilled. Sterile gravel was encountered within a depth of 5 to 10 centimeters. In
addition, two open backhoe trenches were identified on a small flat area approximately 20 meters
upslope from the existing post office building. The exposed soil from the trenches was examined
for artifacts and buried cultural deposits. The exposed beach and adjoining banks located across
Highway 101 from the project area were also examined for artifacts, fire-modified rock, and
culture-bearing deposits. Nothing was identified during the investigation of this area.
FY_W'a I
Recent refuse was encountered from immediately south of the asphalt driveway and extending
along the entire length of the hill side and down into the Scotch Broom covered flat area. The area
closest to the asphalt driveway contains the greatest concentrations of the refuse. In addition, the
remains of a recent frame building are situated on a small flat area just upslope of the densest
portion of the refuse dump. Items in the dump include brown, green, and clear bottle glass,
styrofoam, plastic, and aluminum products, as well as rusted paint cans, metal pipe sections,
window glass, and large slabs and chunks of concrete. Oyster and littleneck clam shells were also
observed scattered throughout the dump area. For the most part, these shells were intact and
situated within, or immediately beneath the vegetation ground cover. The refuse and building
remains appear to post-date 1960, and are therefore insufficient to warrant further archaeological
investigation.
The archaeological investigations conducted at the proposed Lilliwaup Post Office relocation area
identified no significant cultural materials.
This report contains professional conclusions and recommendations concerning the potential for
project-related effects on cultural resources. It should not be considered to constitute clearance
with regard to the treatment of cultural resources or permission to proceed with the project
described. This report should be submitted to the appropriate federal, state, and local review
agencies for their comments prior to the commencement of any activity that may adversely affect
cultural resources.
Sincerely,
y.�
obert P. Stone, M.A.
Field Director
UNITEDSTdTES PSolicitation for Proposals
JU
�� POSTM SERVICE_ Construct and Lease (No Controlled Site)
Solicitation Number. 0 7 2 9 7 6-0 4-A-0 0 6 0
f.Facility Name/Location: LILLIWAUP - MAIN OFFICE Date
LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-9998 06/10/2004
-- . ubmtProp erred717ea--
CANDACE S RINNE North: 1/2 mile North of the current facility
PROJECT MANAGER RE South: 1/2 mile south of the current facility
8055 E TUFTS AVE #400 East: 200 feet of Hwy 101
DENVER, CO 80237-2881 West: 200 feet of Hwy 101
Submit not later than the
close of business on: 0 7/15/2 0 0 4
3.The U.S. Postal Service Is soliciting proposals to furnish 4.The approximate areas desired are indicated below in square feet:
existing space or for facilities to be constructed at a (see drawings and specifications)
specified annual rental and for Net Interior Space 2,085
Basic Term: 20 Years Driveway,Parking&Maneuvering 0
Renewal Options:
Platform 0
Two 5-year options Minimum Site Size• 26,241
• excluding setbacks,easements,etc.
5. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS: The Standard Drawings and Specifications are a part of the proposal package.
The successful offeror shall hire a licensed Architect/Engineer,to adapt the design of the building to meet applicable
local, state and national code requirements.
6. AWARD: Any award made under this solicitation will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal for the cost,
location, lease terms, overall project economics (including renewal options and purchase options), operational benefits,
past job performance, and other factors is most advantageous to the Postal Service. The Postal Service reserves the right
to negotiate with any or all offerors as to any or all rental rates, or other terms and conditions of the proposal;to secure
proposals in addition to those offered initially in response to this solicitation without waiving its right to accept the proposal
as submitted; or to reject any and all proposals.
7. OPENING OF PROPOSAL: This is not a sealed solicitation and proposals will not be publicly opened. The U.S.
Postal Service requires a minimum of 120 days for processing the acceptance of the proposals.
8. The U.S. Postal Service requires that proposals be submitted on a U.S. Postal Service Lease containing a Construc-
tion Rider. While USPS solicitation forms may be photocopied for these purposes, no other means of reproduction is
acceptable. Offers containing documents not in compliance with the above (for example, 'new' USPS documents
created on an offeror's word processing system) will be rejected and returned to the offeror.
9. SITE:
(a) The offeror must own or control the site. If the proposal is submitted by an agent for the owner, evidence of the
agent's exclusive authority to offer the subject site must accompany the proposal.
(b) The minimum site size identified in this solicitation is considered adequate for postal needs. However, should the
offered site require unusual setbacks, on-site water and sewer systems, or any other conditions which would require
addff3onal land,.the offeror must ensure that sufficient additional land is included and made a part of the proposal.
(c) The property offered must be properly zoned to permit use for a postal facility or must be capable of being rezoned
for such use without delay of construction. The owner will be responsible for all action necessary to obtain zoning prior
to lease to the Postal Service. Postal Service personnel may, if requested by the owner or local officials,attend hearings
to present a summary of the interest of the Postal Service regarding the site.
RESOL3D(Nw ge,v2.1)
RESOLUTION NOM--00
A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE'S
DETERMINATION OF THE NEED FOR A NEW POST OFFICE IN LILLIWAUP,
WASHINGTON TO SERVE THE SURROUNDING RURAL AREA AND EXPRESSING
MASON COUNTY'S INTENT TO SUPPORT THE POSTAL SERVICE IN CONSTRUCTING
A NEW POST OFFICE IN LILLIWAUP.
WHEREAS, under the federal Postal Reorganization Act, 39. U.S.C. & 101 et seq., the United
States Postal Service has a duty to establish and maintain postal facilities of such character and in
such locations that postal partrons throughout the nation will have ready access to essential
postal services;
WHEREAS, under the Postal Reorganization Act, it is an expressed policy of the United States
Postal Service to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural
areas, communities, and small towns;
WHEREAS, under the Postal Reorganization Act, the United States Postal Service is authorized
to determine the need for post offices and to provide such offices as it determines are needed to
fulfill its Congressionally-mandated duties.
WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service has determined that the existing post office serving
Lilliwaup and the surrounding rural area is unsafe and inadequate to serve the postal service
needs of that area and has determined that the placement of a modular unit is necessary to
adequately serve those needs,
WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service has consulted with Mason County in an effort to
comply with local planning requirements and building codes to the maximum extent feasible
consistent with postal needs and objectives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that, in cooperation with the United States
Postal Service in the exercise of its Congressional mandate to provide rural postal services and
post offices as it determines to be necessary-, Mason County shall support,approve, and permit
the placement of a modular unit to replace the existing, but unsafe and inadequate, Lilliwaup
Post Office in order to ensure that postal service to Lilliwaup and the surrounding rural area
continues without interruption.
DATED this_ day of l� , 2000.
J�
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST:
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CHAIRPERSON CLERK OF THE BOARD
x h b�+-
Page 2
Resolution No."
1
PROVED AS TO FORM:
CO ISSIONER
SI//
COMMISMONtk DEPUTY PROS. ATTORNEY
cc: Permit Assistance Center
Community Development
CAMy Documents\WINWORD\NCL\lilliwaup resolution.doc
yoN.srArFo
OJ
1864
MASON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
411 NORTH FIFTH STREET SHELTON,WA 98584-3400
(360)427.9670 EXT.419- (360)275-4467 EXT.419
(360)482-5269 EXT.419- FAX(360)427-8425
December 29, 2004
To Whom It May Concern
Re: Lilliwaup Postal Facility
As Mason County Commissioner, I would recommend that consideration be given to the new
post office in Lilliwaup. The current postal facility is outdated. It is limited in size and adequate
parking is needed. The Lilliwaup community is continuing to grow and it necessitates an
upgrade for its postal facility.
Sincerely,
Wesley E. Johnson, Commissioner
District No. 2
1st District 2nd District 3rd District
HERB BAZE WESLEY E.JOHNSON JAYNI L.KAMIN
WESTERN FACILITIES SERVICE OFFICE
UNITEDST13TES
A POSTAL SERVICE
� ECEI " 1E D
JAN032-25
December 30, 2004 MCCD - PLANNING
Tammy Clark
Mason County
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Subject: US Post Office, Lilliwaup, WA
Dear Ms. Clark:
The US Postal Service (USPS) moved into the current temporary facility, several years
ago, when it was determined that the former postal facility was unfit for occupancy. The
plan was to operate out of the General Store for four to six months while we were
looking for a new site. Due to a capital freeze that was imposed in 2001, we have
operated out of the store for over four years.
In early 2004 the owner of the store requested that the USPS move out of the facility. At
that time the USPS went through the process to attempt to close the facility, however,
politically, it was not a popular idea and a new replacement project was initiated. Mr.
Straatman's site was the only offer received in response to our solicitation dated June
14, 2004 and I approved and signed a lease with Mr. Straatman, on behalf of the USPS,
December 17, 2004.
Vance Bennett
Real Estate Contracting Officer
US Postal Service
Affidavit of Publication
NO"i ICE OF SHORELINE Mf;.IAGEMENT
PERMIT STATE OF WASHINGTON,
SHR2004-00025 SS.
Notice is hereby given that US POSTAL
COUNTY OF MASON
9
SERVICE. who is the owner of the de-
scribed property, has filed an application for
a Shoreline Management Permit for the de- Julie 1 i e G.. Orme being first duly swom
velopment of:
Sub. Dev./Variance
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POST OF- on oath deposes and says that she is the Cl A rk
F I C E FACILITIES COMPRISED OF of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news-
PLACEMENT OF A 28' X 56.5' MODULAR paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF AP- date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
PROXIMATELY 5,000 sf OF PARKING LOT ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
AND DRIVEWAY. THIS IS A RENEWAL OF and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
SH R2000-00032
Site Address: publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
Parcel Number 323305156013 was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
Location of Project: NORTH ON 101 TO of said Mason County.
LILLIWAUP ON LEFT HAND SIDE ADJA-
CENT TO EXISTING POST OFFICE That the annexed is a true copy of a NQt i G6a 0 Q�-4; i;}e
Within: (quarter section) of Section: 30
Township 23 N Range:03 W, W.M. in, Ma- Mgmt PPrmi t — UR Pc)Gta 1 Rervi rP
son County Washington.
Said development is proposed within
HOOD CANAL and/or its associated wet- as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
lands Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on two
the application should notify: newspaper once each week for a period of
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF consecutive weeks,commencing on the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P O BOX 279 1 1 t h day of NnvPmhP r 20 04 and ending on the
SHELTON,WA 98584
in writing of their interest within 30 days 18 th day of November 20 04 both dates inclusive,
of the final date of publication given pursu- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
ant to WAC 173-14-020. The final date of period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
Publication, posting, or mailing of notice is
11/18/2004.
Written comments must be received by foregoing publication is the sum of$ A? S(1
A public hearing will be held on this per. U
mit request. Contact this office at(360)427-
9670,ext.295 for date and time of hearing.
11/11-18 2t Subscribed and swom to before me thi 18 th
`����Ag .7 TE
9 '
J ry 77 i
Notary Public hUnd for the State of Washington =_
Residing at Shelton,Washington
My commission expires At,
I//�`` •� •t•
nn�ma