Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BLD07-014 (oversized drawings not scanned)
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PERMIT ACTIVITY LOG P WIT# t-W / 14-QDATE RECEIVED: 2/30/0 7 SCOPE OF WORK: Wa houc- plcc_l r)� On nP&) DATE ACTION INITIALS c1 /07 Entered into AVIS atET ESA—to Planning -no evidence of ESA- Vested Date Checked for Completeness 8A-7 RI(-K.__ —ig/a/7 r9b� 5; APPeo vzb; o?oo I/otv,Q.e) 2/ve 1,04k1 itpikeL'Vch `Ki 2/VC, 7 Ail PiLiLV I C sr,,,11" "Tc, /ZC 2/ (O — 9,4144 L%.I C zkrie Ole S6-0 4//ri°7 101 Ure41—(Ce,) JoLiffe o v e f (vp_c.r O J tc 1 = 4 � I v -� 1 ,Ititsv.2 cam( GA, (bg S 1i ow S i k p 1ct-;,y 104 epic .ed ,)() Pa ' . 0E- i • 6 1 /---\ ilc . - .. ,. 1 t, g t i -".. s. SIIIP O�QORT TOS City of Port Townsend , t,."gyp, Development Services Department Z Waterman& Katz Building 9. 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301A, Port Townsend WA 98368 q'wn ' (360)379-3208 FAX(360)385-7675 TO: Patty Voelker FROM: Scottie Foster j CC: Richard Erickson DATE: June 8, 2007 RE: Refund for BLD07-014 4 ORT TO4 _ " o • 0 Receipt Number: 07-O02i. �, t`cb- W :ceipt Date: 02/01/2007 , Casfl1er PWESTERFIELD `;PayerIPayee Name ,ERICKS©N RICHARD D . Original Fee, Amount -Fee armit#_ .,parcel Fee Description Amount Paid Balance j .D07-014 987300305 Plan Review Fee $491.24 $150.00 $341.24 Total: $150.00 kcci #, r l ec . . ' ®. �R .,. Ww -r-nQt, hard r -,- HECK 2042 $150.00 Total $150.00 • i 1 1 1 1 ;enpmtrreceipts Page 1 of 1 • • • Scottie Foster From: Suzanne Wassmer Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:37 PM To: Scottie Foster /� Subject: FW: DSD Permits for Lots 1 &2 in Phoenix Addition Block 3 - j-PC r1 Scottie, 3 r>e0r ° ° FYI re: refund for building permit and SDP! Suzanne Original Message From: Leonard Yarberry Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:07 PM To: Suzanne Wassmer Cc: Francesca Franklin; Jan Hopfenbeck; Penny Westerfield Subject: RE: DSD Permits for Lots 1 & 2 in Phoenix Addition Block 3 I suggest that we refund all money that he has paid. We would not be able to extend the building permit application for 12 months. Original Message From: Suzanne Wassmer Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12 :58 PM To: Leonard Yarberry Cc: Francesca Franklin Subject: FW: DSD Permits for Lots 1 & 2 in Phoenix Addition Block 3 This is in regards to the property at 20th and Eddy (Lots 1&2 Block 3 of Phoenix Addition) within the 80 ' wetland buffer. I'm not sure how much he's paid for the SDP, but he would like to extend both permits for another year. (Is it better to refund fees now?) This is the property he put soil on in anticipation of picking up the permits, and Alex wrote a stop work notice 4/18/07. Suzanne Original Message From: Richard Erickson [mailto:erickson@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8 :54 AM To: Suzanne Wassmer Subject: Re: DSD Permits for Lots 1 & 2 in Phoenix Addition Block 3 Suzanne, RE. BLD07-014 and SDP07-002 Thank you forwarding the information regarding the possible development adjacent to our property on Howard St. This is very interesting. Per our conversation, The opportunity window to move our house from Willow St to Howard has pretty much expired. In my opinion, the news from the city regarding the wetland came rather too late in the process having already received a call from Penny on February 26, 2007 that my permit was ready to issue and pick up. Furthermore, I studied the old Technical report done in 2005, and there is no mention of a wetland. Not to dispute the past presence of a wetland, but the construction of Howard St. to 20th has created a dam almost completely cutting off the flow of water to this area. It is my guess, this wetland will sadly never recover. To date, I have incurred hours of design time, site prep and mobilization costs. So, I would like to extend my current, but 1 410 somewhat useless, permit for another year to complete another design / wetland study and NOT incur another submittal expense of $150.00. Sincerely, Rick Rick Erickson Design L.L.C. 321 Willow Street Port Townsend, Wa 98368 360.643 .1617 2 i r Suzanne Wassmer From: Suzanne Wassmer Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:12 PM To: 'erickson@mac.com' Subject: 20th and Eddy Hi Rick, I have some better information today about what is happening near your property at 20th and Eddy. 20th and Eddy.bmp I attached a map... Today starts the SEPA 20-day notice period for Pete Goughnour(owns Lots 1-7 in Columbia Park Block 2 southeast of your property.) After the SEPA determination is done, there is an additional 15-day notice period, so he is a few months away from breaking ground. If you would like to look at the SEPA, please come to our office. Steve Moore owns Lots 1&2 south of your property. They are of substandard width (approx. 44 feet wide)so both lots need to remain together. Alex Angud negotiated with Mr. Moore a 10' easement for the high-zone water line in the alley (red bowtie symbol is for the blow-off). It was suggested that Mr. Goughnour, for his proposed project, contact Mr. Moore to change the 10' easement to 25' so sewer, emergency access and a non-motorized trail could also go into the easement. You don't need to do anything, but if you want people to stop using the trail on your property you could fence off your lots. Hope this answered your question about the trail. If not, let me know. Thanks! Suzanne 1 e +fc 00/230--71&(-1f-Q • --c)) /).0 ke(zve -(� d.e_s Vis,,, cc cts Q_d (2./1 ,� af `s a,l elL - .1-36 /44 /cA9- 61Ic-1)-1 S)C-10(/ /jai- oma' -( //t-eA 6v-eA(ofcc n (aM A-e- 6-e c re�� 4e.d ti\ra / a ? ) (-1742 be-P/Y\ azki ir _ (-1.e �-e d � -e � 6,0/),r, � ( fie Are- sktaA) — -0"-v/ r1"4?,-1 cts_e plaA-) 071 e2C1SAvi Sae - / eiryia u ck- • Suzanne Wassmer From: Suzanne Wassmer Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:39 PM To: 'erickson@mac.com' Subject: DSD Permits for Lots 1 &2 in Phoenix Addition Block 3 Hi Rick, Per our conversation today, please e-mail me your status for developing the above property, referencing BLD07-014 and SDP07-002. Thank you, Suzanne Suzanne Wassmer Land Use Development Specialist City of Port Townsend 250 Madison Street, Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360) 385-0644 Fax: (360) 344-4619 1 • 6 '1 lik)-t. Mae- N 17 - a o1 ()Idtato- 5 p - wigs 7 ���' � S ��w " 4Li � � � 1•,, 7_00111..Q/v-‘ Q - r (Al 11,-,e ` �f MI Mo.*. \ '-)" \I\r k j --to e/4)-J\ - rof /r- - k eyitu, . vej,,,c6 ,,,,A,,,,,,i �, qcc — ] ,,,j,01 1 , 'frkk.a d'e di, ;.gyp i r gi `- V-Q-- - )-- 6 I - -fvfv4 , VIL 1,V 1\j i Thjay''- f ciri j A- -• \)\i‘' V" W,c--11( (-Y-- s-n''Irr-'14- ' ei\' 1\'',Y4j- 6 leff sel\73 41-111 . �- Ff E-K - -. ... f . )\._,`3 \` )`` 1, .'c' -4 p-149 OA 5k,,(� Q Qiv�82 �'I rl'i;';i -*/--^ �� - s ce Da te" P 06' ,‘) / , --.0)-7,j, L., 51 f • f,`1,,, , b„ 6 `11 7 - urev-01,7'7-(t,_ -40 )f) orir-e l?� -�' � �- 71 • • F PORT row City of Port Townsend ° Development Services Department Waterman-Katz Building `s. , 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, WA 98368 ` (360) 379-3208 FAX(360) 385-7675 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE REPORT Date: February 7,2005 Meeting: Tuesday,2/8/05 @ 10:00 am W&K Building,3"Floor Applicant: Carolyn Foote-129 Taylor St.,#303,Port Townsend WA 98368 Owner: Erica Beth Lewis-3422 Copper St.,Port Townsend WA 98368 File: PRE05-004 Property Description: Phoenix Addition,Block 3,Lots 1 &2, 10,000 sf total lot area Project Name: Single-Family Residence PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Single Family Residence. LOCATION: 20th&Howard Streets ZONE: RBI Single and Multi-Family Structures permitted, at a density of up to 16 Dwelling Units or 24 bedrooms per 40,000 sf, whichever is greater. For 10,000 sf, that translates to a total of 4 dwelling units or 6 bedrooms, whichever is greater. The minimum lot size for individual single- family residences is 3,000 sf with 30-foot frontage. Your proposal of one single-family residence per 5,000 sf lot is within the permitted zoning. PLANNING ISSUES A lot line adjustment may be applied for in order to vary how the two lots are configured,if doing so accommodates the City's desired easement and the applicant's more efficient use of the property. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA)REVIEW--Not required,project is exempt. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) -There are no mapped ESA's on site. There is a small low area at the rear of the northern lot,which does not appear,however,to constitute a regulated wetland. 1 CS . lib. 4 , C. 2 ► cto ca I ) Z + 3 ak/fr- I000 S 9 P • • Land-Use Checklist 61 8'7— 3 6 o`" OS-- Legal SSLegal Description: P ! cs• � e)k 3 Location: (2',6T V` w Zoning: Recorded Plat Shows4Lot Size as: 5D X /o d - ejdAl /.S ( f !/, /7 1X 0,46/) Ls • 76l-`c-C, Assessor Shows: Q 6,4 'S Oty,mS 2- Ci °° sct ArcReader Shows: c,6 to- cte-ef &L'e (cevk•d c lr ,� � S Critical Area?: C , ' •6,4,/ 1 bU r r , / z � 41 Gcd. ct.r-ems.__/6) / Other'Permits?: SFIZ --exe.rkv f � ' lee a J-4,1°,4 (_ fan- tWai0 Site Visit? -4) 2 ` �1 66Building meets setbacks? ki) Building meets lot coverage? Cr Notice to Title needed? Restrictive Covenant needed? { l o)),r „ (,p{ 1 Lots of Record needed? Comments: rj_. ..�.� • ;„ , , -- t , 0 i i - 1 ,,,,._,:_. , • ,0;. ,, W N) • �j cS ,,N CI 05268 .. . ` 6 1' s -���' N3 a . > � a � _� Ott . /fir , Cd,..) N r 25 • i L 0 ..,_.. .._ �: ��►,. It Q.,_, N w , < - . ,,,, ��.. • N 7 1 ,_ _-'— E D'D Y '> °° ' X60 T � . c, 0 ......„ _r___„...._......... ,58 , , -0., ,I _i . 1 - cA) N.) (,-1,) 1cz:,.. , co 1 , N '' ' ,,' Sr' " -11'25c-8') 28 '''''I'c'') N . �olti 258 2 58 ..,.. ,....2 ,... ' -17' ' '11-9 ------7-(''''rr''r ,i,,,,_,,:, 11 T C w w n n -, B g s s o 1 :_, 260 E 1 �s .x.58 = ci � • GLp 41 0 10 2 2 0 o .1 RAINIER --1C ST z O0 Co cri -P.. W N — N -I, C HOWARD ST WY L`/ 71 CO 01 CAN ' , o Co) a .1. ces �_ . , g gi N W 4P ( I L e •N j (31 Si N 0EDDY ST c, 3 _. J J l Co C31 W N co 0) (37 4, W N)�- —%„ . EDDY ST 5' -' N W c w ::.• -,. .3--,--.;,. ..- 8 ° N � rH ` CLIFF ST 2 • 8l ri ,N w 1 N 1 N 0 O I I N J °° -tel Cb 0) f j O `3' N -' - T 1 cn I H HOWARD ST N A -j03am P6_ bsE . ' Y T . .,- w' *, to W • p CO (Cs Q. - - - /V �G_ . 032,-.4._ (1-,-f2\. �Q �Q�� f '. 0) 03 (Z__•""1 cr::"is,-:_, CLIFF ST 01 U'i A W N O co _` 5 J _E n g, 0 • II - -- -___ N. I/ N ` O11, 1 - N •,tt i / r` --- 1 `d v \ F. .. 0 .... % i 7 ''/'� N-• 1 71 L t i.... i •°' ;�� 2 0 1 Ii1 --, 1 i f//AO ir 4 - _______,_i i i 4474 h e''' i \I r !y ` t 4 i t i - . t O ;.A. I J r4A t 1 i lb,' 1 1 1 1 1 1 _.._ _ t ! \ , X I/I / • \ 1 ..") \ i • �r l s. toe -421iYT -i I I - M w —'-�••E ,{ . 1 11 - f t • Wetland boundary Direct Fill Impacts ITt ? _. ; a0'wetland buffer area i wetland ` 1000 sq ft(0.22 ac) - 1 .I k.x,"„_k wetland impact area ' Buffer impact area I buffer , 4300 sq ft(0.1 ac) t 1 ` �� ��/ p i i i i i f O t4A Aspen DBH measurement Large Aspen 2 trees — 1 I 'y Standard road alignment 0 20 40 t ! 1 1 -r Eddy Street R.O.W. Scale't'=40' souse:Anderson 6.4..09 8 s,Neyry 2006 `- { Eddy Street Wetland Standard Center Line Figure Tcx'c:HSTONf Mitigation Plan, Road Alignment 4 Port Townsend,Washington 14:0SERVICES ri - . t.• ti 1 �i Ge eele- F i � - o - o-er-S' Ut\elocfit+erl I f.gv AV 0wt-HA etc!)a s t r a(e1►W ct� C •10M6 3 get 4 .20th S+. . --__ - - a- _ Lt�oc ct ek,T--- v, Ae ve l0,jed Lei–s 1 . _ . _ Q Q -ore s regi 3 ti Z 9 n1 11) ,--z-aN.. , n `a �X� k we -►AS' i u1 A °' \\ r wve � ` � � -3 S � � i la OFF=S rrE udei-104 r Iv ik �� j\� :, 4 o eve to fm.ekt- I`' 1-10VSe S ` ^-14S• �, et8i 0,-- -r—, ‘1,.., 1 1W past '1 ca , 4.1 ________----- 1 - 9^ � t2 _ irk 5-i..• j `/ _ _ (1,�c+levelared etsvkPu+) \\ ci ROUGH MAP* NOT TO SCALE*NOT A SURVEY. Peter Goughnour 9234 NW Hopedale Ct. Portland, OR 9.7229 / ik: Lots 1 - 1 2 in Blocks I t2 44 Wiltermood Columbia Park — Port Townsend, WA A Associates, In.c 1015 Salt Harper Road Port O,d.w L WA 98367-9306 (360)876-2403 Fax(360)876-2053 O�QORT_ 4. . City of Port Townsend • �> II Development Services Department " ='-' o '4' ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS QUESTIONNAIRE Permit applications are reviewed by our staff to make a preliminary determination of the presence or absence of an Environmentally Sensitive Area on the property,pursuant to Chapter 19.05 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. To help us make this determination, please supply the following information. General Information: Applicant Name: I -D( 60 Phone:(L.t' /6 ) 7 Mailing Address: / —/ iAds!L-L (? vl ST Property Address(if different): sr Description of Proposal(include site plan): IAA 0 t/e7 (100 cF )-1,.0 Lt.5 t Ao/v 60 7 Y CF Ao T (Ob The proposed new construction creates /1904 4 sq. ft. of impervious surface. What best management practices are proposed? I i3 i 0 Sensitive Area Questions: .VY_• 1. Is any portion of the property within or near a mapped Environmentally Sensitive Area? ')'/ 7 J 7 ps are available at Building and Community Development Department) YESV NO CcbviC4- i, L 2. Is there any standingor running water on the surface of the site at any time during the year? Yes No If YES,please describe: 3. Has any portion of the site been identified as a wetland? YES NO If YES,please describe: 4. Is the site characterized as: ` ;1 Forest Meadow Cleared ,/Mixed \\CITYPDC\Home\Pennyw\BCD Forms\Sensitive Areas Questionnaire.doc 1110 • 5. Is the slope of the property: 4, flat gentle slope steep slope (0%-5%) (5%-15%) (15%-40%) Critical Slope—40%or greater >40% Critical Slope 40%or greater 0 Steep Slope P 5/ 0 Gentle 5%-154b:;:: 0 0% ,,Flat The applicant hereby certifies that all of the above statements and the information contained in any other transmittals made herewith are true, and the applicant acknowledges that any action taken by the City of Port Townsend based in whole or in part on this application may be reversed if it develops that any such statement or other information contained herein is false. The applicant understands that the determination of the Director may be appealed by the applicant or by any other party by following the appeal procedure outlined in Chapter 1.14 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. Any appeal must be filed within seven calendar days from the Notice of a final decision. I/3o /07 Sign. e of Applicant Date FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Reviewed by: Site visit Required? NO YES Site visit made on: Exempt per PTMC 19.05.040(B)? NO YES Threshold Determination(presence/absence of ESA,type of ESA): Shorelines Jurisdiction? NO YES \\Citypdc\home\Pennyw\BCD Forms\Sensitive Areas Questionnaire.doc CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND zVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMEN von!Ibis, City Hall,250 Madison Street,Suite 3 �o� sp Port Townsend,WA 98368 Phone: 360-379-5095 Fax 360-344-4619 v ""'" • o fi RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 9'.r =. �e' NEW CONSTRUCTION,REMODELS, &ADDITIONS Property Owner's Name(s) �� cAK k Mailing Address L tA13 City,State,Zip Polv Wil,/V✓ ,iJ '�'12 . c ' Phone 1(Q(✓ (Q t (_Q,?i Permit No. 13LD 07 DPoi -002 Property Street Address Zoning District � • , Parcel# 9 87 500 30 Legal Description: Addition (-46EkAk Block .-2_7 Lot(s) General Contractor's Name eftkhjEiit, — '-" tit-4010,-4, e" )v3E 1 Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone State License Number City Business License Number Authorized Representative/Contact Person: 1e) /v`- Phone: Estimated Value of construction$ Financed By Date Work is to Begin Date Work is to be Completed Scope of Work: Please check all items that apply for the type of building permit you are requesting: New House /Addition ` kl,j 5,1 orr F'L L/ f )kJ zgr ) New Garage or Carport Repair/Remodel Garage Y Jt1�vJ FAIT p_9 pA0e +�'`f Repair/Remodel House01,QQ 0I^f20 ,E rG> Accessory Dwelling Unit Manufactured Home I l-r`'Other(please describe): O6MO L t ii° J 0& PO'A/OAT/00 Floor Area: the proposed structure is to be used for: Finished Heated Space sq.ft: � T`_1'j) Garage sq.ft Unfmished Heated Space sq ft: Carport sq.ft: Unfmished Basement sq ft: Porches sq.ft: Semi-Finished Basement sq ft: Decks sq.ft: , 0 Storage sq.ft: Other(please describe): 07 P:\DSD\Department Forms\Building FormsApplication-Residential Building Permit.doc Page 1 of 1 • CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NEW CONSTRUCTION,REMODELS,&ADDITIONS Property Site Area/Coverage Information: 1. The total area of the property in square feet: t 9) 2. The total area covered by existing and proposed structures in square feet: (total ground coverage from the outside of walls or supporting -7q rtmembers) t Percentage of lot coverage: (2+1) °/t Impervious Surfaces: Please provide the square footage of the roof area of the proposed and existing structures,and the square footage of the total area covered by porches,walkways,patios and driveways. Do not include decks allowing drainage to earth below. Proposed House Roofprint sq.ft: 4e, I t~i Existing House Roofprint sq.ft: Proposed Garage Roofprint sq.ft: Existing Garage Roofprint sq.ft: Proposed Porch/Walkway sq.ft: l Existing Porch/Walkway sq.ft: Proposed Driveways sq.ft "3 l 4/ 0 Existing Driveways sq.ft: Other(describe): Other(describe): Total Proposed Impervious sq.ft: k (0 Total Existing Impervious sq.ft: Total Proposed+Existing sq.ft: Percentage Impervious:ervious: * surface+lots .ft (Impervious a ) *If total impervious surface is equal to or greater than 40%of the lot area,you must submit a written stormwater plan to address run off. Please check which plans you are submitting with this application (2 sets needed): / Site Plan .� Interior&Exterior Wall Bracing(panel locations shown on floor plan) Drainage Plan(if 40%or more impervious) v Typical Wall Framing Details(section from foundation through roof) Foundation Plan Elevations V Floor Plan 2003 WSEC*Compliance: Prescriptive_ Component_ Floor Framing Plan ✓ WSEC Construction Checklist(Washington State Energy Code) Roof Framing Plan Other: Installing Manufactured Home Yes No Year: Make: Was the manufactured home originally constructed within three(3)years of proposed placement? Yes No 2) Manufactured home must be placed on a permanent foundation with the space from the bottom of the home to the ground enclosed by either load bearing concrete or decorative concrete or masonry blocks'!so that no more than one foot of the perimeter foundation is visible above grade;and 3) Roof must be composed of composition,wood shake or shingle,coated metal,or a similar roof material;and 4) Title to the manufactured home must be eliminated as a condition of building permit approval. P:\DSD\Department Forms\Building Forms\Application-Residential Building Permit doc Page 2 of 2 • . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NEW CONSTRUCTION,REMODELS,&ADDITIONS Special Conditions Please check YES or NO as applicable YES NO I. Is the property within 200 feet of a fresh or saltwater shoreline? 2. Is the property within the Port Townsend Historical District? ✓� 3. Is the property located within or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area? ✓ 4. Will this proposal involve any sewer,water or other utility extensions that will,or could serve vacant properties other than the project site?If yes,please attach information identifying the utility extensions and , sites. 5. Have any special conditions been placed on this property,or has the property been subject to any conditions on any prior action of the City(if"Yes"to any of the following,attach copies of appropriate documents): Subdivision/Short Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment? SEPA(environmental review)? Variance? Conditional Use Permit? Street Vacation? Planned Unit Development? Restrictive Covenant? Easement? 6. Are any properties within 800 feet of the site owned or controlled by the applicant,any relative or business associate,or anipartnership,corporation,or other entity affiliated with the applicant? (If)es, attach list.) c_-C I 7. Have anyof the properties listed in item#6 been developed within the last twoyears?(Ifyes,attach list.) t/ P P P 8. Have you previously discussed this project with a City staff member? If yes,who and when? 7 - 044 TE. ? `.� Applicant Certification The applicant hereby certifies to have knowledge of those sections of the International Residential Code and the Port Townsend Municipal Code pertinent to the above project and that the applicant is responsible for constructing in conformance with these codes;the applicant understands that the permit,if issued,expires in six months unless work is started;that the permit,after construction has started,will expire after one year if an inspection is not made to show significant progress on the tructure;the applicant agrees to abide by the ordinances,codes,regulations,restrictive covenants,deed or plat restrictions,and water and sewer plans attached hereto;the applicant certifies that all information given above and on accompanying plans i complete and accurate to the best of their knowledge; and the applicant understands that this information will be relied upon in granting permits and that if such information is later found to be inaccurate any permits may be withdrawn. P:\DSD\Department Forms\Building Forms\Application-Residential Building Permit.doc Page 3 of 3 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION • NEW CONSTRUCTION,REMODELS,&ADDITIONS The undersigned hereby saves and holds the City of Port Townsend harmless from any and all causes of action,judgments, claims,or demands,or from any liability of any nature arising from any noncompliance with any restrictive covenants,plat restrictions,deed restrictions,or other restrictions which may have been established by parties other than the City of Port Townsend. Complete Application Port Townsend Municipal Code,Section 16.04.140,Vested Rights-Substantially Complete Building Permit Application: applications for all land use and development permits required under ordinances of the city shall be considered under the zoning and other land use control ordinances in effect on the date a fully complete building permit application,meeting the requirements dentified in this section,is filed with the Development Services Department. Until a complete building permit application is filed,all applications for land use and development permits shall be reviewed subject to any zoning or other land use control orlinances which become effective prior to the date of issuance of a final decision by the city on the application. An application for a building permit shall be considered complete when an application meeting all of the requirements of Section R105.3 of the International Residential Code,2003 Edition,is submitted which is consistent with all then applicable ordinances and laws. In addition,to be considered complete,such an application must be accompanied by complete applications for a subsidiary land use or development permits needed,such as a complete shoreline management permit application and/or complete applications for other discretionary permits required under the ordinances of Port Townsend. An application for a partial permit under Section RI05.3.1 of the International Residential Code,2003 Edition,shall not be considered complete unless it meets all requirements stated above and contains plans for the complete structural frame of the building and the architectural plans for the structure. Signature of Applicant or Authorized Representative Date For Official Use Only Permit No Building Official Approval Date Issued Balance Due$ Date Validation Stamp below: Owner/Representative Signature Date P:\DSD\Department Forms\Building Forms\Application-Residential Building Permit.doc Page 4 of 4 • (BLI307-0I�Q SDPO7 �t 2 ORT TO City of Port Townsend ;�P �y Development Services Department " Z .3. (lo BUILDING NUMBER APPLICATION ¢" Name of Property Owner: i\i CV1 C*cr l Mailing Address: 5,21 LO)11 pct) PT Telephone: a626 - LA3 - ) 1 Property is located in: Addition: PhOen!X Block(s): . Lot(s): I Faces/Access is from: 140L a.rd cSt Street Parcel Number 9 8 73 on 3O Directions to the Property(draw vicinity map on back) If this is a new ADU, has a building permit been applied for? Yes No Date: Notes: me SCS V / V HOUSE NUMBER ASSIGNED: c, Lo g0-D Date of Approval: ®f„,h9G/ o cell:UG774,6c ".7_ For Department Use Only: Application Fee Received($3.00,TC 2200): Date: Copy to: ❑Finance ❑Fire Dept ❑ Post Office ❑Sheriff ❑ Police ❑GIS ❑Public Works ❑DSD database ❑Assessor's Office For address changes: ❑Qwest Address Management Center—206-504-1534 PADSD\Depattment Forms\Building Forms\Application-Address Number doe;6/12/06 0 AI m -I Z B•KR STREET N N N N N N O E t N Do 4 W t , , � a �N N SHASTA PLACE c tR411 ;,ti g227 •41111111' ------ 214 _ �. L al 2705 v) § P111' g4 al 71 2006 y O vi r Ay e -\ 247 = 5 s w Z X . ,�10 9 ST. HELEmRS �� a 1 ST. O0. 2669 N 6;.-Vik F I _ ; -0 26 0 w 2603 t„,. .. 111t-ikti.....- � n O Ja m U f 2 m ia NVma •2 � D 7 egj AW COMMON Vo, O ' AREA — W RAINIER STREET : [ vz .::1 E f+:: ; N V N N I N " �jNNamVUNAWN N 5 it io T.-- ?3* HOWARD STREET a a V a 41 a a N , yy ri N a p li {{{��"" U a V a Z N a P OI (cl U J a N a A N EDDY STREET 0 A U Co CO V a VI A a a ! U A a N r O CO T r r N A A W N It O (p T a a A a a - m 0) N :U 03 M M �[[� M .R. � - a W p U O� V U a A U 01 Vm N W CLIFF a `� 4STREET • , 2% A 01 (T W N O �O .a a N � � O� U A W N O t0 4, o a fTW � _. 't -T,,,,t,,. ....„ 0, ob N W /1dri 2® p - WN A W GIBES - a a a lti STREET ' 1 .. [32ig Ftr.- ;e. t m 23 ER oR P'' I y 1 y m y o a. �' " p co O m $" 3 a N g c c o w w�q wa 8 S « w m ED S.S o 2 R g P. p p. 41 0 T ail lad. a n ^a gAg e FRirig 49" 1 l tJLikt- T acs I WETLAND ANALYSIS REPORT I FOR PHOENIX ADDITION PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Peter Goughnour 9234 NW Hopedale Ct. Portland, OR 97229 1111I Prepared by: /�L IWiltermood Associates, Inc. 1015 SW Harper Road Port Orchard, WA 98367 (360) 876-2403 A July 24, 2006 AUG 4 2006 rF - r • • r I • • • • • • INTRODUCTION The delineated wetland discussed in this report is located in the southwest corner of the Phoenix Addition in the City of Port Townsend, Washington. The Phoenix Addition is located in the west 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 4 Township 30, Range 5 West. The Eddy, Cliff, Gibbs, 22°x, 24th and 25th street easements within the Phoenix Addition were inspected for wetlands and one was found. There is a Category III depressional forested wetland that is located within the Eddy Street easement between Blocks 2 and 3. The wetland extends onto lots 13 and 14 of Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3. The rest of the street easements currently contain historically cleared dirt trails and roads. The majorities of the lots within the Phoenix Addition have not been developed and contain mixed coniferous/deciduous forests that appear to have been logged approximately 30 - 40 years ago. See Appendix A-1 for vicinity map of the area. Development of some of the road easements within the Phoenix Addition is proposed. Wetland A is proposed for fill as it sits within a critical access easement and mitigation for the loss is proposed in the form of compensation to the City of Port Townsend, for future mitigation banking. There is a large off I • site wetland to the west that has been previously delineated. The distance was measured from the off site wetland to the site and it was determined to be over 250 feet away. A wetland boundary delineation of Wetland A is required to identify on site wetlands so that they can be located on a survey of the entire project area. The purpose of this delineation was to identify the wetland boundaries on all portions of the project area and to present current data and analysis of the conditions of the on site wetlands. The wetland boundary is .marked with orange surveyor flagging identified by a letter assigned to the wetland (A) with consecutive numbering. The boundaries were then verified by conducting test holes within the wetland and in uplands adjacent to the wetland with data recorded on data sheets and included in Appendix G of this report. In addition upland data was taken to establish the absence of wetland conditions and to document the general conditions of the surrounding uplands. The delineation and street easement inspection was completed on June 9 and 12, 2006, usingthe Department of Ecology Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual in accordance with the City of Port Townsend Critical Areas Ordinance. The Department of Ecology Wetland Manual requires the use of the three wetland parameter methodology (wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils) when making wetland boundary determinations (See • Appendix C for criteria used to make wetland determinations). All three parameters must be present for an area under normal circumstances to be 1 • • r , considered wetland. Because this site is determined to be under normal 1111 circumstances, the Routine On-Site Method was used to make the on-site wetland boundary determinations. This report discusses the on-site wetlands with respect to data collected in the field used in conjunction with information obtained from the Jefferson County Soil Survey and National Wetlands Inventory. This report includes wetland categorization, classification, buffer requirements, wetland function assessment and discussion of the potential impacts of future development on the delineated wetlands. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jefferson County Soil Survey The on-site soils are mapped as CmC Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0-15% slopes. Clallam gravelly sandy loam is not classified as hydric and there are no hydric inclusions. The on site soils have been mapped by the Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the Jefferson County Area, Washington, August 1975. See Appendix A-3 for site located on the soil survey and Appendix B for description of the on-site soils. National Wetland Inventory The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), 1111 Port Townsend South Quadrangle, maps no wetlands on the parcel or within 250 feet of the parcel. See enclosed map for site located on the NWI. See Appendix A for site located on the NWI. Priority Species There are no Washington State Priority 1, 2, or 3 plant or animal species known to exist on the parcel (Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1993/95 update) nor were any identified during our field survey. The presence of priority species was determined using the printed edition and a data base search was not completed at this time. WETLAND ASSESSMENT This section describes the delineated wetland with respect to the three parameters as collected in the field and from the data recorded at test holes. The wetland descriptions, classification, categorization, and buffer requirements are also included in the Wetland Assessment Section. Wetland A is located in the southwest corner of the Phoenix Addition in the Eddy Street Easement between Blocks 2 and 3. The wetland boundaries were surveyed by Anderson Civil • Engineers and Surveyors and it was determined to be 3,884 square feet in size. 2 • • The wetland is a Category III Palustrine Forested wetland with Seasonal Flooded hydrology. Test Holes 1 and 5 were conducted in Wetland A to document the following descriptions of the wetland characteristics. The following sections discuss the on site wetland with respect to vegetation,soils, hydrology 1111 classification, category, buffers and upland characteristics. See Appendix A-2a for general location of wetland and Appendix A-2b for detailed wetland survey. See Appendix G wetland data forms 1 and 5. The following section describes the data collected at test holes in each of the wetlands and in the adjacent upland that was used to make the wetland boundary determination. The wetlands are described in separate sections with a description of the wetland data followed by the upland data. The data includes description of the dominant plant species identified by common and botanical name along with the indicators status (OBL, FACW, FAC, etc. See Appendix D 1111 for definition of Indicator Status). There is a description of the soil profiles identified within the 16 inch soil holes conducted at each test hole. The hydric soil criteria is met when there is a low soil matrix chroma at 10 inches or just below the A horizons. The chromas are determined using damp soil samples that are compared to a corresponding color chip in the Munsell Soil Color Charts. The chromas were then recorded on the data sheet using Hue (YR) and Value/Chroma. Any Hue and Value with a low Chroma is typical of hydric (wetland) soils that have developed over time due to inundation or saturation by water. The presence or absence of wetland hydrology and/or wetland hydrology indicators is also described in the data sections and includes the source of hydrology and direction of flow (if evident). Wetland Classification, Wetland 1111 Category and Required Buffers follow the description of the wetland/upland data. Wetland Vegetation The tree layer in Wetland A consists of a canopy of quaking_aspen(Populus tremuloides) FAC, Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana)FAC and pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) FACW+with overhanging red alder(Alnus rubra) FAC on the fringes. The shrub understory in the wetland contains mixed percentages of black twinkerry (Lonicera involucrata) FACW, Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) FAC and traces of western crabapple(Malus fusca) FACW. There are areas of overhanging ocean spray(Holodiscus discolor)FACU, salal (Gaultheria shallon)FACU and Snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus) FACU. The herbaceous ground cover is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)FACW in the southwest end of the wetland and Slough sedge (Carex obnupta) OBL in the northeast portions of the wetland. IIP 1111 3 ff • • Hydric Soils • The soil holes located at Test Holes 1 and 5 in Wetland A consist of double layer profiles. Both test holes revealed 5 to 6 inch sandy loam surface profiles with matrix chromas of 10 YR 2/1. The subsurface horizon in Test Hole 1 consists of sandy loam with a matrix chroma of 10 YR 4/2 with mottles and the subsurface horizon in Test Hole 5 consists of a sandy loam that has a matrix chroma of 10 YR 3/1. The soils in these test holes are indicative of hydric conditions because they exhibit low matrix colors or low matrix colors with oxidized mottling (indicting fluctuating groundwater) at a depth of 10 inches in the soil profile. 1 Wetland Hydrology Evidence of wetland hydrology was present in the wetland in the form of morphological root adaptations and water stained vegetation indicating seasonal standing water to a depth of 4-6 inches during at least 12.5% of the growing season. The plants rooted within the wetland also indicate wetland hydrology in that there are a greater percentage of FACW+, FACW and OBL species present in the wetland than there are FACU and UPL, meaning that the FAC Neutral Test is positive within the wetland. There was no saturation to the soil surface or inundation observed in the wetland as it exhibits seasonal flooding and was delineated in the late spring. Wetland hydrology appears to be provided by seasonal runoff flowing from the surrounding uplands. The majority of the 1111 hydrology associated with this wetland collects as seasonal flooding and eventually is lost to evaporation in a normal year. There does not appear to be an outlet to this wetland although there is an old ditch that was dug to the wetland from the south. It does not appear that any water has flowed out of the wetland through this ditch as water would have to flow uphill to do so. Wetland Classification The wetland encountered on the property has been classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardin et al. December, 1979. This method of classification describes a wetland's association with a body of water (Estuarine, Palustrine, Riverine, etc.), while the class refers to the dominant vegetation community (aquatic bed, emergent, forest). Hydrologic regime indicates the wetland's relationship to the movement of water. Wetland A is a Palustrine Forested Wetland with Seasonally Flooded Hydrology which is abbreviated as PFOC: I • 1 4 U . • • • lite Wetland Category The wetland has been categorized using the Department of Ecology, revised Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington(Publication 04-06-025),that has been adopted by the City of Port Townsend. The wetland IIII meets the criteria for a Category III wetland because it receives 20 points for water quality functions, 7 points for hydrologic functions and 12 points for habitat, T _ totaling 39 points. It receives moderate points for water quality because it has the illpotential and opportunity to provide water quality functions. It has potential because it is depressional with no outlet, has persistent ungrazed vegetation over 50% of the wetland and is seasonally ponded for over 50% of the wetland and it has opportunity because there are roads and high density development within 150 III feet of the wetland. Wetland A receives fairly low points for flood control mi because it does not provide hydrology to any streams at all and therefore does not slow or hold water that may otherwise flow into a stream with flooding problems. The wetland receives low habitat points because it consist of only one forested IIIclass of wetland vegetation and therefore does not provide interspersion of habitat types. The existing habitat buffers protecting the wetland currently are impacted by development within 170 feet of the wetland for over 50% its circumference and init is not connected to any significant habitat preserves. Connections corridors to other wetlands have been disturbed by road building and development activities. NI. NOTE: The total points for this wetland have changed since it has been officially delineated although the category and buffers have not changed. The ratings form for this wetland that was submitted to the City of Port Townsend previously was II based on observations made from off site previous to the actual delineation. See Appendix E-1 containing the updated wetland rating form for more detail. 4 Buffer Requirements Category III wetlands that score less that 20 points for habitat require 80 foot II buffers for high impact land uses under current buffer requirements of the City of Port Townsend Critical Areas Ordinance. All critical areas buffers also require a 15 foot building setback to be measured from the outer edge of the 01 wetland buffer. Wetland buffers are measured horizontally from the delineated wetland boundary. See Appendix E-2 for City of Port Townsend wetland buffer requirements. Off-Site Wetlands 111 There were no off site wetlands identified within 250 feet Wetland A or on any of the road easements; therefore there will be no off site wetland buffers that could potentially impact the development of the road easements. See Appendix IIA-2a for overall map of the site. will II5 • • f • 33p UPLANDS DESCRIPTION • The topography in the upland is relatively level with a upland swale running along the north end of the site, where the 25th Street Easement sits. Test Holes 2, 3, 4 I and 6 were conducted in the uplands surrounding Wetland A and are representative of the vegetation and soils observed on the entire site. See Appendix G Data Summaries for upland data collected at Test Holes 2, 3, 4 and 6 Upland Vegetation The vegetation in the forested uplands is dominated by a thick canopy of Douglas fir(P. menziesii)FACU with lower percentages of Scouler's Willow (Salix scouleriana) FAC, red alder(A. rubra)FAC, big leaf maple(A. macrophyllum) I FACU, western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla)FACU and western red cedar(T plicata) FAC. The understory is dominated by salal (Gaultheria shallon) FACU with lower percentages of ocean spray(H. discolor)UPL, Indian plum (0. cerasiformes) FACU, Himalayan blackberry(Rubus discolor) FACU and Nootka rose(Rosa nutkana) FAC. The herbaceous groundcover is dominated by trailing blackberry (R. ursinus) FACU with lower percentages of Sword fern (P. munitum) FACU, stinging nettle (Urtica diocia) FAC+, bracken fern(Pteridium aquilinum) FACU and creeping buttercup(Ranunculus repens) FACW (adjacent to the south I side of Wetland A). • Upland Soils and Hydrology The four upland test holes revealed single, double and triple layer soil profiles. The single layer profiles are composed of 16 inches of sandy loam that have matrix chroman of 10 YR 3/3 (Test Holes 2 and 3). The soil at Test Hole 6 is composed of a double layer profile consisting of 5 inch surface horizon of sandy loam that has a matrix chroma of 10 YR 2/2 with no mottling and the subsurface horizon consists of sandy loam that has a matrix chroma of 10 YR 4/3. Test Hole 4 exhibits a triple layer sandy loam profile that has a 3 inch surface horizon that has a matrix chroma of 10 YR 3/3, a 2 inch middle layer that has a matrix chroma of 10 YR 3/2 and a bottom layer that has a matrix chroma of 4/3. Hydric soil must be present at ten inches and below for a soil profile to be considered a hydric wetland soil and there were no indicators of hydric soils present. There was no wetlandkhydrology or evidence of wetland hydrology in any of the upland test holes. • 6 I . . • • WETLAND FUNCTIONS ASSESSMENT Flood control, groundwater recharge/discharge, water quality maintenance, q tY biological support, and many other functions are performed by wetlands. The table below lists the most common values and functions of wetlands and provides a value rating for each function. Wetland A has overall Low functions and --� values See Appendix F for more detailed information regarding wetland functions and values information. -- I Value or Function Rating and Rationale 1 Storm and Flood Water LOW Storage This wetland rates LOW for flood and storm water storage because it is small in size and collects wathr from a small basin, which appears to be less than 100 times the size of the Iwetland; therefore it does not have the potential to collect large volumes of water. It also does not have the opportunity to reduce flooding potential as it has no connection to any Istreams because it is an isolated depressional wetland. Water Quality MODERATE Protection This wetland system rates MODERATE for water quality protection because it has some potencial to provide water quality functions and has opportunity to provide water quality functions because it is within 150 feet of a high density urban development. The wetland has a constricted outlet (no outlet) and has dense herbaceous vegetation for greater than 50% of the wetland cover but the soil in the wetland does not reveal a sulfidic odor indicating the absence of the Idenitrification process. Groundwater Discharge LOW The wetland is fed entirely by surface runoff collecting in a depression, therefore it is not discharging groundwater at the surface. There were no seeps, springs or other forms of discharge observed in the or around the wetland, nor was any evidence of springs observed to indicate the presence of a groundwater discharge area. 111111)I 7 • 0 I I Value or Function Rating and Rationale Groundwater Recharge LOW Groundwater recharge is low for this wetland since it is i formed by semi-impervious soils collecting runoff(actually holding water out of the water table) more than releasing it in to the water table. There was no evidence of elevated water 11 levels within the wetland. The only opportunity for this wetland to provide groundwater recharge to the water table is I if it were to frequently overflow its boundaries and release water into surrounding pervious,soils. This phenomenon appears to occur only in extreme storm events; therefore there RIis little opportunity for groundwater to recharge on a regular basis. I Biological Support LOW This wetland is 3,884 square feet in size and has one forested wetland vegetation community; therefore it provides limited 111 habitat niches and no interspersion of vegetation classes, and likely functions similarly to its surrounding forest. There is III no opportunity for the wetland to provide clean water to any stream corridors with fish and there is no connection to other impacted significant upland habitat corridors. The buffers are within 170 feet for —50 % of the wetland buffer by roads and pidevelopments. There is no significant habitat features within 0111 the wetland such as standing snags or amphibian breeding habitat and there is an invasion of reedcanary grass for t leas 25% of the wetland area. It does provide some local habitat niches including nesting and perching areas for a Opvariety of s asserine bird s.ecies. Aesthetic Values LOW Educational Values This wetland has little potential for aesthetic, educational and Recreational Values recreational uses for because it is on private property with no public access and there are no schools in the immediate area. It has little use for research because it does not have high functions and values. There is no opportunity for boating or other recreation as there is only seasonal standing water and it is ver small in size. • 8 • • POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Wetland A sits across the Eddy Street easement and is proposed for fill in order to develop the road easement and direct utilities through the area. It is proposed that the wetland be filled entirely (3884 square feet of fill) and that proper mitigation for its loss be conducted in an off site future mitigation banking site by the City of Port Townsend. If the proposed fill takes place the existing functions that the wetland has will be lost. The water that is currently flowing into the wetland from runoff will continue to collect in the area and will have to be addressed through detention in the road engineering process. The water quality functions that the wetland currently exhibits will also be lost so there is potential for loss of a small pollution sink that has collected in the wetland over time. There will be on site detention as part of the road building process and the water that is now stored in the wetland will likely be stored in the detention facility, which will provide water quality protection. The habitat functions that the wetland provides in the area will be lost to the road development. Since this wetland has low functions and values it will not be significant loss to the habitat in the area overall. The bird and mammal species that use the wetland currently likely do not use the area because it is wetland but more likely because it is forested and do not distinguish between the forested wetland and the forested upland. There will be more habitat impacts to the area from the general clearing that will take place in the road construction and development process of the Phoenix Addition. The re-establishment or creation ratio for the loss of Category III wetland is 2:1.,' On site mitigation for the loss of 3,884 feet of wetland is not feasible because there is no place on site where wetland hydrology can be recreated. The large off site wetland to the west was researched as a possible mitigation site and it ~ was found that it is not feasible for a mitigation area because there does not -r —s` appear to be adequate hydrology to create 7,768 square feet of wetland and creation of wetland in this area would involve the destruction of existing upland forested wetland buffer. Enhancement of the neighboring wetland to the west is also not feasible because there are no large significantly disturbed areas within the wetland. It is generally accepted that destruction of good quality upland forest for the creation of wetland is not a feasible option. Since no potential on or off-site mitigation areas are available in this area, a monetary endowment will be given to the City of Port Townsend in lieu of wetland mitigation. The fund will be established by determining the cost to create 7,768 square feet of wetland as mitigation for the loss of this small wetland. The fund may be used for mitigation in the future wetland mitigation 9 I 0 • Ibanking site or as part of the process of developing the mitigation banking site, Il I enhancing a previously disturbed wetland or improving or establishing an educational wetland facility in a City Park. See Wetland Mitigation letter regarding the details of the mitigation funding proposal. I SUMMARY IThe delineated wetland discussed in this report is located in the southwestern corner of the Phoenix Addition in the City of Port Townsend. The existing road I easements within the Phoenix Addition were checked for wetland conditions on June 9, 2006. One wetland was identified within the undeveloped Eddy Street easement. Wetland A was delineated on June 12, 2006 as part of the process of Iopening up the Eddy Street easement to access future homes and to install utilities though the area so they can be accessed by future residents in the area. IWetland A is a Category III Palustrine Forested Wetland with Seasonally flooded hydrology. The tree layer in the wetland is dominated by quaking aspen with I lower percentages of red alder and pacific willow. The shrub layer contains mixed percentages of black twinberry, Nootka rose and hardhack. The herbaceous ground cover is dominated by mixed percentages of slough sedge and • • reed canary grass. Evidence of wetland hydrology was present in the wetland in the form of morphological root adaptations on trees rooted within the wetland and water stained leaves. There was no saturation to the soil surface or inundation observed in the wetland as it exhibits seasonal flooding and was delineated in the summer months. I Wetland A is 3884 square feet in size as determined through the survey by mi Anderson Civil Engineers and Surveyors. Wetland A meets the requirements of MI a Category III wetland according to the current wetland rating system that is in use at the City of Port Townsend because it receives 39 points on the rating form al and has moderate water quality functions and fairly low hydrologic and habitat functions. According to the City of Port Townsend Critical Areas Ordinance, III Category III wetlands with habitat points less than 20 require 80 foot buffers from the delineated wetland edge. There is also a required 15 foot building and impervious surface setback from to be measured from outside of the wetland buffer. Wetland A has overall low functions and values because it has moderate function for Water Quality Protection and low function for Storm and Flood Water Storage, Groundwater Discharge, Groundwater Recharge and Biological mg llli Support. Wetland A also has low values for Aesthetic, Educational and Recreational purposes. III a a10 • 0 Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc. �3�il Dixie Llewellin, Principal Biologist :• ;ie. u ` 1�ti -.. -V,,,, ,o% ,� 3 _ ��` ri '''':%,',,::::.;;T k,...hs i. .q "� ,�` � � r-fir �`�,,,,, `»�`.�< �� -�' �, - µ� a c e , rr �"�� , rz ys.�� *' • 8 yg t4 a` y,. & .."'Y 1 4 . — ' .4"-t, r "e..'; tib; , ,:" :. _,,,y � a �` ;x . $ fiend , .--„:."--..,-,,,,,-•,i'—:::.,,,%,7- , 1:+ .::. irk. n �z b & ... -'t" k3c' - € - -- t4,- . e, ,414- + -,-, x'2 �^",' r s. Er- -ai.' x �"% .ail :M �,r �.y � m�- �C' -,---.4-4,\,..1,14-4--- �1�;�. �'� ��- .,r'..�f� b4��3., } ; _"� is �z"a r�i,.d�'��s.�.�.�*a��S m- �E :p fif^�' �:`. �•#_Eddy Street Wetland < �< n- Leonard, This letter is to address a proposed •off-site mitigation of the Eddy Street Wetland near 20`h Street for the Peter Goughnour and Vern Garrison development project. This wetland was delineated July 24, 2006 by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. Findings from this i delineation indicated a 3,884 square foot forested Category III wetland(surveyed by Anderson Civil Engineers and Surveyors),with associated 80 foot buffers under the IIIi current Critical Areas Code. As proposed the Eddy Street Wetland would be completely impacted by road and utility easements. I have worked closely with the City of Port Townsend as a consultant on wetland and mitigation projects since 1995 and have been witness to the way the City has adhered to the premise of the critical areas definition(19.05.020 B.1). First, if at all possible, avoid adverse impacts. Wetland impacts have been avoided through the work of conscientious and knowledgeable planners within the Development Services Department. For the following reasons, as a professional wetland biologist, I do not believe the wetland or buffer should be impacted: Historically the wetland has not been an isolated wetland. Although this wetland now appears isolated, past development has made this wetland complex disjointed. Eddy Street Wetland was once connected to a larger wetland that existed along 20t Street and the southern portion of the Phase II Hamilton Heights extending east towards Howard Street. I was hired by City of Port Townsend planner John McDonagh, to do an assessment of the area for the 20th Street road expansion. At that time I documented the wetland with photographs(assessment report April 12, 2004). • 1 • • Aspen are an uncommon species on the Olympic Peninsula • Mature aspen have been identified in the Eddy Street Wetland. I have spoken to Steve Acker,the Olympic National Parks botanist and he commented that aspen are"extremely rare". Ed Schreiner USGS/FRESC has few records of documented aspen stands. Species with 5 or fewer geographic units are classified as extremely rare. I know of only 5 or 6 small areas of aspens within East Jefferson County. Forested wetlands are not replaceable in our lifetime. The Eddy Street Wetland has been identified by the biologist a Wiltermood as a forested wetland with 4 species of trees. The aspen grove is mature(over 10 trees at 12" DBH and up to 50 feet tall). This aspen/alder/will grove provides a canopy for a native shrub layer. This plant community with the structural layers could not be recreated in our lifetime. Mitigations are often unsuccessful As a consultant for numerous City,County, and private mitigation projects I have observed the low to moderate rate of success of required performance standards for mitigation projects. Mitigation is often extremely difficult in area where there is unpredictable hydrology and disturbed soils. Mitigation continues to have significant shortcomings and success rates are low as documented by the Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study, Phase 1 Ecology Publication#00-06-016. Within the City, wetland loss has been avoided through creative solutions with land transfers (Deering Wetland). Sites have been mitigated when wetland impacts are • unavoidable (CT Pipeline, Ivy Street High Water Line). The City has also worked in enhancing wetlands as part of stormwater designs in cooperation with development and road improvements(Hendricks Street and Froggy Bottoms). I have been fortunate to be a consultant for the above projects and look forward to a create solution for this development project as well. I would like to be informed about the results of this proposal and development project. Sincerely, Dixie Llewellin Principal Biologist, Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc. Certified for Wetland Delineation, 1987 Manual Wetland Training Institute, June 1995 Cc: Rick Sepler,Kenneth Clow,Judy Surber • 2 7 • • ,,,_ 7 ,, .z _ if Wiltermood 4gAssociates Inc. July 24,2006 AUG J , i Peter Goughnour '�- 9234 NW Hopedale Ct. Portland,OR 97229 Re: Mitigation options for fill of Wetland A(3,884 square feet) for the Phoenix Addition in Port Townsend, Washington. Dear Peter, This letter has been prepared as to inform you of the mitigation compensation that will be appropriate for the filling of Wetland A on the above referenced property. As we spoke about when we walked the potential on site and off site mitigation areas, it appears that on site mitigation is not possible within the Phoenix Addition or within the Colombia Park subdivisions. We also made the site visit to discuss and investigate the potential for • possible mitigation off site and to the west adjacent to a large wetland system. We were unable to identify mitigation sites adjacent to the off-site wetland, because there does not appear to be adequate hydrology available within the wetland to support additional wetland. Plus, intact upland buffer would have to be destroyed to create wetland adjacent to the larger wetland. Also we noted that many of the possible locations adjacent to the large wetland to the west contain other road easements or are on private property. As no mitigation areas could be found and you meet with the City regarding this subject, a plan has been proposed in which Wiltermood Associates will recommend an appropriate monetary value to the loss of Wetland A that will be endowed to the City to be used for future mitigation in a mitigation banking site that the City of Port Townsend plans on setting up. We are also recommending that the City be able to use the funds however they see fit in either acquiring land for the future banking site, restoring the appropriate amount of wetland in the future mitigation site, using the money for stream restoration or setting up/improving a wetland educational feature at a local park. III � 1015 S.W.Harper Road,Port Orchard,Washington 98367 (360)876-2403 Fax(360)876-2053 i«9 Goughnour • July 24,2006 Page3 If y ou would like to discuss this letter,please feel free to call me at Y 1-360-876-2403. Sincerely, /314,4, Mudra Bergan Biologist • • • °� u L.7 , `""' �. ,i", .,;a _ gip !'.: gra. x,:z � ' k n A . i• + V N'''''' 6 '�,_,_ a wf x a �1a :SI ______T____ .,.._ __,...,__,,_..,.,., ,, f 104 I ..-:, � ,Q ► I- VO 254 60 II 1�V,"� . z f _ z.9 ;1 -P ' ,,,,i,- _0..........1_, , -• i: ■ ■ ,� 7 X6L_____4. 0 Tt± , 28 „. ' .i ;- , ar\----/ -4F 258 ` < 258 X92 Z R 258 v/ 26a 1 is 258 • • WSEC Residential Construction Checklist u4.F0,)..,, ?ORT TOS City of Port Townsend .... , yi iDevelopment Services Department 250 Madison Street,Suite 3 Port Townsend,WA 98368 ¢� (360)379-5095 Fax:(360)344-4619 Washington State Energy Code (WSEC) 2001 Residential Construction Checklist Complete this form in addition to WSEC forms. Please answer the following questions: TYPE OF PROJECT: ❑ New construction, or addition over 750 square feet Must meet whole house and spot ventilation requirements, and show full WSEC compliance as a stand-alone project. A detached, habitable structure such as an Accessory Dwelling Unit regardless of size must also meet these requirements. House addition under 750 square feet Possible trade-offs are allowed with the existing building for WSEC compliance, such as increasing ceiling insulation. See WSEC component performance forms. NOTE: A house addition less than 500 sq.ft. does not require whole house ventilation. Spot ventilation is still required. TYPE OF HEATING—Please check all that apply: Electric ❑ Wall Heater ❑ Baseboard ❑ Forced Air Furnace f10 Radiant Floor(Boiler) ❑ Other Non-Electric: Propane:❑ Radiant Floor/Baseboard(Boiler) ❑ LPG Stove ❑ LPG Furnace ❑ Other LPG ❑ Heat Pump ❑ Oil Furnace ❑ Woodstove(can only be used as secondary heat source) VAPOR RETARDERS: Vapor retarders shall be installed toward the warm surface as represented below. Select one option for floors,walls, and appropriate ceilings: • Floors: O plywood with exterior glue Poly plastic(greater than or equal to 4 millimeter thick) ❑ Backed batts • Walls: ❑ Poly plastic (greater than or equal to 4 millimeter thick) ❑ Face-stapled, backed batts Low-perm paint • eilings: ❑ Not required where ventilation space averages greater than or equal to 12 inches above insulation ❑ Face-stapled, backed batts ❑.Poly plastic(greater than or equal to 4 millimeter thick) Low-perm paint SE BACK P:\DSD\Department Forms\Building Forms\Application-Residential Energy Code Checklitdoc Page 1 of 1 410 WASHINGTON STATE VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY(2000 Code): Type of ventilation used throughout the house: ❑ HVAC Integrated Option AtExhaust Option Whole House Fafor"Exhaust Option": • In what room is your whole house fan located? 'ft T f • What size is the whole house exhaust fan? ❑ 50-75 CFM(1-2 bedroom house) X80-120 CFM(3 bedroom house) ❑ 100-150 CFM(4 bedroom house) ❑ 120-180 CFM(5 bedroom house) Note: the whole house fan shall be readily accessible and controlled by a 24-hour clock timer with the capability of continuous operation, manual and automatic control. At the time of final inspection,the automatic control timer shall be set to operate the whole house fan for at least 8 hours a day, and have a sone rating at 1.5 or less measured at 0.10 inches water gauge. Spot Ventilation:, Source specific exhaust ventilation is required in each kitchen, bathroom,water closet, laundry room, indoor swimming pool, spa and other rooms where excess water vapor or cooking odor is produced. Bathrooms, laundries or similar rooms require fans with a minimum 50 cfm rating at 0.25 inches water gauge; kitchens shall have a fan with a minimum 100 cfm rating at 0.25 inches water gauge. Outdoor Air Inlets: Outdoor air shall be distributed to each habitable room by means such as individual inlets, separate duct systems, or a forced-air system. Habitable rooms include all bedrooms, living and dining rooms but not kitchens, bathrooms or utility rooms. Where outdoor air supplies are separated from exhaust points by doors, undercutting doors a minimum of 1/2 inch above the surface of the finish floor covering, distribution ducts, installation or grilles,transoms or similar means where permitted by the Uniform Building Code. When the system provides ventilation through a dedicated opening, such as a window or through-wall vent,these openings must: • Have controlled and secure openings • Be sleeved or otherwise designed so as not to compromise the thermal properties of the wall or window in which they are placed. • Provide not less than 4 square inches of net free area of opening for each habitable space. What type of fresh air inlet will be installed? (See figure below) ❑ Window Ports Wall Ports P:\DSD\Department Forms\Building Forms\Application-Residential Energy Code Checldist.doc Page 2 of 2 Pescriptive Appr®ach— Simple Fort For the Washington State Energy Code(2001 Edition) Climate Zone 1 Site Information Building Department Use Only Lot: 1 Permit* Address: ./4OIIJ Al2)0 Notes: City: 0010 (31/0 State: (AN-Ir ►- C4-g Contact Phone: "5 (0 0 Ca V 3 I & Phone 2: Fax: Table 6-1 PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIRES I"FOR GROUP R OCCUPANCY CLIMATE ZONE 1 (Unlimited Glazing Option Only) Glazing Glazing U-Factor Door9 Wall Wall Wall Slab4 Option Area10 U- Cealing2 Vaulted Above lat4 ,t4 Floors On %of Floor Vertical Overhead'I factor Ceiliag3 Grade Below Below Grade Grade Grade 111 Unlimited Group R-3 0.40 0.58 0.20 R-38 R-30 R 21 R-21 R10 R-30 R10 Occupancy Only See the code text for footnote references This project complies with the following: ✓ The project is a single family residence or duplex. ✓ The project is wood frame QB all of the insulation is interior or exterior of the framing. ✓ All building components meet the requirements listed in Table 6-1,Option III. ✓ The project will meet all other provisions of the WSEC and VIAQ. The pr jest will take advantage of the following exceptions to the prescriptive option: 602.6 Exception 1.One door,that is 24 R.2 or less,that does not meet the standards is allowed. Location� of the door taking this exception /J/7T)1 • (AJelD a 602 6 Exception 2. Doors with a Ufactor of 0.40 allowed without calculations,Option Hi only. Location of the door(s)taking this exception 60e_mn ' / JP/0Fp- {(7)t . Copyright 2002 WSUCEEP02-O56 Copied by permission from the Washington Stale University CooperativitBdension Energy Program Prescriptive—Sinpie Fenn—Climate Zone 1 5/31/2002 Alt 2001 EDITION TABLE 161 PRESCRIPTIVE "FOR ROUP R OCCUPANCY CLIMATE ZONE Glazirip woo Wal• WaN• , sines option+bion Area C-' l l-FBaOf 11 Door 9 vvxu Vaulted Above Hoots %of floor vertical Overhead U-Factor ,Grade Bekm Below Grade erecter Grade 12% 03 R-3 3 0.58 0.208 R-30 i R15 R-15 R-10 R-30 R10 15% 0.40 0.58 0.20 R-38 R-30 'lIt-21 R-10 R-30 R-10 In Unlimited 0.40 0.38 0.20 R-38 R-30 R-21 R-21 R-10 R-30 R-10 Group R-3 Occupancy Only * Reference Case 0. Nominal R values are far wood frame assemblies only or assemblies built in accordance with Section 601.1. 1. Minimum requirements for each option listed. For example,if a proposed design has a&swine ratio to the conditioned floor area of 13%,it shall comply with all of the requirements of the 15%glazing option(or higher). Proposed designs which cannot meet the specific requirements of a listed option above may calculate compliance by Chapters 4 or 5 of this Code. 2. Requirement applies to all ceilings except single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings. 'Adv'denotes Advanced Framed Ceiling. 3. Requirement applicable only to single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings. 4. Below grade walls shall be insulated either on the exterior to a minimum level of R-10,or on the interior to the same level as walls above grade. Exterior insulation installed on below grade walls shall be a water resistant material,manufactured for its intended use,and installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. See Section 602.2. 5. Floors over crawl spaces or exposed to ambient air conditions. 6. Required slab perimeter insulation shall be a water resistant material,manufactured for its intended use,and installed according to manufacturer's specifications. See Section 602.4. 7. hit.denotes standard framing 16 inches on center with headers insulated with a minimum of R-5 insulation. 8. This wall insulation requirement denotes R-19 wall cavity insulation plus R-5 foam sheathing, 9. Doors,including all fire doors,shall be assigned default U-factors from Table 10-6C. 10. Where a maximum glazing area is listed,the total glazing area(combined vertical plus overhead)as a percent of gross conditioned floor area shall be less than or equal to that value. Overhead glazing with U factor of U=0.40 or less is not included in glazing area limitations. 11. Overhead glazing shall have U factors determined in accordance with NFRC 100 or as specified in Section 502.1.5. 12. Log and solid timber walls with a minimum average thickness of 3.5"are exempt from this insulation requirement Effective 7/01/02 33