Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPAR2001-00065 - PAR Application - 10/3/2005 IPA ' NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INITIAL REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE In accordance with Washington State's Growth Management Act, the Mason County Comprehensive Plan regulates the placement, expansion or modification of commercial, industrial and public facilities to certain areas of the county. In the interest of saving you time and money the Department of Community Development requires this initial review check list to be completed and reviewed by this department prior to the submission of any building permits. Applicant Name We_(doA) E� `t ,., e�.,,) Phone # (760) -12 2—A F3 SS Mailing Address Site Address Directions to Site om lc S r Q S -- c , '`I tJ'fp' Septic or Sewer Water Supply Tax Parcel # 3 a - d Clxn Legal Description 71 y a7 go Type of Development (noiv�o NI iu,CUM Applicant's Signature PP 9 OFFICIAL USE Approved B V` IUGA APP Y Q EAstinB Commercial Date 6) ` MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 September 7, 2001 Weldon Thompson 424 E Palm Canyon Palm Springs CA 92264 Dear Mr. Thompson, This letter is in response to your Initial Review Questionnaire (IRQ). You are proposing to construct condominiums on parcel 12331-32-00040. You have indicated that this proposal has been in process for a number of years. Currently there is an Order of Invalidity affecting Mason County's Development Regulations Matrix of Permitted Uses in Rural Areas. The Order of Invalidity was issued by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, effective December 15, 2000. The effect of this order is that Mason County will not be able to determine the compliance status of some projects until the order is removed. Mason County Planning is currently revising the Matrix of Permitted Uses in Rural Areas in order to bring us back into compliance. It is unclear at this time if those revisions would affect your proposal. According to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan the property is located in a portion of the county that has been designated as a Rural Area. The Mason County Development Regulations currently do not allow multi-family dwellings in the Rural Area. You will need to show that you are vested to earlier regulations in order for us to be able to issue a permit. The planner for your area is Scott Longanecker; he will work with you on what we need to show that you are vested to earlier regulations. Scott is available at (360) 427- 9670 ext. 3 63. I see you have already scheduled a Pre-Submission Conference on September 12, 2001. At this meeting you met with representatives of various departments to discuss how their regulations will affect your project. Once all of their comments have been entered into the computer system you will receive a letter with their comments attached. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (360) 427-9670 extension 366. Sincerely, Bob Fink, AICP Planning Manager Ph NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INITIAL REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE In accordance with Washington State's Growth Management Act, the Mason County Comprehensive Plan regulates the placement, expansion or modification of commercial, industrial and public facilities to certain areas of the county. In the interest of saving you time and money the Department of Community Development requires this initial review check list to be completed and reviewed by this department prior to the submission of any building permits. Applicant Name W Q(doh Phone # �5-7 Z—A e.;3 sS Mailing Address v ec. c by � �� C 2-Z-6 Site Address Directions to Site M & hgtrzIC S r 2 Q S' Septic or Sewer Water Supply Tax Parcel # 1 a:3 1 - ,� - C3 an Legal Description -71 y�.p �o v' �o-15 Type of Development 09v(06 Applicant's Signature OFFICIAL USE IUGA Approved By _Usting Commercial Date SAMPLE SITE PLAN .1c 3jU �..1 17L I I ri Z i o , 0 r x R Nti AL \� v M 4 Has this project been discussed during a previous Pre-Submission Conference? If yes,please indicate date ( �n S Will the building have employees? If yes,how many? 4�_S — 0 N fAj&W/L) a 4 4r s ArLr What is the water availability of the proposed project? If there is an existing well,what is the name of the system? What is planned for an on-site sewage system? "If you are proposing a new on-site system provide detail on the required site plan. enu-rri"u J='aedJ Ana ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: i40 VQS-�! cJ�. IA2 tz Add (v APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES: 1997 Uniform Building Code-WAC 51-40 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code-WAC 51-42 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code-WAC 51-46/51-47 1994 Non-Residential Energy CodeNentilation and Indoor Air Quality Code Mason County Ordinance Date and Time Conference Scheduled: q 140© 11 t o=30 11 =O D Ay'�l Location: (,�t CLth Pago At41lW = X 3 Case Number:PAR QZI-cam 65 MASON COUNTY: : PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE REQUEST FORM The purpose of the pre-submission application is to identify and/or eliminate as many potential problems as possible in order for the project to be processes without delay. Representatives from the Building Department, Fire Marshal's office,Environmental Health,Planning and Public Works Departments may attend the meeting to discuss rules and regulations applicable to the proposed project. Topics covered during the meeting will include the comprehensive plan, shoreline program,zoning,availability of sewer and potable water,development concepts,building construction,fire protection,and life safety of the proposed project. Your pre-submission conference will be informative when you provide accurate and detailed information on the Pre-Submission Conference Application Form and the site plan. Pre-submission conferences are held every Wednesday and last approximately one-hour.To schedule a conference complete the application on both sides and return seven(1)copies of the site plan to the Mason County Department of Community Development,attn:Pre-Submission Conference Coordinator.P.O. Box 186,Shelton,WA 98584. Fax request forms to(360)427- 7798. If you have questions call(360)427-9670 ext. 281. Date: Site Plan Applicant: Submit 7 copies Name: (de 16l w Z, _IXa M,01,,bA) Address: iv 9Z Include the following Daytime Telephone: Z — information on the site plan: ✓ Property lines, easements, and right-of- Representative: / ways. Name: LOL,r (I D ✓ The location of all existing and proposed Mailing Address: D 6 1 S L— / [ ' structures. Include square footage of Daytime Telephone a — 77J— n.)✓o._, IVA existing and proposed structures. Parcel Number: (12 digits) ✓ Setback distance, in feet, from all property lines and buildings. la_-3=Z 1 -7—- 0 (-3O (4 0 ✓ Existing and proposed road access to and from the site. Description of Project: Include square footage of structure, use of buildings (I.e. office, `� Parking sites warehouse, restaurant, storage, etc.), occupancy classification per ✓ Location of on-site sewage tanks and U.B.C. table 3-A, and construction type. Provide one set of drainfields. plans, if available. Use a separate sheet if necessary. ✓ Location of drinking water supply. Include C QtI AJ C c4 I 0o v CID H/krvI" c location on the proposed site and 3 R a ro n� f o o cZ re ck- 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. Continued on reverse side AdM` RECEIVE[' Washington State District 3 Headquarters •, Department of Transportation FEB B 51992 5720 Captiol Boulevard,Tumwater Duane Berentson P.O. Box 47440 Secretary of Transportation AAA" Co PLMNING OF, Olympia,WA 98504-7440 (206)357-2600 February 3, 1992 Welden Thompson 528 Rainier Avenue South #36 Renton, Washington 98055 SR 300 MP 1.00, Right, Vicinity Scenic Shores Condominiums E.C. File No. 86365-M-A Dear Mr. Thompson: We have received a request for review of the above proposal and offer the following comments. The Department's policy toward direct access to the state highways stem has changed since our September 4, 1986, comments on the proposal (see attached We now request that developments having access to the county road system use the county road for access. 'A search of our records does not locate an executed road approach permit for the original access location to SR 300. Therefore, we request that your plans be revised to reflect access to Gladwin Beach Road. Surface water runoff directed to the state highway right-of-way must not exceed pre- development runoff. The Department will not be responsible for noise attenuation if the subject property experiences noise levels in excess of the maximum allowed for the proposed land use. Advertising signs visible from an adjacent state highway must comply with the State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971,which is administered by the Department. For information rega.rdin the signing regulations, contact Jack Smith in the District 3 Traffic Operations office at e-206) 357-2620. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If there are any questions regarding our comments, please contact Ed Sharp at (206) 357-2667. Sincerely, 4J. HAMMOND, P.E. portation Planning Engineer District 3 PJCH ECS / c: S. Orr \ Mason Co. DCD \ P.O. Box 578 \ Shelton, WA 98584 ✓ M. Mc Gill \W2\92004M.DOC R P.O. BOX 2106, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507 E DESIGN-TESTING-PLANNING PHONE (206) 943-2293 February 15, 1977 Hllhi X,AY Ta, IIHUUSr; CLUB: Site Revision I. I,iitigation of Adverse Impacts A. Intarnal Circulation Aevision 1. 11atural topography utilized, reducing excavation into banks. 2. Traffic hazard reduced by changing access point. 3. Emergency vehicles access and turnaround provided. B. ','ark-ng revision 1. `No spaces per unit plus three extra (99) . 2. , night of Way not impinged upon. 3. Placement so that there is improvement in convenience of primary space and central location of secondary space. C. Increased buffer zones on steep sloped southern edge of property. 1. Erosion and sluffing due to excavation reduced. 2. Trees and brush currently holding the topography need not be removed. D. Fire Resistive precautions incorporated into site plan. 1. 311 miniar,um building separation established. 2. Fire resistive building features. 3. bmergmcy vehicle access r�.nd turnaround provided. Il. Community ' tilities and Support Features. A. Drainage Retention System to be designed to collect surface runoff and divert away from steep slopes. B. ?Eater source to be located off the site. C. Secondary sewage treatment with community field to be installed. R P.O. BOX 2106, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507 E DESIGN-TESTING-PLANNING PHONE (206) 943-2293 S February 17, 1977 ii[D.iUv AY RX&I OUSE SITE AEVl a ON `1'o anwer the growing need for rental housing in north I',,ason County, twelve fourplexes are planned for this 4.16 acre parcel of land. We have reviewed the Environmental Irapact Statement and concur for the cr.ost part with tke concerns of the reviewers and participating agencies. In light of their recommendations, a revision in the plat plan has occurred. ale crash to address the points brought forward in the :J.S and refer the reader to the new plat plan. As can readily be seen, the internal circulation system has been redesigned with access and egress changed from Gladwin Beach Aoad near the North Snore Road, to Gladwin Beach Road at the southern part of the property. This coincides more closely frith the current natural topography, thus reducing excavation requirements, and conseg.iently, erosion. In addition, the traffic hazard which is created at the inter- section of Gladvt n Beach and North Shore roads is reduced by distributing traffic patterns more equally between Gladwin Beach and Lorna Lee z?bads. The internal circulation road is now a one way loop allowing acceptable access and turnaround for tenants, visitors, and emergency vehicles. The one way loop is 20' wide with parking spaces adjoinin,;. There are 99 parking spaces allowed in the revised plan, yielding two spaces per unit (plus three extra), which exceeds planning's average `T'l.?:11'�' U3 3, p. 2 of 1,16 per unit. Parking, roads, and buildings have been moved out of the right of way of the north .:3hore .load and dlachdn Beach road. In the parking revision, s_mces have been moved into a more convenient location in regard to the buildings. While tenants may have two cars, at least one space will be close to the home for maximum convenience. In the island created by the one way loop, in addition to one building and its eight spaces, 38 secondary spaces are located, for second cars or guests. This is a central location, so that walking distance is not great from any of the buildings. 'Ilie location of t1je swirm-iin; pool also has been centralized, thus increasing accessi oi.lity. By revisin- the internal circulation and parking, the building sites have been iaoved. In the case of the buildings on the Gladwin Beach igoad side of the property., an increased distance from the steep cliff has been accomodated. This will have a beneficial effect upon the concerns of sluffing and erosion on that bank as the stabilizing trees and brush now present will not need to be removed. This positioning allows a 10 to 15 foot buffer from the 95 foot elevation (arbitrary, as marked on the map) . The excavated material raared during construction will be used in filling the central. area. The major fill material for the access road shall be taken from the -Lll on the North Shore toad side as opposed to that material on the Glac rin 3each .-toad. This again will reduce erosion and sluffing on the Gla(1win Heath Road. .3tructural integrity should be maintained by.utilizing the buffer zone separation. As can be seen, a 31 foot building separation has been established r , : ,,-1 u 3 by the site revision. -vire resistive standards shall be incorporated into tiie buildings as well, and so $re risk shall be minimized-witi gating the adverse hazard of fire damage. As mentioned previously., adequate turnaround and access for emergency vehicles have been provided. For a development t�tis size, the public utilities have been designed and redesigned to accomodate the desired density. Di AINAGu iLi,`1^�1';T:ION SYSTa! A drainage retention system shall be installed and engineered to capture runof.'L created by the paved surfaces. Since the soil absorption rate is satisfactory, a series of dry wells will be desipied to ta';e care of the excess surface water and divert it away from t 4 high risk erosion areas. AY IrZ A piece of land across the worth Shore Road has been acquired for a well site. The property developers will have a community system desi;,gicd by a qualified engineer. The system shall be rev-iewed by tt-e WH3 Later and .°Taste Section. By going off the site, safe distances shall be maintained between the well and the buildings and sewage disposal system. 3�,JlAdE Ttt� .2-ijLff 94D DISPOSAL A community aerated treatment system is to be installed for the purpose of sewa„e treatment on the site. A 10,000 gallon capacity plant is to be installed at the location shown on the plat map. Preceding the treatment plant will be a 2600 gallon trash tank to collect large settleable solids. Sewage will flow by gravity to the trash tank and aerated system, and then, after treatment, pressure pumped to the field on the northwast section of the property. 1::11EAJAY `iv.'i''iIUi7� �, p. 4 The pump will be triggered to operate on a volume basis of one gal-Ion per lineal foot of drainfield (every 460 gallons). Leaving the pump tank in a 2 to 3 inch pipe, a reduction shall occur to the drainfield which is ecpipped with 1 inch PVC perforated pipe ( ' perforations at 12" intervals). The drainfield pipes are capped to avoid pressure eruptions and maintain system pressure. .Aeration is a secondary treatment process and offers greater environmental protection in terms of reducing Biological Oxygen Demand (OD), suspended solids (SS), and coli populations. These thrae measurements are indications of pollution and pathogens in sewage. The foll.oui.ng information was taken from Alfred P. Bernhart, Treatment and Disposal of 'rdaste Water from Home by Soil Infiltration And var)o-transpiration (University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1973) PP 17-19: 12PTIC TANK 10 B C iMT1-iT BOD reduction 200 m r 1 to 1T0 mg/1 or less 200 m to mg 1 or less SS reduction 300 mg/l to 150 m9A 300 mg/1 to 80 m9/1 Col i reduction 12 million/100 ml to 12 million/100 ml to 11 million/100 rnl 5 million/100 ml j;issolved Oxygen Increase None 1 m to 3 m or more The guidelines of the Technical Review Comndttee in Washington State do not allow drainfield size reduction for aerated treatment, and so another margin of safety is added in that regard by designing the drainfield area for a standard system. The soil fcr tins area is classified as Indianola. Three additional pore tests were conducted in the drainfield area (as shown on the plat map) in addition to the data included with the engineering forms. These were standard 12" holes at depths of 36" to 48". A medium to coarse grained sand was found. The peres were iL;ri,IA `t'Or�idt;Ui1S�S, P. 5 1 rain 5 sec/in, 1 min 15 sec/in, and 1 rain, 10 sec/in (Tests were conducted 2/14/77). In light of these results and the nature of the soil on this portion of the lot, a deep trench drainfield is recommended. Guidelines for the calculations (as shown below) were derived from, the USPHS bulletin: Manual. of Septic Tank design. DAILY SEA GE FLN -� Multiple family diiel.lings 60 gallons/person/day =n 12 fourplexes for 48 units 3 people/unit 60gallons/person/day x 3 people/unit x 48 units 8640 ag llons/day ABjOIVTION A RLA R UI*3D :e Sewage Application Aate (for pere of 1 min/in) - 3 Zaal.lons1s2 ft/day- This figure is the maximum allowed for calculations by the Thurston4lason Health Ustrict. 86W a1 da 2880 square feet required Sal sq ft day T�i.:?.I�Uii DIr�dSzt�N5 12-2411 backfill. 211 washed stone over pipe Q a — 1" perforated PVC pipe ---Yielding 10 sq ft/ft absorption area 51 gravel beneath papa Dgon�a �O 21 II D. _L..� Y '1'U iTi riCltT , p. 6 Pipe elevations are lavel, and thore is a six foot center separation between trenches. The trenches shall be lined with a synthetic product whi.cs significantly reduces sand encroachment into the trenches. L�2491'11 rCEgjI,"1-,&TS Lach unit has a garbage disposal aid laundry. To allow for these utilities, an increase of 601 of the absorption area is added: 2880 sq ft + (.60)2880 sq ft - 4608 sq ft rewired 4606 sq ft = 461 lineal feet required 10sgft/ft (Ii VLL 16G�_1LiLD: 4621 (length) x 5.251 (depth) x 21 (width) 180 cubic yards 27 cu ftjcu yd D_-LkiT11nLLD COkiyf ffi-It1TiOil The drainfield is placed as is shwon on the plat map, with six lines of 77 feet. Aeplacement area is shown in cross hatch. With aeration and the conservative application rate maintained by the health district, there is no reason to believe that the drainfield cannot handle the sewage load generated from the 12 buildings on the property. �ITy`L"LIVili'JCf� ACz:�,��:�•�iT As per the requirements of Article VI, Section 9 of the Sanitary Code of the Thurston-Mason Health District, a perpetual maintenance a_-reement (as is attached) will be entered into with the owner of the property m.d 2 J, Inc. This maintenance agreement will place the responsibility of pumping, aeration equipment maintenance, emergency services and drainfield replacement mi.th a firm dealing speclficalk-, with system maintenance and desi7i. This agreement guarantees regular inspection of the system. '.Ie believe tl:at 12 -'ourplexes can be acconiodated on this parcel of land. `hrou h the site plan revision, the major adverse envir- onrnantal irn1)acte, as pointed out by the L;IS, have been addressed and reduced. The l idea:ray Totimhouse Development can go far toward meetin- to strong need for housing in the area. Attached: Laintenance ALreement AC � S U T N 9 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Y P.O. BOX 400 COURTHOUSE SHELTON, WASHINGTON 96584 TELEPHONE 426-1351 April 1, 1977 To: All Consulted Agencies From: Mason County Planning Department Re: Hideaway Townhouse Club, Draft E.I.S., issued January 28, 1977 This is to inform you that Mason County has received no comments critical of the scope or content of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hideaway Townhouse Club, issued by the Mason County Planning Department on January 28, 1977. W.A.C. 197-10-570 states; "PREPARATION OF THE FINAL EIS--CONTENTS-- WHEN NO CRITICAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS. (1) If the lead agency does not receive any comments critical of the scope or content of the draft EIS, the lead agency may prepare a statement to the effect that no critical comments were received and circulate that statement in the manner prescribed in WAC 197-10-600. (2) The statement prepared and circulated pursuant to subsection (1) above, together with the draft EIS (which is not recirculated with the statement) , shall constitute the "final EIS" for the proposal: PROVIDED, that when the draft EIS was not circulated to the office of the governor or the ecological commission, then the draft EIS shall be attached only to the statement sent to these agencies." This statement therefore constitutes the Final E.I.S. All comments received by Mason County, as well as a tape recording and summary of comments made at a public hearing held in Belfair Washing- ton on March 15, 1977, are available for inspection in the office of Mason County Planning Department during normal business hours. Sincerely, A> > James E. Connolly, Director Mason County Planning Department AREA CODE f MASON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL P.O. BOX 186 5TH AND BIRCH SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584 MATLOM: i i I i To: Board of County Commissioners From: Mason County Planning Department i ' Re: Staff report on Hideaway Townhouse Club i Contents Page ` Introduction 2 Background and Current Status 2 Findings 5 Conclusions 6 Recommendations 6 Appendix 9 I I C f (1) INTRODUCTION The intent of this report is to provide the Board with the find- ings and recommendations of the planning staff, in conjunction with the Thurston-Mason Health District and the Mason County Engineer, on the Hideaway Townhouse Club proposal. We encourage your full consid- eration of our recommendations in making a decision on this proposal. We hope that the Board will make a decision at the earliest time possible (a minimum of seven (7) days from the issue date of the Final E.I.S.) , so that all pairties involved will have a clear understanding of the proj ect's status. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL In the fall of 1976, the proponent submitted plans for a 50-unit townhouse development on the North Shore. Realizing that this project was substantial in nature, the Planning Director went to the Board for consultation. The Board determined that the project would have ! significant environmental impacts and required that an E.I.S . be prepared. The County Planning Department was chosen to prepare the E.I.S. , which was released in draft form on January 28, 1977. The following excerpts from the Draft E.I.S. provide a general description of the Iroposal and its related impacts. (a) Name of Proposal: Hideaway Townhouse Club Sponsor: Roger M. Turner 1913 Shederian Road Bremerton, Washington 98310 (b) Location: Tract 4, that portion of Government Lots 3 and 4, of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, lying Northerly and Westerly of Gladwin Beach Road (CR 8501) and Southerly of Secondary Highway No. 21-C, (SR 300 or North Shore Road) . A parcel of land approximately 4.16 acres in size at the intersection of the North Shore Road and Gladwin Beach Road (See figure 2) . Note: Since the Draft E.I.S. was issued the revised site plan includes an additional piece of land known legally as: Lot 11, Plat of Lynch Cove. This lot, at the corner of Lorna Lee and the North Shore .Roads, is not presently in the ownership of the Sponsor according to the records of the Mason County Assessor. The proposal has not changed since the public hearing held March 15th, 1977, at Belfair. The current site plan proposes 48 two- bedroom townhouse units on a site of approximately 4.58 acres, creating a density of 10.5 units per acre. The internal circulation system consists of a one way loop road with ingress/egress occuring at Gladwin Beach Road (CR 8501) . An additional driveway is proposed near the intersection of Lorna Lee Road and the North Shore Road. The estimated (2) number of parking spaces is 113 or 2.35 spaces per unit. Approximately 38% of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. Sewage disposal will occur on-site using an aerated, 2-chamber tank, a pumped 2-3 inch transfer line, and a 2,800 square foot deep trench drainfield. A 20 by 40 foot pool is also shown. "The direct and indirect impacts of the proposal on the physical environment include: Erosion of natural and man-made slopes; increased surface water run-off; a poten- tial indirect impact on adjoining property to the south from run-off; a'high volume of waste. water dispersal in a con- centrated area; demand for large quantities of groundwater; removal or reduction in the number and diversity of flora and fauna; conversion of presently forested land to high density residential use in a low density residential area; and increased levels of noise,. light, and glare. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposal on the human environment include; Substantial increase in the area's population; major increase in available rental units; poor grades and turn-arounds for passenger and emergency vehicles; increased levels of traffic and maintenance costs on adjoining roads; potential shortage of on-site parking; lengthy distances to units from parking areas; fire hazards due to lack of available water pressure and volume as well as non-fire rated type of construction; increased demands on public services and utilities. Three different alternatives have been considered. The first of these is the "no-action" alternative. While this alternative reduces potential environmental degradation, it does not meet the area's need for additional rental housing. The second alternative is a combination of all mitigating alterations proposed in Section XI. These alterations include: Construction of a drainage and retention system; establishment of a buffer area to preserve the integrity of steep slopes and banks; redesign of the internal cir- culation system;, and, the construction and siting of buildings to meet fire resistive standards. These combined alter- ations would significantly reduce environmental impacts, how- ever, difficulty will be encountered in implementation of all measures due to the size and configuration of the site. The third alternative-considers a reduction in the number of units to feasibly attain the objectives of the proposal while substantially reducing the level of environ- mental degradation. This alternative would provide more area for designing and siting necessary ancillary facilities." The new site plan has corrected many of the adverse impacts described in the Draft E.I.S; There will be several unavoidable impacts and these remain unchanged since the Draft E.I.S. was released. (3) "UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS. (1) Some erosion will occur during construction phase and after project completion. i (2) Reduction in natural absorption area. I ' (3) Water loading from on-site sewage disposal. (4) Incremental deterioration of air quality from in- creased auto emissions. (5) Increased demand on groundwater resources. (6) Reduction in number and type of flora and fauna. i ; (7) Conversion of four (4) acres of forested land to high density residential use. i (8) Increased levels of noise, light, and glare, j (9) Increased usage and commitment of natural resources. (10) Substantial increase in population within C.C.D. #1. (11) Increased number of trips per day on. SR 300 (North Shore Road) , Gladwin Beach Road (CR 8501), and Lorna Lee Road. (12) Potential traffic hazards at intersection of Gladwin Beach Road (CR 8501) and SR 300 (North Shore Road) . (13) Increased demand on schools, fire protection, police protection and other public services. (14) Increased storm water run-off. (15) Increased demand on area health facilities. (16) Reduction in the aesthetic character of the area. (17) Increased demand on recreation facilities in the area. (18)- The impact- of increased _availability of rental units is considered beneficial due to a shortage of rental housing in the North Mason area." These excerpts from the Draft E.I.S. describe land uses in the area of the proposal and its relationship to existing land use plans: "Land Use: The proposed site for the Hideaway Townhouse Club is presently vacant. The land to the immediate north, to the west and east of the site north of SR 300, and to the immediate west, has been subdivided into residential/recreational lots, of approximately (4) 10,000 square feet. The lots include the subdivisions of Lynch Cove, with 297 lots, and Beard's Cove with 566 lots. The majority of these lots are presently undeveloped. There are approximately 20 permanent and 48 seasonal homes in Lynch and Beard's Cove developments. There are 5 homes immediately adjacent to the site, 1 seasonal cabin across SR 300 to the north of the site, two permanent homes across Gladwin Beach Road at the southeast corner of the site, and two permanent homes immediately adjacent to the site to the west. To the east of the site along SR 300 there are .presently very few structures of any type, until the vicinity of Belfair is reached. To the west, along SR 300, residential development is heavier and oriented toward the shoreline. The upland with the exception of the two developments and a few road oriented structures is almost entirely in forestry use." "Relationship to Existing Plans The Mason County Comprehensive Plan is the only existing plan applicable to the proposal. The County does not have a zoning ordinance and the site is not within the jurisdiction of the County's Shoreline-Master Program. The Comprehensive Plan, dated 1970, designates nine basic land use types: Residential; Urban and Suburban; Commercial; Industrial; Transportation, Communication, and Utilities; Public and Semi Public; Agricultural; Flood Plain; and Forestry and Open Space. The site of the P p proposed action is within an area designated as Forestry and Open Space on the official map of the Plan. Recommended policies for lands designated as Forestry and Open Space include: "This land use should be fostered and protected from intrustion of conflicting uses ." The lands immediately adjacent to the proposed site on the west and north are identified as Residential, Urban. The proposed construction of forty-six apartment units on the identified site is clearly inconsistent with the identified policies of the Forestry and Open Space designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan is less clear on the consistency of the proposal if it were to occur in the adjacent Residential, Urban, designation. The plan states: "Density of a development should be similar to that established in an area when the density of existing dwelling units is below the maximum permitted. " No such maximum has been established for this or any other area, however, existing land use in the immediate vicinity is low density residential (lots of approximately 10,000 square feet) ." FINDINGS Based on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, written comments received from state and local agencies, and the concerns of North Mason residents expressed at the public hearing, the staff finds that: 1. The proposed 48-unit multi-family residentail development is not in conformance with the policies of the 1970 Mason County Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area as Forestry and Open Space. (5) 2. The proposed density of 10.5 units per acre is not compatible with adjoining lower density single family uses. 3. The proposed project would heavily burden existing public services (i.e. roads, police, fire, schools) . 4. The site is not capable of supporting the proposed development intensity without the occurance adverse off-site impacts (i.e. waste water, noise, light, glare, recreational needs, etc.) . 5. The proposed development would provide needed rental housing in the North Mason area. 1 6. Development of this intensity would establish a precedent for the North Shore area and could lead to future developments of this type. In addition. to the general findings listed above, several specific problems exist with the proposal in its present form: 1. Several problems exist with the present sewage disposal system including: Insufficient information on soil materials deeper than six feet; lack of a perpetual maintenance and operations agreement; potential pollution of a known groundwater spring from excessive loading of wastewater; and poor system design (See attached comments from Engineer and Health Department) . 2. No design plan and maintenance and operations agreement has been submitted for a surface water drainage and retention system. 3. No design plan and maintenance and operations agreement has been submitted for a State-approved water system. 4. Proposed design for the internal traffic and parking system does not specify final grades, construction materials, or traffic movement. 5. An agreement for dedication of additional right-of-way along Gladwin Beach Road (CR 8501) and amortization of costs for improvements to Gladwin Beach Road has not been worked out between the County Engineer and the developers. 6. No structural plans have been submitted indicating thickness and type of fire resistive materials to be used in -construction. 7. No plans or designs for landscaping to prevent bank destab- ilization, create open recreation areas, or provide site screening, have been submitted. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the conclusion of the Mason County Planning Department that an appropriate number of units for the proposed site would be from sixteen (16) to a maximum of thirty-two (32) units. The maximum of thirty-two units could provide adequate space for accessory facilities, reduce the major adverse impacts of the proposal on the natural and human environments, and (6) make•the project more compatible with existing uses.l The Mason County Planning Department recommends that the proposed development be approved provided that the number of units to be constructed is between 16 and 32 and that the following mandatory and recommended conditions are met: MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (A BUILDING PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THESE 'CONDITIONS ARE MET.) 1. Design, construction, and perpetual maintenance and operations agreement for a sewage disposal system approved by the Thurston-Mason Health District and the Mason County Engineer. 2. Design, construction, and perpetual maintenance and operations agreement for a surface water drainage and retention system approved by the Thurston-Mason Health District and the Mason County Engineer. 3. Design, construction, and perpetual maintenance and operations agreement for a water system approved by the State Department I of Social and Health Services, the Thurston-Mason Health District, and the Mason County Engineer. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. To insure that the mandatory conditions listed above are properly constructed and maintained, the County requires that the developers of Hideaway Townhouse Club provide financial surety,' acceptable to the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney, that these conditions will be "met. I 2. That the design and construction of the internal circulation system, including materials, widths, grades, and curve radii of roads and parking will be completed to the satisfaction of the Mason County Engineer. I 3. That a written legal agreement for any improvements to County right-of-ways, and costs thereof, as well as any dedication of land to the County for such improvements, will be prepared to the satisfaction of the Mason County Engineer and the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. 4. That the units be constructed to fire-resistive standards as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, page 34: "(1) Two-hour fire separation between units;. (2) One-hour exterior fire resistance; (3) One-hour roof resistance. A minimum distance between buildings of 31 feet or greater. . .", to the satisfaction of the Mason County Building Department. ,I 1See Appendix I for a comparison of urban, rural, and proposed land use intensities. i I I (7) 5. That a buffer strip of a minimum of 15 feet from the top of any slope of 15% or greater, be maintained in natural vegetation and that a design for additional planting and landscaping in the buffer strip and on any slope of 15% or greater by a licensed landscape architect will be provided and implemented to the satisfaction of the Mason County Planning Department. 6. Design and .construction of a safe, active recreation area, for children, .to the satisfaction of the Mason County Planning Department. I 7. That a ten (10) foot strip of site screening vegetation along the edge of the site that abuts the right-of-way of SR 300 be designed and implemented by a licensed landscape archi- tect to the satisfaction of the Mason 'County Planning Depart- ment. 8. To insure proper construction and maintenance of recommended conditions. (2) , (4) , (5) , (6), and (7), the -County requires that the developers of Hideaway Townhouse Club provide financial surety, acceptable to the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney, . that these conditions will be met. 9. All agreements and bonds will be subject to legal approval by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. 10. It will be the function of the Mason County Planning Depart- ment to review the process for meeting these conditions in order to insure that indepartmental coordination occurs. (8) THURSTON-MASON DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS 428 Birch Street V. DESHAYE, M.D., D.P-r- OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 99501 ..I----AfCT HEALTH OFFICER. _ SHELTON, WASHINGTON 529 West Fourth Avenue 206 - 753-8067 March 31, 1977 SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584 Dept. of Social 6 Health Svcs.Bldg. Post Office Box 746 206-426-4407 James Connolly Mason County Regional Planning Department 428 Birch Street Shelton, Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Connolly: Site approval of the Hideaway Townhouse Club can not be granted by the Thurston-Mason Health District until the following conditions are met as required: 1) Water System - WAC 248-54 A source must be available that has adequate capacity and bacteriological and chemical capacity. The plans and spec- ifications must be approved by DSHS and a bond to the Health District for completion of the system. 2) Drainage System Plans and specifications for the surface water drainage system must be approved. 3) Sewage System Management - WAC 248-96-070 A maintenance and operation agreement must be provided in accordance with Guidelines for the Formation and Operation of On-Site Waste Management Systems. Final approval of the project will be granted when the water system, surface water drainage system and sewage system are installed and operating satisfactorily. Sincerely, J. V. Deshaye, M.D. , D.P.H. District Health Officer Marjory ilw th-Da le, R. S. Environmental Health Specialist MD-D:vl cc:Roger Turner Regional Environmental Specialists DSHS John Kirner Gary Plews Mason County Engineers r MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COIRM ROAD ENG IIiEER Shelton, Washington 98584 OFFICE AT Shelton DATE March 24, 1977 IN=-DEPARTM IrM COHKUAICATIONS TO: Mason County Planning Department fRCH: Mason County Public WoAs Department SUBJ: Hideaway Townhouse l This Department has reviewed the- proposed Hideaway Townhouse project and have the following comments to make: 1. Additional R/W on Gladwin Beach Road will be required. 2. A complete drainage plan will have to be reviewed and approved by this office. 3. Completed parking and traffic plan will need to be reviewed by this office. 4. Maintenance Agreement - Not enough capacity in hold tank for this density of people, additional storage space in holding tank will be required. Additional drain- field will also be required. Trash tank will have to be pumped periodicly. Two pumps will be required, alternating pumps with time meters. An emergency stand-by power source will have to be provided. This proposed system must be designed by a competent professional engineer and the systeEa moist be reviewed and approved by this office. \ Dean O. Whorton, P. E. DW:sj APPENDIX I In order to compare the proposal to objective .-standards, the staff has used,a form for Laiid -Use Intensity (L.U.I.) requirements found in Urban 'Plannin 'and 'Design Criteria (pages 2-22 - 224) . By using standard design criteria for 2-story townhouse developments, the computations showed that 32 units- (or a total floor area of @ 30,000 square feet) would provide the minimum amounts of open space, recreation space, and accessory facilities required by the appropriate standard. It should be noted that the standard used for this computation was for an urban area. A more rural standard was used for comparison, and it indicated that 16 units was appro- priate for the site in a rural area. URBAN TYPE INTENSITY Standard 2-Story Townhouse (using 4.0 L.U.I. figure) Floor Area (FA) ' Buildable Area (LA) - .21 (Floor Area) Ratio HIDEAWAY TOWNHOUSE CLUB Actual Floor Area Ratio . (sq. Ft.) 51,552 (FA) 154,650 (LA) _ •33 (F.A.R.) Recommended Floor Area Ratio (X = recommended floor area) X 154,650 .21 X = 32,476 sq. ft. 1,074 sq. ft. required per unit 1,074 /32,476 = 30 units* * Note: Some additional space will be created by reduced floor area (e.g. less parking required, etc.) . This area-would allow 1 - 2 more units = '32 total. (9) RURAL TYPE INTENSITY Standard 2-Story Townhouse (using 3.0 cu. 1 figure) Floor Area (FA) Buildable Area (LA) - •10 (Floor Area) Ratio HIDEAWAY TOWNHOUSE CLUB Actual Floor Area Ratio (Sq. Ft.) 5,552 (FA) _ . 154,650 (LA) 33 (F.A.R.) Recommended Floor Area Ratio (X = recommended floor area) X = .10 X = 15,465 sq. ft. 154,650 1,074 sq. ft. required per unit 1,074 /15,465 = 14.4 units * Note: Additional space created by reduced number of units (e.g. less parking, roads, etc.) would allow 2-3 more units - @ 16 total. (10) m ID m oa c o 0 2 > 0 ti N cn p CT V Q � Q C) O M mM m n co Mco CO 0 C 0 Q (j U N CVN N . N N CmT En O O C1 L m v, C) m ca � CD0 © 0CLC C[: CD_ tv o o © rn C.) m y L p 0 C C1 m O p L N O c m c 0 -0 H O 1CD L C O co 3 ¢ U) ca m W W N 1- N W co q O W (D " N O W t� E O _m a ca -J > U to co co [t t7 co C7 c7 m N N N N r r O O �. -0 O N 3 = - ca C2 co U, -Y C m C 0 E v � Y U EU0co mm my m F- m 0) m 3 mCD o � y � c � C-) CD s X c ai c co a z m _ O E m NY - v m F U) Cn O 't-Cn � Cncnr W CtNCoCDcoO OD (D C O O` L m U 0 3 O 0 ? Q C � W I� (DCD (!) to (o ctv 'tcocoCOcoNN "_ Co L .- Cl a) W m - L ` C1 N CO a 3 -mp c0i Y j Q .r CO c 0 0 - � ` CO : O N m m C a-.. Z 3 "t i co Y Q p O CA ca O ca m m J _ a) 1 �D] O C E L a - m N as j CD 7 U r ¢ Q C) t'- to C) CM N Nt I 1__ CD It C) co 't Cl)m U m co co 0O U Q io. CD O N m ct co (D n W (D O "t CD.W L C -- L C C c C J LL O T_ T r T r r r r T r r N N N N N N _ C c0 o m — O m 0 m 0 a m m m Q U_ m.. oo 0 p C.0 Q m �C (a OLL CO co `n >. yN i acoEtiui LcoCF) cn N F _ O -p O C� E c C p C •w m C C - m Y - - a >,a m 0 a Co -0 U � •N , LL p U O m co -0 C pTNco ctco (D � W O OTNcovco I O � O m W .. nib N m -� c m c� mcoU) c7c� c+� chc� c� vvvvvv C'7 C -O N T w O N _ m C (a O ca C p cot � -i m in C w m > •o m ca O C a o O m 71 m c c m c ' Cr o 0 0 0 O m >. (n j cn co c 0 L E 0 a� = c m L c cn (n CD E -c-a � coo co a) 1 c �c >,Q c •v' o 0sca > 0 E U m cx u; .N >` m O U ca to U m _0 C 00 ca O -� Cl ca --� � co C 3 a) L �' C L r CD m ca L ca = a F- C '- .'_ C E -0 U Q 0 CD co E O p m C p 0 -- lb m 1 O C p C i cn O c C U m U N m 0 if CT m 0 0 m m 0 O O m O L cn m L m .0 ..- L a m _ .L U Y a) p CT 0 C C I F cn U a ZI 0 N -0 - c0 co E o [1 ` ca Z c cn ornc U W o 0 - E o 3 c Co` m -- W o c c m c c Q 0 , r� Y m c m c io CoDD a (n � � � � cn Eo o L E 0 0 6 -0 W O c0 m ca � L m L L o C U — w O y (D -E c CL U E -o T U U ca c7 - O ca u r _ Q0 0 co J _m c ca U ¢ rn OII cn a' Cr m aa) 30 •0 Q coc° `n r o m CD - o CC cui co r coo c io a 0 tQi i• o E a cc N "-� o a C1 ca (0 a Cr c*J O a L m � — c - mc ca mE o C r c � .. - � �= J O ca m C1 > O E ca m e' (?(D EJ O I 0 m a ct3 O L L N j C C cn cn:E cn m r (D L C W 0 ' 0 m Na ma � E CO o + rna�i 0 E m m 3 L C CD ca t E co c m r c I cn ('? c cn 0 m 0 a m c0i z m ca o F-- >.a -.- m - C) r + Q t � ` 0 E m c L WU m vi (D o cn c p a� rn + + L o o m m L C O CO C1 L .._ J r 3 m N .0 Q ca L H m m C U L Z ca Q E - �n m m t m m m 3 J u- cn — O .O C m m C 3 [1 m co [l C L Co N c`0 -0 O m co M . N m L cn W C m .� a E CO N aU cn o o T+ c N m m rnon � 0 3 N C U i N - C O F- U co z t C -0 Y Q m L L `- co C C N m co 0 m � w -` Cn -N m O m m a C CD y m ca L J CD U uj O co .0 3 E L C CJI ca N C O C O > L � 7 a 0 Z C c p� m cn O C m !- 3 ca F- O •- co -V,-S L ca cn U) 0- JU m C t p ca U CA L N c0 a c O.N E m 3 C 0 cn E 0 C _ O cn C C O C X ca ca a� (n a) O m C1 - O O O w >, Z m C0 C: cg a m cn m m m E = m 3 m e a> 0- U C J m O 0 ca ca L ca cn m cn Z p C ca 0 C U 0 Q ca O ca m O L cn U U Q) p C O O p D a 0 in ca ca V � � .� � � s m Crj co O mQ N NQ m to J X O a) CT O O D U "- cn L O 0) m J O to m C CD m - C r -� C U N ca m CD a E m .6 mSri m d cn a Z •m•� 3 a o m '�• cna v0 i v�ic`oi L v (¢i- of � s m vmi a a. a o E O ' Q 3 3 0 0 - O �• p Z } m m N n - a� � a O n � d O. T m z o 0 o v) o a cq O m p f\ h N f7 O 5 to to a) - co m -0- a) cn N >. C cn O >. cn a) Y _ •n N C O U C N C C U U a) a) L C Ic � co co O "-' O C a) L O N P co a) O L C O o Ca o a) co cn — 0 — O O O O O O co ` O p= - L L O C a) 70 U co Q O O O o O)o_ O_ L R1 C •� U O . s U)i •— N O O c - > 2 a) C C OU y (n N -ca O D U N Co Ca czN 3 cn f0 m a) L 7 p 3 E _ co � _ ca) oa) in - o a30L) °) - - U a) cn a a o o co co 3 0e O m N cn co O 0 O > O >+ c O c C cn C a) -c- co cU O E > O O O f) N P cz CD (n Q) Co - N : a) Q a) O O C i O'� Q) O O o -> cn O U p > o N cn — U) > C -a) _ cn a) O 'U _ p)L ` c: O a) a)— _> - v ♦ c-� P L 3 c N a) L N O o fl- O•U �. a) O -O C p) cn C 7 0 0 N o f - N C. N m a c0 _ O Q N (n O L a) O U o N O cn U o c6 U O_ U) ?^ c o• 0 V 0 0- 0 L _ m _ 0) C vl a5 c N O a) o O rn a) O w. a) N O O O_-� O O > V fn-O O O - O L cn � co LL c 0 ` co U U p c a co a) Q co U Co — c•O O rn p y a) L N N co O O co p co U 3 0 0 0 0 0 o m o U — co C L C .� — O 0) _O O .c N .� _-0 a) co Co a) co co O O o P P N O 7 c O cn 0 co L O ` c0 (o cn T O to C a) > M 7 y T '-. O_ 0) a) O.Y > U) U m o cn rl a M Y a) N — to =p > - O U O cn C L p �i v a o o P O C co U a) cn c) jc C O 70 co a) a) .— O cn L C cn L C U C C C X > a) a) _ a) 7 cn•— a) O .0 co 0 Q) C O o L -a Y cn o N N r\ maCl) c° Ewa)cn a) Naocc a) 0ca � � cO000 � a) cssc3 �� co3mco � a) N n a) a) U 30 d a) U ca U ` O cn X U •N-0 L o -70 vi O. N O co O L LO L C — O a) a) O O co CD O > W -O a) c C - a) a) � a) O 3 cn O uj co c 4) L U O a3-` a) O a) o O r L v) °n� L o � o � -a>, m > >1 Z ";coo 0) cn <n� ai � � -. S? a) (D- O O 7 a) o C > O o f t C Q > U co C 9-0 : cn o co C c Q to cn co O cn C U 0)(0 .o N c 7 0 O o O o c 0 � � a) C > co co _0 cn —0 o o N N — � o - a)0 0) _ o coma) cn -0 co C - rrn Uv) � � Zaaaa .� L O_ U ca QUj c� O `) Co co I O c0 Q) c m N O C (O a O a) O O m O C- O m .� .� 00 ca 0 O cn v=i.- a) cn Q a L a) � co co O CO ca n 3 OU U m 0 co) o 7O Q C cn co — a) 3 u) E cn '-' JC L . co U 0) rn� -0 co a) O O a) O O O U - MC co °) ) °' CD `noY3 0-3coo70 cncv) a' (D DE oc`ao -0C � ) a) 7o ��c zi o3co 70 a) m � cocncococn - - M U) a) c�oE70omLU co co __ c X .ccoc o o � L a) n °) � .0 a) c o a) cm c oL � d) o co o °) � c° � `° 3 c o c Q ma) oa a)- tn CD � i� yo0 Oc 0 J N O ca O N to a) cn vi N cn cU U o o a) Q 0)_J co cn 7 co � a a) U p Q) y p co L N �C13O C O•N O O o C d M cn J a) cfl J = m _0 -0 cn L vi 7 Co — o � 3 -0 Q 0), a) O ca O OC .— cn c a) d c a � � Fmc`na0cco � 000� a) ca `ua� via � � � `�° � � a)tnoo `o � � � - `900 t co a o co J F- a) _ m c cLo a) r h o _ c0 C U c Co �p �0 U a) U m cc a) Q a) o a) o N { coo � -a v) U) d o � 1L � � rn o (D o o a) °' -o (j Q) no 0 -0 0_ 3 .- ca L C �' O Q) C In cn L C a) N U ca > C c - M N d cn . Q N N U a) a) O N O C O i m O U o 3-O o con —", NL � cco , � coa) Em � � � � a) o � � da) 0 a) � ccnoE `n) o :3 70 cn r- a) -c U o aQ) � 3-- c� p ox CL > cCa 0 :3—iz : 0 0 0 - 0z� OE � o i oC M ctL o o - m O- -0 a) QO in 0 -0 a ` O a) -0 a) CL >ao a) a) � � o on `am 06tn a) cn - tc Lc a) cn >c N c7 -0V - d O U r U n oT n > = L O : a)3 v) a) cu a 0 °) a) n 3 a a) 0 0 cn 3 .o _0 ca 3 E co 0 O_ t II N Ocr E 1 IlIO._ L1 t i tIO- i t 'll 1( L_L 7—_ — _I 1 1i IHj�t : I, W L I I I' I 1 11111 I 1""_ 7 I I:I IIIIII(I li I W �1 � Z_ 1 I I I '1 i I. I11 II II,I I V-- I 1 I I C f II I.I 1'.111 I I I O Q I I ('- I',II'I' III d tt: W I I �. I II ��,'*- 0 U Ilulllll I .I i I III I I:I� ! 1' I I it ! I III 'll III IIII. !'I I I U ',:II II 'IIII t1.1 �n l l l l i l 11 I I T 4--r- I I I I I I I I III 1 1 I _ 1. t !• I I I Z 'III II I I11 I I I II�I III �I IIII, LIII IIIII ! II 11 I � 1 I I I IIII IIII I I I I I I� — !IIIIIIII t II Ir IiIII: I tt:l III IIliltI 1.11 C ,t(IIIII I I 1 I I I I� 1 1•I �I' 111� 1 � I IIIII"I I:i I I I I I I 11 I 11 III II'I 11� I'll I w III 1 ':III III a I 1i I ! 1 I I I IIII!IIII 1 I1I' IIII I I 0 1 ,. 1 'O ` !Iul II UI III I II II III'.( II�1111 I I I II I11 1 I I I III•: I z III! I I II III I II I I 11 I I I ' I '1 � Z I I ! I 11 II I I I I I Q l i 1 1. II I I I I I I ll J I❑ 11 1 I I 1 I I ' o � I IIII i 11 'I i ; II' I I 1 1 it I v I O 1 I I 1 , . � : IIII III I III I III I '. � i.nl II I IIII III I I I I I 111 IIII �I I .II ( 1:11 11 l 1111 11 1IIIII I I !II II I I I IIII I I II III I II II!! I I• I I III I I 1 1 I I IIII II'. 0 II 1 1111 I II I N 00 O O O O O OOrn co N (D ►O IT r0 N OD co~ LO omcar W to st rh N -000 0 0 (5 0 O —0 00 0 O 00000 0 OUVdJ -1VO183NnN Go 0 �° oh tri o O ` O �O ry h cK O X U O OHO 'ric( N ] o O .a V N t4 E I W a N E E E E E 3 } O + H N 3IS „ Z .° : SLd S + a ►— E Z — Z 1 cWi) N z 3 < 0 1 c Z Q I d , Qo 3 = oscP8 G s i 3 7 u i t o A O Y v s 3 s Y Y M u i 1 April 5, 1977 Memorandum To: Mason County Board of County Commissioners II From: James E. Connolly, Planning Director Subject: Transmittal of staff report on Hideaway Townhouse Club. Please find attached a staff report on the Hideaway Townhouse Club. project.- The staff report, unlike the Environmental Impact Statement I which was issued last Friday (April 1, 1977), recommends a certain action be taken. The staff report has an introductory section which describes the project, an evaluation section which points out the issues, a findings and conclusions section which indicates whether or not the project meets planning criteria and County policy, and finally a recommendations which states what the staff recommends based upon the findings and conclusion cited. Thus, when the public hearing is held on the project the Board should consider the merits of the project as presented by the sponsors, the comments from the public, the staff report before it and upon final consideration. • (1) Approve the proposal as submitted. (2) Reject the proposal. (3) Approve the proposal subject to conditions and modifications found necessary to accomodate the proposal in the best interests of the community. . (4) Refer it back to staff for additional information or review. JEC/MKA/bc Enclosure MASON COUNTY PLANNING COMMSSION t I ry MAR Feb ruary 21, 1977 n,�M4 Soti The Planning Commission met at 7:00 P.M. in the County Commissioners' Room of the Courthouse, with all members present. Also present .were Jim Connolly, Marjory Dilworth-Dale, Bob White, Mitch Brown, Monty Anderson and four interested citizens from Belfair. The minutes were approved as mailed. Election of Officers: Ed Taylor was elected Chairman unanimously. Grant Impett was elected Vice Chairman unanimously: Preliminary Sketch of Belfair Barn area - accepted in concept and design. Hideaway Townhouse EIS - The EIS and the changed design was discussed by Bob White. The changed design has answered many of the adverse comments in the Draft EIS. Marjory Dilworth-Dale stated the sewer system is not adequate (latest change). The water system has not been approved and will not be until a well is drilled and proved. The proposed management system for. the sewer system is not acceptable at this time. Ed Cokelet left a copy of the EIS at the local barber shops. He turned in a number of comments to the planning staff for use. Grant Impett also made comments, as he had visited the site. Grant Impett moved to make no comment until an acceptable plan is presented to the Planning Commission. Gunnarson seconded the motion. After considerable discussion, the motion was withdrawn. The Planning Commission's concerns with the Hideaway Townhouse EIS are: 1. Sewage treatment. 2. Density - it should be reduced. 3. Saltwater flooding on Gladwin Beach Road. 4. Water system. 5. Soil stabilization. 6. Open space and playgrounds. 7. 50 burning fireplaces. 8. SR 300 Beard's curve toward Belfair. 9. Parking space for guests, boats and trailers. The secretary will transmit these concerns to the Mason Regional Planning Council for inclusion in the Final EIS. Impett moved; Cokelet seconded; passed. Monty Anderson presented the Planning Program and Function to the Commission. The members were presented a booklet prepared by staff. It outlined the Planning Office and what function it performed. r Move that the Hideaway Townhouse Club project located on the following legal description: Tract 4, that portion of Government Lots 3 and 4, of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, lying northerly and westerly of Gladwin Beach Road (CR 8501), and southerly of Secondary Highway No. 21-C (SR 300 or North Shore Road), and Lot 11, Plat of Lynch Cove, be approved for the construction of units subject to the following conditions: 1. The design and perpetual maintenance and operations agreement for a sewage disposal system be approved by the Thurston-Mason Health District and the Mason County Engineer. 2. The design and perpetual maintenance and operations agreement for a surface water drainage and retention system be approved by the Thurston-Mason Health District and the Mason County Engineer. 3. The design and perpetual maintenance and operations agreement for a water system be approved by the State Department of Social and Health Services, the Thurston-Mason Health District, and the Mason County Engineer. 4. That the entrance to the site be from Lorna Lee Way (CR 8559). 5. That the design of the internal circulation system, including materials, widths, grades, and curve radii of roads and parking :-ill be completed to the satisfaction of the Mason County Engineer. 6. That a written legal agreement for any improvements to county right- c -ways, and costs thereof, as well as any dedication of land to the ccanty for such improvements, will be prepared to the satisfaction of the Mason County Engineer and the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. 7. Tnnt the units be constructed to fire-resistive standards as outlined . in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, page 34: 11(1) Two-hour fire separation between units; (2) One-hour exterior fire resistance; (3) One-hour roof resistance. A minimum distance between buildings of 31 feet or greater ., " to the satisfaction of the Mason County Building Department. 8. That a buffer strip of a minimum of 15 feet from the top of any slope of 15% or greater be maintained in natural vegetation and that a de- sign for additional planting and landscaping in the buffer strip and on any slope of 15% or greater will be provided to the satisfaction of the Mason County Planning Department. The Department may require such plans be prepared by a licensed landscape architect if the design of such landscaping prepared by others is not satisfactory to the Department. 9. That a ten (10) foot strip of site screening vegetation along the edge of the site be maintained in natural vegetation, and that this strip may include at its center a redwood fence of no greater than 6 feet in height. This buffer strip will be supplemented by additional plantings, the plans of which will be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. The Department may require such plans be prepared by a licensed landscape architect if the plans prepared by others are not satisfactory to the Department. 10. Design of a safe, active recreation area for children, to the satisfaction of the Mason County Planning Department. 11. All conditions and the construction of conditions 1 through 5 and 8 through 11, shall be completed or financial surety for their completion shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Mason County and the Mason County Prose- cuting Attorney. Four copies of the final site plan, showing the complete development, as well as documentation of the developers' meeting the above conditions, shall be filed with the Planning Department before a building permit is issued. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health fire marshall parks & recreation fair/convention center planning Mel Monheimer. March 25, 1 =51 802 East Lynn Street Seattle , L4A ?13102 RE: Scenic Shores Condominiums Dear Mr . Monheimer ,, The Mason County Piannino Department has completed a preliminary rev i e!.! of Mr . Thompsons condominium proposal . This Department will consider issuance of a. .Mitigated Determination of Mon=_. i on i f i cance for this project i•f the fol 1 owi no mi t i oat i ve measures are incorporated . 1 . Submit an'* engineered erosion control and surface water drainage plan specifically designed for the site which contain; an oil and ga.s separator in the plan . •This plan must be implemented into the project to assure that all impacts from excessive runoff and erosion that results from the clearing of vegetation , disruption of natural water drainage patterns , and the introduction of pollutants is minimized. 2. P1ust leave ` or create a vegetative buffer alono. the imestern property line in order to minimize the visual and noise impacts associated v)i th the. project and to help preserve the rural character of the area . 3. r1us-.t hA- ve A- p_propr i ate a.pprova.l=. for- the on site septic sy=_ tem and water supply system . 4 . P1ust obtain county road .acces.s permits from the Mason County Public I,.)orks Department . S . Mus.t shot.~; proof of compliance vii th The Condominium Act RCI&I 64 .34 , b . Provide information on the amount of trees that i,-iou 1 d be left on site vii th the pro.iect . This department would recommend that there be a. reasonable number of the coniferous species of trees left on th;-- site to assure that the rural character of the .area is preserved. J Upon agreement of the above mitigative requested engineering drawings measures and the to incorporate these measures this department can with the permitting process which would include the issuance of a appropriate local , state , fe mitigated DNS with deral , and public review. If I can be of any further Please Ple _ se contact me . I fir, feel free to -pa to ha�;e _ _- a response from You' soon . r • Sincerely, Sean Orr , Planner Mason County a, THIS PARCEL INCLUDES PLANS, BLUEPRINTS OR OVERSI ZE IMAGES LARGE FORMAT IMAGES HAVE BEEN STORED IN FILE CABINET(S) UNDER --- --- PA RC EL NUM1 BER PARCEL # 033 Ooo4D CASE # t � . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , Chapter 43.21C RC11, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decls-lons. An Environmental Impact Statement (EiS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants This Environmental Checklist asks you to describe some basic Information about your proposal . Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether environmental impacts of your proposal are signifleast.. requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write *do not know* or *does not apply•. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. -- Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shorelias, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal , even If you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional Information that will describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there any be significant adverse tmpact. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered *does not apply.* IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words *project,* *applicant,* and *property or site* should be read as *proposal,* *proposer,* and *affected geographic area,* respectively. f A. BACKGROUND `== 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable; • 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST � 2. Name of applicant: tie ICIoAJ --/-�o'mPSo'�j 3. Address and telephone, number of applicant and contact person: WR /dOA) omPsr. WC A)��►, eve 4�vss t. Date cheek) Ist- prepared: QVi uST /5, /190 S. Agency requesting checklist: riQC SvN &A4 /01 21 6. Proposed timing orschedule (including phasing, it applicable) : 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. /vim . r S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, direnctly related to this proposal. -PtNa J 1N 1477 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approval* of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? It yes, explain. �O 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, rrIf known. n 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. Thor* 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. oroul DE" cL acoo l d� coticQoti� O( eVe UN so�c�y 16 / vfQ� 3'o�/UCak+�S J Qsv'� d�rUp S / P X s Or(JC 7V/c s d i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . 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 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. 7( SAC+ 41 71, / &501)0, st.c7 /1r�� j , 4 � �•''{Sofa" (7 c�tYec..N e / 3e' CI $p C" �t )r A), , � 7 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT I S .3&o B, ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • ~~" •(a).•i 6eniral~ description of the site•ieirele ons). flat, oil ing .hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other (b) What. is the steepest slope on the site (approximrmate percent slope)? 7 © Wh/c� 15 t7'©jWlt SrllC t 1/00 ),,A) `c 1 - ►�s artA, will /�e�fi�.� S •tc) . What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, AJGIVt- sand, gravel, peat, suck)? if you know the classification of agricultural S�` soils, sp*ctfy them and note any prise farmland. . ., �N dCCI �Cjq r•( • Vdi Are there surface indLcations or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. AN (el Describe the purpose, type, and approximate Quantities- of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 1.1 It Ail e x p'c�c • .9om2 pwpa5,eg ieOAD 4Aj N stye , kweu(., P .) 't-ke ,i�, P r%st c l Lot It Ma�NJd/,a At Cc,r re N t f o� � P m P (f) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Un �L t'� % /t ✓Ti /1fL1 t�'t l t GQ.'c�l, C(f�i 64 le f-rc5ioA) P)Cp (g) About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? -3- ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (b) Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any=As ertilloe�s/cI s ,eQ , , Cow% e�/1 6 7` Pro ' tc/.// k Ali?1A/,-W1.t1f C! S /Yvr_l�/ dr�c+ss'.h�t a�C0.` 1Z ivl /oilow �ia ue bee' �v r'e V�1.N' f1122 S/rD are�t Sl A,`�� l,<e,y a►�aJ t'.1CCe � c�cJ S_ !l� c�e�ir=e� Q s -. T" t ProJ1r l �UyiCare AouY�s .�'i�- el 2-. (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 glvs approximate quantities if knows. i - - S>1or '�' �r M O e9o2 an,�d�us'f•rJ�f iN9 C�Crynrs' e.�-.t'o�'' ��-s'ic°Q/4 •S'r�P �r��aTQ o/ip,�J Q>v� >�s�tia�f�at».0 � Are- there may aff_-sIto sources of emelssions or odor- that may• affect.?• your"proposal?�.if"so,* generally describe. - (e) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, it any: A) P lie !J/ el vle, 3. Water r (a) Surface 1) As there any surface eater body oe or to the twmediate 'vicialty of the site (including year-;round and seasonal streams, soltwstor, takes., ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state . what stream or river it flows tote. : - s -Ca�v a ' k t` W �e"r s l�or2 11 NQ S cx rvz- .�d �' • �' t" S t . �rc�r ie M . ''fie 3O pf --t- �nJ /N (ftxro�ro�v rc io low �l. c A% 7. mrea � �-�,�� .e�cd�eN �.���.vle �" d _ �^© -a_ �,' o h/co� Ca�. 7/aAwvw PcQ 4.es. �o •t.� ft�,-//1 ti� 2) W li the project riqu re any work over, in, or adjacent to (withn 200 - feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. A,)C) . 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 site that would be affected. indicate the source of fill material. -4- C'on� yielalcouq /t,,d o4ew 47ti vo/ o4ut A�v y� 4$'S &)A s {� � d-�i s �/�, ,�S<•��,S. ,.v Il.�o v, /9e6•�Q urn /a 14 o.v rr J s 1 ' . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST i) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate Quantities If known. /^V r d S) Does the proposal ITe within a 100-year floodpialn? -if so, note, - location on the site plan. • - '. :IUD 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. 5 /' / � /� t n n d4 "m .to,o d, !U at/��/ 0/v S! Ctti t�Yt 'QO�Ph� !L¢ 4,0 0cviv� Sk'f�.r��QS.• 011110 kf Se k5 as +"(5olreLQ. (b) Ground - t C7 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.. • 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 nuiiber of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. S-2 94(' Se (c) Water Runoff ( including storm water) .1) Describe the source of runoff ( including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any ( include quantities, if known) . Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other water? If so, describe. n A)Vrw j r ae�r"UA r v�v ePI-1P. CA �a-r cue-� InA-1 C Gt?t 1 j Q r2 � . ve t2 ' rd✓ G/Q 1-a��/�/f S • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. �tC 5 ,y C � '� -5- t c ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff rater imppacts. if says �n ��x �')aj e�j �t ��c%� ©� Sr�e o� re cue se P t-eA01 Q 4. Plantif (a) Check or •circle types of vegetation found on the sites deciduous trees ider apl aspen, other - evergreen tree: Tr e8, pine, other _ shrubs grass crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulirush, skunk cabbage, other - water plants: rater Illy, eelgrass, ■ilfoil, other other types of vegetation �Cf� S• �� (b)' 'What kind and- amount of vegetation rill be removed yr altered? `.y Ve o i OAl'X( ctO�iT� err '�i,J? 'No i`�ytc-�1 ^,c;. ��� ti• ^ Cc) List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. �Ll cd) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if says I �la,v s L vex'•, .kl . �;N���!u:i` i�.!1�r� e��t, C(Qt►-�iti;g �S cQtfN 2 S. Animals 1 (a) Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the sites birds: hark, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: SOdtr°WSJ Y�� -crowtic�! ki�'9�ads ■ammalss deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: T Q fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (b) List any threatened or endangered species known: to be on or near the site. Cc) is the site part of a migration route? if so explain. IQ - (d) Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: n ,.� 10 r_0 4aAr O P 44 �L COIA)V 4 s 6u,v n��-� -Ce �z ou arc6,1 _fc /eta iti oa In, /ale S,� o� �c 4�Zw S 6sv 5't.�_. rle r� d.�i� wt l� `i.c<.+��r.> A- re'r,&,O) -6- ��y ♦ t ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6. Energy and Natural Resources (a) What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oli, wood stove, solar) rill be used to meet the completed projectIs energy needs? Describe whether it rill be used for heating, manufacturing, ate. Ail L)A)115 co, l 4 Iva Jed kI e/ccicic. A)o Woolf &rAvs11 fr 1016eS caf P rp 1a cue to ill be a ticru0.0 .� (b) Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe. Ae (a) 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: !� ory s ulx/l 46e l u�v/aver G � �.uq u�>u 'J tit 7. oloretwwols Eavironn&'04 ripAtel Health (a) Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosloi, spill , or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? It so, describe. Vo 1) Describe special emergency services that night be required. �o u re 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, it any: V (b) Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affact your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? n %2a �c �'a*i Nc•_5lwy t �A� h0 WftAt K d 1C0 9 a," po g t4A ?red pose,b le dt 4,�vy �-ot4 s o wee J 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-ter■ or a long-tern basis ( for example: traffic construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. �'/r��'7 f lec Oaev � IVAJ J -7- .►' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 33 Proposed measures to reduce or• control noise impacts, if any: )e'lJirovo -tQws 9e 40Cf v r 0 A DS )0"40 .4040) s S. Land and Shoreline Us* (a) What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? _ Q cl • Prgw 1 -Re 5(1)E:N r*r^ .) C o ff tt c i A (b) Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. UN/C.vnw.0 �L bebeoz Ne*f. (e) Describe .any structures on the site. 1 (d) Will any structures be demolished? - if so, what? (a) What is the current zoning classification of the site? y' AA) Z f N>,v 7 0 4 S s r di e4 11W—) ICivC►UO A-= —�f /S 5/� Lei i-tn.(J�fa e (f) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? - V (Sl• If applicable, what Is the current shoreltoo waster program desiguatlom of the site? (h) Has any part -of the site boon classified as an *environmentally sensitiveo area? If so, specify. 0+ �0 M 4 ICnJOLU (1) Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (j) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Ne A)-t— (k) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A See a Div v� (1) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 75 PS r A Frv�`S C�.vcQer I -A -s- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9. Housing - (a) Approximately how many units. would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or--low-Income, housing. . 'st Au Propo.1'e5 VAUA111 5 Which _Zu'ow/40 Ael'or1Cp'D to %-'-k. Y1Zb C 10 ou jo 1.l4 & p a.v a Qv! Porr�tuar�✓/ (b) Approximately how many units, if any, would be liminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. ,NO A.'e- (c) Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Q:/ AJ-Q ,/s r g a 10. Aesthetics ' _:;_ (a) •' What`Ils �the•-tallost. height- of any proposed structure( s) , not . Including_antennas; what is the principal exterior building materlaits) proposed? •Qti 4ux� (b) What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? (c) Proposed measures to reduce //or control aesthetic impact, if any: JUL4Alt r-4 P/olo DN COA)SV4VC44aA,. hld%ou ` NCtfiU�eE.I atK/QCS�NCI� �I it y Ito i vht and Clare Co) What typo of lIght or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Norma / (b) Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? / ) (c) What existing oft-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (d) Proposed measures to reduce --or control l ight and/ glare Impacts, I f any: Ry Ma�No4�,v1 14 9:,-ow/✓Y sti 4 44- Grrt,,j`Y, :SVrrbu�10 cam•( /-7r©pt_/iy ek /1-5 buvte. teV t 12. Recreation e (a) What designated and informal recreational opportunitles 'are in the immediate vicinity? aIL `jOA df lNc/> P/SIIIw k o� -9- ti ' • r ENVIRONNENTAL CHECKLIST (b) Mould the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? if so, describe. A)p , (a) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on rear 0ation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if says - /�0NN15 Covr e9 71W10 GV Y 40 PrV IV1Oe6 bN s� l 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation (a) • Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation. registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. (b) Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. /UeA)e . kc) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation (a) Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access tothe existing street system. Show on site plans. If ONTO P t&A l (b) is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? (c) How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would -the project eliminate? 'n T n� Pro of COOL, 10 CreQ` S Ot3l/�jGj�;� q�s 67'Veun evoe /emu -to- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (4) 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). �'t A ktt_? Pr►VAS r6Ab WoeltQ � C4-ek.Itc� W1Qales - g2.0 Si+� Aida �J to) Mill the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) rater, roll, or air transportation? It so, generally describe. AV o (f) How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Ma( YeSi D€NY7At- A��'.c �tV(*--t40A) �P►K S S/Z U. ,ray¢. i�vq. /N-HIV -t d-�r-S 1�J eJ L[-v f<1�&, � V (g) Proposed .■easdres_`to. reduce or control transportation, Impacts, It any: A b, re (JeXi7p ^ . 15. Public Services (a) Mould the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: tire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? it so, generally describe. fs a s re lQ A c�a,UG AMI fal' re 6 rca,v4 c�cV l ��� ON SC�tv IS cu i ! AIA)lA a 1 Qe0u (b) Proposed measures to_ reduce or control direct impacts on public services, 1t any. NoAX 16. Utilities (a) Circle otllttie s rent" ova t tb• site: leelrieTty natural gas, water refuse services' telepboae sanitary sewer, septic system, other. �?,kc 5 c.l S M C (broil rD (b) Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. &12JIC j�a44- Sy-5.4M f 6e 1A,s7/alCr�)21 re ale 0S "Cov�tio� Ute� �M�rNa��.ivclts r�.v. t C. Signature ` The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that t a ead agency 1s r i on them to make its decision. �• Signature: Data Submitted: -11- -~ �4 ��� / / '`'n' ~ ^ ) ��Y '"/ M onk E3 M N C--aUN-rV ' PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER r~ 0J Shelton, Washington ��4 �z� ERuy S|� y��� ___ [Or~ N*^' DATE: May 17, 1991 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TOo Mason County Department of General Services - Sean Orr FROM: Elden Reed GUBJ: Road Access for Scenic Shores Condominium The primary access to Scenic Shores Condominium is from S. R. #300. This requires a permit from WSDOT. The secondary access location , from the Gladwin Road , as proposed by Mr. Welden Thompson , is satisfactory. Mr. Thompson was in our office on May 16, 1991 to satisfy the requirement of Item 4 of your letter to Mr. Monheimer dated March 25, 1991 . As the access will not be constructed until the project is final approved , the permit will not be issued at this time. The permit will be issued when applied for prior to construction. This office will require a 2 lane road (28 foot shoulder to shoulder) with a 20 foot shoulder radius at the intersection , a multi use access. * In summery the location as proposed is satisfactory at this time. But the actual permit will not be issued until applied for just prior to construction. i ` MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water Shapiro And Associates Marc Boule Suite 1400 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98014 10/10/90 RE: Weldon Thompson Case--wetlands delineation Dear Mr. Boole: Upon You inquiry with our Department per telephone conversation today, please be informed that the attached letter to your client, Mx. Weldon Thompson, has been changed. The listed requirement for a wetland delineaticn conducted by a Hydrological Engineer registered by the State of Washington is no longer valid. A consultant may be hired that is able to submit written qualifications to our Department. These qualifications must indicate substantial training in the natural sciences and, more specifically, the wetland identification processes. Thank you for inquiring with our office regarding this matter. I would also like to extend an apology to you for our telephone and message system. I have researched the problem and found that you are not alone with this frustrating experience. Our Director has been informed of the situation and will take the necessary action to see that your calls are answered and messages promptly distributed. Thank You for your patience. Sincerely, Wendy Van /Aton-Lev Mike Byrne Shoreline Planner Director Mason County General Services General Services WVEL/wvel MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. 111 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health maintenance landfM parks b recreation fair/convention center planning sewer A water Weldon Thompson 528 Rainier Avenue South #36 Renton, WA 98053 September 14, 1990 RE: Condominium proposal Dear Mr. Thompson: Upon site inspection of Section3l Township23H Rangel for the above mentioned proposal, it is the conclusion of the Mason County Planning Department that a wetland delineation conducted by is Hydrological Engineer certified by the State of Washington is necessary on the subject property prior to further review by this Department. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you Sincerely, �d V0 - _ �1 Wendy�/Van Eaton-Lev Shoreline Planner Mason County General Services WVEL/vvel MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health fire marshal) parks & recreation fair/convention center planning M. Monheimer November b, 1990 802 East Lynn Street Seattle , WA 98102 RE: Weldon Thompson condominium proposal in Mason County. Dear Mr . Monheimer , Further review of Weldon Thompson`s condominium proposal on the North Shore of Hood Canal , Section 31 , Township 23N, Range 1WWM, Tract 4, portion of GL`s 3&4, shows that the proposed site is located within a designated conservancy zone . This zone is designated through the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. The Mason County Shoreline Master Program states the following for multi family structures in a conservancy zone : multi family structures in a conservancy zone are prohibited. The definition of a multi family dwelling is as follows: A building designed or used for a residence by three or more household units, including but not limited to apartments, condominiums, complexes and townhouses. The Mason County Shoreline Master Program was adopted on August 12, 1975 and then was Amended on March 1 , 1988 which designated these important environmental areas. Mason County strictly applies these regulations to these types of developments. If you have any questions regarding this determination please feel free to call me . Respectfully, Sean Orr , Planner Department of General Services M A R 1 1991 7%-C Yo /0, o IC 4L 4r4( , �Fs 0- �oe» a 117 la, X. Ale 0 1) eZ)A : 1 c%� MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health fire marshall parks & recreation fair/convention center planning Mel Monhe imer. March 25, 1991 802 East Lynn Street Seattle , WA 98102 RE: Scenic shores Condominiums Dear Mr . Monhe i me , The Mason County Planning Department has completed a. prel imi nary review of Mr . Thomps.ons condominium proposal . This Department wi l 1 consider issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Nuns i pan i f i cance for this project if the following mitigative measures are incorporated. 1 . Submit an engineered erosion control and surface water drainage plan specifically designed for the site which contains an oil and gas separator in the plan . This plan must be implemented into the project to assure that all impacts from excessive runoff and erosion that results from the clearing of vegetation , disruption of natural dater drainage patterns, and the introduction of pollutants is minimized. 2. Must leave or create a vegetative buffer along the western property line in order to minimize the visual and noise impacts associated with the project and to help preserve the rural character of the area . 3 . Must have appropriate approvals for the on site septic system and water supply system. 4 . Must obtain county read access permits from the Mason County Public Works Department_ . 5 . Must show proof of compliance with The Condominium Act 6. Provide information on the amount of trees- that would be left on site with the project . This department would recommend that there be a reasonable number of the coniferous species of trees left on the site to assure that the rural character of the area is pres.er-Qed . Upon agreement of the above mitigative measures and the requested engineering drawings to incorporate these measures this department can proceed with the permitting process which would include the issuance of a mitigated CANS with appropriate 1 ocal , state , federal , and public review. If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me . I hope to have a response from., you soon . Sincerely, Sean Orr , Planner Mason County a� BIOLOGICAL EVALUATON and VEGETATIVE ANALYSIS SCENIC SHORES Belfair, Washington for Weldon Thompson 528 Rainier Ave. So. #36 Renton Washington 98055 by Independent Ecological Services 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, Washington .. 5 t.l November 25,1986 November 25 , 1986 TO: Skillings and Chamberlain, Engineers 5024 Lacey Boulevard Lacey, Washington 98503 FROM: R.L. Van Wormer Independent Ecological Services 1514 Muirhead Olympia, Washington 98502 SUBJECT: Site Inspection / Biological Evaluation of Scenic Shores , Belfair, Washington INTRODUCTION : On November 21 , 1986 , Rex Van Wormer , of Independent Ecological Services , conducted a site inspection of the proposed Scenic Shores development on North Shore Road and Gladwin Beach Road in Belfair, Washington. The biological evaluation consisted of a complete site inspection, plant species identification and mapping, wetlands detmermination, and the identification of bird and mammal species using the site. Inspection was also conducted of the wetlands area, waterward of Gladwin Beach Road. An impact analysis was determined based on the site plan developed by Lawrence M. Campbell and Associates, Architects and Planners, dated August 1986. SITE DESCRIPTION The entire site is on an extension of the bluff that extends down to Hood Canal in this area. The site lies southeast of North Shore Road and northwest of Gladwin Beach Road. The area abutting North Shore Road is the highest, consisting of a flat bluff over a major portion of the site, with a relatively steep slope extending from elevation 105 ' 1 down to elevation 80 ' at Gladwin Beach Road. A major portion of the center of the dome of the slope area has been cleared in the past, leaving debris piles in the cleared areas. The area has revegetated itself and has very little barren ground at this time. Vegetation : The dominant tree cover on the site is Douglas fir. The fir is continuous along North Shore Road, in the north triangle where North Shore Road and Gladwin Beach Road come together and across the sloped area paralleling Gladwin Beach Road. The trees are all 6-10 inch diameter, not dense, with a mixed understory of salal , mahonia, red huckleberry and swordfern in some places . In open areas at the edge of the trees the understory vegetation changes to a mix of vine maple and ocean spray, with a dense stand of young Scot' s broom starting to encroach. The understory on the steep slope abutting Gladwin Beach is predominantly a huckleberry/Scot' s broom mix. There are some madrona trees on the very edge of the slope. A low depressed area in the northwest corner of the site supports a stand of large bigleaf maple with a limited understory of scattered swordferni vine maple and young bigleaf maple. The edges of this area, where it transcends from the bigleaf maple habitat either to the Douglas fir habitat or to the cleared area has a mixed stand of snowberry and wild rose. The area that has been graded and cleared in the past is dominated by Scot' s broom and a mix of grasses and 2 forbs. There is a shallow ravine that parallels the west boundary of the site extending from North Shore Road to Gladwin Beach Road at the extreme south edge of the site. This draw gives the appearance , because of stairstep logjams , of having carried runoff water at one time, however there was no evidence of any current runoff going through the site this year, even with the rains which had occurred through the earlier part of the week of the site inspection. Dominant vegetation in this draw is Scot ' s broom, ocean spray, Oregon grape and evergreen huckleberry. A series of photos are included to document the vegetative cover of the site. Photo points are identified on the vegetation map (Figure 1) . A partial list of plants is included as Table 1. Wetlands : There are no wetlands on the site between North Shore Road and Gladwin Beach Road. The area to the east of Gladwin Beach Road extending to the Hood Canal is a brackish/salt water wetland. The dominant species in the saltwater portion of the wetland, waterward of Gladwin Road, is Lyngby's sedge with an understory of silverweed. Next to the road the wetland becomes freshwater with a perdominance of wild rose with an 1 understory of buttercup. The wetlands does not extend to the road fill edge in all places. At the south end of the site the wetland edge is 100 feet from the edge of the road. At places it comes within 10 feet but drifts out to 30 feet at the north end of the wetland. The wetland ends approximately 0.1 mile south of the junction of Gladwin Road and North Shore Road. 3 (Figure 2) . At this point the area below the road is a portion of the residence to the north. With the width of the road (21 feet from edge of road to toe of slope) and the width of the slope the proposed project would vary between 65 and 120 feet from the edge of the wetland. The wetland elevation varies from approximately six feet below the road elevation at the south end of the property to 12 feet at the north end of the wetland. This elevation plus the height of the slope (20-25 feet) creates a differential between the wetland and the area proposed for development of between 30 and 47 feet. The combined slope of these two distances creates a sloped distance of varying from a low potential of 75 feet to a high potential of 130 feet. Impacts : Because of the amount of clearing that has occurred, a large majority of the impacts of the project to wildlife that would have occurred with development already exist. The location of the structures in relationship to the slope will protect the embankment and limit the removal of some of the larger Douglas fir trees on the site. The location of the Scenic Shores Drive exit to Gladwin Beach Road appears to be designed to go between a clump of Iarrger fir and a stand of mixed fir/madrona. The retention/detention area is in a draw swale area that has been filled and graded in the past and is vegetated predominantly with a Scot' s broom/shrub mix. The unit located within the bigleaf maple area can located to not significantly impact all or a major portion of the maple trees. The septic tank area and tennis court are located in areas that have already been graded. Once the drain field is established and the area will be seeded to grass and maintained. It will in all probability, create a situation that will have more biological productivity than the existing area which is predominantly a juvenile stand of Scot ' s broom. By the design it appears that a majority of the Douglas fir trees situated between the site and North Shore Road will be retained. This will serve three functions, one to isolate the traffic along North Shore Road from the development, the second to separate the development from North Shore Road and traffic noises and the third to retain small bird habitat. Since the wetlands are separated from the project by a vertiacal slope, a paved road and distances varying from 65 to 120 feet there will be no direct impacts to the wetlands. Because of the loaction an design of the retention/detention pond, the runoff from the site will not impact the water quality or or degrade the wetland. The project will not influence the functional capabilities of the wetland as they relate to Hood Canal. Because of the road, the trees that will remain on the slope and the trees and shrubs between the edge of the road and the functional wetland areas, the project will not impact the biological values of the wetland. Bird Use . The site supported a small population and limited diversity of birds for the size of the site. However, the location of the area in relationship to Hood Canal and the 5 4 marsh increases the potential for use by birds moving through and utilizing the overall area. Bird use on the site was limited to forest-type birds that are common in urban areas. Dominant species were ruby-crowned kinglets and Oregon juncos. Other birds on the site included golden-crowned sparrows , song sparrows, Steller ' s jays and towhees. The wetlands below Gladwin Road supported the same mix of birds. Waterfowl that used Hood Canal were observed in the pool areas immediately above the beach but were not seen close to the road or in the tall ,dense sedge areas between the back beach and the edge of the rose/blackberry stand next to the road. A partial list of birds is included as Table 2. The only mammal sign on the site was mice and voles. The openness of the trees and their lack of habitat quality as compared to the forest west of North Shore Road appears to preclude the use of the area by chickarees or other typical tree using mammals. There were no sightings of thirteen-lined ground squirrels, no raccoon tracks and no coyote tracks or sign on the site. Human activity created by the adjacent beach park and dog use on the beach have a significant influence the way mammals hunt the waters edge and the amounts of time that waterfowl use the wetlands above the beach. Impacts Because of the low level of wildlife activity on the area, there will be no noticeable impacts to mammals by this development. Impacts to birds will also be very limited since the timbered edge and slope along Gladwin Beach Road was the area where a majority of the birds were located. Since this 6 i I will not be disturbed, the bird activity should not be significantly influenced. Since there will be no direct impacts to the wetlands below Gladwin Road there should be no additional impacts from the residential development. Conclusions : Although the project appears to consist of a fairly intensive level of development for the size of the project area, the two major portions of open site which are providing biological value to the birds found on the site will continue to exist. They are the steeper sloped area abutting Gladwin Beach Road and the large open areas to be retained for septic drain fields. There are no wetlands on the site, therefore there could be no direct wetlands impacts. Because of the location of the proposed development in relation to the salt marsh below Gladwin Road, there will be no direct or indirect impacts either to the functional or biological values of these wetlands. This constitutes the report of Independent Ecological Services on Scenic Shores proposed development site, Belfair, Washington. :S Sincerely, R.L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist Independent Ecological Services 7 k I Table 1 : Partial List of plants on Scenic Shores Trees Douglas fir. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pseodtosuga menziesii Big-leafed maple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acer macrophyllum Redalder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alnus rubra Madrona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arbustus menziesii Shrubs Vine maple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acer circinatum Salal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gaultheria shallon Oregon grape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Berberis aquifolium Mahonia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Berberis nervosa Evergreen huckleberry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vaccinium ovatum Scot's broom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cystisus scoparius Snowberry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Symphoricarpos albus Oceanspray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Holodiscus discolor Bogrose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rosa nutkanna Salmonberry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rubus spectabilis Willow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Salix spp. Sedges and other wetland plants (All located below Gladwin Road) Lyngby's sedge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Carex lyngbyei Silverweed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Potentilla pacifica Buttercup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ranunculus repens 8 t f 1 `I l 46= Photo 11 : Wetland edge looking south from curve in Gladwin Road : Note rose,blackberry, alder growth. Road is in cut in trees. Photo 12: Edge of wetland looking north from curve in Gladwin Rd 15 ti J1._ Photo Wetland ,road,bluff • • looking south from Gladwin Beach Road. Photo 14 : Wetland, road, bluff relationship; r looking north from _ • Road. ,.�� A P hi �C_ ++(-Mx w f"N'++ Sys ^ ���vyvr �� iZZ t� L�.��c.Ft Gc✓� t��z�.� [cw� rti. w�-7�v-2- C)�--) � �-Q-.v-i�.� �o.�...ia � L�.a�,nee,c i_ t7;:,...•._S-e {� lam„-. . G.Im' (""mI'lI 11 I'm �gNaNGjO (".audc lick-rnr, .1,.rttl" Chrinu:ut �J .� Glcme Galbraith, it'ellpirttt 1 r.tuk L. (.arid;. Jr.. I',in,nnrrr DEPARTMENT /w, V Cofl,t. )'uki,a.r ti I�,li_ahrtl, IV .11cado«,r„/I. L'r " a 01F Irrhie I'. ,11i11� hec Of PA� 1>rrc,lrr Kellrh II". l.,ri„n i.itu,ui; I)it,,n"r Lr i 1 Il .nl,rrr,! 600 North Capitol Way/Olympia, U,"ad in ton 98504 March 7, 1977 Mr. James E. Connolly, Director MAR 81977 Mason County Planning Department T"UR.STON-MASON ' Post Office Box 186 HEA1 ru Shelton, Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Connolly: The draft environmental impact statement -- Hideaway Townhouse Club -- was reviewed by our staff as requested. Comments follow. The impact statement was straightforward and succinct and should be an aid to decision-makers who will assess the project. Additional comments follow according to section headings. Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The septic system for 138 people could impact ground water, the salt marsh, and water of Hood Canal. Storm water runoff could carry spilled gas and oil into the nearest body of water. Erosion and water turbidity may also impact aquatic ecosystems. Adverse impacts to Hood Canal or the salt marsh could be mitigated by the construction of sedimentation ponds with silt and grease traps (page 28) . Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The proposal. could stimulfare ether growth hi the area as inhabitants need goads and services. If a sewer system and large water main are put in, they could open the area to high level development that would greatly increase environmental impacts (page 33) , Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated We recommend that Alternative B, Implementation of Mitigating Measures, and Alterna- tive C, Reduction of Final Density, both be carried out (page 35) . Thank you for sending the draft. We hope our comments are helpful. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Bob Zeig-1 r, plied Ecologist BZ•cv Environmental Management Division cc: Agencies Regional Manager ;3„