HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP95-0172 Construction of 13 Duplexes - SEP Determinations - 7/28/1995 r .
MASON COUNTY
'2
A - n
LD
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPGEYED
Planning-Landfill-Utilities rUG O , ,gyp
MITIGATED CITY OF SHELTON
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
(WAC 197-11-350)
Description of Proposal :
CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTEEN (13) DUPLEXES, MULTI-P'URPOSE RECREATION HALL,
FOUR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, FIVE COMMUNITY SEPTIC DRAINFIELDS, AND LOOP
ACCESS ROAD; THESE 26 DWELLING 'UNITS ARE SITUATED ON 6 .78 ACRES IN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS A CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA.
Proponent: DAVID BAYLEY
Location of Proposal: E 883 ISLAND LAKE DR SHELTON
PARCEL#:420014400000
GOUT LOT 2 , NLY OF R/W EX SEE BLA #95-17
NORTH ON 101 TO SHELTON-SPRINGS RD, (AIRPORT STORE) TURN RIGHT GO APPROX
1/2 MILE TURN LEFT ON ISLAND LAKE RD, GO APPROX 1/2 MILE ON LEFT.
Lead Agency: MASON COUNTY
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a
probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 .21C. 030 (2) (c) . This
decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and
other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request. MITIGATION MEASURES ARE
ATTACHED.
This DNS is issued under 197-11-350 (2) , the Lead Agency' will not act on
this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be
submitted by 08/14/95 .
DATE: 07 18/95
T Vt
Signa re ofj r sponsible fficial Date
Responsible Official : Gary Yando
Director of Community Development
426 W. Cedar,
PO BOX 578
Shelton, WA 98584
(206) 427 -9670
MIT DNS, rev: 07/07/92
WDOE S__e tc^ Sc ool Dist '_co1�c t
s
CONDITIONS FOR SEP95-0172
THIRTEEN DUPLEXES PROPOSAL - LAKE PARK
DAVID AND NANCY BAYLEY
1) The applicant shall have installed enhanced septic systems for the proposed dwelling units
(utilizing two feet of sand in drainfield laterals and pressure distribution), as approved by the
Masan County Health Department. Theses systems shall be designed to provide adequate
effluent treatment to not impact the critical aquifer recharge area.
2) During the construction of roads, parking areas and buildings, the applicant shall
implement the temporary and permanent erosion and stormwater control methods presented
in the drainage control plait for this development proposal, as approved by the Mason County
Department of Public Works. Roof runoff shall be controlled by guttering to specified areas
located away from the septic drainfiields. Road and parking area runoff shall be pretreated
by routing to grass-lined swales or ditches adjacent to the road which allows infiltration into
the soil.
3) To serve emergency vehicle use, the applicant shall maintain a 20-foot wide access road
through the proposed development. If this access road will be a county-maintained road, the
dimensions shall meet county road standards.
4) The applicant shall provide a public water system capable of delivering a fire flow of 500
gallons per minute for 30 minutes, at 20 psi residual pressure. The storage capacity for fire
flow (15,000 gallons) must be in addition to the maximum daily domestic demand (MDD).
Hydrant locations to be approved by the Mason County Fire Marshall. The water system
must be in place and serviceable prior to the start of any combustible construction.
5) To comply with the Mason County Parking Ordinance, the applicant shall provide two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 4 spaces per duplex building, for a minimum of 52
spaces in the development; other parking areas may be included but should comply with
standards in the drainage control plan for the development.
6) The applicant shall install perimeter fencing, as proposed, along the exterior property lines
and entrance to serfe as a visual buffer to adjacent properties.
7) As specified in the Mason County Interim Resource Ordinance, Sec. 17.01.080.D.1.a.
Development Standards - Title Notification, the applicant shall record a notice with the
Mason County Auditor stating that the proposed project is in an aquifer recharge area and
that limitations on regulated activities may exist. Proof of this recording shall be provided to
the Department of Community Development as part of the pen-nit approval.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
THIS IS A REVISION OF AGENCY USE ONLY
EN17IRONNYENTAT. CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND: SUBMITTED TTED DF.CE'IBER 2 1904
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 1•:•1" )'ARK
2. Flame of applicant: DAV ID C . BAYLEY
3. Address b phone number of applicant b contact person:
David C . Bayley 360-426-9713
1, o Box 278 360-426-0716 (FAX)
Shelton WA 98584
4. Date checklist prepared: Original ap;)lication was nrenlred
December 2 , 1994 and thereafter submitted . This revision is dated
5. Agency requesting checklist: June 15 , 1995
Mason County Community Development Dept .
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) :
Utilities such as gas , water , electrical power , telephone , cable
and water have been installed . Construction of Duplexes September 1995
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No
ti. Licit any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this
proposal.
5 on-site community sewage disposal systems have been submitted and
approved by the Mason County Health Department for the 13 duplex site .
A hydrologist ' s report has also been prepared , as well as a storm water
drainage retention plan. Also bacteria tests for/water systems .
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental *two of the
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Yes. Grading and excavating permit has been submitted with storm water
retention plan. Also an environmental permit application and a short
subdivision application .
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed
for your proposal, if known. Grading permit , storm water drainage nlan ( annrove
fire marshall approval of fire flow design , approval of four water system
and Community development approval for overall project design , and
building department approvals for construction of duplexes .
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including
the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There
are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to
repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify
this form to include additional specific information on project
description. )
This is a project for the placement , construction and rentine of 13
duplexes . There will be a community recreational hall for multi-purposes ,
which will house the 4 water systems . This development is being designed
for individuals who are retired or near retirement age ; also project
is to be completely fenced and gated .
' . f
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
i
12. What is the location of the proposal.' Give sufficient
information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would
occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of
the site(s). Provide a legal. description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you
should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
This project is on 6 . 78 acres of land located along the North sid
of Island Lake Road , located . 4 of a mile East of the intersectio of
Shelton Springs road and Island Lake Road . Legal description is attached
as exhibit A, the site plan is attached as exhibit B (short plat man) ,
the vi-c-inity map is attached as Exhibit C and a topographic man as exhibit
D . There is also a storm water runoff retention plan available upon reque�
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. EARTH:
a. General description of the site (circle one) :
Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other flat with minor ,rolling .
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? less than 1%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If j
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and not any prime farmland.
The soil classification is site 1 and site 2 soil , general
dirt and gravel soil . / frmv'15
d. Are there surface indications or history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No .
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill_
Grading for access road and ditching for storm-water retention area
General site work for duplex sites . Grading application has been
submitted to County . All source of fill is from site .
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or se? If so, generally describe.
No .
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project constructions
(for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 30%
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any. :
A storm water runoff plan has been submitted pursuant to county
requirements . Plan is for water to be channelled within ditches on
both sides of main access road , with retention ponds in the Southwes
2. AIR: corner and the middle of the property over the easterly 200 feet .
See exhibit R
a. What types of emissions to the air would result
from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities, if known.
Normal emissions found in single family neighborhoods
b. Ane there any off-site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
None
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
None
'To HE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUA( IOH FOR
AGENCY SE ONLY
3. WATER:
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal
streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
None
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please
describe and attach available plans.
None
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.
Indicated the source of fill material.
not applicable
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
No surface water withdrawls. Storm water runoff would be
Channelled to the sides or the access road and toward the
Southwest corner of the site & the easterly middle of the site .
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,
note location on the site plan.
NO
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials
to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and
anticipated ,iolume of discharge.
No
TO BE CONPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
i
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water bei withdrawn, or will water be discharged
to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
Ground water will be withdrawn from 4 wells that have been installed ,
each well 20 feet apart making a square as shown on Exhibit B , with
sufficient quantities of water for 13 duplexes , recreational hall and
fire flow needs .
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 general size of
the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to
be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
Normal single family waste material. S community en-site sewage disposal
systems will be constructed to serve the 13 duplexes . Examples of size
of the systems found on the approved designs , attached . See Exhibit D
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 waters? If so, describe.
Water runoff will be from storm water . A great deal of the water will be
absorbed into the ground where the water hits the ground due to the
site 1 and 2 soil conditions . The remainder will he channelled in the
roadside ditches and to the existing retention ponds in SW corner and mind_
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so Easterly portion of sit
generally describe.
The community sewage systems are designed so that. no waste materials
will enter the ground water or the surface water .
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
Surface water runoff will go into ditches , etc as stated in c 1 ) above ;
All pursuant to storm water drainage plan that has been submitted to
Mason County Community Development Department
4. PLAHTS:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree-, ifir,• cedar, pine, other (All fir trees have been logged ,
X shrubs stumps piled and burned , with
grass undergroxsth been removed .
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage,
others
water plants: water lily, eelcrass. mi11ci:. , ocher
I0 IIE G11111'1.L•TED BY APPLICAHT EVALUATION FOR
AI)L•'HCY Il E OHLY
b. Whut 1<11nd and amount Ot vegetution will be reiaovud
uY uJLLtVt:(17
Trees and undergrowth shrubs have been removed and burned
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be
on or near the site.
None
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or
other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on
the site, if any:
reseeding of fir trees, birch trees, rhododendrons. and other
native shrubs and undergrowth will be replanted over a great
area of the si.te. Land above the 'community sewage systems shall
s. At(IxALs:
be reseeded with grass.
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been ,
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hark, heron, eagle, songbirds, other no
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other no
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other no
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
he on or near the site.
None to applicant' s knowledge
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
Not to applicant' s knowledge
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
reseed with trees and other vegetation as stated in 4 (d) above.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Space heating and heating of water will be by natural
gas and lighting and other appliances by electricity
EVALUATIOH FOR
.To HE COMPLETED- DY APPLICAHT AGENCY USE OHi.Y
b. Mould you project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If ao, generally
describe.
-.-No
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
These duplex sites will be constructed according
to rules outlined by the PUD#I of Mason County for
"Good Sense Homes"
7. EHVIROHMEHTAL 11EALT11:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that
could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No
1) describe special emergency services that might
be required.
Normal emergency services demanded of single family
neighborhoods which adjoin the site on the West and the East.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
None, no environmental health hazards anticipated.
b. Noise.
1) What types of noise exists in the area vhich may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment operation, other)?
Normal noise associated with building of single family homes
within a developed area.
2) What types of levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short-term
or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site.
Normal single family construction noise during construction period
over a two year period , from 7 : 30 A.M. to 6 : 00 P .M. at night.
Ong. i:C Li?; riC.i.52 SJOIlt })t' theS3me as 3c�;O a :1CT Ilcicl}1f�OC}lUUC.S 0!1
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR.
AGENCY USE ONLY
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
The current use for the site had been the growing of fir
trees . The adjoining properties on the Uest and the Fast ar
single family homes . To the South is Island Lake County Ro d
and to the South of that road is more land with fir trees . o
the North is Christmas tree land .
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
Yes , for the growing of fir trees
C. Describe any structures on the site.
None
d. Will any structures• be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site?
This site is in the county and this area is not zoned currently
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site?
Urban residential area to the best of applicant ' s knowldge
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
Not applicable
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
'environmentally sensitive' area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
13 duplexes would have approximately 2 to 3 individuals per
household or 26 living units x 2 . 5 = 65 people residing .
j. Approximately how may people would the completed
project displace?
None
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible
with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Duplex living units are compatible with single family homes
located to the Hest and to the East of this project.
9. HOUSING:
a. Approximately how may units, if any, would be
provided? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
incomerr pausing.
13C�urh is middle income level housing
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, it any:
None
10. AESTHETICS:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
As proposed , the duplex units should be single story with height of
approximately 18 feet at top of roof ; one or two may be 2 stori.es in
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be height up to 25 feet .
altered or obstructed?
None
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
This project , taken in its entirety, would add aesthetically to the
surrounding area , through the proper layout of 2 duplexes per acre,
11. LIGHT AND GLARE: attractive , gated entrance& perimeter fencing , with
grassed in common areas .
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Typical light found in single family developments; lighting
would be seen at night from the duplexes (homes) and the proposed
street lights .
TO HE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE.OHLY
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
Glare from the completed project would be blocked by the brick
entrance and obscure fencing along the perimeters. No interference
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare with views; no views
may affect your proposal: from the East & West
of neighborhoods
No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
See b. above for details -
12. RECREATION:
a. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
There is a county boat launch about 1/4 to 1/2 mile away, depending
on" location on site. A recreational hall is being build in middle
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing of project, just orth of
recreational uses? If so, describe. "Y" Of internal access rd.
No
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to
be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The recreational hall will be available for many uses . It will
be at least 1800 square feet with a green belt established ust
to the North where the well sites will be located . The 4 water
systems would be housed in this recreation hall in the northerly
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: portion thereof .
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or
proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be an or next to
the site? If so generally describe.
Not to applicant' s knowledge
b. Generally describe any landmark or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None to applicant' s knowledge
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, it
any:
None
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
14. TRANSPORTATION:
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and
describe proposed access to the existing street system.
Show on site plans if any. IslandRoad is located on the South ; Island
Lake Drive is located along the Northeastern section of the site .
Access to the site shall be from the Island Lake Road only . See Exhih4
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If B attached
not, what is the approximate distance to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if
any.
This site is in the county and applicant assumes that public transportation
will be avaiiable to site to pick tip requesting passengers.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
There will be approximately 4 parking spaces per duplex .
So with 13 duplexes x 4 will equal 52 parking spaces available .
No parking spaces would be eliminated .
d. Will the proposal require any new road or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
r
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes woul& occur.
13 duplexes x 2' = 26 living units x 3 trips per day = 78 trips
78 trips is an lestimated figure which is based on the assumption
that individuals 55 and over in age would be renting these livingunic
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control
transportation impacts, if any:
None
EVALUATION FOR
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a_ would the project result in an increased need for
public service (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)?
If so generally describe.
Yes, demand would be similar to those demands from
other single family neighborhoods in the area
b. Proposed ■easures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any:
None
16. UTILITIES:
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
( electricity,X natural gas,) water, (refuse service, )
( to ep one,)san ary sewer, septic sys em, o er.
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.
electrical power provided by Mason County PUD#3.
Natural gas provided by Cascade Natural Gas Company domestic water needs and fire flow provided on site by project:
sewage disposal system provided on site by project. Telephone nder round
17. SIGNATURE: provided by U.S.West communications g
electrical power lines, underground gas lines ,
water lines and telephone lines.
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on
then to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: ` December 2 , 1 94
� 5'�L 0'-e' I� ��z �1
it
E X H I 3 I T A
All that portion of Government Lot two (2) , Section one ( 1) ,
Township twenty (20) North, Range four (4) West, W.M. , lying
Westerly of the Westerly lines of Lots one (1) to fifteen ( 15) ,
both inclusive, of Block four (4) of the Correction Plat of
Island Lake Shorelands, Volume 4 of Plats, pages 1 and 2 ,
records of Mason County, Washington, which lies Northerly of
the Northerly right-of-way line of Island Lake County Road No.
51200, and Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of Island
Lake Drive County Road No. 51300.
ALSO, all that portion of Government Lot one (1) and of the
Northwest quarter (NW 1/4 ) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1/4 ) ,
all in Section one (1) , Township twenty (20) North, Range four
(4) West, W.M. , particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of said Government Lot one
(1) ; thence North 1 degree 24152" East, along the Westerly line
of said Government Lot one (1) , 81. 63 feet; thence South 88
degrees 15137" East, 448 . 50 feet, more or less, to the Westerly
right-of-way line of Island Lake Drive County Road No. 51300;
thence South 17 degrees 37123" East, along said Westerly right-
of-way line, 82 feet, more or less, to the South line of said
Government Lot one (1) ; thence Westerly, along said North line,
425 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING from all the foregoing, a tract of land particularly
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Government Lot one
(1) ; thence North 1 degree 24152" East, along the Westerly line
of said Government Lot one (1) , 81. 63 feet; thence South 88
degrees 15137" East, 125 . 09 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING of
the tract of land hereby described; thence continue South 88
degrees 15137" East, 150. 00 feet; thence South 1 degree 24 ' 52"
West, 111. 72 feet; thence North 88 degrees 15137" West, 150 . 00
feet, to a point South 1 degree 24152" West of the point of
beginning; thence North 1 degree 24152" East, 111. 72 feet, to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This land is also known as PARCEL 2 of BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
NO 95-17 , recorded February 23 , 1995 , under Auditor ' s File No .
603533 .
S 38D 15'37' E 450.70
\ 125.09 t 50.00
eq sS-4nc :or
�� Nordd VNSM• proOtrt
El C-i
I d HQYoSE
N8 21.02
. � 9D�g
•� 1
r\
O I
N
W �
C 4
O / N
Z �n NOMALL DRAINFi DS ARE
LOCATED 5 EET FROM
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
/ LEGEND
future site of
A
' recreation hall
F fire hydrant
I
a„• underground reservoir
N U R for fire protection
• e E;
c s ® 4' drainage abutting road
�
.9
VICINITY SKETCH
:.......
Wand
n.�
a
� m
\ a
�S m
\ o
s
110917
LEGEND _
yr Approximate location of subject
property
— Roads
Section boundaries
M. iterways
1\) C7 In J) V V V U% Q - If
e c A Go q
m p �J
(7�
(D A w A I o I I�
011
—
�
1 1 V
21.U� 4-
CD
�-- n u
TJ(D rp
I(J co
N p fiQ � S
f v r n CL 411
U +n U1
N cn o m ° ° o
4 a c O
3 0 c+-
'rl IA
Cla
_ D G
m — n n b u°im '` ° n
in — m co c s)
Rl (P
:i 10
n �
-
U
rn
n
MASON COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL
Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584
(360)427-9670
CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE INSPECTIONS FIRE INVESTIGATION PUBLIC EDUCATION
July 27, 1995
TO: Allan Borden
Planning
FROM: Dave Salzer
Fire Marshal
SUBJ: SEP95-0172
Bayley Duplexes
Please add the following condition to the SEPA:
1. Provide a public water system capable of delivering a fire flow
of 500 gallons per minute for 30 minutes, at 20 psi residual
pressure. The storage capacity for fire flow (15, 000 gallons) must
be in addition to the maximum daily domestic demand (MDD) . Hydrant
locations to be approved by the Mason County Fire Marshal. The
water system must be in place and serviceable prior to the start of
any combustible construction.
Also, the fire apparatus access road width is 20 feet, not 40 feet.
If the road is a County-maintained road, the width must meet County
standards.
i
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
PG'0 -STgrFO
o A U u DEPAR MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T i PLANNING-SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES
20 N Y y BLDG. III • 426 W. CEDAR'*P.O. BOX 578
�`� SHELTON,WA 98584 • (206)427-9670
1864
August 2, 1995
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - DEPT. REVIEW
TO: lG i t eeiril e
FROM Allan Borden - Comm nity Development
LAKE PARK 13 DUPLEX PROPOSAL ON ISLAND LAKE DRIVE, SHELTON
Please review the attached Environmental Checklist. Please note that the proposal is for 26
new dwelling units on seven acres, and the project is located where a critical aquifer
recharge area has been designated under the Interim Resource Ordinance. Your written
comments should be sent to Allan Borden or Gary Yando in the Department of Community
Development by Tuesday August 15, 1995. Contact Allan at ext. 365 for more information.
� -
CI'S
rl) c-) n •n \I v m Q
r�
� � p OD
(v
it ON
R) 011 iu Q
Zq
CU W J� t. O
A O (J�
ul ul v) V. . u� h .I
LD
CAppp 1
1) 1 b I v
UI m- _ __ . _ _ 9D19'58'W 21.02 4-
h' v v
c m
4
71— '0(0 �0
LA
t u m n cam'
+• Q
v
o QL j o o C C) U k
'CD 0 o `�° h R
11 v J 0 \
D UNco Cl � h(n
tn � � o
fU J U D A
ti
00
1
IU 1
- — S
o
U I) D
--- aDl a
— t)\ S\
n + V� 47
l
r
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES
Shelton,Washington 98584
(360)427-9670 • Belfair:275,4467
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY
666 O P.O. BOX 1 303 N. FOURTH P.O. BOX 1666
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 9, 1995
To: Alan Borden
From: Pam Denton
Re: Lake Park 13 Duplex Proposal on Island Lake Drive
Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 13 Duplexes on Island
Lake Rd. After review of the proposal our department has the following comments:
Short plat proposal - Our department, per WAC 272-246-20501, currently has the
short plat on hold pending Method II Analysis review, which was received Aug. 8,
1995. The method II Analysis will address soil type and depth, area drainage,
lot drainage, public health impact on ground and surface water, setbacks from
property lines and water supplies, source of domestic water, topography, geology,
ground cover, climatic conditions, availability of sewer, activity of land use
(present and proposed) , growth patterns, reserve drainfield areas, anticipated
sewage volume, compliance with planning and zoning requirements, possible use of
alternative sewage systems and density. Density is determined by the unit volume
of sewage per acre and the type of water system.
Water systems - Group B Public Water systems are proposed. To date, the water
systems workbook/design have not been submitted for review. The well sites have
been approved and the wells have been drilled.
On-Site Sewage Systems - All of the on-site sewage systems have approved permits
and designs. The syst ms will include sand lined trenches and pressure
distribution, which meets Treatment Standard II .
DRAFT
b,,
•t-
` 'Qs
• \�TIQ� I J� 1'1 7
CC
CL
Si
j
J � 1
� 4c
�. ._
t \ i
� h
1 �
-r
a
a ,
fl o P
A uses ( I
ILA a r.
cA pv c1�n1�r so os r .
�r,sCec���, covers act= � �
a(><
pe ��
August 11, 1995
AUG 1 4 1995
0
9SN 1 N 0� Mr. Gary Yando mASON CO. PLANNING DEPT.
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning Department '' P.O. BOX 578
P.O.sox 1277 Shelton, WA 98584
130 S.3rd St.
Shelton,WA 98584 RE: MDNS for thirteen (13) duplexes at E. 883 Island Lake Drive
(206)426-9731
FAX(206)426-7746
Dear Mr. Yando:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance for the thirteen (13) duplexes. City Planning and Public Works staff have
reviewed the attached checklist, and have identified the following comments and issues for
your consideration:
1. Because this is clearly within the Urban Growth Area the County and City have
discussed, it is expected that this area will be annexed in the future. Once this
area is annexed and sewer and water are available to this site, it would be
reasonable to request that the water system be installed to City standards so
that the water lines do not have to be upgraded once water service is provided
by the City. Likewise, an unconnected sewer line should be installed through
the front of the foundation for future sewer service.
2. The Checklist states that there would be only 78 trips per day on the
assump ion that individuals 55 and over would be the occupants . This number
of trips�s consistent with the Retirement Community description of the ITE
Trip Generation Manual. However, the project is not consistent with the
description of a Retirement Community in the ITE Manual, instead it is more
consistent with Residential condominiums which produce about twice as many
trips as stated in the checklist. With over 150 trips per day, the city suggests
that the road be built to County Standards and dedicated so that regular
maintenance will insure access for all emergency vehicles in the future.
I hope these comm�nts are helpful in reviewing the project. Please feel free to call me if
you have any questions.
11. Sincerely,
1 Joe Williams
City Planner
IN
cc: Gary Rhoades, Director of Development Services
Paul Rogerson, Planning Director
Theresa Parsons, City Engineer
:Aplanning\sepa\commant3.doc
STAP O�
.3 x,
E .
STATE OF WASHINGTON AUG 1995
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY "'."ON (.o.
P.O. 8 x 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
(360) 407-6 00 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006
August 11, 1995
Mr. Gary Yando
Mason County
PO Box 578
Shelton WA 98584
Dear Mr. Yando:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated
determination of nons 'gnificance for Lake Park, which includes
the construction of 1 duplexes, a multi-purpose recreation hall,
four community water systems, five community septic drainfields,
and a loop access road, located at E 883 Island Lake Drive in
Shelton, proposed by David Bayley. We reviewed the environmental
checklist and have the following comments.
Water Resources:
Any ground water withdrawals in excess of 5, 000 gallons per day
or for the irrigation of more than one-half acre of lawn or
noncommercial garden will require a water right permit from
Ecology.
All water wells shall be constructed in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 173-160 WAC by a driller licensed in the
State of Washington. Well reports must be submitted to Ecology
within 30 days after completion of a well.
All water wells that are drilled must be a minimum of 100 feet
from any known, suspected, or potential source of contamination.
Wells shall not be located within 1, 000 feet of solid waste
landfills.
The Growth Management Act (Section 63) requires an applicant to
submit evidence of an adequate water supply before a building
permit can be issued for any building requiring potable water.
The Department of Ecology encourages the development of public
water supply systems, whether publicly or privately owned, to
provide water to regional areas and developments.
If you have any questions on these comments, please call Ms.
Helen Pressley with the Water Resources Program at (360) 407-
0290.
�y,f�:
Mr. Gary Yando
August 11, 1995
Page 2
Water 4uality:
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,
grading, or construction. These control measures must be
effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water
by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, and soil will damage aquatic
habitat and are considered pollutants.
Routine inspection and maintenance of all sediment and erosion
control devices is recommended both during and after development
of the site.
Stormwater should be collected and treated according to an
acceptable standard before stormwater is discharged to ground
and/or surface waters. For those jurisdictions that have not
adopted Ecology' s technical manual, Stormwater Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basin, or a manual approved by Ecology, the
Ecology manual is co sidered an acceptable standard for the
design and maintenance of water quality Best Management
Practices.
If you have any questions on these comments, please call Ms.
Marilou Pivirotto at (360) 407-6787 .
Solid Waste:
The applicant should ,consult the local comprehensive solid waste
management plan to see if it contains recycling requirements that
may impact the project. Contact local solid waste officials,
garbage haulers, and recyclers for available recycling services.
The applicant should consider designing the facility so
opportunities to recycle are at least as convenient as waste
disposal. Try to pr vide adequate, properly located space inside
and outside the facil'iity to accommodate equipment and containers
for processing and storage of recyclables. Plan to recycle items
such as paper, glass, aluminum and other metals, corrugated
containers and plastics.
We encourage the applicant to use construction products
containing recycled materials whenever possible.
We also encourage the applicant to reuse or recycle all possible
leftover construction materials and reduce waste generated.
Recycling construction debris is often less expensive than
landfill disposal. Call Ecology's 1-800 RECYCLE Hotline for
recycling locations for construction debris.
Mr. Gary Yando
August 11, 1995
Page 3
During daily operations of the facility, we recommend using
products and supplies that are recyclable and/or made from
recycled materials. Use of low-toxic or non-toxic products for
cleaning, maintenance, and other purposes is encouraged.
Practicing waste prevention methods is also important.
The Department of Ecology' s Solid Waste Services Program staff
are available to assist in developing or implementing waste
reduction and recycling programs.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Mikel Baxter with
the Solid Waste Services Program at (360) 407-0067 .
Sincerely,
Elizabeth J. Phinney
Environmental Review
EJP:
95-5952
cc: Abbe White, SWRO
Helen Pressley, SWRO
Marilou Pivirottlo, SWRO
Mikel Baxter, SWi'�O
I I
AG 10 1995
Shelton 207 N. 9th S reet
School Shelton, WA 8584-2597 MASON CO PLANNING DEF�`f
206-426-1687
District FAX 426-1687
August 9,j 1995
Gary Yando
Directors of Community Development
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Lake Park Duplexes
Dear Mr.Yando:
Thank you for notifying us of the proposed ake Park duplex proposal in
Mason County. We havedetermined that th proposed 13 duplexes will
have a significant adverse environmental impact on the Shelton School
District and that mitigation is required. We have arrived at this
conclusion through the following analysis.
The applida0t, David Bayley, has requested approval to create 13 duplexes
(26 dwelling units). The property is located at East 883 Island Lake Road,
Shelton, Washington.
It is estimated that the 26 dwelling units will generate 18 public school
students, of which 9 are elementary students, 5 are middle school
students, and 4 are high school students. This was calculated using
student factors derived ty analyzing growth in Mason and surrounding
counties.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Single Family Student Students
Units Factor Generated
Elementary 26 .35 9
Middle 26 .20 5
High 26 .15 4
18
As of October 1 , 1994, �he Shelton School District had a total student
population of 3,711 and ' a classroom capacity of 3,319, resulting in 392
unhoused students. A more detailed breakdown between enrollment and
classroom capacity is shown in a table below.
Shelton School District
October 1 , I1994 Student Enrollment and Capacity
Grade Level Enrollment Capacity Unhoused
Elementary (K-5) 1 ,339 1 ,236 103
Middle (6-8) 817 714 105
High (9-12) 1 ,553 1 ,274 184
Total 3,711 3,224 392
The above table clearly shows that the District's permanent school
facilities are deficient in classroom space at all grade levels. The
District has not currently planned expansion of any facilities for housing
students.
Therefore, the proposed Lake Park duplex project would add an estimated
18 students to a system that is already 392 students over capacity.
A minimum of one portable classroom unit is required for each 23
students. Adequate mitigation for Elementary, Middle School, and High
School impacts, therefore, require the purchase of a minimum of .78 units.
The estimated cost of a portable classroom is $55,435.00. This figure
includes the building, set-up, utility hookups and all permits.
Using the enrollment information from above, it can be estimated that
this project will have the financial impact on the district of $43,239.30.
To determine a per lot impact, this amount is divided by the total of 26
dwelling units to reach a per unit impact of $1 ,663.05. The District
believes that mitigation measures are required to lessen the impact of
increased student growth this development will generate on its schools
and students.
Under state law, the District believes that the State Subdivision Act, and
in particular RCW 58.17.110(2), requires the County to make sure that
proposed plats have appropriate provisions for schools and school sites.
Similarly, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires proposed
developments to consider certain impacts on the human built environment,
which includes public schools.
The district has an agreement in place with another developer in the
amount of $500.00 per of and would therefore, not request mitigation in
excess of this amount in the form of an agreement. The developer may
also be able to mitigate the significant adverse impact in some other way
that is acceptable to the Shelton School District.
Thank you for your consideration of the above information and for the
opportunity to respond concerning this preliminary plat application.
Sincerely,
H. Je me Hansen
Superintendent
RECEIVED
J U L 24 1995
MASON Co. DCD July 20, 1995
Dear Mr. Yand6:
We're co4erned about the consideration of
thirteen duplexes on the seven acres near Island Lake
Road and Island Lake Drive. As you know, that
property is on a critical aquifer recharge area. On
Thursday, July 20, we spoke with Alan Borden of
your office. He informed us that this project is still
open to comment and that we can request a public
hearing concerning this development. Based on this
discussion and our concern we would like to a have
an aquifer geological survey done to ensure the septic
system planned will protect Island Lake and the
neighborhood water quality. We are also requesting a
public hearing on the proposed development.
Thank you.
Mike and Barbara Johnson
E. 1431 Island Lake Drive
426-3686
Mr. Yando and Mason County ommissioners
Mason County Dept. of Comm Dev.
Planning Division
P.O. Box 578
Shelton WA 98584
August 8, 1995
Dear Mr. Yando and County Commissioners,
We are writing in response to mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance WAC 197=11-350 Parcel
420014400000.
We are concerned that Mason County, the lead agency, does not believe thirteen duplexes will
have an adverse effect on a critical aquifer recharge area. In keeping with and in addition to that
concern, please consider these issues from the environmental checklist for the above parcel:
Section 5A- Birds and mammals observed on or near the sight were not marked on the checklist.
Heron, eagle, bass and trout should have been circled.
Section 7B - Bald Eagle and G een Heron are located near the sight.
I
Section 7B #2 - There is nothing written about the length of a work week, with
construction taking place from 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.. We request work days
be defined as Monday through Friday only.
Section 8H - Has Mr. Bailey recorded a notice with the Mason County Auditor? The
notice is to state that"the proposed project is in a critical aquifer recharge area
and that limitations on regulated activities may exist". Conditions for Sep 95-
0172
Section 81 - We are concerned about the high density ofi people and cars in this critical
aquifer recharge area. It,is our understanding that oil,fertilizers, insecticides
and other pollutants co sistent with high density usage will not work them-
selves out of a recharge area, but into it.
Section 14 A - The environmental checklist says ""Access to the site shall be from
Island Lake Road only" As we look at Exhibit B the access includes Island
Lake Drive.
Section 14D - Not correct. There is a road going from Island Lake Drive past the front
of a duplex and ending at the side of Mr. Wilson's house. See Exhibit B.
We would like to read Dale Tahja's on-site sewage system design for the above
parcel #420014400000. Our packet contained the sewage plan for
#420014400020.
We would like our questions and concerns to be addressed.
Thank you,
Mike and Barbara Johnson
E. 1431 Island Lake Drive
Shelton WA 98584
426-3686
t� r
:.
Uk.E�410G DEPT.
August 11 , 1995
Dear Mr. Yando,
Thank you for our con iersation of Aug. 8 th. In lieu of the conversation
concerning David Bayley's d velopment, it is our understanding that there will NOT
be a road, driveway, or even a road easement that intersects with Island Lake DRIVE.
If we are incorrect in our understanding, please send us a note.
We continue to be concerned about the density of people and cars on a critical
aquifer recharge area and the noise during constru ction which could last for 2 years.
Thank you, 1
Mike a d Barbara Johnson
E.1431 Island Lake Drive
Shelton WA 98584
MASON
August 11 , 1995
Dear Mr. Yando,
Thank you for our conversation of Aug. 8 th. In lieu of the conversation
concerning David Bayley's development, it is our u derstanding that there will NOT
be a road, driveway, or even a road easement that intersects with Island Lake DRIVE.
If we are incorrect in our understanding, please send us a note.
We continue to be concerned about the density of people and cars on a critical
aquifer recharge area and the noise during construction which could last for 2 years.
Thank f ou,
Mike a d Barbara Johnson
E.1431 Island Lake Drive
Shelton WA 98584
Mr. Yando and Mason County Commissioners V x
Mason County Dept. of Comm Dev.
Planning Division AUO 08 1995
P.O. Box 578
r° S11VG
Shelton WA 98584
August 8, 1995
Dear Mr. Yando and County Commissioners,
We are writing in response to mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance WAC 197-11-350 Parcel
420014400000.
We are concerned that Mason ounty, the lead agency, does not believe thirteen duplexes will
have an adverse effect on a crit cal aquifer recharge area. In keeping with and in addition to that
concern, please consider these issues from the environmental checklist for the above parcel:
Section 5A- Birds and mammals observed on or near the sight were not marked on the checklist.
Heron, eagle, bass and trout should have been ircled.
Section 7B - Bald Eagle and G een Heron are located near the sight.
Section 713 #2 - There is nothing written about the length of a work week, with
construction taking placT from 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 .M.. We request work days
be defined as Monday through Friday only.
Section 8H - Has Mr. Bailey recorded a notice with the ason County Auditor? The
notice is to state that"the proposed project is in atritical aquifer recharge area
and that limitations on regulated activities, may e*ist". Conditions for Sep 95-
0172
Section 81 - We are concerned about the high density of people and cars in this critical
aquifer recharge area. It is our understanding that oil, fertilizers, insecticides
and other pollutants consistent with high density usage will not work them-
selves out of a recharge area, but into it.
Section 14 A - The environme tal checklist says ""Access to the site shall be from
Island Lake Road only' As we look at Exhibit B the access includes Island
Lake Drive.
Section 14D - Not correct. There is a road going from Island Lake Drive past the front
of a duplex and ending at the side of Mr. Wilson' house. See Exhibit B.
We would like to read Dale Tahja's on-site sewage syst m design for the above
parcel #420014400000. Our packet contained the sewage plan for
#420014400020.
We would like our questions and concerns to be addressed.
Thank you,
Mike and Barbara Johnson
E. 1431 Island Lake Drive
Shelton WA 98584
426-3686
E690 Island Lake Drive
Shelton, WA. 98584-7822
July 17, 1995
Dear Mr. Yando,
I am writing concerning the proposed 26 units of housing on
Island Lake Rd. near Island Lake. I am deeply concerned about impact
such a large number of families will have on our area of the county.
Firstly, the land surrounding the Lake is located on a critical
aquifer recharge area. The amount of pollution generated by 26
families through sep is tanks, cars, etc. will be a considerable
amount. Certainly 3ome investigation needs to be done to assure that
the nearby Island Lace and John' s Creek are not affected by these 26
apartments. John' s reek is a Salmon spawning creek. Moreover, won' t
the proposed septic anks running into a critical aquifer recharge
area leech into the wells of those of us who live near this proposed
development? Each of the proposed units will be able to draw 400
gallons of water per day. How will that amount of water use affect
the residents who now live in this area? Many of the current
residents do not have terribly deep wells. Does this proposed
development mean that we will be impacted and then have to dry to dig
new wells?
In addition to the concern about the pollution potential in this
critical aquifer recharge area, I am concerned about the proposed
traffic hazard problem on Island Lake Road. There will be 26 families
turning into and out of a small road. Living as I do at the
intersection of Island Lake Drive and Island Lake Road, I hear the
cars as they round that corner and hurry on to get to Hiway 101 . To
me the hazard and potential for accidents on Island Lake Road is
considerable when yo realize that with perhaps two cars per household
there would be 52 c rs leaving and entering on a very residential
road.
I would like to see a public review hearing process on this
matter before any approval is given on this application.
Sincerely, !�
Diane B. Hansen
4:e ' � � �
E. 711 Island Lake Dr.
Shelton, WA 98584
July 17, 1995
Gary Yando
Department of Community Development
Building III
426 West Cedar
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Mr. Yando
I have just learned that the duplexes which are being built near
us will number 13 when the project is completed. This sort of
development will h ve a serious impact on the single residence
housing in the are . I have the following questions about this
project:
1 ) Can the aquifer can handle this load? I know that this
area is subject to drought in the summer months when
there is a greater demand for water.
2) Is there enough land for the septic system to handle all
of these units?
3) Will the increased trafic density result in greater
traffic congestion and noise in the area?
Sincerely,
Norman A. Greenlee
Mason County Planning Department August 14 1995
s Mason County Annex
Shelton, Wa 98584
Attn: Allen Borden f�
Re: Bailey SEPA Island Lake Road Development Proposal 4
{ Dear Mr. Borden, MASON LO. r.J"I'Vv6G DEPT.
}
1
} Per our conversation of today, please consider this my formal response to the SEPA
mitigation determination made by the Gary Yando in regards to the Bailey project.
Much of the Mitigation and calculations within the SEPA checklist are based upon the
proposal that the housing to be built will be for retirement or near retirement age persons. I see
nothing in the mitigation measures or of record which will require the same to happen.
As a property owner on Island Lake with a large investment in my property and home, I
would like to make sure that the project is required to be built and ran in a fashion consistent with
the proposal. I am sure that you could see a large difference between Senior housing and low to
middle income general rental housing. The project impacts would be much larger on the lake and
surrounding areas, both on the physical infrastructure and on future valuations in the vicinity if the
use of the property was allowed to change from the stated proposal at some time in the future.
To allay concerns of many of the lake residents, a requirement by the county that would
covenant the project to senior housing should be required. This would in no way impact Mr.
Bailey if his stated proposal is followed but would eliminate the possibility of a use change after
the project is completed.
I would appreciate a phone call and a copy of any final determination in a timely fashion in
the event that this matter is not addressed in the final mitigation requirements.
Sincerely f
'1GIi ael E. F
r
I
D OF MASON COUNTY M.
215 W.RAILROAD AVE.•P.O.BOX Z•SHELTON,WA 98584
TITLE DEPT.(206)426-1626•ESCROW DEPT.(206)426.1627
BREMERTON(206)377-5017• FAX(206)426-9493
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
PEON.STgT�o
o A 0u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
z� N Y y BLDG. III • 426 W. CEDAR • P.O. BOX 578
0`� 1864 SHELTON, WA 98584 • (206) 427-9670
Atrgust 2, 1995
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - DEPT. REVIEW
TO:
FROM Allan Borden Comm nity Development
LAKE PARK 13 DUPLEX PROPOSAL ON ISLAND LAKE DRIVE, SHELTON
Please review the attached En 'ronmental Checklist. Please note that the proposal is for 26
new dwelling units on seven a res,' and the project is located where a critical aquifer
recharge area has been designa-,ed under the Interim Resource Ordinance. Your written
comments should be sent to an Borden or Gary Yando in the Department of Community
Development by Tuesday August 15, 1995. Contact Allan at ext. 365 for more information.
Recycled `
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
PC0N.STgTFo
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
O A p =
o T z PLANNING-SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES
N,Y y BLDG. III • 426 W. CEDAR • P.O. BOX 578
0`� rasa SHELTON,WA 98584 • (206)427-9670
August 2, 1995
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL C ECKLIST - DEPT. REVIEW
TO:
FROM Allan Borden - Community Development
LAKE PARK 13 DUPLEX PROPOSAL ON ISLAND LAKE DRIVE, SHELTON
Please review the attached Environmental Checklist. Please note that the proposal is for 26
new dwelling units on seven acres, and the project is located where a critical aquifer
recharge area has been designated under the Interim Resource Ordinance. Your written
comments should be sent to Allan Borden or Gary Yando in the Department of Community
Development by Tuesday August 15, 1995. Contact Allan at ext. 365 for more information.
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
PEON.STgTFO
a A o DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
u
o T z PLANNING-SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES
z� N y y BLDG. III • 426 W. CEDAR P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (206)427-9670
August 2, 1995
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - DEPT. REVIEW
TO:
FROM Allah Borden - Community Development
LAKE PARK 13 DUPLEX PROPOSAL ON ISLAND LAKE DRIVE, SHELTON
Please review the attached Enviromnental Checklist. Please note that the proposal is for 26
new dwelling units on seven acres, and the project is located where a critical aquifer
recharge area has been designa(ed under the Interim Resource Ordinance. Your written
comments should be sent to A4!an Borden or Gary Yando in the Department of Community
Development by Tuesday August 15, 1995. Contact Allan at ext. 365 for more information.
y
Recycid
CONDITIONS FOR SEP95-0172
THIRTEEN DUPLEXES PROPOSAL - LAKE PARK
DAVID AND NANCY BAYLEY
1) The applicant shall have installed enhanced septic systems for the proposed dwelling units
(utilizing two feet of sand in drainfield laterals and pressure distribution), as approved by the
Mason County Health Department. Theses systems shall be designed to provide adequate
effluent treatment to not impact the critical aquifer recharge area.
2) During the construction of roads, parking areas and buildings, the applicant shall
implement the temporary and permanent erosion and stormwater control methods presented
in the drainage control plan for this development proposal, as approved by the Mason County
Department of Public Works. Roof runoff shall be controlled by guttering to specified areas
located away from the septic drainfields. Road and parking area runoff shall be pretreated
by routing to grass-lined swales or ditches adjacent to the road which allows infiltration into
the soil.
3) To serve emergency vehicle use, the applicant shall maintain a 20-foot wide access road
through the proposed development. If this access road will be a county-maintained road, the
dimensions shall meet county road standards.
4) The applicant shall provide a public water system capable of delivering a fire flow of 500
gallons per minute for 30 minutes, at 20 psi residual pressure. The storage capacity for fire
flow (15,000 gallons) must be in addition to the maximum daily domestic demand (MDD).
Hydrant locations to be approved by the Mason County Fire Marshall. The water system
must be in place and serviceable prior to the start of any combustible construction.
5) To comply with the Mason County Parking Ordinance, the applicant shall provide two
parking spaces per dwelling u�it, or 4 spaces per duplex building, for a minimum of 52
spaces in the development; other parking areas may be included but should comply with
standards in the drainage control plan for the development.
6) The applicant shall install perimeter fencing, as proposed, along the exterior property lines
and entrance to serve as a visual buffer to adjacent properties.
7) As specified in the Mason County Interim Resource Ordinance, Sec. 17.01.080.D.La.
Development Standards - Title Notification, the applicant shall record a notice with the
Mason County Auditor stating that the proposed project is in an aquifer recharge area and
that limitations on regulated activities may exist. Proof of this recording shall be provided to
the Department of Community Development as part of the permit approval.