Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary Plat Conditions Hearing - PLN General - 7/20/2001 PnCX gineeringa July 20, 2001 Mr. Michael MacSems Mason County Planing Department P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 Reference: Typical Preliminary Plat Conditions File#26571/1 Dear Michael: Please find enclosed a few sample hearing examiner reports of preliminary plats we have completed in Pierce County. Please note that each of these reports contains a list of conditions that are required to be met prior to recording and sale of any lots within the proposed subdivision. This methodology works well from the standpoint that it documents all of the departmental and planning conditions in one final report. These conditions are then used as the checklist to make sure that each condition is met prior to final plat approval. Lots cannot be sold within the state of Washington without a recorded final plat. Therefore, all of these conditions, including full engineering design, easements, permitting, and/or bonding needs to occur before the final plat can be recorded. This provides protection from the public that all public health, safety and engineering issues are addressed and permitted prior to the first lot being sold. It has always been my understanding that staff report for Iron Horse Crossing would include conditions memorializing all departmental requirements that would need to be addressed in the final civil engineering plans. Based upon discussion we have already had, I would have expected several of the following conditions to occur in your final staff report. Iron Horse Crossing 1. A final landscape plan for the disturbed areas of open space and the proposed park shall be prepared and approved by the planning director prior to approval of final engineering plans. 2. Final engineering plans must be prepared and submitted for roads and utilities and been approved by Public Works prior to plat recording. 3. The final storm design plans, specifications, details, and report shall included a geotechnical report that addresses slopes and construction of the storm detention facilities. 2601 South 35th,Suite 200 TacomaNashington 98409 (253)473-4494 Fax:(253)473-0599 Mr. Michael MacSems July 19, 2001 File#26571/1 I Page 2 4. A conceptual stormwater plan has been reviewed. However, final plans must meet Department of Ecology requirements and be approved, constructed, or bonded prior to final plat approval. 5. A tract for possible road access to the property adjacent to the south shall be established prior to recording of that phase of the preliminary plat. Final location of the tract shall be established by Mason County Public Works. Please review and discuss this with your supervisor and see if this type of approach can be made in order to get all of the conditions identified and established in one report and made a part of the final public record. If you have any questions,please let me know. Sincerely, Dennis E. Hanberg Principal DEH/jk 1/26571/docs-rpts/docs_dh072001 rp, ex 2601 South 35th,Suite 200;Tacoma,Washington'98409 (253) 473-4494 Fax:(253) 473-0599 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Z Sue CCNC VW \-ICAA.✓ July 16 2001 CCAACe v ✓1 - SCr— TO: Mason County Planning Commission FROM: Mason County Department of Community Development STAFF: Michael MacSems, Subdivision Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval of Ironhorse Crossing subdivision INTRODUCTION This report presents an evaluation of a subdivision proposal to create 115 single family residential and 28 multi-family residential lots, for a total of 143 lots as well as 9 tracts on a 50-acre parcel. This report also includes recommended preliminary plat conditions for the proposal. PROPONENT Ironhorse Crossing LLC c/o Apex Engineering PLLC 2601 S 35th ST, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98409 PROPERTY LOCATION NW '/4 Section 28, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, WM Located in Belfair UGA NE of new post office. AREA DISCRIPTION This project is located in an undeveloped portion of the Belfair UGA. The site is bordered by SR 3, the Navy Railroad, timberland and a municipal well site. The subdivision site sits on an upland above a newer commercial development, which contains the U.S. Post Office. PROJECT DISCRIPTION This proposal is to convert 50 acres of timberland located inside the Belfair Urban Growth Area into 115 single family residential lots, 28 multi-family lots and 9 open tracts. 1 Density for the overall tract is 2.87 per acre, 4.67 for the buildable portion of the tract. As proposed, lots range in size from 5,500 sq ft to aprox 10,000 sq ft. with a typical lot in the range of 6,000 to 7,000 sq ft. This project will be built in three phases. All lots will be served by the Belfair Water District. The first phase will make use of a community septic system on Tract A and the second and third phases will be dependent on a future Belfair sewer system. When fully built out this proposal will ad about 376 new residents to Belfair. EVALUATION Public Facilities Schools -- The North Mason School District intends to seek impact fees from the developer. The applicant has indicated that this was expected and should not be a problem. Park & Recreation -- Park facilities are available in the greater Belfair area. The proponent has also proposed a recreational lot on Tract E. Traffic Circulation -- The internal road system is proposed as private. The Department of Public Works has expressed no concerns about the layout of the internal road system other then the lack of a cul-de-sac at the northern end of Ridgetop Blvd. The three other dead end streets shown on this plat are exempt from the cul-de-sac requirement because they have a length of less than 150 feet. Although not shown, a sidewalk along the southerly portion of Ridgetop Blvd is required by the Planning Department. The Washington Department of Transportation has required to proponents to present a traffic study to analyze the impact that this development would have on the intersection and Ridgetop Blvd and SR3. This study has yet to be presented to the County or DOT (these report can take up to six months to produce). Water— The applicant has told the County that they have an agreement with the Belfair Water District to supply water. Prior to final approval, the County will need to receive copies of the signed contract to that effect. Police— The Mason County Sheriff's office provides 24-hour service. Fire Protection -- Fire District No 2 provides fire protection for this area. Utilities and Services— Public power, mail and telephone services are available. 2 Comprehensive Plan (1996) The land that this proposal is located on is inside of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. This project represents dense, urban style residential development and that is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan within the UGAs. Environmental Review An Environmental Checklist was completed and a Determination on Mitigated Non- Significance was issued on April IOth, 2001. The mitigation conditions on the SEPA are as follows: TRAFFIC ANYISIS The applicant shall commission a traffic study to determine traffic impacts to SR 3 and whether or not any modifications to SR 3 and Ridgetop Boulevard will be required as a result of this project. PEDISTRIAN &BICYCLE PLAN The applicant shall develop a pedestrian and bicycle plan that meets the approval of the Mason County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall develop a landscape plan that meets the approval of the Mason County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. An element of this plan shall deal with weed control. GEO TECHNICAL ASSESMENT A Geo Technical Report shall be prepared that will evaluate pond design and slope/bank for setbacks and stability. STORMWATER SITE PLAN A Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) will be created and implemented prior to development, clearing, grading, or construction of any portion of the proposed segregation. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT All future development of the proposed site will be subject to the conditions that are listed. However, this does not exempt future proposals from further review through the SEPA process. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS Emergency vehicle apparatus access roads shall conform with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Mason County Title 16. If the access road cannot conform, special conditions will be placed on any building permit issued on property that is served by a non-conforming access road. Contact the Mason County Fire Marshal for details. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES-SEPTIC 3 Storm drainage facilities shall be separate from sewage disposal transport facilities and include provisions to prevent uncontrolled and untreated direct entry of surface water runoff into receiving waters. Storm drainage facilities shall include, but not be restricted to vegetated swales, retention ponds and artificial and natural wetlands PROVIDED no adverse impacts to the receiving wetlands would occur and shall be subject to Mason County approval. At a meeting on May 29t' between Planning Department staff and the applicant, these conditions were discussed, it was agreed that a Pedestrian&Bicycle Plan would not be required and that a number of these requirements were needed for Final Plat Approval but not for Preliminary Approval. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan The applicant has agreed to meet the minimum requirements of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority manual. There has been a preliminary exchange of information between the applicant and Public Works, but as of late June nothing substantial has been submitted. COMMENTS FROM MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Environmental Health Septic System—The first phase of this development would be based on a community drainfield. The Department of Environmental Health is requiring a"Method II Analysis." As of late June, the results of this analysis were not yet available. Water System—The proposed subdivision is to be served by the Belfair Water District. The Washington State Department of Health has jurisdiction over this system and will need to determine if the water system is adequate to serve this proposed plat. The Mason County Department of Environmental Health has notified DOH, but as of late June has not received an affirmative response. Fire Marshal The Fire Marshal has two conditions on this proposal. 1. Prior to final plat approval the plat must provide two emergency vehicle access points via a looped road system back to the primary county/state road or make provisions to connect access with a future development on adjacent property. 2. Fire flow is required at 1,000 GPM minimum, at 20 PSI residual pressure. A hydrant system is to be in place and serviceable prior to the start of combustible construction. As fort condition 1, the applicant has supplied copies of correspondence showing that they are attempting to negotiate an emergency vehicle access across the Navy Yard Railroad R/W, to the north of the property. Public Works 4 Public Works has the following concerns with the project: 1. Stormwater runoff will be required to be detained and released at the Department of Ecology's downstream erosion control discharge rates. 2. Roads will be required to conform to Mason County Plat Road standards as specified in Title 16. 3. A cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround will be required at the end of the main entrance road. 4. An Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Covenant will be required to be created, recorded, and delivered to Public Works as part of the stormwater approval. 5. WSDOT will be requested to express their acceptance or objection to the site access. CONCLUTIONS The Department of Community Development has reviewed the materials made available to us and finds that conceptually the proposal is in keeping with the goals of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. However there are a number of outstanding issues that have not been settled at the time of this report. With this in mind, the Mason County Department of Community Development recommends a preliminary approval of this subdivision application with several conditions that must be met before final approval can be granted. CONDITIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL The following conditions are recommended by the Mason County Department of Community Development: The proponent and the school district shall enter into a mitigation agreement which shall provide S per lot to the North Mason School District. An emergency point and a cul-de-sac shall be established at the north end of g Y access Ridgetop Blvd. A sidewalk meeting APWA specifications shall be established on Ridgetop Blvd between Tract F and the western entrance to Tract B. Phases II & III of this project shall not receive Final Plat Approval until they can be serviced by a sanitary sewer system. A copy of any of a water supply agreement between the applicants and the Belfair Water System which reflects a volume appropriate to the number of residences to be served. Fire flow is required at 1,000 GPM minimum, at 20 PSI residual pressure. Hydrant system is to be in place and serviceable prior to the start of combustible construction. Prior to final plat approval, a Method H septic system shall be approved by the Department of Environmental Health. 5 Prior to final approval, an Operation and Maintenance Covenant for stormwater facilities shall be completed, notarized, and recorded with the County Auditor's Office. A copy of the recorded Operation and Maintenance Covenants shall be delivered to Public Works for their files. The applicant shall provide dust control throughout construction of the necessary improvements for this proposal. Dust control measures shall include limiting disturbance to needed improvements including phasing of development, and watering of disturbed areas if dust levels become excessive. Long term control of particulate emissions will include permanent restoration of disturbed areas including seeding and landscaping of roadside swales and storm water retention facilities. For the protection of children and pets, a six foot tall fence shall be constructed along the western edge of the Navy Yard Railway right-of-way. A boundary line adjustment shall be performed in order to legally separate the portions of the acreage that lie on either side of the Navy Yard Railroad right-of-way. No lot shall be less than 6,000 square feet in size. Geo Technical report... PUBLIC COMMENTS As of July 5, 2001 the following comments have been received Steve N.S. Cheung, Inc: In favor of the proposal, believes that it enhances growth and will have financial benefits to the county. Linda Cheung: A neighboring property owner that is supportive of the proposal. Department of Ecology: Made generic comments regarding Forest Practices, re-use of recyclable materials, and the need for a stormwater permit. With the exception of the recyclable materials, these issues are being addressed by the County. Department of Fish & Wildlife: Expressed concern that run-off from site not be allowed to damage fish habitat located below the site. Public Works is has addressed this issue in their requirements. Department of Transportation: WSDOT had four concerns. 1) That a traffic mitigation study be submitted (pending). 2) That stormwater runoff not impact WSDOT the state right-of-way beyond pre- development levels (Public Works is dealing with stormwater issues). 3)Disclaiming 6 responsibility for noise attenuation. 4) Advertising signs must comply with the Scenic Highways Act. Copies of the departmental letters are attached. 7 �c� � . Pierce County Office of the Pierce County Hearing Examiner STEPHEN K. AUSSEAUX,JR. 902 South 10th Street Pierce CountyHearing Examiner Tacoma,Washington 98405 (253)272-2206 January 25, 2001 Tucci & Sons, Incorporated Attn: Jeff Morgan 4224 Waller Road E. Tacoma, WA 98443 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT: MILLSTONE Dear Applicant: Transmitted herewith is the report and decision of the Pierce County Hearing Examiner relating to the above-entitled matter. Very truly yours, ST PHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner SKC/cka cc: Parties of Record PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND SERVICES PIERCE COUNTY BUILDING DIVISION PIERCE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PIERCE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TACOMA-PIERCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PIERCE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL PIERCE COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Ae7, OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER PIERCE COUNTY REPORT AND DECISION CASE NO.: PRELIMINARY PLAT: MILLSTONE APPLICANT: TUCCI & SONS, INC. Attention: Jeff Morgan 4224 Waller Road East Tacoma, WA 98443 AGENT: Apex Engineering, PLLC 2601 South 35 h Street Tacoma, WA 98409 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 5.03 acre parcel into 23 single-family residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and an average lot size of 6,841 square feet, with a 30,070 square foot combined wetland/wetland buffer/recreation area-park tract, to be served by a private roads and public water and sanitary sewers, in a Moderate Density Single-Family (MSF) zone classification, located in the 8500-8600 block of 170' Street E., in the SE 1/4 of Sec. 29, T19N, R4E, W.M., in Council District#1. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Request granted, subject to conditions. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing Planning and Land Services Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request as follows: The hearing was opened on November 2, 2000 at 9:05 a.m. Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner. The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: EXHIBIT "1" - Planning and Land Services Staff Report and Attachments re: Gem West Estates 1- EXHIBIT "2" - Planning and Land Services Staff Report and Attachments re: Millstone EXHIBIT "3" - ' Letter from William Lynn dated November 1, 2000 EXHIBIT "4" - Memorandum from Rory Grindley dated November 2, 2000 EXHIBIT "5" - Photos submitted by Joan Gillette EXHIBIT "6" - Video entitled Master Water submitted by Matt Scott EXHIBIT 17" - Photos submitted by Carl Wade EXHIBIT "8" - Weir design and wetland mitigation from Laura Roberts EXHIBIT "9" - Memorandum to Examiner from Rory Grindley dated November 30, 2000 EXHIBIT "10"- Letter to Rory Grindley from Christopher Huss dated November 22, 2000 EXHIBIT "11"- Title 19A of the Comprehensive Plan (19A.80.080 — Roads Highlighted) submitted by Laura Roberts EXHIBIT "12"- Pierce County Transportation Plan dated September, 1992 EXHIBIT "13"- Aerial Photographs showing roads EXHIBIT "1411- Letter to Examiner from Thomas Ballard dated December 13, 2000 EXHIBIT "15"- Letter to Examiner from William Lynn dated December 15, 2000 EXHIBIT "1611- Letter to Examiner from Dennis Hanberg dated January 8, 2001 ROBERT JENKINS appeared and presented the Planning Division Staff Report for Gem West. The Environmental Official issued an MDNS and the plat applicant filed an appeal. The Frederickson Advisory Commission considered the matter at its October meeting and questions arose as to why the County didn't require access onto 861h Avenue East. The commission recommended approval of a revised plat and recommended moving the park from the front of the plat to the side. The commission also recommended a solid board fence along the west property line and an extended left turn lane. The site is vegetated with a fir forest and Gem Heights borders the east property line. Properties to the southwest and south are located within the HRD classification. The revised park tract complies with 2- the development regulations and exceeds the minimum area requirements. The park plan includes a trail through the park which the applicant will increase to a five foot width. The applicant needs to provide a distinction between the road and the path area at the entrance. The comprehensive plan shows the area as single family and within the MSF designation, and the proposal is similar to subdivisions to the east. He recommends a six foot fence along the park tract to protect properties to the northwest. The fence should also extend along the north property line. The storm drainage plan must comply with the most current regulations, and residents have expressed concerns with lot runoff as opposed to road runoff. MR. JENKINS then presented the staff report for the Millstone preliminary plat and stated that a previous owner and developer had proposed access onto 170`h. However, Tucci acquired the parcel and it will provide access through Gem West to 176' Street East. The Environmental Official issued a DNS for this plat and at the Frederickson Advisory Commission the same issues were raised plus concerns about the previous developer. Staff recommends approval subject to a board fence along the north and west property lines and wants the same standards as the Gem West plat even though this plat is not subject to the residential design standards. The applicant has agreed to meet said standards. This site is wooded but also has an open area with wetlands in the west central portion of the property. A degraded wetland will be filled and the west wetland enlarged. The zoning includes MSF on the north and west and MPC on the east. They have replaced the flag lots with street-front lots on the revised plat. A small recreational area is located adjacent to the wetland area, and residents will also utilize the park area in Gem West. No access will be provided onto 1701h, a private road, and the applicant has expressed no desire to use 170'. The FAC recommends a board fence along the north property line. Staff wants no vehicle gates onto 170`h Street, only pedestrian gates. Stormwater will be directed to the storm drainage pond on the Gem West parcel with the exception of a few lots. Staff recommends approval of both projects. Staff has not prepared a staff report on the environmental appeal due to ongoing negotiations. Appearing was WILLIAM LYNN, attorney at law, who stated that the appellant and the County have reached agreement on the environmental appeal regarding traffic mitigation. He introduced Exhibit "3", a letter agreement. This agreement relates to the credit that the applicant will receive for the value of physical improvements. Paragraphs 3 and 4 provide that they will pay the State a lump sum for fair share improvements. The State will prepare an agreement. The Examiner should not dismiss the appeal, but change the MDNS mitigating measures. Appearing was RORY GRINDLEY associate traffic engineer, who concurs with Mr. Lynn's PP 9 � g testimony and also concurs on behalf of the State. DOT agrees with the contents of the letter. Another issue raised by Laura Roberts concerns the 861h Street corridor. They have been discussing the 86`h issue with the applicant, and the County, quite frankly, failed to recognize the corridor. It is a potential future arterial corridor per the Pierce County 3- Transportation Plan. They have requested conditions for the provision of 30 feet of right of way along the east boundary of the plat. 30 feet of right of way was previously established on the Gem Heights parcel. They only need the 30 feet plus about 500 feet to the north to provide a connection. They have worked with the applicant the past two days, are cognizant of the impacts on the plat, and will continue to work with the applicant. The County could even purchase the parcel. He recommended that the record remain open for three weeks to reach agreement, and if not, reopen the hearing. MR. LYNN then responded by stating that dedication of the right of way would actually change the project and they would need another hearing. MR. GRINDLEY then stated that the applicant could use 86" as an access but such would not change the MDNS measures. The monetary amount would not change but the credits would. MR. LYNN then stated that the pivotal issue is the right of way. The plat road would be straight and many lots would have roads on both sides. Millstone is vested under the old rules but the applicant has agreed to construct the entire project under current standards. The plats will integrate the roads, utilities, drainage, and parks, and will have a single set of covenants. They will build fences as recommended by the FAC and the Planning Department. The parks exceed the County requirements as they are looking at underground storage and wetland restoration. The wetland will have a weir so that the water will be metered out. They will grade the lots so that the drainage will flow to the interior of the plat, and the roof drains will be accommodated by dry wells. Appearing was JOAN GILLETTE who stated that 170' experiences all kinds of traffic due to the opening of 168 . The previous owner filled two ponds, the larger of which was a holding pond. He filled and altered the hydrology and dug a ditch to direct water off site. The water now runs off the Tucci lots onto five acre parcels and then is ditched onto their property. They have had to sandbag to keep their home from flooding. Mr. Risvold imposed a stop work order for the second time. Twenty three homes on this parcel is too many especially considering the wetland. Appearing was MATT SCOTT who lives on 84`h adjacent to the wetland and was told that the applicant was required to reestablish the dam. The backhoe was shut down as they were trying to flush water onto this property. There has always been a wetland where it is indicated on the map only it was larger. They filled on the east side of the property and built a house on the top pushing the water onto this site. The wetland dam has not been restored and they had to install a drain. Appearing was LAURA ROBERTS, a member of the Frederickson Advisory Commission and the Frederickson-Clover Creek Community Council, and stated that we have a quality of life issue. Traffic concerns are noted separately. The issue is access onto 176`h as we 4- need to preserve access corridors. At gated communities traffic backs up when children are picked up at a party which is becoming a big issue on 176'. Her access is onto 176' from 84°i and she feels that the plat will create a safety issue. The west plat access is very close to 84 h and she doesn't want the left turn lane stopping at her road. It is hard to see traffic westbound due to the grade. A left turn lane and traffic back up will further obscure the sight distance. It would be nice to see the left turn lane extended from 78"' to the LDS church. The County has to look at 86' for access. She found a couple of things in the comprehensive plan which include an effective road network. She then reviewed other objectives of the comprehensive plan which encourage consolidation of accesses. Collector arterials are identified in the County Transportation Plan which encourages the location and protection of needed right of way as soon as possible. The Examiner has authority to implement the plan. Reappearing was MATT SCOTT who introduced Exhibit "6". Reappearing was JOAN GILLETTE who stated that traffic is awful and that 86' is a private road in their area. All kinds of traffic uses 170' and the road is overburdened. It can't handle additional traffic. If the County opens 86t4, 1701" can't handle the traffic. She is opposed to the opening of 86' as it will bring other people into the area and allow the dumping of garbage, etc. Appearing was CARL WADE, the original applicant, who stated that water runs from Gem Heights to the wetland on the west side of the property. He asked and received permission for and cleaned out the ditch. There was a concrete dam on the site and he lowered the level of the water. Mr. Risvold considered it a violation. When he sold the land, part of the deal was for Tucci to correct the violation. He then introduced Exhibit 7", photographs of the site. Reappearing was LAURA ROBERTS who understood that if 86" is constructed, there will be no need for a turn lane to 84` - However, she is willing to accept the tradeoff for the good of the community. Concerning the gates on the north side of the parcel, the advisory commission talked about pedestrian ac cess ccess to the area and the os ro p p al was to dedicate a pedestrian trail to allow people within the development to walk to schools within Gem Heights. MR. LYNN then reappeared to state that they had originally proposed pedestrian access to the north but the road to the north is private and they can't use it. Appearing was DAVE MATZ, professional engineer, who stated that the storm system will be designed under Ordinance 96-46S2 and that the roof drainage will be directed to the wetland for recharge. The driveways and road drainage will be conveyed to the west central boundary of Gem West to its storm system. Lots on the site will infiltrate through trenches. The wetland mitigation includes a dike on the west property line to elevation 500 5— which will allow about three feet of water storage. They have evaluated the water flow from the east and will recharge at the same volume. A small weir will be installed to allow water to flow offsite at the same rate, but because of the soils, the water could easily perc out with no discharge to the west. Appearing was LAURA SCOTT who introduced Exhibit "8", a weir design and wetland mitigation plan. The two small wetlands on site were connected by a ditch. Both were graded and cleared but Mr. Risvold has approved the restoration plan. They are directing water to the wetland and will replace about 6500 square feet of wetland. The new wetland will have adequate storage. They will also replace the buffer. The majority of the east wetland is either in public or private right of way, and to compensate, they will increase the amount of wetland and buffer on the west. The delineation was performed by Apex and approved by Mr. Risvold. MR. LYNN then questioned Mr. Grindley who testified that the FAC recommended the left turn taper, but Public Works does not require the taper. The applicant's proposal meets County standards and the FAC recommendations goes beyond what the County recommends. The left turn lane would end at 84`h and the tapers would start there. It would require another 125 feet for a refuge lane for 84'. Appearing was KATHLEEN LARRABEE who wants to reissue a new SEPA document with new mitigating measures. The document would have a new appeal and comment period. Reappearing was ROBERT JENKINS who stated that if 86`h is reserved as a tract, the setbacks must be measured from the edge of the right of way so that homes will not be constructed too close. The code allows for a 15 foot setback for lots on 86'. The gates on the north property line would be for individual access for lot owners only and not for plat residents in general. The hearing was concluded at 10:48 a.m. and continued to November 30, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. The hearing was opened November 30, 2000, at 1:05 p.m. RORY GRINDLEY, associate traffic engineer, appeared and stated that he and the applicant had met over the past few weeks in an attempt to preserve the 86'h corridor but cannot reach agreement. He introduced Exhibit "9", his memorandum. The applicant did not submit a traffic impact study for Millstone due to 23 lots as opposed to the 25 lot minimum. However, Millstone will generate 28 peak hour trips per the ITE Manual and will have the same distribution as Gem West. Millstone traffic will add another $50,000 mitigation plus turn lane improvements. The County wants to preserve 30 feet along the east property line, but the asking price is twice the cost of improvements to the corridor. The applicant will set it aside as a separate tract so the County can purchase it later. Gem 6- West will set aside the additional 30 foot width plus 15 feet along 176". The applicant's price for Gem West would leave the County about $100,000.00 short. The sewer line is on the 86' property and there will be a need for about 600 feet to have an easement for the sewer line. Also, the plat entrance is too close to 86'". The County can prohibit access from a higher class roadway and could require access of 86` , a collector arterial. They would prefer to apply the $200,000.00 to acquire the 86' corridor, but would need 30 feet along the south 600 feet and 25 feet for the balance. The total amount equals 35,500 square feet, and the applicant is requesting $221,875.00. The applicant would also need to construct a short section of 86'" and a left turn lane. The County would be willing to minimize the turn pocket strip from 200 feet to 100 feet, and would also be willing to give the applicant carryover mitigation credits for future plats. They could also set aside Tract "G" along 176' for future purchase which would occur in the fall of 2001. The County will need an appraisal and will pay fair market value which could be higher or lower than the asking price. The County has performed no appraisals of the right-of-way area but that could be done within a week. The applicant argues that there will be a loss of lots and a loss of value of remaining lots with roads on both sides. Staff does not question the value. Public Works could have asked the Council for funds to purchase the 1761" right of way, but 86' has a long way to go to provide a connection to 86' at 152nd. The County would have to perform an environmental review and establish the corridor, and even then the road might never be constructed. The only other option is a corridor from 78'Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan identified either 78'" or 86" as corridors. Upon questioning by WILLIAM LYNN, attorney at law, MR. GRINDLEY responded by testifying that the goal is the County's purchase of right-of-way, regardless of where the money comes from. The applicant is not interested in future credits because the entity that owns this parcel owns no others in the County. The traffic policy was adopted in August, 1998, and provided a blank exemption of 25 peak hour trips. The plat was reviewed by Development Engineering which might have assumed that the ITE Manual estimated one peak hour trip per lot. The Gem West traffic study shows 28 trips for Millstone during the peak period. 86' is not necessary to serve these projects. If 86' were a viable access location, then they would have to use it to access. In all of the County's review, 86" was never recognized as it is not on the road plan, and is definitely more than five years out. The applicant could estimate the east access and solve the problem of two access roads too close. They would only need to construct a short section of 86'. The strip of property reserved for the road would not be part of a lot, but would have to be shown as a future road. It could be detrimental to the lots value. The cost of the 1761" left turn lane is approximately $200,000.00. No funds would be left over to acquire the 86' right-of-way. It would be difficult to take 25 feet for the right-of-way for some lots. MR. LYNN then testified that he sees no nexus between this project and providing the 86' right-of-way. They have taken a good look at providing the right-of-way but the options are very limited. Even if there were an economic tradeoff, the County can show no nexus to require the dedication. The County tried to find a way to purchase the right-of-way, but 7- couldn't. A roadway reserve would have the same impact on the plat as would a right-of- way. 86`h would be a good corridor, but the Examiner has no authority to require its dedication. Opportunities could occur in the future such as waiving sewer fees or funding by the Council. There will be a period of time prior to plat development to explore other measures. Appearing was LAURA ROBERTS who reiterated that her main concern at the previous hearing was access onto 176' from 84'. We should look at 84`h as being too close to this project. She asked that the turn lane be extended. She then introduced highlighted goals of the comprehensive plan addressing traffic. Appearing was ROBERT JENKINS, associate planner, who stated that the applicant has a nicely designed park, but it could be reduced in size and the walkway eliminated. Also, they could use the storm drain age e and g p for credits. Reappearing was MR. LYNN who stated that they did look at the park, but they want to retain it as an amenity. Appearing was KARLA THEISS whose property abuts the north property line. She also agrees that it is not possible to extend 86'h. It would become nothing but a racetrack and only a two-lane road. The applicant has designed the accesses onto 1761h very well and the road definitely needs a left turn lane. The Examiner then decided to leave the record open for two weeks for Mr. Grindley to contract the Pierce County Council and the Utilities Department to discuss possible funding. No one spoke further in this matter. The hearing was concluded at 2:02 p.m. NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the office of Pierce County Planning and Land Services. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION: FINDINGS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, viewed the property, heard testimony, and taken this matter under advisement. 2 . Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act and the Pierce County Environmental Regulations (Pierce County Code, Title 18D — Environmental Regulations), the Pierce County Environmental Official designate has reviewed this project and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on July 28, 2000, and the comment period ended on August 14, 2000. e— 3. Notice of this request was advertised in accordance with Chapter 1.22 of the Pierce County Code. Notice of the date and time of hearing was published two (2) weeks prior to the hearing in the official County newspaper. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were sent written notice. Notice has been posted on the site. 4. The Frederickson Advisory Commission (FAC) heard the request at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 23, 2000, and the Commission voted to recommend approval subject to amendments. 5. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a rectangular, 5.03 acre, unimproved parcel of property abutting the north property line of the proposed preliminary plat of Gem West Estates, the west side of the unopened 86t' Ave. E. right-of-way, and the south side of the 170t' St. E. private road and utility easement. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision of the site into 23 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, an average lot size of 6,841 square feet, a minimum lot width of 50 feet, and a density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre. 6. The second revised plat map (Exhibit "10") shows a single private road access extending north from the Gem West Estates plat and terminating in a cul-de-sac in the northcentral portion of the site. No access is provided onto 170' St. E. or 86' Ave. E. Tract B, a 30,070 square foot parcel, will protect a natural 2,267 square foot wetland and a 3,906 square foot wetland to be created. The applicant proposes a solid board fence along the west and north property lines. 7. A completed application for preliminary plat approval was submitted to Pierce County on August 21, 1998, and in accordance with RCW 58.17.033, the preliminary plat is vested under the comprehensive plan, zoning code, and land use ordinances in effect on said date. 8. LU-UGA Objective 2 of the comprehensive plan requires the efficient provision of government facilities and services. Principle 2.1 of Objective 2 states: Contain and direct growth within the designated Comprehensive Urban Growth Area or satellite city and town UGAs where adequate public facilities exist or can be efficiently provided. Standard 2.1.2 requires the County to ensure that urban level facilities and services are "only provided within the designated urban growth areas". Standard 2.1.3 advocates reduction in the cost of i public facilities p clnes and services by encouraging urban density development. The Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan also provides that the overall density in UGAs should be high enough to provide urban level facilities and services at a reasonable cost 9- per unit. 9. LU-RE Objective 34 of the comprehensive plan contemplates a variety of residential densities in the urban growth areas based upon community values, development type and capability, proximity to facilities and services, densities in the plan, affordability, critical area protection and capability, and development techniques. Standard 34.1.1 states in part: In Moderate Density Single Family areas the density for single family and two family developments should be up to four dwelling units per acre until sewer service is available. When sewer service is available, the density should be allowed to increase up to six dwelling units per acre. The Density and Dimension Tables set forth in Section 18A.35.020(B)(2) PCC authorize a base density of four dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre in the MSF classification upon the provision of sanitary sewers. The proposed density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre is consistent with those contemplated by the comprehensive plan and as authorized by the PCC. Site built single family residential dwellings are consistent with abutting improvements and contemplated future development in the area. Therefore, the proposed plat satisfies the principles and standards of LU-RE Objective 34. 10. LU-RE Objective 33 of the comprehensive plan sets forth location criteria for residential areas. The location of the preliminary plat is consistent with virtually all of the eight principles set forth in said section. The plat is in convenient proximity to work, shopping, and leisure time areas as it is a short distance from the Frederickson industrial area and the South Hill and Canyon Road commercial areas which also provide employment opportunities. While no playfields or recreational opportunities are located in the immediate vicinity, the site plan reflects a community park, and schools within the Gem Heights and Silver Creek development will also provide recreational opportunities. The site abuts 176th St. E., a major County arterial which can accommodate efficient, regular, transit service. 11. LU-RE Objective 35 of the comprehensive plan states that urban density living should be accommodated only within an urban growth area. As previously found, the site is located well within an urban growth area. Principle 35.1 states that urban level facilities and services must be provided prior to or concurrent with development, and such services are either present or will be provided prior to final plat approval. 12. The Residential Design Standards adopted by the Pierce County Council and 10- codified in Section 18A.35.025 PCC became effective in January, 1999. Said standards require curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the internal plat road along with minimum lot sizes and widths. The vesting laws prohibit the County from requiring the applicant to meet the Residential Design Standards. However, because Millstone and Gem West Estates will be interconnected for utilities, storm drainage, roads, and parks, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to meet the Residential Design Standards. 13. The applicant will preserve Tract B, a 30,070 square foot open space area for use as a wetland, wetland buffer, and recreational area. Plat residents will also have access to the significant parks in Gem West Estates. The plat makes appropriate provision for open spaces, parks and recreation, and playgrounds. 14. The applicant will construct the storm drainage system to meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 96-46s2, the Pierce County Stormwater Management and Site Development Manual. Storm water runoff from roads and driveways will drain to the storm drainage system in Gem West Estates and roofs will drain into dry wells. Construction of the drainage system to ordinance standards will assure that the plat makes appropriate provision for drainage ways. 15. The applicant will construct the internal plat road to Pierce County private road standards and all lots will access onto the internal plat road. Because the plat will generate more than 25 peak hour trips, proportionate share traffic mitigation will be required for County road improvement projects impacted by plat traffic. The plat makes appropriate provision for streets, roads, alleys, and other public ways. 16. Firgrove Mutual Water Company will provide both domestic water and fire flow to the site, and Pierce County Utilities will provide sanitary sewer service to each lot. The parcel is located within the boundaries of a Pierce County Fire Protection District which has a fire station within a reasonable response time. The plat makes appropriate provision for potable water supplies, sanitary waste, and fire protection. 17. The applicant must comply with the Pierce County School Impact Fee Ordinance and make a per lot payment to the Bethel School District to offset the impacts of school aged children residing in the plat. Compliance with the impact fee ordinance will assure that the plat makes appropriate provision for schools and school grounds. 18. As previously found, the Residential Design Standards require sidewalks on both sides of internal plat roads which ensure safe walking conditions for students. 19. Substantial concerns were raised by adjoining and nearby residents regarding 11- the actions of a previous plat applicant in grading and filling one on-site wetland and altering a second on-site wetland. Following enforcement action by the County, this applicant will mitigate the violations by creating 3,906 square feet of new wetland on Tract "B" abutting the existing wetland. The applicant will also improve the existing wetland, will construct a ditch from the east property line to the wetlands in Tract "B", and will construct a berm along the west side of the wetland. A weir at the top of the berm will allow a measured release of water into the existing, natural drainage course. Such should prevent flooding of downstream properties as the biologist has indicated that because of the soils on the site, water will very likely percolate into the ground before overflowing the weir. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. The proposed preliminary plat of Millstone complies with the 1994 Comprehensive Plan and satisfies all requirements of the MSF zone classification of the Pierce County Code. 3. The proposed preliminary plat makes appropriate provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and safe walking conditions. 4. The preliminary plat of Millstone will serve the public use and interest by providing an attractive location for a single family residential subdivision convenient to schools and employment opportunities, and therefore should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Per the Revised Code of Washington RCW 58.17.140, a final plat meeting all requirements of the preliminary plat shall be submitted to the Pierce County Hearing Examiner for approval within 5 years of the date of preliminary plat approval. No extensions are provided for as stipulated in the RCW. 2. A storm drainage plan must be submitted to the Development Engineering Section as part of the site development plans. The drainage plan must adhere to the Pierce County Stormwater Management and Site Development Manual, Ordinance No. 96-4652. 3. A site stabilization plan must be submitted to the Development Engineering Section as part of the site development plans. 12— 4. The site stabilization plan must include erosion control measures for development of the project up through completion of all structures. 5. Erosion control facilities must be installed, and subsequently, inspected and approved by Pierce County prior to site clearing. All necessary erosion control facilities must be properly maintained during all phases of site development to prevent debris, dust, and mud from accumulating on the County right-of-way and/or adjacent property. 6. All work associated with stabilizing slopes and other disturbed areas shall be in accordance with the Pierce County Stormwater Management and Site Development Manual, Ordinance No. 96-46S2. 7. If cleared, the County right-of-way must be seeded, mulched, and stabilized as required by the County. 8. The intent of the erosion control facilities is to protect downstream property owners from landslides, sediment buildup, and downstream channel scouring. If the intent of the requirement is not met, then all building and construction activity on site shall be discontinued and directed to meeting the intent of the requirement. 9. All private roads within and providing access to this plat must conform to Ordinance 92-120, The Pierce County Private Road and Emergency Vehicle Access Standards. 10. A No Protest R.I.D. Covenant will be required for the private roads, and a Road Maintenance Covenant" or formation of a homeowner's association will be required. 11. Fire flow requirements for one-and-two family dwellings are 750 GPM for 20 psi for 45 minutes, except that 1000 GPM for 20 psi for 60 minutes is required when the total floor area including attached garages is 3600 square feet or more. A hydrant shall be located within 350 feet of the middle of the street frontage of each lot, except that no hydrant is required on a dead-end street not exceeding 600 feet in length when a hydrant is installed at the intersection of the cross street. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 700 feet. Pierce County Code, Section 15.12.083 (D) (Ordinance #95-91). 12. Prior to final plat approval, requirements of Minimum Standards for Fire Flows, Water Mains, and Fire Hydrants, Pierce County Code, Section 15.40.060 Procedure for Compliance shall be met. (Ordinance #95-91) 13. Hydrant flow test results and water system "As Built" plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Office of Fire Prevention & Arson Control Prior to final plat/plan approval. Pierce County Code, Section 15.40.060 (Ordinance #95-91). 14. Prior to approval of the water supply for this development, a Certificate of Water Availability is required as per WAC 246-290 and Pierce County Ordinance 86-116S4. The final plat portion of the Certificate of Water I 13- Availability must be signed by the water purveyor prior to final subdivision approval. 15. Should this project not be served by sanitary sewer, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) will require a review of potential adverse environmental impacts and justification for utilization of on-site sewage treatment and disposal. The TPCHD is in receipt of a plat subdivision review application and will forward the results of its review of that application to the environmental official once the review has been completed.p eted. 16. Proposed land use falls within Pierce County's designated Aquifer Recharge Area. Therefore, the applicant is required to comply with the regulations listed in Chapter 18E.50 of the Pierce County Code. 17. The proponents of this project shall be required to have designed and constructed all public and private sanitary facilities, at their expense, that are necessary to convey wastewater from the subject property to the existing sanitary sewer system and must contact our office regarding, but not limited to, the following items: a. Submittal of sanitary sewer plans and specifications per County standards for review and approval by the Public Works and Utilities Department, including required easements, if applicable. Plan review and inspection fees must be paid in full, at the time of plan submittal. b. Payment in full, of a sanitary sewer connection charge prior to the time building permits are purchased, including execution of all required agreements. 18. The capacity charge, based on 22 single-family residences, must be paid in full prior to sewer service permit (s) issuance. 19. The area facilities and frontage charge must be paid in full prior to approval of the sanitary sewer plans and specifications by the County. 20. It should be noted that additional area charges may be required at the time of permit application based on a ratio of the estimated wastewater flow from the parcel for which the area charge is being calculated, to the total system wastewater flow, as prescribed by Pierce County Sanitary Sewer Utility Administrative Code. 21. The total estimated connection charge will be recalculated at the time the owner decides to purchase it, based on the rates in effect at that time. 22. The remaining capacity in the County's sanitary sewer system will be sold on a first- come, first-served basis. Because the remaining capacity is limited, the County cannot guarantee how long it will be available. 23. The owner must agree and understand not to connect any future buildings, structures or units, constructed or located on the subject property without first applying and obtaining additional capacity rights from the County. 14- 24. Prior to issuance of any permits on the site (including timber harvest or site development), or the initiation of any grading, clearing, filling, or vegetation removal, the project applicant shall complete the requirements necessary to obtain, and shall obtain, the Wetland Approval for the project. 25. The stormwater plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Environmental Biologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of the site development permit or wetland approval. The plans must clearly demonstrate that post- development wetland and buffer hydrology is similar to pre-developed conditions or that alteration of hydrology poses no risk of adverse impact. 26. Utility easements shall be provided on the face of the final plat which are necessary to the provision of water, power, sewer, natural gas and mail delivery to the lots within the subdivision. The affected purveyors should be contacted prior to development of the final plat for their specific easement requirements. 27. In order to meet the "concurrency" requirements for implementation of the standards for Levels of Service, as outlined in Section 19A.100 of the Comprehensive Plan, the standards for roads, sanitary sewer, surface water management, transit and water must be met by the applicant prior to final approval of the development. 28. Prior to final plat approval, a park plan for Tract B shall be submitted for review and approval. The park design shall include those elements shown on the Preliminary Park Plan submitted to the Frederickson Advisory Commission on October 23, 2000. 29. A six-foot high solid board fence shall be installed along the northern and western boundaries of the plat, excluding those areas within the wetland or required wetland buffer of Tract B, prior to final plat approval. Vehicular access through the fence onto 170' Street from Lots 12-15 shall be prohibited. 30. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all streets, utilizing same design standards as required in the Gem West plat to the south. 31. The following note shall be placed on the face of the final plat: Bethel School District No 403 has the right of ingress and egress over and across all private roads and streets within the plat. The District shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever for maintenance of any of the private roads or streets within the plat." 32. A forest practices permit will be required for the harvest of timber associated with this project. 33. The applicant shall construct an attractive, well-built, solid board fence along the west and north property lines. 15— 34. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of traffic improvements in the area as determined by the Pierce County traffic engineer and the environmental official. DECISION: The request for preliminary plat approval of Millstone is hereby granted subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. ORDERED this _2E�day of January, 2001. SfIfPRE—N-�-K. CAUSSEAUX, J Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this MI—day of January, 2001, to the following: APPLICANT: Tucci & Sons, Incorporated Attn: Jeff Morgan 4224 Waller Road E. Tacoma, WA 98443 AGENT: Apex Engineering, PLLC 2601 South 35v' St. Tacoma WA 98409 OTHERS: William Lynn P.O. Box 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401 John Bauder 4610 N. M Mullen Tacoma, WA 98407 Jill Guernsey 955 Tacoma Ave. S. #301 Tacoma, WA 98401 Hyun Um 6312 191h St. W. #C Tacoma, WA 98466 Carl Wade P.O. Box 1231 Puyallup, WA 98371 New Home Trends 18912 N. Creek Parkway #211 Bothell, WA 98011 Laura Roberts 17805 84`h Ave. E. Puyallup, WA 98375 Marilyn Martinez 18519 32nd Ave. Ct. E. Tacoma, WA 98446 Eric Ellison 4112 200`h St. E. Spanaway, WA 98387 William H. Weber 16512 38`h Ave. E. Tacoma, WA 98466-1459 Richard D. Thurston 20514 42"d Ave. E. Spanaway, WA 98387 Marta (Joan) Cross 4418 Military Road E. Tacoma, WA 98446 Connie Nichols 7526 184`h St. E. Puyallup, WA 98375 John Marshall 7204 205`h St. E. Spanaway, WA 98387 16- Dot McNall P.O. Box 1231 Puyallup, WA 98371 Joan Gillette 17018 — 84'Ave. Ct. E. Puyallup, WA 98375 Coralie Ingram 17113 — 84'Ave. Ct. E. Puyallup, WA 98375 Bud Rehberg 3802 232nd St. E. Spanaway, WA 98387 Matt Scott 17112 — 8' Ave. E. Puyallup, WA 98375 Vijay Kulkarni 2401 S. 35t' St. #276 Tacoma, WA 98409 Rory Grindley 2401 S. 35t' St. #276 Tacoma, WA 98409 Lawrence Guan 2401 S. 35t' St. #276 Tacoma, WA 98409 Jimmy and Karla Theiss 16920 — 86'Ave. E. Puyallup, WA 98375 PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND SERVICES PIERCE COUNTY BUILDING DIVISION PIERCE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PIERCE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TACOMA-PIERCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PIERCE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL PIERCE COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 17- CASE NO: PRELIMINARY PLAT: MILLSTONE NOTICE 1. RECONSIDERATION: Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on errors of procedure or errors of misinterpretation of fact may make a written request for review by the Examiner. The request must be filed with the Planning and Department with a reconsideration fee as required by the Department of Planning and Land Services, and filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on_February 5 2001 the Planning Department. This request shall set forth the alleged errors or misinterpretations, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take such further action as he deems proper and may render a revised decision. 2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner may be appealed in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 347, Laws of 1995, Sections 701-719, and Pierce County Ordinance No. 95-112. NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration. �oH Cot, MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 Y =�F DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfairext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III,426 West Cedar Street 1154 PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us May 2,2013 David Overton&Dennis Hanberg Ironhorse Crossing LLC P.O. Box.1477 Tacoma,WA 98401 Re: Ironhorse Crossing Status Parcels 12328-24-00000&12328-21-00000 PLT 2001-00001 Dear Mr.Overton and Mr.Hanberg, On December 4, 2001,the Mason County Board of County Commissioners granted preliminary plat approval for a 154-residental lot subdivision known as Ironhorse Crossing in the Belfair UGA.Per RCW 58.27.14o an applicant has five years from the date of preliminary approval to obtain final approval(since increased to seven years).The Mason County Subdivision Ordinance,section 16.26.o6o allows applicants to seek one-year extensions for cause.In 2oo6,you applied for,and were granted a one-year administrative extension.In 2007, 2oo8, 2oog, and 2010,as required by 16.16.o6o.d,second,third,fourth and fifth one- year extension requests were submitted to the Hearing Examiner,who approved them. Regrettably,an extension request was not submitted in toss and the County now finds that the preliminary plat application for Ironhorse Crossing has expired.The property is now zoned Medium Density Residential and you are welcome to reapply for a new subdivision subject current zoning and land use regulations.. Any party seeking an appeal has 14 days from the date of this notice to submit a written appeal Any appeal should be directed to the Clerk of the Board of Mason County as provided in 15.3.3.2o and 15.11.020 Mason County Development Code. Sin rely, t I i arbara A.Adkins,AICP Director