Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 Okanogan County OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT th Ave. N. Suite Okanogan, WA (509) FAX: (509) TTY/Voice Use planning@co.okanogan.wa.us Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A meeting of the Okanogan County Regional Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 26, 2010 at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Commissioners Hearing Room 123 5th Ave N. Okanogan, WA. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS present included: Chair Albert Roberts, Commission Member Mark Miller, Commission Member Phil Dart, Commission Member Jerry Forney, Commission Member Marlene Rawley, and Commission Member Dave Schulz. OKANOGAN COUNTY STAFF MEMBERS present included: Director of Planning Perry Huston, Senior Planner Ben Rough, Natural Resource Senior Planner II Angela Hubbard, and Administrative Secretary Sharon McKenzie. APPLICANTS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES present included: Bill Percich, Bill Tackman, Brian Baker, and Larry Zimmerland. OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Monica Van Appel-Percich, Phil Heitman, John Sunderland, Don Waller, Tamara Porter, Stan Porter, Jim Soriano, Art Groesh, John Hayes, and Clynda Case. Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Approval of the Agenda Commission Member Dart moved to approve the July 26, 2010 agenda as published. Commission Member Schulz seconded the motion. Motion passed. Approval of July 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes Commission Member Rawley moved to approve the July 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Commission Member Dart seconded the motion. Motion passed. Public Hearing Item #1 Village at Mazama LP Chair Roberts asked Senior Planner Ben Rough to come forward and summarize the Village at Mazama LP Senior Planner Rough requested the Staff Report, additional comments, and the Affidavit of Public Notice be placed into the record. Senior Planner Rough explained Bill Pericich on behalf of Mazama Properties, LLC submitted an application for 12 lots on 6.89 acres in the Mazama Community. He explained 6 of the lots will be for commercial purposes and 6 for residential purposes. The project would have an internal road system, on-site parking, and either Group A or B water system. The project is located on the southwest corner of Goat Creek Road 1

2 and Lost River Road. Senior Planner Rough explained the Comprehensive Plan zoning designation and stated the proposed project meets the minimum requirements. Senior Planner Rough requested the Planning Commission address three items in response to the comments received. Okanogan Fire District 6 expressed concerns with the fire flow and access requirements. The project should meet the international requirements. Senior Planner Rough said if the Planning Commission wishes to add the requirement, he included suggested wording the Planning Commission may wish to consider for a Condition of Approval. Concern on the Internal Access roads. It has been noted that one access road can be used only by one lot within the development. He brought the issue up to the Department of Public Works and they said if they had known about this access road, they would have required a second access. He recommended that this requirement be integrated into the Conditions of Approval and included suggested wording for this condition. Concern on the ownership of the Common area. The proposed project is Lot 1 of the Mazama Bridge short plat. There was some confusion about the ownership of the common area. Senior Planner Rough explained the Planning Department does not get into covenant questions regarding ownership of the common areas. The issues are usually dealt with amongst the private landowners. He recommended if there is a concern of the Planning Commission, the short plat would have to be altered and conveyance documents drawn up accordingly. He said he does not feel the County should be involved. Senior Planner Rough answered questions regarding the pre-application meeting with the Mazama Advisory Group. He explained a pre-application meeting with the Mazama Advisory Committee is required in some situations, particularly prior to construction activities. Planning Commission Member Rawley raised the question of establishing a more formal procedure to the pre-application meeting with the Mazama Advisory Committee. She felt a meeting should take place and the results be issued in writing. She said the developer deserves to know right up front what they need to do and when the developer needs to respond to the recommendations. She does not like a come back policy and would like to see a more formal policy. Senior Planner Rough agreed there needs to be a formal process. He explained the typical procedure is the applicant puts in an application with the County and the Mazama Advisory Group is notified. A meeting is set up with the Planning Department facilitating the meeting. Senior Planner Rough clarified which map should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Regarding the access road and whether it goes into the adjacent property, Senior Planner Rough recommended the question be addressed by the Proponent. He explained the access road was access to Lot R2 and Lot R3. He reviewed the question by Public Works regarding the width of the road and whether it should be bigger. Chair Roberts made the suggestion to bring the access road through the property instead of using the hammerhead for emergency vehicles. 2

3 Senior Planner Rough suggested that the roads would probably change before the final plat approval. Senior Planner Rough stated the Department of Health has not decided on whether there would be a Group A or B system. He explained there will be a community septic system for the commercial lots. An existing septic system is available for the residential lots to connect to or they may have their own individual system. Addressing the question of infrastructure for fire, Senior Planner Rough stated there was nothing proposed. Chair Roberts requested the Proponent come forward to address the project. Bill Percich residing in Friday Harbor, Washington addressed the septic questions explaining Lot 2 and Lot 4 will hook up to the existing system. The existing system is for a twenty bedroom system. Mr. Percich explained the road coming in can only service one lot. This requirement is in the amended covenants for the Mazama Bridge Short Plat. He reviewed the road configuration with the Planning Commission Members. He addressed the question of the road being only twenty feet wide. He said the snow removed from the internal roads would be placed on the open space. Senior Planner Rough stated that in the SEPA review, snow removal and snow storage had to be identified. He noted there would be a traffic study required which would include the issue of snow removal and storage. Addressing the question of fire mitigation, Mr. Percich noted the large hammerhead turn around. He deferred the question of water requirement to his engineer. Senior Planner reminded the Planning Commission Members the internal roads would have to meet County road specifications. The specifications would meet some of the concerns of the fire mitigation. Addressing the concern of the Mazama Advisory Committee and the density, Mr. Percich explained the commercial use would be for professional services and offices and not for other high volume uses. Mr. Percich said they looked at putting in an additional road, but they saw too many problems. He said that is the reason they will be doing a traffic study. Mr. Percich said the engineer for the water system and the surveyors were in the audience to answer any questions. Chair Roberts opened the meeting to public testimony. John Sunderlund residing in Mazama presented written comments to the Planning Commission. He explained he is on the Mazama Advisory Committee. He said he agreed with Planning 3

4 Commission Member Rawley that there needed to be more structure in the process of preapplication meetings with the developers. He said there is confusion at this time because the Mazama Advisory Committee is in the process of the revising the Mazama Core. He noted that Mr. Percich has been to several of these Mazama Core meetings. He said some confusion has probably occurred due to the attendance to the meetings and carrying information from the Mazama Core meetings over to the proposed development. He outlined the comments: Missing in the file is the contour map as required by code. In this case, this missing piece would provide valuable information. Water will be an issue. Water adequacy must be shown at the time of preliminary approval. This is missing for the application Fire safety and protection is an important issue. There is no egress for the fire trucks. He suggests a condition for a secondary access road. Agreement with Okanogan Fire District 6 that water should accommodate fire flow. A storm water discharge permit should be required. Transportation and circulation is a concern. Pedestrian circulation is a concern. Sidewalk/trail should be a condition of approval. Landscaping plan is not part of the code but should be included in the project with shade trees. The project should maintain the feel of the existing businesses. Proponent should be encouraged to submit covenants. He would like to see this project consistent with the new master plan for the area. He understands that there is a difference between a really good plan and one that just meets requirements. He hopes the Planning Commission would require this project to go beyond one that just meets the requirements of the code. Art Groesh residing in New York and adjacent property owner said in developing his project, he consulted with the community for several years. He consulted with the Mazama Advisory Committee and his neighbors which guided him to what he would develop. He included CC&Rs in his project which address concerns on lighting, building standards, material uses, and landscaping. He created open space. He said he was not here to suggest there should not be development but there should be a look at the long term impact for the community. John Hayes residing in Mazama and land use planner with the Technical Assistance Group said although the Technical Assistance Group had nothing to do with the project, he advised Mr. Percich and tried to guide him. Mr. Hayes believes the CC&Rs will create the way to manage the project. He said without the CC&Rs, you cannot control the activities on the property. He gave water as an example. He discussed the proposed stacking of the water by Mr. Perchich which Mr. Hayes has found the Department of Ecology (DOE) has never allowed. He said a landscaping plan must be submitted for approval. Mr. Hayes said there was way too much development for the size of the property. He said there should be a business plan with the analogue meters for water usage and if the project does not have this, DOE will cause the developer problems. 4

5 He said he has worked with the Mazama Advisory Committee on many projects as demanded by the Planning Department. He feels this project needs to downscale. The developer should look into soil loading and on site systems. He said if the developer does not, DOE will come and hit them in the face. Don Waller Fire Chief for Okanogan Fire District 6 called the Planning Commission Members attention to the comments of the Fire District. He said, the public has a right to be protected. He noted the following: If the buildings are constructed from lot line to lot line, the Fire District cannot protect the structures. The roads with the hammerhead are not acceptable for the Fire District trucks. The code recommends more than one way in and out of the development. This is for the safety of the fire fighters and the public. There must be the proper radius for the trucks to turn. There is not a water fill site in the Mazama area. The river is not accessible. He expressed concerns with the ability to do proper hose lays. There needs to be a flow of a minimum of 250 gallons a minute. He noted the fire station is a quarter mile away. Fire Chief Waller addressed questions from the Planning Commission Members regarding access, fire flow, and the size of the fire lane width and radius. He said the recommendations which the Fire District made are the minimum requirements they could use. The discussion was: Either make the hammerhead bigger or provide another access. Regarding the complications of snow. Concerns of wildland fire coming to the area. Brian Baker of Tackman Surveying services came forward to clarify the measurements on the fire access/turnarounds on the proposed site. He said the initial hammerhead is approximately 65 and 100 on the other leg. At the request of the Mazama Advisory Committee, there is now a new design of 95 feet in length and 100 in width and 100 in depth. He explained the twenty foot access is for a residential lot. This access goes to the western boundary due to the septic system that is already there. He said there was no way to do another access due to the septic requirements, and there is an agreement with the adjacent landowners not to put in anymore accesses. Also, there is a requirement that you cannot be closer than 250 to 300 from an intersection. He stated there cannot be any other access onto Lost River Road due to the covenants. Director Huston expressed concern about the public record and suggested compartmentalizing the proceedings. He suggested doing the testimony, then coming back to the proponent and then go 5

6 into deliberation. He suggested the proponent come with any other persons who will help explain the project and then proceed to public testimony. Chair Roberts asked if anyone else would care to make public testimony. John Sunderland residing in Mazama came forward to express thoughts on the comments by Brian Baker. He said redesigning the project could address the additional access but that is up to the Proponent. Chair Roberts asked if there was anyone else who wished to make public testimony. There being no one, Chair Roberts closed public testimony and called the Proponent s water engineer forward to address water issues. Larry Zimmerland of Twisp said he prepared a Group B water system at the request for the Public Health District. He acknowledged there was no consideration for water for fire suppression. He stated the water system would not support a hydrant system. On the water system, he said the connections would be metered so as to verify they are not exceeding 5,000 gallons per day. He noted the average usage in Winthrop is 170 gallons per day per residential connection. Some residences require more. This does not include water for landscaping. Chair Roberts asked if the Proponent had anything further to say. Bill Percich came forward stating the plat was turned over to the Mazama Advisory Committee and over time, he asked for their suggestions. He said he worked with the Committee three times. He agrees there should be a time line. He said the project will be setting up an architectural control committee. The minimum lot size by County is 5,000 square feet. The lots will be over 15,000 square feet. There can only be a 45% lot coverage so they cannot build lot to lot. He noted the adjacent property is residential and there would not be any further commercial development. Mr. Percich was encouraged by the Planning Commission Members to try to deal with the additional access road or address providing water storage for fire suppression. Mr. Percich said he would look into it but would need to see if it is legal to do. Addressing the question if there is a legal requirement to consider fire protection, Director Huston said there is no black and white requirement. He said there are various ways to craft the requirements but right now there are case by case alternatives. Director Huston said to think about the things the Planning Commission would like to address and either ask for a continuance or address the concerns through the Conditions of Approval. Addressing the question of water and power easements on the plan, Senior Planner Rough acknowledged the easements would be in place at the time of final approval. The Planning Commission Members were concerned about the maps. Director Huston clarified the map presented by the Proponents surveyor is the map of record. 6

7 Brian Baker surveyor for the proponent stated that the map presented tonight was slightly different than the map presented by Mr. Percich in his application. Senior Planner Rough reviewed additional drafted Conditions of Approval that were suggested to be added: Fire flow requirements. Fire access road requirements. Modified Condition #18 requiring a second point of access by Public Works. Modified Condition # 13 requiring any modification to the common areas to the Short Plat is done through a Short Plat Alteration. Senior Planner Rough stated the second point of access will be dependent on the required traffic study. The Planning Commission Members asked how long the traffic study would take. Senior Planner Rough said it could take two months. Senior Planner Rough noted to the Planning Commission Members that the SEPA determination addressed the landscape buffers and because it was approved and past the appeal period, this cannot be changed. Planning Commission Member Rawley moved to recommend approval of the Village at Mazama LP to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the Conditions of Approval. Commission Member Forney seconded the motion. Motion passed. Public Hearing Item #3 Deliberations on the Okanogan County Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance Continuance Natural Resource Planner II Angela Hubbard came forward and explained she provided the spread sheet showing the changes to the designations and the recommended changes to the Use Chart. She requested that the Commission Members be sure all the changes they requested were noted. She noted she separated piers and docks on the Use Chart. She said she would verify the definition of piers. Natural Resource Planner II Hubbard stated she would have the revised draft of the Shoreline Master Program ready for the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled hearing. It was requested the cities use the same color legend as the County. Director Huston stated he has a plan for the final form. She asked if there were any lakes the Planning Commission wished to look at. Planning Commission Member Dart expressed concern about so much public land being designated Conservancy. He noted there are cabins, resorts, camps, etc. in Conservancy designated areas. It was noted some of this land is already being used as recreational. It was requested the portions of Lake Bonaparte including the resort, boy scout camp, cabins, and parks be changed to 7

8 Shoreline Recreational. The Planning Commission Members identified the areas to be changed. The rest was left in Conservancy or Riverine/Lacustrine. Natural Resource Planner II Hubbard expressed concern with the change in the shoreline setback, but it was pointed out the U S Forest Service would not be doing any further development on the lake. Director Huston expressed concern with changing the designation as it may be problematic if the designation allows for expansion but none will occur. He cautioned the Planning Commission to take a close look at what they truly have in mind. It was noted that the State would like to expand the State park and boat launch on Lake Bonaparte. The Conversancy designation would not allow this. Also there is the concern if there is a Conservancy designation, the private leases may be in jeopardy. If the land is changed to Shoreline Recreational, the leases would be better protected. The Planning Commission requested a review of Duck Lake and the designations. Natural Resource Planner II Hubbard showed designations of Duck Lake as Rural Resource and Shoreline Recreational. She reviewed the frontage/set back recommendations with the Planning Commission Members. There was discussion amongst the Commission Members in the value of having a 200 frontage requirement. Director Huston discussed with the Planning Commission Members the importance of keeping functionality in mind. He said there could be mitigation for less shoreline frontage by increasing the setbacks thus helping protect the functionality. Director Huston reviewed the changes which would now allow subdivision in the shoreline environment. This ability is allowed through the frontages, but cautioned to keep in mind no net loss. Director Huston reviewed the zoning designations which are currently being reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan revision. After further discussion, the Planning Commission requested no changes to Duck Lake. The Planning Commission Members reviewed Palmer Lake. The Planning Commission Members requested the boat launches owned by the State/Federal be changed to Shoreline Recreational as it was changed on Lake Bonaparte. Director Huston clarified the agenda for the next meeting. He suggested an additional meeting before the regularly scheduled meeting for August 23, 2010 where the Planning Commission would be reviewing the Shoreline Master Program revision. It was suggested that at the next meeting, when reviewing any other lakes, the designations be consistent with the decisions made on Lake Bonaparte and Palmer Lake. The lakes open to further discussion are Rat Lake, Conconully Reservoir, Spectacle Lake, Perragin Lake, Alta Lake and Lake Pateros. Director Huston reminded the Planning Commission to keep in mind functionality and no net loss. Commission Member Forney made the motion to continue deliberations on the Shoreline Master Program and the Critical Areas Ordinance at a special meeting scheduled on August 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm. Planning Commission Member Dart seconded the motion. Motion passed. 8

9 Old Business: Chair Roberts asked if there was any old business. There was none. New business: Chair Roberts asked if there was any new business. There was none. Commission Member Rawley made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Commission Member Forney seconded the motion. Motion passed. Chair Roberts adjourned the meeting at p.m. Summary of Motions Commission Member Dart moved to approve the July 26, 2010 agenda as published. Commission Member Schulz seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commission Member Rawley moved to approve the July 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Commission Member Dart seconded the motion. Motion passed. Planning Commission Member Rawley moved to recommend approval of the Village at Mazama LP to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the Conditions of Approval. Commission Member Forney seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commission Member Forney made the motion to continue deliberations on the Shoreline Master Program and the Critical Areas Ordinance at a special meeting scheduled on August 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm. Planning Commission Member Dart seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commission Member Rawley made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Commission Member Forney seconded the motion. Motion passed. Prepared by Sharon McKenzie Administrative Secretary 9