|
|
||||
|
|
           
|
|||
|
Planning Commission Officers
Left to right: Eatonville Planning Commission Chairman Steve Lind and commissioner/secretary Ron "Grins" Pierce tried to keep up with the continuous flurry of paper piled on them during the September 15 commission meeting and public hearing on the Schaub request for a variance for septic tank and the Brucker plan which was also requested an okay to put in septic tanks so Rowland Litzenberger can buy the property and build homes. The land is near the salmon bearing Ohop Creek. Both requests were granted by the commission, with commissioner Mike Williams and Bobbi Allison voting "Nay" on the Schaub variance. The Brucker proposal passed unanimously. The commission recommended the town council also vote "Yes" on the requests. The council voted "Yes" with Mayor Pro tem Chelan Jarrett the only "nay." Town Planner Mart Kask
Town Planner Mart Kask holds his build- able lands map during the September 15 planning commission meeting. The map in his hand is the subject of a dispute. Critics say the map shows many parcels as developed when they are not. The fewer build-able lots in town the more pressure is put on the town to expand their urban growth area down into the Ohop Valley bed. Critics say this would open the valley up to commercial building that would hurt the town's economy which is already on shaky ground. Build-able Lands Report of September 15 Mr. Kask; What that plan shows is the same thing it shows in color the yellow is the proposed residential area, the orange is the multifamily area, the green is parks and recreation and trails, the blue is the schools, the red is commercial and red with a yellow stripe is a mixed use commercial residential mixed use, the brown is the airport residential zone, the purple is the industrial zone, and the pink is the public utilities, and you will notice that the pink is where our wastewater treatment plant is and also the well field from which our water comes from is in the same color. Now this plan is based on a some population, employment and growth estimate and these again were shown to you last time. What goes into this thing, out population is forecasted to grow in a twenty year period from 2,070 persons, which is the office of financial management estimate. That office is the Governor’s office that prepares budgets and tracks municipal population and county population number and their estimate is that in the year 2002 we had 2,070 persons living in the corporate boundary of Eatonville and that is forecasted to grow to 4,120 persons in the Eatonville urban growth area in a twenty year period. Or employment is estimated to grow from 1,277 existing in the year 2002 to 2,375 employees in a twenty year period, which is based on the department of labor’s past trend projections. So using the population number we come up with the fact that we need 870 additional housing units in order to accommodate the 2022 grown estimates. We also need and additional 18 acres of commercial land to sustain the employment estimates along with an additional 11 acres of industrial land to meet that goal. Then we look at the supply side and we find that we have 330 housing units we can accommodate within the corporate boundaries, and that is shown in this map here, and that was surveyed lot by in the process of Pierce County when they developed the build able land survey. The State Legislature mandated that Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Clark counties report to the them how much growth they can accommodate within their corporate boundaries and that report was prepared by Pierce County and the finding is that in this area, the corporate boundary we can find room for 330 housing units. Since we require 870 we are short a significant number so what we did was we looked at the urban growth boundary and the urban growth boundary that we looked at was the revised urban growth boundary. You will remember our urban growth boundary went out here, included the Triangle Association land we took that out and we also have cut out these parts of the previous urban growth area, so the revised urban growth boundary is now shown in black. Adjustments were made in here where we shrunk it back and it contracted inward and we added a piece right here to the urban growth boundary outside the corporate limits can accommodate 585 housing units which brings us with a total ability to accommodate 915 new housing units total. And again going back to the 870 demand we have the ability if we combined the current corporate boundary and the urban growth boundary outside our area we can take care 915 so we are able to accommodate our 870 housing units. And based on those statistics we have prepared this draft proposal. Now, the changes that are apparent from the previous land use plan as it appears in our current comprehensive plan, this area was commercial and up here was commercial. We have put the commercial down here and went back to a residential use up here and we took out partially commercial and single family residential, and went for a multifamily zoning here. Another change occurs back here this was partially commercial and partially industrial, we have increase the industrial land area here, and this one multifamily and single family development we have made that to be a mixed use and that was initially a commercial and we have changed that the proposal is to go for a mixed use zone in that area. These are the major changes, we also are showing that the rail road right away and the adjoining land that is owned by the Weyerhaeuser, and this pack forest land down here and Weyerhaeuser right of way be designated as urban trails and that is why they are colored green and those are the major changes from the previous land use element as it appears in the adopted comprehensive plan. So the plan is prepared to respond to those kinds of forecasted growth demands and supply numbers and this is what it projects out. Chairman Lind; Mr. Kask would you put your finger on the intersection of Rainier and Center Streets? If you go down there, there is a yellow section on it I believe that we have previously determined that it should be commercial. We were looking at the phone company putting in possibly a new headquarters there and then if you go back to the intersection of Center and Rainier streets and just to the west from Rainier and south from Center, there is the town hall and that has been commercial in the past. I think there maybe several more lots there that maybe commercial. Does the public have any questions or comments? Come forward please and state your name and address. Mr. Welch, Hilligoss Lane; I have a question on your facts sheet. I am curious about the need for 870 housing units, how the increasing of the corporate boundaries is going to affect, how that is going to help anything. Because you already show that the urban growth outside the corporate boundaries will allow for 585 houses so I see that you only need 285 housing units. Not the 870 that you have quoted in there. So what good does it do to extend the corporate boundaries? Chairman Lind; Mr. Kask would you like to address that question. Mart Kask; I did not quite understand the question would you repeat it please? Mr. Welch, Hilligoss Lane; Urban growth area outside the corporate boundaries, 585 housing units, that shows a shortage to me of only 285 housing units in the town. Mr. Kask; What that shows is that there is room outside the corporate boundary but within the urban growth area, to create build able lands that will accommodate 585 housing units. Mr. Welch, Hilligoss Lane; Provided that people want to sell their land to do that. Mart Kask; Yes, that is the assumption. Mr. Welch, Hilligoss Lane; And if people do not want to sell their land to do that, that will cut deeply into your assumptions. Mart Kask; That is correct, yes. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. Welch. Other comments from the public? Come forward and state your name and address please. Charles McTee, 408 Ridge Road, Eatonville; Mr. Kask, did you do the map all by yourself? Mart Kask; Yes. Mr. McTee; The public works did not have anything to do with it, the planning commission did not have anything to do with it? Mart Kask; Some one has to sketch out something to begin with and then people in those areas will add or subtract from it at their will. Mr. McTee; I kind of thought so. You know this business in Ohop Valley they are still determined to make that business go down there one way or the other. And end up with a sort of a strip mall down there and it really should not be done, in fact Ohop Valley really should not be in our urban growth area. I think we have kind of proved that to you at the Pierce County planning meeting. You don’t seem to accept the fact. I don’t believe these county figures for all these people, we don’t have a town that maybe will accept as many as they put on this. They think it is flat like you do and it is not. We have big hills and we have valleys and is not as developable as much as a city like Yelm. The other thing I wanted to say is right now with the water situation the way it is and all these new houses that are being built in town and they are really going to town in developing these lots some of it you don’t even see, it is over the hill you know and with all the water that we are going to need to supply those I don’ think we need to consider making our urban growth boundary area any bigger at this time. maybe for two years. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. McTee. Anyone else who would like to come forward? The first hand that I saw was a lady over here, if you would please come forward and give us you name and address. Steve Lind, Chairman: Mr. Van Eaton I believe you were next; would you come forward and give us you name and address please. Pat Van Eaton, 143 Curtis lane, Eatonville: I would like to point out on this map that all these areas here are vacant land, I can tell you there are big mistakes on this map. Now if Pierce County did it they are wrong, if you did it you are wrong. I went through every lot in this town you can pick up the record from Pierce county. I submitted it in the public testimony there, every lot is listed and you have way more than your needs inside of the town. It just does not make an sense the whole growth management act is to cut down sprawl and all we are doing is sprawling. Chairman Lind: Mr. Van Eaton I am going to respond to something here. If you want something submitted into the record here, you need to bring it forward, it is not for us to go out and get it elsewhere, just a minute, let me finish, and the last time that I called Pierce County and asked for a copy of what you had submitted there they told me it do not exist, so at this point the ball is in your court to bring to the planning commission. Mr. Van Eaton: All I think that I have to do it’s not, I have a day job, this person (pointing to Mr. Kask) is getting paid to do this, it is his job, I am just pointing out that there could be problems. That should be all a citizen has to do. I should not have to go and itemize l just did it as sort of an exercise, used up the paper now we are onto it again what I am suggesting is that there are big errors so you building this thing on a false assumption. And it pretty obvious that there are 50 acres here of Hal Burlingame’s that is not noted as vacant, it is white like the rest of down town. I am just pointing out one, here are some more right in here Mr. Rath’s place and right here. These are not built on. Does anybody dispute that this is empty out here? Chairman Lind; When you get done I am going to ask Mr. Kask to comment. Mr. Van Eaton; Okay, well what I am saying is you really need to take a look at this. I think you have got big mistakes and I think that is really all I need to point out. I think you have big mistakes, I just pointed out a few obvious ones to let you know, he has 50 acres undeveloped. There are other people who have, the other thing is, I think that what they what they want to look at is that you have done something in your zoning to take care of the need , other than just add land outside your corporate boundaries. Now we are done with that subject, the next subject I would like to go to this map. We know we are going to have to drill wells in the Mashell Valley right? We are, they have already said they are going to do it. We don’t have any spot worked out for these public facilities that are going to exist. You've got one here. They are going to drill them right where you have an industrial zoning. I hope that these industries are mighty clean because that is where our water is going to come from. I would say that this may need a little bit of work here, because a well field and industrial match up. The other thing on this boundary, most people would go across like this and some other things ( back ground noise over rode Mr. Van Eaton’s comments here). If we can’t get 900 feet to supply a guy a sewer how are going to go a mile to the Ohop Valle? I want somebody to explain how we are going to get the money to do this. We can’t even go 900 feet. And those people would probably have been glad to [pay] $6,000 a piece to get there. So, I don’t think you can provide the services, otherwise you would not be giving out variances like we did tonight. It proves the case, giving the variances. I don’t have any objections to the variances, it just proves (Tape Change) where do you want me to start? Chairman Lind; From where we said stop to change the tape. Mr. Van Eaton; The answer is that we can not provide the services for 900 feet? How can we get them a mile. I want to know what the plan is to get the money to do this. There is too much vacant land between here and there and nobody is going to build on this slope here. Well you could, but it would be kind of expensive. What I am suggesting is that there needs to be a lot more work done on zoning and other things to use the existing infrastructure that is paid for to get the job done. And it has been done in town, they sold three houses on some lots right here they developed them. That is all I have to say. Can I summarize? You really need to look at your vacant land, build able land, I would say you have some errors here. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. Van Eaton, Mr. Kask I believe that at our last regularly scheduled meeting you brought in a packet of lot by lot analysis etc. Would you like to respond to Mr. Van Eaton’s comments at this point? Mart Kask; What we did inside the town boundary, what land that is available is summarized in the Pierce County build able lands report and that is the map that they printed out showing what land is available. Now, the reason that you see a lot of white areas on the map is white is the developed land and the developed land also shows where platted lots have been approved. So, that is what this shows. The white areas also includes areas that are in steep slopes, that are difficult to build upon and wetlands and so forth. So, this not only shows the vacant properties, but also where land is not available for development. Now outside the corporate boundary, I did a lot by lot analysis and determined the characteristics of that particular lot and made a determination potentially if the area were to be developed how many lots you can put on this piece of land subtracting out wetland, steep slopes and other critical areas being the buffer zones for wetlands and the shoreline setbacks, and so forth and came up with this number of 585 housing units that can be accommodated in the urban growth area that is outside the corporate boundary. That is a result of a lot by lot analysis and that is where that number comes from. The 330 housing unit number comes from the Pierce County build able lands report. As Mr. Van Eaton [said] there might be some errors on it and I will take a look at it to see if that is the case and we will make the corrections of those. Conversations from October 10 Planning Commission Meeting - Build-able Lands Disagreement Continued Mart Kask: Mr. Chairman we received one additional piece of information on the land use element in addition to the previous testimony at the public hearing. I have responded to that letter, it came from Mr. Pat Van Eaton, I have prepared a memo to the planning commission, and with you permission would like to briefly go over it. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. Kask if you would proceed that will be fine. Mart Kask: Mr. Van Eaton’s letter is on page three the third page I the process and he presents information on vacant residential and other lots in the community and the subject is build-able lands. He does not draw any conclusions on the data that he provides, nor does he make any recommendations, but based on his past testimony it appears to me that Mr. Van Eaton is stating and providing the information to show that there an adequate number of lots within the corporate boundaries of the town to accommodate the twenty year projected growth. I have looked at his numbers and my first finding is that parcel number 41610400 there is no record for such a parcel in the pierce county assessors/treasurers record and that information is a print out exhibit a. Number 2, the next parcel number 41610404 I ran that through the computer and it also prints out that no such parcel exists in the assessor’s records. Then I went to the third item on Mr. Van Eaton’s letter and that is parcel number 4161113034 and the same answer again from the assessor/treasurer’s that no such parcel exists. Then I took a random parcel and the random parcel came up with the same response, then I went to his data that he provided on the top of page 3, parcel number 3537000400 and indeed the assessor/treasurer’s records did say that such a parcel exists, it is listed in the print out and then my last page of my memo where that parcel exists, it exists at the end of Iron Street south of center street and the parcel size is listed as 1.8 acres or 76.000 some square feet. The parcel is plotted on the map as it appears in the last page of my memorandum. If we look at that parcel we find that about 50% of that land area of that particular parcel is covered by wet lands and the wet lands foot print comes from the Pierce County Wetland delineation map and also it is shown on this map here which is the surface water management plan for the town of Eatonville and the parcel is shown here it is kind of hard to see, but if you examine closely it is also plotted on this map by R. W. Beck the consulting firm that prepared the surface water management plan, so existence of the wet land on that parcel is both noted on these two records. So, 50% of that parcel is taken up by wetlands. That leaves about 50% of the land area for development. Also we should note that when you deal with build-able lands you have to subtract out land that is going to be consumed by utility easements and also by building streets and roads. The county, Pierce County, assigns a 25% take down for those needs. Further Pierce County in their manual dealing with the build-able lands analysis has another take down and that is the assumption is that 25% of land or lots are never going to be developed. They will be held out of development, so if we take out these two other subtractions from that particular parcel after taking out the wet lands and the road/utilities needs we really conclude that instead of 7 housing units as Mr. Van Eaton would suggest for that area, it will really only accommodate 2 housing units on that parcel. Now, I base my findings and conclusions on a number of things, one is that Pierce County has issued a build-able lands procedures for collecting and monitoring data and it is dated April 10th 1999 and this is the guidelines that all municipalities used in their drafting of build-able lands reports. I did that for Eatonville, and I followed the guidelines that were presented here, and I presented them to Pierce County and Pierce County included that in the report which is Pierce County Build-able Lands Report and it has a section on Eatonville. and my research into the build-able lands was adopted by Pierce County and was incorporated in total in this report and it has been approved by the State Department of Community Development. So my information is documented as having not only following the prescribed and adopted procedure but it also has been, the results and findings, have been adopted both the Pierce County and the State of Washington and therefore I find that Mr. Van Eaton’s presentation of his material is incomplete and can not be reconciled with the records of the assessor/treasurer and those and that particular lot that did appear in the records of the assessor/treasurer. Mr. Van Eaton did not follow the guidelines for Pierce County build-able lands guidelines and failed to subtract out areas out for wet lands, utilities and roads and also failed to subtract that land that is commonly referred as a market factor, land that will never be developed. Therefore, I find that that his findings information is incomplete and if he wishes to modify it I have no problem taking another look at it at some future date but as it is presented now it is not acceptable in terms of its completeness and its accuracy. Chairman Lind; I will note here that we are not closing the public hearing on this it will remain open we have a few minutes, I think I will allow more minutes on this if I do not have objections on this. Mr. Beach has a quick comment on this. Commissioner Beach; Yea, I well I have a question. Mr. Kask you have five parcels that you made specific reference to are these the only five parcels that you examined or did you examine the rest of them? Mart Kask; No, I did not examine all of them, I took the first three and they came up no record on the assessors website, then I took one random and then I took the top one on page 3 and that was considered random, so based on the random check it appears that there is a consistent lack of substantiation. Commissioner Beach; So, we might find more of these missing parcels? Mart Kask; You will probably find a number of them to be accurate and a number of them not to be accurate but since Mr. Van Eaton in his cover letter made a point the information has to be accurate and calls my numbers into question, I think the same standards should be applied to his information. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. Kask. Mr. Van Eaton would you care to come back on this. *Pat Van Eaton, 143 Curtis Lane, Eatonville; I could comment on it. I am sorry, but when I typed them in on my Excel program the zero does not show on the front, so each one of those came up without a zero on the front and I will bring you the map with the assessor’s number on it and each one of those will have a parcel number. Chairman Lind; And when will you have that to us so we Mr. Van Eaton; Well all he has to do is add a zero but I will take four parcels run them through the computer and I will find a parcel numbers and the lot will be there. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. Van Eaton. Mr. Van Eaton; But all he has to do if he will please add a zero to the front of all the parcel numbers. If you want to know which ones those are I will show you. Mart Kask; Thank you I know now, if I had known when I reviewed them it would Mr. Van Eaton; Yea, and if I had been aware of that I needed to do a cell format I would have made it so it would hold a zero, but I did not want to bother with it I just typed it in NOT knowing some one would try that. Chairman Lind; Computers are quite stupid sometimes aren’t they? Mr. Van Eaton; They don’t do any more than the operator. I hope that clarifies it and I will stand on my data, a lot of these lots, I will say a little bit more about this, the roads are all ready in the public services are all ready in that is not factored in, all that has already been built, so a lot of these lots that are around town the roads are in. Chairman Lind; Thank you Mr. Van Eaton. *Adding a zero to the beginning parcel numbers does, indeed, bring up the land information on the Pierce County Assessor's site. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
We Care!