|
|
||||
|
|
           
|
|||
|
Rath Final Plat
Denied...Numerous Memo
To: Mayor Parnell, Mayor Pro tem Harper, Town Council, Town Clerk From:
Greg Wilder Date:
January 12, 2004 Re:
Hamner Springs (Rath Addition) Final Plat Attached you will find a copy of a
letter recently posted to Mr. Douglas Randles and Bruce Rath regarding
the referenced final plat process and project. As it is, most of the
legislative and process requirements to complete the final plat have been
concluded or appropriate and allowable arrangements have been made
accordingly. However, many of the determinations
established by the Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS)
have not been met and the town has not yet reached agreement as necessary.
The unmet MDNS conditions include item *#2,
4, and 5… a copy of these requirements is attached to this memo. Town
staff, the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment and/or the Town
Council cannot waive, reduce or otherwise adjust these requirements without
a necessary public hearing by the Planning Commission and/or the Board of
Adjustment and Town Council. To
that end, we still are pursuing and persisting in a request that these
conditions be met before a final plat is moved forward for your review and
adoption. The developer must dedicate property
and build a reservoir (or alternatively contribute and work with the
town for the construction of a new reservoir), must dedicate offsite
easements for sanitary and other public utilities as appropriate and
necessary, must conduct a traffic analysis to determine the impacts and
affects on transportation concurrency requirements (a copy of our
concurrency ordinance is also attached to this memo), must provide for any
transportation concurrency mitigation as may be identified by a
traffic/transportation analysis, and must comply (without substantial
deviation) with any and all other requirements established by the MDNS
process. Recent snow and rainfall have also
led us to the identification of significant and substantial wastewater
collection and conveyance system problems within the project.
Some of these problems may hold up the approval of the final plat,
recent snow and rain fall have resulted in excessive inflow and infiltration
evidence in your newly constructed project. We have identified a number of
manholes that were either un-grouted or improperly grouted with excessive
leaks and we believe that there ate pipe joints and other infiltration
points throughout the system as well. The town took the opportunity to
perform television inspection of the sanitary and stormwater systems and
likewise discovered a number of construction false/flaws. In fact there were
significant links of pipe with resting water far in excess of that allowed
by typical and customary standard. The effective capacity of the system, in
some cases, has been so significantly reduced that the only resolution is to
remove and replace the offending pipe segments. The remedial work required,
had the plat been finalized, would be accomplished under the surety
established by your posted maintenance bond. However, since the plat is not
yet final, we are making the demand/request that the applicable and required
repairs be made at the first available opportunity. All repairs necessary in
that part of the system for which final plat approval is requested (without
delayed construction approval) must be accomplished before the plat final
process can be completed. These flaws, particularly in the sanitary sewer
system, must be corrected before a final plat can be processed or a
corrective plan / program by the town must be established and acknowledged.
The town elected to perform a television inspection of the system in
order to help the contractor and Town determine the locations of the inflow
and infiltration sources. The additional discovery was a significant amount
of pipe “sag” within the system which is unacceptably out of
specifications. The “sags” in the pipe restrict normal flow, accumulate
solids and cause future maintenance and capacity problems.
The Town’s engineer will be reviewing these television records and
making a recommendation accordingly. The professional process of preparing
the subdivision submittals, and then subsequently complying with the
findings of fact and recommendations (including the MDNS, associated
construction requirements and standards) are the responsibility of the
developer. It is the developer’s responsibility to know and understand
the code under which he operates and must comply. It is the developer’s
responsibility to construct the system in accordance with the plans and
specifications approved and/or provided by the town. It is the developer’s
responsibility to insure these things prior to the submission of a final
plat request. Town staff cannot by suggestion, by innuendo, by statement and
even by letter, waive the requirements established by the Planning
Commission, Board of Adjustment and Town Council…. We can only recommend
and some matters may also require new hearings to change or waive. It has been suggested by Council
member Rath, that one of the Town’s prior **public
works directors waived the concurrency
transportation requirement and indicated that the performance of the
analysis and any future mitigation would not be required. The public works
director does not have that authority, even if such comments were spoken
during a public hearing. The MDNS sets forth the requirements along with
your code and State statute. The Hamner Springs (Rath) projects will add as
many as 980 vehicles per day to the Eatonville Highway and that additional
traffic load may likely have an impact on certain segments of the
street/road system. These
impacts may violate the level of service (LOS) standard established by the
town. If the transportation / concurrency analysis indicates offsite
mitigation, the developer will be required to provide that either directly
or through an agreement. As well, Council member Rath has
indicated that he was only required to construct a reservoir to provide for
the “fire flow protection” on all lots above 900 feet elevation.
The MDNS does not address this matter in this way. It simply states
that the developer must build a reservoir of sufficient capacity to meet the
needs of all developed properties above 900 feet and provide clear title to
a reservoir site as well. It does not matter whether the town designs and
builds a reservoir or a developer designs and builds a reservoir. The
Washington State Department of Health standards and requirements must be met
in either case and the Town’s ability to maintain and operate that system
in the future must be preserved by a design that’s compatible and
compliant with the town’s system. Town staff and it’s consultants have
been working with the developer, the Department of Health, and others to
design and build a reservoir that would service both the needs of this
project, mitigate for existing town deficiencies, and provide expansion
capability for future growth. We have estimated that the cost for the Hamner
Springs project for participation in this facility is about $
180,000.00….the price of an average single family residence. The town’s
total cost to build this reservoir is estimated at $1.35 million.
Council member Rath has indicated, after considerable discussion and
conversation with the Town’s engineer, that he does not feel that level of
participation is in compliance with his belief and the intent of the town.
He has indicated that the Town’s planner Mr. Mart Kask, indicated a
different capacity and different financial participation requirement. If the
Town’s Planner did establish a different amount, and did agree to that
amount, we have not yet seen the analysis or report that would typically be
prepared and required. Typically such analysis and report must, to comply
with Washington State Department of Health rules and requirements, be
certifiably stamped by a licensed and professional engineer.
We can find no such report indicating the size requirement for either
the reservoir or the fiscal participation calculation. This project serves as another
example of misunderstandings, misdirection, misinterpretations and apparent
lack of defined and understood process. It is regrettable that the owner and
developer may be faced with significant and substantial delays. Statutory
and code processes do not provide the kind of flexibility that some staff
members pretend or exercise. They do not provide the flexibility that some
council members, planning commission members, and others would like. The
good and better of the Town as a whole, are protected and provided for by
the codes, ordinances, rules, statutes, construction standards and other
provisions and are provided for and guide and implementation of town policy. The Town is soon to be processing two
additional final plat requests and it is my hope that they will be less
wrapped in oversights, problems and compliance issues as has been this one. As always, I look forward to your
concerns and questions, your thoughts and suggestions and through the
Mayor, your direction. Thank you. *Please see MDNS **Publisher's
Note: The public works director mentioned was Russ Blount.
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
We Care! |
