Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog041 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P,O, Box 2070 1322 Washington Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 Frank Gifford, Public Works Director Monte Reinders, P.E., County Engineer TO: Stacie Hoskins, Associate Planner ~ James W. Pearson, Project Manage(-J V-" June 28, 2005 rove (G IE n W IE ~ Iru JUH t 9 mi lJd) MEMORANDUM FROM: JEFFERSON COUNTY OEPl OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: RE: Discovery Bay Golf Course Planned Rural Residential Development Application, checklist The Public Works Department has reviewed the environmental checklist, application narrative, stormwater site plan template, and the set of plans dated April 28. 2005 that were submitted for the proposal. Considering the deficiencies identified in the following comments, the Department recommends that a threshold determination and preliminary plat approval recommendation should not be made until the comments are addressed. Environmental Checklist / Application Narrative . The existing access to the golf course from Cape George Road is over Harrison Street, a County Road in Tukey's Addition. There are also platted public rights-of way for Calhoun and Mamie Streets and alleys. The proposal would move the access approximately 175 feet northerly. Department Comment: Harrison Street and the other rights-of-way must be vacated for the PRRD. The proponent must apply to the Public Works Department for a vacation. A public hearing before the Hearings Examiner is required. This should be consolidated with the preliminary plat hearing. Road approach permits are also required for the 3 access points. These items should be added to the list of required approvals. · The project description (Page 4) states that there will be 8,000+ lineal feet of public trails. Section 10 Recreation (Page 12) states that the trail will be for residents as well as the public. Narrative Item 7.4.4.d.4 states that "These trails will be for our future residents and neighbors use." Department Comment: The proponent should clarify whether the trails are intended for the use of the general public. If they are, there needs to be a plat dedication or public easement that defines this use and grants it in perpetuity. This issue was also addressed in the Department's comments regarding the traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposal. The Department cannot make a recommendation on the 1 00% Recycled Paper LOG ITEM Pf':::;~ , t;~;;Y";J:--f--- of~ SEP A threshold determination regarding transportation impacts until this issue is resolved. . E.C. Section 3 Water (Page 7) discusses chemical use and developing a revised golf course management plan (GCMP). Department Comment: The proposal site has a stream and wetlands and is a critical aquifer recharge area. Chemical use is an important surface water and groundwater quality issue. Considering the level of expertise required to review the golf course management plan, the Department will recommend a SEP A mitigation requiring a , third party review the GCMP. Road Plan Review Comments Unified Development Code Section 6.8 Roads l.a requires that roads providing access to or within subdivisions shall be constructed to the standards of the Public Works Department. The Department has adopted the standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highwavs and Streets. The Department has reviewed the road plan and profile drawings that were submittedfor the proposal. The Department has the following comments: Overall: . The quality of the drawings provided with the application is very poor. They lack critical information, are illegible in some areas, and not readily analyzed. The drawing schedule on the second sheet has numerous errors. Issues related to specific drawings are discussed below. Department Comment: The drawings submitted with the application are not adequate. The Department notes below a significant number of deficiencies that should be corrected. It should not be assumed that this is an exhaustive list. The plans should be revised by the proponent and resubmitted for review and comment prior to the issuance of a threshold determination and a preliminary plat recommendation. Road plans and profiles The road plan and profile drawings: . Do not show essential information including centerline stationing, tangent bearings and distances, and stations for intersections and points of curvature and tangency. . Include a large amount of information (some of which is not necessary for road plan approval such as water and sewer lines, cut and fill slope catch points) that make them extremely difficult to read. . Do not include road plans for Bonnie Lane, the Lily Pond cluster. . Do not include a legend. . Do not have adequate differentiation between line types and weights to distinguish what different lines represent. . Should clearly identify existing and proposed grades on road profiles. . Should identify the locations of the three proposed access points on to South Discovery and Cape George Road and give the sight distances for these locations. . Should depict match lines. . Do not identify which road is portrayed on each sheet. . Do not identify where the four typical sections shown on Sheet C-II are used. . Include two oblong, one-way cul-de-sacs without dimensions for lane widths and curve radii. LOG ITEM # 'L1 Page Z- ot~__ . Do not identify the locations and dimensions of drainage structures, including catch basins, storm drains, and cross culverts. . Show storm drain (SD) and sewer (S) lines that appear to discharge offsite (Sheets C2 and C6) or simply end (Sheet C5). Department comment: The road plan and profile drawings should be revised and resubmitted for review by the Department. They should also be reviewed by the Jefferson County Fire Marshall to determine whether the one-way cul-de-sacs and emergency provide adequate fire and emergency vehicle access. Stormwater Site Plan The Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) adopts the standards of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manualfor Western Washington (SWM Manual). Unified Development Code Section 6.7 Stormwater Management Standards requires the proponent to submit a Stormwater Site Plan for the proposal that addresses Minimum Requirements # 1-# 1 0 from the Manual. Stormwater Site Plan Preparation is discussed under Minimum Requirement #1 (Volume I, Chapter 2, Page 2-15). The Department has reviewed a Stormwater Site Plan template provided by the Department of Community Development that was submitted by the proponent. The Department has the following comments: . The Stormwater Site Plan template does not provide a complete narrative that discusses all of the Minimum Requirements. . The information provided in the template does not address the following Minimum Requirements (MR) from the SWM Manual (Volume I, Chapter 2): . MR #3 Source Control of Pollutants . MR #4 Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems . MR #5 On-site Stormwater Management . MR #8 Wetlands Protection. and . MR #9 Basin/W atershed Planning. . MR #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (CSWPP): The template sections addressing CSWPP Elements 1-9 refer to Drawings C.1 and C-3. C-1 is a very poor quality drawing that does not clearly depict the required information. The sheet numbered C.3 is actually Sheet 2 of the road plans and profiles. . MR #6 Runoff Treatment: . The proponent proposes using a V ortechs vault to treat runoff from the parking lot. The plan narrative and drawings do not identify the location or specifications of this facility or provide calculations of the runoff volume to be treated. . The plan includes creation of new pollution generating pervious and impervious areas, including 30 acres of golf course and residential areas and new roads. The plan does not adequately discuss whether runoff from these areas requires treatment and, if so, how treatment will be provided. . Sheets 0-1 - 0-3 depict "outlet basin / biofilters". The narrative does not refer to these structures or provide a description of their function and configuration, particularly how they would provide bio-filtration. Are there calculations of the runoff that would be discharged to them? LOG ITEM # Yr P8ig03 .3 _O~ 'f -~ " . MR #7 Flow Control: . The proposal includes using an enlarged existing pond, two new ponds and "outlet basin / biofilters" to provide flow control. The plan does not adequately describe the design and function of the "outlet basin / biofilters". Are they infiltration basins? Are they referenced in the plan calculations? . The plan provides calculations for pre- and post-development runoff flows from the various basins. The site plan narrative and drawings do not provide adequate information relating the calculations to drainage basins boundaries, pond and "outlet basin 1 bio-filter" location, and flow paths to evaluate the flow control measures. . The plan does not clearly describe how road runoff is collected, treated, and detained or infiltrated. The plan does not clearly depict cross culverts and storm drainage systems. The plan appears to discharge road runoff offsite. If so, this does not meet the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual. . The proponent proposes using dispersion trenches to control roof runoff. A typical dispersion trench detail should be provided. The site plan should discuss how the trenches will meet the requirements of BMPT5.1 0 .E>ownspout Dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 5, Page 5-3). . The proponent has not signed the stormwater site plan template. Department Comment: The proponent should review Minimum Requirement # 1 Stormwater Site Plan Preparation and submit a stormwater site plan that includes a narrative and drawings that address the Minimum Requirements. . Considering the amount of information to be conveyed, it would be helpful to not use the SWS Plan template. This memo and a copy of the red-lined stormwater site plan template is being submitted to the Department of Community Development with copies to the project proponent and the project engineer to facilitate their response to the Department's comments. The Department is also returning a red-lined copy of the entire plan set to the project engineer. The Department requests that the SEP A threshold determination not be made until the Department has had sufficient opportunity to review the proponent's response. The red-lined plan set should be returned to the Department with the revised plans. c: Michael Asmundson, 7377 E Doubletree Ranch Road #180, Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Michael Biggs, 4040 Wheaton Way, Suite 202, Bremerton, W A 98310 Jerry Smith, PO Box 855, Chimacum, W A 98325 LOG ITEM # 'f( P. . f:;.1 r~'Y. ~ of V- a~~!;7..,lr.,--,-, . .. . li_ _