REVIEW COMPLETION MEETING

 

File No:  07-101924 LU                    Date of Meeting: 

                                                                                                                                                           

 

PROJECT NAME:  Granite Fall Motorcross Park

 

APPLICANT:

CONTACT:

Paul Thomas Motorcross Parks

 

 

Gary Strode

11411 116th PL

11411 NE 116th Pl

KIRKLAND, WA 98034

Kirkland, WA 98034

 

 

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

REZONE from F (Forestry) to F&R (Forestry and Recreation) and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for the construction of a Motorcross Race Track.

  

REQUIRED INFORMATION:

 

The following information is required to further evaluate your proposal.

 

Planner Comments: 

 

Project Manager:  Erik M Olson, Principal Planner 425-388-3311 ext. 2646

(a)   Provide a more comprehensive narrative for the rezone and CUP that provides greater detail and explanation of the proposal. 

(b)   In reading all your documentation your proposed hours of operation vary.  In your ?Track and Facilities Management Plan? your hours of operation vary based on the type of events that are taking place, i.e. weekday, weekend non race events or race events.  Your noise study, page 5 paragraph 3, indicates that the track would operate from 7 AM to 10 PM weekdays and 9 AM to 10 PM weekends, which is different than the management plan.  Please clarify your hours of operation. 

(c)   In your Track and Facilities Management Plan it indicates camping will only be allowed on Friday and Saturday nights and on race weekends.  Provide additional information as to when any camping will be allowed and who will be allowed to camp and how you will control the noise from the campers at night.  

(d)   The following comments are relevant to your June 6, 2007 noise study by Geomatrix which needs to be revised to address them. 

1.    Provide additional clarity as to exactly what portions of the proposed berm are needed to assure compliance with the county?s noise ordinance, Chapter 10.01 and what portion(s) are not needed for compliance.  One question is in the noise study they indicate that the east end of the berm needs to be constructed for phase 3 but does the berm need to wrap around to the west on the north and south sides? 

2.    Page 5 paragraph 3 states the hours of operation which differ from that reference in the Track and Facilities Management Plan. 

3.    Your noise study references the Hanegan Speedway in Bellingham as a comparison to your track.  It would be helpful if you could provide pictures of that track during a busy day.

4.    Page 7 paragraph 4 refers to an ISO 9613-2 and Federal Highway Administration standard for noise reduction based on an intervening forest.  Please provide these standards and address how they compare to the existing forest around the track area. 

5.    Page 7, under ?Traffic Noise?, 2nd sentence of the first paragraph states ?the busiest hour of operation is expected to be during a race event, likely during a weekday afternoon?.  Please clarify if they meant weekend afternoon. 

6.    Page 7, under ?Traffic Noise?, last sentence of the first paragraph states that noise along a public roadway is exempt.  That is not correct.  Noise generated by motor vehicles is regulated by SCC 10.01.030 (4) which reads as follows:      

   (4)     Maximum permissible sound levels for motor vehicles.  Measurement of motor vehicle sound levels shall be made at a distance of fifty feet from the center of the lane of travel at the posted speed limit, by measurement procedures established by the State Commission on Equipment.  Maximum permissible sound levels for motor vehicles, expressed in dB(A)'s, are:

Vehicle Category

35 mph  (56kph) or less

Over 35 mph (56 kph)

Motorcycles

78

82

Automobiles, light trucks, and not all other motor vehicles 10,000 pounds or less GVWR

72

78

All motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR

86

90

7.      Page 8 under Operational Noise Mitigation it talks about the 25-foot berm around the site and more specifically around the eastern edge of the tract area.  Please add additional analysis and language as to just how much of the berm is required for compliance with code and what parts are not required. 

(e)   Modify the site plan to graphically show and add clarity to what portions of the berm are [required] to be constructed and when (i.e. for what phase) and what portions are only being proposed and are not required for compliance with code and when they might be constructed. 

(f)    The draft ?Track and Facilities Management Plan? you submitted needs to be revised to include more comprehensive information as required by 30.28.105 (4) including but not limited to additional dust control details, how you will prevent riders/quests/campers from going outside of the track area, a forest management plan on the area outside of the track area etc?. 

(g)   Handicapped access will be required to all structures i.e. grandstands, restrooms, tower building etc. in all phases.  Indicate on the site and phasing plan sheets the location of the accessible route of travel to these structures. 

(h)   You will need to provide a minimum of 2 restrooms each for males and females and may be required to provide 1 additional restroom building in the area between phase 1 and phase 3.  The intent is so that people do not have to go a long way to us the bathroom.  Show how you will provide an additional restroom building(s). 

(i)     The use of portable restrooms must be approved by the Building Official.  Submit a letter addressed to the Snohomish County Building Official c/o Tracy Justice and request to use portable restrooms and explain when, where and how many you will need.  Make sure the letter reference the project file number. 

(j)     On sheet 4 and in your narrative provide an accurate size delineation for the track area.  The size should include the berm area but exclude the access drive.  See SCC 30.28.100 (2) (a) for code requirements. 

(k)   Provide additional information (which may require changes to the site plan) about how you calculated the number of parking stalls provided and how you will accommodate overflow parking for large events.  No parking is allowed within the Mt. Loop Highway right-of-way or outside of the 75 acre track area. 

(l)     Show each phase at the smallest scale sufficient enough to have the entire phase on one sheet and clear to read. 

(m)On sheet 4 provide buffer width averaging calculations that show compliance with the 1,000 average buffer width required by SCC 30.28.105 (2) (d). 

(n)   On sheet 3 you have the following note, ?Abandon existing gravel roads per Forest Service standards?.  Please explain what this means.  If you are proposing to do physical work to these roads then you will need to delineate all critical areas within 200 feet.  If all you plan to do is to abandon them and let them naturally reforest then you are OK but you will need to provide clarification on the sheet 3 as to what abandon per Forest Service standards means. 

(o)   On sheet 5 show the dumpster locations and how you will screen them.  (SCC 30.25.024 (3))

(p)   The parking area around stalls 1 through 74 does not meet the landscaping requirements of SCC 30.25.022.  Provide either the code required landscaping or apply for a landscape modification as allowed by SCC 30.25.040. 

 


Drainage Comments:

 

Reviewer:  Jack Hurley, Senior Plans Examiner 425-388-3311 ext. 2266.

 

DISCUSSION:

The proposal to address stormwater run off/drainage control is to infiltrate the runoff from the new impervious surfaces on-site in multiple infiltration facilities.  The proposal to address water quality treatment is to provide treatment of runoff in a wet pond prior to discharge to an infiltration pond and in the case of the access road to provide water quality treatment in roadside bio-filtration swale prior to routing the flow to infiltration trenches.

 

These seem to be reasonable proposals however the applicant has not provided the detailed information required to evaluate the infiltration proposal.  A general description of the information required for evaluation of the information required for Feasibility Analysis is found in DOE 1992 (Drainage Manual) Section III-3.3.

INFORMATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND GRADING REVIEW:

 

  1. Revise the targeted drainage plan/report to provide the data required to evaluate the drainage proposal.  Establish the infiltration rate of the soil, identify the hydrograph of the developed condition and show that the pond proposed can provide the quantity and quality control required.
  2. Provide additional information on how the pond was sized.
  3. Show on plans how access standards will be provided to the infiltration system and water quality facilities (see EDDS 5-11 B. 3)).
  4. Provide description of water quality measures/procedures for motor cycle maintenance and fueling areas.
  5. Provide geotechnical evaluation (test holes/pits) in areas proposed for infiltration.
  6. Provide definitive evaluation of Landslide Hazard by geotech per 30.62.210.

 

Biologist Comments:

 

            Reviewer:  Frank Scherf 425-388-3311 Ext. 2725. 

(a)   Keith Westlund, Biologist, of Planning and Development Services conducted an on-site inspection on July 23, 2007 and July 27, 2007.  The subject property is approximately 437 acres in size and contains Canyon Creek that is a Type 1 ESA stream.  Canyon Creek is a conservancy shoreline environment.  Wetlands due exist on the subject property as well as geohazard areas. 

(b)   Staff concurs with the Critical Areas Review conducted by Talasaea Consultants, Inc.  The site does not contain any wetlands or streams.  SCC 30.62.055(1)(a)(v) requires the location and description of all critical areas located on the site and on adjacent properties within 100 feet of site boundaries.  Site is defined under SCC 30.91S.350 as ?that portion of the subject property within 200 feet of the development activity provided, however, that for subdivisions, short subdivisions, planned residential developments, and projects with binding site plans, the site shall include the entire subject property?.  The site therefore is defined as that area within 200 feet of the proposed clearing limits represented on the site development plan for this Conditional Use/Rezone application. 

(c)   The application is in conformance with Chapter 30.62 SCC as it relates to stream and wetland preservation since there are no such features that exist within the ?site?.  No further wetland, stream or ESA evaluation is required unless the application is revised that enlarges the site boundaries or by activity per (b) below. 

(d)   On sheet 3 you have the following note, ?Abandon existing gravel roads per Forest Service standards?.  Please explain what this means.  If you are proposing to do physical work to these roads then you will need to delineate all critical areas within 200 feet.  If all you plan to do is to abandon them and let them naturally reforest then you are OK but you will need to provide clarification on the sheet 3 as to what abandon per Forest Service standards means. 

 

Traffic Review Comments:

 

            Reviewer:  Kamal Mahmoud, Sr. Drainage Plans Examiner, 425-388-3311 ext. 6471.

(a)   Show the additional right-of-way to be deeded.

(b)   Justify trip distribution. 

(c)   Address site distance. 

(d)   Reference the attached memo dated August 9, 2007 for additional information. 

 

Office of the County Fire Marshal:

 

            Reviewer: Ron Tangen      (425) 388-3311 ext. 2264     

(a)   The review for compliance with the fire code is approved for Land Use Conditional Use Permit review only. 

(b)   If there are structures on the site which it appears there will be fire hydrant and fire flow requirements will be determined when application is made for building permits.

(c)   An approved addresses shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property.  Numbers shall contrast with their background.

(d)   Fire apparatus access as depicted meets the minimum requirements of Snohomish County Code 30.53A.150 and we have no further requirements.

 

Snohomish Health District:

 

            We have not received comments from the health district.  When we do they will be forwarded to you. 

 

Building Code/Structural Review:

 

            Reviewer:  Vic McKinney, 425-388-3311, ext. 2683

 

(a)   See items G, H and I on page 3 under the planners comments. 

Other Information Required:

 

a)     A cover letter that identifies the proposed change(s) cross referenced to the comments on this project is required.  Be sure to include and identify any additional changes proposed as well.  Please provide five (5) copies.

 

FURTHER PROJECT REVIEW

 

Please call the assigned Project Manager, to arrange for submittal of any requested information.  The resubmittal package must contain all the information for the package to be accepted.

 

Please be sure to provide the following number of copies:

 

            Site / Landscape / Civil Grading/Drainage Plans        ( 5)

            All Reports                                                                  ( 4)

            Cover letter                                                                 (5)

 

Review of your proposal will continue upon the receipt of the above listed information.  At the conclusion of that review, you will be notified whether the project is ready for a SEPA threshold determination and scheduling for public hearing.  If it?s been determined that additional information is necessary, the Project Manager will notify you of those additional requirements.

 

Attachments:   Job Copy of Plans (must be returned at next submittal) 

Comments from Sandra Kortum of WSDOT, dated June 28, 2007

Comments from City of Granite Falls, dated July 9, 2007

Comments from the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, dated June 25, 2007

No Motocross! Resources