Manchester Community Council                           www.manchesterwa.org

PO Box 173                                                                         

Manchester, WA  98353-0173

“it’s a great place to live…”

 

Draft Minutes for MCC meeting of 4/25/06

Minutes:

The meeting was called to order by Chair, Ron Robinson at 6:30PM in the Manchester Library.  Ron welcomed the 42 people (including 27 current members) in attendance and then introduced our special speaker for the evening,

Guest Speakers comments:

Our speaker for the evening was Dave Tucker, Program Manager for Kitsap Surface & Storm Water Management Program (SSWM).  Mike Michael, the SSWM’s Lead Engineer also participated in the discussions.  A Public Hearing on this project was completed on April 13th, 2006.  Tucker said that the Manchester Main Street Stormwater project began in 1999 with a drainage analysis by CH2MHill, consulting engineers.  Several key problem areas were identified, including the Main St. stormwater drain.  The proposed new pipeline will run uphill to Alaska as far as Patricia St.  The project is expected to reduce or eliminate road “overtopping” by heavy rainfall events and reduce peak flows into Duncan Creek.  In addition, Dave mentioned that the pipelines currently under Main St. are old and have the potential to collapse which could result in divots in the roadway. 

In the 2002 pre-design report four design approaches were developed (see www.kitsapgov.com\sswm).  A public hearing on the project was held in the Library on 5/19/06.  At this point, option “C2” has been selected.  This approach will discharge north of the northernmost dock at the Port.  The 36” diameter pipe will be below grade down to about a +3’ tide level and then go above grade for discharge fully above grade at approximately the 0’ tide level.  Tucker commented that permitting started in August 2005 and the following agencies are involved: Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and the County’s own Shorelines Management.  Dave then opened the floor to questions:

?: How will the existing discharge at Pomeroy Park be impacted?

A: The pipe will be removed and the Port parking lot drain will be attached to the new discharge.  Dave went on to say that the stormwater here has a high bacterial count as do most other stormwater discharges in congested areas.

?: Will the new discharge have the same bacteria levels as the existing outfall?

A: Yes, there is no treatment of the discharge.  The County has looked into whether there are any leaks in the sewer system that might be affecting this and no leaks were found.  We normally approach bacterial pollution issues from a source control aspect with assistance from the Kitsap Health Dept.

?: What about water discharged from underground garages, such as that proposed in the new development in Manchester?

A: New standards apply to such new construction and that water would be subject to the new rules.

?: Were any criteria used in the selection of the discharge location other than cost?

A: We used environmental, constraints, beach erosion, boat traffic, and liability considerations.

Follow-up? I have high regard for the design team, but am concerned about the exposure of the discharge at low tide levels.  How low will the tide be when the pipe is exposed and will it present a hazard to navigation which may be unmarked?

A: The Port proposed some ideas for marking the pipe when it is below the surface of the water.  Approximately 30’ of the pipe will be exposed with a height of up to 36” above the beach level and the discharge is located at the 0’ tide level.  Concrete anchors will be located at 10’ intervals to hold the pipe in place.

?: If we are concerned about this issue, who do we contact to make some adjustments?

A: The County Commissioners, so Jan Angel would be the appropriate contact.

?: What is the distance between the North float and the proposed pipe location.

A: That would be approximately 15-20’.

?: What is the proposed design for the diffuser at the end of the discharge pipe?

A: This will be a rock pad (1.0-1.5’ rocks) and the opening to the pipe will be grated so small children cannot climb into the pipe.

?: Will there be any adverse impact on the dock pilings as a result of the scouring effect of the discharge during high flow events?

A: We looked at the scouring of the beach (and that was part of the reason for selecting the discharge location), but did not specifically look into effect on the pilings.

?: Why aren’t you using the same discharge location as is currently used?

A: There is a patch of eelgrass south of the floats and it is adversely impacted by fresh water.

?: Were calculations made of the potential erosion at high-flow discharge events?

A: There was some preliminary analysis.  We looked at different diffuser designs.

Follow-up?: I looked through the County file and couldn’t find any such analysis.

A: We will look for it and get back to you.

?: What will the impact be on the normal migration of sand transversely across the beach?

A: In the preliminary design study lateral sand migration was identified to exist and that was one of the factors leading to the final location of the pipe for least impact.

?: Considering the potential danger to boat traffic, was the Coast Guard contacted?

A: No, not yet, but they will be if required.

?: Will you add a berm at the existing discharge near the Park?

A: We may need to place a rock or other large item in that location to avoid any adverse affect.

?: Berms on Hood Canal have been found to be problematic.  Won’t this exposed pipe cause the same problem?

?: I’d like to thank you Dave for your efforts, but what chance is there of having the County take another look at the issue?

A: This is a political process and we are trying to work within the allowed budget for this project.

Follow-up?: I think this will be an ugly addition to our beachfront and selecting the cheapest solution is moving the community of Manchester in the wrong direction.  I believe the energy of the stormwater discharge will do harm to the beach.

?: If the pipe went out into the Corps of Engineers lands, would this drive the price up?

A: Actually the submerged tidelands are owned by the Department of Natural Resources.

?: What is the project timetable for construction?

A: This depends on the permits.  If the permits come in prior to the fall of a particular year, we could go out to bid in the winter and construction would begin the following summer.  Construction timing is constrained by permits and the “fish window”.

?: If we convince the “powers that be” to change the design, how long would that delay the project?

A: Probably at least two years.

?: How much longer would the pipe need to be to keep the discharge underwater at all times?

A: The total pipe length is currently proposed to be 1200’ and this would add another 200’ with a 50% increase in the total project.  It is currently estimated at $1.0-1.2M and the 200’ extension would add another $350-550K.

?: On the timeline, if a restudy is undertaken, how critical is the replacement?

A: The existing pipe has lost some of its lower section due to corrosion which could result in a collapse of the pipe which would result in a divot in the roadway above the collapse, and an impediment to stormwater flow.  The larger diameter pipe is required as more of Manchester is developed and the stormwater problem increases.

            Chairman Robinson thanked both Dave Tucker and Mike Michaels for their presentation and then opened the regular business meeting at 7:08PM.  Ron read the mission statement from the Bylaws.  Minutes from the 3/28/06 meeting were approved as written.

            Treasury: Treasurer Trudeau reported that the treasury stands at $563.17 plus the addition of new member dues at tonight’s meeting totaling $180.  Correspondence included a bank statement and several new membership applications.

            Sewers: Sewers sub-committee chair Ron Rada reported that LID #8 is out for bids which are due on 5/11/06.  This will go to the County Commissioners for approval and construction is expected to commence in June and be completed in July.  (Public works updated the detail on this subsequent to the meeting and said that construction is expected to begin on the 1st of June and be completed during the 120 day contract time frame.)

The proposal for LID #9 has been significantly revised.  This effort will now only include those properties on the East side of Colchester which will be proposed to utilize a low pressure pump system with system costs of approximately $16,600 per lot.  A meeting will be organized by the County for the affected property owners on Tuesday June 13th at the Long Lake Community Center at 7PM.  The County will also send a letter to those property owners who are no longer in consideration for inclusion in LID #9 advising them of the change. 

Ron went on to say that he will be asking the MCC membership to endorse sending a

letter to the County Commissioners encouraging them to approve the expense of running a “dry-pipe” alongside the low pressure pipe required for the revised LID #9 so that additional trenching would not be required to support future gravity connections to the sewer from those living to the East of Colchester.  This would further require the installation of a pump station in the Haida area to deliver the sewage to the connection point with LID #8.  The County’s investment would be recouped as sewer connections were made to this system. It was noted that this approach is similar to one previously approved in North Kitsap.

            Rada then took questions from the membership:

?: Are future sewer revenues factored into the cost proposal to the County?

A: No, maybe we should have to help sell the idea.  There was particular resistance from the rest of the proposed area for the original LID #9 due to the fact that the County insisted on using a connection fee formula that forced large lot owners to pay for full build out of their properties even if they only have one residence on said property.  I should also note that we have received a petition from the Monte Bella neighborhood to exclude them from the LID efforts, which we have done with the new proposal for LID #9.

            Crime Prevention: Bud Larsen reported on the efforts of the Crime Prevention/Public Safety group.  He noted that their efforts have resulted in an expansion of the 25MPH speed zone along Colchester and in the near future there will be an additional 25MPH sign located facing southbound traffic near Spruce.  The group is also working with the Port on twelve resolutions for Port districts which will result in County Ordinances which will be enforceable by the Kitsap Sheriff.

            The CP/PSG will host a Disaster Preparedness meeting on Tuesday May 9th at the Elim Lutheran Church 7-8:30PM.  The emphasis of the meeting will be on mobilizing your neighborhood as part of the recovery plan from a major disaster, such as an earthquake.

            MCA: Phil Paquette, chair of the MCA announced that they are organizing a Manchester Clean-up Day in the fall.

            Historical Society: Mary Cathern Edwards reported on the efforts of the Manchester Historical Society.  Their group meets monthly on the fourth Tuesday (same day as MCC) from 4-6PM in the Library.  They are seeking donations of video or audio recorder equipment to help save the recollections of “old-timers” that are happening at each meeting.  They are also looking for donated display cabinets which could be used for display of artifacts at Manchester Elementary and other locations.

            Downtown Design Action Group: Carole Leininger said that Notices of Application have been filed for both condo projects (planning files: 05-24605/Manchester Commons and 05-27077/Colchester Commons).  A public hearing on both of these projects is tentatively scheduled for Thursday May 25th.  The planner for the Manchester Commons is Jeff Smith (360-337-7022) and the Planner for the Colchester Commons is Rick McNicholas (360-337-7153).  The next meeting of the Action Group is April 27th at 6:30PM in the Library.  If you have comments on the impact of the two condo projects that address issues other than aesthetics, the County wants to hear them at the public hearing.

            Historic Village Character Action Group: Group chair Mike Valentino started his discussion by pointing out that the group has several items on its agenda including building heights, lot aggregation, and others.  Mike then made an audio/visual presentation pertaining to this groups’ proposal on lot aggregation.  At the conclusion of his presentation Mike took questions from the membership;

?: Can a property owner still sell lots of less than 8712 ft²?

A: Yes, but the lots are un-buildable.

?: If a new owner bought property with the idea that they’d build on it, what can they do?

A: Other jurisdictions have a concept called “innocent purchaser” which allows a new buyer who is not properly informed of zoning changes to build on non-conforming properties.

            Agency Partnering Action Group: Debbie Trudeau said that members of the group will attend the 4/29 meeting of the Village Commons group to provide input.

            Recreational Venues Action Group: Chair Helen Robinson stated that she has contacted Bill Zupanich of the Kitsap Mosquito Fleet Trail office.  Zupanich commented that since Colchester was re-paved in 1990 there was no plan to make further improvements along Colchester for the Trail.  Helen and Mary Ann Blazevich have collaborated on a Recreation survey which was distributed at the meeting.  Helen also asked for others who would like to join the committee to contact her through our web-site (www.manchesterwa.org).

            Village Commons Action Group: Bill Shaw alerted the membership that the group will meet on Saturday 4/29 at 9AM in the Library.  All are welcome to participate.

           

Old Business:

            Action items:

1)      Debbie Trudeau mentioned that her computer is temporarily down, but once that is up and running she is prepared to complete the Audit with the help of Carole Leininger.

2)      Ron Rada said that he has been in contact with the attorney and as soon as the work is completed then there will be a meeting of the Trustees of the Manchester Foundation.

3)      Chairman Robinson reported that Bob Ballard has agreed to be a Foundation Trustee representing the MCC along with himself.

4)      Chairman Robinson will be gathering the leaders of each of the Foundation groups and our MCC Action Groups immediately following this meeting to help clarify roles and responsibilities to minimize non-productive overlaps.

 

New Business:

            Mike Valentino made a motion for the MCC’s recommendation that the language in the Manchester Plan on non-conforming lots be modified as noted.  By a vote of 24 to 6, the motion was approved.

Change request

( B.)    Nonconforming Lots in Common Ownership.   If 1) there are contiguous lots of record held in common ownership, each lot legally created before adoption of the Manchester Community Plan, 2) one or more of the lots is less than 8,712 square feet in size or does not meet the dimensional requirements of its zone and 3) a residential structure encumbered more than one of the lots at the time of adoption of the Manchester Community Plan, the lots shall be combined to meet the minimum lot requirements of its zone. If one or more of the lots is sold or otherwise removed from common ownership after the adoption of the Manchester Community Plan, it will not be considered to meet the minimum lot requirements of this chapter. A lot(s) that does not meet criteria 1 through 3 in this subsection may be occupied as specified in subsection A above.

            Ron Rada made a motion for the MCC’s approval for a letter from Chair Robinson to the County Commissioners asking for their support of running a “dry pipe” alongside the low pressure sewer line for LID #9.  The motion was approved unanimously.

 

Topics from the floor: There were no topics from the floor.

 

There being no other discussion from the floor, Chairman Robinson adjourned the meeting at  8:25 PM.

Our next meeting will be Tuesday May 23 at 6:30-8:30PM in the Manchester Library. 

Ron Robinson and John Winslow will jointly develop an agenda for our next meeting, which will be posted on the web-site several days before the meeting.  If you have any additional items for the agenda, contact John Winslow prior to May 12.

 

Respectfully submitted,

John Winslow, Secretary-Manchester Community Council