The meeting began with Chairperson Kevin Moser reading a statement. Bryan Ficiala asked the first question, wanting to know why the town planner had recommended a 10 year window as the requirement of a building permit application. He wanted an 18 month requirement (as suggested by Jobs For Justice at the hearing). The planner noted there are many unknowns on this project and 18 months was not realistic, especially since a Shoreline Permit is needed before a permit can be submitted to Ruston. After some discussion, it was agreed that a 3 year limit for the first building permit would be required.
Cherrie Anderson wanted to know that the environmental remediation would be phased in ways that would be protective. She was assured that EPA and other agencies were watching the work closely (with people on site regularly) and that EPA had very strict rules about when and how they would allow development.
The commission then decided to use the staff recommendations as a framework for their comments and questions. Click here to get a copy.
- Recommendation A) Agreed
- Recommendation B) Agreed
- Recommendation C) There was some discussion on the size of parking stalls. Colett Judd had measured parking slots at several local lots and was concerned the regulations in the master plan were smaller. The town planner noted that smaller stalls meant less asphalt and that the sizes in the plan were normal for this area. The commission could require a mix of sizes. The plan calls for 3370 off-street stalls with more on-street parking. In the end the sizes in the plan were agreed to.
- Recommendation D) Agreed
- Recommendation E) Agreed
- Recommendation F) Agreed
- Recommendation G) Agreed. Point Ruston has already planned on this concept of using different types of material for sidewalks. They are also planning on raising the sidewalks slightly.
- Recommendation H) Agreed after a notation this requirement is referring to lineal feet.
- Recommendation I) Agreed
- Recommendation J) Agreed
- Recommendation K) Agreed with the change to 3 years rather than 10 (as previously discussed).
After all the recommendations had been approved, Mr. Ficila wanted to know when the Baltimore Street connection would be complete if the LID was not approved. An LID is a Local Improvement District, in simplistic terms, Ruston would sell bonds to finance public improvements and the project/developer is obligated to repay the costs. It was noted the LID is a financing mechanism only and does not change the traffic requirements. The LID would mean the infrastructure would be build all at once towards the beginning of the project. If it is not approved, the road improvements would be done in pieces as the development is built out and brings more traffic to the roads. It was pointed out that the public improvements are a $16 million cost with no return on those dollars. Without the LID, those improvements would be made as the development progressed and allowed income to cover the costs. It was estimated without the LID, the Baltimore Street connection would not be done for about 3 or 4 years.
There was some discussion on the round-a-bouts in the development. They are designed like the ones in Lacey and include a slip lane for traffic to move into the circle easier.
Kevin Moser asked if Ruston would be required to build a pump station for sanitary sewer. It was explained that sewer would continue to flow to the Tacoma station as it does now, but the physical system would be Ruston’s and billed by the town. The same is true of the electrical system. Water would provided by Tacoma as it is now. Storm water on the interior roads (which are private) would have their own system.
Charles Ranes asked for more details on the storm water. Tacoma will have experimental swales along Ruston Way to retain and filter water before it enters the bay. A similar system could be applied to Ruston. The roads on the former smelter site will require filters as part of the remediation. The maintenance on all these systems will belong to Ruston. There is generally about a 5 year bond required as a warrantee.
Mr. Moser wanted to know what art work would be on the Ruston side. There is generally one art piece planned for inside each large residential building and one outside. A large fountain with art is planned for the grand plaza (half of which is in Ruston).
Mr. Ficila asked about the roofline elevations of the hotel. He wanted a guarantee that the seawall would not be raised as that might allow the hotel to be build higher. It was explained the seawall elevation is determined the environmental work, but it would not be significantly higher than it is now. Mr. Ficila also asked if the buildings were LEED, would that give some energy credits to Ruston.
Mr. Moser wanted to review the comment letters before asking the rest of his questions. The meeting ended about 9 pm, with a continuance until 7 pm on Wednesday, August 13th.
5 comments:
The Ficala comments were almost word for word as the comments scooter bill made in the original Pt. Ruston session. Coincidence?
To change the height of the seawall would require years of hearings et al and basically start the whole EPA hearings from the beginning.
Are they grasping for straws? let's hope not. This development is much bigger than just Ruston.
Why was Councilman Brady Huston meeting with one of the planning commision before the meeting on Stack Hill? That was illegal. But who cares about the law - we are Ruston and anonimous says we are retarded.
What are you afraid of, Karen? You have let comments stay on this blog that are much more insulting than the blogger comment that you just deleted. I will repeat their comment: YOUR ******.
People, you'd better read this fast before it disappears, too.
Post a Comment