Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051694 MINUTES WEEK OF MAY 16, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioner Glen Huntingford was present. Commission Richard Wojt was not present. Bob Minty. Emel1!ency Services Coordinator re: Special Events Permit: Port Hadlock Davs: Bob Minty reported that all of the requirements have been met for the Port Hadlock Days Festival special event permit. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the special event permit as recommended. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Brinnon Shrimp Fest: Special Event Permit: The Brinnon Shrimp festival activities will take place at the school, the community center and the park in Brinnon, and all of the requirements have been met for this permit to be issued, Bob Minty reported. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the special event permit for the Brinnon Shrimp Fest. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: GMA Project Manager, Steve Ladd, reported on the following: · Some of the temporary Planning staff will be housed in the apartment above the boiler room at the Multi Services Building. · The Board met with the Planning Commission last Thursday night and discussed goals and the Comprehensive Plan update process. The meeting was very productive. · There was a joint City/County Planning staff meeting last Thursday to discuss and update each other on issues. · Several members of the Planning Commission and the Planning staff will be attending a Planning Conference in Yakima during the latter part of this week. Steve Ladd asked the Board if they would like a meeting of the Growth Management Steering Committee scheduled? The Board concurred that a Steering Committee meeting be arranged. Senior Planner James Holland reported on his work to develop administrative procedures for the recently adopted Critical Areas Ordinance. The environmental review is in progress on the resource lands ordinances (forest, and mineral lands). A County policy will be drafted on agricultural lands for the Board's review. . VOl 20 fÀGf 848 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lesa Barnes reported that the Zoning Ordinance hearing is next Monday. Kent Anderson added that there is a meeting in Brinnon (7:00 p.m. at the Brinnon School) tonight to talk about Flood Plain issues. Current Planning, Long Range Planning and FEMA representa- tives will be present. Roger Blalock, GMA Planner, submitted a draft GMA Comprehensive Plan update outline. He reported that several interns will be hired to work on this update. Gary Rowe reported that tomorrow night there is a QuilceneIDungeness meeting at the Chimacum Grange on water issues. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: No one spoke. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to adopt and approve the consent agenda as submitted. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO.55-94 re: In the matter of a request to Congress and the President of the United States to modify the Endangered Species Act 2. CONTRACT re: Health Department to assume management responsibilities May 1, 1994; Clallam-Jefferson Family Planning Services 3. RESOLUTION NO.56-94 re: Establishing the name for a private road; Towhee Lane 4. MEMORANDUM re: Authorization to proceed with acquisition of designated proper- ties; Chima cum Road Improvement Project CR0953 5. RESOLUTION NO.57-94 re: Certification for State Pollution Liability Insurance UST Community Assistance Program; Hoh River Resort 6. AGREEMENT re: Grant from the Community Services Fund for Community-based Services $3,500; Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council 7. AGREEMENT re: Enhanced 911 Service Agreement; Telephone Utilities of Washing- ton d/b/a PTI Communications, Inc. 8. AGREEMENT Addendum re: Addition of Sergeant Classification Jefferson County Sheriff's Department; Teamsters Local #589 9. Findings, Conclusions and Order; Upholding the final mitigated determination of non- significance; Oak Ridge Short Subdivision SP A94-0003; Pat Thompson and Dan Y oura 10. Adopt Recommendation of Hearing Examiner; To approve conditional use permit #IZA94-0010 subject to conditions contained in the Hearing Examiner's Report dated May 6, 1994; Pentecostal Worship Center, Port Hadlock l1.Adopt Recommendation of Hearing Examiner; To approve conditional use permit #IZA94-0024 subject to ¡conditions contained in the Hearing Examiner's Report Dated May 6, 1994; Construct Tower, Antennas and Out Buildings at Maynard Peak near Discovery Bay; Simmons Cellular of Washington 12.Accept Resignation and approve advertising for replacement; Jefferson County Civil Service Commission; Carla Schuck APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Minutes of April 4, 1994 as submitted. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VOL 20 fAŒB49 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Director Larrv Fay re: Buildin2 Permits within the Glen Cove Water System: Larry Fay explained that in February the Board directed that building permit applications that required water from the Glen Cove Water System be held because the system may be over-allocated. He then reported that the PUD Manager, Jim Parker, submitted reports and asked the State Department of Health (DOH) to determine the number of approved services for this water system (see information attached). The DOH has approved 77 residential and 45 non-residential connections for this system. This is 10 connections over what was previously reported. Larry Fay asked the Board to allow the approval of building permits for these connections. Each building permit application will be reviewed to see that it fits within the usage assumptions made when the number of connections were approved. He reported that the Hagen project is approved for 4 connec- tions from the additional 10 connections. Sebastian Eggert asked how much water is allocated for these 122 connections? Larry Fay explained that the number of connections approved is based on assumptions for the amount of usage, which is based on historical use data. Mr. Eggert asked if there is any assurance that there will be enough water available for his project in the future? Larry Fay answered that when a system is designed and approval given it is done with the information available. Each application will have to be reviewed when it is submitted and a deter- mination made on water availability. Janet Welch asked if a check is done on the amount of water committed from the system, and if that check includes phases of proposed projects that are in the review process, but may not be on line yet? Larry Fay reported that they would look at the projections for the use of the 112 current services. He is currently working with 112 users that are customers of the system. Pete Langley reported that he has a letter from the PUD stating that they will provide his Port Townsend Foundry with water when he is ready to put in his facility. He reported that there are 77 other people who have letters of commitment for water from the PUD. The PUD can use over the contract amount of water they get from the City, at a penalty, and they should be ready to pay the necessary penalty to provide the water they have committed to provide. Sebastian Eggert stated that the Glen Cove water loop was established to support industrial development in an area of the County that is zoned for light industrial/commercial use. The importance of supporting industry and commercial development in this County is stated in documents such as the County Comprehensive Plan. He urged the Board, to support the Health Department, and the PUD to resolve the issues in the area of the Glen Cove Water System, in general and specifically. The discussion continued regarding the PUD franchise for the Glen Cove Water System, and the need for incentives for conserva- tion of water. Chairman Hinton asked how many connections on the Glen Cove Water system are approved for the Arcadia Terrace (Hagen) application? Larry Fay answered that two duplexes are considered four residential units and would require four connections. Commissioner Huntingford moved to allow the Health Department to evaluate building permit applications that have water commitments from the 10 additional connections . VOL 20 UG~ 850 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . approved for the Glen Cove Water system. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Continuation (See also Januarv 31. 1994) re: Review and Consideration of Hearin2 Examiner's Findin2s. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conditional Use Application #IZ-34-93 Arcadia Terrace: Multi-Familv Development: Robert H32en. Applicant: Jerry Smith reported that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on this project was forwarded to the Board who held their own hearing on the conditional use application on January 25, 1994. The hearing was continued to give the Board time to obtain more information on water, compatibility, and some issues on landscaping. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the issue of the buffer on the south side of the property has been resolved? Jerry Smith reported that there was a submittal from the applicant about that issue. After a break to review the applicant's submittal, Jerry Smith reported that the issue was regarding the encroachment of the buffer into the access easement for Arcadia West Road. The plan was received February 28, 1994 in the Planning Department and it shows the revised location of the two southerly units (shifted to the north) and incorporates a 25 foot vegetation buffer into the design as well as maintaining the required 50 foot building setback. The applicant has indicated that he has the materials to supplement the vegetation in the 25 foot buffer. There is also an estimate from a landscaping company for landscaping all of the units. It is the Planning Depart- ment's recommendation that the issue of the buffer and the encroachment have been resolved by redesign of the project. Alan Carmen, representing Mr. Hagen, reported that the setback indicated on the south property line was not a mandatory setback, it was a setback the applicant imposed on the project. It is a 50 foot setback from the northerly easement, not the property line. There is a 25 foot buffer and a 25 foot open space between the buffer and the building. Erwin Jones, Attorney representing Mr. Hagen, stated that he feels there were only two issues at the conclusion of the last meeting - the water issue and the vegetative buffer, and he feels they have both been addressed. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the approval would be for the whole project even though there is only water available for two duplexes? Jerry Smith reported that it is the Board's option to approve the entire project or just the two units at this time and then approve the remaining units at a later date. In either case the building will be dependent upon the availability of water. In the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the Board condition #7 indicates that building permits shall not be issued for more than 16 units, until certification is provided by PUD #1 that sufficient water supply has been added to the system to supply the next 8 units. The Board could modify that condition to say 2 units. The Planning Department recommends that condition #7 be modified to read II... building permits shall not be issued for more than 2 units. . .and that sufficient water supply has been added to the system to supply the next 22 units (11 duplexes). If Chairman Hinton suggested that the conditional use approval be granted in phases subject to water availability. Then, when the next phase is ready for approval, only the water availability issue will have to be dealt with. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the project proponent will do the landscaping for the whole project if only two units are approved? Alan Carmen answered that the existing buffer is in place on three sides. There is a portion of the buffer on the south side of the project that will need infill. Mr. Hagen already has the plants to fill in that space. Commissioner Huntingford moved to modify the Hearing Examiner's condition #7 to change the number of units from 16 to 2 (2 duplexes - 4 water connections). Chairman . VOL 20 Ut~851 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Hun- tingford then moved to adopt the Hearing Examiner's conditions as amended and approve the conditional use permit. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appeal of Flood Area Certificate: Piccini Lane. BrinDon: Stan Johnston. Appellant: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reviewed the information submitted to the Board on this issue and the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Brinnon area. He also reviewed another aerial map of Brinnon done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which is in a smaller scale. There is an existing mini storage on the site that Mr. Johnston is interested in, which is located, according to the maps, in the 100 year floodplain. The subject site has an elevation, in National Geodedic data, of between 15 112 feet and 17 feet, with a flood elevation of 19 feet. He then referred to the Flood Insurance Rate Map panel 1235B which is used to determine flood area designations. The question is if Mr. Johnston wants to appeal the administrative decision (determination that he is in the floodplain) or if he wants to apply for a variance from this process. Based on the information submitted and the flood certificate issued, the mini storage proposed by Mr. Johnston would have to be elevated 4.5 feet above the lowest point on the property, or 3 feet above the highest point, to meet the provisions of the County Flood Plain Ordinance. There are a number of older homes in this area that are not elevated and structures that have been given building permits, including single family residence, which were not elevated as they should have been. The Building Official and the Environmental Health Director are aware of this ordinance. No septic system permits will be issued in this area. Chairman Hinton asked when this area was last flooded? Jim Pearson reported that there was a flood in the area last November, but the proposed site did not flood. Stan Johnston stated that he doesn't know of anyone alive who has seen that particular area flooded. This site is one of the highest spots in Brinnon and that is why he is questioning the accuracy of the maps and requesting a variance. Jim Pearson then reviewed the variance criteria in the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Part of that criteria says that granting of a variance l'will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense. . ." He explained that if there is a problem with the maps, there is a meeting scheduled this evening in Brinnon, with a representative of FEMA, who could be asked about the maps. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that in order to grant a variance a finding would have to be made that there is no additional threat to public safety. If a variance is granted it could possibly undercut the federal floodplain insurance program in the County. He explained that before the Board could grant a variance they would need a sufficient record with adequate information and reason for doing so. Kent Anderson reported that he visited the site on May 4. He is not a surveyor and cannot tell if the elevations on the maps are correct. He noted that the FEMA representa- tive at the meeting tonight will discuss the accuracy of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Stan Johnston pointed out that the Piccini Short Plat, has a State approved water system, that was approved after the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Kent Anderson added that the Brinnon Community Planning Committee has drawn a flood plain map of their own based on the actual flooding in the area. The FEMA representa- tive will be reviewing that tonight. He explained that the County's options regarding flood plain management are to either get out of the flood insurance program, or do their own, survey of the area. . Val 20 ~ÀG~ 852 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Huntingford reported that he will attend the meeting in Brinnon tonight. Commissioner Huntingford moved to continue this discussion to Monday May 23, 1994 at 2:30 p.m. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request from Peter Bahls: Reconsider Waiver of Six Year Moratorium: Phil Bolin2 Property: Brinnon: Commissioner Huntingford moved to send a letter to Peter Bahls (see Minutes of May 2, 1994) denying his request for a hearing regarding the waiver of a development moratorium on the Phil Boling property in Brinnon (Boling Valley View long plat #LP06-93.) Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a un- animous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Randv Y oun2. Henderson Y oun2 and Companv. Consultant for the Utilities and Capital Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan re: Update: Gary Rowe introduced Randy Young, the consultant hired to do the utilities and capital facilities plan for the County. Mr. Young reported that they are nearing the end of the data collection phase for these projects which included inventory of existing facilities, typical cost information for developing scenarios, and information on levels of service. He noted that there are some small special purpose taxing districts that will have their facilities mapped, but there will not be any further analysis because population projections indicate that there will be little change in their populations. The items needed to produce scenarios that are usable and viable are: · Population: When elements are developed, population numbers are needed. When the population numbers change so do the plans. They will need these figures within the next two weeks. David Goldsmith asked if the population figures need to be broken down by political subdivision (school districts, fire districts, etc.)? Mr. Young stated that it would be an advantage to have the population by political subdivision. · Timing, scheduling of GMA work: The draft schedule when they were hired indicated that their work should be done by fall and they are on schedule for that timeline. Each element of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with every other element. It is very important that all of these elements be synchronized. The calendars need to be reconciled quickly to assure consistency. · Relationship between the City and County: The County-wide planning policies speak to the issue of level of service coordination. The County must coordinate with the City on level of service standards. These standards don't have to be the same for the City and the County, but if there are differences there needs to be a reason. The staff of the City of Port Townsend has approached Henderson, Young and Company about working for them? He stated that this isn't a problem for the consultant, but he asked the Board if that would be a problem for them. He is asking the County because he doesn't want, even the appearance of a conflict of interest in doing this work for the City. Bonnie Lichty, Skookum Products and Services re: NEP A Checklist for Skookum Building Project: This item was cancelled by Bonnie Lichty for today and rescheduled for Monday May 23, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. The meeting was recessed after an Executive Session from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth to discuss litigation. The meeting was reconvened on Tuesday morning after the Commissioners attended a Budget Committee meeting. Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford were both present. VOL 20 rAC~ 853 ~~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEARING re: Conditional Use Permits #IZA94-0006 and IZA94-0007: To Establish Two (2) Bed & Breakfasts Consistin2 of Twelve (12) Units: In Conjunction with Two (2) Proposed Sin21e Familv Residences: McCurdv Point: Middlepoint Land Conservancy. Lee Wilburn. Applicant: Chairman Hinton read the hearing procedures and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) Both Board members answered no. Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) Both Board members answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) Both Board members answered yes. Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) Both Board members answered no. Kent Anderson, Current Planning Supervisor, reported that the Hearing Examiner sent two recommendations to the Board: 1) remand the application back to the applicant for more information, or 2) deny the application based on the information received. He then reviewed the issues which are: compliance with the six conditional use criteria; effects on surroundings and compatibility with neighborhood; conflicts with Zoning Ordinance criteria for home businesses; potential impacts with the protected areas described in the Conserva- tion Easement held by the Jefferson County Land Trust; notification to holders of the Conservation Easement; and enforcement of the Conservation Easements resulting from SEP A mitigation. Chairman Hinton asked if the conditions and covenants on this area are enforceable by the County since they are part of the SEPA mitigation? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that any restrictive covenants placed by the land owner that are not part of the SEP A mitigation would not be enforced by the County. The SEP A mitigation conditions must be enforced by the County. He added that rather than reviewing the proposal in a "de novo" fashion, the Board's consideration should be to either adopt or change the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. The testimony today should be directed to 1) why the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is, or is not wrong, and 2) if it is wrong, what needs to be changed. Chairman Hinton asked if it is legal to vest future projects? Mark Huth answered that the Hearing Examiner's point is well taken. Without a specific application, it's hard to 1) judge if the proposal meets the requirements of the interim Zoning Ordinance or, 2) to condition the project in a way that is meaningful and can be enforced. The question is how the County can regulate a project that is, at this point, undefined. Kent Anderson pointed out that this is an unusual case because in the past the property owner has been required to build the building and then apply for a home occupied business permit. When a project is done that way it is much easier to evaluate, because then it can be determined if the home occupation is subordinate to the residential use. Kent Anderson added that two letters have been received for the proposal and two letters have been received against the proposal, since the information was submitted to the Board. Mter being sworn in by the Chairman, Lee Wilburn stated that he is the President of Vantage Properties, Inc., which is the general partner of the Middlepoint Land Conservan- cy, Limited Partnership. He apologized that he did not understand that the staff and VOL 20 ~AG~854 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing Examiner wanted to see detailed architectural drawings or site plans in the previous application or they would have submitted them. The reason that the work was not done previously was because the buyers of the lots have engaged a Seattle architect and they didn't want to invest the approximately $25,000 to $30,000 in architectural details until they knew if their project would be approved or not. He then provided the following documents for the Board to review: · The Deed of Conservation Easement. · The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions of the Middlepoint Land Conservancy. The maintenance agreement and restrictive covenants which cover the storm water issues for the property. The private road maintenance agreement on the property. Photographs of existing residences in the area of east and west Middlepoint Road to show the existing character of the neighborhood. A copy of a portion of the sales agreement between the partnership and the buyer. Copies of two architects works that are similar to what is contemplated for the property (one interior picture, two exterior elevations, and a conceptual site plan that shows the approximate scale of the buildings, garages, driveways and how they would be located in the buildable area of the property.) Copy of a large plat map for the area. · · · · · · Mr. Wilburn continued by saying that one issue that has come up is why they are in front of the Board and not the Hearing Examiner. He explained that they have entered into a purchase agreement with a buyer who wants to buy, for cash, two lots and who has a substantial non-refundable deposit on a third lot (lots 7, 8 and 9 of the large lot sub- division.) He reported that they are currently in default on the financial obligations on this subdivision and if they go into default, the Conservation Easement (which was recorded after the purchase money mortgages) would be extinguished. This sale will insure that the Conservation Easement will remain intact. This is the first project that involves the property ownership and the Land Trust. With this project they are asking to exercise a right that was not given up on the property. They have approximately 50 acres of land, of which 36 acres is in the Conservation easement on which no buildings can be located. The balance of 12 acres is divided into 9 lots. Each lot has approximately an acre to an acre and a half building area. There can be no future subdivision or any future use of the property except what has been reserved. This property is probably the most protected and regulated piece of property in the County. These lots are subject to: the SEP A mitigation, their own CC&R's, and an extensive Conservation Easement. Mr. Wilburn added that this proposal is permissible under County ordinances, existing and proposed. It is allowed under the CC&R's. It is compatible with the Conservation Easement and the Land Trust. It is also a reasonable use of the property. This sub- division of 50 acres (about 1,600 feet of bluff front) is served by a new private road which is subject to a Road Maintenance Agreement. The lots under consideration are lots 7 and 8 along with lot 9, which are the three most southern in the subdivision. The private road accesses these three lots first. These three lots have the largest setbacks from the bluff of any of the lots in the subdivision. The parcel this family is buying is about 18 acres. This property will be the primary residence of the purchasers. There is a mistake in the Hearing Examiner's findings where it says that there will be a 7 bedroom house, with 6 bedrooms to be used by the "business." This is not the case. The house will be a substantial, permanent, primary residence of this couple. It will have additional rooms. He asked that the Board adopt their own findings based on the information presented and approve both of the permits. VOL 20~AG~ 855 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Wilburn then reviewed the findings in the Hearing Examiner's report: Finding 1: The information presented today has the architectural renderings of the architect who has been employed. A landscape architect has prepared the conceptual site plan that has been submitted. There are a number of residences in the area that range from an 18 foot travel trailer to houses that are on the market for over a million dollars. There are a number of un-subdivided lots in the area that support two or three residences. Finding 2: Because no proposal was in front of Hearing Examiner he determined that the outdoor portions were a necessary element in evaluating the effect on surroundings. A site plan shows the two residences located in the middle of 11.7 acres of property. There have been no objections to the project by any of the adjoining landowners. Complaints have been from other lot and property owners in the area. Finding 3: This finding is a discussion of the history of Bed and Breakfasts in the area. Finding 4: This finding talks about Middlepoint Road which is a gravel road. It also says wells have not yet been drilled. Two wells have been drilled on the property (50 acres) and one produces about 15 gallons per minute while the other produces about 20 gallons per minute. The lowest flow of existing wells in the area is about 12 gallons a minute. According to the well driller, this is a recharging aquifer and the draw-down is minimal. This finding also says that the Jefferson Land Trust has expressed a number of concerns, but because there was no proposal they could not be addressed with any specificity. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the opponents of the project have had a chance to look at the information Mr. Wilburn has presented today? Mr. Wilburn answered that they have not seen this information yet. Finding 5: There is more history about how other Bed and Breakfasts have been developed and he added this is an unusual project. Finding 6: There were complaints about notice, but many people showed up and they were well prepared. He agreed that the Land Trust should be given special notice. Finding 7: This condition says that the covenants are a descriptor of neighborhood character. Mr. Wilburn explained that their covenants include architectural guidelines that exceed any issued by the County. They know that they have to meet those guidelines. Finding 8: Review criteria of the Emergency Zoning Ordinance must be met: a) This proposal will not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. b) The proposal will not impact the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The Middlepoint Conservancy and people who do not object to the project own the immediately abutting properties. c) This proposal is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Com- prehensive Plan. d) The approval of this project will not cause an erosion of the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, but there is a concern on the part of the Land Trust, that cumulative impact of a number of bed and breakfasts located on their property might have that type of negative impact. e) There will be little, if any visibility of any of the structures on this property except possibly from the private road. f) This proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. VOt. 20 fAG~ 856 The design philosophy of the architect of record for the project is "Primary concern is for the whole site and home to complement each other and function harmoniously." With regard to the issue raised by Mr. Lessmeier regarding the need of the owners to have the proceeds from the business to support the purchase of these lots, Mr. Wilburn clarified that the purchasers are a very wealthy family that are paying cash for the first two lots and have an option to purchase a third lot. He presented a portion of the land sale Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . agreement. Mr. Wilburn then read from a letter from the Land Trust, dated March 23, 1994 (see attached.) He added that the Land Trust has also expressed concern about the number of bed and breakfasts in the area. He advised that they agree to a further condition that the remaining lots owned by the Middlepoint Conservancy not be eligible for a bed and breakfast permit. They will also agree to a condition that would not allow them to go into the Conservation Easement area for a drainfield. The drainfields can be accommodated in the buildable area of the lots and they will not have to be in the Conservation Easement area. Mr. Wilburn reported that in Section 6, Definition of the CC&R's, residence means buildings occupying any lot. In Article 3, Section 1, Residential Use says that no lot shall be used for any purpose other than residential use, except for completely enclosed home business, where no visible exterior evidence of the business exists. He then reviewed the provision of the road maintenance agreement which requires that any owner of a parcel that damages the road is responsible to fix it. There is a stormwater maintenance agree- ment and restrictive covenants to address these concerns. In response to a question from Chairman Hinton, Mr. Wilburn explained that because there was no proposal in front of the Hearing Examiner, there was no way to judge how many bedrooms would be in the structure. There was discussion in the correspondence that this project would be primarily a business and that the residential nature of the project was secondary. That is not the case. These people will be building a substantial primary residence for themselves, that they will occupy year around. In connection with that, they will have a couple of bedrooms for rent. It was also alleged that since Mr. Wilburn's company is a corporation, they could not reside in the house. The County ordinance provides that the primary residence can be occupied by either the owner or a lessee. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the proposal today says specifically how many bedrooms will be for rent? Mr. Wilburn answered that the proposal presented today does not say how many bedrooms will be available for rent. He reported that they have applied for six (the maximum) for each permit. The owners have not decided which lot they will be building on. They want the ultimate flexibility. They want two of their three lots to be permitted. It is fairly unlikely that they would use both of the permits, but they could. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the County can determine that no more than 50% of the floor area is used for the home business (finding 3)? He asked what the floor area of these homes would be? Lee Wilburn reported that they will have to comply with all County ordinances. The first house that there is a rendering of is a 6,000 square foot structure. 6 bedrooms out of 6,000 square feet would not take up more than 3,000 square feet of the house. If this is a condition they will comply with it. Chairman Hinton asked if there is septic approval on this site? Lee Wilburn reported that they currently have conventional septic system approval for a total of 9 bedrooms on the property. They have had a soil engineer out to re-examine the soils to determine if there is sufficient capacity and land area available outside the Conservation Easement to increase that. Their preliminary finding was that 27 bedrooms could be accommodated in the buildable area of the two lots. These lots are up high, virtually flat, and have the largest buildable area of any of the lots in the subdivision. Commissioner Huntingford asked about water for these residences? Mark Huth reported that if they are using one well for a single family residence it is exempt from State regulation if it is drawing less than 5,000 gallons per day. Lee Wilburn added that well testing and flow capacity are required. Kent Anderson asked about the restrictive covenant to keep the Middlepoint Land Conser- vancy from building a bed and breakfast on any other lot they own. Mark Huth added VOL 20 fAG~857 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that if this is included as a restrictive covenant, it would have to be one that could not be changed by a vote of the land owners. Doug Mason was sworn in by the Chairman and explained that he is the President of the Jefferson Land Trust and is present on behalf of the Board of Directors. He stated that the position of the Land Trust is expressed in the March 23, 1994 letter. They fully intend to enforce the restrictions in the Conservation Easement agreement, they agree that the landowner has reserved all of the landowners rights with regard to the developable portions of the property. They feel that people who have supported the Land Trust should expect them to follow through on the restrictions that they hold, but the Board realizes that if the Trust tries to do things to take steps against activities that they don't specifically have the right to take action on, may be jeopardizing the use of Conservation Easements in the future. Chairman Hinton swore in Mark Grant, an employee of Mr. Wilburn's through Vantage Homes and property owner off Middlepoint Road, who stated that he was involved with the physical development of the Middlepoint subdivision. He is extremely proud of the work they did at Middlepoint to preserve the area and keep its pristine nature. He explained that they worked especially hard during the clearing and grading process to save trees and Rhododendrons that could be used on other portions of the property. He believes that the Middlepoint development will serve as an example of how economic development can work with conservation and preservation. He feels as long as a family residence that serves as a bed and breakfast complies with the CC&R's and the conserva- tion easement, it will be a viable residence in that area. Education is needed to teach people what is important about conservation and keeping natural resources in tact. Guests who stay at the bed and breakfast will have a chance to experience a positive growth development that has kept preservation as a primary goal. The actions of the residents of the Middlepoint community can help enhance the education process and keep the natural resource in tact. After further comments about the growth in the Middlepoint area and the responsibility of property owners, Mr. Grant added that he is in favor of the proposed bed and breakfast. Chairman Hinton then swore in Michael Lessmeier who said that he and his wife own Lot 3 of this development and they are the only ones that have built in the development. All of the property owners in the subdivision are opposed to bed and breakfast development in this subdivision. They are concerned that strangers will come into the area and go throughout the private road which is supposed to be a cul-de-sac. He explained that the proposal that is being discussed today is quite different than what was presented originally. The proposal is changing literally before their eyes. He added that they have not seen the new information submitted to the Board. He encouraged the Board to go back and look at the applications and review what was presented to the Hearing Examiner and Planning Department. The staff report indicates that l'six bedrooms of the new single family residence are proposed to be used for the bed and breakfast home business and one bedroom will be utilized by the applicant for a total of seven bedrooms." Mr. Wilburn has submitted a new and different proposal. Mr. Lessmeier stated that he objects to that. Mr. Lessmeier stated that other concerns regarding the proposal are: · The proposal originally was for the business to pay for the land and the buildings. Mr. Wilburn stated that is not true, but Rick Sepler stated that the purchase was contingent on the ability to pay for it, at the last hearing. He added that he doesn't know if that position has changed since that hearing. · Mr. Wilburn says that they reserve the right to use part of the property as they see fit as long as it doesn't violate the existing covenants. Mr. Wilburn says that the existing covenants allow this type of use. Mr. Lessmeier disagrees with this. The first paragraph of the covenants talks about insuring "the preservation of the gracious residential environment at Middlepoint." It goes on to say in Section 1, Article 3, that VOL 20 ~Ar)r. 858 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no lot shall be used for any purpose other than residential use, except for completely enclosed home businesses where no exterior evidence of the business exists. He stated that he would not have purchased at Middlepoint if he had known that Mr. Wilburn was going to take this view of this covenant. He stated that he and the other lot owners will enforce this covenant. · Mr. Wilburn indicated that there was no objection by the adjoining landowners. He is one of the adjoining landowners and the adjoining landowner to the south does not live there. Virtually everybody that has purchased in the subdivision is opposed to this project. The vast majority of the neighbors are opposed to it. There are no other developments like this out there. · Mr. Wilburn stated that he didn't submit the details because he didn't understand that they were necessary. Mr. Lessmeier pointed out that he has submitted the details now and that is what they object to. He should have done that before so they would have an opportunity to comment on them. He doesn't feel that Mr. Wilburn can argue that the Hearing Examiner's findings are wrong or inaccurate when the Hearing Examiner didn't have a plan to consider. · In Finding 3 the Hearing Examiner understood that the applicant was requesting the maximum allowable six bedrooms for each of the businesses plus one for each of the future owners. That was the proposal that Mr. Wilburn was presenting and that was the proposal that the hearing was about. · Mr. Lessmeier stated that it is his position that the applicant has the burden of proof to show compliance with the conditions on the project. He feels that Mr. Wilburn has not met that burden and that he cannot meet that burden with six bedrooms. · The people who purchased property at Middlepoint feel that this project will have a substantial impact on the quality of their neighborhood. Potentially two, six bed and breakfast units will project a number of people in the area that would literally double the population and traffic of the area. More wastewater and noise will be created. The character of the subdivision will be changed from what it was intended to be. · It is not known who the owners are or how many people propose to use these residen- ces as their actual residences. It is not known if they intend to live and work there full time. Mr. Lessmeier said that he would like to see the projected cash flow from these bed and breakfast establishments because he feels that would show that they clearly are businesses as opposed to residences. According to the County's ordinances the business use must be clearly subordinate to the residential use. · This development will adversely impact the neighborhood and Mr. Lessmeier believes that it is in violation of the existing covenants and conditions on the subdivision. · Mr. Lessmeier feels that the Hearing Examiner made an appropriate and fair decision after carefully listening to all of the evidence. He urged the Board to adopt his findings and recommendations and to deny this application. Chairman Hinton asked Mr. Lessmeier, if he would be willing to consider a smaller bed and breakfast? Mr. Lessmeier stated that he personally wouldn't object to a one or two bedroom bed and breakfast, but six bedrooms is clearly a commercial venture. Chairman Hinton swore in Sebastian Eggert. Mr. Eggert explained that he is a resident of the area and lives about 250 off of East Middlepoint Road. He was pleased with what Mr. Wilburn did with the Conservation Easement in his development because it seemed to be as good a way as possible to combine Mr. Wilburn's right to develop the property with the concerns for protecting the property. He feels that the concerns that the neighbors have about this project are based on the concern that the worst can happen. The original proposal is for two bed and breakfast businesses with six bedrooms each. Mr. Wilburn says that isn't what's intended, but the only thing that can be reviewed is what is on paper. There is no secure agreement between Mr. Wilburn and the purchaser of the property as to how many bedrooms there will be if in fact there is only one residence on one of the three lots. He added that the neighbors are concerned because the proposal as presented doesn't meet the following criteria established in the County's ordinance: VOL 20 fAf,f 859 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) A home business must be clearly subordinate to the residential use of the property. This application says six bedrooms in each of two residences. 2) At least one person engaged in the operation must reside on the premise and must be the owner or lessee of the property. What does that mean? Are his and her properties? 3) Home businesses shall maintain business hours that are not disruptive to the normal use of the adjacent properties. There will be a number of cars in and out to accommodate each couple staying there. This would be a negative impact. This is a gravel road. Who will pay for the maintenance of the road due to all of this extra traffic? These roads are really narrow and dangerous. These technicalities need to be addressed in a tangible form on paper so that they can be addressed by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Eggert said that he is against the project as presented because what is going to happen there has not been clearly stated. Chairman Hinton swore in Edith Hanson. Ms. Hanson stated that she is the property owner to the south of this site and has been a taxpayer in Jefferson County since 1975. She purchased the property which abuts Mr. Wilburn's in 1977. She has reviewed all the documents involved with Mr. Wilburn's subdivision. Based on her review of what Mr. Wilburn has done so far in this area and her long term association with property in the area, she supports his project. Jim Tate was sworn in and explained that he and his wife own Lot 2 of this subdivision. When they were looking for property they looked for privacy and the beauty of the property due to the conservation of the trees and the wildlife there. They have been disappointed in this proposal. Middlepoint Road is very narrow with curves. Their other concern is bringing people into the area who aren't aware of the covenants. There is a walking trail that they could use, but it cuts through private property. They agree with what Mr. Lessmeier has said and at this time they are in opposition to this project. Chairman Hinton asked if they would have any concerns if there were a lesser number of bedrooms in the proposal? Mr. Tate stated they would look at a proposal that is lesser. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the Tate's would feel if, due to Mr. Wilburn's financial hardships, the agreement with the Land Trust was no longer valid? Mr. Tate answered that he sympathizes with Mr. Wilburn's position and that is a concern, and he is not sure how that would be effected. He and Mr. Lessmeier have discussed how they would fight to preserve that agreement. Debran Kelso was sworn in and explained that she is a resident of the Middlepoint area and is also a wildlife biologist. She referred to a map of the Quimper Planning area which included overlays of the critical areas. She reported that this is a critical habitat area, a seismic and geological hazardous area, a wetland area, there are shellfish and eelgrass beds near the development, and it is a critical aquifer recharge area. Lee Wilburn has done an admirable job with his development and they agreed to the plan on the basis that a limited amount of that area would be developed for single family use. What he is proposing at the moment is much different than single family residences in the area. It's a commercial enterprise. It's twelve bedrooms, with potentially 25 new people coming in each night to wander through the property and to disturb a sensitive area that should be protected under the critical area ordinance. She urged the Board to read the letters in the record that indicate the concerns about water use, salt water intrusion and degradation of the wildlife values. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the agreement with the Land Trust includes a walking trail through the conservancy area and if that trail can be used by anyone or just the land owners in the development? Lee Wilburn answered that the conservancy area is dedicated to the public. Commissioner Huntingford clarified that whether a bed and breakfast project VOL 20 ur.ç 860 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is there or not, this conservancy area is a place for the public to go to observe and enjoy the wildlife. Lee Wilburn answered that is correct. Debran Kelso stated that most of the people who live there don't walk there very often. The natural thing for people who visit for the first time is to take advantage of that area and possibly on private areas. This would cause a lot of additional disturbance to this sensitive area. Julie Jaman was sworn in and said that she is a member of the Board of the Olympic Environmental Council. She stated that they have been involved with Middlepoint land use issues since 1991. Their concerns are along the lines of: cumulative impacts to this critical area; susceptible aquifer recharge area; increased vulnerability by development; salt water intrusion; bluff stability and the unique habitat. The Land Trust conservancy document indicates east and west easements. The east easement doesn't have a trail open to the public, while the west easement is restricted to residents only and then only for bird watching and taking pictures, etc. Visitors cannot go there. How visitors would be kept out of that area to the bluff is a problem because fences cannot be built in that area. Is this going to be two 6,000 square foot buildings, plus parking, plus landscaping? What are the impacts from stormwater to the bluff erosion and caving? The proposal doesn't specifically address how many guests will be in each room, for how many nights a week, how many rooms, how many cars and the consequences of contaminants to the aquifer from cars, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Even though the project proponent has indicated that they are willing to agree that there won't be any additional Bed and Breakfasts on the remaining three lots, they don't indicate what other home businesses would be allowed. Chairman Hinton asked if the Quimper community planning committee has addressed the home business issue? Julie Jaman answered that a sub-committee is working on that element of their plan. Meg Wilburn was then sworn in. She reported that she has been involved in this project since the property was acquired from Tom Beavers. She stated that they acquired the property with the idea of conserving it because at the time it was close to being clear cut. In light of the fact that this project is in danger of default, she feels that the remaining lots that have not been sold should be subject to the same treatment (conservation easement) because there is a lot of marketable timber on them. The owner of the note doesn't live in Jefferson County any longer and doesn't have the same interest in what's best for the community as the present owners of the property. They've done all that they can to preserve what's there and still develop it. They have given up a lot of property owners rights with the conservation easement. She added that she doesn't see how a bed and breakfast would have that much of an impact. Lee Wilburn then responded to the comments made. He presented and reviewed a map (which was in the staff report) of the conservation easement with the trail (old Middlepoint road bed) indicated on it which is open to the public. The trail is ten feet wide to the DNR parcel and several groups are working to connect that trail to go through to Fort Worden. The trail is dedicated and open to the public. The main road that serves this subdivision is a private road. The road easement is 60 feet wide with an all weather surface that is about 24 feet wide. He then read from the conservation easement Section 6, paragraph K (page 12) regarding permitted uses in the portion of easement to the bluff, which says "walking, viewing, bird watching and similar passive recreational uses, however, this easement does not grant any lot owner the right to use any other lot for such purposes. " Regarding over use of the private road by strangers, Mr. Wilburn noted that the road could be gated. Mr. Wilburn added that a number of neighborhood type issues have been brought up that can easily be worked out. The buyers of the property will be living there and they can work these problems out. VOL 20 rAG~ 861 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 16, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With regard to Mr. Lessmeier's comments, Mr. Wilburn noted that the staff report talks about six bedrooms with one utilized by the applicant. Mr. Wilburn explained that he doesn't know where that information came from. The application which is in the staff report, which he signed, says "six unit bed and breakfast inn to be established in a new residence." Comments have been made that the proposal has been changed, and Mr. Wilburn added that what he has tried to provide the information that the Hearing Examiner was lacking. He added that there is no change to what is proposed for the property. Mr. Sepler was mis-quoted because he did not say that the purchase was contingent on income from the property. He said the purchase was contingent on receiving this permit. This wealthy, recently retired couple wants to have their own bed and breakfast. A six bedroom bed and breakfast is allowed by the County regulations as a home business. The rest of this area is going to be developed. There is more protection for that property with the Conservation Easement in place, than would ever be placed on that property again. Mr. Lessmeier urged the Board to listen to the tapes of the Hearing Examiner's hearing to determine what Mr. Sepler said. He added that he feels that the entire hearing was for an application for six bedrooms out of seven. These two units will basically double the expected population of this subdivision which he feels is not a tiny impact. Hearing no further public testimony, the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford read Rick Sepler's comments from the minutes of the Hearing Examiner's hearing (see attached,) and stated that he would like to listen to the tape of that hearing before making a decision. Commissioner Huntingford moved to continue this hearing to May 24, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: ~ ATTEST: ad,d() ~~~J ~rna L. laney, f ð Clerk of the Board ( t:)(úcS Q cI r+!J51A-tuJ Richard W ojt, Member" VOL 20 r~L· 862