Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060391 · " ..... '0' ./ MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 3, 1991 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. DeputY Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of the Transition in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth came before the Board to discuss the changes that will be made in the Prosecuting Attorney»s office due to John Raymond's resignation and his appointment as Prosecuting Attorney. He reported that candidates are currently being interviewed for the position of Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. It is hoped that the position will be filled before the end of the month. There are actually two Deputy positions to be filled because a new position was approved in the 1991 budget to be filled in October. The position of Records Technician will also be filled. Space continues to be a problem, Mark Huth noted. There is no space for the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney that will be hired in October. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Bob Minty. Emergency Services Coordinator re: Special Events Permit for Hadlock Days: Bob Minty, Emergency Services Coordinator, reported that all of the health permits for the concessionaires who participate in the Hadlock Days festivities have been approved, The insurance rider and electrical permit are also in order. The Sheriff is responsible for the traffic control for the events and a traffic control plan has been approved. Commissioner Brown moved to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the special events permit for the Hadlock Days parade. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Initiating A County Road Pro,ect CR0984: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that this road project is part of the chip sealing program for this year, Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 52-91 initiating County Road Project CR0984 as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, CONTRACTS (3) re: Rural· Arterial Program: Dosewallips Road. Beaver Vallev Road CR0S11. and Chlmacum Road CR0953; County Road Administration Board (CRAB): Gary Rowe reported that these agreements are for the following: DosewalliDS Road: From Highway 101 at the Bayshore Motel westerly to the Brinnon School. $174,000 in RATA funds, Commissioner Brown moved to approve the agreement \ I;:; 'j \.' . 1- On· , y .. - { t _ ,_ . ! r ~ -' \ ç-;; 1 1. t·~!, I ,; . 5· rf)J;,{ r . ¡ , ~' ,,~- ....... f.....f1.iJ · . Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 2 as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Beaver Vallev Road: Two sections of road improvements have been approved for RATA ($271 ,920) funding on the Beaver Valley Road. One section has been completed and this project is the second section to be completed. The Beaver Valley Road is scheduled to become a State Highway next year. When it is turned over to the State this funding will also be transferred so that the projects can continue in a timely manner. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement for the Beaver Valley Road as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chimacum Road: The County has already received federal aid funds on this project. $185,000 in RATA funding has also be approved for it. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement with the CRABoard for the Chimacum Road project as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Application to Open County Road Right-of-Way; The north 100 Feet of Raven Road; Nolton's Addition to East Port Townsend Plat. Marrowstone Island: Pope & Talbot. Applicant: 911 System Coordinator Bob Henderson reported that Pope and Talbot has applied to open the last 100 feet of Raven Road on Marrowstone Island, to allow access to their property. They are asking to open this right-of-way to minimum County road standards. Gary Rowe reported that the all of the platted street has been opened for access except this last 100 feet. It was not opened to County Road standards, however. He asked at what point it is appropriate to ask people to build the full length of the road to minimum County Road standards? Chairman Dennison stated that a Forest Practices Permit should be reviewed before this application is approved. Commissioner Brown added that whoever opened the road as a driveway, did not intend that it be used for logging trucks. If the property will remain as timberland after it is logged, there may not be a need to open it to County road standards. The policy of allowing people to open rights-of-way to private driveway standards needs to be reviewed. The Board concurred that the Forest Practice Permit be reviewed before action is taken on this permit. Later in the Dav: Gary Rowe reported that the Forest Practice Application has been reviewed and it indicates that the land will by reforested, but the land owner intends to develop the land within three years. Pope and Talbot will be re-planting the property for the property owner. If the property is short platted at a later date the road will have to be brought up to minimum county road standards. Commissioner Brown stated that Pope and Talbot will have to leave the road in as good or better condition than it is in currently, Commissioner Brown moved to approve the application to open County road right-of-way with the conditions suggested by the Public Works Department and an additional condition that it be left in the same or better condition than it is in currently. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, Application· to Open County Road Right-Of-Wav re: Phipps Road and 10th Avenue. Irondale: Gene Seton. Applicant (See also Minutes of Mav 28. 1991): . Bob Henderson reported that he and Commissioner Wojt made a site inspection of the right-of- way on Phipps Avenue. This right-of-way is within 300 feet of Chimacum Creek which means this request should be reviewed by the Planning Department. There is also the question on the width of the road to be built on the right-of-way. The last issue is the placement of the road in the right-of-way. Since more information is needed on the environmental impacts and the possible shoreline impacts, this application will be put on the Board's agenda for June 10, 1991. Yûl 1 7 r~r," or 52lJ -, · . Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 3 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Call for Bids; HV AC at the Jefferson County Corrections Center: This bid call is for the design and installation of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system for the Jefferson County Corrections Center, Frank Hall, Architectural Project Inspector reported. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the bid call setting the bid opening for June 24, 1991 at 11 :00 a.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Call for Bids: Hadlock Shop Roof: AI Scalfp Project Manager, reported that this project will remove and replace the metal roof on the County Road Maintenance Shop at Hadlock. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the bid call and set the bid opening for 11:15 a.m. on Monday June 24, 1991. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Craig Ward re: RevieW of Comments from Growth Management Forum on Wetlands (Continued from Mav 28. 1991): Senior Planner Craig Ward and Associate Planner Jim Pearson continued their review of the comments received at the Growth Management Forum on wetlands. . One of the main issues that needs to be resolved, Craig Ward noted is "no loss" versus "no net loss" of wetlands. What is done in developing policy from this point on will be impacted by the decision made on this issue. Commissioner Brown stated that he needs more information before he would be comfortable with a "no loss" determination. Craig Ward reported that a clear definition should be developed of these two terms. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels that a uno net lossu policy would save wetlands from degradation by development, and maintain the County's ability to preserve wetlands. He does not know how the County would be able to function with a uno loss" policy. Jim Pearson reported that the model wetland policy developed by the State sets up a hierarchy for reviewing developments to avoid, minimize and compensate for any impacts of developments on a wetland. Craig Ward added that it· would be very hard and restrictive to achieve a Uno loss" policy, Chairman Dennison stated that he has no problem with developing a Uno net loss" policy, but he wants to be sure that the issues surrounding wetlands are addressed. Small wetland areas Oess than one acre in size), Craig Ward reported, are exempt from SEPA Jim Pearson reported that sensitive areas, however, such as wetlands, are not categorically exempt. Wetlands by their nature are environmentally sensitive areas and they need review, Chairman Dennison added. He suggested that policies be developed that require SEPA review for all wetland areas. Standards would have to be developed for issues such as distance of a development from a wetland, etc. The Board concurred that a "no net loss" policy be developed. Public Involvement: Craig Ward reported that at the last discussion on public involvement, the Board members indicated that they would personally call realtors, developers and builders and urge them to be involved in this process. The Commissioners have done this. Commissioner Brown asked about public involvement beyond this point? Chairman Dennison stated that the Board is working with the Planning Commission on the issue of the public involvement in the process of developing policies. Craig Ward added that people have been contacting the Planning Department and providing their own summaries of the public input from the forums. After further discussion of this issue, Chairman Dennison stated that this will be discussed with the Planning Commission, Jim Pearson reported that it was suggested at the forum that the Washington Watershed Council's policy recommendations be incorporated into the County's policies. Commissioner y(}t 17tH1~ 00 525 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 4 Brown stated that these recommendations will be considered like all of the comments received are considered. How to protect wetlands in currently approved developments that may have not been protected in the past was then discussed. This matter would be hard to address in the interim policies. Jim Pearson reported that there is concern about determining what is an appropriate buffer? The model policies developed by the State Department of Ecology address buffers and how to size them for the intensity of the development. It comes down to the function and value of the wetland to help determine the width of buffer needed to protect the wetland, Craig Ward added. Giving a developer a choice of using a standard buffer size or submitting a plan for something other than the standard buffer, was suggested as a way to handle this issue. Jim Pearson then asked what process would be used for obtaining necessary technical information, who would provide the information requested, and who would pay for the development of that information? Commissioner Brown stated that the concern is that if a consultant is used, whoever pays the consultant will be able to influence the outcome of the consultants report. Craig Ward will develop options for the Board's consideration on how to handle this situation. Wetlands Ordinance: Craig Ward reported that right now the plan is to tighten up SEPA instead of recommending a stand alone ordinance. Liberal Construction Policv: Craig Ward reported that he is not sure that "liberal construction" works well in the development of general policies. It does work well in project by project review. Chairman Dennison noted that in development of policy, "liberal constructionli can mean that when considering the choices (i.e. 150 foot versus 200 foot buffer), the choice that protects the most and preserves the most options would be adopted. After reviewing the rest of the comments, Chairman Dennison reported that a comment was received from AI Boucher reminding the Board that each of these forums are a part of a whole, bigger process of the Growth Management Act. PLANNING AND BUILDING Review of Compliance with Shoreline Permit ISDP88-D016 Conditions (Pope Resources Inner Harbor) re: Vegetation Preservation: Lot 34 Ludlow Point Village: Burt Loomis: Associate Planner Jim Pearson submitted a memo from the Planning Department regarding the compliance with the vegetation management formula of Shoreline Permit #88- 0016 (Pope Resources Inner Harbor) for Lots 32 to 34 of the Ludlow Point Village. He then reviewed the vegetation management formula for these lots and noted that: Zone 1 in the Formula covers vegetation in the area overhanging the water. Zone 2 is the area within 15 feet of the ordinary high water mark, Zone 3 is the area more than 15 feet back from the ordinary high water mark and seaward of the residential setback line. Zone 4 is the area behind the residential setback line. This review is to determine if the re-vegetation that has been done on the site meets the intent of the Vegetation Management Formula. Jim Pearson reported that he has made a site inspection and it appears to him that the Zone 1 and 2 vegetation is in compliance with the formula. In Zone 3, however, most of the vegetation was removed during the construction of the sewer line. As the Board reviewed a video tape of the area, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked if all of the area where vegetation was removed was hydroseeded? Jim Pearson responded that it was hydroseeded and then scarified when the sewer line was installed. Chairman Dennison asked if a planting schedule was agreed upon? Jim Pearson reported that the vegetation management formula was agreed upon. Craio Jones, Attornev Representino Pope Resources: Craig Jones reported that the sewer easement was cleared and the lines were run before the vegetation management formula was adopted. vot 1 ~,- ff1P f'A('~ l;1, ~n~ .;:).,,,,\U'I Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 5 Dick McCann, Attornev for Burt Loomis: Dick McCann asked Mr. Loomis to comment on the planting schedule listed on the Architect's map of the site. Burt Loomis reported that 20 more trees were planted than are listed on this planting schedule. He noted that 29 trees were planted in the area covered by the vegetation management formula. Mr. McCann asked how many trees were removed when the lots were cleared? Mr. Loomis reported that in March/April of 1990 the lots were cleared by Seton Construction for Pope Resources. This clearing was done to determine the topography of the lots. Craig Jones stated that the sewer line was installed in the middle of a 15 foot, cleared corridor. Dick McCann stated that the width of the corridor for the sewer line can be measured, He asked Mr. Loomis again if there were any trees in the area where the sewer line was installed when he purchased the property? Mr. Loomis indicated that there were none. He added that six trees were removed from the site for the installation of the paths. Chairman Dennison asked if any trees were cut out of Zone 21 Mr, Loomis stated that Zones 1 and 2 were not touched except possibly for the path. Mark Huth stated that the problem is that. this is one of the first lots to be cleared in that area and many of the subsequent homeowners will want to landscape their lots in this manner. Mr. Loomis' lots are landscaped in this manner because of a violation of the Shoreline Permit. The questions is, does the re-vegetation that Mr. Loomis has done meet the intent of the vegetation management formula? Mr. Loomis stated that his plan was done to re-vegetate with similar or indigenous trees. Jim Pearson reiterated that what was done in Zone 3 does not appear to be in compliance with the vegetation management formula. Chairman Dennison stated that without planting large trees the site will probably not look like it did previous to the clearing, but a trade off for this may be to require that more and faster growing species, like Alder or Vine Maple be planted. Dick McCann stated that when Mr. Loomis purchased the property a good portion of it was cleared because of the sewer line. The question is to what standard does Mr. Loomis have to re-vegetate? Mark Huth reported that the issue of who should re-vegetate the sewer line easement is not for the County to decide. Mr. McCann responded that the County sent a letter to Pope Resources stating the sewer easement had to be re-vegetated to the County standards. Now it appears that Mr. Loomis is being asked to re-vegetate his property to the state that Pope Resources found it, which he feel is not fair. Jim Pearson stated that one of the problems on this property is the extent of site clearing that was done, but it is not known by the County exactly when that clearing took place, Craig Jones, representing Pope Resources, said that the sewer easement actually lies behind the residential setback line in Zone 4. The portion of the easement that lies within Zone 3 is in question. The utility easements were allow by the Shoreline Permit, with the caveat that once the utilities were installed the easement would be re-vegetated, Pope Resources will be taking care of the re-vegetation of the 15 foot sewer easement. They will be submitting a plan for this re-vegetation to the County for approval. They are also concerned about Mure purchasers at the Ludlow Point development seeing these lots and thinking that they can landscape their lots in the same manner. Chairman Dennison agreed with Mr. Loomis' suggestion to have a Landscape Architect survey the property next door to his lots to determine the types and density of vegetation on them, so that a comparison can be made between that and what Mr. Loomis has done to re-vegetate his lots. Dick McCann stated that Mr. Loomis has been working on this site for some months to meet the re-vegetation management formula, but time deadlines are needed. He asked if the building permit could be issued now, as Mr. Loomis continues the re-vegetation process? Chairman Dennison and Commissioner Brown indicated that they don't feel the building permit should be issued until the re-vegetation work is completed. Mr. McCann encouraged the Board to visit the site to see for themselves what has been done. Jim Pearson reported that to the south and southwest there are lots that have not been cleared at all. The Planning Department concern is that the vegetation management formula and the conditions of the Shoreline Permit are adhered to. The County is in a better condition to get compliance with them if the building permits are withheld. Chairman VGl 1 7 rAÇ,~ 00 527 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 6 Dennison stated that the Board would like to have Mr. Loomis come up with a planting schedule that the County finds acceptable. Craig Jones concluded by saying that sewer line was installed on these lots before the vegetation management formula. Comparing the re-vegetation requirements for that easement to what would be required for the balance of the lots, is comparing apples and oranges. Trees can not be planted on top of sewer lines. Chairman Dennison clarified that the vegetation management formula for the sewer easement is totally separate from what Mr. Loomis is doing. Mr. Loomis added that when he found out about these violations he submitted (within two days) the re-vegetation plan being discussed. He spent $60,000 in re-vegetation of the site. No one has ever told him whether that plan was acceptable or un-acceptable. He is in the situation where the County has shut his job down and he has tried for two months to do everything he can to fix the problems. Jim Pearson said that he disagrees with Mr. Loomis'statement. He has tried to convey that the vegetation management formula is what the County is operating from and in this situation, because the lot is cleared, what is on the adjacent lots must be considered. HEARING re: Piat Vacation: Combine the East 72.91 Feet of Lot 3 of Garten View Short Plat to Adloining Tax 12 within the Southeast Quarter of Section 34. Township 28 North. Range 1 East. WM: Robert Garten. Petitioner: Since the applicant was not present for the hearing due to a misunderstanding, Commissioner Brown moved to re-schedule the hearing for the plat vacation for Robert Garten for 2:30 p.m,. on June 17, 1991. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: Captain Vancouver Estates. Large Lot Subdivision and Class IV General Forest Practice Permit: Sections 31 and 32. Township 31 N. Range 1 West. SW of McCurdy Point: Tom Beavers: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reviewed the environmental checklist on the Large Lot Subdivision known as Captain Vancouver Estates for the Board and 20 interested area residents. Jim Pearson reported that the environmental checklist was submitted in early January and the letters submitted update that information. Mark Huth, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, asked Jim Pearson to identify the probable impacts of the project noted on the environmental checklist. Jim Pearson reported. that the probable impacts are: the use of the area by endangered species (particularly Bald Eagle and Falcons), impacts to these species or their habitat by the development of the property, instability of the bluff, and traffic impacts (see Public Works Department memo), The Public Works Department notes that there may be 90 trips more per day from this subdivision as proposed. Jim Pearson then reviewed this proposal to subdivide a 48 acre parcel located adjacent to Middle Point Road into a nine lot, large lot subdivision. The road would be improved to County standards. Four shared driveways are proposed with access to Lot 1 directly off of Middlepoint Road. The area 125 feet back from the bluff on each lot would not be developed as provided for in the covenants being proposed for the subdivision. There is a Class IV Forest Practice Permit issued on this property. The DNR will condition the Forest Practice Permit to require that the property owner work with the Department of Wildlife to identify and mark potential perch and roost trees. to be left uncut within the 100 foot zone that parallels the bluff on the west side of the property. The checklist items are: Earth: A stability report was prepared and submitted by Jerry Thorsen, Consulting Geologist. The site has a gradual slope toward the shoreline bluff, The bluff is nearly vertical in some areas. The shoreline bluff is identified as unstable in the Coast Zone Atlas. The only grading and filling proposed for the site is the construction of the County road, driveways and homesite preparation. The concern would be any impacts to the bluff through increased surface or sub-surface water flow. Jim Pearson noted that there is an extensive blow down of timber on the northern sections of the property. . vot 17 w' 0° ~'~8' 'I ." ~._..c';r'":."'~- Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 7 This property adjoins the Straits of Juan de Fuca. There will be logging within 200 feet of the shoreline to open up views and remove blow down. Homesites could be within 125 feet of the top of the bluff, which is within 200 feet of the shoreline. Domestic sewage and grey water will be discharged on to the ground, from nine individual wells and septic systems, Jerry Thorsen, Consulting Geologist, then reviewed some pictures of the site with the Board. He reported that the bluff is obviously eroding. The information available indicates an erosion rate of more than 2.75 inches per year. There was no evidence of perching along the bluff. The property drains toward the bluff. There is also no evidence of surface runoff on the bluff. Providing adequate setbacks from the bluff and leaving vegetation in the setback zone are suggested as conditions for this subdivision, Mark Huth reported that Mr, Thorsen's recommendation are on page 7 of his report. Water: Chairman Dennison asked what the Comprehensive Plan density designation for this area? Jim Pearson reported that it is designated as "suburban II which means a maximum of five units per acre. Chairman Dennison asked if cumulative impacts of the full build out to that density could be addressed at this time? Mark Huth reported that the County can require information, but can not base any mitigation for this project on possible future development of the property. Commissioner B. G. Brown added that if the property was to be further divided there would be another review for that subdivision. Mark Huth asked if there are any covenants planned that address further subdivision of the lots? Lee Wilburn reported that the covenants will allow three units per lot or a maximum of 27 units on this plat site. After further discussion of the plat configuration and how to deal with cumulative impacts from full build out, Mark Huth reminded the Board that a mitigation must address a specific, identifiable impact,...which the County has addressed by a written policy. The review of the environmental checklist was then continued by Jim Pearson: Air: Short term construction emissions and long term wood stove emissions are anticipated. Alder, Maple, Fir, Salal, Hemlock and Madrona trees and various shrubs are on the site. There are no wet soil or water plants on the site. Trees and brush would be removed to create views and for the driveways on the site. There is no information available at this time on threatened and endangered plant species on the site. A covenant has been proposed for the lots which will retain natural trees and vegetation within 100 feet of either side of the County right-of-way. There is also a natural area proposed from the top of the bluff toward the water. Letters from Anita McMillian, a Wildlife Biologist for the State Department of Wildlife were read into the record by Jim Pearson. The State Department of Natural Resources states in a letter dated February 14, "if the County approves the proposal and does not require a survey for wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources along with any County requirements or restrictions will condition the Forest Practice Application as follows: The landowner or his representative will contact and work with the Department of Wildlife in identifying and marking potential perch and roost trees to be left uncut within the 100 foot zone which parallels the cliff for the length of the property on its west side. II The checklist information has been superseded by studies provided on Falcons and Bald Eagles. EnerQV and Natural Resources: Wood stoves and electricity will be used for homes. Plants: Animals: Environmental Health: There are no environmental health hazards identified. Normai residential use of emergency services for 9 homes is anticipated. Noise: There will be noise created on a short term basis during construction of driveways, residences and road improvements. vat. 1"'7 . Ihn rA~: \\.;1,. ~~9 ::.'0.... t-"- Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 8 Land and Shoreline Use: The site currently grows timber and adjoins the salt water on the northwest. There are no residences immediately adjoining the property. Comprehensive Plan Designation: The site is designated as Suburban. The Shoreline Program designates the site as natural, within 200 feet of the bluff and suburban for the balance of the site. Jim Pearson then reviewed Jerry Thorsen's recommendations regarding stormwater runoff, the need for communal beach access, and efforts for wave protection. Any development within 200 feet of the shoreline is subject to review under the Shoreline Management Plan. Beach accesses and shore defense works in IInaturalll areas are considered conditional uses. Environmentallv Sensitive Areas: The bluff and the area within 100 feet of the bluff slide areas are environmentally sensitive areas. The Department of Wildlife has indicated that this site is not a critical wildlife habitat. Environmentally Sensitive Areas are defined by SEPA. The proposal includes a natural area, as defined by the Shoreline Management Master Program and residential uses are considered a reasonable use in a natural area. Aesthetic impacts: The only proposai is for single family residences and within the Shoreline jurisdiction they would be limited to 35 feet in height. A 200 foot natural area (100 feet on both sides of the centerline) along the County Road is proposed. Recreational Opportunities: The checklist indicates that the beach is privately owned. Jim Pearson reported that the public has used the beach for years. Tom Beavers responded to a question from Commissioner Wojt, by noting that he is not changing the use of the beach. Jim Pearson noted that there is a stairway to the beach Oocated on property to the north of this property) that has been used by the public for access to the beach. The beach and the uplands have been used by the public in the past. The checklist states that no recreational uses will be displaced, impacted or altered. The sub- division includes an easement on the northerly boundary of the property from the County road to a 20 foot proposed community· stairway. The construction of the staircase is subject to Shoreline Management Act review. Chairman Dennison asked if this staircase is for community property or public access? Tom Beavers answered that the easement to the community staircase and the staircase are for the use of the lot owners. TransPOrtation:The proponent has indicated that there is an existing County road that is 12 to 14 feet in width, which would be widened to 24 feet to meet County standards. There will be nine homesites with drive- ways where residents and guests will be parking. Mr. Beavers has posted an open account agreement with the County to guarantee the improvements will be made to East Middlepoint Road. Public Service Needs: There will be some minimal increases in the public services such as fire protection and schools but not in the immediate future. The roads will be widened and turn around areas installed for fire protection. Commi- ssioner Brown asked if the turn around would be at the end of each of the 12 foot wide driveways? Jim Pearson reported that a turn around will be at the end of Middlepoint Road. Commissioner Brown stated that the 12 foot wide driveways are not adequate for emergency equipment, Tom Beavers said that he didn't think about this but is open to suggestions for improve- ments. Commissioner Wojt asked if the power easements will be located along each driveway? Tom Beavers reported that his goal is to leave as m- any trees as possible, and that is why the driveways are proposed as indi- cated. The utilities proposed are electric, phone, individual wells and on- site septic systems. He added that there is a well on Lot 2. Cindy Kunz, of Kunz Biological Consulting, reported that the létter from Anita McMillan summarized the results of her studies regarding the wildlife on the site. Mark Huth asked about the information on Peregrine Falcons? Cindy Kunz reported that this site is not a likely voc. 1 7 f~r.: on <r-!w.*,,>^ ;)~\J1 L.. f'"-::!,~~"""""",,, '~AAJ"_ ~ · . Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 9 site for Peregrine Falcons. There were quite a few Bald Eagles perched down near McCurdy Point, but none were on this site. Commissioner Wojt asked if the roads run parallel to the slope of the property or at an angle to the fall line of the property? Jim Pearson reported that they run fairly parallel to the slope of the property. Chairman Dennison asked what "as much as possible" means in relation to retaining the vegetation on this site. Tom Beavers replied that he wants to leave the site as natural as possible. A site inspection was made after the winter storms and 20 percent of the trees have been blown down. The Forest Practice Application has been revised to indicate this blow down which increased the amount of trees to be taken out to 35%. He explained further that his plan for cutting trees is only on the driveways, some in the view area and for road construction. Some of the bushy trees or any tree that could blow down and take a chunk of the bluff with it, will be removed, Tom Beavers added. Commissioner Wojt asked what can be done to assure that future property owners don't remove the vegetation along the bluff? Tom Beavers stated that he could put a covenant on the lots to address this. Jim Pearson stated that the County can place mitigation on the plat that will address this activity. Pete Lanalev. Trainina and Safety Officer for Fire District #6: Pete Langley stated that as far as he knows Fire District #6 has not reviewed this project and they have some concerns about the configuration of the driveways. If a fire truck has to go down a long, meandering driveway, there could be a problem. Shirlev Rudolph: Shirley Rudolph stated that she lives in a similar short plat where half of the homes have been built. The roads are straight in as proposed for this plat. Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman asked what the Health Department calculation is for the number of gallon of water used per day by a household? Jim Pearson stated that information is available, but the Health Department sizes septic systems by the number of bedrooms in a residence. She asked what the impervious surface impact would be if the owners of the first nine lot were to build in the first 125 feet? She suggested that a re-configuration, possibly using cluster housing be considered for safety and other reasons. Maraaret Netzel: Margaret Netzel stated that she lives on the other side of Middlepoint and feels that it is important that the areas toward the bluff are protected. Lee Wilburn: Lee Wilburn stated, in response to the comment about using cluster housing on this site, that usually with cluster housing the developer get a density bonus. Five acres per house site is extremely low density and low use of the property. With the restrictions on future development of the lots, this project is better in its current configuration. Chairman Dennison stated that he would like to see the proposed wording for a density restriction on this plat before action is taken on this SEPA determination. Commissioner Brown moved to table action on this SEPA review until June 10, 1991 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Extendlna the Emeraency Moratorium on Fillna and Processlna Substantial Development Permits for the Growth and Culture of Fish in the Marine Waters of Jefferson County (Resolution 89-86): Jim Pearson reported that the emergency moratorium on filing and processing Substantial Development Permits for the growth and culture of fish in the marine waters of Jefferson County (Resolution 89-86) expires next Monday. Commissioner Brown moved to extend the moratorium for a period of six months or until the Shoreline Management Program is updated, Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked if the conditions that led to the passage of the emergency moratorium still exist? Jim Pearson reported that they still exist. The Board is continuing to review the work of the Shoreline Commission to update the aquaculture section of the Shoreline Management Plan. "'; *** .- 'Jot 17 rA";: on ¡:-' -q"j} 1.. , oJ)¡.! -. . It ' .. " Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 3, 1991 Page: 10 Appointment of Interim Plannina Director: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to appoint Craig Ward as the Interim Director of the Planning and Building Department for a period of six months. Craig Ward stated that he is willing to accept this interim position under the following conditions: 1) He cannot be the full time Planning and Building Depar- tment Director and carry all of the growth management responsibilities at the same time. He asked to be allowed to hire a replacement planner, and 2) In six months, if he does not continue on as Director, for whatever reason, he asked if he could resume as Senior Planner handling the growth management responsibilities, The concurred with his conditions and Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as presented, Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1) Bid Award; Engineering Copier for the Assessor's Office awarded to United Business Machines 2) RESOLUTION NO. 53-91 re: Hearing Notice; Application for Franchise; Septic Effluent System on Blue Jay Lane; AI Schoenfeld Applicant; Set for June 24, ·1991 at 10:30 a,m. 3) RESOLUTION NO. 54-91 re: Increasing the Petty Cash Fund for District Court 4) Appointment to the Alcohol/Drug Abuse Advisory Board; To Fill Unexpired Term of Jerry Busic (Expire 1/31/94); Joseph Campbell . MEETING ADJOURNED \ ,/ ;'" ~. <V~'~ ~.:~~""~:~" "', / ,:,;ý/1/ ,/ r' \. \1 , """ "~,."" ,/,;. .:. .. ,,, . . . if .,.,..;:: i'íi.'1 /' " ;" f'" ~,' ,. 1·',.~fJf'" /' . 'ff" 'I .. .. ,: ..I"",?\ / ,. SW: (-1/ . .. '- ~:..'.J.: .~.\\/./ '. f' ... ."......\ ;': . ~~ .;; . ~;: . \ .,. ". .\- '/ /~ If ; ~J! " ". ',~" '/ f . \ fI.;~, "--';~7-. '. ::.; . ",.. ~'¡" ".. .. ~ I/Þ / _ ~ . . r; :s 0 .. .Ç¡ , . ,>. ATTE,f3lT:'-'" "___." J ',,' /--' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~ æ01A1~ ,¿/ Lorna L Delaney, Clerk of the Board B. G. Brown, Member ~ Qçjdl . ard 1::. oj!, ~mber 0/ '.,'n1. 1 Î r~r - on r:::~f!) ..0 ,-Þ';\i¡J .;;¡';"" .¡..,-