Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM071591 " ., MINUTES WEEK OF JULY 15, 1991 The meeting was called to Order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison at the appointed time. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. The Board conducted a briefing session from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. and then began their regular business meeting. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS ReQuest 112-7-91 for Reimbu~jable Work; To Chip Seal and Pre-Level Streets; City of Port Townsend: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that this request is for work on City Streets to a maximum of $144,700.00 and has been approved by the City Council. Commissioner Wojt moved tel approve the request for reimbursable work as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Policy Ac:t Review and Threshold Determination; CR0953 Chimacum Road Improvement Protect. Item 12 on the 1991 Annual Road Construction Proaram: Gary Rowe reviewed the environmental checklist for this improvement project on Chimacum Road which is item 12 on the 1991 Annual Road Construction program. The project is to widen the existing roadway to include two way left turn lane channelization, to construct storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, and sidewalk, surface and install traffic facilities from milepost 0.08 to 0.35. After discussion of the plans for handling stormwater runoff, Commissioner Brown moved to issue a determination of non-significance and lead agency status for CR0953 Chimacum Road Improvement project as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Claim #C-03-91; Charlene Christiansen. Claimant: Gary Rowe reported that the claimant fell on the Courthouse steps and is requesting that the County pay the portion of the medical expenses that her insurance did not cover. A review of the accident indicates that there is no basis to claim that the County is responsible for ït. The recommendation is to deny the claim. Commissioner Brown moved to deny the claim as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ~ yet 1 ~f r,O ' ~'J\.-~J9 1. I r;V u~· a., 11 , > . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 2 AGREEMENT. Interlocal; Recvclina/Environmental Education: City of Port Townsend: This agreement is based on a resolution adopted by the City of Port Townsend, Gary Rowe reported, that set a 50% recycling goal and included 1 % of the garbage and recycling rates to be set aside for recycling education. This agreement would provide that funding to the County to be used in educational and public involvement projects. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement as submitted by the City of Port Townsend. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT. Amendment; Olvmpic Discovery Trail; Extending Pro,ect Period to December 31. 1991 for Phase I; State Interagencv Committee for Outdoor Recreation: Gary Rowe reported that this agreement will extend the time for the first phase of the Olympic Discovery Trail project to December 31, 1991. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement amendment as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Policv Act Review and Threshold Determination; Application to Open County Road Right-of-Wav; Northerlv 5 feet of East Kinkaid Street for the Extension of a Water Main on Unimproved Portion of a County Platted Road: Plat of Irondale; Hensel & Moaseth. Applicants: 911 System Coordinator Bob Henderson reported that it has been determined that new utility construction is not exempt from the SEPA process. This project is to extend a water main on an unimproved portion of East Kinkaid Street right-of-way. The Public Works Department recommends that a mitigated determination of non-significance be issued for this project. The site is flat and there is not any potential for erosion, Gary Rowe added. Commissioner Brown moved to issue a mitigated determination of non-significance and lead agency status for this application to open County road right-of-way with the conditions as recommended by the Public Works Department. 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 all of the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 73-91 re: Establishing A Name for a Private Road; Boardwalk Avenue; Adjacent to Woodland Hills Development 2. RESOLUTION NO. 74-91 re: Establishing A Name for a Private Road; Pacific Avenue; Adjacent to Woodland Hills Development 3. Approval of Treasurer's Statement of Receipts and Disbursements from April 1 to June 30, 1991, Inclusive 4. RESOLUTION NO. 75-91 re: In the Matter of Waiving the Requirement of Competitive Bidding for Drilling Test Wells 5. AGREEMENT 1#91-002(5); Water Quality Improvement Loan with Exhibits A Rehabilita- tion Measures and Exhibit C, Promissory Note (Deferred Payment); Raymond J. and Joyce M. Rollins 6. CONTRACT re: Report on 1) Structural Upgrades to the Existing School Buildings for Vertical Loads only, and 2) Prioritize the Seismic Upgrades Previously Recommended in IIStructuraJ Condition Survey for Quilcene School District No. 4811 dated June, 1990; Adams, Hodsdon, Bessette and Lindsay, Inc. (AHBL) of Tacoma 7. HEARING NOTICE re: Re-setting the Public Hearing; Proposed Amendments to the IIResponsible Officialll Designation under the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance, No. 7-84; Set for August 5, 1991 at 3:30 p.m. 8. Report of Planning Commission Recommendation and Request to Set Review for August 5, 1991; Request for Variance from Road Construction Standards for a Short Subdivision; Dabob Cove Tracts, Coyle Peninsula; Robert Clark, Applicant 9. HEARING NOTICE re: Public Comments on Community Development Block Grant Application; Funding for Planning of Facility Proposed by Skookum Jump Rope and School District #50; Set Two (2) Hearings for July 22, 1991 at 1 :00 p.m. and July 23, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. 10.Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Herschel Atkinson $50.00 and Heraldino Barkema $500.00 11. CONTRACT '3430-894492 re: Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA) Program Funding $6,265.00; the Juvenile and Family Court Services; State Department of Social and Health Services : VOl. 17 r~r,: OÓ- 'r.!} , . ,··Cj;L ~ .. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 3 12. CONTRACT 13430-84482 re: Consolidate Juvenile Services Funding $34,240.00; Juvenile and Family Court Services; State Department of Social and Health Services 13.CONTRACT 13410-84468 re: Structured Residential Treatment Program Funding $2,450.00; Juvenile and Family Court Services; State Department of Social and Health Services PLANNING AND BUILDING Review of Compliance with Shoreline Permit ISDP88-0016 Conditions (Pope Resources Inner Harbor) re: Veaetation Preservation; Lot 34 Ludlow Point Villaae; Burt Loomis: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that two architects drawings were done of Mr. Loomis' lots which were submitted for the record. Dick McCann, Attorney, representing Mr. Loomis, explained that the drawings were done after the last meeting to indicate the tree count in Zone 3 (as defined by the Vegetation Management Formula) on Mr. Loomis' lots. One of the drawings also denotes Qn red) the cleared area from the sewer line. The setback lines that have been discussed are also indicated on these drawings. Commissioner Brown asked if the representations on these drawing are accurate? Mr. McCann stated that the drawings were done by Lentz Architects. Mark Huth reported that the setback lines that purport to represent what someone said or indicated, represent just that, and it is not known if they could be proven to be accurate by survey. The setback line which was established by the staff interpretation of the Shoreline Permit setback (indicated as Second Revised Building Setback Line on the drawing) was placed on the plat map by Triad and Associates. Bert Loomis then explained the sequence of events that resulted in the three different setback lines that are indicated on the drawings. Community Services Director, David Goldsmith, reported that the intention of the Board's action of July 8 (noted as line 4 on the drawing) was to make lines 1 (noted as the original recorded building setback line on the drawing) and 4 the same line. The discussion continued regarding why this line was shown on these maps in two different placements. Mark Huth reiterated that the line that the Commissioners accepted was the building setback line as shown on the final recorded plat map of Ludlow Pointe Village Division 1. Mr. McCann asked if the motion made by the Board on July 8 amended the Shoreline Permit? David Goldsmith explained the intent of the Board's motion was to do that. Mr. McCann again asked, for clarification for Mr. Loomis' lots, if they should refer to the line shown on the final recorded plat? On the Architects drawing (Exhibit 1) that line is indicated as Line #1. Mark Huth indicated that is correct. Mr. McCann then restated for the record that the building setback line designated as Line 1 on Exhibit 1 (Merrick Lentz Architect "Zone Three Tree Re-vegetation Plan' will be the controlling setback line for the Loomis property. Jim Pearson reported that Mr. Loomis had an assessment done of the existing trees on Lots 30 to 35 as requested by the Board. He owns Lots 32 to 34 and Pope Resources owns Lots 30, 31 and 35. Jim Pearson added that he made a site inspection and verified that this information is correct. Mr. Loomis has re-vegetated Zone 3 of his lots and has installed an irrigation system on the property. He reported that the width of Zone 3 has been reduced through the Board's action of July 8. In consideration of these factors, the Planning Department staff recommends that the Board find that Mr. Loomis has met the intent of the Vegetation Management Formula and direct that the building permits be issued. He added that one issue has been the vegetation removal. There is no record of who removed what vegetation at what time on these lots, Jim Pearson reported. Commissioner Brown moved that the Board find that Mr. Loomis is in compliance with the Vegetation Management Formula as recommended by the Planning Department. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ReQuest for a Variance: From Road Right-of-Wav Construction Standards. Including a Variance from a Condition of Summary Approval to Implement an Erosion Control Plan: Mats Mats Area Fronting on Oak Bay Road and Jefferson Avenue: Ken Thompson and Ellen Thiesen. Applicants (Tabled July 1. 1991): Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported on the proposed resolution he has discussed with the applicant's !. 'tal 1 7 í ~C~ bg ,.·"n~ .0";'" _. ·011··,·- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 4 Attorney, Craig Jones, for this variance request. The last time this was discussed by the Board it was left to the Prosecuting Attorney and the Attorney for the applicant to come to an agreement as to what their participation would be, if any, in the improvement of Jefferson Avenue. The Public Works Department recommended originally that the applicant purchase 30 feet of right-of-way along the entire 1,300 feet of Jefferson Avenue. Since they are only proposing to create one additional lot (total of 2) they asked for a variance. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request based on the portion of the Subdivision Ordinance that deal with variances. Section 10.301 Sub-section 1 states ''Variances may be granted for other than private roads when the following findings are made: There exists extraordinary conditions or unusual circumstances peculiar to the property and not the result of any action of the applicant." The Planning Commission felt that they didn't have enough evidence to conclude that this condition was peculiar to the Thompson/Thiesen property. As an alternative to granting the variance the County could enter into a voluntary agreement with the applicant that they would participate in the cost of the improvements to the extent that their subdivision would impact the road. The Public Works Department estimates that it would cost approximately $187,000 to upgrade the road to County standards. It was ascertained at some point in this process that the Thompson/Thiesen short plat would have a 5% impact on the use of the road. Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the 5% figure was provided during the Public Works Department review of the preliminary plat. If the 5% figure is applied to the cost estimate it would mean that the applicant would contribute $9,350.00. The applicant disputes the 5% figure and has offered to pay $1,500.00. If their proposal is accepted the money would be kept in a special fund for improvements to the road and would have to be expended within fIVe years. If the improvements are not made to Jefferson Avenue, after five years this amount plus interest would have to be refunded to the applicants, Mark Huth concluded. There is currently a 30 foot, platted (Olympus Tracts) right-of-way along this road, Jerry Smith reported. Commissioner Wojt reviewed what he found when he visited the area, and that the road there now is very narrow and possibly not adequate for emergency vehicle access. The applicant may not be able to purchase an additional 30 feet of right-of-way, Mark Huthadded. Commissioner Wojt reported that there are currently 14 houses along this road. Jerry Smith reported that there are 8 platted lots and a 140 acre piece that is not platted, along this road. The owner of the 140 acres is not willing to sell any additional right- of-way. Mark Huth reminded the Board that the variance request would be a moot issue if the Board agrees that the applicant can contribute' an amount of cash to upgrade the road. Commissioner Wojt noted that one of his concerns is that the road does not meet the standards of the uniform fire code. Turn outs would have to be installed along the road. Mark Huth suggested that the $1,500.00 be used to improve the road to some lesser extent than what is required to bring it up to County Road Standards. Commissioner Brown stated that information is needed from the Public Works Department on how much it would cost to bring this road up to a reasonable safety standard, and when that it is determined, a decision could be made regarding what portion of that cost the applicant should provide. Commissioner Brown moved to direct the Planning staff to ask the Public Works Department to develop a plan including cost estimates to bring this road up to a reasonable safety standard. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Brown moved to leave this variance request on the table until such time as this information is provided. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Review of Comments and Threshold Determination Issued; 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 reported that comments were received from people as listed in his memo, and from Sebastian Eggert. He then reported that he received a call from Dave Gufler of the State Department of Wildlife and was advised that Tim Rymer, the Area Habitat Biologist, was on vacation. Mr. Gufler was telefaxed a copy of the mitigated determination of non-significance, but a written comment has not been received from that department. Jim Pearson added that he does not recall if Mr. Gufler requested an extension of the comment period. If someone had asked him if the comment period could be extended, he would have told them that he doesn't have the authority to extend it. ~ V Gt, ·11Rf . ~ , r r I r ~.. 00 _. > .Jr-,I1""4, J i\....~~¡..J. . .~,... . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 5 Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the State Environmental Policy Act does not make any reference to extending the comment period, The unfortunate thing is that the comment period has passed and he is not sure about extending it now. The purpose of the 15 day period, Mark Huth explained, is not only to give other agencies such as the Department of Wildlife the opportunity to comment, but to allow them the opportunity to assume lead agency jurisdiction from the County, Chairman Dennison asked if the Commissioners Office had received any calls or correspon- dence from the Department of Wildlife on this project? The Clerk of the Board reported that all of the correspondence received on the project is listed on the agenda and that no calls were taken by the office staff from the Department of Wildlife that weren't forwarded on to one of the Board members. The discussion continued regarding the comment period and the lack of a comment from the State Department of Wildlife. Jim Pearson asked how the Board would like to proceed with review of the comments received. Jim Pearson then summarized the comments received from the Washington Environmental Council which state that an Environmental Impact Statement should be required which should include full surveys to determine the exact age and forest type and to fully assess the effects of this proposal on the viability of this unique forest area. There is also, reference, in this letter as well as others, to the existence of Pileated Woodpeckers on the site. Jim Pearson reported that he has gone through the information he has and can not find any documentation of sightings of this species on this site. Chairman Dennison stated that he found two common themes in the comments: 1) the inadequacy of the information the Board has on the site to be able to develop mitigation, and 2) the mitigative measures proposed are not adequate to address the issues. Commissioner Brown stated that as far as the consultant studies presented on slope stability and wildlife habitats, the mitigation was designed to address the impacts identified in those studies. He added that he didn't see any basic facts presented that are new in these comments. Chairman Dennison asked if the mitigation is meaningful? He referred to the comment received from Steve Hayden regarding Condition #6. Commissioner Brown asked if this mitigative measure was a recommendation of the wildlife biologist? Jim Pearson reported that this mitigation was recommended by Anita McMillian of the State Department of Wildlife. He then reviewed a letter from the State Department of Natural Resources which stated that as part of the Forest Practices permit, they would require Mr. Beavers to work with the Department of Wildlife to identify perch trees along the shoreline. (See letter from Vale Case, State Department of Natural Resources dated February 14, 1991). Mark Huth suggested that the condition proposed for the Forest Practice application be included as part of Condition #6 of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. One additional sentence to add to Condition #6 would be that a landscape drawing be prepared to identify which trees are to be left. Mark Huth read from a letter from Anita McMillian to Tom Beavers (presented by Chuck Henry, Attorney for Tom Beavers) dated May 29, 1991, "You have requested if there is a need for a Bald Eagle Management plan for your property. During our site visit when I located the nest tree, I measured the distance, . . . the distance was 325 meters or 1,066 feet. The distance from the. nest tree to the northeast corner of the property is 245 meters or 804 feet. The area west of East Middlepoint Road will not require a Bald Eagle Management Plan. Any proposed land altering activities on the east side of East Middlepoint Road will require a Bald Eagle Management Plan. The subdivision of the property will not require a Bald Eagle Management Plan at this time unless some of the proposed building sites are located east of the road. "The discovery of the Eagle's nest and the validity of the information in the wildlife survey was then discussed. Commissioner Brown moved to amend Condition 6 of the mitigated determination of non-slgnificance to include the comment from Vale Case of the State Department of Natural Resources In his memo of February 14, 1991. The exact wording of this addition to Condition 6 will be developed by the Prosecuting Attorney to express the intent of the Board. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. The motion carried. Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't feel that the mitigation proposed answers the concerns raised on this project. He cited the letter from Chris Marrs which indicates evidence ¡ VOL 17 rAr,~ rt1 . :~03 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 6 of perched water horizons along the bluff line and how that information and the information regarding the stability of the bluff is in conflict with information provided by Jerry Thorsen, Geologist, in his report. Chairman Dennison ag~in asked how mitigation can be developed without sufficient information? He added that he agrees with several of the comment letters that mitigation is meaningless unless there is adequate information about what is being mitigated. Chuck Henry, Attorney for Mr. Beavers, reported that the letter from Chris Marrs was never delivered to him or the applicant. He added that if the letter contains new information, it is inaccurate information. It is not known if Mr. Marrs has any geological training. Mr. Thorsen has provided information in response to comments about the report from Newlin/Dickson which indicates the information is on property with different slope profiles, and the bank height is different. The opponents of the project are speculating that there is some carry over to this project. Mr. Thorsen's report is authoritative and accurate. This information is new packaging on the information that the Board had before making their determination of non- significance. After a discussion whether the information provided by Mr. Thorsen was new information and if it should be allowed, Mark Huth stated that Mr. Thorsen's updated report is new information. He added that the Board could extend the comment period to accept that report, but then other comments could also be submitted. Chairman Dennison stated that as he understands the review period it is to deal with new information or questions of existing information. Chuck Henry added that the information must raise questions of II a significant adverse environmental impact. II Mark Huth clarified that the statute says that if the Board is going to withdraw the MDNS then new information is needed. There is a range of possibilities. liThe Lead Agendcy shall withdraw a DNS if there are substantial changes to a proposal so it's likely to have . . . (not the concern here) or there is significant new information indicating a proposal's probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts. Or the DNS was procured by mis-representation or a lack of material disclosure. II If the Board is going to retain or modify the MDNS¡ new information is not necessary, it can be a further explication of the information they already have. To withdraw the MDNS new information is needed. Chairman Dennison asked what would constitute new information? Mark Huth responded that it would be information that the Board did not have before. Tom Beavers: Mr. Beavers stated that in December, at the recommendation of the Planning Department, a soil stability study was done by a Geologist recommended by that Department. The Geologist did a thorough study. He went to the beach and took pictures which were presented to the Board of the same property represented by the pictures included with Chris Marrs letter. This is not new information. Slope profiles that were presented to the Board with the Thorsen report were then reviewed by Mr. Beavers. Mr. Beavers asked who he could go to for a second opinion if the report from Mr. Thorsen is questioned? Steve Hayden stated to clarify the record, that Mr. Beavers and his Attorney have said that Mr. Thorsen's study was done in December. On page 2 of his report Mr. Thorsen says limy October 3rd visit was primarily to. . . II Nowhere else in that report does he say he was on the site another time. Mr. Hayden asked if he was there in October or December? Tom Beavers responded that Mr. Thorsen visited the property several times. Paula Mackrow stated that regardless of the date of the Geologist visit there are new photographs that show that at some time during the year there is water on the bluff and that needs to be re-studied by another geological study. If pileated Woodpeckers are being mentioned for the first time, during the comment period, then that is new information that was not studied during the original wildlife study. These two items constitute new information and qualify the Board to revoke the MDNS. Commissioner Brown stated that the question is will this project have a significant impact on this portion of the beach? Not being a geologist, he noted that he would have to base his findings of fact on the information provided by the geologist. The discussion continued about the Thorsen report, other Geologist reports that have been done, and if new information could be presented after the comment period. Tom Beavers expressed concern about new information being stated when written information can not be submitted. He continued by noting that Jerry Thorsen was asked and is aware of the t VOl. 1 ""'f ('~t1Ií ~ , r ~f;' iJtl~-- :-'í"J ~ ". '-..ß!..il Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 7 information about perched water tables. He was aware of them when he first looked at the property. He indicated that there are no perched water tables there. Mr. Beavers asked why this is being brought up as an issue right now? Chris Marrs stated that he is not a geologist, but in Mr. Thorsen's report he says there is no hard data supporting some of the things he brings forward and the time of observation on the spot was very short. Chuck Henry reminded the Board that there are very devoted, energetic, opponents to this development. The tactics they are using are getting to be fairly standard and routine including coming in with concerns about stability, wildlife, and other things and insisting that the developer be required to go out and obtain a study to determine if there is a problem. In this case the developer, who is entitled to develop his property within the parameters of the existing law, has gone out and obtained the reports. When he comes back the opponents then say the report was written by an expert who was hired by the owner and therefore is not credible. They have not chosen to go out and hire an expert to do a report to contradict, but they look for every scrape of information they can find from speculation to attack it. The basic information that the Board had before them at the time the MDNS was issued, is before them again in several new packages. This is a concerted effort to create the appearance that there is new information. Unless there is new information that requires the Board to change the existing DNS or to modify it further (one modification has already been made) there is basically nothing new on the record at the time. Mark Huth stated that new information is needed if the Board is going to withdraw the MDNS. To modify the DNS the responsible official shall reconsider information based on timely comments. Jeneen Hayden suggested that the Board review that section of the SEPA Ordinance to which Mark Huth is referring. She added she doesn't read it the way he does. She added that when you look at the entire record that has been compiled on this project, it is very clear that there are potential adverse environmental impacts. . Elmer Harding asked that since Commissioner Dennison stated that none of the County Commissioners have any expertise in these matters and that they have to rely on experts to make their decisions, if the people go out and hire experts who submit reports to the County, do they have any alternative but to accept them? Chairman Dennison noted that the point he has made with respect to the geologic report is that Mr. Thorsen suggested that the bluff is moving at one inch per year and the Coastal Zone Atlas information differs significantly. Mark Huth asked what property the geology report submitted with Mr. Marrs letter of July 9, 1991 is referring to? Chris Marrs stated that he believes that report is for Tom Beavers' property (where he lives) or the lot next to his. Tom Beavers stated that he has never seen that report. Jim Pearson stated that the report refers to Lot 9 of the Eastman Middlepoint Tracts. He identified the area on a map for the Board. In response to Chairman Dennison's concern about the difference between Mr. Thorsen's report and the information on the Coastal Zone Atlas, Chuck Henry noted that Jerry Thorsen explained these differences. Commissioner Brown moved that with the language change In Condition 6, that the mitigative Determination of Non-Significance be upheld. Commissioner Wojt asked Mr. Beavers if he had agreed to the six conditions. Mr. Beavers indicated he had. Commis- sioner Wojt then asked if he agrees with the change in Condition #6. Mr. Beavers indicated he does. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Wojt read mitigative measure #1 which requires a study of current rates of water runoff, including both stormwater and subsurface flows, which may impact the stability of the shoreline bluff. Ch~rman Dennison stated that one of the comments pointed out that a study itself is not a mitigation, and he feels that a drainage plan should be tied to the mitigation. Jim Pearson reported that Condition 2 requires a drainage plan for each lot before a building permit is issued. Chairman Dennison asked how the drainage plan for the whole area could be done on an individual basis when the lots are developed? Jim Pearson re-read the condition which says uany building permit application submitted for construction on the propertyp and any proposed road or driveway construction within Captain Vancouver Estates shall include a drainage plan which shall be designed. . . /I 'Vût 17 Í~(; O~ '·;Jr·,~ " ..,oJ ",;-,',¡ ,.,:,;^,-~. ._;,;-. .~ - Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 8 Pete Langley, Fire District #6, stated that the Uniform Fire Code requires 20 foot wide driveways as a minimum and Fire District #6 follows that code. David Janos asked where the water from a 20 foot wide by 1,000 foot long driveway will go? Commissioner Brown stated that will be taken into consideration when the Public Works Department reviews the drainage plan that is required and it will be addressed then. Steve Hayden stated that this piece of property is not the typical, clear cut, planted, second growth, timberland that is found all over the Quimper Peninsula. This property and Fort Worden are virtually the only pieces of forest that are true forests left on the Quimper Peninsula. What is left on the Quimper Peninsula is the result of the cumulative impacts of no attention being paid to forest habitat. This is a unique piece of property. Habitat values are being discussed, not slope stability. The habitat issues cover much more than Eagle and Peregrine. The Planning Department staff defined the habitat issues down to those for Eagle and Peregrine. Mr. Hayden urged the Board to wait until they at least get the response from the Department of Wildlife. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is any clear way to address the issues raised by Mr. Hayden? Mark Huth answered that there is nothing in the statute that provides for an extension of the comment period, but there is also nothing that says that the Board cannot extend it. Commissioner Wojt added that he was referring to the broader issue of wildlife habitat. Mark Huth responded that unless there is an identified, probable, significant, adverse environmental impact, to that unique habitat, then there is no clear way of addressing it. Chairman Dennison referred to the Gendler (Attorney for Friends of Middlepoint) letter which says "when there is a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality (WAC 197.11.794 (1). The Supreme Court has emphasized that this standard does not require that the impacts be proven conclusively." Mark Huth responded that the first item is a definition of significance. There must be an identified impact. Commissioner Wojt asked that if what Mr. Hayden says is true about this forest being unique, given the laws in Jefferson County, if there any other recourse than to address this issue? Mark Huth responded that the Board must remember that this project is categorically exempt from SEPA be.cause it is a division of land. The only reason that an environmental review is being done is because there is an Environmentally Sensitive area on the property. After more discussion of how SEPA works, Mark Huth re-stated that an impact must be identified, a written policy must be in place to address the impact and then the Board acts on that policy to create mitigation. RCW 43.21 C.060 says that the County shall have written policies. The County's SEPA Implementing Ordinance is such a policy which says "Environmentally Sensitive areas are those areas that are designated and mapped by the County that may have severe limitations to development or development could severely impact the area. II Commissioner Brown asked if the required maps were reviewed to see if that area is noted as an environmentally sensitive area? Jim Pearson reported that there are areas on the property with slopes that are 15% or greater, within 100 feet of an unstable recent, or old slide area, and critical wildlife areas which are considered environmentally sensitive areas. Mark Huth said, in answering a question from Commissioner Wojt, that if Mr. Hayden's assertion was proven by the experts to be true then there would be a different story. In this case there are people from QAFCO (Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition), the OEC (Olympic Environmental Council) and the WEC (Washington Environmental Council) all saying that this is a unique area and the DNR (State Department of Natural Resources) saying that they would issue a Class IV Forest Practices permit to let the applicant clear cut. If the State agency would come forward and say that it is a unique forest area that they feel should be protected then the County would have a basis to do something. After being recognized by the Chairman, Tom Beavers reported that this project started back in October, before he owned the property which is located near where he lives. He purchased the property based on the information from the County. He was then told that he should get a bluff stability report, which he did. He was told to do an Eagle study and a Falcon Study. These were done in February. He has spent nine months working on this project. All kinds of mitigative things have been put into this project. He has done all sorts of things that no one else has had to do on a development in Jefferson County. Chuck Henry questioned the Board's procedure. A motion was made and seconded for the purpose of discussion. He stated that he feels the discussion is to take place between the tVCL 1,··"" r:o··~' . 'r:' 'h ~-'<II J ...::~.~ '1..J.-.r I fAr,:) :;... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 9 Commissioners and perhaps their Counsel. He continued by noting that this application is well within the guidelines of the County ordinances and the · State laws. The applicant has addressed the sensitive area within the definitions provided by the County. Chairman Dennison asked that since there is a lack of information and an imperfect process, how the County can get needed information if the applicant doesn't provide it? Mark Huth suggested that the Board go to a neutral third party such as the State agencies. He clarified that the process is that the agencies are notified and they are to provide information. Commissioner Brown noted that there have been comments received from the State Department of Wildlife. This information was submitted prior to the 15 day comment period, when the project review was begun. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Chairman Dennison voted against the motion. The motion carried. The Prosecuting Attorney will reword condition 6 and present the modified mitigated determination of non-significance to the Board for signing. State Environmental Policy Act Review· and Threshold Determination: Construction of a Joint Use Dock; Lot 5 and 6 of Pleasant Harbor Beach Tracts; Nick and Marla Cecil: Jim Pearson explained that the Planning Department recommends that the DNS issued for Clifford Center on November 5, 1990 be adopted for this project to construct a joint use dock submitted by Nick and Marla Cecil for their property at Pleasant Harbor Beach Tracts. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the DNS issued for Clifford· Center for this project, as recommended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination; Construct a Bulkhead; Lot 30 Division 7. Bridaehaven Plat; John and Donna Dean: Jim Pearson reported that this proposal is to construct a 46 foot pile and plank bulkhead at the 8.7 foot tidal elevation, in alignment with existing adjacent bulkheads, on Lot 30 at Bridgehaven. The tidal elevation was agreed on a number of years ago with the Department of Fisheries for all of the sites at Bridgehaven that request permits or permit exemptions for bulkheads. On October 23, 1989 the Board issued a determination of non-significance for Glen Vorwerk which is located approximately 1,000 feet to the north of this proposal site and is consistent with this project (Shoreline Permit #89-0018 was issued on January 22, 1990). Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the determination of non-significance issued for the Glen Vorwerk project for this project as recommended by the Planning Department. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT. Modification; Tourism Marketina Plan Manaaement; The Economic Development Council of Jefferson County: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the modification to the contract dated February 19, 1991 with the Economic Development Council to increase the scope of work and payment for management of the production of a Tourism Marketing Plan for Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed after all scheduled items had been considered on Monday evening and reconvened at the Gardiner Community Center at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday July 17, 1991 with all three Board members present. HEARING re: Certificate of Compliance (Conditional Use) Application; Convert an Existing Remodeled Barn to Overnight Accommodations for Bicyclists (Bicycle Hostel); Six (6) Acre Parcel Located Adracent to Gardiner Beach Road. Gardiner; William. and Patricia Goldfoos: Chairman Larry Dennison introduced the other two Commissioners; Jerry Smith, Associate Planner; Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth and the Clerk of the Board. He then explained the procedures for the hearings and the two projects that the public is being asked to comment on. 1 'nn ,,:'Jr,~ I VOL . 7 f!(: :;J~ . Ic~) fi Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 10 Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reminded the Board to address the Appearance of Fairness issue which was brought up by Erwin Jones, Attorney for Mr. Goldfoos. Chairman Dennison explained that the Board has been asked to disclose any "ex-parte" conversations or meetings that any of them have had with respect to this project. Chairman Dennison reported that he has had personal (during a meeting) and telephone conversations with Wayne King, William Goldfoos (after the last public hearing) and Mrs. Henshaw (over the telephone). He added that he does not feel that he disclosed any particular bias during those conversations and he doesn't feel that those contacts will bias his opinion in these cases. Commissioner Wojt reported that he has had conversations with Wayne King, Tom Berg, and Suzanne Berg which were not connected with this project. He reported that he has held meetings at the Gardiner Com- munity Center in connection with the Discovery Trail. As the Commis- sioner from this District he has talked to several people from this community and listens to anyone who cares to bend his ear about their point of view. He explained that he has not expressed, to any of these people, what his point of view is and he feels that he can determine this situation on its' merits. Commissioner Brown stated that he has not had any conversations with any of the people on the list On Mr. Erwin's letter) or anyone else in particular about this project. He has had conversations with many of these people over the years about different things, but not directly about this project. He added that any decisions he comes to on this project, won't be swayed by any conversations that he's had which Mr. Jones is questioning. Chairman Dennison added that he had a conversation with Tom Berg but that was about the charge of appearance of fairness that was levied against him when he sat on the Planning Commission. Jerry Smith then gave a staff report which reviewed this application for a conditional use application to convert an existing barn, adjacent to the Gardiner Beach Road (referred to as the Gary Bandy Barn) to overnight accommodations for bicyclists. These accommodations would include showers and cots. There would be no food served. He then reviewed the process that this proposal has gone through to this point. Mark Huth asked the following questions of Jerry Smith: , Q. What criteria the Planning Department staff used in determining that this project is a conditional use? A Jerry Smith reported that in Section 5.50 Conditional Use under 5.52.10 General Conditional Uses states that "General conditional uses are those unusual circumstances where conformance with the designated use of the property is impractical in one or more of the following situations: 1) the proposal is not covered in the Development Code Ordinance, 2) there are limitations placed on the use of the property due to natural constraints, physical conditions or past improvements on the property, or 3) the previous use of the property or structures located on the property render the property unsuitable. " Q. Does the. staff report address those conditions and how they related to the project? A Jerry Smith answered that they are not addressed in a lot of detail. The administrative determination concluded that due the nature of the past improvements to the barn (as a remodelled structure) which is designated for agricultural purposes, this project would fit the criteria of the Develop- ment Code as a general conditional use. Q. Are Bicycle Hostels covered in any other section of the Development Code? I· - 'VaL 17 OAr.: nO· . ~ t,..". (j.. ''-' 9 ' '."r-,.. '--, i"o- j ~._, "~~,~' ~::f.Jft:¿ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15,. 1991 Page: 11 A. There is no specific listing in the Development Code for a project of this nature, Jerry Smith reported. Q. The barn was exempt from getting a Building Permit when it was remodelled? A Jerry Smith answered that is correct. a. How did that exemption come about? A Commissioner Brown stated that agricultural buildings are exempt from the Jefferson County Building Code. Q. Do you know whether the applicant at the time had specifically stated that the barn would only be used for agricultural purposes? A Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Department has an affidavit signed by the owner of the building, that his intention was to only use the building for agricultural purposes. In the event that any other uses were proposed for the building the affidavit states that he would comply with the County Ordinances in effect at that time. Q. Did that knowledge go into your administrative review in determining that this application was a conditional use? A Jerry Smith reported that it was part of the consideration. Q. Does the Board have a copy of all the comments received, in their packet, even the ones from other public agencies such as the Public Works Department? A Jerry Smith reported that the comments are summarized in the staff report, and the documents themselves are not in the Board's packet. Q. Under the Development Code, was this project referred initially to the Planning Commission? A Yes it was, Jerry Smith reported. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing and asked anyone wishing to testify to state their name. Fredrick Tuso: Frederick Tuso stated that prior to the Gardiner Plan (adoption), after the Comprehensive Plan had gone into effect, Mr. Bandy did receive a license and identification number from the State of Washington for operating a retail business out of this agricultural building. This is also part of the agricultural exemption. The Comprehensive Plan clearly states that any business in operation may be sold as a business within three years of the date of it ceasing operation. This is relevant to this issue. Commissioner Wojt asked the nature of the business. Mr. Tuso answered that it was retail sales of agricultural products, primarily produce and floral arrangements and things of that nature. Mark Huth added for the Board's information, that as soon as the County found out about it a UStop Work Orderu was placed on the business and it was stopped immediately. Chairman Dennison asked if the Comprehensive Plan grandfathers those activities that were in existence before the Development Code (was adopted), and if that is true, does it apply to a different type of business? That is a question that will have to be answered. Dottie Sunde (lives in North Kitsap County): She stated that she has submitted two letters for the record. She added that she enjoys driving to this area. William Goldfoos. Project Proponent: William Goldfoos stated that he doesn't believe that everyone knows what a youth hostel is. American Youth Hostel has over 50,000 members in this country and over 500,000 members worldwide. It is a non-profit organization. It is based in Washington D.C. Affiliated with the AYH is the .League of American Wheelmen which is a bicycle arm of the group. Bicyclists are a very fine group of people who are neat, clean, conservationists, they are not noisy or rowdy. He asked that the Board look into this I VOL 17 tX~ CO -.. ~If11~ ...-,jlo:..) '<t .... , ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 12 group before making a decision. To have this American Youth Hostel will be an asset to Jefferson County. The building is there and he feels the building would be better used for the youth of America. It would be used agriculturally also. They have asked the Cascade Bicycle Club in Seattle (4,000 members) if they were to use this facility, if they would use the roads that it is suggested they use. They said they would be glad to use alternate routes. Mr. Goldfoos then explained the alternate routes that are available. Secondary roads are what cyclists use, because they are the safest. Laughn Doescher asked if any studies have been done on the average or median age of the members of the American Youth Hostel? Mr. Goldfoos responded that the AYH members are teens through adults. Worldwide it is mainly adults. Fredrick Tuso asked if this Youth Hostel is basically for overnight accommodations? Mr. Goldfoos indicated that is correct. It's not going to be anything like a day theme park or anything like that? Mr. Goldfoos stated that it is not. Is there a maximum occupancy? Mr. Goldfoos responded that he would like to have no more than 30 people at a time. He and his wife feel they can supervise that group. The accommodations are made by reservation. There is an American Youth Hostel in Port Townsend at Fort Worden. Wayne KinQ:Wayne King asked if this meeting was to discuss the land use change or to sell the American Youth Hostel? Chairman Dennison restated that the purpose of the hearing is to gather information that will allow the Commissioners to make a clearer judgement of how these projects relate to the County's plans and land use ordinances. Joe Ralph: Mr. Ralph asked if the Public Works Department has been asked to comment specifically on what would happen to the road if this hostel went in and who would bear the cost if improvements are needed? Mark Huth stated that Mr. Goldfoos is responsible for submitting a detailed plan of how he would improve bicycle safety on County roads in the vicinity of the development. Mr. Goldfoos answered that there seems to be some animosity towards bicyclists passing by certain peoples homes. There are alternate routes and if the cyclists are asked they would be more than glad to use them. The safety factor is that these are rural· roads. Bicyclists try to seek out rural roads. Carrie Ralph: Carrie Ralph stated that she has travelled in Europe and knows about the Youth Hostel. At night it is dark on these roads. If people were riding on the old Highway Qndicated behind the Community Center) that would be the perfect place for them, not on the lower road. Mark Huth asked what road Mrs. Ralph was referring to? Mrs. Ralph answered roads lower than right along the Highway. People do travel the old roads along the Highway, not the roads down below. Mark Huth asked if the area that is being discussed is on one of the lower roads? Mr. Ralph indicated that it is. Jerry Smith reported that the written comments received from Public Works address parking, specifically that it would have to comply with the design standards of the Development Code; control of surface drainage and stormwater runoff; that the Old Gardiner Road is identified as a primary regional bicycle trail by the Gardiner Community Development Plan; and that the applicant will submit a plan detailing how bicycle safety will be improved on County Roads in the vicinity of the development to the Public Works Department. Jav Levine: Mr. Levine stated that his front porch looks over the Old Gardiner Highway. He sees many bicycles come by his place. What better place is there for the people going to Port Angeles, to come by this old Highway and see our beautiful country. Ruth Henshaw: Mrs. Henshaw noted that the Highway to the north (of the Community Center) is known as the Old Highway because it was originally the only Highway until the current one was built in 1950. Under this plan (the Gardiner Community Development Pian) the area specifically designed for commercial use, is ideal for bicyclists. No one opposes the bicycle hostel as such. For the amount of funds it will take to buy the barn and put all the improve- ments for this facility, it could be put where it belongs. The Old Highway is called the bicycle route. The roads down where the barn is are far fetched from the ideally located, ideally ; VGl 17 tA~~ Del 'J~90 i Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 13 setup area for an enterprise such as this. There is water, power, and beautiful, vacant land with a view, right on this road. Between these two highways is ideal. The barn area is a rural area, not a commercial area. Just because that building is there and just because that barn was remodelled, does not mean that the bicycle hostel has to be there. Mark Huth asked where Mrs. Henshaw lives in relation to the proposed project? Mrs. Henshaw answered that she lives about an 1/8 to 1/4 of a mile down Gardiner Beach Road toward the water. Her house is right at the boat ramp. She described her property as having two acres which they have retired to. Mark Huth asked about the buses Mrs. Henshaw referred to? Mrs. Henshaw stated there are Greyhound and Trailways buses as well as busses from Sherwood Manor (a retirement home) that have made this area part of their itinerary. The road used to be one way, and now it says II local traffic onlyil because people don't pay any attention to signs. Dennis Martin: Dennis Martin stated that several years ago he fought tooth and nail with the Health Department to get a septic permit for his six acres of property in Gardiner. He was finally able to get approval for a single residence with three bedrooms and two baths with the restriction that he can not subdivide his property anymore. He asked what size septic mound system will be used for this project and what about the property owners downhill from the drainage of the system? He stated that he is speaking against the hostel because he feels it is an enterprise that is not needed in this rural community. Mr. Bandy has created a fantasy land for people to visit and there will be no privacy for the people that live on Gardiner Beach Road. Mark Huth stated that the Health Department will have to approve the septic system if the Board approves the conditional use. Jeleen Baraloff: Ms. Bargloff stated that she lives about five blocks away from the barn. She feels that if the hostel goes in the people will arrive on their bikes on the route that they want and not on the route that they are told to take. There will be a terrible problem with the traffic. Jennifer Swenson: Jennifer Swenson stated that she and her husband live about a block west of this building on Old Gardiner Road. She stated that she is in favor of the hostel. The Gardiner Community Plan encourages cottage industries and she feels the hostel falls within that category. The property known as the Bandy property is for sale. That barn is better than something for cows. A hostel would be a good use for it. Mimi Henlev: Mimi Henley stated that she has travelled extensively by bicycle. The Youth Hostel system is larger internationally than in this country. Part of the reason that bicyclists travel where they do is to appreciate and understand what the rural area is all about. They are not there to litter, or make trouble. This project presents an opportunity for this area to have this type of very low key experience for travelers from this country and foreign countries. She stated that she is in favor of the hostel. Jim Warner: Jim Warner stated that this is an unusual circumstance. This started wïth an agricultural barn that got upgraded to where it is now applying for a variance to be a commercial operation, but really its not a commercial operation. If this project were proposed within the corridor identified for this type of venture, we would probably not be meeting here tonight The Gardiner Plan was passed to provide guidance for where commercial ventures go, where housing goes, what's rural and where industrial is. This is somewhat of a test case. If it is approved, Mr. Warner said he can't imagine how any project of this nature could be disapproved in the Mure. This project would be taking a barn and upgrading it into a commercial venture. Trish Warner: Trish Warner referred the Board to her letter of June 8 which states page numbers and policy numbers against the bicycle hostel. Bonnie Wona: Bonnie Wong stated that she is co-owner of a retail store in Port Townsend and the sole owner of a commercial bicycle company. She takes people in groups of 10 or 12 on bicycle trips. She is also active with the hostel group in Port Townsend. In 1981 the total number of overnight visitors at the Fort Worden Hostel (in a prime area) was 2,000. Thafs not very many people using a building that can accommodate 30 to 35 beds. The impact out here will be minimal. It is a 50 mile bicycle ride from Port Townsend to Port Angeles. Many people can not make that kind of mileage. This is an ideal place to provide 'vat 17 r~r,.~ DO- "'~'1 'J ......j~ {,k;{iI '-, C,;"_ · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 14 this facility. The building is already there. This man will not make any money off of this hostel. He will be putting out a lot of money and personal time and effort. The concept of hostel is to provide an overnight place to sleep, a shower facility and a common kitchen. People do their own cooking or they eat out. Usually bicyclist travel in twos and threes. It would be really rare to get 30 people in one night. Bill Wilkerson: Mr. Wilkerson stated that he owned the Gardiner Store for 3 1/2 years. During that time they had many bicyclist looking for a place to stay, take a shower and use the facilities available. Very little alcohol of any kind was sold to bicyclists. These people were interested in the community and the view as well as Mr. Bandy's holdings. He feels it would be good for the community for the bicyclists to have a place where they could get off of the highway. Marie Friend: Marie Friend said that she has done quite a bit of hosteling. Many times you find you are staying at the hostel by yourself. It is very low impact. Suzanne Bera: Mrs. Berg reported that she lives about a half a mile from the proposed hostel. She added that this meeting is about the intent of the Gardiner Community Plan. She then read the following: /lUfe is so unfair in Gardiner. We were a small, rural, residential community and several years ago a wealthy man moved here and built some large, commercial size buildings right in the midst of Gardiner. Now, he has put them up for sale. We the innocent residents of Gardiner are the ones who continually have to fight to keep our area residential. We worked three years on a community plan to promote orderly rural, residential growth with an area set aside for commercial. We are already tired of fighting to uphold the community plan on this hostel and bed and breakfast and there are several more Bandy buildings still for sale. I feel the two decisions before the Commissioners tonight are extremely important test cases that set a precedent in our community and will pave the way for future variance decisions. Please honor the intent of the Gardiner Community Plan and allow us to keep the commercial and transient establishments out of residential areas. II Bob Howell: Bob Howell stated that he is the new manager of the Fort Worden Youth Hostel. He emphasized that the American Youth Hostels is a wonderful organization that uses the catch phrase "Windows to America." A YH have rules that include: curfews, managers are present, and no alcohol is allowed. He reported that the numbers of guests per night at Fort Worden range from three to twelve, and average about 10 per night during the height of the season. This is a safe, clean and comfortable place for these people to stay overnight. Mark Huth asked what the season is for the hostel at Fort Worden. Mr. Howell responded that the Fort Worden hostel is open year around with the height of the season being June through September. Joe Ralph: Joe Ralph asked what happens, if this conditional use is allowed, when the next similar project comes along? Is this approval looked at as a precedent, or does it water down the Gardiner Plan? Will it be used as a lever to allow something else to come into the area? Chairman Dennison answered that Conditional Uses are to be judged on their merits, on a case by case basis. Mr. Ralph asked if a Conditional Use can be modified if it is approved? Commissioner Brown stated that any change in the use would have to go through the review process. Chairman Dennison added that a conditional use is granted for a particular use and that use can't be altered, amended or changed to some other use. It is not precedent setting. Mr. Ralph then asked if the Clallam County Judge's decision on setting aside the Develop- ment Code will have any bearing on this. Mark Huth stated that the Judge has not issued his order yet and so it's still a pending matter and best that no one from the County comments on it. Mr. Ralph concluded by noting that he has property to the west of this proposed site and he has concern about the conduct of a lot of bikers. It may be just the urban biker that he runs into, but many of the bikers ignore laws, especially traffic laws and they tend not to be discriminate about where they put their litter. 'VOL 17 rA~l O~: , ~çl'ry ~ 0i;~ 'f1I00<\£ ¡_ì - Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 15 William Benson: William Benson said that he was a member of the American Youth Hostel for many years and he hasn't found any of the members to be litter bugs or rowdy. After a person has ridden on a bike all day long, it is very difficult to party all night. Many of the concerns seem to be about using Gardiner Beach Road. Mr. Benson asked if that has been designated a bicycle trail? There are many other roads coming in. Jerry Smith answered that the Old Gardiner Highway has been designated as a bicycle trail. David Garlinaton: David Garlington expressed concern about the ultimate land use of this particular property. The barn was remodelled or improved a number of years ago, for agricultural reasons. Yet the agricultural improvements seem to be a factor in some people's minds as to why this barn should be a hostel. If that's the case and it were to become a hostel, Mr. Garlington added, that he doesn't see why some years from now those improvements are a factor in using that same piece of property for some further development. This is what could be the beginning of an escalation. Norman Sunde: Mr. Sunde stated that there is a preponderance of evidence or statements made in favor of the quality of the people who do the biking. This industry sounds about as clean as you can get. The County has Departments that will monitor the septic system. He added that he doesn't feel any other commercial enterprise could be found that would be much cleaner than this proposal. Dottie Sunde: Dottie Sunde stated that she lives in a community similar to Gardiner which has covenants and protective by-laws. The people who were there 25 years ago have found it very difficult to progress and change as life changes, and as young people move into the neighborhood. As the changes come they have found good things. She asked the Gardiner people to try and think of the future and going ahead. Norman Lvnn: Mr. Lynn stated that he is the property owner directly adjacent to the barn. Most of the people who have testified about bicyclists don't live in the area. He noted that he doesn't have a problem with a bicycle hostel being built up on the bicycle highway (Old Gardiner Road). What is being discussed is general conditional uses. This project doesn't pass on any of the four criteria for a conditional use. Carol Moos: Carol Moos stated that she lives on Gardiner Beach Road, 3/10 of a mile from the beach. She hikes the area. She and her husband moved to Gardiner because they love the quiet area and the natural setting. She stated that there are several nice campgrounds operated by the State in the area from Port Townsend to Port Angeles. She stated that she is worried that this area will become commercial. There is a section of Gardiner that is considered a commercial area and that is the way it should remain. Peaav Kina: Peggy King said that she lives on Gardiner Beach Road, close to the barn. She asked that the Board consider the letters she has already submitted. She added that she does oppose the hostel primarily because of the large number of overnight accommoda- tions make it a commercial enterprise. The Gardiner Plan is very specific about that area remaining residential. All of the people that live on Gardiner Beach Road can testify about the intrusion and trespass that is done by everyone. It has been said that the Fort Worden Hostel receives 2,000 guests per year, or 100 per month. The height of the season is June through September which is four months when the majority of the 2,000 people stay there. That is more like 500 people a month in the summertime. There is a nice bicycle route along the Old Gardiner Highway that is adjacent to an area that was made commercial for that reason. They could build the hostel there. Wayne Kina: Wayne King stated that he was involved in the Gardiner Community Development Plan. A questionnaire was sent out for the residents and property owners of Gardiner and 70% of them stated that they wanted the commercial area to be the area located between the Old Gardiner Highway and Highway 101. This is a commercial enterprise. Mr. King stated that this conditional use should be turned down because it is a commercial enterprise. Arlan Baraloff: Arlan Bargloff stated that he lives at 810 Gardiner Beach Road. He noted that if this project is allowed to go through, the people staying overnight at the hostel would number more than double the people who live within a very large radius of the hostel. He is opposed to that, especially since there isn't a road that is capable of safely handling cars :Vûl 17 'Ir~ rn- I",): U',·_ , \"~a"'] . "jiWI Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 16 meeting each other on it. No one is against the bikers. There is a commercial area here. Let's stick with the guidelines of the Gardiner plan and the Development Code. Mark Huth asked Mr. Bargloff how many residences there are in this area? Mr. Bargloff stated that in the immediate area there are about 13 people. There are single family homes along the Gardiner Beach Road. Suzanne Bera: Suzanne Berg quoted from the Gardiner Community Plan Commerciai Section Number 19 UResort and tourist developments such as recreational vehicle parks, motels, multi-family developments and uses catering to the seasonal or transient visitor, should locate within the commercially designated area. U Jav Levine. Old Gardiner Hiahwav: Jay Levine asked what will happen to that beautiful acreage if this conditional use is turned down? There is over 25 acres there and the Community Plan calls for single family residences, one residence per acre. Do you think this spot is going to be unnoticed by the thousands of people who visit the Peninsula? What will be done when someone comes in and buys that acreage and says they are going to subdivide it? If you can control what you have right now and know what~s going to happen with it, it might be a better way to solve the problem. He urged everyone to. think of what they have and what they might be faced with in the future. Mark Huth asked Mr. Goldfoos if they were going to serve food and what kind of accommodations there will be for food? Mr. Goldfoosanswered that they will not serve food. Very few cyclists cook. They carrying light things. They minimize the number and amount of items they can carry. Dick Howe: Dick Howe stated that he lives in Gardiner. He added that this application is contrary to the intent of the Gardiner Plan. Hearing. no further comments the Chairman closed the public hearing. He noted that all of the comments will be taken into consideration and a determination will be made on this matter at a later date. Mark Huth suggested that due to the significant amount of testimony about the roads, it would be helpful if some agency (such as Public Works) that has expertise about the traffic patterns be asked to report to the Board on what the general area is like for traffic safety. He suggested that a report be accepted as comment on that issue. 8:30 p.m. HEARING re: Certificate of Compliance (Home Business) Application; Convert an Existing Two (2) Bedroom Residence into a Bed and Breakfast Establishment; 962 Gardiner Beach Road: William and Patricia Goldfoos: Jerry Smith reviewed the certificate of compliance application for converting an existing residence into a bed and breakfast establishment with up to six bedrooms. The project was referred to the Planning Commission because there is a conflict between the goals and policies of the Development Code and the Gardiner Community Plan. The Community Plan does address home businesses but does not identify a bed and breakfast as a potential home business. The Planning Commission recommendation was to approve the application subject to 12 conditions. When the Commissioners reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation some technical problems were discovered and since there is no accurate public record of the Planning Commission hearing, the Board set this hearing. Mark Huth asked the Board members to restate if the disclosures made at the previous hearing concerning Appearance of Fairness still apply or if they have anything else to disclose at this hearing. Commissioner Wojt stated that he has nothing different to disclose. Chairman Dennison said the same thing. Commissioner Brown also stated there is nothing different for him either. Erwin Jones. Attornev for Mr. Goldfoos: Erwin Jones stated that Mr. Goldfoos' comments and concerns continue, notwithstanding the statements of the Commissioners. fVûL 17 t~G~ CD "";;0'1 ;/ .....J '-~:.J Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 17 Commissioner Brown asked if the concerns were regarding the Appearance of Fairness? Erwin Jones responded that the concerns are about the contact with Mr. King in 1988 and the Board chose not to disclose anything about that. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Jones if he is talking about the meeting when he and Commissioner Dennison were in Gardiner about their campaigns. He added that the only meeting he has ever been to at the King house was that meeting. Mark Huth asked if this project was discussed? Commissioner Brown answered no. As he recalls the Bandy thing was not big in 1988. He knew Mr. Bandy was building a house in the area, and that it went through the approval process. Mark Huth asked the two Commissioners if any of those contacts would influence their decision on either of the matters being reviewed this evening? Commissioner Brown and Chairman Dennison said no, they would not. Erwin Jones asked if the house that Mr. Bandy was building was a topic of discussion at that meeting? Commissioner Brown stated that it could very well have been. He is sure that there was concern expressed about what was happening there. Mark Huth asked if that house is part of this project? Commissioner Brown stated that it is not, it is a separate residence completely. Chairman Dennison added that the house went through the appropriate County process for approval. Erwin Jones expressed concern about the apparent friendly relationship between the Commissioners and Mr. King who he feels is an outspoken opponent of both of these projects. He added that he is concerned that there is an actual bias by two members of the Commission, at least, with reference to Mr. King regardless of whether it's this project or any project. Mark Huth stated that he feels the Commissioners have addressed that concern. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels comfortable stating that the contact that he had with the King's in the King residence in 1988 will have absolutely no bearing on the considerations that are before the Board. Commissioner Brown added that if Mr. Bandy would have invited him to his home and volunteered to help him in his campaign in 1988, he would have gone to his house too. Commissioner Wojt asked if Mr. Jones is interested in any contact that any of the Commissioners have had with the Kings in all the time they have been part of the Commission? Erwin Jones said that is what he requested. Commissioner Wojt stated that he was invited to the King house sometime during the spring. The main topic of conversation was the Mitsubishi project. They· did talk somewhat about the house across the street from them. Commissioner Wojt added that he is a good listener and tries to understand where people are coming from. He said that he feels that won't make any difference in this project at all. Mark Huth asked if the house across the street (from the King's) is involved in this project at all? Commissioner Wojt answered no, Chairman Dennison then opened the hearing for public comment. Jav Levine: Jay Levine asked if the action of the Planning Commission has been set aside? Chairman Dennison stated that there was a recommendation, but there was a flaw in the process and that is why the Board is holding their own public hearing. Commissioner Brown stated that the Planning Commission recommendation will not be considered. Dottie Sunde: Dottie Sunde stated that her letters are on record supporting the bed and breakfast. The charm of the place is one of the attractions. John S. McLean: John McLean asked if the previous letters on the bed and breakfast are still under consideration? Chairman Dennison answered that they are still under consideration because they were to the Commissioners. Ruth Henshaw: Ruth Henshaw asked that this review be limited to the topic at hand. Chairman Dennison reiterated that people should try to limit their comments to the Comprehensive Plan and the policies that the project will be judged by. ! VOL 17 rM ~ 00 ;··"',J0··~ " .;..J .' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 18 Judy Lvnn: Judy Lynn stated that this area is a long way from Port Townsend and the Sheriff's Department and she is worried about the safety factor of these transient accom- modations. Trish Warner: Trish Warner agreed with Judy Lynn about the concern for safety. Another concern she has is with the roads. People are backing boats across what is essentially a one car width road. This is a very dangerous situation. That road cannot stand any more traffic. She said that with the Mitsubishi development going in residential areas are going to be infringed upon and she does not want to see this area infringed upon. If there is a bed and breakfast and a bicycle hostel the area will be overwhelmed with transients and that shouldn't be imposed on the residents of the area. She added that she worked far to many hours on the Gardiner Community Plan to have it ignored. Norman Sunde: Norman Sunde asked how the residents plan to stop all the transients that are using the ramps now? Are the roads public or private? If the roads are jammed now, Mr. Sunde asked if it wouldn't be an ideal solution to enlarge the County road system and make them safe? Commissioner Brown answered that the roads are public roads. He added there have been attempts to widen the road in the past, but it would be a very difficult and expensive project. Mark Huth added that the County doesn't own any additional right- of-way along the road. Private property would have to be condemned to obtain the right-of-way. Arlan Baraloff: Arlan Bargloff stated that the road is wide enough for the residents to move in and out. The local taxpayers shouldn't have to accommodate someone that is coming in for a short sight seeing trip. Suzanne Sera: Suzanne Berg read number 19 from the Commercial Section of the Gardiner Community Plan. She added that in the front of the plan it says that lithe integrity of the Gardiner Community Development Plan can only be assured by the continuing support of local citizens in cooperation with their Elected Officials. II If this becomes a bed and breakfast it will bring more than just the people who are coming to stay. It will bring more and more people to the area. Lauahn Doescher: Laughn Doescher stated that the character of this type of home business is outstanding. This property is unique in the Northwest. It is a jewel. Home businesses come in all types. Some people have machine shops. There are concerns. The moderate traffic impact from a bed and breakfast business will not have the same impact as the public boating ramp did. The crime from the clientele of a bed is breakfast is virtually non-existent. Dennis Martin: Dennis Martin advised that he has submitted letters to the Commissioners stating his opposition to this project. The Gardiner Community Plan says that the community doesn't want commercial ventures in a residential area. Wayne Kina: The Gardiner Community Plan, Wayne King stated, spells out that transient overnight accommodations should be in the commercial area. He added that he is in favor of people going by what the people of Gardiner want (the Gardiner Plan), but is opposed to people that hire an Attorney to try to get it what they want. Norman Lvnn: Mr. Lynn asked if the property involved is on two separate tax lots and if there is a question about subdivision? Jerry Smith reported that the two properties involved are adjacent to each other and are two separate tax parcels. The intent of Mr. & Mrs. Goldfoos was to purchase a portion of each tax lot. This requires a boundary line adjustment. The representative of the Goldfoos' has submitted an application to the County for a subdivision exemption and a boundary line adjustment. The County reviewed the application and approved it as a boundary line adjustment, because it didn't create any more parcels than were already in existence. Mr. Lynn asked if the castle was on one acre out of twenty with a separate tax number? Jerry Smith reported that to his knowledge it didn't have a separate tax number. The separate tax numbers were for tax purposes only, which does not constitute property , VOL 1 Î r~r.: DO'·- r->""".Jr.,'~,-"i":) .j \. ..;W} 'Ii .' ~::!:-;::::;i.~ -':, .£~ ,< Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 19 segregation. Mark Huth reiterated that there are legal requirements which must be met for a boundary line adjustment and the Planning Department has determined that the proposition submitted by Mr. Goldfoos representative meets those requirements. William Goldfoos: Mr. Goldfoos then reviewed the history of his project. He noted that a bed and breakfast generates a low amount of traffic. When they went to the Planning Department originally they were asking for four bedrooms. Mr. Smith told them that the law allows six and that they should apply for the six, so they did. Mr. Goldfoos reported that he knew nothing of the Gardiner Community Plan until he was told about it by Wayne King. They were told by the Planning Department that they had to notify everyone within 300 feet of their project. They went to a Title Company to get the list of names of people that live in that area. When they canvassed everyone about the project, they found that the majority of people were in favor of the project. This project itself will not overload the system. The system is already overloaded. Mr. Goldfoos added that he and his wife are working class people who are putting everything on the line to come up here to do the things they want to do. The intent of the Gardiner Community Plan, as far as a bed and breakfast, was not spelled out. This project will not create any more problems than already exist. Most of the business will be corporate business. There will be no signs on the highway. Most of the business will be by reservation. Chairman Dennison reiterated that the Commissioners are here to determine whether or not this project meets the intent of the County's and the community's policies, plans and ordinances. Carol Moos. 210 Gardiner Beach Road: Carol Moos stated that she is concerned about commercialism. She thinks there will be an increase of traffic on the road. There are small children on the road all the time. Erwin Jones. Attornev: Mr. Jones stated that at the last meeting on this project, Chairman Dennison asked about the relationship between the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and the Gardiner Community Plan. Mark Huth explained to him that the Development Code is the control ordinance. The other two documents (the Comprehensive Plan and the Gardiner plan which is a special chapter of the Comprehensive Plan) are basically policy documents. The Code allows a bed and breakfast. With or without the Code there is no legal basis for denial of the Goldfoos project. Peaav Kina: Peggy King asked Mr. Goldfoos if he would still be interested in purchasing the Castle and having a bed and breakfast establishment, if the bicycle hostel is not approved? Mr. Goldfoos answered yes. In response to a question about how many bedrooms were being planned for the bed and breakfast, Mr. Goldfoos responded that originally three were requested, then it went to four and finally it was set a six. She then asked. if the Goldfoos' would consider a three bedroom bed and breakfast, as recommended by the Planning Department staff? Mr ~ Goldfoos stated that he would not consider that. Mrs. King continued by asking Mr. Goldfoos if he would be willing to work with the neighbors and the Public Works Department to close the road from the corner of their property east to the boat ramp? Mr. Goldfoos stated that he would be willing to do anything that would enhance the neighborhood. Mrs. King stated that they do welcome home businesses. Jeleen BarQloff: Mrs. Bargloff stated that she read that a home business in Gardiner can only employ one to two people. It is hard to believe they can run a bed and breakfast with six bedrooms without hiring more people. Mark HlUth reported that the application indicates that they will have two employees. Lee Swenson: Lee Swenson stated that she lives on the Old Gardiner Highway which looks down on the Castle. She said she is speaking for the bed and breakfast. This is a beautiful piece of property that someone is going to buy and it is not known what they will do to it. Maybe they will develop it into one acre lots and tlhen there really will be some traffic. The Goldfoos's are sincere, hard working people and they will be there managing the operation. A bed and breakfast is not like a motel and she would like to se~ this approved. Fredrick Tuso: Mr. Tuso noted that the problem is between the Gardiner Plan and the Development Code. If this was anywhere else in Jefferson County this meeting wouldn't even be happening because the County doesn't have the right to stop a home business if : VOL 17 r~f,; DO :- v , ..,. ~,5 .' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 20 it qualifies under the criteria for a home business. The question· here is whether or not the legal document has precedence over our wish list of what we would like to have next door to us. This whole project has less impact than anything that has been done before. Trish Warner: Trish Warner asked about the 12 recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission after their hearing? Chairman Dennison reported that the Planning Commission hearing is no longer being considered as the record, which does not mean that those conditions won't be considered by the Commissioners. Jav Levine: Mr. Levine asked if the Commissioners could use those 12 conditions and incorporate them into their decision? He added that he understood at the last meeting that the proponents of the project could live with those conditions. Chairman Dennison stated that he would want to check with Counsel on this. The reason that this hearing is being held is because of the question about the Planning Commission process. Mark Huth advised. that the 12 conditions can't just be carried over verbatim because they are the Planning Commissions work. Another reason the Planning Commission delibera- tions are not to be considered is that there was an Appearance of Fairness challenge to one of their members also, and statements were made to the newspaper, so the Board decided that it would be better to have their own public hearing. Fredrick Tuso: Mr. Tuso asked if the Commissioners have the right to add specific suggestions to make the community feel better about the project and lessen the impact? Chairman Dennison indicated that is correct. Mr. McLean: Mr. McLean stated that he lives on Gardiner Beach Road at the intersection of Rondelay Road. He said that he hopes that Mr. Goldfoos can live up to his promise, if this is approved. He would like him to stop all the tour busses going down that road in addition to up to 2,000 cars a weekend going around twice to gawk at that contraption. Mark Huth asked who had counted the 2,000 vehicles? Mr. McLean stated that he has counted the cars and Wayne King as taken pictures of them. Wayne KinQ: The traffic on Gardiner Beach Road, Mr. King stated, is the concern of the majority of the people. He reported that he has a video of the traffic which was taken over the last three years. Commissioner Brown noted that the County has tried to work out a solution to the traffic problems in this area because of the boat ramp. It is hard to stop traffic from utilizing the public roads. Chairman Dennison added that it is also hard to make them obey the signs. Norman Sunde: Mr. Sunde asked if a new business coming into an area would be expected to have the responsibility of eliminating traffic congestion that already exists? He added it seems unreasonable to expect that. Mark Huth responded that the County hasn't asked Mr. Goldfoos to eliminate the traffic problem. Mr. Sunde noted that he was not referring to the County asking Mr. Goldfoos. Fredrick Tuso: Fredrick Tuso said that he moved to this area 20 years ago and there was no traffic, no commerce, no jobs, and half of everything 'else. To think that all the growth and all the things that have happened have been negative is ridiculous. It (growth) is going to happen and what we want to do is control it to try to take the best of two worlds. Chairman Dennison reminded everyone that the entire purpose of the plans that the County has - the community plans, the colUntywide Comprehensive Plan - is the recognition that there will be growth and through a planning process we can determine how it impacts and effects our communities. Jav Levine: Jay Levine stated that he has lived here for about 18 years and he never heard any cries about not having a community water system because it might attract outsiders. Everybody was for the water system because it helped everybody in the community. This bed and breakfast may help the community also. There are quality homes going in here and we should be proud of our community. 'VOL 17 f .~ r ~ or¡: f-"O('!j J\.-0 i.. ..~ _. ': -.;j:g~ '"".' , of Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 15, 1991 Page: 21 Suzanne Bero: Mrs. Berg stated that Mr. Goldfoos went to the Planning Department last November to ask about the bed and breakfast, and they did not see any problem with that. The Planning Department now says that was an error, that they had not consulted the Gardiner Community Plan. They had only looked at the Jefferson County Plan. Commissioner Brown responded that the County's legal counsel has advised that the County Development Code does take precedent over the community plans. Mrs. Berg added that she thinks that the Planning Department only consulted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Joe Ralph: Since he is hearing that the Development Code has control over the local Gardiner Plan, Mr. Ralph asked, if the Commissioner have exercised that control over the other local plans in the County? Commissioner Brown answered that this is the first time, to his knowledge, that this situation has come up since the Development Code was adopted. Mark Huth added that it is State case law that dictates which plan takes precedence. Chairman Dennison stated that this is really about the process of the Commissioners making a judgment on what the documents say with respect to this project. Any legal professional will tell you that even if the Development Code is the guiding document, how it is interpreted can differ in peoples opinions. Bev Howe: Bev Howe asked if the number of units that are offered has anything to do with what is called for in the plan? Chairman Dennison stated that was another reason the Board had difficultly with the Planning Commission recommendation. There was an obvious conflict between the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation. Dick Howe: Dick Howe commended the Commissioners and asked that the meeting be adjourned. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for their patience and diligence. He advised that all of the comments will be taken into consideration during the Commissioners deliberations on these projects. MEETING ADJOUR~ED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ¡VOl 17 r~r:r Orr}- -', ....' .. f '''0.'.['1 v\,,!W \.~i: .