Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM041789 . ' ;-:. -- 'j .~ MINUTES DB OF APRIL 17, 1989 The meeting was called to order by Chairman George C. Brown in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Larry W. Dennison. I Dale Lean'tt: I re: Di8CU88ion of IIi t:iaat:ed Det:erJUnat:ion of Ron- Significance Issued .January 9. 1989 on Planned eo.aercial Develooaent:: Airport: Cut:off Road: ! Prosecuting Attorney John Raymond, Planning and Building Department Director David Goldsmith and Senior Planner Rachel Nathanson were present Iwhen Dale and William Leavitt came before the Board to discuss the mi tiga~ed determination of non.,...significance issued by the County January 9, 19891 on their planned commercial development located on Airport Cutoff Road. I I Dale Leavitt stated that on August 8, 1988 when she met with the Board an agreement was reached o~ the three mitigative measures that are listed on the face of the MDNS which as approved on January 9, 1989. She stated that she, her husband and her attorney understood that these three conditions were to only be binding on thb Leavitt I s ownership and that for any subsequent transfer of the land t~ey would not be binding on grantees of the property, as negotiated. On Ja uary 9, 1989 the Board took final' action on the Mitigated Determinatio of Non-significance, without notification to her, Mrs. Leavitt added, wJ:l,ich listed the three conditions but did not make mention on the face of The MDNS that these conditions were not binding on any future owner of the pro erty. The Board's meeting minutes of August 8, 1988 were then reviewed. The wording of the MDN~' Dale Leavitt added, says "the following mitigated measures do hereby cla ify the proposed planned commercial development and provide the basis to i iSue subsequent development permits. " which leads her to believe that all suqsequent development permits would be bound by these three conditions . She isuggested the following wording to be added to the MDNS, which would be at ached to the building permit, "The three 'mitigative measures' listed above re only binding upon William and Dale Leavitt during their ownership of Lots 13 and 4 of the Seton Short Plat, Sec.28 T30N, RIWand shall not be binding upcrn subsequent grantees, StlCCessors, heirs and assigns. I This agreement will beCfome null and void when, through the enactment of a land use ordinance or zoning ordinance, Lots 3 and 4 of the Seton Short Plan are incorporated into a commercial and/or industrial zone or land use designation allowing for more intensive use of the land than exists in this agreement." She stated that it is her belief that these three conditions are land use conditions rather than st~ict environmental conditions. The reason that the second paragraph was suggested, is that under the "grandfather" section of the proposed development code there is a clause that states that under the grandfather claus~, development agreements entered into prior to , VOL 15 nn 1.591 rAC~ UL.r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 2 the enactment of the ordinance would not be nullified. She stated that she feels this is unfair because people enter into these agreements in good faith. In response to a question from Chairman George Brown, Dale Leavitt then reviewed the plan previously submitted for the property. Commissioner Dennison clarified that she is concerned that these mitigative measures not bind any subsequent owners of the property. They would only be binding on the Leavitt's. In the Minutes of January 9, 1989 it states that " these conditions would be binding on the permittee but not necessarily to the subsequent grantees." Mr. Hayden, the Attorney representing the Leavitt's agreed to this in principle, but wanted to see the permit in its' final form before accepting it. Dale Leavitt reported that correspondence went back and forth between her attorney and Steve Olson, saying that Mr. Hayden had not anticipated that the conditions would be put on a DNS. Dale Leavitt stated that she did not expect these conditions to be placed on the environmental docUMent, but that it would be a separate agreement. She added that if the Board wants this wording put on the mitigated DNS, that doesn't matter to her, because she just wants this wording added to whatever vehicle is needed to get this project ~oing. Commissioner Dennison stated that the standard environmental checklist specifically addresses local land use policy and he doesn't see any problem with putting these conditions in the mitigated determination of non- significance. After further discussion of the conditions and if they will apply to possible future purchasers of this land, Dale Leavitt added that the reason the agreement was made was that she feels that the County is on very thin ice as far as having any legal leg to stand on in enforcing land use regulations. Mrs. Leavitt then discussed a review of the proposed development code done by Hillis, Clark Martin and Peterson, Attorneys, and how they interpret land use and environmental issues. State Supreme Court decisions on land use were also discussed. Dale Leavi tt reported that when she went before the Planning Commission on April 6, 1988 she presented them with a copy of the State Environmental Policy Act which requires a listing of environmental impacts and then the corresponding mitigative measures for those impacts. She stated she wanted to know what the environmental impacts were that were triggering the list of conditions that were being considered. She added that Planning Director David Goldsmith advised her that the project was being reviewed under the Planning Enabling Act that night, not under SEPA. The State Supreme Court decision in December 1988 on a proposal in King County where there was a questions of density and land use as well as impacts on water quality, etc., states that "berore an agency can condition or deny a proposal based on SEPA it must comply with certain statutory and regulatory requirement." This decision, Dale Leavitt advised, says that you have to specifically cite environmental impacts and then corresponding mitigating condition. This never happened on this project. She then read a 1974 ruling called Po.1ygon which speaks to all SEPA issue, "We rind it equally important (talking abOtlt how to review the case) that the same broad standard or review be available to a property owner whose property use has been limited by the denial or a building permit on the basis or SEPA. This is partictllar1y true in view or the fact that environmental ractors, especially those involving visual considerations are not readily subject to standardization or quantirication. That potential ror abuse is even stronger where the decision must be made in a climate or intense pOlitical pressure. This potential ror abuse together with the need to ensure that an appropriate balance between economic, social and environmental values is struck, requires a higher degree or judicial scrutiny than is normally appropriate ror administrative action. " When the Supreme Court speaks that becomes the law of the land, Dale Leavitt c?ntinued, and all three of you are sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Washington. We negotiated on August 8 in good faith on three limiting condi- tions. Dale Leavitt then reviewed the process that she was put through when she came into request approval for one small building. She added that the process. that she has been ptlt through is abusive and bullying on the part or the County. There are small minority or residents that get their hackles up and say they have rights as property owners. The State Supreme Court : ',lot 15 rAGE OC 1592 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 3 specifically speaks to abuses of this power and to protecting the rights of due process and the fair treatment of the property owners. If we have to test it in a court of law, that's another abuse because I'll pay the bill, there's no guarantee that I'll get my money back. This is the final meeting I'm going to have with you guys. Either we get this' thing fixed up so those three conditions are not binding or the next attorney I'll be talking to will be on the public payroil and that'll be the State Attorney General's Office. " Commissioner Dennison stated that he is going to have to go over this information and talk with the Prosecuting Attorney about this suggested wording presented by Mrs. Leavitt. Dale Leavitt warned the Board that there will not be another meeting and the next action will be with the State Attorney General's office. The Board arranged with the Prosecuting Attorney to discuss this matter with him at" 1:30 p.m. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMEIr.r re: Glen Cove TranSDOrt:at:ion Plan: Tr8DBDO Grou1): Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that this agreement is for the Transpo Group to do a Glen Cove area transportation plan. The scope of work will include collection of information on the traffic in the Glen Cove area, estimating future traffic needs and working with the State Department of Transportation and property owners in the area in the development of a plan. Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the agreement with Transpo Group as presented and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREBMElft'. Meaorandu. of re: S1maer Yout:h Crew: Rort:hwest: Services Council: This agreement is for hiring youth during the summer months to work on the vegetation management crew, Gary Rowe reported. Four youths will be hired this summer. The Northwest Services Council pays minimum wage and the County will supplement that amount. Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the Memorandum of Agreement wi th Northwest Services Council. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ,/ Call for Bids: Vibrat:ory Roller: Earl Wells reported that the County has been renting a vibratory roller, but that availability of the equipment has become a problem. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to call for bids and set the bid opening for 10:45 a.m. on May 1, 1989. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Rea:uest: to OPen Public' Road Right:-of-wav: Ot:t:o St:reet: in Bisenbeis Addit:ion: Discovery Tilaber Coaoanv, ADDlicant:: This request, Gary Rowe reported, is to open Otto Street from Frederick Street north to Glen Cove Road. The upcoming transportation plan may have an affect on this request. Since Otto Street is the main frontage road in the, area the Department recommends that entire width of Otto Street to cleared from Frederick Street to Glen Cove Road; that the road be opened to minimum county road standards; the applicant pay on half of the mill value of any timber removed from the right-Of-way; and that the road be brought to a specified grade. The applicant is willing to meet the conditions for opening the right-of-way, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the opening of Otto Street as requested with the conditions as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VOL. i5 ( : l.! ~_ or 1593 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 4 Rea:ues't 'to OPen Public Road Right:-of-wav: Louisa St:reet:, Bisenbeis Avenue, Charles Avenue. Bavview Avenue. Elwood Avenue in Eisenbeis Bavvi8lf Addit:ion: Dale Goddard. ADDlicant:: This request is from Dale Goddard to open several rights-of-way (Louisa Street, Eisenbeis, Charles, Bay View and Elwood Avenues) in the Eisenbeis Bay View Addition. These rights-of-way would be opened to private access standards to allow marketing of the adjacent properties. The transportation plan may have an affect on this request, however, Louisa Street has been identified as the main access road on this side of SR20. The terrain on all the streets is basically level. West Frederick Street is open from SR20to Louisa Street and will service as access to this area. No other intersections from the plat to SR20 will be allowed. The Public Works Department recommends that all right-of-way be cleared to full width; Louisa Street be built to minimum County standards; Eisenbeis, Charles, Bay View, and Elwood rights-of-way to be built to private road standards; and half of the mill value of all timber removed from the rights- Of-way to b~ paid to the County. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the request to open the rights-of-way requested by Dale Goddard as recom- mended by the Public Works department. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Call for Bids: Horizont:al Baler, Fluffer: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the call for bids and set the bid opening for May 8, 1989 at 10:30 a.m. for one (1) horizontal baler with feed conveyor and fluffer. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. FACILITIBS MAlfAGEMBlft' Call for Bids: Asbest:OS R_oval at: t:he Port: Townsend Co.auni t:v center: The removal of asbestos at the Port Townsend Communi ty Center, Carter Breskin reported, can be done in two phases. One portion of the material can be removed before the contractor starts work the next portion of the removal must be coordinated with the work of the contractor. After discussion of any possible advantage to waiting to approve this call for bids for asbestos removal at the Port Townsend Communi ty Center, Commissioner Dennison moved to approve it and set the bid opening for May 1, 1989 at 11:00 a.m. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded which carried by a unanimous vote. Le'tt:er of Reccmaendat:ion froa the Parks Advisory Board. re: aIron RanGera at: County Parks: Carter Breskin reported that the Parks Advisory Board has reviewed a suggestion that 'an iron ranger be used to collect fees at County Parks. They recommend that one "iron ranger" be installed at Lake Leland Park to see how it works. The current caretaker system would be kept at Oak Bay. They also recommend that a person be hired to collect fees and check registration twice a day at all the other County parks. The Public Works shop can build the necessary equipment for the self collection system at Lake Leland. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated concern that Lake Leland may not be the best park to try the self collection system on a trial basis. He feels that Oak Bay would be better. Carter Breskin will ask the Parks Advisory Board to reconsider their recommendation about putting the trial "iron ranger" at Lake Leland and report back to the Board at a later date. COOPERAnvB BxTJS.II~IO. Sallv McDole. Extension Chairaan/Aaent:. Coooerat:ive Extension re: WOrk ProPOSal: Sally McDole, Chairman/Agent, Jefferson County Cooperative Extension, stated that she is concerned about the increased workload in her t VOL 15 tAG~ OC 1.594 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 5 department over the last couple of years. There will probably never be a second full time extension agent in this office again, even though the workload on the two office staff has increased. The Administrative Assistant has been working up to an hour per day of overtime to get the paperwork done. She requested that the office be closed an extra hour a day. This would make the office hours 9 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 to 4 p.m. Cooperative Extension offices in three other counties in the State have similar hours. The Board concurred that the Cooperative Extension Office change their hours as suggested effective May 1,1989. A notice will be published in the Leader and posted on the office door advising the public of the new office hours. PLADING Arm BUlLDOG Set:back Variance Rea:uest: re: Set:back Violat:ions: 61 Siacoe Road, Port: Tow:nsend: Barbara Berg. ADDlicant:: (See also Minutes of March 13, 1989) Fourteen interested area residents were present when Planning and Building Department Director ,David Goldsmith, explained that this residential setback variance re~Aest was reviewed last month and action was tabled to allow the Board to make a site inspection of the property. In .January a complaint was received, David Goldsmith continued, about a structure being built that encroached on the Simcoe Road right-of-way. The property owner, Barbara Berg, was contacted in the course of following up on the complaint and asked to apply for a building permit for the structure, which was subsequently done. The following circumstances were found to exist at the time the building permit was applied for: Simcoe Road is a private road that serve three or four residences; it is a 15 foot easement es- tablished in 1977; and a maintenance agreement was signed in 1985 by all the adjacent property owners. Two diagrams of the area were then discussed. David Goldsmith indicated that a wood railroad tie bulkhead is on the upland side of the easement. Mrs. Berg built a covered carport that extends about 11 feet 6 inches (at the narrowest spot) out over this private road easement across from the bulkhead. A fence sits underneath the overhang of the carport about 4 inches. The main stringer that holds the carport up is located on Mrs. Berg's property line. The request for variance is to allow the structure to overhang the edge of the easement by three feet. The County bUilding code' requires that a structure cannot be located any closer than five feet from the edge of the property line and then an overhang allowance is another two feet. This means there is a three foot separation from the property line to the overhang of any structure. In this case the variance request is for a zero setback variance with a variance for an additional three foot overhang over the edge of the easement. David Goldsmith advised that the Fire Department was contacted because there is concern for access of emergency vehicles to the area. They indicated that they probably wouldn't take a fire truck on this easement road, however, they would take an aid car on the road. Adjacent property owners were notified by mail of this meeting regarding this request. He then reviewed the criteria for issuance of setback variances for the Board. Commissioner Dennison stated that he doesn't see that this project meets any of the criteria for granting a variance. It doesn't appear that the hardship was created by the lot'itself. The hardship was created by a building that was built before a building permit was granted. David Goldsmith then read the applicants variance request dated April 7, 1989. "I have been advised by Mr. Michael Ajax of your department that a carport that I built when I acquired my home at 61 Simcoe Road did not meet the residential setback standards. This is a formal request for a variance to those standards. I purchased my home in July 1986 and at that time retained a Seattle based contractor to do some repairs and rebuild a carport. That work was started and completed in August. A building permit was not obtained. I accept l VOL 15 rAG~ OC' 1595 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 6 responsibility for that omission even though we did not do this knowingly. (Exhibits were provided). Exhibit 1 shows pictures taken in July. You will note thr' t the fence along the roadway and my neighbors fence behind the woodpile as well as their carport". (David Goldsmith interjected that Mrs. Berg iS,pointing out that there was an existing fence on the property skirting the edge of Simcoe Road). "Exhibit 2 shows pictures of the carport that wa$ built. You will note that the fence was replaced in its' existing position Iwith treated cedar and flower boxes. The carport supports area 6 x 6 tre~ted cedar and are approximately 2 1/2 feet from the fence. Supports are almost six feet apart and ceiling joist on 16 inch centers. The building of the carport was on my property within the fence line and was of considerably-I high quali.ty than neighborhood standards and yet consistent with neighborho~d guidelines, i. e. my neighbors carport. The carport does have an automatit door on the east side. Exhibit 3. In October '86 after my carport was c mpleted. I had a survey of my property and have drawn a schematic of the .arport, fence and house on the survey. The survey shows a private road I going through my property, the fence forms the boundary of the road and the ibulkhead is on the north side. The private road is approximately 16 feet wi e. These are the facts as I understand them. I am appreciative of your e forts to clean up some old paperwork and I apologize for not knowing of hese regulations. Wi th regards, Barbara Berg." Barbara Bera: Barbara Berg stated that she was not notifi d of this hearing. She noted that when she purchased the house it was her ntent to see that everything was put in an upgraded condition. currentltthere has been a history of usage, without clarification of specifics. For example in checking, Ms. Berg added, she found that the road sn't registered. Commissioner George Brown stated that the road is an ~asement to allow property owners to get to their property. Ms. Berg cpntinued that the situation is that she replaced a fence and built a carp1rt. The cars are getting by exactly the same as they have for the last te to twenty years. All she was trying to do was upgrade her property. Discussion continued regarding the legality of the road e sement. Ms. Berg stated that she is not sure if this is a legal easementf David Goldsmith stated that. an eaeement hae been filed with the County Auditor which ie dated before 1977. The easement shows in the title report on t e property. The Chairman then asked for public comment on this setbacf variance. Jim Simcoe, 23 Simcoe Road: Mr. Simcoe stated that he o~s the house at 81 Simcoe road which he had lived in for 23 years and now re ts out. Over the time he lived at that address there were several chimney f res which the fire trucks responded to and took care of at that time. A eptic tank pumper barely made it into his property since this structure was uilt. Mr. Simcoe then presented pictures showing the original fence as bui t by his Uncle in 1964. All the property deeds originally had the 15 foot asement on them. Claude Boland: Mr. Boland noted that he lives immediatel property and they have the same concerns Mr. Simcoe noted. that fire trucks be able to get to these properties as w pumpers. adjacent to this He stated concern II as septic tank Maureen Jacobson: Ms. Jacobson stated that she used to own the property next to Barbara Berg and that she has an old car that would di on occasion when she backs it up and she has been pinned inside the tunne has had to crawl out the other side of her car. It is very tight. The old fence was over far enough that she could open her car door and get out. I is impossible to turn around. If you have company they are stuck there unti~ everybody moves. Grea Wallis: Mr. Wallis stated that he contracted to do spme of the work on this property. The fence can be moved over. When this ptoject was started to replace the fence it just kind of evolved from some of the problems on the property. Limited parking and there. is a tre.mendous am~unt of dust that comes down the road and that was one of the main reaso s for this whole thing. The other fence was 16 to 18 inches down further than the new one. The road along side the fence was sloughing off into the 0 her yard. If the t YOL 15 f'AC~ oe 1596 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 7 fence is moved over there would be a drop off right there. He has had a dump truck in this area that is at least as large as a septic tank pump truck. The fence could be moved over probably 32 inches, but there's going to be a drop off underneath the fence so there would be a liability problem. Is that a community problem or Barbara's problem. Someone could fall into one of those holes and get hurt. The garage overhang could be cutback also, but there is a problem below, and who is going to address tha problem. If they want to share the cost that could be taken care of very e sily. In response to Commissioner Dennison's inquiry as to why a bui ld ng permit wasn't obtained, Mr. Wallis noted that the project started out a a fence and then just kind of evolved into a carport with a garage door be ng put on it. It was not originally intended to be what it is today. Jim Simcoe: There is no place for a bicycle and a car to pass in this area or for children to play and have a car pass. Grea Wallis: On the side where the ties are the property take is behind the railroad ties about a foot. Those ties should be back int the hill another foot. Bob Trautman: Mr. Trautman stated that he lives in the rouse above and he had his property surveyed and the stakes are outside the railroad ties. The old fence was setback quite a way. There was no problem ith sloughing off with the fence built the way it was before. Bob Boland: If there was a drop off there then the ownerlhould have put in a retaining wall to protect their property. Lorraine Trautman: There was a nice little slope in the a lea before this was built. Commissioner Dennison stated that the Board needs to 10 k at the variance criteria again. The variance section states that liT. e applicant must demonstrate that the strict application of the polici .s, proCedtlres or performance standards set forth in the plan precludes or significantly interferes wi th a reasonable permi tted (ISe of the proper y". Then it goes on list the criteria that say that the hardship must be sp cifically related to the property and not some action of the applicant. T~at means that the property owner would not have some reasonable '.~se of thei property without the variance being granted, due to some natural constrai t. He added that he personally doesn't see that the hardship criteria has een met. All six of the criteria must be met to grant a variance. He added that he feels that two of these criteria are not being met. I' David Goldsmith reported that the variance, is from the set~ack requirements, which would allow the Board to grant partial relief a opposed to full relief. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that the adjace t property owners carport is out to the property line. Mrs. Boland: It looks like the tops of the carports line up, but the driveway is slanted which make it a wider driveway at tJ1at point. If the fence was down the carport, even though it overhan. gs, it W!IUld not be as much of a problem. The road is so enclosed with the fence wher it is. We've got lumber trucks and concrete trucks coming out which is concern if they cannot back around the corner. i Mrs. Simcoe: When we deeded the property there was a 15 foot easement on each property. What happened to the fifteen that was sup osed to be there? I Barbara Bera: Part of the history behind this and the rJason that it gets to be a constraint is that the house that was built was ~ cottage and that house did not have adequate clearance from its' corner tp- the easement to take care of all the amenities. Now there is a constraine~ amount of space. We've had a compounding of the situation over time. Commissioner Dennison stated that if before this fence and oof overhang were there the old fence allowed access, then the least varia ce that we could grant would be up to that point. What was the old setbac ? : VOL '1" 5 ("I.';: or 1597 lr-\U... . L Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 8 Greg Wallis: The setback was from 12 to 20 inches back from where the new fence was buil t . It gets wider towa,rd the Boland's property. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that there is a need to look for a common ground that will allow Ms. Berg to utilize her carport and will accommodate the adjacent property owners with enough room tha.t they can live with. If anyone would have measured from the bulkhead to the old f nce then we'd know how much of the 15 foot easement was left to be utilized for road purposes. He advised that he would have any problem going back to he old fence line if everyone can agree to that. Greg Wallis: I think this fence could be moved back two to two and a half feet. We want good relationships between the neighbors. Barbara Berg: Ms. Berg stated that the problem is that radius. ere is no turning After considerable discussion of the problems in the area, the slope of the property and what an acceptable setback variance woul be to solve the problems, Commissioner Dennison asked if Mr. Boland feels hat two feet would be an acceptable compromise. Mr. Boland said yes. ..Tim imcoe agreed that two feet was acceptable. Barbara Berg agreed that two f et was acceptable to her as long as she has a reasonable amount of time to conform to it. Commissioner Dennison moved to approve a setback variance up to the lot line which is a zero setback. The property owners in thear a have agreed that a one foot encroachment for the overhang of the buildin will be allowed. The only place the County has any authority is to the lot line. Any further encroachment on the easement must be approved by the property owners. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. The mo ion carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Review' Shoreline Permit A lication' Construction of Six Famil Residences Condominiums at Kala Point; La~oon Associates, Applicant: This. project is to develop six single family residence condominiums on 1.8 acres on t e lagoon at Kala Point, Associate Planner, Jim Pearson reported. The site is known as Tract C in Kala Point. An existing tennis court would be remo ed. The environmental checklist was then reviewed with Jim Pe_rson pointing out that the soils in the area are noted as unstable in the Coastal Zone Atlas. The area is vegetated. Grading and filling would be req ired to construct the access road and prepare the building sites for constr ction. A list of 10 recommended mitigative measures was also reviewed. The first two mi tigative measures are to be reviewed by the Public Wo ks Department and Triad Associates, Jim Pearson reported. Commissioner Dennison stated that he would like to addres the water quality monitoring issue. He suggested that some sort of peri dic monitoring be added as a mitigative measure to determine whether or no these conditions are being met. Jim Pearson stated that he is not sure how the rate of runoff is checked especially since there isn't a moni tor ing p ogram in the area currently. He asked if Commissioner Dennison would like a proposed condition to address this issue. If there is no way to check these tems, Commissioner Dennison asked, then why should they be proposed for the project? He suggested that the County water quality team'do this monetoring or a third party consultant could be hired to do it. Renatta Wheeler: She stated that if the storm water engineered and in compliance wi th what is engineered wouldn't that be enough? agement system is Triad Associates, Commissioner Dennison stated that we know that the Lag water quality standards, and it is important to know if i standards after the project is completed. He added that have frivolous conditions on the project. on meets Class AA still meets those e doesn't want to l Vo.L 15 fAG~ or 1598 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 9 Jim Pearson stated that the storm water runoff rate should not exceed the pre-existing rate and that the water that is running off meets Class AA water quality standards, and that is why the condition is being suggested requiring an engineered storm water runoff collection system. Commissioner Dennison stated that looking ata design and telling if it works are two different problems. He asked how the County will know if Class AA water quality standards are being met? He suggested that this be worked out with the project proponents who would be expected to participate in the cost of the water quality testing. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to issue a mitigated determination of non- significance as recommended by the Planning Department. The Planning Department will work with the applicant on condition number two to assure that the Class AA water quality standards are met. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Avril 18. 1989: Jim Pearson reported that he discussed the water quality monitoring issue with a Water Quality Planner and he thought that it would be extremely hard to develop a monitoring program for this project, and recommended that a monitoring program not be required. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to accept Ithe recommendation of ,the Planning Department that a monitoring program not be required. Chairman George C. Brown seconded the motion. The motion ca ried by a unanimous vote. R est: for Variance- Shoreline set: ck- Lit:t:le lcene River Road. OUilcene: Clavt:OD and Jean Sart:ain: (The following is D2! a verbatim transcription of the proceedings) 13 interested area residents were present when Associate Planne1 :Jim Pearson gave each Board member a copy of the cri teria for granting shoreline setback variance. He reported that Clayton and Jean Sartain are requesting a shoreline setback variance for their property located between the Little Quilcene River and the Little Quilcene River Road. The Sart in's original request was for a 25 foot setback from the top of the bank of the Little Quilcene River. Shoreline setbacks in an area where there is a bank or bluff that exceeds 10 feet in height, the setback by regulation should be one foot back from the top of the bank for each foot of bank heig t. In this case there is approximately a 15 foot bank down to the Little Qu lcene River which would mean a regulation shoreline setback from the top 0 the bank of 75 feet. There is also a requirement for a 20 foot setback from the road right-of-way. Each of the setback va iance criteria were then reviewed by .Jim Pearson. Mr. & Mrs. Sartain and the r Attorney, Tim Botkin were present. An engineer and land surveyor did a st dy of the site as well as a study of the stability of the bank. There is ve etation and trees growing on this bank. This property, Jim Pea son noted, was subdivided in 1974. There has been an on-going dispute about the placement of the septic system on the property. The septic system was approved for this site by the Health Department in October of 1988. Jim earson stated that he visited the site several times and is proposing an ar a for the residence which will meet the setback from the road right-Of-way and will provide the minimum setback variance from the River. The variance r~quest would be for a 40 foot variance from one side and a 30 foot varianc on the other side of the structure. Mr. Sartain stated that this propo ed configuration for this site is satisfactory with him. Tim Botkin, Attornev fJr the Sartain's: Tim Botkin stated that this has gone on since April 1987. The Sartain's purchased the property to build a small retirement home on the ~iver. They hired Tom McClannahan to install a septic system and proceed wit the first step toward obtaining a building permit. There was further scrutiny of the septic system Mr. McClannahan had installed and it was later dee ed that the system was inappropriate for various reasons. From that daie,Mr. Botkin noted that he has beeninvol ved in this issue at various levels. The Sartain's have been through quite a bit of hardship outside of wh tis in the lot so far. They've been waiting for two years to try to get wo k done and they have spent a fair amount of money on experts and lawyers a~d taking time off and that sort of thing. They're here again because the are sincere what they're trying to do here. After [ VOL 15 rAGE OF 1599 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 10 it was determined that the septic syst~m that Mr. McClannahan put in was no good there was an application for a license that was discussed with .Public Works to extend the septic into the County right-of-way. That was one possible alternative which was determined to be inappropriate by the Prosecutors Office. The Sartains met on site with Bob Duffy (Planning) and Rick Miklich (Environmental Health) and received instructions through me in terms of how to proceed. They hired Fred Kegel, basically because he was the only engineer Mr. Botkin could find, who would do a septic design and a bank stability recommendation. He was one of the few qualified to do both. After that was done the Board of Health approved the septic application. Then they met on site with Jim Pearson. County officials have scrutinized this project fairly rigorously in terms of what's going to be done. I hope to think live addressed the criteria in writing for you. The variance criteria: Hardship based on conditions and size of lot: The survey shows the shape of the lot. The lot is of irregular shape and size and has irregular natural features and is bounded on one side by the river and on the other side by the road. This road has a 66 foot right- of-way which is a little wider than normal. The bottom line is there is no way to meet the 75 foot setback. Compatibility or Adverse Effects: There are scattered residence in the area. Most of the people here live in the area. It is a residential area, however, just up the road to the north there is a fairly' good size clear cut that's gone on. The site has previously had some earthwork done. Mr. McClannahan did some leveling when he was out there putting in the septic system. The adverse effects have already been done in terms of what could happen in the shoreline designation or any water quality aspects that could fall into arena, I think have already happened. Special Privileae: What we have here is some people presenting themselves to the various levels of authority asking "what is it we need to do in order that we can build our retirement home?" That's all the Sartain's have done since I've been working with them. Minimum Variance Allowed: This setback request is for the minimum necessary to build a small home. They're not asking for a palace here. Remember all they're asking for is a very small sized, two bedroom home. Public Interest Will Suffer No Substantial Detrimental Effect: Substantial detrimental effect, which is the public interest at large, I don't see where we're going to find that there is really any detrimental effect at all. In fact, the area may be enhanced by the fact that we've got a lot here which is of very minimal utility which is going to be put to good use. Meets aeneral purpose of the Mater Plan: The Master Plan clearly targets controlled and careful progressive growth. We've got an area out there that could sit and do nothing. They are asking the minimum to put in to make good use of this lot. Cumulative Impact: There is just not much impact by anything else that has gone on. The Board should be very careful when construct- ing a variance that would be granted to be sure that other people can't come in and say well you gave it to them, why can't you give it to us. In this case we have a very very unique situation. The bottom 1 ine is we have the Sartains on one side who have a piece of property that is either completely useless or can be put to the minimum adverse use and to some good, to develop a nice residence in the area which should have no adverse impact on anybody else. Otherwise we're just going to declare this lot completely useless and that makes no sense at all. : VOL 15 rAG~ DC; 1.600 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 11 Bernice Phillips: Mrs. Phillips stated that there has been an on-going dispute regarding the septic system. The dispute has been on-going about not only the septic system, but also the lot size. Jim Pearson read a letter from Holly Coccoli, Point No Point Treaty Council, regarding the Sartain property. She offered several recommendations to lessen the impact of a shoreline residence on this site. Jim Pearson noted that there is a wetland in the upper portion of the site which extends onto the Phillips property. There has been some grading in this area which has been r~-vegetated. It was no clear to him, Jim Pearson added, whether or not there was any filling in that wetland. That area falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, which would be 200 feet back from the ordinary high water. As a wetland in the shoreline jurisdiction, any work within that wetland would require review by the Planning Department. Generally fills in wetland are not allowed except for water dependent use. If there was fill in that area if was done in the past. Mrs. Phillips: Mrs. Phillips then read a letter from Perrilee Miller dated March 12, 1989. Commissioner Dennison asked if the septic system was in question here? Jim Pearson stated that a permit was granted for the septic system by the Health Department. The only issue that is before the Board today is the setback variance for the residence. Mrs. Phillips: Mrs. Phillips submitted some photographs because they feel there is some discrepancy in some of the documentation submitted to the County Commissioners. The wetland area is really a pond. She presented documentation (pictures) showing water running from the Phillips property to the Sartain property and then into the Little Quilcene River. Tim Botkin: Mr. Botkin stated that he talked about this area with Bob Duffy who said that it is not a wetland, and there has been no proposal or suggestions that there's going to be any more fill in wetland. Commissioner Dennison added that Jim Pearson said it is a wetland and that all precautions are going to be taken to deal with that. Mrs. Phillips: When we first talked about our pond we may have given you the impression that it was strictly a wetland. That pond is there year around. That empties into the Little Quilcene River. We are proposing that a condition that protects where they're going to park a car. That the oil does not seep into our pond. He is claiming a hardship. I'm cla~ming a hardship on the value of our property as well as he is and I'm also claiming that there should be a condition to protect that pond. Bob Joraensen: My wife and I own the property to the south of the Sartain's. I have a plat down there that's about an acre or so that is a really nice building spot and I would hate to see some sewer system put up that or conditions that could be detrimental to that because that is a beautiful spot. Ron Shields: Ron Shields stated that he is downstream of the Sartains. He asked if the Board has been out and looked at the site. (They each indicated that they had been to the site). He is concerned and stated that the measurement to the edge of the bank are not correct to the original bank. Someone put logs and filled behind them and that is where the measurement is taken from. The 35 foot measurement is to the edge of the filled bank. Mr. Shields stated that he was surprised to find out that there was a septic tank permit on this property. I agree it's a hardship now. When I first went and looked at my property, I made sure that there was room for setback and all that stuff and I paid good money for my property too. It was a hardship for me. I paid a little bit more money because I'm down on the flat. Up there its' not a suitable site, so that doesn't cost as much. It's not big enough for a legal building site and I disagree with the variance. I don't think it should be granted. Commissioner Dennison stated that the septic system approved for this property is a pressure system which is an alternative system. [VOL l' 5 'A-'~ o:n, 1601 t' I> : ,1.. __ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 12 3errv Phillips: Mr. Phillips read an article from the March 8, 1989 Leader Article called "Understanding Land Use" (Editorial). Mr. Phillips stated that the Shoreline Setback Evaluation (handout from Planning Department) for Clayton and 3ean Sartain is in error on page 1. It states 75 feet bluff height. It is 90 feet and, in fact, Kegel Engineering says its' 100 feet. It mentions bluff stability is stable and there has been no indication of how he established that. The second page deals with the recommended 35 foot setback as per the site plan. The variance reduces the setback requirements (and here's another error) it says 75 feet which is actually 90 feet according to the one to one rule~ A discussion ensued regarding how to read the contour map. Mr. Phillips stated that he knows that the bank is 90 to 100 feet high because it was measured with a rope and a weight over the side and then you bring it back up and measure it. Commissioner B. G. Brown asked where this measurement was taken. Mr. Phillips stated that the measurement was taken where the home is shown to be at the 35 foot setback from the bank. Jim Pearson clarified that the shoreline setback deals with a vertical distance. There is a slope on this site. What is being measured is the vertical distance and not the, distance on the slope. Jerry Phillips continued by reading a written statement which was then presented to the Board which answered the letter presented by Mr. Botkin of the Norbut Law Firm. Barbara Fisk: Then read and later presented a copy of her testimony to the Board. She also submitted a letter from Dick and Lenora Lomsdalen for the Board. Jim Pearson clarified that a shoreline setback variance is an administrative variance and may be granted by the Board upon recommendation by the Planning Department when the Board is assured that the variance is in keeping with the general intent of' the Master Program and Shoreline Act. There is no provision for submission of this variance request to the State Department of Ecology or review, acceptance or rejection by them. The Board is allowed to place conditions upon the approval of the variance requested. Bernice Denton: Mrs. Denton stated that she and her husband Denny own recreational property with a house on the Little Quilcene River just 660 feet south of Mr.&: Mrs. Sartain's property. Bernice and 3erry Phillips and Barbara Fisk have covered all the areas of their concerns and they agreed with them entirely. Owning a piece of property no long allows you to do with it as you wish. You must abide by the rules that are set up to preclude damage to our environment. Bernice Phillips: If this variance is approved, one of the conditions Mrs. Phillips asked for since the property slopes to their pond, so that their property is not devaluated, is that there be some control over oil from a car parked there and no seepage of pesticides. Tim Botkin: Mr. Botkin stated that he would be happy to give a response to these presentations if the Board would like. Commissioner B. G. Brown .stated that he doesn't feel that he is ready to come to a conclusion on this today in light of the magnitude of the things that have been said. I would think that we would want you to go ahead and conclude so that you feel that you've represented your clients view in this matter. Tim Botkin: Mr. Botkin stated that the Board must recognize that werre here for a variance requested for the building site. We're not here on the septic system. The Sartain's have been incredibly pessimistic and concerned about what's going to happen here purely because the whole band here oppose them. I have told them and I have felt strongly that the law is on their side. That they have met the criteria. They certainly haven't felt like they've been pulling some strings. Many of the people who have come up here have been quite familiar with the Sartain property. There's no question about it. Evidently the request by Mr. Sartain that people stay off the property have ~V(}L 15 rAG~ OP 1602 : Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 13 gone unheeded., It's important to look at the work that was done previously. There was discussion saying that maybe the Sartains brought this upon themselves due to the fact that they already had this work done. That work was done, as stated earlier, by Tom McClannahan. He had presented a contract to them to do some leveling, site preparation and establish a septic system and he did that. He left the situation that was a can of worms that we've had to work from. It was not correct. Everybody agrees with that. Correct measurements were not taken. Fill was improperly placed. It is true that the diagram presented does not show the extent of the fill, it shows the slope where the fill is readily ascertainable. Again, what we're looking at today is the area which is not fill. It is clearly hardpan. It is clearly address significantly by Mr. Kegel's report. We get into that when we talk about what does the Board n~ed to approve the variance. Mr. Kegel's observations as to the height of the bank were not guesses. They were actual field work. When a certified Engineer put his stamp on a report, it is not done, saying maybe this is right. He has to say this is done to the best of my knowledge according to th~ expertise that I have or he is liable. He doesn't do it by guesswork. The same thing with the perk test. He is required to go by law and to state truthfully in his report to the Board. He has a lot more to lose than you and I do. In regard to bank stability there is a lot presented in ter.s of the criteria use to determine Mr. Kegel's recommendation. There ~s old growth or significantly older growth timber on the bank. He looked ~t various aspects of the composition of the soil and . the substrate in the airea and he made a well calculated professional determination in regard to the slope. In regard to the septic system it has been approved. The variance granted on that system was approximately 3 to 5 feet. There were within that far from being 100 feet from the river. They went ahead and processed the variance just to be sure, but in fact the requirement ~s 100 feet. The department of Health has the authority to grant a permit ,if you're outside 100 feet. They were at about 96 feet. The substrate is well documented and proper for the system. The Sartain's are going on topbf that, adding a pressure system which cuts down significantly on a 'possibility of a con- tamination intrusion into ~he soil. Bernice PhilliDS: Assuming that the septic system will be put in how will it be done without cutting trees and causing erosion? 3im Pearson stated that the Shoreline process has very liittle to say about timber harvesting unless it is being done on a shorel:ine of statewide significance. The Little Quilcene River has not been determined to be a shoreline of statewide significance. The Shoreline Plan dges not address in regulation, cutting tree to either put in a home or a sep~ic system. Barbara Fisk: If you grant this variance Barbara Fisk as~ed if all of the property owners could all get together and develop some conaitions that could be placed on that lot so that the protection would be wri~ten in there then everybody would be a lot happier. After more discussion of the measurement of the bluff, Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to table action on this matter until he has time to review the information presented today. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The adjacent property owners will be notified when this matter will be discussed by the Board again. J_es Avlesworth re: Shoreline Setback Variance Rea:uest: 40063 Highway 101 South, Brinnon: Mr. & Mrs. Aylesworth were present when Planning and Building Department Director David Goldsmith reportf3d that they are proposing to build a residence near the Jefferson/Mason County line. The standard shoreline setback in this area would be 30 feet. !They are request- ing a variance of 14 feet. The Aylesworths wish to build 'a new home on the waterward side of an existing drainfield. There is a house on the site currently that they plan to live in while the new residence is being built and then it will be removed. The adjacent property owners have no objection to this shoreline setback variance being issued. ~ VOL 15 iAf)~ fir- 1603 r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 14 The 30 foot setback requirement was established to protectithe aesthetics of the shoreline and for bluff protection. This bluff i~ on solid rock. Commissioner Dennison then asked for review of this request in accordance with the variance criteria. ' Mr. Aylesworth provided a letter to the Board on April 8,1989 which speaks to the criteria for granting the variance. Commissioner Dennison asked if the Aylesworths could build where the existing house is? Mr. Aylesworth stated that would require that all of their furniture and appliances would have to be stored and they would have to rent somewhere ~o live while the house was being built. Crit:eria #1: Is the hardship related to the property 'or could the applicant do this differently and be able to use ~is property? Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that he doesn't know what the al ternative would be. One alternative is to build where the eXisting house is Commissioner Dennison added. Withithe well and the septic system placement they could not build a ~9 foot house where the existing house is located. Mr. Aylesworth stated that the house cannot be put at the back of the lot because that is the reserve drainfield area. Crit:eria #3: Consti tute a special privilege: Neighboring properties are setback further than 30 feet. Mrs. Aylesworth stated that there is one lot next to them that is unbuildable and there are two boat houses that are built out over the "ater. These boat houses were built before the Shoreline Plan was adopted. There isn't a provision for using the averaging method'to determine setback in this case because there isn't a residence on each side of this property. ! Commissioner Dennison stated that he sees that this request does not comply with criteria 1, 3, 4 and 5. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that he believes that the request meets the general intent of the criteria and moved to grant the variance. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion and called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner George Brown voted for the motion with Commissioner Denni$on voting against the motion. The motion carried. April 18. 1989: Final SUbdivision ADDroval: Port: Ludlow Recreat:ional Vehicle Park: Oak Bav Road and Paradise Bay Road: PODe Resources: Senidr Planner, Rachel Nathanson reported that this is the final approval of, the Port Ludlow Recreational Vehicle Park, Phase 1. This 40 unit RV park :is located at the corner of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road. Phase 1 includes 22 RV spaces, a restroom facility which is built. Fire hydrants are in place and the roads have been approved to County standards. The park is on the existing sewage disposal system and the Port Ludlow water system. The County Heal th Department and the State have approved the use of those ~acilities by the project., The project has been reviewed and approved by the Health Department, Planning Department and the Public Works Depa~tment. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to grant final subdivision approval of the Port Ludlow Recreational Vehicle Park Phase 1 as submitted by Pope Resources. Chairman George Brown seconded the motion (Commissioner, Dennison was not present during this review). The motion carried by a unanimous vote. I Reauest:. for Variance: St:reet: Setback: 31 T9n~ Road. ChiaaC1Dl: David Clevenaer: Mr. Clevenger, who lives at 31 Tyner Road (Lot 6 Irondale Orchard Tracts) is requesting a setback variance of 15 f~et for a 24'x 32 foot shop to be built next to his house, Rachel Nathanson: reported. There is an existing easement that runs through his lot for utilities and access. A twenty foot setback is required from this easement. ,There are other garages in the area built right out into the easement. A~l of the lots in the area have access to their properties off of existing, county roads. All : VOl 15 rAG~ fie 1604 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 15 of the property owners who have this easement have the opt~on of asking that the access requirement of the easement be removed, but this requires a great deal of paperwork. The Building Official and the PubliC Works Department have reviewed this request and recommend that the set:back variance be granted. Commissioner requested. Dennison was vote. B. G. Brown moved to grant the 15 foot setback variance as Chairman George Brown seconded the motion, because Commissioner not in the room at the time. The motion carried by a unanimous State Enviromaental Policy Act: Review: Shorelin$ Perai t ADDlica- tion: Construct a Barrier Weir. Fish Ladder and Rip Rag and Reaove Existina Weir at the Big Ouilcene River Hatchery: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to remove an old electric fish barrier weir and build a new one about 100 feet furtijer down the river as well as placing some rip rap and building a fish ladder at their fish hatchery on the Big Quilcene River, Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported. He then reviewed the four suggested mitigative measures for the project. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to issue and mitigated determination of non- significance for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service shoreline application as submi tted. Chairman George Brown seconded the motion because Commissioner Dennison was not in the room at the time. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. TREASURER Petition for ProDertv Tax Refund: Elsie Minter: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the petition for property tax refund submitted for Elsie Minter in the amount of $367.51. Commissioner B. G. ~rown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. * * * Washinaton State LiQUor control Board re: Aaend;ed LiQUor License ADDlication (Adding Beer by Open Bottle on Premises) i Pleasant Harbor Marina: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved that the County has no' objection to the applicant or the location for this amended liquor license. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , ADDlications for Assistance from the Soldiers' aIld Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the following applications for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Mary Gibbons $500.00 (Only eligible for $373); Elmer Assman $87.40; and'Herschel Atkinson $50.00 Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMElft" re: Manaaeaent of On-si te Sewaae DiSDOsaI Svstem: Lots 5,6,7. 8 and 9 Kala HeiGhts PUD Phase B: Hew Kala Point L1ai ted Partnershiu and Kala Point Utilitv eo.manv: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the Management Agreement for the on-site sewage disposal system for Lots 5 through 9 of Kala Heights Phase B as submitted by the New ~ala Point Limited Partnership and Kala Point Utility Company. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AGRBEMElft' re: ~ent' of On-si te Sewage Disposal Svstem: Lots 10, 11, 12. 13, and 14. Kala HeiGhts POD Phase' B: Hew Kala Point L1aited Partnership and Kala Point Utili tv Comuanv: CommissionerB. G. Brown moved to approve the management agreement for the on-site sewage disposal system for Lots 10 through 14 of Kala Heights Phase B as submitted by the New Kala I ! I ! [vot 15 rAC~ fiCI 1605 j" ... :- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1989 Page: 16 Point Limited Partnership and Kala Point Utility Company. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous .vote. ! AGREEMERT re: Labor 1989: Jefferson countv Ba'Dlu,~es Guild: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to sign the 1989 labor agreement with the 3efferson County Employees Guild as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Budaet Transfers: Juvenile and F_ilv Court: Se~ices and Count:v Clerk: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve and sign Resolut:ion Ro. 32-89 authorizing the budget transfers requested by the 3uvenile and Family Court Services and County Clerk. Commissioner B. G. Brown se~onded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 7:00 p.m. on Monday evening and reconvened Tuesday afternoon. All Board members were present on Tuesday. MEETING AD30URNED 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~. . (7---,~ George C. ~Chair~an ~ ' i\ ~) B. G. Brown, Member ~- ,'~ La ry W D nnlson. Memger ;Vl>L 15 rM)~ Gr.;) 1606