Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.26.2022 Public Hearing Minutes1 Hearing Examiner Notes May 26, 2022 MLA21-00080 Public Hearing 1:02 Recording begins. Hearing Examiner McLean explains process, including that the Washington State Department of Ecology approves the shoreline variance. He will take comment from applicants, staff, and the public. Hearing Examiner McLean reminds everyone to keep their microphones off when not recognized. Turn mic off to be recognized. Do not speak until recognized by the Hearing Examiner. Do not speak over each other. Everyone offering factual testimony will be sworn in one at a time. Attorneys are sworn in already. Hearing Examiner McLean has reviewed the staff report. Order of the day is applicant presentation, staff presentation, and then public comments. The public can ask questions during their comments. Once comment period closes, applicant and staff team will be asked to answer questions. Hearing Examiner McLean has right to ask questions of anyone at any time. Public comments are time limited to 5 minutes. After everyone has been able to speak once, someone who has spoken may speak again. 1:10 Associate Planner Shannen Cartmel recognized as primary representative for Jefferson County. 1:11 Attorney Grant Degginger recognized as primary representative for applicant. Architect Tori Masterson, senior environmental scientist Rachel Hyland, and applicant Andrew Nordstrom will also speak. 1:11 Attorney Degginger says presentation will be an hour or less. Hearing Examiner McLean says that is a long presentation. Attorney Degginger says each person will cover a different part of the presentation. 1:12 Hearing Examiner McLean asks everyone to consolidate their presentations to focus on key points. With respect, an hour is too long. Public is here, he would like to get to them sooner rather than later. All material is in reports, and can be expanded upon in response to public questions. If you have slides, please add them to public record. 1:14 Associate Planner Cartmel asks that County go first instead of applicant, to speed up process. Hearing Examiner McLean explains that there was an email from Hearing Clerk Smith expressing that the applicant wished to go first. Usually staff goes first. Due to this new request, the hearing will proceed using the standard format with staff first. 1:15 Associate Planner Shannen Cartmel sworn in. 1:15 Associate Planner Shannen Cartmel begins verbal presentation. Corrects difference between initial public notice and final staff report. There are ten existing cabins on site, not eleven. The owner proposes to renovate them. The business name is Marrowstone Inn, not its former name of Marrowstone Inn and Beach Cottages. The expansion is landward, not waterward. The applicant also proposes to change staircase location to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A small area of the proposed changes will fall within the wetland buffer. That detail is included in variance application. A new exhibit was logged this morning, a public comment received last night. The comment was also sent to Hearing Examiner McLean before the hearing. 2 1:19 Hearing Examiner McLean checks that the staff report has correct information? Associate Planner Cartmel says yes. This verbal summary was for public who may have received the initial public hearing notice before the staff report was finished. 1:20 Associate Planner Cartmel moves to quieter office. 1:21 Associate Planner Cartmel resumes presentation. The initial application was received April 6, 2021 initial application. Currently consists of two tax parcels, 8.3 acres. The requested permits are a Conditional Use Permit with Major Variance and SEPA, and a Shoreline Variance with Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 1:26 Hearing Examiner McLean asks about recommendation that 29 conditions for county approval and 15 conditions for shoreline approvals. Associate Planner Cartmel says they can change that if needed, but that is the Unified Development Code director’s guidance. Hearing Examiner McLean confirms that this complies with best practice from Ecology. 1:28 Hearing Examiner McLean says Attorney Degginger and his team can speak to the merits of their project. Hearing Examiner McLean conducted a site visit, remaining on public land. Has seen site conditions and local road ways. 1:29 Attorney Degginger says the issues have been framed correctly. Those are the permits they are seeking. They have one clarification they ask hearing examiner to consider that differs from conditions and staff report. They will return to it later. He states that the site has operated for almost 80 years. This project proposes a small amount of additional square footage, with improvements to environment and infrastructure. 1:39 Architect Tori Masterson sworn in. She is the lead architect on the project, with Hoedemaker Pfieffer. Architect Masterson shares her screen to present a slideshow. Begins with her firm’s specialties and architectural goals. Introduces the history of property, use as a resort since 1930s. Existing structures were established in the 1970s. Presentation reviews existing septic systems and proposed septic systems. 1:38 Hearing Examiner McLean asks if the entire new system going to be outside the shoreline zone. Architect Masterson says the drainfields are, two tanks are not. 1:39 Architect Masterson presents a summary of environmental improvements. The project will decommission existing wells that are within the Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone. It will connect to PUD water system, and install a new fire hydrant. 1:40 Architect Masterson compares existing site traffic and parking with proposed site traffic and parking. 1:44 Slides explaining proposed land restoration. 1:45 Slide showing the structure’s distance from neighboring properties and structures. 1:46 Summary of street improvements. 1:46 Hearing Examiner McLean notes that the illustration of improvement appears to replace some existing alders with evergreens. Architect Masterson notes that evergreens will be low growing to shield 3 view of parking. Hearing Examiner McLean states that since the Jefferson County Code does not have a view corridors provision height is not as important in this situation. 1:49 Slides on proposed expansions. 1:51 Hearing Examiner McLean asks if these are the same expansions described in the staff report, or have they changed? 1:51 Architect Masterson confirms that these expansions are in the staff report. She is using this presentation to highlight them and clarify where the expansions are located. 1:52 Proposed changes to cabins. 1:57 Removing dilapidated manufactured home. Replacing with yurts and sauna with smaller square footage. 1:58 Changes to lodge to create ADA compliant bathroom. 1:59 Changes to garage with caretaker residence. 1:59 Licensed architect? Yes. Will updates to siding and window be finished with common theme? Yes, singular palette and window manufacturer. This will be more consistent than current cabins that were built at different times in different styles. 2:00 Applicant request summary. Close of presentation. 2:01 Attorney Degginger introduces Rachel Hyland is next speaker. She prepared exhibit 19, the Shoreline, Wetland, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Report. 2:02 Hyland sworn in. She is a senior environmental scientist, professional wetland scientist, and certified ecologist. 2:02 There are two wetlands on site, and offsite wetlands. Wetland A is rated as category 1 wetlands. Wetland B is a category 4 wetland. JCC allows 25% buffer reduction if criteria are met. To meet no net loss, they propose removing impervious structures and nonfunctional structures. She describes re- vegetation plan for after construction. More details in report. 2:09 Hearing Examiner McLean thanks Hyland for explaining definition and criteria for not net loss. 2:09 Attorney Degginger introduces applicant, Andrew Nordstrom. 2:09 Andrew Nordstrom sworn in. 2:10 Nordstrom introduces himself as the owner and a state local with family ties to the Olympic Peninsula. His goal is to restore the property with input from local community. He plans to live and work onsite. 2:12 Attorney Degginger makes comments. The presentations today shows criteria for permits are being met. The site conditions are result of property’s history. The proposed changes are largely minor, except for environmental improvements. Buffer reductions are necessary due to conditions onsite. One condition from the staff report he disagrees with is best management practices (BMPs) for noise management and public nuisance. The condition requires quiet hours in the vicinity on Friday and 4 Saturday starting at ten at night. The local noise management ordinance sets quiet hours on those days at eleven at night. He requests consistency with the ordinance. He also states that his client is responsible for noise on the property, but not offsite. 2:16 Hearing Examiner McLean reserves presenters’ rights to respond to questions. The hearing examiner reviewed the names of people in comments and applications to ensure that he does not have a personal or financial interest in this project. 2:17 Hearing Examiner McLean asks Associate Planner Cartmel if there were people who asked the department to speak first. None did. Clerk Smith is identified as the coordinator of the Zoom meeting. 2:18 Hearing Examiner McLean invites people to raise hand if they are interested in speaking. He counts about 7 people. He asks that everyone keep their comments between three or five minutes. He will ask people to move to next topic if needed. If a speaker agrees with someone, say so but do not repeat their comment. He will cut people off at 5 minutes. 2:19 Hearing Examiner McLean creates the following comment order: Joyce Bush, Kathleen Waldron, Bud Ayres, Carol Gonnella, Jim Nuerenberg, Teres, Doug Moore, Helen Stusser. 2:20 Joyce Bush sworn in. Commends applicant for passion about project and area. There was a restaurant mentioned. Is it within the lodge and how large will it be? 2:21 Kathleen Waldron sworn in. Knows her neighbor Helen has to leave. Does she want to go first? No. Hearing Examiner McLean says proxies are not allowed and to continue with her comment. Waldron lives at 50 Beach Drive, next door to site. Her family has lived there 47 years. She knew previous resort owners, visited resort. She supports applicant’s vision and is thankful to have the applicant as new neighbor. She has a bachelor’s in zoology and ecology. The project is next to the Kilisut Harbor Bridge, a significant salmon passage. It is crucial to have ecological protections there, such as those planned by applicant. Waldron is in favor of project and believes it would have environmental benefits. 2:25 Bud Ayers sworn in. He is a resident and property owner who is active in community as a board member of the Marrowstone Island Foundation and the Marrowstone Community Association. These organizations work to engage enthusiastic young people because Marrowstone has a high average age. He looks forward to this project as stewardship of environmentally sensitive area, making the area an asset to the island. Adding infrastructure aligns with local goals to improve services and fire response. He wholly supports project because it adds value to island. Mr. Ayers looks forward to its start date. 2:28 Carol Gonnella sworn in. She lives with her husband John three houses from site. Mrs. Gonnella considers current site an eyesore. The proposed improvements add value to community, visually and through infrastructure. She approves of the proposal. 2:29 Jim Nuerenberg sworn in. He is a Marrowstone Island resident and Vice President of the Marrowstone Island Foundation. He and the foundation care about safety and welfare of island. His background in civil engineering. Mr. Nuerenberg met and talked with applicant. He is very impressed. Mr. Nuerenberg believes the applicant cares about working with community. The inn’s website advertises the same goals and values to the outside world that the applicant shares with residents. The applicant is working with the environment. The project is welcome, the island needs it. He considers this one of several current projects that will significantly improvement the island. The site was ecologically 5 neglected, this will give it a new and better use. Setbacks are minimal and should be allowed. This will better the site and entrance to the island. It is minimally invasive to the shoreline. Traffic and parking changes are minimal to nonexistent. This is a reasonable request, he supports it. His wife Nancy also supports it. 2:33 Terese Grace sworn in. She lives across the street from the proposed project, on a corner. What is the plan for traffic navigation? The current speed limit is 35 miles an hour, which will be dangerous for parking on the side of the road. There are children and cyclists on the road. Has the applicant asked the county to lower the speed limit? Traffic is an issue as inn visitors explore the area. There is a shed across the street that she has not seen addressed in the proposal. She does not approve of it being there due to traffic. What is the timeline for stages? How long will there be temporary parking for construction? Will the waterfront be redone due to existing bulkhead and boat ramp? Will the easement between Kathleen Waldron’s and the site be made available to public as a trail? She is sad to see existing maple trees cut down for project. 2:38 Doug Moore sworn in. He is a property owner, resident, and member of the Marrowstone Island Foundation. Mr. Moore endorses the project because it provides net benefits, such as improvements to property, improvements to ecology, and resources for the island. 2:39 Helen Stusser sworn in. She is a resident at other end of the block. “Thrilled” about having a lovely resort nearby. She has known the applicant for many years and supports the project. 2:40 Hearing Examiner McLean asks if there are any other interested parties who want to make comment or ask question? If so, please unmute and introduce yourself. 2:41 Hearing Examiner McLean asks if the county have received any calls or emails about not being able to access the hearing. Clerk Smith confirms that no one contacted them about additional public comments or difficulty accessing the hearing. 2:42 Hearing Examiner McLean makes last call for public comments. 2:42 close of public comments. Hearing Examiner McLean turns to staff and applicants to answer questions. 2:42 Associate Planner Cartmel would like to answer questions about code before turning to applicant for other questions. Hearing Examiner McLean agrees to this order. 2:43 Associate Planner Cartmel explains that the restaurant is secondary use and only for lodge guests. It is limited to 50 seats maximum, which may be further reduced by environmental constraints later in permitting process. To address traffic concerns, the first round of public comments led staff to request input from the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Exhibit log item 38 shows emails w John Fleming of Public Works about criteria for a traffic impact report. Associate Planner Cartmel sent the applicants an additional information request to provide a report meeting those criteria. The applicant met with a traffic engineer who prepared a traffic memorandum about their findings. That memorandum is exhibit log item 37. The memorandum found no impacts that can be mitigated by Jefferson County code. Public Works reviewed the memorandum and did not take exception to its analysis or contents. Speed limit concerns cannot be regulated by this proposal but can be brought to 6 the Department of Public Works. The same is true of requesting a trail in the easement. Does Hearing Examiner McLean have any additional questions? 2:46 Hearing Examiner McLean confirms that exhibit log item 37 is the traffic memorandum. The memorandum found no impacts needing mitigation. Public Works does not take exception to this finding. This information is in the staff report. 2:47 Attorney Degginger says their team agrees with Associate Planner Cartmel that restaurant is a secondary use and only open to resort guests. He references exhibit 37, the traffic analysis done at request of county, which found no traffic impacts requiring mitigation. He does not have any information on a shed. 2:49 Architect Tori Masterson can speak to the shed question. The property was covered in invasive species. Removing those made a shed more visible. Their team initially wanted to use that as an art space but removed that from the proposal. Hearing Examiner McLean asks about its current planned use? Architect Masterson says they are considering renovating it for storage use, or tearing it down if renovation is not financially feasible. 2:50 Attorney Degginger thanks Jefferson County staff. 2:51 Hearing Examiner McLean asks if there are any further points from staff? There are not. 2:51 There are no additional items or corrections. Hearing Examiner McLean asks Attorney Degginger to send a color PDF of slideshow to Jefferson County Staff so they can number it and add it to the exhibit list. Staff will send the slideshow and staff report, with all conditions, to the Hearing Examiner by the end of business Friday. Hearing Examiner McLean hopes to have issue his decision by the end of June but mid-July is more likely due to the multiple applications and size of the project. Will that timeline cause material harm to Attorney Degginger’s client? 2:53 Attorney Degginger understands that there are multiple applications to consider. The timeline is understood. 2:53 Hearing Examiner McLean thanks staff and applicants for thorough reports and clear presentations. He thanks the public for their participation. He will review all documents and judge this in a fair and impartial manner. He will issue a written decision and share it with county staff, who will post it on website. The shoreline approvals will be reviewed by Deptartment of Ecology. 2:55 Adjourned.