Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12I- PRE-APPLICATION NOTESPRE2021-00034 Pre-Application Conference Lisa and Tom McIlwain Residential Expansion(s) in Conservancy Shoreline Jurisdiction Agenda: 1.Meet Virtually @ 2:00 PM 2.Environmental Health Review3.Land Use Review 4.Questions Debrief5.End conference by 3:00 PM County Attendees: Amanda Hunt & Donna Frostholm – Department of Community Development, Emma Erickson – Department of Environmental Health Time and Date: Thursday, December 23rd, 2021 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM Applicant(s)/Attendee(s): Lisa and Tom McIlwain – Applicants, Richard Berg - Representative Location: Parcel #802261002, Section 26 – Township 28N – Range 2W, S26 T28 R2W LOT 1 (N 165'OF S330'), 47 Munn Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376 Description of Proposal: Lisa and Tom McIlwain are proposing a landward, lateral, and waterward addition and expansion of their existing single-family residence (w/attached deck). The residence is currently a vacation rental. Expansions proposed for long-term residential useage. The existing single-family residence and attached deck was permitted in 1997 under BLD1997- 00214. The following are the proposed project components: •A: New Carport (Lateral Expansion) •B: Expansion of Residence Footprint (Landward Expansion) - New Laundry Room & New Powder Room •C: New Deck w/ Hot Tub (Lateral Expansion) •D: Expansion of Residence Footprint (Waterward Expansion) - Part of Master Bedroom & New Screened Porch •E: New Deck (Waterward Expansion) All project components are located in the Conservancy Shoreline Environmental Designation (Lake Leland). The applicant’s goal of this pre-application conference is to discuss the permitting path for a residential addition and expansion within the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The Jefferson County Code is available on-line at http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/ DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW DIVISION – Amanda Hunt (360-379-4458) and Donna Frostholm (360-379-4466): Land Use: •Zoning: Rural Residential 1:5 •State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): o The proposal is exempt from SEPA review. No checklist is required. •Stormwater review (Small or Medium Stormwater Packet) is required for the single- story residential expansions. The applicant should describe and/or verify in application if existing stormwater controls will be altered by the proposed project. o Stormwater Management is based off of the current Ecology StormwaterManagement Manual (JCC 18.30.060 and JCC 18.30.070, Current EcologyStormwater Management Manual for Western Washington). Shoreline: •Please note that Jefferson County is in the process of revising the Shoreline MasterProgram (SMP)(Chapter 18.25 JCC) and the following is based on current regulations. •The proposed single-story residential expansions are located in Conservancy ShorelineEnvironmental Designation and start approximately 83'-0" from the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). All project components are “allowed” uses per“single-family (and normal appurtenances)” in the conservancy shoreline designation(JCC 18.25.220). •All proposed project components located outside of the 10-foot building setback (JCC 18.25.270(4)(d)) and 100-foot lake shoreline buffer from OHWM (JCC 18.25.270(4)(e)(ii)) are exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) as a “normal appurtenance” per JCC 18.25.560(8). Non-conforming development regulations per JCC 18.25.660 also do not apply to components located outside the setback and buffer. o These project components shall require a Building Permit Application with aShoreline Development Supplemental Application. •All proposed lateral/landward expansions located within the 10-foot building setback and 100-foot lake shoreline buffer are considered non-conforming development of an existing legally established building, subject to regulations in JCC 18.25.660.o These project components shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use (Type II)Administrative Permit Application. (JCC 18.25.660(9)): Conditional uses aresubject to Notice of Application criteria, including a public notice and writtenpublic comment (14 days), and an administrative approval procedure, but not apublic hearing; see Article VIII of Chapter 18.40 JCC. Applications for uses listedas an administrative conditional use permit (i.e., "C(a)") in JCC 18.25.220 areprocessed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions establishedin JCC 18.25.590. PLEASE NOTE: A one-time landward expansion is allowedprovided that all conditional use criteria are satisfied, and no previous landwardexpansions have been granted on the subject property. •All proposed waterward expansions located within the 10-foot building setback and 100- foot shoreline buffer are also considered non-conforming development of an existing legally established building, subject to regulations in JCC 18.25.660. o These project components shall require a Shoreline Variance (Type III) Permit Application per JCC 18.25.660(10)(a). The Type III permit process requires Notice of Application criteria, including a public notice and written public comment (30 days). The Type III Permit Process also triggers a notice of public hearing and the associated public hearing, where the Hearing Examiner shall make a final County decision (JCC 18.40.280(4)). The decision shall be forwarded to the Department of Ecology (DOE) who shall make the final decision for the Shoreline Variance application. •The proposed project must meet the “Shoreline Conditional Use (Type III) Administrative Permit” criteria under JCC 18.25.590 and “Shoreline Variance”criteria under JCC 18.25.580. See attached JCC Chapter 18.25 excerpts. •PLEASE CONSIDER: An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure (JCC 18.40.030(2)). A collective permit process would allow the entire residential expansion to be processed as one application. Additionally, Jefferson County is in the process of updating the current SMP. The regulations regarding expansions is proposed to change for Type II –III permits. The applicants could consider waiting to apply until the new SMP becomeseffective. •PLEASE CONSIDER: Shoreline variances have the highest level of review and you should be aware that it may not be possible to approve an application to expand a residential structure further waterward. •PLEASE CONSIDER: It is recommended, but not required, that you obtain shorelinepermits requiring final approval from Ecology prior to submitting a building application. •When a shoreline conditional use is allowed, an equivalent area of shoreline bufferarea shall be enhanced through planting of native vegetation, plus additionalmitigation to be required as appropriate. The administrator shall require a PlantingPlan to ensure this standard is implemented (JCC 18.25.660(9)(a)(iii)). •When a shoreline variance is allowed, a mitigation plan shall be required (JCC18.25.580(3)(g)). Archaeology: •No archaeological hits were observed during review of this project (finding based on DAHP maps). No archaeological or cultural survey is required at the time of application; however, if the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation or the Tribes indicate the potential for resources to be present during the Notice of Application comment period, a survey will be required. Critical Areas: •Critical Areas located on the property include Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Non-Fish Habitat Stream; fresh water serves as a primary association for listed fish species), Wetlands (in shoreline), Frequently Flooded Area (A Flood Zone), Geological Hazardous Areas (Seismic Hazard Area), and Susceptible Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (SUSC). o Stream: The proposed New Carport is located within the 75 ft non-fish bearing stream buffer and 5 ft building setback. A Habitat Management Plan, including proposed mitigation, shall be required to reduce the stream buffer by up to 25%. o Wetlands: Wetlands are mapped along the backyard and shoreline. If the proposed project is within 225 ft of a wetland, the applicant is required to submit a wetland report (JCC 18.22.960). The wetland report would include wetland delineation field forms and wetland rating forms to determine the location and extent of the required wetland buffer and, if necessary, a mitigation plan. o Frequently Flooded Areas: The proposed expansions are not located in the A Flood Zone. No further action is required. o Geological Hazard Area: A Geotechnical Report prepared by a qualified geologist, or a Geotechnical Report Waiver, is required for the on-site Seismic Hazard Area. o SUSC: No special report is required. Environmental Health - Emma Erickson (EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us) •The Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health (EH) will provide the review of water and septic requirements for the proposed expansions of the existing residence (if a bedroom or bathroom is proposed). The landward expansion must also be reviewed under septic tank setback requirements. EH fees will be in addition to land use review listed down below. Application and Fees: •The fees listed below are limited to shoreline permitting only. Please be aware thatbuilding and Environment Health application fees would be in addition to those listedbelow. •A complete land use application includes the following: o Permit Application o Shoreline Supplemental Development Permit Application o Shoreline Conditional Use (Type II) Administrative Permit Application o Shoreline Variance (Type III) Permit Application o Stormwater Forms (Small or Medium Stormwater Packet) -All applicable forms, including the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet o Site Plan(s), Design Drawings o Geotechnical Report or Geotechnical Report Waiver o Wetland Report (if required) & Habitat Management Plan (w/ Mitigation Planand Planting Plan) o Any additional information which will demonstrate compliance with the code suchas narratives or photos.o Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Fees are as follows: Base Fee $1,552.00;Notice of Application $149.00; Notice Board $12.00; Scan Fee $24.00;Technology Fee $86.85; Total Application Fee $1,823.85 o Shoreline Variance Fees are as follows: Base Fee $2,037.00; Notice ofApplication $149.00, Notice of Hearing $149.00; Notice Board $12.00; Scan Fee$24.00; Technology Fee $118.55; Total Application Fee $2,489.55 o Additional review time over the base amount is charged at $97.00 per hour.o In this preliminary review of the proposed project, no review fees for any otherdepartmental reviews have been identified. OTHER REGULATORY/LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS: The proposal will be sent out for review and comment by other affected agencies and Tribes. JCC 18.40.090(5) Assurances Unavailable. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the administrator shall not bind or prohibit the county’s future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by county representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of county, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plan. JCC Chapter 18.25 Shoreline Conditional Use and Variance Criteria JCC 18.25.590 Conditional use permit criteria. (1)The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in administering the use regulations of this program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to thepermit by the county or the Department of Ecology to control any undesirable effects ofthe proposed use. Final authority for conditional use permit decisions rests with the Department of Ecology. (2)Uses specifically classified or set forth in this program as conditional uses and unlisted uses may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the following: (a)That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and thisprogram. (b)That the proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of public shorelines. (c)That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. (d)That the proposed use will not cause adverse effects to the shoreline environment inwhich it is to be located. (e)That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. (3)In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the sum of the conditional uses and their impacts should alsoremain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce a significantadverse effect to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users. (4)Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under county zoning or subdivision code requirements shall not be construed as shoreline variances under this program. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 6)] JCC 18.25.580 Variance permit criteria. (1)The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in this program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of this program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant/proponent or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Use restrictions may not be varied. In authorizing a variance, specialconditions may be attached to the permit by the county or the Department of Ecology tocontrol any undesirable effects of the proposed use. Final authority for variance permit decisions shall be granted by the Department of Ecology. (2)Variances will be granted in any circumstance where denial would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstancesshall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (3)Variances may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the following: (a)That the strict application of the bulk or dimensional criteria set forth in this programprecludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property; (b)That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s/proponent’s own actions; (c)That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in thearea and will not cause adverse effects on adjacent properties or the shorelineenvironment; (d)That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; (e)That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; (f)That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be materiallyinterfered with by the granting of the variance; and (g)Mitigation is provided to offset unavoidable adverse impacts caused by the proposed development or use. (4)In the granting of all variances, consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, ifvariances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstancesexist, the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce significant adverse effects to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users. (5)Other factors that may be considered in the review of variance requests include theconservation of valuable natural resources and the protection of views from nearby roads,surrounding properties and public areas. In addition, variance requests based on the applicant’s/proponent’s desire to enhance the view from the subject development may be granted where there are no likely detrimental effects to existing or future users, other features or shoreline ecological functions and/or processes, and where reasonable alternatives of equal or greater consistency with this program are not available. In plattedresidential areas, variances shall not be granted that allow a greater height or lesser shoresetback than what is typical for the immediate block or area. (6)Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under other county codes shall not be construed as shoreline permits under this program. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 5)] Professional Biologist Consultation Summary: •Shoreline Applications (if shoreline setback/buffer disturbance is proposed): Planting/ Mitigation Plan •New Carport (if stream buffer disturbance is proposed): Habitat Management Plan •All Applications (if wetland is found and buffer disturbance is proposed): Wetland Delineation Forms, Wetland Rating Forms, Mitigation Plan *PLEASE NOTE: All of the above can be addressed in one report. If the applicant proposes one cumulative report, please make sure the professional biologist specifically identifies mitigation measures per stream, wetland, and shoreline disturbance areas*.