Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD1997-00555 SEPA 44'¢SoN �G a a JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 9�,-IIN O MEMORANDUM TO: Al Scalf, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Jerry Smith, Associate Planner DATE: January 2, 1998 SUBJECT: Comments and staff response; Determination of Non-Significance; Case No. BLD97-0555 Proponent: Francis P and Victoria Cavallero , building permit applicants Proposal: The project consists of construction of an 80 foot by 224 foot private horse riding arena at 480 Woodland Drive within the Woodland Hills Subdivision. Legal Description: Lot 38 of the Woodland Hills Subdivision, Tax Parcel 001 275 030 in Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, WM. The division has provided the referenced threshold determination to the Department of Ecology, Agencies with jurisdiction, affected tribes, and local agencies/political subdivisions and has notified the public as required by the State Environmental Policy Act Rules per WAC 197-11-340 and 197-11-510. The comment period ended December 31, 1997. The division has received one written comment. Washington State Department of Transportation: Response dated December 18, 1997. Stamped with "No Comment". No summary of comments is necessary. Staff Recommendation: Based on information in the record, information provided through comments to the Determination of Non-Significance, staff recommends retaining the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance issued December 15, 1997. Page 1 of 2 Building Environmental Health Development Review Public Works Building Permits Septic Permits Subdivision, Zoning Road Approalh Inspections Water Review & Shoreline Permits Permits & Addresses (360) 379-4450 FAX: (360) 379-4451 Final Determination of the Responsible Official: I have reviewed and considered the comments received regarding the referenced threshold determination. It is my determination to: X Retain the referenced threshold determination. Modify the referenced threshold determination. Withdraw the referenced threshold determination and make a Determination of Significance. / 592 Al calf, S A Responsible Official Dat page 2 of 2 NOTICE OF FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO. BLD97-0555 PROPONENT(S) : FRANCAIS CAVALLARO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jefferson County has issued a final mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) for the following permit: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONSTRUCT A 17, 920 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE HORSE RIDING ARENA AT 480 WOODLAND DRIVE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel No. 001275030 Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 01 West WM WOODLAND DR PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 Jefferson County has determined that the above-described proposal as mitigated would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division, inspection of the site, and consideration of comments submitted in response to the preliminary determination of non-significance issued 12/17/97 . This final determination is issued ursuant to WAC 197-11340 (2) (f) . There is no additional comment period. Any appeal of this determination on the basis of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter 43 . 21C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) must be submitted in writing on or before 4 : 30 P.M. on January 15, 1998 to the Development Review Division of the Permit Center for consideration by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. Copies of the final MDNS are available to the public upon request from the Jefferson County Permit Center, 621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 . 1 4g0N 4, o1 JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER �, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 18'1ING(C9 FINAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: January 5 1998 , PROPONENT: Francis P. and Victoria Cavallero PROPOSAL: The proposed project consists of construction of an 80 foot by 224 foot private horse riding arena at 480 Woodland Drive within the Woodland Hills Subdivision. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the City of Port Townsend limits and east of the Jefferson County Airport. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 38, Woodland Hills Subdivision, Tax Parcel Number 001 275 030, within Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Mitigation Measures: 1. In order to mitigate significant adverse impacts related to the generation of odor and impacts to surface and ground water, the applicants shall contact the local Conservation District for assistance in developing a plan to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) to prevent animal waste from entering waters of the state and to minimize odors within the immediate area. 2. In order to mitigate significant adverse impacts related to visual impacts, the applicants `V shall implement the site improvements described in the December 9, 1997 letter to the 4\ V Jefferson County Permit Center. The referenced improvements relate to building height, �' roof color, architectural compatibility, exterior siding, and vegetative screening/landscaping. The mitigation measures are intended to eliminate or reduce probable significant adverse impacts identified by review of the Environmental Checklist submitted by the proponent from inspection of the site by Jefferson County Development Review Division staff, and from comments by agencies and the public. These impacts are to: • impacts to air related to odors from animal waste and potential impacts to surface and ground water from animal wastes. • visual impacts from neighboring properties. Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance Francis and Victoria Cavallero, Case# BLD97-0555 Building Environmental Health Development Review Public Works Building Permits Septic Permits Subdivision, Zoning Road Approach Inspections Water Review & Shoreline Permits Permits & Addresses (360) 379-4450 FAX: (360) 379-4451 • SUMMARY OF MEETINGS DECEMBER 4th& 5th We arrived in Port Townsend on December 4th to look over the progress of the construction. We were aware that the comment period on the arena had been extended until the 3`d of December. Our builder told us that one comment had been received and that we should probably call Mr. Barrett to discuss his feelings. I(Victoria)telephoned Mr. Barrett that evening. I discovered that he owned the property directly behind ours. He is intending to sell his property and is concerned about the size of our proposed structure and wished to know what we would be doing to minimize the impact. I asked him what he would like us to do. He expressed an interest in seeing our plans. I told him that our house would probably be more visible than the arena from his property so he wants to see those plans as well. I felt that he was trying to be reasonable and that he was just looking for more information. I told him that I would send him copies of our plans on the arena and the house. He requested that a site plan be included as well. On December 5th, we met with Jerry Smith(Jefferson County Permit Center) and discussed the situation. Mr. Smith outlined our various options and we are following up by providing the information that he felt might be helpful. Mr. Smith told us that he would then forward the information that he feels will be useful to Mr. Barrett. INFORMATION ON PURCHASING OUR LOT We purchased our lot last spring. The seller's agent(Richard Hild)told us that there were no restrictions to our proposed arena, house and stable. We had received a copy of the CC&Rs and saw that there were no restrictions on horses or building size (other than a minimum). There were already horses across the street. We told the seller's agent how large the arena would be and he still envisioned that there would be no problems. We tried to purchase the property with a contingency clause based on being able to obtain a permit for the arena. The seller would not accept the contingency. The seller's agent had felt so confident and told us that he was well acquainted with many of our neighbors, thus, we believed that we could rely on his assurances. We spoke to some of the neighbors and told them what we wanted to do and they seemed fine with it and they all knew the agent. We then bought the property without the contingencies and went forward. When we first asked if a permit was needed for the arena we were told it was not. We were uncomfortable with this and asked that the arena be permitted anyway. From what we understand SEPA would have entered into the picture with or without a permit. When we turned in the information for the permit on the arena, we were told that the SEPA information would be necessary even though it was not a commercial building. 1 We had intended, with or without SEPA, to allow for adequate drainage and water plans. We had the land surveyed and then ADA Engineering(copy of contract enclosed)to access the site and tell us what would be the best way to handle water run-off We also wanted to have them do an analysis on a rainwater run-off storage tank so that we could re-cycle at least a good portion of it. ADA has done a topographical map and is working on the rest of the proposal at his time. POSSIBLE ARENA SIZES Before we purchased our lot we had looked at both Lot 40 and 38 for possible purchase. We found so much vegetation on both lots that it was difficult to see anything. When we looked at the lots again about a month later, both Lot 40 and ours (Lot 38)had been relatively cleared. Mr. Hild told our real estate agent that this had been done by the owners to show some of the views. The views, now clear,pointed out that Lot 38 had many views, some of them water views. Lot 40 had views of the mountains which looked like they could be in jeopardy should other lots be built out. We felt that Lot 38 would block Lot 40 from the water side when built out. Lot 40 had minimal water views even without any development of Lot 38 (the proposed arena site does not block these water views). We paid a lot more for Lot 38 than what we would have had to pay for Lot 40. We felt that this was because of the water views and the probability of continued mountain views. Richard Hild was representing the sellers on both of these lots. He also stated that the views were far superior on Lot 38, resulting in the higher asking price. The price of our property had been raised to offset the cost of clearing the lot. When the previous owners basically clear cut the Iot,there were many tree stumps and roots simply buried and the land had not been cleared the right way. This resulted in our having to come in and dig up the stumps and roots and in much added work. Had the trees not already been cut to such an extent, we would have been able to leave a barrier of trees between our property and Lot 40 as we have left between Lot 39 and ourselves and Lot 37 and ourselves. Where there were trees to work with, we tried to leave a buffer knowing that our building would be big. We pulled some trees from the front of the lot, near the corner where the views from the house will be. We intend to plant lower things to cover those areas. Between the proposed arena site and the road, we have left enough room to plant more trees to increase the tree buffer, we pulled only small vegetation from this area when we graded the site(most of it was cleared by the previous owner). The property line between Lot 38 &40 was clear cut on both sides of the property line by the previous owners (Richard Hild said that the owners of Lots 38 &40 had hired the grader to do the combined job on both lots),there was nothing left to work with. I have noted on Exhibit# 1 the possible arena sites. While these could be brought further in from property lines, the basic sites are indicated. Option A: This is the lowest ground on the site. We would have been very happy to put the arena here; our views would have been totally unobstructed, as the land is low here. but, Lots 39 &40 would have been affected with water run-off and thus this was ruled 2 out. Even with a major water diversion plan, the building would have been very close to Lot 40 right down the middle of its long side. There were no trees left to work with to obscure the views from Lot 40 so we ruled this out. Option B: Same problem as A with respect to the water run-off. We felt that the long side of our arena would be less desirable for Lot 39 as it was relatively close to the property line. We still had trees to work with here, but the water would be a fairly big problem. Lot 39 is lower than Lot 38 and the len -off would not be our favor here. The arena would be better dealt with orunni g with f the arenahe long side North in /South rather than East/West in this lower area when other properties were lower still. Option D: Too close to Lot 40 (this is where Lot 40 is very narrow anyway). We would perhaps be hurting the mountain view of Lot 37. We would have had to grade a major portion of land creating a big difference from the level of Lot 40 to our lot. If we built up the middle to the level at the North end, it would have made the already tall arena seem higher still. If we cut into the hill on the North end, we would have created a water run- off problem from the road(To the North) and another one from Lot 40 down to our lot. We felt that this area could perhaps be a future building site for Lot 40 (it was where we would have built our house had we bought the lot) and that we would be unfair to them. Option E: Not as bad on water or views as in D, but both problems to some extent. This is the high point of the lot and would have made the arena appear larger and taller to all concerned. Option C: The one we decided on. It was as far from Lot 40 and Lot 37 as possible. It was made level by cutting down rather than going up(making the height appear lower). Lot 39 had a short end along it, but we left a lot of vegetation and more buffer than mandated by county or CC&R restrictions for setbacks. The property owners on the other side of the street to the East had already built and had gone for water views. We knew where they wanted to look instead of trying to guess. We felt that with the trees still there and additional plantings, it would be the best possible. The trees that had been left along the property line between Lot 38 & 40 were along here so it would create some buffer. This site required some additional drainage to be designed for the drop at the NorthWest corner, but we wanted to make it as low as possible for everyone concerned. IN RESPONSE TO SI l'b PLAN EFFECTS ON OUR VTFWS: Mr. Barrett stated that" From the plot plan it is evident that the proposed residence is sited to minimize the visual impacts of the arena. The neighbors may not have that option." We see our views as being the mountains to the South West and the water to the North East. The South East gives us a view of Mt. Rainer. Our home is proposed to sit on the diagonal which will pick up those views. The only side of our home with no widows to speak of is the one that faces Lot 37 (garage and two small bedroom windows). We 3 directed many views toward our arena, my office, my husband's office, our exercise room,two balconies (sides of), the living room and our guest room. Option A, we could have seen right over the arena and it would have had no impact on our views. Option B: No impact on our views other than to the South( we still would have been able to see Mt. Ranier) Options D&E would have been great for us,view wise. Option C: We have cut off our view of Mt. Ranier. Our living room windows look directly at the proposed arena. The South East side of our house looks directly at the arena. The arena is very close to the proposed house site and is about 500 feet from the Lot 40 property line. We did try to preserve our views, this would be natural. But we also hurt some of our views (Mt. Rainier)in order to try to do the best thing with respect to the visual and engineering impacts of the arena. Water run off is a big deal. Total height impact is a big deal. We know that the CC &Rs allow for a height of 35 feet, but we really tried to minimize the impact of the height of the structure. WHAT WE DID TO "TRY"TO BLEND IN We contracted for a steel truss system so we could leave the pitch of the roof more shallow and still be safe on snow load and wind. Wood trusses (still a steel roof)come lower inside the arena and stay level across and thus the side walls need to be higher. An 18 foot side wall with wooden trusses stays at 17 feet all across. The riding arena should V Vhave a 20-22 foot side wall when using wood trusses to be safe for the horses and riders. We were able to go with 18 foot side walls because the steel clearspan goes up from the sides rather than staying level inside. Using steel rather than wood added about$50,000 to the cost of the structure but dropped the height by about 8 feet(from the peak). The 2 foot lower sidewalls also give the appearance of a lower structure. The steel roof is stronger than other alternatives and the overall height could be lower. The steel is important for fire safety as well. When we asked for bids from companies for the arena, we were told that a brown roof V would cost$12,000 more than a white one (Butler). White reflects light and looks bigger. We did not get a quote for other than brown from the company we contracted with, we vwere only considering brown at this point due to the appearance. We asked for a beige exterior which seemed the color most used in the development(We saw some blue houses, but a blue arena REALLY stands out). There are beige light s- pannels set along the long sides and this blends to the beige walls instead of standing out visually on a darker wall color. We designed our house to be rectangular and to have very simple lines in order to relate to the arena structure. We went to additional cost to plan to stucco the house exterior rather than use hearty plank so as not to have the vertical lines of the arena siding clash with the horizontal lines of the house. We are using,the 4 same colors for the exteriors of the house and other outbuildings so as to look harmonious and hopefully receed somewhat. The size of the arena is dictated by the sport we participate in. One of our horses is on the developing horse list for the United States Equestrian Team. Dressage is an Olympic Sport and this horse has a possibility of making a team. The arena is very specific and must be certain dimensions unlike many other equestrian segments. The arena cut smaller in length is useless to us. We could have simply covered the arena instead of enclosing it(savings= $25,000), but chose not to for the following reasons: We will be able to be quieter as any noise associated with our riding activities will stay within the arena if enclosed. No one will have to watch us ride unless they choose to come watch. The enclosed walls tend to make the building recede instead of standing out. A covered arena still has the same roof and the upper walls with the bottom wall areas left open. This creates a busier picture and is broken up by the things in the arena such as jumps, seating, etc. An enclosed arena can be more easily ignored by the eye. A covered arena still needs fencing along the inside perimeter along the bottom 4 feet. It ends up looking busy. Any dust produced while riding would not leave the building if enclosed. (We are installing a sprinkler system in the inside of the roof to keep dust from being a problem) Where the previous owners had not clear cut, we left a perimeter of trees and intend to plant more. Exhibit# 2 is a copy of our stable contract which calls for steel siding. This building sits in front of the arena from Lot 40's view. In response to Mr. Barrett's comment, we have asked our contractor to stucco the walls and accent them with stone to blend with the house and block the arena somewhat. This will cost us an additional $6-8,000. We realize that he did not ask us to do this, but it will improve the appearance from his lot and we think it will look great. We would love to do this to the arena as well, but the cost would be too prohibitive for us and it would still be a large structure. We are trying to do what we can. The barn is closer to Lot 40 and will hopefully change the appearance a lot. We intend to add landscaping based on what our land engineers suggest and in an effort to minimize our visual impact. The tree roots from the initial clearing before we bought the land have been put in piles and will be taken care of. Final grading will be done based on the engineering recommendations to assure that the water and erosion issues are dealt with. I am assuming that Mr. Barrett does not want us to plant trees along the ✓common property line as he cut them down previously. 5 y � Once we are done, we intend to discuss various alternatives with our neighbors for the road side of the arena. We will plant more vegetation,but they may have some other suggestions, such as hiring someone to paint trees on the sides, etc. We have planned to connect the horse stalls to a septic system to minimize any impact. The drainage system for the barn is expensive and we have gone to a lot of effort to research the newest and most innovative design solutions. We do not create a manure pile. We have it hauled off(But we've been told people may want it, which is fine also) currently. Our barn equipment will be stored out of sight. IN SUMMATION We are aware that this is a nice development and we want to be a welcomed part of it. We are looking forward to being a part of the community as well. To tell you a little about ourselves with respect to the horses: Currently, we are in a very nice section of Scottsdale, Arizona. We do not have an indoor arena here as the weather does not require it. We are on 1.4 acres and have 6 stalls, an arena the size of the one proposed for Port Townsend and various turn out areas . We do not have any horse manure anywhere on our property except in our horses stalls and they are cleaned at the very least each day. Our paddocks are raked and tidy. Our arena is sand rather than old manure and shavings(the most common surface). A builder bought the lot next door to us and built a spec home with a pool (the pool about 35 feet from our property and it borders on our turn outs, arena and stable)and asked over$500,000 for the home. He would not have speced a home next to us if we were not clean and quiet. Better yet, a non-horse lover bought the home and has never complained. Our neighborhood is about % horse properties. We have never received a complaint from anyone at anytime. We have never had a horse get loose. We try to keep any noise to an absolute minimum and to be aware of where we are which is in the middle of a very nice residential neighborhood. Our horse activities require us to buy food and bedding for the horses as well as equipment(currently about$30,000 per year). We currently have labor expenses of about$60,000 a year, We have high Veterinary bills. We have hired local contractors and have purchased most of our supplies locally. This is a larger property than we have currently and we will probably need landscaping help as well. While this does not directly effect our neighbors, it does effect the community in which jobs and local investment is needed. We are not a commercial riding facility. We will try, as much as we can,to blend in and to be a part of the community. 6 This property is an expensive undertaking for us. We have tried to do it all to the best of our abilities. We have considered others or have tried to. We know that this is a large building,but there were no restrictions prohibiting it. We are within county and community codes, we have tried to design a clean safe environment. We did give thought to those around us. We spoke to the Seller's agent and to some of our neighbors, and there didn't seem to be any problems. We are overbuilding in terms of financial expenditures and in other situations such as these, property values generally go up as a result. We believe that the place will be pretty, though we realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We have enclosed some plans (the house plans have not been finalized yet). We have also enclosed the requested copies of photos of Lot 40 taken from various places to help show the visual impact. 7 44,¢,SON cow w JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER la> 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 1S1irNG` 9 FINAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: January 5, 1998 PROPONENT: Francis P. and Victoria Cavallero PROPOSAL: The proposed project consists of construction of an 80 foot by 224 foot private horse riding arena at 480 Woodland Drive within the Woodland Hills Subdivision. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the City of Port Townsend limits and east of the Jefferson County Airport. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 38, Woodland Hills Subdivision, Tax Parcel Number 001 275 030, within Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Mitigation Measures: 1. In order to mitigate significant adverse impacts related to the generation of odor and impacts to surface and ground water, the applicants shall contact the local Conservation District for assistance in developing a plan to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) to prevent animal waste from entering waters of the state and to minimize odors within the immediate area. 2. In order to mitigate significant adverse impacts related to visual impacts, the applicants shall implement the site improvements described in the December 9, 1997 letter to the Jefferson County Permit Center. The referenced improvements relate to building height, roof color, architectural compatibility, exterior siding, and vegetative screening/landscaping. The mitigation measures are intended to eliminate or reduce probable significant adverse impacts identified by review of the Environmental Checklist submitted by the proponent from inspection of the site by Jefferson County Development Review Division staff, and from comments by agencies and the public. These impacts are to: • impacts to air related to odors from animal waste and potential impacts to surface and ground water from animal wastes. • visual impacts from neighboring properties. Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance Francis and Victoria Cavallero, Case # BLD97-0555 Building Environmental Health Development Review Public Works Building Permits Septic Permits Subdivision, Zoning Road Approach Inspections Water Review & Shoreline Permits Permits & Addresses (360) 379-4450 FAX: (360) 379-4451 County policies which address these impacts are contained in the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance, the Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies are cited in the project record. NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above-described proposal. NOTICE OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE: Jefferson County has determined that the above- described proposal, conducted in conformance with the mitigation measures, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Permit Center, inspection of the site, and consideration of comments submitted in response to the determination of non-significance issued by the Jefferson County Responsible Official on December 15, 1997. COMMENT PERIOD: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2) (f). Jefferson County has considered comments and testimony on its proposed mitigated determination of non-significance issued December 15, 1997. There is no additional comment period. APPEAL: Any appeal of this final determination on the basis of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) must be submitted in writing before 4:30 P.M. January 15, 1998 to the Responsible Official, Jefferson County Permit Center, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 for consideration by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. If the last day of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the County Permit Center to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. -a-4)K Al calf, SEPA Responsible Official, Jefferson County Date I Distribution Washington State Department of Ecology Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council Olympic Environmental Council Jefferson County Department of Public Works Jefferson County Health and Human Services Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader Proponents, Francis and Victoria Cavallero Parties of Record Davis Barrett This Final Determination of Non-Significance was mailed to the above agencies and parties on the 6 day of J n, 199k By Title Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance Francis and Victoria Cavallero, Case # BLD97-0555 2 ................. MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SiGNI ICANC AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS; DATE: December 15, 1997 APPLICANT: Francis P. and Victoria Cavallero PROPOSAL: The proposed project consists of the construction of an 80 foot by 224 foot private horse riding arena at 480 Woodland Drive within the Woodland Hills subdivision. MITIGATIVE MEASURES: 1. In order to mitigate significant adverse impacts related to the generation of odor and impacts to surface and ground water, the applicants shall contact the local Conservation District for assistance in developing a plan to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) to prevent animal waste from entering waters of the state and to minimize odors within the immediate area. 2. In order to mitigate significant adverse impacts related to visual impacts, the applicants shall implement the site improvements described in the December 9, 1997 letter to the Jefferson County Permit Center. The referenced improvements relate to building height, roof color, architectural compatibility, exterior siding, and vegetative screening/landscaping. The MITIGATIVE measures are designed to address impacts identified through the Environmental Checklist submitted by the applicant, field evaluations by the Development Review Division and the Department of Public Works, and public comments (including that by other agencies). These impacts are: • impacts to air related to odors from animal waste and potential impacts to surface and ground water from animal wastes. • visual impacts from neighboring properties. County policies which address these impacts are contained in the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance, the Interim Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance, and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies are cited in the project record. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Port Townsend city limits and east of the Jefferson County Airport. Jefferson County Threshold Determination,Case BLD97-0555 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 38 of the Woodland Hills subdivision, Tax Parcel Number 001 275 030 within Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M. NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the above-described proposal. NOTICE OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE: Jefferson County has determined that the above- described proposal, conducted in conformance with the mitigation measures, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Permit Center and an inspection of the site. COMMENT PERIOD: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2). Jefferson County will not act on the above-described proposal for at least fourteen days from the date of this determination. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. WEDNESDAY, December 31, 1997 to the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. ie r� lZ I S p7 Al Sc If, SEPA Re .i.onsilkle Official Dat Distribution Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Water Resources Washington State Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Attn. Tim Rymer Washington State Department of Transportation Olympic Air Pollution Authority Jefferson County Public Works Department Jefferson County Health Department Jefferson County Fire Protection District # 6 Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries Office Hood Canal Coordinating Council Olympic Environmental Council Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader Applicants Davis Barrett Adjacent Property Owners Jefferson County Threshold Determination,Case BLD97-0555 2 Francis and Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena, Lot 38 Woodland Hills Subdivision SEPA Threshold Determination, Case No. BLD97-0555 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION ROUTING: DNS, Checklist, Staff Report, and Site Plan to: Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Ecology, Shoreland and Water Resources Washington State Department of Natural Resources Olympic Air Pollution Authority Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries Olympic Environmental Council DNS and Staff Report to: Applicants, Francis and Victoria Cavallero Jefferson County Fire Protection District # 6 Davis Barrett DNS to: Jefferson County Department of Public Works Jefferson County Health Department Hood Canal Coordinating Council Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries Office Notice of DNS to: Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader APOs This Determination of Non-Significance was mailed to the above agencies and parties on /. , 1997. By Title Jefferson County Threshold Determination,Case BLD97-0555 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Al Scalf, SEPA Responsible Official for Jefferson County FROM: Jerry D. Smith, Associate Planner of Development Review DATE: December 12, 1997 RE: Environmental Review and Threshold Determination under the Rules of the State Environmental Policy Act ( Chapter 197-11 WAC). Incorporating critical area review under provisions of Jefferson County Ordinance # 05-0509-94, as amended. Applicant: Francis P. and Victoria Cavallero Proposal: The proposed project consists of the construction of an 80 foot by 224 foot private horse riding arena at 480 Woodland Drive within the Woodland Hills subdivision. Location: The project site is located south of the Port Townsend city limits and east of the Jefferson County Airport. Description: Lot 38 of the Woodland Hills subdivision, Tax Parcel Number 001 275 030 within Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Application Number: BLD97-0555 Checklist: The Environmental Checklist was submitted to the Permit Center September 12, 1997. Adequacy: Staff determined the checklist substantially complete on October 10, 1997. Notice: Notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader on October 15, 1997. Notice of pending threshold determination was not posted on the site by the due date of October 15, 1997. Notice of the pending threshold was mailed to adjacent property owners on October 14, 1997. Re-Notice: Notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader on November 19, 1997. Notice of the pending threshold determination was posted on the site on November _, 1997. Notice of the pending threshold was mailed to adjacent property owners on November 17, 1997. Inspection: Staff conducted a site inspection on November 6, 1997. Required Approvals: (IN ADDITION TO THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE CHECKLIST) None identified. Francis&Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena Building Permit Application 1 SEPA Threshold Determination BLD97-0555 Comments Requested: Staff requested review and comments on the Environmental Checklist from numerous agencies including the County Department of Public Works, Fire Protection District # 6, Environmental Health, Washington State Department of Transportation and adjacent property owners. Requests for comments were requested a second time from the above agencies. TESTIMONY: Davis Barrett: Written comments received December 3, 1997. Mr. Barrett is an adjacent property owner. He indicated that the scale of the proposed structure dwarfs most construction in the Glen Cove heavy industrial area. Mr. Barrett stated that he would be more comfortable with the proposal if it were screened with landscaping and the exterior materials were aesthetically compatible with the immediate area. He requested, if possible, to be given an opportunity to review detailed construction plans for the proposal. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED: County Department of Public Works: Notation dated October 14, 1997. Stated " No comment. Stormwater Ordinance review by Permit Center, Development Review." Jefferson County Fire Protection District # 6: Comments dated October 24, 1997. Stated " Jefferson County Fire Protection District 6 requires adequate access way to allow for fire and emergency apparatus as might be needed". Additional comment dated November 19, 1997 restating the October comments. Washington State Department of Transportation: Response dated October 15, 1997, stamped with "No Comment". Second response dated November 19, 1997, with same comment. Staff Response: All access ways to property is subject to meeting the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, as administered by the Building Official. Adequate access for fire and emergency equipment is reviewed as part of the building permit process. Copies of the all comments were forwarded to the applicants on December 4, 1997. By return mail the applicants provided detailed responses to the issues raised in a comment letter from Davis Barrett. In summary, they indicated the following: • Construction materials and techniques will result in a sidewall 2 foot lower than with conventional methods; and the height at the peak will be 8 foot lower with the selected materials and techniques; • Roof color will be brown instead of white to give the structure a more compact look; • Their future house, the stable under construction, and the arena structure have been deigned to be architecturally compatible (rectangular shape, exterior materials, colors, etc. ) with each other; • A sprinkler system will be installed in the arena to control any dust created by riding; • The exterior siding of the associated stable, which is currently under construction, and is located between the arena and the neighboring lot will be changed from steel to stucco accented with stone to blend with the house and screen the arena; Francis&Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena Building Permit Application 2 SEPA Threshold Determination BLD97-0555 • A sprinkler system will be installed inside of the roof to control any dust created by the horses; • The applicants intend to add landscaping based on recommendations from their land engineering consultant; and • After construction of the arena is completed, the applicants will discuss various planting alternatives with neighboring property owners to screen the view of the arena from the road. Copies of all correspondence, comments, and responses are attached. The applicant's letter constitutes a modification to the project. Therefore, when these improvements have been implemented, visual impacts resulting from construction of the project would be reduced to a point of non-significance. Critical Area Review: Staff conducted a map search on November 3, 1997 of the subject site area for the purpose of identifying mapped critical areas. Checked for wetlands, aquifer recharge, frequently flooded, erosion hazard, landslide hazard, seismic hazard, fish and wildlife habitat, eagle habitat, streams, forest resource land, mineral resource land, and agricultural resource land. None were found. Staff also conducted a site inspection to confirm the map findings. No critical areas were observed. Development Review Division Environmental Assessment: This section is intended to supplement the applicant's environmental checklist with information from Development Review sources and comments; and to analyze the proposal in order to identify potential environmental impacts. Information available in the environmental checklist is not repeated in this document unless it is necessary to do so as part of staff's analysis. Earth: Clearing of the site has been done. According to the Soil Survey of Jefferson County, soils in the area are classified as Clallam gravelly sandy loam (CmC). This nearly level to rolling soil is found on terraces. This soil is well drained. Runoff is slow to medium. The hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. This soil is saturated part of the time during the rainy season, and at times water moves laterally, in places, above the cemented layer. Staff Recommendation: The proposal is subject to the requirements of the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Ordinance (ordinance number 10-1104-96) related to erosion and sediment control. As a condition of building permit issuance, the applicant will be required to satisfy the applicable provisions of the storm water management ordinance. No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Earth is not necessary. Air: When the project is completed, the possibility of adverse odors from animal waste is likely. Five or six horses could generate a considerable amount of waste, and depending on wind direction and the removal practices of the operation, a significant adverse environmental impact could happen in the immediate area. Francis&Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena Building Permit Application 3 SEPA Threshold Determination B L D97-0555 Staff Recommendation: Significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. Mitigation measures are recommended. With successful implementation of the recommended mitigation, additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Air is not necessary. Surface Water: There are no water surface bodies on the site. The subject site is located about 1/2 mile west and above the waters of Port Townsend Bay. No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. With successful implementation of the requirements of the County Storm Water Management Ordinance, additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Surface Water is not necessary. Ground Water: The subject site and surrounding area have not been identified as lying within a critical aquifer recharge area. Water for the Woodland Hills Subdivision is provided by the Public Utility District. No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Ground Water is not necessary. Water Run-off Including Storm water: The water runoff requirements of the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Ordinance address potential impacts generated by impervious surfaces. Moderate impacts can be adequately addressed by implementing the requirements of the Jefferson County Storm Water Management Ordinance. The requirements of the storm water management ordinance will be met as part of the building permit issuance process. Staff Recommendation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to water runoff including storm water is not necessary. Plants: A significant natural features review has been conducted and no special plant species have been identified on the site. Staff Recommendation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Plants is not necessary. Animals: A critical areas review has been conducted and no threatened or endangered species have been identified. Staff Recommendation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Animals is not necessary. Energy and Natural Resources: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Energy and Natural Resources is not necessary. Environmental Health: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Environmental Health is not necessary. Francis&Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena Building Permit Application 4 SEPA Threshold Determination BLD97-0555 Noise: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Noise is not necessary. Land/Shoreline Use: The Jefferson County Zoning Code, as amended, designates the subject site as Rural Residential (R-5). Staff Recommendation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Land/Shoreline Use is not necessary. Housing: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Housing is not necessary. Aesthetics: The applicant has modified the proposal to address visual impacts. When the proposed improvements and amenities have been implemented, significant adverse environmental impacts will be reduced. Mitigation measures are recommended. Light and Glare: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Recreation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Recreation is not necessary. Historical and Cultural Preservation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Historical and Cultural Preservation is not necessary. Transportation: The proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to public roads. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to Transportation is not necessary. Public Services: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to public services is not necessary. Based on review of the Environmental Checklist and other available material and inspection of the site, Development Review staff recommends that the Responsible Official consider the following potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposal. • odors from animal waste, potential impacts to surface and ground water from animal wastes. • visual impacts from neighboring properties. Supporting Policies: County policies which address these impacts are contained in the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance, the Interim Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Francis&Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena Building Permit Application 5 SEPA Threshold Determination B LD97-0555 Specific policies contained within the County SEPA Implementing Ordinance are as follows: * Substantive Authority Policies 4 (a)(i„iii,iv,v,) • (a)The County shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: • (i)Fulfill the responsibility of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; • (iii)Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; and • (v)Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; * Environmentally Sensitive Areas Goal 4. • To promote public health, safety, and general welfare. * Environmentally Sensitive Areas Policies 2 & 7. • Property owners, prospective property owners, and the general public should be informed about the potential hazards in environmentally sensitive areas; and • The watershed boundaries of publicly owned water supply systems and significant marsh and wetland areas should not be subjected to potential pollution sources. Specific policies contained within the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: • Housing and Residential Development Policy 5. • Ground water resources, ground water recharge areas, and beaches should be protected from residential wastes such as septic tank effluent. Staff Recommendation: Development Review staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance. Determination of the Responsible Official: I have reviewed and considered the referenced proposal, the environmental checklist, public comments, other available material, and the Development Review staff memo and recommendation. I hereby : issue a Determination of Non-significance. V- issue a Determination of Mitigated Non-significance. issue a Determination of Significance. determine that I do not have sufficient information upon which to make a threshold deter iination and direct Permit Center staff to obtain additional information on the pre 4111P IlIl4 /211 Stcl Al S•.If, SEPA Res.onsi,•le Official Date Francis&Victoria Cavallero Riding Arena Building Permit Application 6 SEPA Threshold Determination BLD97-0555 PUBLISH 1 TIME: December 17 , 1997 Bill: Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO. BLD97-0555 PROPONENT(S) FRANCAIS CAVALLARO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jefferson County has issued a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) for the following project: PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 17, 920 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE HORSE RIDING ARENA AT 480 WOODLAND DRIVE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel No. 001275030 Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 01 West, WM. The project is located at: WOODLAND DR PORT TOWNSEND 98368 After review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the agency, Jefferson County has determined this proposal as mitigated will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Copies of the MDNS are available to the public upon request from the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division, (621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA. , 98368 , 379-4450) . Comments must be submitted to the Permit Center no later than 4: 30 P.M. on December 31, 1997 If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. LOG ITEM PUBLISH 1 TIME: November 19, 1997 BILL: Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PENDING THRESHOLD DETERMINATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO. BLD97-0555 PROPONENT(S) FRANCAIS CAVALLARO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jefferson County has received an application: PROJECT DESCRIPTION RE-NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 17, 920 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE HORSE RIDING ARENA AT 480 WOODLAND DRIVE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No. 001275030 Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 01 West WM The proposal is subject to environmental review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should contact the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division. Information on the proposal is available from the Development Review Division, of the Jefferson County Permit Center, (621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Comments concerning the proposal must be submitted to the Permit Center by December 3, 1997 . If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. dg • PUBLIC NOTICE OF PENDING APPLICATION AND PENDING THRESHOLD DETERMINATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO. BLD97-0555 PROPONENT(S): FRANCAIS CAVALLARO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jefferson County has received an application to construct RE-NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 17,920 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE HORSE RIDING ARENA AT 480 WOODLAND DRIVE. The proposal is subject to environmental review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should contact the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA, 98368, (360) 379-4450 in writing of that interest by December 3, 1997. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel No. 001275030 Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 01 West WM AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING PUBLIC NOTICE PURSUANT TO JEFFERSON COUNTY SEPA IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE NO. 7-84 State of Washington) Count of Jefferson ) I, � r_'��� I 'z3i �Gyt �K , being duly sworn of oath say that I have posted three public notice posters on or near the site identified in the following proposed development description: PROPOSAL: HORSE RIDING ARENA These three notices were posted in full compliance with the JEFFERSON COUNTY SEPA IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE NO. 7-84 on the Z. day of "� �` 199 at CC'-liu 1ftc ,J11 (S gnature of person posting notice) Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of Aio,/c , 199/ . , f eC) - ,7i4.ec o /�5/"ez_ _AWL! S Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, to' residing in , , j /,S.e , Washington. MOVIRY •• • My commission expires 0'- Q K- 7cx0 i 4 �°di1.1�' 444 [case LOG ITEM lCo PUBLISH 1 TIME: October 15, 1997 BILL: Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PENDING THRESHOLD DETERMINATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO. BLD97-0555 PROPONENT(S) FRANCAIS CAVALLARO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jefferson County has received an application: PROJECT DESCRIPTION HORSE RIDING ARENA LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No. 001275030 Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 01 West WM The proposal is subject to environmental review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should contact the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division. Information on the proposal is available from the Development Review Division, of the Jefferson County Permit Center, (621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4463 . Comments concerning the proposal must be submitted to the Permit Center by October 29, 1997. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. LOG ITEM • STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CASE # <�� �� {>S. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW43.21C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal; reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done; and help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. PROPONENT: Francis P. & Victoria Cavallero ADDRESS: 9851 E. Charter Oak, Scottsdale, AZ 65250 TELEPHONE: (home) 602-314-0425 (business) -- AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/CONTACT: Michael J. Gildea ADDRESS: 6690 Silver Spring Lane, Poulsbo, WA 98370 TELEPHONE: (home) (360) 598-5590 (business) (360) 697-9338, DIRECTIONS This checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The questions apply to the entire proposal, including those phased over a period of time or on separate parcels of land. Answer each question accurately and completely to avoid unnecessary delays in processing this checklist. If you do not know an answer, write "unknown," or if a question does not apply, write "not applicable." Answers to some questions may require special expertise or technical assistance from qualified persons. The cost of obtaining such information is the responsibility of the proponent. Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps, illustrations, leases, permits, etc.) that may further describe the proposal or be required by Jefferson County. Contact the Jefferson County Development Review Division for assistance in completing the checklist and for information on the administrative procedures for its processing. PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE EACH ANSWER. DO NOT WRITE I THE AREA DESIGNATED "EVALUATION." PROPOSAL AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION (include all factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and purpose): Construct 80' x 224' horse riding arena -- private use Fp) 0 Received 1— ) 2.. 7 No determination of a substantially cc:r. Ltc,k- •psication has baen made. SEP 12 1997 Li 1L—1-2) As at Clivh.vr )O ,.l y q LOG FILM Im L the a } .aea-is found JEFFERSO V COUN 1 Y l y�J to be substantially complete: PERNMiT CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS EARTH EVALUATION 1. Check the item that describes the site: ❑ flat 0 rolling 0 hilly 0 steep slopes ❑ mountainous ❑ other: 2. What is the steepest slope on the site: Identify the approximate percent of the slope: 15% 3. What general types of soils are found on the site (sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland: sand & gravel 4. Are there surface indications or a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe them: No 5. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Identify the source of the fill: Basic leveling for building sites 6. Could erosion occur as a result of clering, construction, or use? If so, generally describe it: Sediment control plan to be in place during construction 7. About what percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after construction of the project (that is, asphalt or buildings)? 12% 8. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any: Installation of Engineered Stormwater Management Plan AIR EVALUATION 9. What types of emissions to the air, if any, would result from the proposal during construction and when the project is completed (dust, car odors, industrial wood smoke)? Generally describe and give approximate quantities, if ,knnown: Norte--- Q,✓e,' 041 r1 S'7/zo c- !t' r1 / t'S/ G E>C B 'S" t9.-YA L-1,4 22) ivy:. 'III S'c3a 4 r5 10. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe them: No 3 • Ground Water (continued) EVALUATION 19. Describe the waste material that would be discharged into the ground from spetic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial wastes and chemicals contained; agricultural wastes). Describe the general size of the system; the number of such systems; the number of houses to be served, if applicable, or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is expected to serve: None. All horse manure to be hauled off site Water Run-Off EVALUATION (including storm water) 20. Describe the source of run-off, including storm water. Describe the method of collection and disposal, if any, including any known quantities. Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe it: All stormwater to he collected in Engineered Retention Area 21. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe how: No 22. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and run-off water impacts, if any: Engineered Drainage Plan PLANTS EVALUATION 23. Check the types of vegetation found on the site; Deciduous tree: ❑ alder ❑ maple ❑aspen ❑ other: Evergreen tree: L fir K7 cedar ❑ pine ❑ other: ❑ Shrubs ICI Grass ❑ Pasture ❑ Crop/Grain Wet Soil Plants: ❑ cattail ❑ buttercup ❑ bulrush ❑ skunk cabbage ❑ other: None Water Plants: ❑ water lily ❑ eelgrass ❑ milfoil ❑ other: None Other: 24. What kind and amount of vegetation would be removed or altered? Just stumps and brush that has grown since property was logged +9. i l c*`e pee., "Air.-+1t prior- iz) 25. Cist threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None 26. Describe the proposed landscaping, use of nature plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the Bite, if any: Property to be completely landscaped ad-put into pasture 5 NOISE 37. What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project (traffic, equipment, operation)? None -- residential neighborhood 38. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (construction, traffic, operation)? Indicate what hours noise would come from this site: Construction to be mainly small tools and forklift. Long-term to be small farm equipment. 39. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None LAND AND SHORELINE USE 40. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential/agricultural 41. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe the use: Area has been developed for 5 acre rural residential home and mini farms 42. Describe any structures on the site: None 43. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what structures? No 44. What is the current comprehensive plan or community development plan designation of the site? Identify the plan: Rural residential 45. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? N/A 46. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify the part: No 47. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 3-5 48. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None 49. Describe proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 7 RECREATION (continued) EVALUATION 62. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe the displacement: No 63. Describe the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or proponent, if any: N/A HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION EVALUATION 64. Are there any places or objects listed on or proposed for national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe them: No 65. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, cultural, archaeological, or scientific importance known to be on or next to the site: None 66. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION 67. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe the proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plat. altpi W 6.9 1-1,"l1s ae,,;>elopr,7.enT 68. Is the site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No 69. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A -- residential 70. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe them, indicating whether they are public or private: No 71. Will the project use water, rail, or air transportation, or occur in the immediate vicinity of these facilities? If so, generally describe the use: No 9 r OCT 05 '9? 10:39 TO: 360 379 4451 P02 c4 r*Nei, Se pia - 4W %Peat ..ren,lit AIR • lc9ntinttedl EVALUATION 11, Describe proposed measures to red ce or control emissions or other impacts to the air, if any: - 440F.Se. s r� s INe ty4c A ly .._ WATER EVALUATION _.,. Surface Water 12. Is there any surface water body on or in the Immediate vicinity of the � ^ site, including year-round or seasonal streams, salt waters, lakes, ponds, and wetlands? if yes, describe the type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river It flows Into: 1,10 13. Win tie project resin any work over, in, or adjacent to the described waters (within 200 f lip? if yes, describe the work and attach available plans:_, ,,Q „.„ 14, Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed or • removed from the surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Identify the source of the fill material: tom'R �--- 15. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description and identify the purpose and approximate quantities, if known: 16. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note the location on the site plan:_,__//O 17. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge; _Al Ground Water EVALUATION 1E, Will ground water be withdrawn or wilt water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description and identify thypurpose and approximatequantities, known: e wwver`O fs f-A*44. ." OCT 1 01991 4 l• a JEPERMITT CENTER • OCT 05 '9? 10:38 TO: 360 379 4451 P01 t k r2© S e119 a rQ`1 ANIMALS EVALUATION 27. Check any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or ere known to be on or near the site: Birds: 0 hawk 0 heron 0 eagle 0 songbirds 0 otter: Mammals:Wider 0 bear Q elk C beaver 0 other: Ash;0 bass 0 salmon 0 trout p herring 0 shellfish 0 *Then 28. list any threatened or endangered species to be on or near the site: 29. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, how? 30. Describe proposed measures o res rve ory hance wildlife. if any; Ir'i: e +471,T, d ail, vve/NT &'t z ii4 epl•Qrgrs -s'� � � /sc 10 ea( (. 4h sriavdt V, _ _ ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION 31. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) would be used to meat the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it would be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.: �lltt��e 32. 'Would the project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe the affect: IvO 33. What kinds of energy conservation features ere included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to r�duc�ntroi energy impacts, if any: AJ4- Urt #"ram;( .,e„ _ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION 34. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and expiation, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as, a result of this proposal? If so, describe the hazards: /Van-4 _. 35. 'Describe special emergency services that might be required: 38. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, If any: Bpi at. - y h c_ S 4.A7'#�_..Sris1t,,r,.,. i'r "i 1.. M1 E6NOW [ D. rr 8 JE F'r'..3ON COUNTY PERM T CENTER AIR (continued) EVALUATION 11. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the air, if any: WATER EVALUATION Surface Water 12. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, including year-round or seasonal streams, salt waters, lakes, ponds, and wetlands? If yes, describe the type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into: No 13. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to the described waters (within 200 feet)? If yes, describe the work and attach available plans: No 14. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed or removed from the surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Identify the source of the fill material: None 15. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description and identify the purpose and approximate quantities, if known: .ilk On ly 1$ , it'/r1fl1 1.S 7 nreAq,n r g /i - . '/ '7. 16. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note the location on the site plan: No 17. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge: No Ground Water EVALUATION 18. Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description and identify the purpose and approximate quantities, if known: All water discharged to be through sanitary septic system 4 ANIMALS EVALUATION 27. Check any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: ❑ hawk 0 heron ❑ eagle ❑ songbirds ❑ other: On J< r,,,� Mammals: ai deer ❑ bear 0 elk ❑ beaver ❑ other: Fish: ❑ bass ❑ salmon ❑ trout ❑ herring ❑ shellfish ❑ other: None 28. List any threatened or endangered species to be on or near the site: None 29. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, how? Unknown 30. Describe proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION 31. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) would be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it would be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.: Electricity 32. Would the project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe the affect: No 33. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A -- unheated structure ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION 34. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe the hazards: None 35. Describe special emergency services that might be required: None 36. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: €_ __ __ - - 6 LAND AND SHORELINE USE (continued) EVALUATION 50. Describe proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 4011 } J pit _cc,�,1,e c C C .n ( ra it cAe,J9 HOUSING EVALUATION 51. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether the housing is high, middle, or low income: 1 52. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether the housing is high, middle, or low income: None 53. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: AESTHETICS EVALUATION 54. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 27' colored steel 55. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None 56. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Perimeters to be landscaped with planted pine trees; vinyl fencing LIGHT AND GLARE EVALUATION 57. What type of light or glare would the proposal produce? What time of the day would it mainly occur? Dark roof colors have been chosen to eliminate glare 58. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No 59. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None 60. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Dark colored metal roof to be used RECREATION EVALUATION 61. What designate and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A /7.0w4 p2es 8 TRANSPORTATION (continued) EVALUATION 72. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur: N/A 73. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A PUBLIC SERVICES EVALUATION 74. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (fire protection, police protection, health care, schools)? If so, generally describe the results: No 75. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: N/A UTILITIES EVALUATION 76. Check which utilities are currently available at the site: a water C electricity ❑ natural gas ❑ refuse service a telephone N septic system ❑ sanitary sewer ❑ other: 77. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed: Private septic system ACKNOWLEDGMENT I acknowledge that all information provided in this checklist and all attached material is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is relying on this information to make its decision. In addition, I understand that review under SEPA does not constitute approval or a proposal; compliance with local, state, and federal regulations applicable to the proposal shall constitute approval. (Check with appropriate agencies to determine what approvals are required.) SEPA approval is based on the info mation I ve i. .. If :and inaccurate, approval could be withdrawn. l (authorized signature) (date) ............ ............................. FOR OFFICE USE ONL Y FEE �5 ECEIPT# //J �, CHECK# 1S DATE INITIALS' /..--- 1117 9 h:\hornelpincntr\infoping\sepa.doc 06/13/97 10