HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100900District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of October 9, 2000
Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioners
Dan Harpole and Glen Huntingford were both present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the Minutes of
September 18 and 25, 2000 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded
by a unanimous vote.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles
Saddler reported:
· The Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Westem District meeting is scheduled this
week in Long Beach.
· There is an exit conference with the State Auditor today.
· Commissioner Huntingford asked about the discussions with OlyCAP regarding the Brinnon Senior
Center/Bayshore Motel facility. He doesn't want a change in management to cost the County more
money. He advised that additional money for operating the motel would be acceptable, but he
doesn't feel that the County needs to provide additional funding to OlyCAP for social programs.
· Chairman Wojt asked for an update on the policy for accepting roads. Charles Saddler answered
that the Public Works Department should have a draft document available this month for the
Board's review.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: No one appeared.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commissioner Harpole
moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded
the motion which carded by a unanimous vote.
1. AGREEMENT Intergovernmental re: Enhanced 911 Implementation; Jefferson County Sheriff's
Office; State Military Department, Emergency Management Division
2. AGREEMENT re: Marine Resources Committee Administration; CZM310 Grant Agreement No.
GO 100063; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; State Department of Ecology
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
o
o
10.
AGREEMENT, Amendment #4 re: 2000 Consolidated Contract, C08612; Family Planning Title
X and WIC Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; State Department of Health
AGREEMENT, Amendment #3 re: Early Intervention Services; Jefferson County Health and
Human Services; State Department Social and Health Services (DSHS)
AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Alternative Response System (PHN/Model 1); Jefferson
County Health and Human Services; State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)
AGREEMENT, Intergovernmental re: Provide Nursing Services for Local Schools; Jefferson
County Health and Human Services; Olympic Educational Service District 114 (OESD)
Final Long Plat Approval #SUB95-00088; To Divide 40 Acre Parcel into 16 Residential Lots
Consisting of 2.5 Acres Each; Bishop Heights Division II; Located Off of Whispering Cedars Lane,
Chimacum; Bishop Brothers Construction, Applicant
Letter to the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Commenting on Draft Accords and
Options for Implementation of Transportation Needs
Appoint Three (3) Individuals to Each Serve Two (2) Year Terms on the Jefferson County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee; Each Term Expires October 23, 2002; Tami Ruby - Representing the
Port of Port Townsend; Michele' Cox and Rick Banta (Alternate) - Representing Murrey's Disposal
Letter Appointing Jefferson County Local Government Representative to the Marine Resources
Committee; Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director, Jefferson County Health and Human
Services
PUBLIC WORKS
Bid Opening re: One (1) Trailer Mounted Culvert Flusher: Terry Logue, ER & R
Manager, opened and read the bids received. All bids include sales tax.
BIDDER BID
Western Power No Bid
Ben-Ko-Attic $43,295.56
Clyde West $31,282.16
Commissioner Harpole moved to have the Public Works Department check the bids for accuracy and make
a recommendation for a bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Huntingford
seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
Discussion re: Funding Appropriation for Excavation of Gravel Traps on Big Quilcene
River: Public Works Director Gary Rowe asked for $5,000 in matching funds from the Current Expense
Fund for this project on the Big Quilcene River. The amount requested is based on work from previous
years. The gravel hasn't filled in as much so the total for the work is estimated at less than $10,000.
Ken Cook, Public Works, reported that the roads to the site are still passable. The work will be done before
November 1, 2000 when the permit expires. The permit calls for certain conditions in the fiver before the
excavation can be done. The Department is prepared to start this project as soon as the matching funds are
approved. The excavation of the gravel from the traps keeps the fiver level constant during flooding and
protects the bridge. The gravel is good rock, but cannot be used for roads without processing.
Commissioner Harpole moved to support an appropriation of $5,000 from the Current Expense Fund for
the gravel extraction project on the Big Quilcene River. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Update re: Port Ludlow Drainage District: Gary Rowe, Public Works Director, stated that
the Department recommends that an interim Drainage District Fund be established by the Board for the
Port Ludlow Drainage District. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that Public Works staff meet with
the Drainage District Commissioners as soon as they are appointed. Gary Rowe added that the Drainage
District Commissioners will need to establish a budget and develop an assessment system. He asked what
process the Board wants to use in selecting and appointing the interim District Commissioners?
Commissioner Huntingford advised that the Board is required to appoint 3 Commissioners for the interim
period until an election is held. The Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) has provided a list of 7
individuals that they recommend for appointment as interim Commissioners for the District.
Commissioner Harpole said that he feels these positions need to be advertised in the newspaper to notify
Port Ludlow residents that the County is seeking persons interested in serving as interim Commissioners.
Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the LMC review the names of applicants and make their
recommendation for appointment. The Board members agreed to publish the advertisement for 2 weeks.
A list of the persons that respond will be forward to the LMC for their review and recommendation.
Commissioner Huntingford asked that a place holder be included in the 2001 budget for funding to help
establish this District. Gary Rowe noted that whether the County spends the money or the District borrows
it from the County, it will be considered a loan. He suggested that invoices for the District's expenses be
submitted to the Public Works Department. Jim Pearson, Public Works, added that the RCW requires that
the Drainage District Commissioners adopt a budget by December 31,2001. Gary Rowe will work to
develop a list of issues the District Commissioners will need to address.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Update re: Mystery Bay Mooring Buoys: Josh Peters, Shoreline Planner, updated the Board
about Mystery Bay mooring buoys. He reviewed the agencies that have some control over mooring buoys:
State Department of Natural Resources IDNR) holds the title to marine bed lands and some
tidelands in the State. They issue a five year mooring buoy license for boats up to 60 feet in length.
According to the DNR Aquatic Lands Manager, licenses are issued based on environmental
concerns and the capacity of the bay. The problem ofunlicenced buoys is low on the DNR's
priority list. He suggested that the County send a letter to DNR asking them to focus more
attention on the problem or to work with the County on the problem. The DNR is responsible for
evicting unlicenced boats and dealing with enforcement of regulations. This could result in a
moratorium on mooring buoys in Mystery Bay.
State Department of Fish and Wildlife issues a hydraulics permit for the installation of mooring
buoys. They have discussed amending their application procedures to hold applications for a
particular location for processing at the same time, rather than processing individual applications.
State Department of Health oversees shellfish bed closures when a bay becomes a marina (a
clustering of 10 or more boats.) If there is more than 1 moored vessel per acre, it is considered a
marina. They don't have a problem with issuing mooting buoys in the north end of Mystery Bay. If
water quality degradation occurs or if the bay is designated as a marina, then the State may increase
the shellfish closure area.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a nationwide mooring buoy permit, but they also review
individual applications. They require a dive survey of vegetation for each application.
The Coast Guard is concerned with navigation in bays. An applicant was told by the Coast Guard
that no permits are required for mooring buoys in Mystery Bay.
The Sheriff's Office has been checking the area for unregistered or derelict vessels, but not checking
permits for buoys.
Josh Peters reported that there were 5 mooring buoy permits submitted to the County for processing in
February. Four of the 5 are being processed and currently are waiting for an eel grass survey from DNR.
There has been a complaint from an applicant about a buoy that has been dropped in the area where he
wants to put his buoy. Shoreline Permit exemptions require public notice and when all of the agencies
involved are included, it makes the process fairly onerous. There hasn't been effective enforcement in the.
area. There were 36 Shoreline permits in Mystery Bay in December, plus 4 pending, and 2 which were
recently received. This totals 42 permits. The Department doesn't know exactly how many buoys are in
Mystery Bay. The DNR has only 6 or 7 mooring buoy licenses issued for the area.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford asked how the difference between the number of County permits and the
number of DNR licenses will be addressed? He noted that DNR is losing revenues on these leases. The
County's permit requires the applicant to contact DNR, but people don't always follow through. DNR
should be doing some enforcement. The Department has drafted a letter to DNR stating that the County
would be interested in working together to deal with enforcement and to study the capacity of the bay.
Josh Peters added that the DNR's interests also include navigation issues to ensure that vessels have
enough swing length.
Commissioner Harpole asked that a letter be drafted from the Board to Tom Robinson, DNR, regarding the
County's proposal to collaborate on these issues and that copies of the letter be sent to the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corp of Engineers and other agencies that have a role in the
process. If the County is offering a permit that also requires a State permit, the County may want to
change the procedure to require that the applicant obtain the State permit first.
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
The Board and Sheriff Pete Piccini presented Certificates of Recognition to Detective Joe
Nole, Sergeant Steve Richmond; Detective Sherie Dills and Receptionist Patricia Tisher for their
administration of CPR to a man who had a heart attack in the foyer of the Sheriff's Office on September
29, 2000.
The Board attended a special Transit meeting at Jefferson Transit and returned to the
Courthouse to attend a workshop on the Unified Development Code (UDC.)
Workshop on the Unified Development Code (UDC): Planning Manager Warren Hart
explained that this is the first of weekly workshops with the Board on this document. There are 4
components in the development of the UDC.
1) Preparation: In May the Board gave direction to Staff to prepare a Board initiated official control.
The County contracted with EarthTec and since June there have been weekly meetings with the
consultants. They are 40% done with the project. Staff has prepared Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 and
they have been submitted to the Planning Commission. Draft Sections 8, 9, and 2 will be submitted
to the Planning Commission this week. Section 8 is application review procedures, Section 9 is the
Comprehensive Plan and GMA implementing regulations and the amendment process and Section
2 is definitions.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
2)
3)
4)
Planning Commission: They are meeting every week to review the draft document. They have
reviewed Sections 1, 3, 4, and a draft of Section 2. The Planning Commission has scheduled two
public hearings, one in Port Hadlock on October 25 and one in Brinnon on October 26. They have
also scheduled three deliberation hearings.
Public Participation: The Planning Commission and the County Commissioners will have separate
public hearings. The information is on the webpage and there is a newsletter that will be sent to
residents in the County. The public is welcome at the Planning Commission meetings and the
BOCC workshops. There will also be a public workshop when the UDC is finalized.
County Commissioners: The Planning Commission will give the Board a recommendation. The.
Board will have workshops, public hearings, deliberations, and will develop findings of fact to
complete the project.
There are many decisions that are being made in this project. Several ordinances have been revised and
additions have been made to address policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The goal is to foster public
debate and get a good dialog going on these policy issues. These development regulations will be in place
for the next 20 years.
Warren Hart reviewed Sections 1 and 3. These workshops are to highlight major changes and receive
comments from the Board. The handouts are organized by date of release. Randy Kline, Associate Planner,
stated that he will distribute new notebooks to the Board to insure that they have complete copies of the
latest drafts and that the chapters are correlated.
Chapter 1 - Introductory_ Provisions: Warren Hart reported that there are no major changes in Section 1.
No new zoning districts or designations have been added. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is the
same as the official zoning map. Commissioner Harpole stated that there are several binding site plans that
the County has recognized. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the Board made a commitment to
these landowners that the Land Use Map would be modified to denote these properties. Warren Hart
explained that Chapter 7 addresses land use divisions and prior approvals such as PUDs and binding site
plans. It states that the proponent has two years from the date of the adoption of the UDC to submit a final
plan.
Chapter 3 - Land Use Districts including Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Critical Areas) and Planned
Rural Residential Developments (Clustering): Warren Hart reported that the Use Table is completely
different than the current Use Table. There are 4 types of land uses:
· "Yes" uses are allowed outfight without a permit. In order to qualify, the project has to be
consistent with performance standards, development standards, overlay districts, and best
management practices.
· "D" is a new designation and denotes a "discretionary use." This is a classification use only. The
listed uses in each designation (ie. residential, commercial) include "unnamed uses." In these
cases, the Administrator is given the authority to classify the project using clear criteria that is
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
already established.
"C" denotes "conditional uses." "C(a)" uses require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
"C(d)" uses may require a public hearing at the discretion of the Administrator, based on project
impacts or complexity.
"N" denotes "prohibited uses."
Commissioner Harpole asked if the Administrator's decisions are appealable? Randy Kline answered that
appeals would be heard by the Hearing Examiner.
Warren Hart explained that Section 3 includes wording to increase nuisance protection for agricultural and
forestry activities in rural areas by requiring a notice on the permit for any project located 500 feet or less
from a designated resource land. Chairman Wojt asked if property adjacent to smaller farms of less than 5
acres would be included in this notice?
Overlay districts have been added. These 4 districts are: 1) environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs); 2)
mineral resource lands; 3) the West End Planning overlay; and, 4) the Airport Central Public Facility
overlay. Staff will be working with Larry Crockett, Port of Port Townsend Manager, on the Airport
Central Public Facility overlay.
Section 3 establishes a "reserved section" for a potential final urban growth area designation. This area is
designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map and listed as a policy in the Plan. It will include a process to
allow major industrial development (MIDs) consistent with the RCW. MIDs will be discussed at the next
Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting. The process for MIDs is not included in the first
draft of the UDC because of time constraints. Once the UDC is adopted, staff will work on the "reserved
sections."
Commissioner Harpole asked about how the PUGA designation will be noted when it is established?
Warren Hart responded that the UDC regulations will be uniform throughout the County. The density
differences will be addressed in sub-area plans. The UGA sub-area plan will be added as an overlay
district in the UDC amendment process.
Chairman Wojt asked about church property exemptions? Warren Hart answered that these exemptions
have been addressed in the draft UDC. However, staff needs to review recent federal legislation that gives
more preferential treatment to religious institutions.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has concerns about the MID process. He asked staff to address
the inconsistency of big businesses with big budgets who may have an opportunity to locate on a 20 acre
campus in a rural area when small businesses are required to stay within a designated industrial zone or
UGA. Warren Hart observed that the RCW requires that the County develop criteria.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
Warren Hart explained that Section 3 also includes:
· A Special Use Permit process for siting Essential Public Facilities consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan requirements.
· A more concise Use Table which identifies major uses by category and introduces a new
classification authorized in RCW 36.70A.070 regarding "small scale recreation and tourist uses."
Commissioner Harpole commented that the Planning Commission had concems about cumulative effects
resulting from the flexibility of this new classification. Warren Hart responded there is criteria established
for the Administrator to use.
Warren Hart continued:
· Revisions to Mineral Resource Lands to increase minimum site areas for new MRL designations to
20 acres and eliminate conditional use permit requirements for subsequent uses in those districts.
There are safeguards in other sections of the UDC to allow for the elimination of these permits.
New MRL designations would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
· The Land Use table establishes a 10 acre minimum lot size for new mining activities when located
outside of a designated MRL and redefines mineral "processing" such as concrete and asphalt batch
plants as a separate use which requires a Conditional Use Permit with public notice and hearing
requirements.
Commissioner Harpole pointed out that there is public concern about siting asphalt and concrete batch
plants in residential neighborhoods. He suggested that these batch plants could be located in an MID or
industrial areas.
Commissioner Huntingford expressed concern about the 10 acre minimum. Mining activities are permitted
by the DNR. If a person has gravel on their property and wants to put it on their driveway, would they
have to have a permit? Who would enforce it? Warren Hart responded that there is a certain threshold
amount that staff will have to research. Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification regarding the
minimum number of yards that could be moved without a permit. He is concerned that these regulations
aren't trying to solve a problem but are just putting more regulations on private property.
Warren Hart continued reviewing the changes.
· Duplexes and triplexes would be allowed in Rural Village Centers.
· Residential care facilities and assisted living facilities would be allowed in Rural Residential
Districts subject to conditional approval.
· A wide range of small scale recreation and tourist uses are established, most of which are classified
as C(d) uses consistent with Comprehensive Plan guidance on classifying these as conditional uses.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
Changes to Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
· The term "critical areas" is being changed to "environmentally sensitive areas" (ESAs).
· ESAs will be designated by an overlay district rather than requiring a physical "triggering" permit.
· There are clear provisions for regulated and exempt activities in ESAs.
· Critical Aquifer Recharge Area protection standards have been simplified.
· Elimination of salt water intrusion provisions. Dave Christensen, Environmental Health, explained
that the1996 Interim Critical Areas Ordinance required the County to create a methodology to
define sea water intrusion areas and a study was conducted. The study showed isolated high
chloride areas, but there was no interconnection between those areas and sea water intrusion. As a
result, the provisions for Sea Water Intrusion Best Management Practices (BMPs) weren't
implemented. They have continued to monitor the areas and if there is an increase in sea water
intrusion, the County will revisit the adoption of the BMPs. He added that the original draft BMPs
for salt water intrusion would have to be revised because they did not permit a property owner to
drill a well and use their water right, which is against State law.
· Adoption of standard buffer widths for streams based on best available science. Dave Christensen
explained that he did a literature review building on literature reviews fi.om King County, Kitsap
County, Clallam County, and WDFW. Their studies showed necessary buffers to maintain stream
functions such as stream bank stabilization, temperature control, removing pollutants, pesticides,
and nutrients, and input of woody debris to allow for proper channel function. The proposed
buffers depend on the stream type. The buffers are: 150 feet for Type 1 and 2 Streams and 100 feet
for Type 3 and 4 Streams and 50 feet for Type 5 Streams. These are significant increases for
Jefferson County although they compare closely with other County's buffer standards.
Commissioner Harpole suggested that interim controls may be needed for building near shorelines and
streams until the 4(d) rule is clarified. It is his understanding that although a project is vested by the
County, the Federal rules will prevail. Warren Hart responded that they have discussed an administrative
decision to put interim controls in place. Commissioner Harpole asked for more discussion on this topic at
the next UDC workshop. Commissioner Huntingford has concerns about the size of the buffers and feels
that more flexibility needs to be allowed depending on the property and how the property owner protects
the stream. Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification that the 4(d) rule will address new
development and redevelopment only. Dave Christensen answered that is correct with one exception:
vesting is not recognized.
Warren Hart continued with additions:
· Standards for wetland enhancement, mitigation and compensation.
· Establishment of protective setbacks which allow applicants to waive the requirement for a wetland
delineation report.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 9, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford asked staff to sort the comment letters by chapter. The Board concurred that
the weekly UDC workshops be scheduled for 2 hours.
Loma Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF CjD'I~MIS$IO}NEIqS',
Glen Hu~
Dan Harpole, Memy '
Page 10