HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101600District 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 16, 2000
The meeting was called to order at the appointed time by Chairman Richard Wojt.
Commissioner Glen Huntingford, and Commissioner Dan Harpole were both present.
Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Minutes of the
October 2, 2000 meeting as submitted. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carded by a
unanimous vote.
Discussion of Shooting Range Issues: County Administrator Charles Saddler reported that
he suggested that the Sportsmen's Club not allow shooting at the range before 9 -10:00 a.m and have one
day during the week when no shooting is allowed. John Minor, President of Sportsmen's Club, will take
this suggestion to Club membership. Other Sportsmen's Club representatives at the meeting were Mike
Moug and Aubrey Redman.
Commissioner Harpole asked if after hours shooting is necessary? Charles Saddler explained that there
was a complaint in July about after hours shooting by Sheriffs Deputies who are required to do night
shooting practice. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the range is used after 5 p.m? Mike Moug
answered that there is very little use after 5 p.m. except in October when people are sighting their guns for
hunting. The latest the range is used regularly is 6-7:00 p.m. Summer hours are until 8:00 p.m. on
weekdays and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. Organized shoots are scheduled once a month and start at 9:00 a.m.
The trap range is open on Wednesdays and Sundays from 12:30- 4 p.m.
Chairman Wojt feels that the best way to address the neighbor's complaints is to make some modifications
in the operating hours. He wants the Sportsmen's Club shooting range to remain open. Discussion of these
issues will be continued on next week's agenda at 10:00 a.m.
COUNTY ADMINISTRA TORS BRIEFING SESSION: Charles Saddler reported:
The letter to the DNR on mooring buoys is in final draft and ready to be sent out.
The letter about Chimacum Beach Park is almost ready for final draft.
Page I
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
A discussion with Assessor Jack Westerman will be scheduled to review the possible impacts to the
County if Initiative 722 and Initiative 745 are approved by the voters. A letter from the State Office
of Financial Management outlined the loss of property tax revenues in Jefferson County if 1-722 is
approved as follows:
Taxing District 2001 Loss 2002 goss 2003 Loss
County General Fund 173,700 294,900 392,900
Library District 93,200 126,800 164,000
Hospitals 33,100 46,400 60,800
Fire Districts 165,000 187,600 205,600
EMS (Emergency Medical Services) 36,500 68,700 91,100
County Road Fund 48,800 56,600 64,900
This would be a significant impact for all the taxing districts. There are also provisions for refunds
of taxes which would have further impacts. These figures are estimates. There is a question about
how the language will be interpreted in Initiative 745. It would have a significant impact on
Sheriffs Office because the County diverts about $260,000 from the Road Fund to the Sheriff's
Office and that would not be allowed in the future. There are budget shortfalls already in the 2001
budget process without the possibility of the serious impacts of these initiatives. Commissioner
Harpole asked that this discussion be continued next week so that the public can be made aware of
these impacts also.
Commissioner Harpole asked that the Board be updated on the Conservation Futures Tax on next
week's agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: A man stated that he
is pleased that the Tri Area newsletter is available but he has many questions about it. Is it the first of a
series? What information will be available in the next issue? (Charles Saddler answered that there will be a
series of newsletters and the next issue will be about the UDC.) Will Community Planning groups be re-
established in the Tri Area?; Why is the planning area for Tri Area being reduced? Why, why now, and
why at all, for a UGA designation in the Tri Area?; the reference numbers in the newsletter don't
correspond to the numbers in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; When will the new Comprehensive
Plan Amendment that is referred to in the newsletter be available to the public?; all the information needs
to be available to review; there is a need to defend the public in the Tri Area regarding water issues; a
question was raised about the cost of the UGA for the Tri Area; why isn't the County mailing the
newsletters to the residents in the Tri Area?; and an offer was made to hand out the newsletter door to
door.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole
moved to amend Item 1 to include the Fair Board request for a budget appropriation in the amount of
$20,000 and to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda with that change to Item 1. Chairman Wojt
seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-00 re: HEARING NOTICE; Proposed Budget
Appropriations/Extensions; County Departments and Specific Other Funds; Hearing Scheduled for
Monday, November 6, 2000 at 2:15 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers
RESOLUTION NO. 82-00 re: Vacation of the Alley in Block 149 Plat of Irondale No. 6
BID AWARD re: One (1) New Trailer Mounted Culvert Flusher; Clyde/West, Inc.
AGREEMENT, Revised Local Agency re: Funding for Preliminary Site Planning, Design,
Engineering and Environmental Studies for Enhancements to the Olympic Peninsula Gateway
Visitor Center; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation
Declaration of County Surplus and Sale of Equipment; One (1) 1988 Layton F525 Paver; City of
Sedro-Woolley, Purchaser
Accept Resignation of Member Serving on the Jefferson County Rural Library District Board of
Trustees; Anthony H. Mitchell
PUBLIC WORKS
Warren Steurer, Public Works, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Manager re: Update on
H.J. Carroll Park Master Site Plan: Public Works Director Gary Rowe, reported that work on H.J. Carroll
Park began about 5 years ago and the vision for the park has evolved. There is a final plan that is ready for
the Board's approval.
Warren Steurer gave an update on the progress at the park:
· In the original plan an aquatic center was located near the park entrance. On further review, the
aquatic center would need more space.
· The restroom/concession building will be dedicated and open in the next few weeks. The
concession stand will be a major revenue generator.
· The maintenance area on the southern boundary will include a storage building and phone, power,
and water hookups, as well as a septic tank for a caretaker's house.
· Parking for 170 cars is available and is adequate for most events except the soccer program on
Sundays and the Wild Olympic Salmon Festival. The Public Works Department wants to add more
parking.
· An outdoor basketball court and a picnic area are planned.
· A BMX bicycle area is being developed in the northwest portion of the park.
· The labyrinth area is currently a maintenance problem, but volunteer groups will help with the
weeding.
· Three horseshoe courts and two playground areas are installed.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
All of the trails are installed. A portion of the trail will be soft surfaced and another portion will be
hard surfaced.
Another ball field will be built.
There are future plans to build a picnic shelter.
Rick Tollefson, Parks Advisory Board and H.J. Carroll Park Advisory Board member, stated that the
County should be proud of this accomplishment. A park was built from scratch and it is getting better
every year.
Gary Rowe reported that the part of the park where the second ball field will be installed is being used for
auxiliary parking. It will be a grassy area. Rick Tollefson suggested that the park access be linked across
the valley to the East Jefferson Little League fields. Warren Steurer added that there is also an access link
planned to Chimacum Park and the Tri Area Community Center. A tum lane on the highway at the park
entrance will also be added.
Gary Rowe asked how the Board wants to proceed to finalize this project? Commissioner Harpole moved
to have the Public Works Department submit a resolution with the final site plan map. Commissioner
Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Review of Draft Chapters of the Unified Development Code (UDC): Planning Manager
Warren Hart reported that the Planning Commission has received all the chapters of the UDC and it has
been published on the County's website. The final review is scheduled at the next Planning Commission
meeting and public heatings are scheduled.
Commissioner Harpole stated that his understanding is that the Board is not obligated to hold a public
heating if they accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Warren Hart advised that is
correct, but noted that the Board will probably want to hold their own public hearing on the UDC. The
Board can make changes based on testimony at the public heating. If the Board makes a change that the
Planning Commission and public have not seen, the document has to go back to the Planning Commission
and they would have to hold another public hearing. Commissioner Harpole stated that the Board will hold
their hearing on December 7, 2000 with a continuation of the hearing to December 11, 2000.
Warren Hart addressed the Commissioners questions from last week:
1) Siting of Religious Institutions - This is still being researched by the staff.
2) Mineral lands, mining and quarries - Creating a commercial mine of less than three acres
would be regulated under the provisions of the UDC. An existing mine is grandfathered. The Use
Table would be applied. Commissioner Huntingford asked who will enforce the regulations?
Warren Hart answered that the County will be required to enforce the provisions of the UDC.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford responded that he has concerns about the funding for enforcement.
The caseload of the Law and Justice Departments is already a problem. There is no point in having
regulations on the books if the County can't enforce them. Director of Community Development A1
Scalfreported that the Hearing Examiner process would minimize the impact on the Prosecuting.
Attorney's Office. He explained that mines larger than three acres require a DNR SM2 permit. The
Comprehensive Plan states that mines under three acres are regulated by the County. Warren Hart
added that the consultant will do an assessment of the needs for enforcement of the UDC and that
information will be available for the Board's deliberations.
Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that there are several instances in the Comprehensive Plan policies
that call for regulation by the County and there are cases when these policies cannot be implemented.
Warren Hart clarified that the consultant reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and determined which policies
can be implemented. Those that cannot be implemented with the UDC will be addressed later. There are
some policies, like this one on mineral lands, that must be implemented. Al Scalfnoted that the Board
needs to decide how staff will handle these items.
3) Commercial Binding Site Plans - A1 Scalf reported that contractual Planned Unit Developments
(PUDs); conditional use permits, and binding site plans need to be noted on the maps.
The chapters about ESAs, buffers and salt intrusion were reviewed:
ESAs and buffers: Dave Christensen, Environmental Health, reported that he did a
presentation on best available science for the Planning Commission. He submitted
information from the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that defines Best Available
Science (BAS) as: 1 ) peer review, 2) clear acceptable, described methodology, 3) some sort
of analysis in the formulation of conclusions, and 4) conclusions have to be defensible.
There are several models for doing BAS. There isn't an exact number for the size of buffers
created from BAS. Ranges are developed. There is no guarantee when using ranges that a
specific stream will be protected with these buffers.
Commissioner Harpole noted that the Spense Report is cited in the County's report regarding buffers. He
has heard both pros and cons about the Spense Report, including that it is the most defensible position. The
position the County is aiming for is what is defensible in the legal arena and best for the fish and residents.
Dave Christensen stated that his analysis of BAS didn't rely totally on the Spense Report. Warren Hart
explained that the County has to demonstrate that BAS has been used to determine a rational way to set
buffers to protect the streams if the UDC is challenged to the Growth Management Hearings Board. A1
Scalf added that these buffers are not intended to meet the criteria for ESAs, they are only for the purposes
of implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
Dave Christensen noted that he didn't do stream "typing." He listed six fish and wildlife functions that are
protected by buffers. There are problems with stream typing and work is being done to improve that
information. Commissioner Harpole noted that Tom Jay has offered to have a community group help with
stream typing. It is his understanding that the strategy in the UDC is built on the 4(d) ESA model. He is
concerned that if the County sets up buffers that are less than those required as ESA standards there will be
problems when the 4(d) regulations are implemented. There was a discussion about the possibility of
allowing property owners to do a habitat plan to set the buffers at a different range than required.
Dave Christensen reported that the 4(d) Rule has been issued and will become effective on January 11,
2001. Commissioner Harpole noted that he doesn't want rules proposed that are defensible only for a
couple of months until the 4(d) Rule takes effect. Dave Christensen pointed out that the 4(d) Rule contains
conflicting information about buffers. Commissioner Harpole stated that he wants to know more about the
4(d) Rule before a decision is made on buffers. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the County will have
the flexibility to work with landowners? What about small lots that become unusable when a buffer is
applied? There could be serious outcomes for property owners. How will the County deal with these
landowners? Dave Christensen explained that the staffing needs to deal with habitat management plans
still needs to be addressed. Commissioner Harpole said that he feels the Habitat Management Plan is a
strategy that allows for flexibility. Warren Hart pointed out that the ESA strategy is larger than the UDC.
More enforcement will be required if there is more flexibility. Commissioner Huntingford again expressed
concern about paying for enforcement resulting from UDC regulations.
Salt Water Intrusion -- Dave Christensen reported that he was hired in 1996 and worked
with a consultant to delineate susceptible and vulnerable salt water intrusion areas and
develop Best Management Practices for those areas. The Board did not adopt the BMPs at
that time because no vulnerable areas were identified. Since then, the decision was made
that sea water intrusion needs to be addressed in the UDC. BMPs for sea water intrusion
could include filtration of water and minimization of impervious surfaces.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if people are required to keep stormwater on their property? Dave
Christensen answered that rainwater collection and use requires a water right. The issues on salt water
intrusion are very complex. The DOE is the only authority that can appropriate that water. Warren Hart
explained that there is a proposal in the UDC to take out the BMPs for salt water intrusion. The Planning
Commission has received public testimony that supports leaving the BMPs in the document. Staff is
proposing that the BMPs be taken out. If they are removed, an explanation needs to be included in the
record on the final development regulations.
Commissioner Huntingford reported that he remembers the discussions with the State about salt water
intrusion. The County imposed a higher standard than the State required. He suggested that this be
reviewed. Dave Christensen said that he reviewed the notes from those discussions which resulted in the
hiring of a hydrogeological consultant to determine how to define salt water intrusion areas. The rules
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
were applied to areas in the County where there was information to indicate susceptibility to sea water
intrusion. There were no areas determined to be vulnerable to sea water intrusion so BMPs were not
adopted for those areas. The discussion turned to containing stormwaterrunoff. Dave Christensen reported
that staff recommends that the Sea Water Intrusion section be removed from the UDC. Warren Hart
advised that some additional language was deleted that may have to be put back in to meet the provisions
of agreements with the City and the Shine Water system. Staff is tracking applications at the Permit Center
and preparing information on possible interim controls regarding buffers adjacent to shorelines.
Definitions -- Randy Kline, Associate Planner, noted that the UDC combines definition
sections from a number of ordinances (critical areas, forestlands, eot.) into one Chapter (#2.)
Warren Hart reported that the public comment letters are included in the UDC binders provided for the
Board. The Draft UDC has been forwarded to CTED for their formal review. Commissioner Huntingford
questioned why this document was sent to CTED in draft form? The document should not have gone to
CTED until after the Board's review. Commissioner Harpole noted that the Board will establish findings
of fact to detail the decisions that are made. Commissioner Huntingford added that he feels the time frame
for adoption of the UDC is unrealistic. Warren Hart explained that CTED's comments do not have to be
incorporated into the document.
Commissioner Harpole questioned the Section 2 definition of dwelling unit. The final sentence states that
the main residence and the accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached, are considered a dwelling unit.
He feels the definition of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) conflicts with this definition. Warren Hart advised
that staff will review the both definitions. Commissioner Harpole reiterated that he feels these definitions
are at odds especially in light of the clustering ordinance. He doesn't want confusion in the administration
of these ordinances.
Chairman Wojt asked about parcels with more than one residence and if the owners of such properties
would be required to subdivide the land if they wanted to sell one of the residences? Warren Hart reported
that they would not be able to subdivide under the UDC. Chairman Wojt then asked about the properties
that have been granted density hardship exemptions? Warren Hart advised that there are only a few of
these exemptions on the books and staff recommends that they be repealed. Commissioner Huntingford
stated that he does not want to take these provisions out of the ordinance because there are still some
parcels where this would apply.
Warren Hart reported that 15-20 changes were made in the original draft of Section 2 that was submitted to
the Planning Commission. The definitions were made consistent and some changes resulted from
comments from the Planning Commission.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
Performance Standards -- Warren Hart explained that Section 4 works hand in hand with
the Use Table. The text illustrates how to use Section 4. Many of the "yes" uses on the table
are based on the fact that Section 4 is used and a Conditional Use Permit isn't required.
Besides the Use Table, a project is also required to meet the provisions of Section 4.
Commissioner Huntingford again asked who will enforce the provision of this section especially if there is
no permit? Warren Hart pointed out that an education process through workshops, information packets,
fliers, and news articles will be needed to help the public understand this section.
Major highlights of the section were then reviewed by Warren Hart:
Flexibility to allow small scale recreation and tourist uses in residential areas: This is addressed
in the Use Table and Section 4 performance standards. Several ordinances and development codes
from other counties were reviewed and standards have been developed on how to implement these
uses. There is an acreage limit on recreational vehicle uses so that larger commercial uses have
enough property to prevent impacts on surrounding parcels. Commissioner Huntingford asked how
many units a 10 acre recreational vehicle park can include? Warren Hart answered that three RVs
are allowed per acre.
Commissioner Harpole is concemed about commutative effects if several adjacent property
owners on a highway make application for small scale recreation or tourist activities. How
will this type of "strip" development be avoided? He realizes that this is addressed in
Section J, but feels it needs to be strengthened. He supports the strategy, but there needs to
be more guidance to allow the Administrator to say yes to one application and no to another.
Warren Hart advised that he will review this and see if there is added criteria that they can
develop.
Commissioner Harpole asked if the decisions made by the Administrator can be appealed?
A1 Scalf answered that Administrator's decisions can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner.
New standards for Home Business and Cottage Industries: The language from the
Comprehensive Plan was transferred directly into the UDC for home businesses and cottage
industries. Chairman Wojt asked about home businesses locating in large residences such as those
at Port Ludlow along the bay? Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the covenants on the
plats at Port Ludlow probably don't allow home businesses. Warren Hart explained that only 1,200
square feet of residence can be used for a home business and the home business has to be clearly
subordinate to the main use of the residence.
Performance Standards for 40 uses and activities: There is an increase in the size of accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) from 800 to 1,000 square feet. The Planning Commission has asked if the
square feet can be increased? The staff is doing more research.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 16, 2000
Regarding Bed & Breakfast accommodations, Commissioner Harpole questioned why a hospitality
establishment can only serve breakfast? He pointed out that sometimes it is difficult to find a
restaurant in a rural area. Warren Hart stated that the concern is not allowing these establishments
to become restaurants that would compete with restaurants in an area; but the standards could limit
the serving of meals to guests only.
Parking and site design.
State License daycare providers are exempt from permitting requirements because they are
licensed by the State.
Transient rental of single family homes and ADUs. The property owner doesn't have to live in the
home.
Storage of junk vehicles. The UDC allows up to 12 unlicensed junk vehicles to be stored on a
residential lot. The first two vehicles don't have to be screened from sight, but any more than two
must be screened. RVs are not allowed to be used as an ADU. A single lot with over three RVs is
considered an RV Park.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that there are people who currently live in RVs and, if that opportunity
is taken away, who will subsidize where these people live? When people are given notice that they can no
longer live in small travel trailers where are they going to go?
Commissioner Harpole feels that the last two discussion items relate more to urban character than rural
character. He suggested that the Board needs to continue to address the major issues in the UDC and that
the Planning Commission can give their recommendation on neighborhood/neighbor issues such as these.
ATTEST: AN
Lorna e aney, t~
Clerk of the Board
G en~H~ntin~fiSic~, Mfi~5~ '
Page 9