Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061101District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District ~Jo. 2 Commissioner: GLen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of June 11,2001 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners Dan Tittemess and Richard Wojt were both present. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2001 as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles Saddler reported: · He will contact the Planning Commission members to explain that he referred the UDC amendments to staff for a staff recommendation after the Planning Commission recommendation was received. · Commissioner Wojt suggested that the Strategic Planning session be moved to Monday afternoons instead of Tuesday or Wednesday. Charles Saddler advised that he would like to keep these sessions on Tuesday or Wednesday because the BOCC meeting schedule will be changing on Monday afternoons to accommodate UGA/UDC work. Chairman Huntingford advised that he has a conflict with the Board of Natural Resources meetings once a month on Tuesdays. The Board agreed to do these planning sessions on Tuesdav. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The City has asked their Planning Commission to develop a plan, including the inventory of available buildable lots, that will encourage in-fill in the Tier I in-fill area; the Hastings/Cape George neighborhood group that lost the Court case against Lakeside Industries' asphalt batch plant is looking at other alternatives; this neighborhood group has been working on the asphalt batch plant issue for 12 years and has spent $40,000 in the last 4 years and they feel they should be included in the current negotiations between the County and Lakeside; a request that the Commissioners hold an evening meeting at the Fire Station at Cape George in the next few weeks to allow these neighbors to ask their questions; used, broken up asphalt is being dumped at the Lakeside site at Cape George and a request was made by the neighbors that the County put a stop work order on this activity; if the County is concerned with the health and welfare of the citizens in the Cape George area they would purchase asphalt from companies that are in compliance with all regulations; a member of the Planning Commission read a statement saying that he feels there are contextual and process errors that Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 11, 2001 need to be addressed regarding the Glen Cove UGA; a citizen recommended that the Board accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the UDC amendments for on-site septic systems; a reference to "regional retail" in Glen Cove was erroneously placed in the City's Comprehensive Plan; the County's proposal for a Glen Cove UGA would hurt the local economy in downtown Port Townsend and the Tri Area; the County's proposal for Glen Cove is not legal under CMA; and the suggestion that the designation of Glen Cove be done in increments, as needed. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Items 1 and 9 and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as submitted. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETE Rcs0hlti0n and 0rKanizati0nal Chart re: Creating a New Divisi0n f0r Nanlral Rcs0urce Managctnent within Hcalth and Hutton Services Dc?arttnent 2, RESOLUTION NO. 54-01 re: An Agreement with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Regarding Acquisition of Chimacum Creek Beach Park 3. AGREEMENT and Findings, Conclusions and Decision re: Application for Cu~ent Use Assessment to Designate 5.07 Acres of Land as Timber Open Space, ~CUA00,00002; Located off Highway 101 in Brinn0n; Dale and Wendy Webber, Applicant 4. AGREEMENT and Findings, Conclusions and Decision re: Application for Cu~ent Use Assessment to Designate 7.35 Acres of Land as Timber Open Space, ~CUA00,00003; Located on Flaggler Road in $0rdland; George and Bessie King, Applicant 5, AGREEMENT re: On,Line Electronic Access to Washingt0n's Medicaid Database for Verification of Patients Eligibility Limitations; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; MediFAX EDI, Inc. 6, AGREEMENT re: Kansas Integrated Public Health System Software License; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Kansas Health Institute (KIPHS, Inc.) 7. AGREEMENTre:~r~fessi~na~~ea~th~fficerServices;Jeffers~nC~unty~ea~thand~umanServices; Thomas Locke, M.D., Clallam County 8. AGREEMENT re: Replacement of Floor Coverings at the Port Townsend Community Center, Project ~PT1493; Jefferson County Public Works; McCrorie's Carpet One 9. DELETE Agreement re: Construct Fence for the H.J. Carroll Park Caretaker's/Maintenance Project #HJ 1486, Phase II; Jefferson County Public Works; Viking Fence 10. Notice of Workshop Regarding the Selection of Transportation Equity Act for the 2 lS~ Century (TEA-21), Surface Transportation Program (STP) Allocation for Projects in Jefferson County; Fiscal Years 2002-2003; Scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Thursday, July 5, 2001, in the Commissioners' Chambers Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 11, 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Glen Cove/Tri Area Special Study Decision Document: A1 Scalf reviewed the process to date regarding the Decision Document for the Glen Cove/Tri Area Special Study. They are currently beginning Tasks 5 and 6. He interjected that there is a possibility that when Task 6 is finalized the Board could decide not to proceed with a UGA if the property owners in the area don't want to finance the LID (Local Improvement District.) Associate Planner Randy Kline explained that the Decision Document includes a narrative of the process and Board's decisions to this point, line in/line out language for a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would allow the County to designate UGAs, and the proposed UGA boundaries for both the Glen Cove area and the Tri Area. He added that it is not necessary to make the boundary designations in order to move forward with the Tri Area Plan. Formal adoption of the Decision Document would give the County the authority to move forward with UGA designations where rural standards would apply until the sub-area and capital facilities planning was done. There are several UGA boundary options in the Glen Cove area and the Tri Area that have been proposed during the process. Randy Kline suggested that an alternative is to downsize the boundaries and designate "urban reserve" areas for future growth. He cautioned that designating final boundaries prior to finishing the Special Study could create false expectations for property owners. Commissioner Titterness stressed that it is important to make people aware that the boundaries in the Decision Document are "discussion boundaries" only. A1 Scalf stated that the Department's recommendation is for the Board to adopt by motion the Decision Document with the PUGA boundary maps and direct staff to complete Tasks 5 and 6. A Comprehensive Plan amendment allowing the County to designate UGAs would have to go through the public process during the 2002 amendment cycle. Chairman Huntingford clarified the timeline, adding that the final decision on the UGAs would be approved by December 2002. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the Decision Document with the PUGA boundary maps, direct staff to complete Tasks 5 and 6, that the line in/line out language be included in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle beginning in May, 2002 and that the final decision on the UGAs be available for action by the Board by the end of 2002. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. A1 Scalf clarified that Section 4, pages 15 through 22 of the Decision Document, entitled Planning Amendments, is not included in the motion by the Board. He added that this section will be the draft goals and policies for public review during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in 2002. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 11, 2001 John Watts, City of Port Townsend Attorney, read a letter from Mayor Geoff Masci and City Manager David Timmons regarding the proposed UGA designation of Glen Cove. (See attached document.) John Lockwood asked that his letter be added to the record also. (See attached document.) Planning Commission Recommendation re: Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendments Related to On-Site Septic Systems: A1 Scalf reported that DCD agreed to bring forward the Planning Commission recommendation on these amendments. He explained that the Planning Commission members are concerned about a communication problem over the staff recommendation because it includes the Vested Rights Doctrine and septic permits are not listed in this document. Randy Kline reported that, throughout their deliberations, the Planning Commission took the time to educate themselves on this issue by soliciting comments and information from septic designers, installers, real estate agents, and bankers. They found that lenders grant loans on undeveloped land with a soils analysis test and a septic permit is not required. The only reason a stand alone septic permit would be necessary is if a property owner wanted to develop the property incrementally over a period of time. Currently a building permit is required before a property owner can get a septic permit. In order to deal with this issue, the Board and staff developed a line in/line out document and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for review. This document proposes that a SPAAD (Site Plan Approval Advance Determination) can be submitted to DCD instead of a building permit application. The SPAAD sites the septic system, drainfield, reserve drainfield, well, all structures including the house, and the easements on the property. The Planning Commission's recommendation is vesting for 5 years. A SPAAD gives property owners assurances that go beyond what they would get with a septic permit alone and eliminates the misconception that a septic permit is enough to vest a project. Chairman Huntingford stated that he has concerns about the County approving a SPAAD and having the regulations change or having the approval based on false information. He asked how the County would handle a situation where a property owner didn't have a survey, the SPAAD was approved, and then when the property owner started to build, they found they were over the property line? Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez replied that there is case law that protects the County to some extent if they negligently permit a project. Randy Kline added that the SPAAD application states clearly that approval of the SPAAD vests a project under Jefferson County regulations only, but not under State or Federal regulations. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that he prefers the Planning Commission's recommendation of vesting for 5 years but he would like to see it increased to ten years. He also suggested creating a policy regarding septic systems already in the ground that met the code when they were installed and passed inspection. He doesn't think they should require updating at the time of house construction. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 11, 2001 Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation, with vesting for 5 years, as drafted and that the changes be incorporated in a UDC amendment. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Wojt stated that he still has concerns about not tying a septic permit to a building permit. Michelle Sandoval, Planning Commission Member, stated that alternatives to the SPAAD were not discussed fully during the Planning Commission's deliberations. Barbara Blowers, consultant, clarified that septic systems installed within the last 20 years that haven't been used are required to upgrade to a more modern standard. She added that other counties have simpler processes to deal with septic system permits. Philip Flynn, Planning Commission Member, stated that the Planning Commission discussed the fact that a SPAAD may not be necessary in every situation. Chairman Huntingford called for a vote on the motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and incorporate the changes into a UDC amendment. Commissioner Titterness and Chairman Huntingford moved to approve the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. AGREEMENT re: Professional Biological Services; Salmonid Re~gia Identification Study in Eastern Jefferson County; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Watershed Ecology, LLC: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement for biological services. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion Regarding the Distressed County Facilities Fund: Deputy County Administrator Gary Rowe distributed an information sheet that defines how these funds may be used. The general intent of the law is to support economic growth in rural communities. This could include, for example, stormwater improvements in the Tri Area. He added that as long as the project is for public infrastructure, it is eligible. When implementing the use of these funds, the County is required to consult with cities, towns and port districts located within the County. The Board concurred that the economic development section of the County and City Comprehensive Plans be utilized to define "public facilities." The information sheet also included examples of policies that other counties have included. Gary Rowe asked the Board to prioritize the list. High priorities included: job creation; retention or expansion of businesses; repayment of funds; Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 11, 2001 support for smaller communities; revolving loans for junior taxing districts; keeping administration simple; relationship with WA-CERT projects Gary Rowe said that he and Charles Saddler will begin to formulate a policy based on the Board's direction. There was a discussion about the PUD's telecommunications project. Charles Saddler explained that it is his understanding that the PUD would like the County's support to move ahead on the project. He doesn't feel that they need cash immediately, but they would like to see the project be given priority for a portion of this funding. It appears that they would like the infrastructure tax to be one of several funding sources. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION with the Prosecuting Attorney, the Director of Community Development and the County Administrator from 2:30-3:30 p.m. regarding potential litigation. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Loma Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board Page 6 City of Port Townsend Office of the Mayor Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street. Suite 201. Port Townsend. WA 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-4290 June 11, 2001 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Glen Huntingford. Chair Richard E. Wojt Dan Titterness PO Box 1220 Port Townsend. WA 98368 RE: Proposed UGA Designation of Glen Cove Dear Board of County Commissioners: We are writing to express the City of Port Townsend's concerns with the BOCC's proposed adoption of an ordinance designating Glen Cove as a UGA. We understand this action could occur as early as your June 11. 2001 meeting. We appreciate the County has done much work on issues that could lead to a final UGA designation for Glen Cove and Tri-Area. We support the work done and the direction the County is going. We support a Glen Cove UGA if consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. However. we only received the Decision Document on Friday, June 8. 2001. As such. we haven't had an opportunity to review it. We request the opportunity to review it and provide meaningful comment to the County's proposed acti on. The City has an extremely high interest in future land use and capital facilities planning for Glen Cove. The City and the PUD, as you know. are in the process of exchanging service areas, with the City becoming the water provider in Glen Cove. The City and County face significant urban service issues in Glen Cove, and we should be prepared to discuss issues and negotiate interlocal agreements on a wide variety of municipal revenue sharing, infrastructure, planning, and zoning issues, as well as planning and capital facility studies. We will submit further comment within 2 weeks. Thank you for your consideration to this letter. Please call with any questions. A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT Geoff Masci. City of Port Townsend Mavor June 11. 2001. Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Geoff Masci David Timmons City manager Copy: City Council G:Mayor{BOCC Glen Cove 060801 ltr} Comment to BOCC June 11, 2001 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community During the public process that led to the passage of the City's comprehensive plan in 1996, Port Townsend residents clearly stated that they did not want the high growth alternative which depicted commercial growth sprawling down the highway. Neither the City's Comp Plan nor the County's Comp Plan currently contains any adopted policy regarding Glen Cove. To pass a UGA in Glen Cove the BOCC will have to show that their action reflects the desires of both City and County residents. The proposed Glen Cove UGA is not GMA compliant. According to US Census 2000 data, Jefferson County has grown at an average rate of 2.7%i over the past decade. Port Townsend grew at an average of only 1.9% over the decade. During the last 3 years both Port Townsend and Jefferson County as a whole have grown at less the one percent at year (see Washington State Office of Financial Management data below)fi All these numbers are way below the 4% growth rate that the County is trying to base its attempt to expand our Urban Growth Area boundaries on. Neither the City nor the County has, as yet, any adopted policy regarding a Glen Cove UGA. So far the County has only produced a study of the Glen Cove Special Study Area and passed a resolution articulating their intension to create a large Glen Cove UGA. When the County passes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it will be required to justify its actions based on the actual OFM population statistics. The estimated population that can be accommodated within our current City Limits is 30.000 people. Eighty percent of the platted, buildable land in Port Townsend is undeveloped. The Growth Management Act will not allow Port Townsend to expand its city limits or its Urban Growth Area while there is still plenty of available land inside its UGA. The county has offered no explanation for why it is not proposing to change the City's current UGA boundaries to include the unincorporated area of the PUGA. Instead the BOCC is proposing a new UGA on the City's boarder that will compete with the commercial and industrial zones inside the City? The proposed Glen Cove UGA is an obvious de facto extension of the City's commercial district. It is not a self-supporting Urban Growth Area. It is the type of rim development that will harm the City and produce no compensating tax revenue. The BOCC's proposal is not only not legally defensible; it is also the worst of all the possible alternatives. The BOCC has recently claimed that the Trottier number of employees-per-Light-Industrial- acre may be too high. They point out that Glen Cove is currently characterized by a lower density of industrial development and suggest that these lower densities should be used for planning purposes. This is not a good idea. The Glen Cove employees per acre density is low because Glen Cove is not yet fully developed. Glen Cove also contains a large amount of acreage covered by mini storage which employees no one. Such extremely low density industrial sprawl is not what citizens of Port Townsend want as the entrance to their town. Port Townsend residents want to preserve the existing buffer between the City Limits and the Glen Cove Industrial Park. There is a big difference between rural residential and urban zoning. The undeveloped land at the edge of town is currently zoned rural residential. The Growth Management Act will attempt to protect this land from being developed so long as it remains outside an Urban Growth Area. The opposite is true if the land is included inside an Urban Growth Area. The Growth Management Act requires counties to direct development toward Urban Growth Areas and attempts to protect rural areas. Regardless of the type of commercial zoning the Glen Cove UGA is assigned, the new jobs will likely cause population growth. The bulk of the population allocation for Glen Cove will be assigned to Port Townsend. The off site infrastructure costs to develop Glen Cove are estimated at over $100.000 per business acre, by Jefferson County (see their Oct.2000 publication, "Jefferson County Viewpoint"). These costs will be paid for by the taxpayer. The projected population increase will require us to expand our City Hall. fire department, police department, EMT, and parks and recreation areas. These costs, which are also paid for by the taxpayer, are not included in the $100,000 computation. The human cost of dealing with increased traffic, loss of open space, increased congestion, and noise have also not been computed. Why should Port Townsend residents be overwhelmed by a type of growth that the majority of its citizens have stated they do not want? The development the BOCC is proposing in Glen Cove is exactly the type of rim development rejected by the citizenry during Port Townsend's community visioning process. Big development on the edge of town has killed the city centers of thousands of small towns all across America. Port Townsend taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for the destruction of their own downtown. Today, we ask you. members of the Board of County Commissioners, to represent the public interest. This proposal is inconsistent with the results of the Jefferson 2000 survey, the PT 2020 process, the Planning Port Townsend survey, and the record of public comments to the BOCC. In 1990 Washington State passed its landmark Growth Management Act. The act was the States first major effort at controlling sprawl and the destruction of our rural lands by rampant development. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners refused to implement the Act and commenced a long drawn-out battle with the State. The County would not succeed in passing its GMA required comprehensive plan for eight long, conflict-ridden years. The BOCC attempted to avoid the law's provision that required that future commercial development not be sited in undeveloped areas of the county. In 1994, four years after the passage of the GMA, the BOCC flaunted State law by zoning most of the undeveloped land in the Glen Cove area commercial in a illegal effort to grandfather the land into the County's, as yet unwritten, comprehensive plan. The State threatened financial sanctions against the county if the BOCC failed to comply with the law. In 1998 the county finally complied with state law. It rezoned the undeveloped land in Glen Cove to rural residential and belatedly passed a Comprehensive Plan. In 1999 less than one year later, while the ink was hardly dry on the document, the BOCC was back with a proposed comprehensive plan amendment trying rezone the undeveloped land in Glen Cove to back to commercial. Once again, political influence instead of public desire drove the actions of the BOCC. This proposal is inconsistent with the results of the Jefferson 2000 survey, the PT 2020 process, the Planning Port Townsend survey, and the vast majority of public testimony. Once again you have produced more conflict than progress. If you had promptly complied with State Law when the Growth Management Act was passed in 1990. the pain. frustration, and financial consequences to affected property owners would have been far less severe. Your failure to successfully circumvent State law has left land speculators who counted on your success angry. Other well-meaning people who bought land in Glen Cove between 1990 and 1998 are confused, disappointed and angry. The general public is disgusted and left believing that government is incompetent and unable to serve the public good. Two of you have publicly stated that "the less government the better". You believe in private power, "opportunity" is the euphemism, and want to reduce public planning and control. In the last few years we have lost most of our planning staff. We have a new county administrator, a new county lawyer, and all but one of our long-range planning staff is new. We have lost institutional memory and capacity. I am pessimistic about the future. I believe that as public officials you should be public servants. Several weeks ago in these chambers, Guy Rudolph stated that in the years he has been listening to you talk about Glen Cove he has only heard you talk about Glen Cove property owners and has never heard you mention the interests of the general public. John Lockwood People for a Liveable Community i County End Yrl Yrl 0 20406 25953 1/1/90 12/31/99 Result Using INTRATE 0027176 The following table comes from ~t[p://www.ofin.wa.gov/poptrends/poptrendtoc.htm then click Jefferson Co. estimated Pt. Townsend estimated 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20.406 21,600 22,500 23.500 24.300 25.100 25.700 26.300 26.500 26.600 26.800 5.5% 4.0% 4.3% 3.3% 3.2% 2.3% 2.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% 7,001 7,230 7,530 7.740 7.940 8.165 8,275 8,330 8.345 8.400 8.450 3.2% 4.0% 2.7% 2.5% 2.8% 1.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.7% 0.6% Census 2000 25.953 8.334