Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081301Distrid No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tilterness County Administrator: Charles Saddler Distrid No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Distrid No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of August 13,2001 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Dan Titterness, in the absence of Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioner Richard Wojt was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of July 23, 2001 as submitted. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: No briefing this week. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: a comment in favor of Commissioner Titterness' recommendation to keep the tax rate the same; Jefferson County is losing $5 million in tax revenue because of the delay in the Black Point project and the Discovery Bay Motel, as well as, sales tax loss from people spending money outside the County because there aren't enough jobs here; a letter was read regarding the Port Ludlow Drainage District assessment; a 5-acre lot owner in Port Ludlow asked that the Board consider 5-acre lots equal to smaller parcels for assessment because they do not contribute to drainage problems, and these property owners asked to have all parcels assessed on impervious surface only which they feel is the most equitable option; and a comment about a property owner who has suffered because there isn't a County "Property Access Policy." APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Item 1 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. 1. DELETED RESOLUTION NO. re: Formalizing a More Detailed "Scope of Services" for Tasks V and VI of the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study (See item later in minutes.) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 66-01 re: Developing a Countywide Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Program 3. RESOLUTION NO. 67-01 re: Request for Funding Timber Analyst/Coordinator Position; Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. AGREEMENT re: Materials Testing Services on the Lindsay Hill Road Restoration Project No. XO 1386; Jefferson County Public Works; General Testing Laboratories, Inc. AGREEMENT No. 99-1721A, Amendment No. 3 re: Salman & Snow Creek Estuary Project, Transfer of Protection to the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation AGREEMENT re: Business and System Transformation Addendum for Tiered Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Premera Blue Cross AGREEMENTS (4) re: Provide School Health Services for 2001-2002; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; 1)Brinnon School District; 2) Quilcene School District; 3) Chimacum School District; and 4) Port Townsend School District REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL re: Individual Employment Services for People with Developmental Disabilities; Jefferson County Health and Human Services REQUEST TO USE One (1) of Jefferson County's Allocated Days for McCurdy Pavilion; Annual Benefit Auction, April 20, 2002; Port Townsend Rotary Club Accept RESIGNATION of Two (2) Members Serving on the Peninsula Regional Support Network (PRSN); Tam Alleva and Janet Anderson Accept RESIGNATION of a Member Serving on the Jefferson County Substance Abuse Advisory Board; Shannon Lowrie Accept RESIGNATION of Member Serving on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Representing the Resort at Ludlow Bay; Robert Hobart APPOINTMENT to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Representing the Resort at Ludlow Bay; Michael Padden REAPPOINTMENTS to the Jefferson County Fire Code Advisory Board; Three (3) Year Term; Both Terms Expire 8/7/04; Thomas McNerney and Cy Heffernan Petition to Name a Private Road Lookout Drive; Donald Short, Petitioner: Wendy Ward, Public Works, reported that this petition is to establish a name for a private road. Of the three names suggested, two are similar to other established road names in the County. The Public Works Department recommends that the road be named Lookout Drive. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 68-01 establishing the name of Lookout Drive for this private road. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened on Wednesday, August 15, 2001. All three Board members were present. A workshop on the fees for the Department of Community Development was held between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 HEARING re: Reconsideration of Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Charles Avenue and Julian Street with Alley in Block 22 in the Plat of Eisenbeis Bay View Addition; Mark Hering & Marie Campanoli, Petitioners: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez stated that the Eisenbeis Plat was recorded with the County Auditor on April 3, 1890. He explained that the evidence to be presented today would show this to be a Class C Road Vacation which requires that a plat was recorded before 1904 and that the roads were not open within 5 years of the date the plat was recorded. Russell Trask, an adjacent property owner, has reported that he didn't receive notice of the original hearing before the Commissioners and he appealed that decision to Superior Court. The Court ordered the County Commissioners to reconsider the petition in a public hearing. The order specified that the only relevant testimony in this hearing is whether the roads were open between April 3, 1890 and April 3, 1895. This is a continuation of the original petition and all the abutting property owners received notice of this hearing by regular mail and by certified mail. Malcolm Harris, Attorney for Mark Hering and Marie Campanoli, submitted a survey map of the area where the property is located. He explained that his clients own Block 22, on the eastern edge of the Eisenbeis Plat. They submitted road vacation petitions for 3 roads: Julian Street, Charles Avenue, and an alley through the middle of Block 22. The alley and the Charles Avenue road vacations have not been disputed; the issue is the Julian Street road vacation. There is an existing roadway in the area, but it is not located within the Julian Street right-of-way except for a small sliver that was recently enlarged. The existing roadway is a private easement that the adjacent property owners to the south use and is located on 30 feet of the Petit Oil property. Mark Hering and Marie Campanoli do not want to take this easement away or take away anyone's access to their property. When Russell Trask bought the property last year, he began bringing in large trucks on the existing easement and redefining the roadway. Mr. Harris continued by noting that a State statute in effect from 1889 to1907 stated that if a plat was established in 1889 or later, with dedicated roadways that were not put to public use within 5 years after the creation of the plat, these roadways were deemed to be automatically vacated and the ownership reverted back to the property owner in the plat who owned the adjacent property. There wasn't a roadway built in the Julian Street right-of-way between 1890 and 1895. They believe that the public's right to build a road on the Julian Street right-of-way terminated on April 3, 1895. He showed the Board the earliest aerial photograph that they could find from 1975 and an aerial photograph taken in 1997 before Russell Trask purchased his property and began to develop it. He pointed out that there is no road or trail in the Julian Street right-of- way on the 1975 photograph. Mr. Harris reiterated that the issue to be decided today is only if a roadway existed on the Julian Street right-of-way between 1890 and 1895. He feels that the issue of statutory vacations is a County problem because Jefferson County was one of the first counties established and several plats were done between 1889 and 1907. If the County chooses to ignore this law, the only other option for property owners to is to go to Court for a quiet title action. There are many of these roads in the County and the Courts would be occupied with these cases which would be expensive. He thinks that the County needs to address this issue once and for all and say that they do not claim any right in these roadways and the public doesn't have a right to use them. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 Will Butterfield, Public Works Department, stated that, after researching the oldest and most complete records from the County and the title companies, their position remains that this roadway was never open to the public during the 1890-1895 time frame. He presented an affidavit of mailing showing the property owners who received notice of the hearing. David Alvarez asked Will Butterfield if the petition submitted by Hering and Campanoli is complete? He replied that it is and that, to the best of his knowledge, Hering and Campanoli notified all the property owners that needed notification. He prepared the report for the County Engineer that stated the roads were never open and the County Engineer based his recommendation on this report. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Russell J. Trask., stated that he owns the property adjacent to Julian Street on the south. He is against statutory street vacations because he doesn't feel that what happened in 1890 or 1895 matters today and because there is no concrete evidence that a trail didn't exist back then. His property is located in the industrial park and is zoned for commercial/industrial uses. When he bought the property, it was his understanding that Julian Street was a street. It shows on the plat map; and is paved up to a certain point and fire hydrants have been installed. He wants to bring a water main to his property and pave Julian Street. There isn't another appropriate access route to his property. Since 1895, a major 4-foot water line and a power line were constructed on the western boundary of the property that would make it difficult to bring in any other streets. None of the other streets have been extended as far as the water or power line. Circumstances have changed since 1895. This is a Class B road vacation, not a Class C. He would also like to have the use of the full 60 feet of Charles Avenue. Glenn Neet., 180 Flamingo Street, Port Townsend stated that the map that Malcolm Harris submitted is incorrect. The applicants claim they own Block 22, but Port Townsend Paper Company owns Lots 1 and 12. The County needs to look at the exceptions to the statutory road vacations in RCW 36.87.090. He has been using the road since 1987 when he purchased his property. The road was partially developed at that time and he cleared and opened up the right-of-way and graveled the road on to Julian Street. David Alvarez explained that the predecessor statute that was in effect from1895 to1908 takes precedence over RCW 36.87.090 that was revised in 1937. Chairman Huntingford said that the County has been doing these statutory road vacations when actually, they were vacated by State law. The County really has no say about these vacations. He asked Glenn Neet if he has an easement to his property? Mr. Neet replied that Bud Hay has an easement, but he doesn't. Glenn Neet., added that if no one has been paying property taxes on Julian Street, it must belong to the County and that would make it a public street. Bill Perka, a realtor with John L. Scott, and former owner of the property that Bud Hay now owns, stated that he was also the listing agent for the people who sold the property to Mark Hering and Marie Campanoli. He submitted a letter and some photographs from Bud Hay. He was under the impression, when he Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 purchased the property, that Julian Street was a street. Glenn Neet has a business at the end of Julian Street and it was assumed that the street would be improved some day and become part of the industrial park. The properties in this area have been sold as commercial/industrial for many years. During the Comprehensive Plan process, he submitted a comment letter to the Board that pointed out that the Land Use Map of the Glen Cove area was incorrect because the Petit Oil building was cut in half. There is a section line that runs down the center of the Gastfield Plat and originally the entire plat was to be part of the Glen Cove Industrial Park. The County revised the Land Use Map and moved the line over. The County Commissioners have the authority to decide the land use issues and he asked that the Board not deny access to these properties. He doesn't see how the applicants can prove that the road wasn't open from 1890 to 1895. In addition, there are addresses on Julian Street, there are fire hydrants there, and the PUD has shown an interest in extending the water lines. David Alvarez reiterated that the Board needs to focus on the public's interest to use this road, not the private rights of the property owners who live in the area. The road could be established and improved as a private road. Commissioner Titterness asked the procedure if the Board decides to open the road because it was in the public's best interest? Will Butterfield explained that the County would need to reacquire the rights from abutting property owners. Dick Forsyth, Irondale, explained that he agrees with Russell Trask's position. A number of the other roads in the Glen Cove area were platted at the same time and may not have been used from1890 to 1895, but they are developed public roads now that are being used. He thinks this sets a precedent. Glenn Neet., stated that he agrees with this theory and it would mean that every developed road in the plat could fall in this category. Commissioner Titterness asked if the County reacquired Otto Street and Frederick Street before they were developed as public roads? Will Butterfield explained that as the County developed sections of those streets, they were set up by resolution and added to the County Road Log. Commissioner Wojt added that he remembers when the County got easements from the property owners on Seton Road so the County could improve it. Gene Seton, stated that statutory vacations are a problem in the County. He doesn't think the County has any right to vacate the roads. He has some property in the County and someone vacated the streets. He was never notified and only found out about it, because half of the street was included his tax statement. The County charges property owners for the streets they vacate. Commissioner Wojt said that the problem is that the ordinance states that the County has no right to use the road as a public road. Gene Seton replied that because of the ordinance, people assume that the road is their property when it really isn't. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 Marie Campanoli, 210 Bay View Street, stated that she is one of the petitioners. The reason that they initiated the petition to vacate the streets is because when Russell Trask bought his property, he immediately started to clear it. The property wasn't surveyed at the time and by the time the survey was done, several large trees had been cut. They heard rumors that he was planning to widen Julian Street. There is a stand of tall fir trees that edges their property that they do not want cut. The dirt road on the far side of the trees is being used by big trucks going to Mr. Trask's property that create a lot of noise and dust. She called the Public Works Department and they said that the public has no right to use Julian Street. At that point, she petitioned to have the road vacated. They are not trying to cut off access to the adjacent properties. Bill Perka, explained that when he originally listed Marie Campanoli's property, the owner told him that he had planted the trees and he wasn't sure if they were in the right-of-way. Marie Campanoli, stated that since Russell Trask bought the property, it has been surveyed and only about half of the trees are in the right-of-way. Easements need to be established; but there has been a lack of communication. The Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Malcolm Harris responded to the comments: · Regarding Russell Trask's comment that Julian Street is the only north/south access to the area, Otto Street, which is one block over, is the main north/south access and the main road in Glen Cove that leads to the highway. · Mr. Trask has a right to have access to his property. When he bought the property, it didn't have legal access. Any property owner that has a "land-locked" parcel has a right to bring a private condemnation action to condemn a roadway across the most convenient access to their property. Mr. Trask has not invoked that right. There are several other places where Mr. Trask could gain access. · What Mr. Trask and the other property owners are saying is that they want to use Julian Street without paying for it. Julian Street became private property in 1895. His clients have a right to rely on the law. · The County has the ability to condemn the property and buy it from his clients for public use. · Mr. Trask stated that he doesn't want to cross the water and power line, however Bay View Street and Eisenbeis Street both cross these lines. A Court will have to decide the most appropriate way for Mr. Trask to access Otto Street. · Glenn Neet's property is outside the plat; though it appears that there is an easement across Mr. Trask's property to Mr. Neet's property in some of the photographs. · Mr. Hay's letter ignores the fact that he has a private documented easement to use 30 feet of the Petit Oil property. This easement was created at the time Mr. Hay bought his property, so it would seem that he must have been aware of the problem with the Julian Street right-of-way. · Mr. Trask and Mr. Neet have been using Mr. Hay's easement. Mr. Neet has been using it for several years and may have established a prescriptive easement. Mr. Trask has been using the easement for one year and it was his attempt to clear and widen the right-of-way that triggered this whole issue. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 Mark Hering and Marie Campanoli are asking that the Board confirm that the public's claim to use this right-of-way expired in 1895. David Alvarez stated that the issue before the Board today is whether the ordinance has been satisfied. To do this, the Commissioners need to conclude that the petition is complete, that the adjacent property owners have been notified, and that there is sufficient proof that this is a Class C Road Vacation. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 69-01., reaffirming Resolution No. 71-00 which recognized the statutory road vacation of certain right-of-way portions of the Eisenbeis Bay View Addition Plat in Glen Cove. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion and Possible Adoption of Port Ludlow Drainage District Assessment Ordinance: Jim Pearson, Public Works, reiterated that based on last week's discussion, the Board had laid out the parameters for a decision. There were 2 issues in the memo dated August 15, one regarding the LMC reserve areas and the dealt with the 5 acre parcels in Ludlow #6. There is some sense in designating these 2 areas as "special zones." There was a question about reducing the assessment rate for the 5 acre parcels, and then having to reduce the rate for property owners who have multiple lots. He reminded the Board that State law requires the assessment system to be reviewed at least every 4 years. The first task of the Drainage District is a Surface Water Management Plan. This plan will provide information about drainage zones within the District and, at that point, the assessment system could be revised. There was also the issue of credits. There are only 2 counties in the State that give credits for existing drainage facilities. This action is similar to the roads built by ORM that were turned over to the County by the platting process and are now maintained by road taxes. His recommendation, based on talks with the District, is that credits not be given, but that the District take over the maintenance, repair and ultimate replacement of the existing facilities. Commissioner Titterness feels that all lot purchasers paid for the roads, but only a small group of property owners had to pay for the existing storm water systems that would be taken over by the District. There is an equity issue. Chairman Huntingford stated that he is concerned about costs to the District when they take over the other systems. Commissioner Wojt added that building a facility is not as costly as maintaining it. David Alvarez explained that during the public testimony, a property owner had requested a lesser assessment and this can be done according to the statute. Property can be zoned with different ratios. The statute says that the area of the District cannot be decreased, but more property can be annexed. Commissioner Wojt asked about the people who claim that they receive no value from the District. David Alvarez said that a "no benefit" zone is an option. Commissioner Wojt replied that the information from the Surface Water Management Plan is necessary to designate these zones. He asked if these zones can be designated at a later time? Jim Pearson advised that would be allowed. Commissioner Wojt asked about reducing the gross area rate for the 5 acre parcels. Jim Pearson answered that the District and the Consultants suggested a reduction in the area rate to 25% of the standard area rate. Commissioner Wojt Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13, 2001 clarified that the funds collected over the first several years will be going to the development of the Plan. He thinks that for this reason, everyone should pay equally. This would make it simple and fair. Greg McCary said that the testimony at the hearing showed that people know there are stormwater problems and they are willing to contribute to solving them. North Bay needs to have a stormwater system planned, built and maintained. It doesn't really matter if a lot is undeveloped right now, because in order to build on it, a stormwater system will be required. He thinks there needs to be one fee applied to everyone for the Plan development stage. Jim Pearson explained that the RCW requires that the ordinance on the assessment system be transmitted to the District by September 1. The District has to adopt a budget by December 1. Commissioner Titterness suggested an almost flat fee utilizing the 10% gross area and 90% impervious surface ratio. Zone 0 and Zone 2 would be reduced. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve this ratio. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. One of the 5 acre parcel owners commented that she did not feel that this was fair and equitable. Commissioner Titterness replied that he feels that this ratio would fit the needs of the entire District. The Chair called for a vote on the motion to approve ORDINANCE NO. 04-0815-01 with the ration as stated. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Huntingford stated that the issue of the County's participation because of the runoff from the roadways still need to be addressed. He suggested that the County contribute $10,000 for the planning phase of this project. He said that the Board and the Public Works Department need to discuss this further before a final decision is made. Formalizing a More Detailed "Scope of Services" for Tasks V and VI of the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study: Randy Kline, Associate Planner, advised that the scope of services was changed as a result of comments from the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting. There was a consensus on the changes to the resolution. He reviewed the following changes: · Addition in the Resolution: 14/hereas, Tasks I through IFwere based on a set of assumptions, and that the Commissioners acknowledge the fact that the data changes. · Change in the Scope of Work: Task V, C.5 Attendance at up to twelve public meetings and hearings changed to Attendance at public meetings and hearings as requested by staff. · Change in the Scope of Work: Task VI, A, paragraph 2 from will be deducted to will be considered · Addition in the Scope of Work: Task VI, B.3 add and recognize the need to consider urban reserve areas within this above analysis process. · Change in the Scope of Work: Task VI, C.3, from Tri Area Community Planning Group to Community Planning Group(s). · Change in the Scope of Work: Task VI, C.6, from Tri Area UGA to the UGA(s). Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 13.2001 Change in Attachment E. Water System Analysis. #2, from areas of more intense rural development to for urban growth area(s). Deletion in Attachment E. Wastewater System Analysis, #1. delete CWSP in the phrase in parentheses. Commissioner Tittemess moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 70-01, a detailed "Scope of Services" for Tasks V and VI of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study, as amended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED ATTEST:'~ 'o'; Loma Delsey, CMC Clerk of the Bo~d JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARDERS en~Hu~ntinglorct~ttir Page 9