Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM022398JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. 1 Commissioner: Daniel Harpole, Member District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford, Chairman District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt, Member THE H-17APT UP TH'.: (1[YU?I!' I'� •;INS:1[1, LJ � Clerk of the Board: Lorna L. Delaney Director of Public Services: Gary A. Rowe Deputy Director of Public Services: David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of February 23, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners Daniel Harpole and Richard Wojt were both present. Chester Prudhomme, Health and Human Services Department re: Re -consideration of Request for Reimbursement of 1997 Travel Expenses: Deputy Director of Public Services David Goldsmith explained that Chester Prudhomme's travel reimbursement for the entire year of 1997 was recently approved by the Board. It was originally denied by the Department because the County's Travel Policy states that travel expense claims must be submitted for payment at least quarterly. Commissioner Harpole asked if Chester Prudhomme was aware of the County's policy? He answered that he reviewed all of the memos he has received and couldn't find anything that addressed this matter. Health and Human Services Director David Specter stated that he recalls this issue coming up last year, but he couldn't find any correspondence he had written to the staff at the time. He noted, however, that each member of the management staff has a copy of the Personnel Policy, which includes the policy for travel expense reimbursement. He added that he doesn't have any money in the 1998 budget to cover these 1997 expenses. Chester Prudhomme said that this policy was not applied consistently. David Goldsmith reported that the travel policy portion of the Personnel Policy has been in effect since 1996. Commissioner Wojt moved to support the Department's decision to pay only the expense claims for the last quarter of 1997 and to not pay any claim for the balance of the year. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VQ!_ Pal Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 `4��s°N The Board met in Executive Session with the Public Services Director and Public Works Director regarding potential litigation from 9:00 to 9:20 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: a disagreement and questions of credibility regarding the project on Shine Road; a comment about the noise from the Shine Quarry at property on Olele Point which included un -muffled trucks, trucks dumping loads, rickety conveyor belts, back up beeps on the trucks, and the rock crusher; the lack of relationship between the community plans and what is in the Comprehensive Plan from those communities and that the Planning Commission never contacted the community planning groups; the map from Thurston County and how it includes zones for what is currently in place in the County and that our County Land Use Map is not appropriate; and that the recording equipment in the Commissioners' Chambers does not record well because of the acoustics of the room. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Director of Public Services Gary Rowe reported on the economic summit he attended last week. He reported that Eric Anderson of the EDC is working on grant applications for Rural Business Enterprise Grant funding. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Items 4 and 7 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as submitted. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 14-98 re: Revising the Annual 1998 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 15-98 re: Establishing a Special Fund to be known as the Section 125 Administration Fund 3. AGREEMENT, Memorandum of Understanding re: Contribution to the establishment of a designated cable television channel to be reserved exclusively for Public Educational and Governmental (PEG) Programming; Jefferson County Public Services; City of Port Townsend 4. DELETE Agreement, 1998 Addendum re: Solid Waste Long Haul and Disposal Services; Jefferson County Public Works; Regional Disposal Company (RABANCO) (See item later in Minutes.) 5. Facility Use Application; Use of Superior Court Courtroom for 1998 Democratic County Convention; Saturday, April 18, 1998 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Marianne Walters, Jefferson County Democratic Club and Central Committee 6. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application, #SDP97-0011; To Construct a Building for the Boy Scouts of America; Located at Camp Parsons, 970 Bee Mill Road, Brinnon; Chief Seattle Council, Boy Scouts of America, Permittee 7. DELETE Out of State Travel Request, $1,000.00 (approx.); To Attend National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems; Environmental Health Division, Jefferson County Health and Human Services 8. Appoint Member to serve another five (5) year term on the Jefferson County Library District Board of Trustees; Term expires April 1, 2003; Anthony (Tony) Mitchell Page 2 voL 24 181 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 4�k0', 9. Appoint Member to serve as the Youth Representative on the Jefferson County Alcohol and Drug Services Advisory Board; Holly Short 10. Four (4) Letters regarding proposal to purchase the Point Hannon Property on Hood Head; Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Senator Jim Hargrove, and Representatives Lynn Kessler, and Jim Buck 11. Letter of thanks for sponsoring and coordinating the Public Disclosure Workshop held Thursday, February 12, 1998 at the Port Townsend Community Center; Frank Garred and Scott Wilson, Co -Publishers, Port Townsend Leader COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: The following items were discussed: ► Al Scalf stated that he would like to reestablish the Citizens Users Group for the Permit Center. ► Commissioner Harpole noted that the tour of the County that the Commissioners have scheduled is an open public meeting. This is a workshop between the Commissioners, Planning staff and Planning Commission members, however, and is not for public input. There was a discussion about the best way to meet the Public Disclosure laws. The Planning Department will arrange for a bus and set up a schedule. ► Commissioner Harpole asked that the staff review the records of the GMA Steering Committee and determine if the Port of Port Townsend is a voting member. Grant Application for Coastal Zone Management (CZ1VP Funding; To Revise the Shoreline Master Program; Department of Ecology: Harriet Beale reported that this grant application is for funding to revise the Shoreline Master Program. There is a 50% match on this grant which is for a total of $38,000 for 1998. Commissioner Wojt and Chairman Huntingford asked if this work can be done for this amount of funding? Harriet Beale reported that this is work that must be done and the Department of Ecology is offering funding to assist in getting it done. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the County's application for a CZM grant. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Update on John L. Scott Real Estate Office; Display Home at 21 Shine Road: Building Inspector Mike Ajax updated the Board on the status of the building permit for the structure on this site. He reported that a deck on the east side of the existing building was enclosed to create a conference room. The building permit on this room is pending because the Department of Labor and Industries has to inspect the electrical work and Environmental Health has to review the placement of the structure in relation to the septic field. Page 3 VOL 24 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 He explained that there is a also a new modular "display" home on the property which does not require a building permit. The only utility connection that this home will have is electrical. Commissioner Harpole asked if a permit is required for the electrical connection? Mike Ajax reported that because the home is a modular built home, the electrical inspection is done by the Department of Labor and Industries when the home is built. He added that the display home is a temporary structure which can be moved. Environmental Health Director Larry Fay stated that there is concern that the display home has been placed over the septic system and this will require an inspection and review by his department. Commissioner Harpole asked if a display home would be considered a retail commercial business? He feels that the display of this home has nothing to do with the sale of real estate. Al Scalf explained that, in his judgement, the display home is accessory to the use of the site as a real estate office. As the Administrative Official, he would allow one accessory use structure on this site. He noted that if the Board votes to deny the administrative decision on the placement of the display home, he will reverse his decision, and the proponent will be able to appeal his decision to the Hearing Examiner. There was a discussion about the lack of clarity in the regulations regarding temporary structures and uses for accessory structures. Without a good definition of a temporary structure and with the question remaining whether the display home should be classified as a separate retail commercial business, Commissioner Harpole moved to direct the Administrative Official to reverse his decision. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Teal Lake Center Conditional Use Permit Application, File #ZON96- 0024; Dean Reynolds, Applicant: Al Scalf asked the Board to make a decision on this permit applica- tion as a result of the latest court decisions. The Board can adopt the findings and conclusions for a 4,300 square foot convenience/gas store, a 38,650 square foot traveler's service retail, a 1,125 square foot self operating car wash and a 300 square foot expresso stand that were upheld by a recent Superior Court action, or the Board can reject the recommendations. Commissioner Harpole asked if there will be continued opportunities for additional public comment as the project progresses? Al Scalf explained that this project has been through two SEPA processes and an EIS and this part of the process is now complete. Commissioner Harpole asked if there are any mitigating measures that can be addressed in the building permit process? Al Scalf answered that there are fifty conditions on the Hearing Examiner's decision which will be reviewed in conjunction with the building permit process. Associate Planner Jerry Smith added that there are also thirty-two mitigated measures under the SEPA Determina- tion of Non Significance. There was a brief discussion about the items that need to be addressed in the mitigated measures. After the Chairman reviewed the decision options, Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Harpole noted that he doesn't feel the County has a lot of options left on this project and he is disappointed in the process. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Work Schedule and Calendar: Senior Planner John Holgate reviewed the key dates and project milestones for the Comprehensive Plan adoption process. Paul McIlrath, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, stated that they will work to have the legal review done to meet the schedule. He explained that there will be a comprehensive legal review prepared which could be up to 30 pages long. Commissioner Harpole noted that he wants to see the draft interim control ordinances prior to April 1, 1998. Chairman Huntingford asked the Planning staff to review the issues that are being addressed by the interim controls and make sure that the ordinances are being drafted as directed by the Board. The discussion continued regarding the time frames presented and the amount of work to be done in that time. The final deadline for written comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan has not been set yet. PUBLIC WORKS Director's Update: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported on the following:. • The Road Crew will be working on Thorndyke Road this week to open it to 2 way traffic again. • An article is being prepared for publication in the Leader about the brush cutting that is done along County roads. • The State Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee discussed policy that states that local regulations which are more restrictive than State or Federal regulations will not be funded with Federal funds. • The contract for the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study should be finalized this week. • The meeting in Gardiner last week was well attended and the Old Gardiner Road project was reviewed. Chairman Huntingford reported that he heard there will be a petition from the residents in the area asking that the road be moved to the alternative site. AGREEMENT, 1998 Addendum re: Solid Waste Long Haul and Disposal Services; Jefferson County Public Works; Regional Disposal Company (RABANCO) (Item 4 on Consent Agenda) Klara Fabry reported that one clause of the existing contract has been modified from a five year extension to a 6 month extension if necessary. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the agreement addendum with RABANCO as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appointment to Planning Commission: Commissioner Harpole moved to appoint Dan Titterness to an unexpired term on the Planning Commission that will expire on March 17, 2001. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Claim for Damages; Ken Merritt: Director of Public Services Gary Rowe presented the Board with a recommendation on Ken Merritt's claim for damages. The recommendation is that it is in the best interest of the County to negotiate with Mr. Merritt. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve a Page 5 401- 24 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 ,� aY x letter to Ken Merritt as written. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant/Disaster Recovery: Commis- sioner Wojt opened the public hearing in the temporary absence of Chairman Huntingford. Hearing no comments for or against the grant application, Commissioner Wojt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the application for Community Development Block Grant Program -- Disaster Recovery Grants. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Intent to Declare County Property Surplus and Take Testimony on Potential Sale of Property to the Chimacum School District: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. Assessor Jack Westerman asked if there is a statute that allows the County to work with other governmental entities to negotiate for the sale of property? Will Butterfield, Public Works, explained that the Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed the statute and advised that this is the correct process. Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to declare this property surplus and to direct the Public Works Department to prepare the necessary resolution to complete this transaction. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion: Capital Facility Element; Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: (See microfilmed document.) Bruce Laurie, Public Works, explained that the intent of this workshop is to present the concept of this element to the Board. The Capital Facilities Element is the mandated "reality check" linking all the Comprehensive Plan elements. It links existing infrastructure capacity with future growth and a realistic financing process. The Capital Facilities Element is a 20 year plan. It is a planning level document. The level of service (LOS) standards for capital facilities are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The LOS are reviewed concurrent with land use standards. He then reviewed the process framework for adopting a Strategic Planning Process, and the Public Works comments on the Planning Commission's recommendation. HEARING re: Planning Commission Recommended Draft of the Comprehensive Plan: Chairman Huntingford re -opened the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that written comment will be accepted until Friday, March 6, 1998 at 5 p.m. The final hearing and possible final adoption is scheduled for April 6, 1998. The interim controls will be part of that hearing. He read the hearing procedures and introduced the other Commissioners, Planning staff and the members of the Planning Commission present. age 6 VOL arc l Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 DO Malcom Harris, stated that he is representing Pam Pepper-Lins (formerly Birkland) and Mr. and Mrs. Harry Minaker regarding their properties located in the 4 Corners area at a busy intersection that currently has both commercial and industrial uses. The properties are undeveloped, although Ms. Pepper-Lins has a home business in a mobile home on her property. In the early 1990's when these properties were purchased, they were in a commercial designation and it was the understanding of Ms. Pepper-Lins and Mr. and Mrs. Minaker that the properties were zoned commercial. However, since that time the commercial boundaries have changed several times. Mr. Harris feels that there was a lack of due process at the time of the rezoning because these property owners were not sent notice of the proposed changes. He stated that these properties should be re -designated commercial. They are. surrounded by existing commercial uses, with millions of dollars invested in this area in businesses that are not going to go away. The option of a variance allowing non -conforming use is not acceptable because it places a hardship on the business. He explained that the draft Comprehensive Plan has designated these properties as residential. This designation is illegal spot zoning because it means that these properties will be incompatible with the current use of the properties that surround them. He thanked the Board for their attention and asked that they take a serious look at the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation on the zoning in the 4 Corners area because to designate the area residential "flies in the face of good zoning and good planning practice because it doesn't recognize what is already on the ground." Commissioner Wojt asked how many of the businesses at 4 Corners are home businesses? Malcom Harris stated that the auto repair business and the moving company are considered "home businesses" but the actual activity is not within the home. The majority of the businesses in the area are all outdoor, visible, major businesses. Dennis Reynolds, William, Kastner and Gibbs of Seattle stated that he is representing Ray and Liann Vines. (See microfilmed document.) He explained that the Vines are requesting that Lots 1 and 2 of Melwood Terrace be included within the Rural Village Center zone for Port Hadlock. In 1969, these lots were designated commercial. In the 1992 Zoning Code, they were still zoned commercial. In 1994, only Lot 1 was zoned commercial. The draft Comprehensive Plan rezones all of these parcels to residential. Lot 1 was platted commercial at the time of subdivision and is vested. There are restrictive covenants for residential use on the other lots in the plat that are in effect until 1999. The Vines plan to alter the plat and remove Lots 1 and 2 because Lot 1 is an odd shape, has setbacks and poor soils and Lot 2 could be used for septic. These properties are located along a busy highway near a major intersection and are commercial on three sides. Commissioner Wojt asked about the restrictive covenants? Mr. Reynolds answered that the covenants for residential use are on all the lots except Lot 1 and they expire in 1999. The Vines have the necessary approvals to alter the plat and remove Lots 1 and 2. Commissioner Wojt asked if the lots are serviced by City water? Mr. Reynolds answered yes. Al Boucher. 70 North Maple, Port Hadlock, stated that the glossary section of the draft Comprehensive Plan contains no definitions for goal, policies or strategies. He expressed concern about the lack of a vision statement to guide the planning, and added that the Planning Commission process was flawed Page 7 v01_ 2 4 ra!:� Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 °N `wv o because of this. He stated that the legislative intent in the Growth Management Act is not to preserve the status quo, but to manage the eventual growth. SB 6094 gives local governments more authority over their plans by telling the Growth Management Hearings Boards that they "will over rule the County only if it acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner." He cautioned the Board that once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, it becomes a legal document. The GMA requires language that is specific and avoids ambiguity, which this draft Comprehensive Plan fails to provide. He requested that the Board draft a vision statement for Jefferson County that would be inserted as a preface to the Comprehensive Plan. It would be used as a guide for drafting meaningful goals and policies. He suggested that the Board may want to hire an outside consultant to undertake the task of goal identifica- tion and delineation according to the Board's vision statement. This would give Planning Staff the time to focus on drafting implementing policies and regulations. Barbara Blowers, Beckett Point, suggested that since the March 9 date for adoption of the Comprehen- sive Plan is no longer going to be met, the Board should slow the process down. (See microfilmed document.) The Board and the public have only had a month to review the draft Plan. Since the County is already out of compliance with the GMA adoption timeline, she suggested that it would be wise to wait for the result of the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study so that it can be incorporated into the Plan at the time of adoption. This study involves over half of the developable land, and the majority of the population outside of Port Townsend and Port Ludlow. Other suggestions include: all commercial and industrial areas being returned to their 1979 and 1992 boundaries; that the Board remove all language pertaining to lot consolidation or aggregation or any similar terms; that the Board look at Thurston County's Plan which deals realistically with existing neighborhoods; that the community plans need to be reviewed by the Board and taken seriously; that properties around industrial areas at the airport and Glen Cove should be zoned light industrial, then commercial, with setbacks for residential construction, that properties adjacent to commercial forests should have setbacks and have lower densities such as 1 residence to 5 acres; that interim controls or emergency ordinances not be developed until the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study is done and that the subdivision moratorium be dropped. Gordon James, 3447 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, submitted and read his statement. (See microfilmed document.) Julie Jaman_ 790 McMinn Road, Port Townsend, stated that she is a member of the Quimper Planning Group. She encouraged the Board to adopt the draft Plan as soon as possible. It is a plan in progress and it is a good starting point that can be revised each year. She asked that the land use map be adopted into the Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance (IGSO). Her suggestions include: minimum lot sizes being identified on the land use map; a cap on clustering development in the County to no more than 4 residences; PUDs in the County need to be defined; clustering, gross acreages and averaging need to be defined; and the Assessor should have a stamp that says "lots of record are for tax purposes only." There is currently urban and suburban development being allowed in the County that is taking away the options from the draft Plan. In 1995, The Western Hearings Board ruled where urban boundaries were to be established. They said that rural areas were required and needed outside of UGAs. The Quimper Planning Group addressed the 4 Corners area and recommended that it be a commercial area of "local significance," however they did not want it designated a regional commercial area where a large retailer VOL Pag2g4 i "! ; 87 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 0 ",c8iyc�o or motels could be located. She requested that the Board create a vision statement by looking for the "common thread" in the vision statements of the community plans. Gene Seton, 4890 South Discovery Road, Port Townsend, stated that he is concerned that two people who were part of the Quimper Planning Group could overrule the community plan of the entire group and have their recommendation of a density of 1 to 20 accepted by the Planning Commission and used on the Land Use Map. The Planning Group agreed to 1 to 5, if clustered; 1 to 10 in a portion of the area and 1 to 20, even though there was a survey taken in the Quimper area at the time that showed 84% of the residents wanted a building site of 5 acres or less. Affordable housing is not possible when you have to buy 20 acres to build one house. Young people cannot afford to buy and build and they have to go elsewhere to find jobs. Bob Sokol, Port Townsend, read and submitted his statement. (See microfilmed document.) Dana Roberts, Port Townsend, read and submitted his statement. (See microfilmed document.) Judy Pederson, 410 E. Marrowstone, Port Hadlock, stated that her family has lived in Jefferson County for 4 generations. Many newcomers have arrived in the County in the past twenty years and this has meant more government and government restrictions. The statistics on jobs from The Economic Development Council's Relocation & Investor's Guide from 1994 showed that there are more government employees in the County than in any other job field. The draft Comprehensive Plan decreases business locations by eliminating commercial areas. A weak business sector means that less taxes will be collected, which means that property taxes will have to increase. The draft Plan restricts property owners who won't be able to afford the taxes, yet need to subdivide to live here. She has owned a business in the County since 1980, but increasing restrictions are a burden on the small business owner. In addition, there are people who have invested their retirement money in commercial property and businesses that are downzoned in the Draft Plan. The future of the Tri Area community depends on local small businesses to survive. Phil Brehan_ Sequim, representing Bill and Betty Schmidt, who own undeveloped acreage near the airport. They are concerned about the proposed residential zoning on their property because it does not seem a logical use for land near an airport. Commercial or light industrial zoning would make more sense. Paul Heinzing_er,, Marrowstone Island, stated that he is not a builder, a developer or a businessman. He is a retired person, involved in his community. Jefferson County needs to be a balanced community with good paying jobs, young families with children, and retired people. He feels the draft Plan is anti - business. Nordland, 4 Corners and Beaver Valley are no longer designated commercial. When they were working on the Marrowstone Island Community Plan, a survey showed that 85% of the people on the island wanted a commercial area near the store. The Rural Crossroads Minority Report by several members of the Planning Commission is well done and explains why these commercial areas should not be rezoned. Without economic development and growth, how will we develop good paying jobs that we need in the County? Small businesses cannot exist if the County portrays an image of anti -business. Page 9 VOL ?4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 0 Len Palmer. 333 Mats View Road, Port Ludlow, stated that he is a proponent of using the carrying capacity of the land in planning. He explained that there have been no plans made in case a solid waste disposal site is required in the County. He added that the Mats Mats Rock Quarry is of regional significance because it is a marine quarry, however, there is much public concern about a proposal to increase and expand the operations at the quarry. Property near Mount Walker that has geologic features similar to the quarry where the land could be used as a backup for a disposal site as well. Chairman Huntingford asked if these quarry sites were listed in the Mineral Resource Ordinance? Mr. Plainer stated that the current document is generic and doesn't clarify what our options are. He wants the Board to be aware that there are options. Ron Nelson. Port Ludlow, read and submitted his statement. (See microfilmed document.) Chuck Finnila, 308913 Highway 101, Brinnon, stated that as a business owner, with a substantial investment in Jefferson County, he values the quality of life and the beauty here and knows the importance of a good Comprehensive Plan. However, he has concerns about the draft Plan because it does not permit the development of their property to its full potential. Their business must expand in order to hire more local people. In addition, a first class resort will bring more tax revenue into the County. Commissioner Wojt asked him to describe what part of the Plan is holding them up and should be changed? Mr. Finnila replied there are two things. There is a ten acre parcel next to the existing marina development that was zoned commercial for a hotel/restaurant site. This site is on Highway 101. They have not been able to get a building permit for a year because of the moratorium. In addition, the draft Plan downzones this commercial property. Dave Woodruff, 371 South Bay Way, Port Ludlow, stated that he and his wife are invested in properties in Jefferson County and have retired here. He urges the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan by March 9, 1998. Len Palmer. Port Ludlow, Planning Commission member, stated that there were 3 members on the Planning Commission that were concerned about the Brinnon commercial area because it is in the flood plain. There is other land around Brinnon that doesn't have the flooding concerns, the seismic shakings, and the liquifaction or Tsunami problems. One of these areas is Black Point where Mr. Finnila has his property and it may be an option for the Brinnon commercial zone. Tom McNernv, Brinnon, stated that he talked with people at the Post Office in the Brinnon commercial area and the studies that they have done did not show that the land was subject to liquifaction. He stated that it seems to be a question of one geologist versus another. Elaine Laughlin, 1917 Kuhn Street, Port Townsend, urged the passage of the draft Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she has seen the results of unplanned growth, both in ecological impacts and the high cost to add infrastructure over a large urban area. Page 10 VOL 2 4 gar._ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 Earl Burgett, Nordland, stated that he thinks it is time for the Board to make a decision and get on with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the County is fortunate to have three Commissioners who are able to work together. Gene Seton, 4 Corners area, pointed out on the Land Use Map the area on the Quimper Peninsula that has been downzoned to 1 residence per 20 acres. He stated that the map is incorrect regarding a Pope subdivision which is 1 to 5. The draft Comprehensive Plan suggests apartments as affordable housing, yet there are very few areas that are zoned for multiple family housing. He compared the lot sizes that are proposed in the draft Plan with Clallam County, Kitsap County, Thurston County ,King County and Kittitas County, all of which allow much smaller lot sizes per acre than Jefferson County's draft Plan does. The current moratorium has created a loss of jobs, loss of income to be spent in the County, loss of tax revenue and has raised the unemployment rate. No one wants to invest in an unsure future. New businesses are reluctant to come here because of the unsure future and many businesses that are here cannot expand and are moving out of the County. The GMA was not designed to take away what we already have or to keep it the same, it was designed to help plan for future growth. Ted Shoulber& stated that he is a resident of Jefferson County. He explained that he commented at the Planning Commission hearings regarding affordable housing. He asked that projects that target low income housing be reviewed and that a mechanism be created to waive the future engineering design standards. This would accommodate developers who want to build affordable housing. He asked that the Board read the Planning Commission minutes regarding the amendment that he proposed for affordable housing. Commissioner Wojt asked what was meant by waiving the future engineering design? Ted Shoulberg stated that reducing the design standards to make specific projects more affordable could mean not requiring features such as sidewalks or curbs as long as it is not a health or safety issue. Policy guidelines such as this need to be provided in the Comprehensive Plan in order to create the implement- ing ordinances. He added that he is pleased that there is an economic development chapter in the draft Comprehensive Plan because it was an option and not required in the GMA. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present to attend a workshop on the Comprehensive Plan and meet with Driscoll and Hunter for a briefing on the third Task Force meeting and transmittal of the Task Force recommendations on Land Use Permit System Reform. HEARING re: Planning Commission Recommended Draft of the Comprehensive Plan: Chairman Huntingford re -opened the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan. He announced that this hearing will be continued on March 4, 1998 from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. At that meeting, the floor will be made available for people that have not addressed the Board yet. If time permits, people that have already spoken will be able to speak again. Written comments will be accepted until Friday March 6, 1998 at 5 p.m. The Board will also have a series of workshops and then a final hearing and possible final adoption is scheduled for April 6, 1998. He read the hearing Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 a 0 ky E�I \1+1ti procedures and introduced the other Commissioners, Planning staff and the members of the Planning Commission, Ward Loller, representing the Council of Ludlow Owners Association (CLOA), explained a letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission, dated January 13, 1998, that outlined a joint agreement between the Port Ludlow 20 Year Planning Committee, CLOA and Olympic Resource Management. The letter addressed three points, all adhering to the boundaries of the 1993 EIS. The first point that was agreed upon is that Port Ludlow have a Master Plan Resort designation, which is considered an urban designation. If this is the case, the commercial area near the Village Center would not be designated as a rural center, nor would a lot size of 1 residence for 20 acres over 600 acres of the area be appropriate. He presented a revised map (submitted map with revisions), showing the 600 acres which would be divided into 2 areas: 400 acres which Olympic Resource Management has agreed will not be developed or built out and 200 acres which would be returned to a 4 residences per 1 acre designation. In addition, the Planning Commission reduced the commercial area at the Village Center by 6 acres to protect Ludlow Creek and establish a reserve. They requested that this area be returned to a commercial designation and that the SEPA rules in affect at the time of any future development apply to the necessary setbacks from the creek. He explained that the commercial zone needs to be preserved for the ultimate potential use of the community which may include: a long term care facility, a community center or town hall building or emergency services center. He asked those citizens from Port Ludlow who are in support of these changes to stand. (Approximately 12 people stood.) David Cunningham, Olympic Resource Management, stated that he hopes the Board will exercise some real leadership to get the Comprehensive Plan done and get it done right. He attended some Planning Commission meetings before Christmas and felt the Planning Commission was not listening to the residents and business owners in the County. Some of the questions the Planning Commission failed to ask were: where will our kids be able to raise their families in Jefferson County? Or will they? What have we done to help small businesses grow and flourish? What have we done to make the lives of our Senior Citizens more comfortable? More affordable? More secure? How can County government regain the trust that it had in the past with its constituents? These are questions that the Board still needs to address. He added that the Land Use Map does not take in all the public lands in the County, but only focuses on private properties. He asked that the Board look at Jefferson County as a whole. ORM's first issue of concern is commercial forestland. The interim forestland ordinance is one of the strictest in the State. This ordinance was the result of negotiations between the County, the Department of Natural Resources and environmental groups and did not include any private landowners. The draft Comprehensive Plan forest resource component has locked up 48,000 acres of ORM's property. They feel that they are good stewards of the land, including: timber, fish, wildlife and water. They won't officially object to the locking up of the whole 48,000 acres, but there are 2 or 3 parcels that they are requesting be removed from the designation of commercial forestland. They also are requesting that within the next year, before the annual update of the Plan, other marginal forestlands designations are reviewed. Page 12 vo►_ 24 w,=191 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 The second issue of concern is Port Ludlow, which is a community that stands out among any development project in Western Washington, having more dedicated open space, more environmental safeguards, and more environmental monitoring. As developers, ORM is proud of what they have done. It's the only area in the County except for Port Townsend that is prepared to handle targeted growth, with all of the infrastructure in place and paid for. The proposal in the draft Comprehensive Plan is to designate Port Ludlow a Master Plan Resort and Community. There is no such designation in the statute. They request that it only be designated as a Master Plan Resort. There are urban and rural inconsistencies in the proposed Plan of 1 residence per 20 acres, or even 1 residence per 5 acres which are rural densities. The Village Center area cannot be designated a "rural center" in an urban designa- tion. Urban services such as sewers are not allowed in a rural area. GMA requires that the Compre- hensive Plan be internally consistent. This would require re -designating the densities and the Village Center. Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve, which the Planning Commission has recommended is a 6 acre area with 600 foot setbacks to protect Ludlow Creek. There is no environmental or land use analysis to show that this is necessary. He suggested that the Critical Areas Ordinance be used to define how this area is treated. ORM is requesting that the area recommended as Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve be restored as an additional portion of the Village Center. There are two ways to do this: modify the language that is in the draft Comprehensive Plan or do a stand alone Master Plan Resort chapter. Earlier in the process, the Planning Commission requested that the planning groups representing Port Ludlow develop a Master Plan Resort chapter for the draft Comprehensive Plan. It was submitted to them within two weeks of the request, however, the Planning Commission chose to ignore it. In addition, the draft Land Use Map needs to be changed. (See microfilmed document.) He also submitted several documents for the record including: the current Comprehensive Plan, the Shoreline Management Program, Port Ludlow Water System Plan, Port Ludlow Sewer System Plan, the Draft and Final EIS for Port Ludlow. He feels that these documents are supportive documents to assist the County in the Master Plan Resort designation. Steve Roose, Attorney, representing Lone Star Northwest, the company that owns Mats Mats Quarry, stated that the quarry is currently zoned rural residential, 1 residence to 5 acres, in the draft Comprehen- sive Plan. It is being downzoned to 1 residence to 20 acres. The quarry should be designated as a mineral land area. The question is: can it be both a mineral land and rural residential area under the Comprehensive Plan? He submitted information regarding classification and designation of mineral lands and referred to Exhibit B, a map which shows the boundaries of the current DNR reclamation permit. (See microfilmed document.) They are requesting that the Board designate the 100+ acres within the boundaries as mineral lands. The GMA statute defining the rural element states, "This element shall include lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral lands." The draft Comprehensive Plan also states this on page 5-11 of the Rural Element chapter. Mining will be finished on this property within the next 15 years. If the Board chooses to keep the designation rural residential, they request that the density be 1 residence to 5 acres because it is located in an area of relatively intense development of smaller lots. It is also near the rural crossroads designation for the Mats Mats area. Page 13 V01- 24 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 v`X1 i \GKti Patricia Boling. Cincinnati, representing the Gerard Company, a family business that owns the sawmill and store in Center. The current zoning of their property is industrial and commercial, however, in the draft Comprehensive Plan and the draft Land Use Map, Center is not even mentioned. They have invested in the property, which has included removing underground gasoline tanks at their own expense because of environmental concerns. Both the store, which has recently been leased, and the saw mill fit the GMA definition of rural character. They are requesting that their property in Center keep the current land use designations. Dave Clevenger, 340 Cherry Avenue, Chimacum, representing Citizens for Fair Planning, stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan places a great deal of emphasis on prior rulings of the Growth Management Hearings Boards and it appears that Planning staff is obsessed to the point of developing a plan that they think the Hearings Board will pass. However, the Planners have failed to look at recent major amendments to the GMA, passed in 1997. This legislation gave rural counties significant discretion in dealing with land use. It also limited the power of the Hearings Boards, who were usurping the legislative authority of local governments. Because of this legislation, it is not necessary to prepare a plan that complies with pre -1997 Hearings Board decisions. Time would be better spent formulating a plan that meets local circumstances and includes the results of public participation, community visioning and the Countywide Planning process. A process such as this, considers all thirteen goals of GMA and should be approved, assuming it contains the mandatory planning elements specified in the GMA. The Hearings Boards no longer have the authority to overturn a plan because of a preponderance of evidence and can only overturn it if it is clearly erroneous. He emphasized that if the community plans are not enacted in the draft Comprehensive Plan, the Plan will not be valid. The final decision of whether the Plan is valid will be decided in the Courts, not by the Growth Management Hearings Board. A Superior Court case found that extreme regulation of rural and resource development in the Clark County Comprehensive Plan did not match the realities of existing rural development and local experience. Our Planners violated a GMA planning goal by applying an "authorized" formula from the Clark County Plan that was thrown out in the Courts. The GMA contains no restrictions on rural growth, it requires a variety of residential densities. Jefferson County needs a variety of lot sizes for affordable housing and properties for first time homebuyers. The Board insists that there are 13,000 available lots of varying sizes in Jefferson County, however there are new health regulations that effect whether these lots may even be buildable. The only requirement for rural areas in GMA is that they not be urban in character. The commercial areas in Quilcene, Brinnon and Discovery Bay all need to be addressed. They have been ignored in this draft Plan. He urged the Board to go back and do the necessary studies, take that information and then develop a Comp Plan. Do not adopt this Plan because it is a wish list. The residents need to be able to review the implementing ordinances. Until that time, Jefferson County will continue to be a risky and uncertain place to live, work, and own a business. They feel that the Board should complete the Tri Area/Glen Cove Studies, eliminate the tightline of commercial areas, finish the implementing ordinances and then adopt the Comp Plan. Kate Marsh, P.O. Box 47, Brinnon, representing the Quilcene Brinnon Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Planning Commission for giving their community so much personal time. She explained that the Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 yRgl �1G Chamber of Commerce formed a six person committee in response to concerns about how the draft Comprehensive Plan deals with the Brinnon and Quilcene areas. They are especially concerned that the rural element, clarified in ESB6094, is applied appropriately and adequately and they found many inconsistencies in the way it was applied. In addition, the draft Land Use Map shows extremely restrictive boundaries and a radical change in the historic, traditional, and existing commercial areas. Their primary objections are with the maps, the Rural Centers and Rural Crossroads restrictions, and issues relating to home occupations and cottage industries. Quilcene and Brinnon are experiencing a transformation from resource based local economies to recreational/tourist/traveler based businesses. Without commercial property there will be no place for new businesses or for home based businesses and cottage industries to relocate if they need to expand. She submitted a document outlining specific language changes that they are recommending for the draft Comprehensive Plan. (See microfilmed document.) Lloyd Cahoon, representing the Board of Commissioners of the Port of Port Townsend, thanked the Planning Commission for their work on the draft Comp Plan. He stated that the Port sees its role as the economic development advocate of Jefferson County's residents. It appears that many residents have spent time trying to understand this plan, but many are frustrated and confused. In his opinion, the Plan does not provide a picture of what the community wants. He asked where in the Plan the community plans are represented? If the community plans are not represented, there should not be mention of a public process. If the Hearing's Board decisions are important in the Plan, notice should be taken of a recent decision in favor of the Port of Skagit County's Airport Industrial Park that met the requirements of the GMA. The Plan has not been amended to include SB 6094 and SB 6422, or the Countywide Planning Policies. The Plan will change significantly with the recent listing of the Chinook Salmon on the Endangered Species List. The Clean Water Act is not mentioned in the Plan. The Transportation Element only briefly mentions air transportation and doesn't mention boats or ships except the Washington State Ferry. At the public hearings, several people have commented that this is a plan in progress, but once it is adopted, it is the law. He submitted 18 letters that the Port has sent as written testimony on the Comprehensive Plan process over the past 2 years. (See microfilmed documents.) He added that only one of their recommendations from these 18 letters was used. He also submitted and read a letter with an attachment entitled "Comments and Recommendations of the Port of Port Townsend on the Goals and Policies of the Economic Development Element of the Jefferson County Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan." (See microfilmed document.) Shirley Rudolph, representing the Economic Development Council, submitted and read a letter and several recommendations on the Economic Development Element of the draft Plan. (See microfilmed document.) Ryan Tillman, Nordland, submitted and read his statement. (See microfilmed document.) Tom McNerney. Brinnon, submitted and read his statement. (See microfilmed document.) Gene Seton, 4 Corners, stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan reduces the amount of property where commercial zoning is allowed to half the current size. If this Plan is adopted, with most businesses on Page 1 VOL 4 irr ;- 1194: Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 23, 1998 commercial property being grandfathered, there will be no room for them to grow. The 4 Corners area is currently zoned commercial, not industrial. He presented maps showing the previous zoning, current zoning and the proposed zoning in that area. The Planning Commission discussed 4 Corners on July 30, 1997, and stated that the property across the highway belonged to Seton and they did not want any commercial designation across the highway. The Planning Commission was also erroneously informed at that meeting that there was no commercial designation in the Quimper Community Plan. At the Planning Commission meeting on December 17, 1997 when rural crossroads were discussed, the Planning staff's criteria for the designation was that if there was 5 businesses in an area in 1990, it would be considered a rural crossroad. Mr. Seton told the Planning Commission at that meeting that he had thirteen buildings and 5 businesses on his property at 4 Corners in 1990 and that did not include all the other businesses in the area. Discovery Bay also had five businesses in 1990, and they are not considered a rural crossroads in the draft Plan. This indicates inconsistencies in the Plan. He added that in tightlining the commercial property in Glen Cove, the County will lose businesses that pay good wages to local residents. This Plan will result in higher property taxes, because that will be the only revenue source left. He requested that the Board loosen the restrictions on commercial zoning and lot sizes and encourage mobile home parks for affordable housing. Jan Reeves, Quilcene, submitted and read her statement. (See microfilmed document.) Linda Tudor, Brinnon, submitted and read her statement. (See microfilmed document.) Chairman Huntingford recessed the public hearing which will be continued on Wednes- day, March 4, 1998 at 7 p.m. Meeting Adjourned,".. w s' f ,n SEAL: +.,; ., * 5 j ATTEST: Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY RC) ARTI OF CC)X X4Tc.cTnNFR.c Daniel Harpole, Me er Page 16 February 23, 1998 Gentlemen: The DCD has shared with me the timeline dated 2/18/98 for activity on 21 Shine Road. While related to some of my concerns they are not the concerns I have presented — mainly, the violation of the zoning code. If the DCD timeline and mine are compared, most of the issues are not the same.. I would like my concerns addressed as listed in the letter of 2/20/98; this letter lists apparent zoning code violations. I would request special attention to supporting information from DCD — a handwritten page identified as "zoning" in script. I believe this is the memo I requested in my letter of 2/7/98. Please reread this — it is as important for what it does not say as it is for what it does say. PLEASE, also read my letter of 2/7/98, specifically paragraph 2, line two and forward. There is also a serious question of credibility on the part of Mr. Scalf. It was implied on 2/17/98 that at the regular meeting that Mr. Ajax had, at some time, been dispatched to look at the subject site. I attempted to confirm this from Linda Atkinson, who, according to Mr. Scalf, was also aware that Mr. Ajax had been dispatched to the site. Ms. Atkinson however, is on vacation until March 3'a. Mr. Scalf also indicated that he had not responded promptly to me because he was in California at the time I made my request. See my letter of 2/7/98. Michelle, his apparent assistant, did not tell me he was going to California, and told me he would get back to me. Feb 20,1998 J.L. Scott Port Ludlow/Hood Canal 21 Shine Rd. Facts: The structure was constructed 1974; 1200 sq. ft. Floor space per assessor's office; The present and historical use a Real Estate office for 24 years continuously; The Accessory structure (Modular Home) this activity, modular home sales is not an approved historical business activity for this site. Application for change required. The Accessory Structure is not primary to the activity (REAL ESTATE) allowed as Non- conforming in this zone R-5 The structure and business is allowed to be non -conforming in use in an R-5 zone; 10.30 pg 43; It is not now or ever been a single family dwelling; There is an accessory structure on East side of the site appears to conform to the standards of the UBC and would not require a permit. Ownership of the property was changed to G. Barber in 1995; Under the present NC use the only allowed use is Real Estate; DCD administrative action violates 10.40 pg. 43 Change in Use; NC 10.10 pg. 43 "...these activities are classified as to current use." NC may be changed; 10.40 pg.43 "..may be changed... provided that all applicable development standards for the proposed use are met." Sign ( TIMBERLAND) 15.10 does not comply; 15.50 fails to comply with ordinance. SEC 19 Violations 3. Health Dept. shall review. Most all of the provisions of this section have been violated. There is no evidence that an application was ever taken. I attempted to get A. Scalf to address my concern in a timely way, because he failed to do so, the rules in SEC. 20 may become in effect. Page Iof2 VD_ 24 Page 2 of 2 210 shine Rd. Feb 20,1998 Other impacts of the Scalf action are: 1. The failure to levy the required fees for DCD. 2. The failure to pay the fees due the State for code development. 3. The lack of proper procedure causes the new property to be deleted from the tax roles. 4. Damages the public respect for the efforts DCD. 5. Damages the morale of DCD employees. Gary.D. Felder VOL 24 WP26 G.Felder 437-4058 2/17/98 9:15 AM A conversation with M. Ajaxs. Question has A. Scalf specificly directed you to 21 Shine Rd. to make a physical inspection ? No . He did volunteer that one of the other inspectors had been to the site . not named. He did say that he had seen the site from Shine rd. and HY 104 but did not go on the site. He stated that my request for an electrical inspection had been submitted to L&I yesterday as an agency request for action. interesting ! The processing on the pending building permit for previous activities performed with out benefit of same wait action from the Health Dept. yet. gdf VOL 24 r.�2U