Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM090396 Ii ~~ I: II !: ¡¡ f :: .~ it............. .. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Distrkt No. 1 Commissioner: Distrkt No.2 Commissioner: Distrkt No.3 Commissioner: Clerk of the Board: Director of Public Services: Deputy Director of Public Services: Robert Hinton, Member Glen Huntingford, Member Richard Wojt, Chairman Lorna L. Delaney Gary A. Rowe David R. Goldsmith MINUTES WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of August 19, and 26, 1996 as presented. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. the following: . The Back Alley property transfer papers are ready for approval on today's consent agenda. . The Solid Waste operational analysis has been published and will be reviewed by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee on September 19, 1996. . The Board will hold a public hearing on the CWSP on September 16, 1996 at 2 p.m. . There has been some work on complaints regarding health code violations through the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. . The Flood Plain map changes in the Brinnon/Dosewallips area have been forwarded to FEMA. . The County is appealing a Class III Forest Practice Permit issued by DNR for a property in the Tomanamus Rock area. . The Public Services department managers are meeting with the Board at 9 a.m tomorrow to review projects. . Commissioner Huntingford asked about East Price Street? Gary Rowe answered that building Official, Mike Ajax, reported that the last issue on the mobile home building permit has been resolved. There are two mobile homes that are being stored on the property. There are no permits required to store these mobile homes. . Chairman Wojt asked if any restrictions can be put on issuing permits to people who are consistently in violation of the permits they have been issued? Gary Rowe reported that he discussed this with the Prosecuting Attorney and the County cannot impose restrictions on a person who has violated a permit, but the County can scrutinize their applications. . Commissioner Hinton asked about drainage easements and how they are handled? Gary Rowe reported that the Public Works Department typically works with the drainage within the County road right-of-way or within an specifically granted easement. The discussion turned to how the County works with volunteer groups and property owners on drainage problems along County roads. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported on . val, Page 1 22 ,tOO 0 :1ZS3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 3, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: The improve- ment plans for the Irondale Road from Community Shell to the old lrondale Store. Aubrey Palmer, Public Works, reviewed what improvements are planned for the road. Commissioner Hinton stated that it sounds like the Public Works Department is pursuing the project and the residents are saying lets put the project on hold. Chairman Wojt noted that there is a contract for the survey and design work on this project. Klara Fabry reported that the project is the first priority on the County's Six Year Transportation Plan and is scheduled for construction in 1997. She will discuss what is feasible for a transportation plan for the Tri Area with the consultant who is working with the Department on transportation planning. Aubrey Palmer stated that he would be willing to receive input from the citizens in the area to develop alternatives. Klara Fabry reported that an additional meeting can be held with the people ftom Tri Area to discuss transportation alternatives which can then be presented at a second meeting. The status of the building permits on East Price were also discussed. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion that carried by a unanimous vote. 1. 2. PROCLAMATION re: Employee Recognition Week~ September 9 through 13, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 78-96 re: Granting a Non-Exclusive Franchise on All County Road Rights-ofWay~ Jefferson County PUD #1 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED, DEED OF TRUST, PROMISSORY NOTE, PAY- MENT SCHEDULE and REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT re: Purchase of Back Alley Property~ City of Port Townsend Reimbursable Work Request~ For Sediment Removal Upstream from Fish Traps on Snow Creek~ Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife AGREEMENT re: Construction of South Bogachiel Road, Project #CR0606~ Hillcar & Fletcher, Inc. AGREEMENT re: Construction of South Bogachiel Road, Project #CR0606~ L & J Enterprises AGREEMENT re: Extension, Temporary Help~ Bayshore Motel Manager~ Kim Bailey AGREEMENT, Supplemental No.1 re: H.J. Carroll Park, Project #OIIA~ Shorelines Permit and lAC. Grant Application Process and Fees and Completion Time; Jongeian/Gerrard/McNeal AGREEMENT re: Consulting Services~ Quinault South Shore Emergency Restoration, Project #XOI243~ Polaris Engineering Final Plat Approval, #SPI2-91, Ruff Short Plat~ To Divide 5.89 Acres into 2 RecreationallResidential Lots~ Located off of Porter Lane, Port Townsend~ Richard Eitel, Applicant Letter to Chuck Steele, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Regarding Revised Mapped Floodway Boundary~ Dosewallips River, Brinnon 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER BUSINESS Discussion re: Closed Record Appeals Procedure: Community Services Director, Al Scalf, reported that the first closed hearing appeal will be held next week. The Prosecuting Attorney will be asked to attend the first hearing to help provide guidance to the Board on this new process. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUSINESS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S BRIEFING: Klara Fabry stated that the discussion today regarding lrondale Road should be part of the transportation planning being done for GMA. When the final land use determinations are made, then the transportation planning can proceed. Page 2 VOL 22 rAG~ 0 '1 '), '," ""',1 " ,'. .. Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 3, 1996 BID OPENING: Tract Hydraulic Excavator: Earl Wells, Public Works Department, opened and read the bids received as follows: Sahlberg Equipment, Kent - New - model Hyundai 210 LC3 (bid includes sales tax) NC Machinery Company, Seattle - Used - Caterpillar 320L (bid includes sales tax) Western Power and Equipment Co, Auburn $138,737.24 $91,175.50 No Bid Commissioner Hinton moved to have the Public Works Department review the bids and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Establishment of a County Road: Seton Road: Klara Fabry reported that due to a family emergency for one of the property owners the meeting with them was not held. This will be rescheduled for next Monday. Cy Heffernan. Park and Recreation District #1 re: Coyle Community Center Roof: Cy Heffernan asked that a section of the roofbe removed before the County Risk Management Team visits the building on Wednesday. He wants enough of the roof removed so that it can be inspected for water damage. It will take at least 2 hours to do this work. Engineering Services Manager, Frank Gifford, stated that this would require that a section of the roof ridge be removed as well as two of the metal roof panels. He explained that he didn't approve the removal of the roof panels prior to the visit of the Risk Committee because he wanted the Committee members to see the spots that Mr. Heffernan feels indicates that there is a problem with the roof and make their own determination of on the necessity of removing the roof panels. Moisture in boards can be measured from inside with a infrared moisture meter. It isn't a good idea to disturb the membrane of the roof unless it is absolutely necessary because that action will void the manufacturer warranty. Chairman Wojt asked if the Parks & Recreation District is willing to take responsibility for the roof in the future if the panels are removed and no problem is found? Cy Heffernan stated that he has talked with professional roofers and they feel that the section of the roof can be removed and replaced in a manner that will not damage the roof If there is not damage found, then the Park and Recreation District will take responsibility for replacing the roof panels and for the condition of the roof in the future. He doesn't feel that there will be any moisture found with a meter, since it's been such a dry summer. He under- stands that the warranty may be voided if the roof section is removed and is willing to accept responsibil- ity for that. The Board concurred that the roof panels be removed before the Risk Committee visits on Wednesday. HEARING re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP95-0004; To Divide 4.5 Acres into 3 Resident~ocate(j-OfIJd" Cape George Roa~ownsend; Bruce Bailey, Applicant: The Chairman opened the hearing and read the hearing procedures. The Board members each answered the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) No one objected. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Can you hear and consider this in afair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Q) Q) Q) '.J'OL 22 rAft~ Page 3 ')rr- 0 :t u" ..,.~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 3, 1996 Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he did have contact with people working on the Planned Unit Development portion of this project and he told them he felt that their comments were more properly addressed in the Comprehensive Plan update. Terri Milliken, Associate Planner, reported that this proposal went before the Shoreline Advisory Commission on April 17, 1996 and they recommended approval with conditions. Subsequent to that, recommendation information was found that staff did not know existed. Due to that and because the previous review was not very comprehensive, the staff recommended that this hearing be held. Previously staff reviewed this proposal as a Conditional Use. This project is in a Conservancy designa- tion and roads are conditional uses in this Shoreline designation. The State DOE has final approval authority over conditional uses under the Shoreline Program. However, this project is a residential development, which is a secondary use in a Conservancy designation. The Board of Commissioners have final approval authority for secondary uses in the Shoreline Program. Commissioner Hinton stated that DOE has had ample opportunity to review this project, but didn't comment until July. Terri Milliken stated that she reviewed the comments received from DOE and disagrees with their position. Commissioner Hinton pointed out that he didn't see any comments to substantiate the need for a Bald Eagle Management Plan and asked why one is being required as a condition on the permit? Terri Milliken stated that there was a draft Bald Eagle Management Plan in the file, but there isn't any other documentation regarding the need for such a plan. Ryan Tillman, Engineer representing the Bailey family, submitted a comment letter (see attached). He noted the following changes to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and the staff report: * In Findings Item #2, (Exhibit 1, page 1) slopes are expressed in degrees. He feels they should be expressed as a percent. Under Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program Policies Item #2, (Exhibit 1, page 4) it says the road is within 50 feet of the shoreline. This is incorrect - it is 150 feet from the shoreline. Also in this section Dot 5 says 'Pole foundations under portions of the structure shall be necessary. " This should say "will probably" be necessary and Dot 12 regarding the relocation of the road is not necessary because the road is actually 150 feet back ftom the shoreline. Under Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program Policies Items 4, 10, 16, and 21 (Exhibit 1, pages 5, 6, 7, and 8) there are references to the provision of public access to shore- lines. There isn't a requirement to give public access to private lands in the Shoreline Program. Under Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program Policies #9 (Exhibit 1, page 6) reference is made to detaining and treating storm water in the plat. The treatment of on-site generated runoff is required, but runoff will not be detained because that is not required. Commissioner Hinton noted that Public Works recommended that the storm water ftom the road be diverted through another portion of the property. Ryan Tillman explained that this hasn't been resolved with the County yet. It will be resolved by the final geotechnical report. Under Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program Policies #26 (Exhibit 1, page 10) the roads and utilities (conditional uses) are subordinate to the residential uses (secondary uses) of the site. Under Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program Policies #37 (Exhibit 1, page 13) road abandonment is required for the existing road. They want this provision deleted. They are asking that the following deletions be made-- Item 2 dot 5, Dot 12, Items 3,4, & 6~ Item 12~ Item 13~ Item 14~ and Item 15. * * * * * * Terri Milliken reported that the draft Eagle Management Plan was in place before Mr. Tillman started working on this project. Mr. Tillman added that much information was developed when the golf course expansion was reviewed and it found there was no Eagles nest on the property. The Chair then opened the public hearing. William Sandman" 6453 Cape Geor.¡e Road, stated that he has three questions: 1) The geotechnical report required that the culvert that goes under Cape George Road be closed off and that the runoff from 'JOL 22 rå~~ Page 4 0 1.-,- f'~ " ~t,.", Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 3, 1996 the golf course be redirected. He wants to know what will be done with that water, 2) what will be done with the subsurface water that drains ftom that area, and 3) there will be many large trees removed from this land, and he questions how stable the land will be if the large trees are taken out. He would like to see these three issues addressed. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the topographic map indicates that the drainage and the under- ground water runs away from these lots. Ryan Tillman explained that there is a ravine adjacent to the plat which forms a man made ditch outlet to a wetland area which collects roadside water. He hasn't seen any water flow through the ditch to the wetland. He thinks this wetland may be a recharge area. He hasn't seen any evidence of a large amount of subsurface water seeping out at the shoreline, but he echos the concerns stated by Mr. Sandman. He expects the geotechnical report to shed some light on issues such as exploration and determination of subsurface water flows, surface water flows, and stability. The discussion continued regarding the drainage in this area and how it flows. Ryan Tillman noted that there are two water lines side by side in the bottom of the County roadside ditch. The water service boundary is in dispute in this area so the PUD and the City have parallel mains. This makes dealing with the surface water difficult. William Sandman stated that the wetlands area has had some water. The runoffftom the golf course will add to that wetland and he wants that taken into consideration. Terri Milliken stated that the Minutes of the Shoreline Commission's April 17 meeting were confusing and there may be conditions that were not to be included that were. With regard to the Critical Areas Ordinance, it is her understanding that the subdivision will still need to be consistent with Critical Area standards, which means a grading plan will be necessary. This may be more appropriately covered in the subdivision review. Ryan Tillman stated that this project was issued a final Mitigated Determination of Non Significance and the Critical Areas Ordinance gives an exemption to all development proposals that have been issued a final MDNS. The storm water regulations will require that a grading plan be done. He just doesn't feel that another Critical Area review has to be done because the SEP A conditions are included as Condition 1 of the Shoreline Permit. Commissioner Hinton stated that when the Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted the Board made it clear that double review was not necessary. Commis- sioner Hinton suggested that this issue can be clarified in the subdivision provision. Hearing no further public comments for or against this project, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Board concurred that the following changes/corrections be made: . Change the reference to slopes to a percent rather than degrees. The Board concurred. . In item #2 of Ryan Tillman's letter, the wording change to dot 5 as suggested should be made. The Board concurred. Public Access issue -- the clarification as presented by Terri Milliken (page 20, condition 13) was agreed to by the Board members. Under Applicable Shoreline Management Master Program Policies Item #2, (Exhibit 1, page 4) change to say the road is within 150 feet of the shoreline. Board concurred. Item 4 in Ryan Tillman's Letter -- Terri Milliken reported that she could use some general language that would say that the storm water system shall be designed consistent with the Department of Ecology Storm water Management Manual. Item 5 in Ryan Tillman's Letter -- Terri Milliken will make this a finding. Item 6 in Ryan Tillman's Letter -- Terri Milliken explained that her intent was not to preclude any use of the existing road, but that access to the road be off limits to vehicles. The geo technical report indicated that driving on this road wouldn't be the best use. Commissioner Huntingford suggested wording that would say that vehicle access from the Highway is not allowed. Possibly a requirement that it be gated or barricaded. Boundaries of ownership of Tidelands -- This is more appropriately addressed in the subdivision approval. Commissioner Hinton recommended deleting condition 6. The other Board members concurred. SEP A versus Critical Areas review. The Board stated that their intent is that a project go through SEPA and that should include the CA review. Terri Milliken stated that most of the items that could come up in a CA review will be addressed by the final geotechnical report. . . . . . . . VOl. 22 rAG~ Page 5 0 1",>""" ,-, .,,'..1 ...,) . . . . Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 3, 1996 Deletion of Item 2, Dot 12 in the Findings and Conclusions --The final sentence of this item will be deleted. Critical Area Review -- The Board's intention is that SEP A review be done once and that it would address the items in a Critical Area review. Commissioner Hinton asked if there is anything in the Critical Area Ordinance that hasn't been reviewed on this project? Terri Milliken identified the following items -- a grading plan, vegetation retention and marking landslide hazard area buffers. Ryan Tillman answered that grading will be part of the Storm Water Plan. Terri Milliken pointed out that vegetation retention will be addressed in the geo technical report. The landslide hazard area buffers. Terri Milliken reported that most of the site is in a landslide hazard area, so there may be no buffers. Wording will be added to the final geo technical teport to cover these items. Condition 11 - Commissioner Hinton noted that this condition can not be accomplished by the project proponent without the cooperation of the County. This should be a condition of the subdivision approval. Bald Eagle Management Plan -- if no nest in the area and no information that there is a nest in the area. This condition can be deleted. These amendments will be made to the permit and the findings and will be put on next week's Consent Agenda for approval. ~,'.' .~"f'7;-;~, /.!;' ~,~ j,. '-" /, "- ". .1 . . . I..:' 'J \-"'" /' <" ..'" ~< '~"" ~ (:JJ' \, : "'", .... '.. \ I ~ . . . { : ~ ' /.:; I,~ ~' , \. .. .. . ! . ~ . \ It. . ".',' '. '...~ .,....J .. ..- , ." "'.r' MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: GL Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board VOL Page 6 22 ~A~ç 0 l.~C \~