Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM070594 MINUTES WEEK OF JULY 5,1994 Chairman Robert Hinton called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Richard Wojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION The Board met in Executive Session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding litigation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. GMA Update: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd reported that each of the Board members are willing to take on oversight responsibilities for specific elements of the Comprehensive Plan update as follows: Commissioner Wojt - Utilities and Capital Faciliti- es; Chairman Hinton - Economic and Housing; and Commissioner Huntingford - Rural and Transportation. At 9:00 a.m. on Thursday the Growth Management Hearings Board will be hearing the City's appeal of the County's JUGA Ordinance at the Chapel at Fort Worden. The discussion then turned to how the Comprehensive Plan update is proceeding and if the items are being done in accordance with the work plan on the projected timeline. Commissioner Huntingford asked that an updated timeline including information on who is to work on each element and what portion of the tasks are completed at this time, be prepared for next week's update. Public Works GMA Coordinator Suzanne Drum updated the status of the capital facilities planning. The last week of this month the consultant expects to be able to make a presentation to the Planning Commission and the Board regarding proposed level of service standards for capital facilities. r.;p Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, then reported that they have run into some problems in working on the water quality and land use elements of the Comprehensive Plan update. Workshops will be held to discuss the issues. The Comprehensive Plan is an umbrella that the community plans will have to fit under. The existing conditions are being worked on by the Planning Department staff as part of the top down approach while the Community Plans are part of the bottom up approach. The Comprehensive Plan will be what ties this all together. The discussion then turned to how the Planning Commission fits into the GMA planning process. , ... 20 tA~ 0 .11:;0 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 5, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: No comments. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 77-94 re: Establishing An Additional Case Drawer for the Jefferson County Auditor's Office 2. RESOLUTION NO. 78-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road: Skidder Hill Road; Snow Creek Ranch Plat 3. Approve Request for Payment; Third Quarter Allocation from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund; Jefferson County Historical Society 4. Approval of Soldiers and Sailors Relief Fund Application $242.75; American Legion Post #26 5. Notice of Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Exempting Jefferson County From the Prohibition of Subsection 4 of RCW 9.41.050 as Permitted Under Subsection 6 Thereof; Setting Hearing for July 18, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. 6. Final Short Plat #21-92 Approval; Four Lot Short Plat located off Hazel Point Road; Jim Hudson, Proponent BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mark Huth and Kent Anderson re: Discussion of Boundarv Line Adjust- ment Procedures: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the review of an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment has pointed out a problem with the County's regulations. The application that pointed out this problem, however, must be reviewed and decided on its merits under the ordinance that was in effect at the time it was received. The County's Ordinance is fairly broad in allowing Boundary Line Adjustments. The ordinance language comes directly from RCW 58.17.060 which exempts Boundary Line Adjustments from Subdivision regulations when "you are making a division for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines between platted or unplatted lots or both. You don't create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division containing insufficient area in dimension to meet the requirements for the width and area for a building site." This means that if a person has three lots, they can switch the boundary lines to make three other lots without going through the subdivision process. There is an application to fill out for the Boundary Line Adjustment process and a new legal description must be filed with the County Auditor showing where the new lot lines are. He outlined the problems as follows: · The question becomes what is a lot? If a lot was created through a segregation of property by sale on a separate deed, prior to State and County subdivision regulations being in effect, is that segregation considered a lot? The County .' 2f fA&!' 0 1151 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 5, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subdivision Ordinance should include a definition outlining what will be con- sidered a lot. . Another problem is that sometimes people bring plats in that go through the process and are approved and then later switch lot lines through a boundary line adjustment. The question then is, are they trying to avoid the platting statute? Possibly the Subdivision Ordinance could be updated to include a timeframe during which a plat that has been approved cannot apply for a boundary line adjustment for more than a certain number of lots. . Another problem is assessments by Special Purpose Taxing Districts such as water districts. There can be an issue if an assessment is made on the amount of property that will be served (as is the case with water) and a boundary line adjustment is used to cut a small lot out of a large piece of acreage in order to reduce that assessment. The State law on the Boundary Line Adjustment (RCW 58.17.040 (6» issue is unclear. Boundary Line Adjustments can be used to end run the subdivision regulations. If the County does get an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment, it must be reviewed under the regulations that currently exist. Mark Huth suggested that the Planning Depart- ment draft written policies for how Boundary Line Adjustments should be handled. Current Planning Supervisor Kent Anderson reported on how other jurisdictions handle boundary line adjustments. After further discussion of boundary line adjustments that have been applied for, the Board asked Kent Anderson to draft some policies for their review at a later date. Hearin!!: Examiner's Recommendations: Preliminarv Plats and Zonin!!: Ap- provals LP05-92 Creekside Lon!!: Plat AND LP06-92 Ironwood Lon!!:, Pope Resources, Applicant: The Hearing Examiner, Kent Anderson reported, recommends approval of these preliminary plats. Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendations as presented on the Creekside Long Plat #LP05-92. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. He asked if the water issue, which was the subject of a SEP A appeal hearing, has been resolved? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the water availability issue was resolved during SEP A in the sense that it was not an impact that had to be mitigated. Commissioner Wojt stated that his concern was and still is, what happens if the monitor- ing indicates that there is a problem with the water. He asked if this can be addressed during this plat approval? The monitoring says that something will be done if a problem is found, but it doesn't indicate who will pay for the remedy. Mark Huth reported that the Hearing Examiner found that the SEP A review preempts the review required in the Subdivision Ordinance on the water supply aspect. He doesn't feel this is correct. The Board has to make a finding that there is appropriate provision for services including water. RCW 58.17.110 says ". . . shall not be approved unless the County legislative body makes written findings that appropriate provisions are made for. . potable water supplies. . ." Is the fact that there is sufficient water, an appropriate provision, or does there need to be a water system or a plan for a water system in place? Mark Huth further reported that it is his understanding that Pope Resources has submitted their water plan to the State Department of Health for approval, but he doesn't know what stage that approval is at. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the Hearing Examiner's report indicates that the water plan for this subdivision was approved by the State Department of Health in 1989. ~I; .", fact 0 US2 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 5, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Huth then noted that there is still a question of who will be responsible if the water monitoring shows that there won't be enough water? It is appropriate for the Board to address this issue at this time. This finding is required every time a public water system is proposed. The problem with this project, Mark Huth continued, is that the approval of the water source itself is a conditional approval based on a DOE study. There is no indication from the DOE outlining a remedy if a problem is found. The DOE's authority to regulate water withdrawal is questionable, because the only way to be sure of a water right is to go through Court, which is a lengthy process. Since the County knows there is a potential problem, if these plats are approved without taking that into consideration, the County could be liable. The County could ask the project proponent to bond to cover the development of a new water system if the monitoring indicated a problem with the water supply at some time in the future. This would probably require a large sum of money and an engineer to provide an estimate of the cost of a water system to do this. Or, Pope could be required to comply with the Real Estate Disclosure Law by placing a "Notice to Purchasers" on the plat indicating that the water supply is conditional and they may be subject to an additional assessment for development of another water supply at sometime in the future if a problem is discovered by the monitoring. Mark Huth advised that he doesn't feel the Board should adopt the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that the SEP A review took care of this matter. He feels a separate finding should be made for subdivision purposes, that appropriate provision has been made for water and during that review the following issues can be covered: a) Given the uncertain state of the water right in this area, what can the County do to assure that appropriate provisions are made now and in the future, and b) this determination is made for sub- division as well as SEP A purposes. He suggested that a public hearing be held for this purpose because Pope has a right to say what they believe is appropriate provision, and public testimony should be taken for the record. Mark Huth added that the testimony to be taken at this hearing can be limited to address what will be done if the monitoring program indicates a problem. No further testimony will be allowed about supply and the aquifer. The testimony on these issues can be adopted from the prior hearing. Commissioner Huntingford withdrew his previous motion and Commissioner Wojt agreed to withdraw his second. Commissioner Huntingford then moved to set a public hearing on these two preliminary plats (Creekside and Ironwood) which will be limited to testimony on addressing how water resources will be provided and who will be responsible for covering the costs, for July 25, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. contingent on the availability of representatives from Pope Resources. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Preliminary Subdivision of a 20 Acre Parcel into a 3 Lot Residential Sub- division: LPA94-0002: Stephen Swanson and P. Jav and Debi Strickland: (Continued from June 27, 1994) Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this plat is within the Chimacum School District. Upon discussing the school and water issue with the applicant they have redesigned the project to be a two lot long plat. There are two wells on the site, one to serve each lot. With regard to the question of the school mitigation, the Planning Department staff recommends finding #7 (page 5) that there is substantial impact on the Chimacum School District and that the standard mitigation fee be imposed on this plat as it has been on other plats. The applicant has requested that the recommendation for 30% active recreation open space be eliminated. The Planning Department staff has redrafted a finding to do this. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported on a new Supreme Court case which has changed the interpretation of Open Space requirements in the subdivision regulations. He noted that the County will have to tie the requirements for open space in a subdivision to a particular impact and the amount must be in proportion to the impact. .~I. .~ " .' rfACE ;{) US3 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 5, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Wojt moved to approve this subdivision as modified with the findings and conclusions as rewritten. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ~ ~ Review and Adoption of Proposed Zonin2 Ordinance: Rick Sepler, consultant working on the Zoning Ordinance, reported that in the newest draft of the Ordinance (with the June 29, 1994 cover letter) page 22 has been corrected (table on amateur radio antennas) and a correction was made to the table page 54 on minimum off street parking space for industrial use. The findings of fact prepared for the ordinance will include to day's date in finding #19, if the Board approves the Ordinance today. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Open Space portion of this ordinance will have to be updated (Page 42, paragraph 5) to reflect the determination made by a recent court case, to say something like "Open Space areas shall be roughly proportional to the impact identified." Gene Seton urged that the Board not adopt this Zoning Ordinance, since the County's Development Code was recently upheld by the Court of Appeals. He believes that is a better ordinance for this County and he asked the Board to review it. Mark Huth noted that the Development Code is legal, but whether it should be reinstated or the new Zoning Code should be adopted, is up to the Board. He noted that the Development Code, which is a use regulation, does provide more flexibility than the Zoning Code, but it also provides more uncertainty. His recommendation is, if the Board is going to adopt the Zoning Ordinance, that they include a finding that the Development Code is repealed and that all the permits received under it will remain in effect for all of the decisions made until the time the Interim Zoning Code was adopted. This will define clearly what regulations were in effect at what time. Mr. Anderson, a member of the Amateur Radio community, stated that they compliment the authors of the Zoning Code Ordinance for their accommodation of amateur radio. He asked that wording be placed in the definitions section of the ordinance to inform readers regarding the public service that amateur radio provides, including a reference to the federal and State preemptions, as discussed in the testimony presented at the May hearing. Rick Sepler reported that he can prepare wording to this effect if the Board wishes. Commissioner Wojt stated that one of the difficulties he has in knowing what to do about the old Development Code is that he really has no knowledge of it. Since he has been a Commissioner the Code has been under litigation. Commissioner Huntingford noted that he would like to review the Development Code more before making a decision on this. Rick Sepler explained that the major difference between the Zoning Code and the Development Code is that the Development Code is a perfor- mance based ordinance and it allows more flexibility in that it allows determinations to be made on a case by case basis. Rick Sepler reported that he will prepare a comparison chart outlining the difference between these two ordinances and present it at the July 18, 1994 meeting (10:35 a.m.) for the Board's review. Discussion of Settin2 Hearin2s on Proposed Zonin2 Code Maps: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to set a hearing for 7:00 p.m. on July 26, 1994 at the Tri Area Community Center, contingent on space being available. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (After checking with the Tri Area Community Center the date was changed to July 28, 1994.) ," VlI. ¥' fAÇ! .01154 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 5, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review and Adoption of Resource Lands Ordinances (Mineral and Forest Lands): Steve Ladd reported that these ordinances have been to hearing, the comments reviewed and changes made from that testimony. He noted that the last time the Board reviewed the documents they asked that a permitted and conditional use approach be developed as opposed to the density approach. Mark Huth reported that a change to the approach would be a substantive change that would require another public hearing. He suggested that the Board adopt these ordinances today because there is a stipulation in the lUG A appeal (by the City) that these ordinances be adopted by a date prior to today. Kent Anderson reported that the Final DNS has been issued on these ordinances. Senior Planner James Holland reported on the comments received during the SEP A review of them. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 06-0705-94 designating mineral resource lands of long term commercial significance. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt the forest lands ordinance with the change that land grade 4 be included in the designation. His motion died for lack of second. Commissioner Huntingford then moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 07-0705-94 the Forest Lands Ordinance as written. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Hun- tingford voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application SDP92-0011: To Con- struct a 40 Foot Lon2 by Six Foot Wide Dock Teein2 into a 105 Foot Lon2 Ramp and Float: Westerly Shore of Mats Mats Bay: Leonard Palmer. Applicant: (Continued from June 27, 1994) Chairman Hinton noted that it is agreed (as stated in a memo from Mr. Palmer) that the Department of Fisheries, U.S. Department of Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers have approved this project, and the Shoreline Commission has recommended approval, but they are just an advisory board. The Army Corps of En- gineers is not considering a variance under the County Shoreline Management Master Program. Mr. Palmer pointed out in his memo that he feels the Chairman is opposed to the project. Chairman Hinton stated this is not true. The Board's decision must be based on findings of fact and it is not arbitrary or personal in nature. The hardship identified by the Shoreline Commission was the joint use of the dock. Chairman Hinton pointed out that joint use of the dock is required by Section 5.60 (Docks, piers and floats.) The shallow water was the other hardship identified, but under the Shoreline Master Program, Policy 1 of Section 5.60, the use of piers and docks are discouraged when there is a physical limitation such as shallow water. The other question is if the denial of the 105 foot dock and pier combination, precludes the reasonable use of the property. If joint use and shallow water are considered a hardship, then the cumulative impacts to the south and east shore of Mats Mats Bay must be considered. He concluded by noting that if this is the case then the County should amend its Shoreline Management Master Plan. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that Chairman Hinton is correct that the Board must decide on this matter based on the Shoreline Management Master Program. It is not a personal decision, it is a decision based on the policies in place in Jefferson County. He explained that he advised Commissioner Wojt to listen to the tape of the entire hearing, and since the public record was closed, the Board could then deliberate on the matter. Commissioner Wojt reported that he did listen to the tape of the hearing. He noted that the concerns include: adverse affect on the Master Plan regulations in areas where there aren't already a number of docks present. He feels that this particular dock would fit within the scope of the historic placeII.1ent of docks within Mats Mats Bay. Whether it would effect other applications in other Bays, is the question. 'JOt. .'~)U~ ,0 1155 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 5, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim Pearson reported that Section 5.60 Docks, Piers and Floats, policy 1 states that the type, design and location of docks, piers and floats and boat houses should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration should be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics and adjacent land and water uses. Policy 3 states that docks, piers and floats should be discouraged at locations where critical physical limitation exist, such as shallow, sloping bottoms. . .etc. Chairman Hinton stated that he was referring to these policies as well as Policy 2 which also encourages the use of mooring buoys in place of docks. Commissioner Wojt asked if the other docks in this area were in place before the Shoreline Program was adopted? Jim Pearson reported that there are five docks in this area and a couple of them were built before the Shoreline Master Program was adopted, a couple that were built prior to the 60 foot limit on docks and one dock (the one located to the north) was built without a Shoreline Permit. Chairman Hinton noted that Mr. Palmer's attorney pointed out that the King County case related to a lake where the shoreline was not owned by the applicant. The King County case determined that there was reasonable use of the upland property. He asked if this would be a different circumstance? Mark Huth answered that the Shoreline laws do not require ownership as a criteria for judging a permit. A person can apply and be issued a shoreline permit without owning the upland or tideland property. Mark Huth pointed out that all six variance criteria must be met. After further discussion of the testimony, the conditions where the dock is proposed, and the variance criteria, Commissioner Wojt noted that the difficulty he is having is balancing what is fair to the applicant and keeping to the regulation of the Shoreline Management Program. Chairman Hinton moved to deny the variance for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application #SDP92-0011 and approve a 60 foot dock. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt amended his motion to include the approval of the permit with the conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (not Condition 5) as recommended by the Shoreline Commission. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the amended motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY D OF COMMISSIONERS .' . \ ~ 4-\ .. .' '. " , ¡'t~.\ ¡ " ' ~':a'~ .': ; ÞI. .\. ~~ Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board ~~4- /' ~L lÐy ·UŒ t..~ , 011.56