Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072594 -<> '- ./ ................ .... ...... .... .. . .. : : .. .... ......... ,. ::s: ~::::>.o~~ ~ " c , (" <;) \5'- ~ C¡ ") MINUTES WEEK OF JULY 25, 1994 The Finance Committee (Auditor, Treasurer and Chairman of the Board) met from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. after which the meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Ted Shoulber2. Port Townsend City Councilmember re: Notification of City'S Intention to Appeal the County's Critical Area Ordinance to the Growth Man32ement Hearin2s Board: Ted Shoulberg, Port Townsend City Councilman, notified the Board that the City will be taking the County to the Growth Management Hearings Board regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance section on aquifer recharge and well head protection. He explained that this action is being taken because the Western Hearings Board recently made a decision that critical area ordinances are not interim, they are permanent. In order to protect their right of appeal, the City must file within a certain number of days. He suggested that the City is willing to go through the mediation process provided for by the Hearings Board. Commissioner Wojt stated that the possible outcome of an appeal or mediation is that the Hearings Board could require the County to revisit that portion of the ordinance. He feels the City and County can discuss and work out changes that the City feels are necessary to the ordinance without going through these costly processes, because changes can be made to an ordinance at anytime, even if it's permanent. The discussion continued regarding the ordinance, the City's concerns and the Hearings Board's decision, GMA Update: Steve Ladd reported that the West End, Brinnon and Leland communities have submitted their community plans. The Planning Department will complete their review within 10 days and then they will be sent back to the Planning Committees. Roger Blaylock reported that a rezone request was received from Michael Graves and the Planning Commission will be sending a report to the Board asking that the request be sent to the Community Planning Committee for their review, At the Growth Management Steering Committee last week the City announced that they will be appealing the County's Critical Areas Ordinance to the Growth Management Hearings . 20 ÍI« 01187 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Board, The County agreed to look at the joint study area for the purposes of the urban growth areas boundary. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the Central Puget Sound Hearings Board has indicated that UGA boundary should be at current City limits and that the City regulations should encourage growth. He asked how this will be considered with this study area? Steve Ladd reported that they will have to look at how much more capacity the City has for urban growth and then determine if there is a need for more area to accom- modate the anticipated growth. There is a need to update the County-wide Planning Policies regarding housing and rural water systems, Steve Ladd reported. The next meeting of the Growth Management Steering Committee is tentatively scheduled for August 25, 1994. The City's consultant working on population projections will be making a presentation this Wednesday for City and County staff. The Planning Commission will talk about goals again at their next meeting Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing on Zoning Maps is scheduled for Thursday July 28, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tri Area Community Center. Roger Blaylock then reported on the concurrency review process. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following matters were discussed: a meeting in Olympia regarding the Big Quilcene River flood work; the sole source aquifer designa- tion for Marrowstone Island, and a request that the Board not approve item 1 on the Consent Agenda because the issues have not been addressed, APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt all of the items on the consent agenda with the exception of item #1, which was deleted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETE Findings and Conclusions; Conditional Use Application #IZ-34-93 Arcadia Terrace; Multi-Family Development; Robert Hagen, App]icant (See item under Planning Department Business.) 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance; Levying a $.25 per month Tax on Radio Access Lines (Authorized by RCW 82, 14B.030(2); Setting Hearing for Tuesday August 9, 1994 at 10:00 a.m, 3. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance; Fee Schedule for the Jefferson County Permit Center - Building Division; Setting Hearing for August 8, 1994 at 2:00 p,m. 4. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance; Setting Fees for the Jefferson County Permit Center - Development Review Division; Setting Hearing for August 8, 1994 at 4:30 p.m, 5. AGREEMENT re: January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 Labor; Local 1001, UFCW 6. Bid Award and CONTRACT re: Bridge Rail Retrofit 1994; Petersen Brothers, Sumner, W A 7. RESOLUTION NO. 82-94 re: Updating the Official County Road Log to include Boardwalk Place and St. James Place 8. RESOLUTION NO. 83-94 re: Order- Vacation of a Portion of Olympic Avenue, Elston Avenue, a Certain Alley, and Certain Lot Lines; Plat of Irondale No.6 9. Approval of Request for Community Center Grant Funds; Finish Linoleum Project; Tri Area Community Center 10. Appointments to the H.J. Carroll Park Citizens Advisory Board; Bree Murphy Youth Recreation/Student Vicki Eldridge Cammy Brown Citizen-at-Large, Youth Recreation Rick Tollefson ~'. ß8·iA~f DUBS ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bill Irwin WOS, Contractor Michael Bowen Chimacum Grange Arlene Baumunk Senior Recreation Jess Covington Adjacent Landowner Maureen Joyce Adjacent Landowner David Porter 11. Plat Amendment SUB94-0022; Adjusted Boundaries Between Parcels 1, 7 and 8; Pioneer Acres Large Lot Subdivision; Jan Marts, Petitioner BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Settin2 SEP A Appeal Hearin2 Date: Solid Waste Transfer Station: Prosecut- ing Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Fire District is appealing the SEP A determination on the solid waste transfer station, Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the SEP A appeal hearing for Tuesday August 23, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Settin2 Appeal Hearin2 Date: G. E. Development Buildin2 Permit Issuance: Mark Huth reported that the Fire District is appealing the issuance of the building permits for G.B. Development due to concerns regarding provisions for fire flow, Commissioner Huntingford moved to set an appeal hearing for August 1, 1994 at 2:00 p.m, Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Final Plat Approval LP05-93: Silent Lake Lon2 Plat: JAL Associates. Applicant: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that all required Departments have signed off on this plat and all the requirements have been met. Commissioner Huntingford moved to issue final approval for the Silent Lake Long Plat #LP05-93. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Findin2s and Conclusions: Conditional Use Application #IZ-34-93 Arcadia Terrace: Multi-Family Development: Robert Ha2en. Applicant: Mark Huth reported that the findings and conclusions drafted for this project include the Hearing Examiner's recommendations except those modified or deleted by the Board. The findings reflect the Board's determinations from the record of the hearings. Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the findings and conclusions approving conditional use permit #IZ34-93 for Arcadia Terrace. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Gary Rowe re: Lease Option for Castle Hill Mall Space: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that he presented information to the Board on leasing this additional space. He recommends that the lease option be exercised with the option to purchase at some point in the future, . .. ,2ft,"&! 0 U89 A Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . After discussion of the space needs of the County departments, Chairman Hinton stated that he feels the County should be looking and planning for the long term and that no more money should be put into leasing more space, Commissioner Wojt pointed out that he feels there is a need for a new building but that is at least five years down the road and there is need for new space now. Commissioner Huntingford added that he would rather put the money for an additional lease toward planning for a new facility. Commissioner Wojt moved to negotiate with the property owner for the lease option on the additional space at Castle Hill and direct the Public Works Department to research the possibility of leasing space at the Shold Business Park in Port Hadlock and possibly a first refusal for a purchase option on the Castle Hill property. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Huntingford asked Gary Rowe to research the Hadlock properties and then report back to the Board before a decision is made on this lease option. Later that day: Gary Rowe reported on what it would take to lease space in Hadlock. After discussing the possibility of leasing space somewhere out in the County and the need for more space at the Castle Hill Mall, the Board concurred that the County not pursue the option to lease the additional space at Castle Hill. Emer2enCy Services Mana2er Bob Minty and Buildin2 Official Mike Ajax re: Burnin2 Permit Re2ulations: Emergency Services Manager Bob Minty and Building Official Mike Ajax updated the Board on the State's open burning requirements, Bob Minty reported that within the County the State DNR has the authority to write burning permits in all but three areas (Chimacum, Port Ludlow and the City of Port Townsend.) A permit program has to be done by November 1, 1994, Fire Chief DeWitt, Port Ludlow, reported that they have evaluated whether they need a burning permit program of their own. They have held a couple of public hearings on the issue. They would like to see a county-wide burning permit system. A fireman from Port Ludlow then explained that there may still be some issues with burn permits outside UGA's. The November 1, 1994 deadline establishes "no burn" areas if there is not a permit system approved by the State in place on that date. He added that he has drafted a burn permit procedure that the State has indicated they will approve and he suggested that this procedure be used as a template for other Fire District's to use. Chairman Hinton asked if this has been discussed by all of the County's Fire Districts? Fire Chief DeWitt reported that this has been discussed by the County Fire Commissioners and the County Fire Chiefs at their association meetings. Mike Ajax reported that the Fire District boundaries are not the same as the UGA boundaries, Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Port Ludlow Fire District has met with DNR about their responsibility in areas of the Fire District that aren't in the UGA? Fire Chief DeWitt reported that they haven't discussed this issue directly with the DNR. The Board asked Bob Minty to coordinate with the two Fire Districts and the DNR to discuss these issues. HEARING re: Preliminary Lon2 Plat Applications LP05-92 Creekside Lon2 Plat LP06-92 Ironwood Lon2 Plat: Testimony Pertainin2 to Which Parties Would be Responsible for Providin2 an Alternative Water Source if Groundwater Monitoring Indicates that There are Not Sufficient Resources to Provide Adequate Water Supply to the Proposed Plats: Pope Resources. Applicant: Chairman Hinton opened the hearing and ... m·. 01190 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the Board spent many hours in pubJic meetings, workshops and appeal hearings regarding the programmatic EIS for Pope Resources proposed expansion of Port Ludlow. Throughout that process volumes of technical data and expert testimony was presented by a reputable consulting firm regarding hydrologic studies on water resources and confirmation that adequate quantities of water existed for the Pope Resources expansion program. As he recalls there was no adverse expert testimony presented disputing the determinations and the adopted EIS was not challenged. Each subsequent project has, however, been challenged because of the water issues. Additional expert scientific testimony has been presented along with testimony from non-expert witnesses. His concern is if the Board will not give any weight to expert, scientific studies over non-expert, third party, circumstantial testimony, then the Board needs to make a policy decision to not require the costly consulting studies, Chairman Hinton asked if this proposed action would be setting a future precedent and is the Board willing to subject all water purveyors (i.e. the City of Port Townsend, the individual Water Districts, and community Class A and B water systems, and the PUD) to the same excessive standards, or is one proponent being arbitrarily discriminated against? These are important points that the Board needs to consider, The Board is sympathetic to the concerns of adjacent property owners in the Port Ludlow area that are utilizing single family wells. He feels that this hearing to speculate on future potential water source issues is without merit. The DOE is empowered to address and administer water rights in accordance with a priority system established under RCW 90.24.130, The previous Board of Commissioners adopted the DOE interim guide Jines for determining water availabiJity for new buildings. The statement of purpose indicates that implementation of the provisions of RCW 19.27.097 is best accomplished by the adoption of ordinance at the local level. Jefferson County Policy 93- 002 was adopted to determine adequate water availability, The guidelines are general in nature and this poJicy offers little to clarify County procedures or provide any consistent interpretation of the permanent guidelines, The Attorney General's Office has prepared an opinion regarding the provisions of RCW 19,27.097 with the following basic points: 1) The authority to determine the adequacy of water suppJies resides at the local level. The level at which building permits are issued, 2) Determining whether water supplied by a public water system constitutes an adequate water supply for the purpose of RCW 19.27,097, the local agency which issues building permits must apply standards established by the State Board of Health for public water systems, and 3) a local government has flexibility in applying the provisions primarily with respect to individual water systems, but water for the intended purpose of the building must be of sufficient quality and quantity, The opinion also states that despite the provisions that a water right permit from the Department of Ecology constitutes proof of an adequate supply, a permit may not be adequate in all cases. Junior water users are still subject to regulation. Chairman Hinton stated that he feels this is consistent with RCW 90.44.130, for which monitoring of the Port Ludlow water system was required by the County. This Board is charged with administering its legislative authority based on reasoned determinations of fact as well as statutory and regulatory authority and mandates, Unwarranted delays increase the potential for County liability and place the citizens liveJihoods in jeopardy as well as the economic vitality of Jefferson County. Absent any scientific documentation to dispute the overwhelming scientific supporting evidence and absent any documented evidence and statutory authority requiring additional additions to guarantee water availability in the future, he recommended that the Board dismiss this hearing and approve the plats as conditioned including a finding that adequate potable water does exist. . wi. , 2(f fÀG~ 0 1191 ..:$~ ~ Commissioner Wojt pointed out that the issue that whether there is enough water was addressed by the DOE when it said that Pope would have to monitor their wells to see if the aquifer was being adversely affected. This discussion is what happens if the monitoring shows an adverse impact? If there is a disruption to the water system, there is nothing on this plat that indicates who will pay for the remedy. He would like a discussion of how an Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . assurance can be provided that the County will not have to pick up the bill for such a remedy. The question is do the people that buy these lots know that they are subject to possibly paying for development of another water system? Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that a memo dated July 21, 1994 from Environmental Health Director Larry Fay regarding these two plats was submitted to the Board. Both of these proposed plats will be served water by the Ludlow Water Company. During the SEPA review and hearing there was discussion of the water rights issued to the Ludlow Water Company. There are two questions before the Board today: 1) is there adequate provision for water to serve these plats and, 2) what happens if, at some point, the monitoring indicates there is not adequate provision of water. The Ludlow Water Company has a Water System Plan that was approved by the State April 17, 1989. There is an area referred to in the plan (area 15) which includes the Creekside and Ironwood plats, as well as the Deer Hollow subdivision. Those three subdivision will have approximately 180 residences. The Ludlow Water System Plan proposes that there will be approximately 200 residential units developed in that area between 1993 and 1998. A letter was received (dated January 14, 1993) from the Ludlow Water Company stating that there is adequate provision for water for these units. Commissioner Wojt questioned why the availability of water is being discussed today when a finding to that effect has already been made, This hearing isn't to discuss the adequate provision of water. Mark Huth clarified that the Subdivision statute says that "appropriate" provision must be made for water, The Board has already made findings under SEP A that there is adequate provision for water based on the testimony of representatives from the State Department of Ecology. Jim Pearson continued by noting that the second question raised is the contingency question regarding what would happen if the monitoring indicates a problem in the future. The Planning staff recommends that there is appropriate provision for water on these plats. Jim Pearson explained that guidance is necessary from the Prosecuting Attorney regarding the SEP A mitigating condition regarding water monitoring. Mark Huth explained that the reason for this hearing is the Hearing Examiner's findings (#9 Ironwood, page 7 and Finding #7 for Creekside) which say "the SEPA review is duplicative and preempts the same review required under the Subdivision Ordinance for this water supply aspect of assuring adequate, potable water supply to the proposed lots to be platted." Mark Huth feels that this is an erroneous finding that would leave the County and the developer open to potential challenge. The two reviews are not the same. The SEP A review is regarding impact to the aquifer, while the Subdivision Ordinance review is for appropriate provision for water. This hearing is being held to correct these findings. There is no finding within the Hearing Examiner's report that there is an approved water system plan by the Department of Health that covers these plats and that should be in the record. Such a finding would provide a firm basis for the County's reliance on the Department of Ecology's testimony and the approval of the water right and the Department of Health approval of the water system. He then reviewed two recent Supreme Court cases (Dolan case from the U.S. Supreme Court and Weyerhauser v. Pierce County from the Washington State Supreme Court) which have indicated that Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission findings are essential. This hearing is to allow the Board to redraw the findings, where needed, to comply with the law and to take additional testimony if that is needed. As far as the contingency issue if monitoring fails, Mark Huth continued by noting that there was a finding in the programmatic EIS that was adopted in the conditions of approval on these plats (Number 10 on page 10) about this monitoring program and what the contingency would be if the monitoring fails. Unfortunately the County relied on a program that was believed to be in place with the Department of Ecology at the time, RCW 90.44 provided authority for resolution of conflicts regarding allocation of groundwater supplies. The Supreme Court has stated that the Department of Ecology does not have the authority to allocate water ...... 10;_ .' 29/ fI~ 01192 .. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in a conflict situation between groundwater users, This requires a Court action called Water Rights Adjudication. That plat condition is not as protective of the County's interest as it was hoped at the time if was created in the programmatic EIS. The next question is what can the County do to protect its interest? The County can rely upon the State agencies involved, but there is concern because of an Attorney General's opinion which places the responsibility at a lower level. He added that he doesn't know that the County can take any future action to assure that there will always be water for this plat. In summary the Prosecuting Attorney stated that what the County has from the Department of Ecology and the Department of Health meets the intent of the statute and the County shouldn't attempt to further condition these rights. Commissioner Wojt asked if that means that if the monitoring shows an impact on the aquifer, then the lot owners and/or the water company will have to deal with the problem. Mark Huth answered that is correct. Commissioner Huntingford asked the status of the monitoring required by the EIS? David Cunningham, Pope Resources, reported that the monitoring is progressing on everything that is required and the report will be submitted as required by March 15, 1995. Commissioner Huntingford asked about the water monitoring? Larry Smith, Pope Resources reported that monitoring is being done on every well previously identified except one well on the south shore, and the Olympus Beach Tract wells, because there is no access for them. Chairman Hinton then opened the hearing, read the hearing procedures and asked the following questions: Q) Q) Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) There was no objection from anyone in the audience. 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 a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. 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. Q) Q) Wendy Wrinkle. Secretary. Shine Community Action Council, was sworn in and provided copies of the testimony that was given to the Hearing Examiner. She stated that the Shine Community Action Council is in disagreement with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for approval of the preliminary pJats of Ironwood and Creekside. The requirements described by the Hearing Examiner, page 7 item 7, under groundwater resource issues, were not met. The preliminary plat considerations require the 10caJ Health Department to assess the water supply system and that they have a responsibiJity to recommend approval of the water supply system prior to final plat approval. This recommendation must be in conformance with State regulations. Wendy Wrinkle continued by noting that what they feel is missing to complete this assessment is a current water system plan on file with the State and County, and a recommendation of approval by the Jocal Health Department on the water system. Larry Fay has provided a letter documenting an outdated existing plan, he has not personally recommended approval of the water system in comformance with State regulations. In addition the letter of approval (dated April 17, 1989) of the 1989 Water System Plan by the State Department of Social and Health Services states that the plan must be updated within five years and sooner if a revised plan is necessary due to significant changes in the water system or its service area. According to testimony given to the Hearing Examiner by Bob Montgomery, principle author of the water plan, the pJan was approved for 1,700 connections through 1998. Shine ... 20 tl'~ 0:1193 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Council feels that these plats put commitments to this system far beyond 1,700 connections as of 1994. They do not feel that the State or the County have a number of approved connections for this system to refer to and they will not have such a number until an updated water system plan is evaluated. This system, which was developed in the 1970's, needs to be in compliance with GMA and the critical water area designation. The letter, Wendy Wrinkle continued, from the legal counsel for the project proponent, dated July 21, 1994, is an eight page smoke screen. She feels that the content of the letter repeatedly confuses the issue of availability, a Department of Ecology determination, and adequacy, a Department of Health determination. The DOE looks at the existence of ground water resources to determine availability for a water rights permit. Adequacy, as determined by the Department of Health, is the review of the quality, the water right, the quantity, and the system that will serve the public, She then referred to page 1 of her original testimony to the Hearing Examiner (see attached.) She noted that she supports the reference made by legal counsel for the proponent which states that the County could place conditions on the final plat approval requiring an approved Department of Health water system plan. This would have to be an updated plan. She stated that she believes that the hold up of the project is a direct result of the refusal by the project proponent to meet standards that are explicitly laid out. She concluded by stating that the following needs to be done: The proponent needs to submit an updated water system plan to the State Department of Health. The plan needs to be approved and it needs to define the number of connections that this system is capable of serving, and that the number of connections are adequate to be served by the water rights, If the Department of Health limits the number of connections, the proponent must explore, apply for, and obtain water rights to support expansion prior to expecting approval from the County on any additional subdivision. It is important that the County address these issues. Commissioner Huntingford asked why, in all of the hearings on these plats, has the Department of Health never sent the County information saying that there isn't enough water for the number of hookups? Wendy Wrinkle answered they have never responded because the SEP A issue addresses availability which is the Department of Ecology's determination. The DOE came before the Board and said there was a water right. The issue of adequacy of water, which is determined by the State Department of Health, has not been addressed. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that Karl Johnson from the Department of Health has been contacted many times on this matter and has never objected. Mark Huth interjected that Larry Fay checked with the State Department of Health and they told him that there is an approved water plan, The 1989 plan needs to be updated, but it is still approved. The County can't deny the plat by saying that the water plan isn't approved, because the authorized authority says it is approved. Steven Havden, Olympic Environmental Council, was sworn in. He stated that they concur with everything that the Shine Community Action Council representative has presented. He then pointed out that at the second SEPA hearing the County made a finding (#21) for the MDNS which pointed out that the issue of adequate provision of water as required by Subdivision law is only partially addressed by environmental analysis. The service delivery system, the minimum required amount per connection, and other provision issues are more properly reviewed at plat approval (page 5 of findings.) The Hearing Examiner's finding (#7) is the opposite of this by saying that the SEP A review is duplicative and preempts the same review required under the subdivision ordinance for the assurance of adequate potable water supply, He noted that the Department of Health has not issued a determination on the adequacy of the water supply. The letter from Larry Fay only says that there is a 1989 water system plan on file, It does not say that there is adequate water, as shown in the 1989 plan, for these latest subdivisions. He added that they recommend that the Board hold this plat approval until the DOH makes a ruling, or it might be appropriate for the Board to make plat . va. 20'fAG~ 01194 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . approval contingent upon a positive ruling from DOH. Going ahead with this based on the letter from Larry Fay, would be a big mistake, David Cunningham. Pope Resources. was sworn in, and explained that when they testified before the Hearing Examiner on these plats, they were clearly aware of the County's requirement to make an adequate provision for potable water which they assumed included the source and the delivery system. They testified before the Hearing Examiner that they believed that the Board had already made the findings with respect to adequate source because they had the EIS, the geo-hydrological studies and the testimony from a professional geohydrologist and representatives of the State Department of Ecology. With regard to the delivery system, they pointed out to the Hearing Examiner that there was a letter from Ludlow Utilities Company (the water purveyor) that they agree that they have the supply and the capability to serve the plat. Now the Board has a letter from the Environmental Health Director which indicates that the plats that they are seeking approval for are covered by their Comprehensive Water Plan. The Comprehensive Water Plan was approved in 1989 and stated on the face that the approval was for 5 years. However, as the Prosecuting Attorney pointed out, the regulations have changed and the life of approved Comprehensive Water Plans is now 6 years, or they can be updated sooner if there is a change in the service area or a dramatic change in the delivery system. There have been no deviations from what they have planned. The only change in the service area is that there will be fewer lots than planned many years ago. There is nothing that would require that they update the plan until sometime in 1995. They have begun work on a new Comprehensive Water Supply Plan and a draft was submitted to the State Department of Health last week, He then offered the exhibits that were submitted to the Hearing Examiner (see attached.) He pointed out that the delays in this plat proceeding have had to do with production of the EIS, a lawsuit filed by the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council against Pope Resources and the County, and the prolonged SEPA mitigation hearings. Those delays have nothing at all to do with the water system or the water system plan which was approved by the State. He stated that he feels the County is applying a new standard to these plats because the County has approved numerous plats including a 40,000 square foot commercial project whose water supply is in the same aquifer as these plats, without any consideration or any special conditions on monitoring the water supply. He feels if this is a new standard that it should it be imposed on all plats and projects that go forward from this point. The County PUD doesn't have an approved water supply plan from the Department of Health. Mark Huth reported that the commercial project referred to by Mr, Cunningham had an EIS done and it was not a subdivision approval. The Board isn't setting a new standard because building permits were held up in the Glen Cove area due to water issues. Mr. Cunningham is right, however, they are the only water purveyor with an approved plan. The PUD is preparing a plan for submittal. Craig Jones. reT>resentin~ Pope Resources, agreed with Mark Huth that local jurisdiction must make a determination with regard to the adequate provision of water. There is no issue with this, but the question is what evidence is required? He stated the Legislature did not deal with that issue specifically with regard to plats, but did address it regarding building permits. They said that evidence may be in the form of a water right permit from the Department of Ecology, or a letter from an approved water purveyor stating the ability to provide water, or another form sufficient to verify the existence of an adequate water supply. In this case the DOE has said, at the SEP A hearing, that they are satisfied that there are adequate water rights to serve these two proposed plats, The County has required monitoring, but the question is what can be done if a problem is uncovered? There is no control over this aquifer with regard to subsequent sources. A private individual can drill a well into this aquifer. There is no way to control how many appropriators there may be from this aquifer in the future. .. 20 tA&~' 0 11.95 ..;::~ .,;.:.:.:. .,:::::::~:::: ,-:=:::::::::::::$ ..:;¡¡ifJ1~¡¡~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡~¡¡¡~¡¡i ..;:::f¡f¡j¡¡¡¡¡f¡¡"" :::::::::::;.:¡ .~:~¡~~i~~~~~~~~l~:~~:::::~::::::::. .:~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That is under the management and control of the DOE. If there is a problem in the future the County would have to defer the matter to the Department of Ecology. A recent Supreme Court case (Sinking Creek case) took the ability to adjudicate conflicts away from the DOE and said that the Court must adjudicate them and determine the priority of the water rights issued. Commissioner Huntingford asked what would constitute substantial changes to the delivery system that might require an updated Water Plan? David Cunningham answered that possibly a proposal to serve another area such as Mats Mats. Larry Smith added that the update requirements are fairly general. If there is a change in the geographical area served, that may trigger an update. Craig Jones noted that Larry Fay's letter points out that these two subdivisions and the Deer Hollow subdivision are within the original plan area and in the original proposed number of units to be served under the original plan. Mark Huth pointed out that the letter from the water purveyor is required prior to final plat approval (RCW 58.17,150,) This statute provides for a formula review to insure that all of the conditions set on the plat have been complied with and that the appropriate provision that was ordered at preliminary plat approval is going to be carried out. Wendy Wrinkle pointed out that the letter of approval on the 1989 water system plan by the Department of Social and Health Services (now the Department of Health) says that the plan must be updated if significant changes in the water system occur. If that approval is for 1,700 connections, these plats are beyond that, and that is a significant change. Some of the previous plats were not included in the number of connections, as well as the number of future plats, which means the 1,700 connections is not accurate. The mitigation in relation to monitoring does not handle this problem, An agreement between Pope Resources and the GPLCC says that Pope Resources would take immediate action to either cease further development or provide additional sources of water at their expense, should the potable water supply be less than needed to meet the development needs, What we've heard today is that there is no intention on the part of the developer to supply that water. This agreement was done so that GPLCC would dismiss pending action against Jefferson County. This document is worthless. Craig Jones responded that with regard to the water plan, if the DOH was concerned about this they would have made an appearance, DOH can step in at any time prior to the issuance of a building permit and say that they don't authorize the permit to be issued. The oversight of this is by the State agency that has the jurisdiction of these plans. It is their responsibility to administer the plans and take any action that they feel appropriate in the event that Pope Resources would not comply. Steve Hayden then read from the 1989 Water System Plan (page 19) which says that for 1998 conditions the number of connections will be approximately 1,550. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Pope Resources still stands by the commitment in the agreement with the GPLCC to find another water source if necessary? Craig Jones noted that the agreement talks about adequate source for the development. The development for Pope Resources is approximately 700 additional units. If it is determined that there isn't adequate water for an additional plat at some point, then Pope Resources will have to find an adequate source of water before it could move forward with its next plat. David Cunningham added that if the monitoring indicates a problem in the future, then the DOE will decide who gets water and who doesn't. In the long list of water rights holders, Pope Resources is senior to most. What this agreement says is, should the potable water supply become less than needed to meet development needs, Pope Resources will either cease further development or provide additional sources of water. ..20 f&~ 011.96 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wendy Wrinkle stated that according to the Water System Plan just quoted only 1,500 connections are approved. There are more than 1,500 connections prior to the addition of these two lots. The only water rights Pope Resources has on the south aquifer are on well 13. Everyone else prior to 1989 is senior to those rights. Hearing no further public comments, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the County has to trust what the DOH and the DOE provide. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Ironwood and Creekside preliminary plats with the change to the Hearing Examiner's Finding #7 for Ironwood and #9 for Creekside to indicate that there is appropriate provision for water. Commissioner Wojt asked if this is the time to address the issues raised or can that be done at final plat approval? Mark Huth stated that this is the time to address any concerns with the conditions, The conditions must be complied with before final plat approval is given. He suggested that the approval could be conditioned on DOH approval of the updated water system plan. Commissioner Huntingford asked when final plat approval will occur? Jim Pearson reported that is contingent on the actions of the applicant. He then asked if the County needs to put a condition on this project about State approval of the updated water system plan, if Pope Resource is updating their plan with the Department of Health? Jim Pearson reported that the water system must be constructed before final plat approval and that can't be done without the system being consistent with the existing or updated water system plan by the State. He then read the following condition which is included in the Hearing Examiner's recommenda- tion "Prior to water system expansion construction, if required by appropriate State agency, the applicant shall submit engineered construction and design plans for review and approval. Construction of the water system expansion shall be completed prior to final plat approval or as an option the applicant can post a County approved surety to guarantee construction of the system expansion." Mark Huth suggested that a condition could be added that says that if the water system plan is denied then Pope Resources shall revise their plan to meet the Department of Health requirements. Chairman Hinton then seconded the motion. Greg McCary, Pope Resources, pointed out that the County is making a finding that there is adequate water and if a preliminary plat approval is granted with a condition that will be determined later, then Pope is being asked to put the infrastructure into the ground for a system that may be found to be inadequate. This determination needs to be made before the infrastructure is constructed. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Hinton voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Lois Smith. Juvenile Service Director re: Space: Lois Smith reported that to add at least two interior windows to allow light from exterior windows in the new Juvenile Services spaces, will cost an additional $1,000, The Board concurred that they will look into this further. CONTRACTS (2) re: Professional Services for the Health Department Child Development Pro2ram: Anita Fraser and Patricia Cunnin2ham: Commissioner Huntingford moved, Chairman Hinton seconded the motion in temporary absence of Commissioner Wojt, to approve the two professional services contracts for Health Department VOl 20f~ 01:197 .-:+: ~ .....::¡::::::::::~::~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . services with Anita Fraser and Patricia Cunningham. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Request for Pavment of Ouarterlv Allocation: Port Townsend Senior Association: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the payment of the $1,500 quarterly allocation to the Port Townsend Senior A<;sociation as requested. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Wojt. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday morning. All three Commissioners were present. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Threshold Determination East Rid2e Short Subdivision SPA94-0015: Crai2 Smith. Applicant: Chairman Hinton read the hearing procedures and asked the foIl owing questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) AIl three Board members answered no, Q) 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. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. 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. Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this is a 4 lot residential short subdivision for single family use. The site is approximately 9 acres and is located a couple miles south of Port Hadlock in the triangle created by Oak Bay Road and Old Oak Bay Road. A Final Mitigated DNS was issued July 1, 1994. He then noted that the following exhibits have been submitted for the Board's review: Exhibit 1 - Environmental checklist dated March 7, 1994, Exhibit 2 - Initial mitigated DNS issued on May 25, 1994 with attachments. Exhibit 3 - Final mitigated DNS issued July 1, 1994 with attachments. Exhibit 4 - Notice of SEP A appeal including the appeal letter from Mr. Kirschner and one other comment letter received as a result of the final mitigated DNS. Chairman Hinton asked if the lots proposed for development are 1 and 3 and there are just driveway accesses? Jerry Smith answered that is correct. There are two driveway accesses proposed off of Old Oak Bay Road, one for lot 3 and one for lot 1. There are existing accesses for the other lots off of Oak Bay Road, The Chairman then opened the public hearing. Chris Kirschner, 101 Old Oak Bay Road, (formal residence 902 27th Avenue, Seattle 98122) was sworn in and stated that when the bypass which is now Oak Bay Road was constructed there was significant environmental damage in the drainage area below and a dramatic increase in stormwater flow at the south end of the area. The increased flow passes northward from the low point of the Old Oak Bay Road, crosses another property and then makes it way to the beach across his property, vel 20 fAG~ o .tJ.98 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman Hinton asked where Mr. Kirschner's property is in relation to this plat? Mr. Kirschner explained that his property goes from the shoreline up to and slightly beyond the Oak Bay Road. Mr. Smith's property is between the two roads immediately south of his property. He pointed out on a map where his property is located. He continued his testimony by noting that when the road went in about 1964 they were assured that their well would not be harmed. The well was destroyed by siltation and in about 1966 or 1967 the County drilled a new well (approximately 90 feet deep) for them, The original well was a 20 foot, hand dug well from the 1930's, The loss of property has been getting worse every year from water draining through this property from the road especially after there was a clear cut in the area. He noted that the erosion varies from year to year and in the last two to three years he has been losing about 4 to 6 inches per year. In some places the gully which is a result of the water draining across his property is about 10 feet deep. Chairman Hinton asked if the clear cut was in 1983? Mr, Kirschner answered that the problems started in 1983, but the clear cut was a couple of years earlier. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there are any other signs of sliding on Mr, Kirschner's property? Mr. Kirschner stated that there is a trench about 16 to 19 feet long and about 8 feet deep located about 100 feet from his house. There are also some sink holes on the property between the two cabins. Chairman Hinton asked if there is any drainage to the east on this property? Mr. Kirschner explained that due to the physical features of the property it cannot drain to the east. He noted that the clear cut has been reseeded. Chairman Hinton asked if Mr. Kirschner has tried to alleviate some of the drainage problems with a curtain drain? Mr. Kirschner stated that he has not. Chairman Hinton then asked if this residence is a permanent residence? Mr. Kirschner answered that he views it as his home, but most people would consider it a summer home. Commissioner Wojt asked what Mr. Kirschner would like to see as a result of this appeal? Mr. Kirschner responded that he would like to see a clear acknowledgement that this is a local problem area that needs special handling and that it can't be addressed by normal mitigative measures, The capacity of the land to handle the water flow has been vastly overstepped. Chairman Hinton asked if Mr. Kirschner has ever had a test on his well for salt water intrusion? Mr. Kirschner answered that he has not had such a test done. Anne Savage was sworn in and reviewed pictures she has taken of the site giving reference to the number of the pictures. She explained that she is not willing to leave the pictures for the record. She noted that this triangle was created by the building of the Oak Bay Road which was done because the Old Oak Bay Road was beginning to crumple down to the water. The triangle was meant to be a buffer to control the erosion of Old Oak Bay Road. Commis- sioner Huntingford asked if what Ms. Savage is saying is that the erosion problems on the lower properties existed even before the County built the upper road? Ms. Savage said that is correct. She continued reviewing her pictures. Chairman Hinton pointed out that all of the problems she has pointed out are existing conditions, The Board must make a determination today on this subdivision and if it will increase these problems. Ms, Savage stated that she feels it will increase the problems. David Johnson 1807 Washington Street, Port Townsend, was sworn in and stated that he has spent time at the Kirschner cabin as he was growing up. He stated that his concerns are not with the proposed development, but that the erosion concerns are inadequately addressed in the proposal. He would like to see more research done on what the water flow increases might be and how they might be handled by the property before a final determination is gIven, Vðl ~o ~AGf ()1199 ~ ús~1:~III~¡~~~~ill~II~~~~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chris Kirschner stated that Anne Savage spoke of erosion existing prior to the construction of the road by-pass. She was speaking of the conditions surrounding her own property. He reported that, with respect to the erosion problems they have had, they never had any before the construction of the by-pass, It was in the year following the construction of the by-pass the canyon developed on their property. The property owners in the area have all been concentrating on the water problems on their own land. Mr. Smith has similar problems on his land. The man made pond in the triangle concentrated the water in this wet area and that water was held for irrigation use in the summer. The primary problem is that the roadway has created an excess amount of water downstream on Mr. Smith's property as well as on his and the whole thing needs to be addressed. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the clear cutting was above the new County road? Mr. Kirschner answered that it was. After further discussion of the problems in this area, Chairman Hinton noted that the only thing the County is dealing with today is this particular short plat. Mr, Kirschner asked if it is possible for the County to acknowledge an element of responsibility with regard to the drainage problems in this area. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth answered, that the County is not acknowledging any liability, Crai~ Smith, 2381 Oak Bay Road, was sworn in and said that he doesn't feel that the County addressed the water problems that were created when Oak Bay Road was put in, Some of the pictures that Mrs. Savage showed were confusing to him. He reported that a culvert was put in by the County when the new Oak Bay was built. There was never a ditch put in from that culvert to divert the water from it and it now goes through his property. Mr. Smith reported that he has since put a ditch in and there is no swamp or lake on his property. He does have a man made pond at the north end of his property. He reported that he has never known of a lake on his property. He has never clear cut his property. He added that he would like the County to address the obligation he feels it has for work that was done many years ago that has affected people. He doesn't feel that the two more homes that will eventually be on this property, if the subdivision is approved, will greatly impact the water flow in the area. There are engineering requirements built in to the subdivision to address that. The problems raised by Ms. Savage and Mr. Kirschner are problems that are there whether he does anything with his property or not. Anne Savage asked Mr. Smith if he had trees logged, which were then sold to Pope and Talbot? Mr. Smith answered that he had land cleared for the mobile home and the original home he built. Anne Savage asked who cut the trees for Mr, Smith? Mr, Smith answered that M.G. Backhoe Service did the logging, She then asked if Mr. Smith had seen the erosion on the beach? He answered that he did see erosion where Ms. Savage indicated, but he doesn't feel that what he is doing on his property is causing the impact that she is concerned about and that any future development on his property is being addressed in the SEP A review. Anne Savage stated for the record that she wanted an environmental impact statement done for this project. Tim Wollett, Madrona Planning and Development Services representing Mr. Smith was sworn in. He explained that there is an existing drainage problem in this area and the mitigating conditions require that any further development or clearing will require additional study. He feels the County has done a good job in addressing many concerns, Craig Smith has been very cooperative in accepting the conditions placed on the project. The mitigating conditions are very thorough and he doesn't feel there is a need for an environmental impact statement. There has been clearing of timber on the site, but these activities have been classified as Class 1 Forest Practices which is removal of less than 5,000 board feet of timber in any twelve month period, He supports the Planning staff in the issuance of a mitigated determination of non-significance. Mr. Kirschner asked who is responsible if the conditions and the work turn out to be inadequate to actually mitigate the impact? Mr. Wollett answered that if a drainage plan ".- 20 rAG! 0 1200 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that is engineered fails, that becomes a question of liability for the firm that engineered it, not the County. The County has conditions on a project that say that an engineered plan must be done by a professional, and they are counting on the professional doing their job. The County is not in the business of monitoring the quality of a professional's work. Surveyors and engineers are certified by the State and the County has to take that at face value. The discussion continued regarding future liability if problems occur. Ms. Savage asked if Mr. Wollett is a registered planner with the State? Mr. Wollett answered that he is not registered with the State, but he has been a planner for 5 years with another County. Craig Smith explained that NT I Engineering has been doing the engineering work on his project. Mark Huth asked if the State certifies planners? Tim Wollett answered that there is a certification program, but it is not required, Mr. Kirschner asked if the SEP A mitigation statement will cause the County to accept responsibility for a plan that is improved under its' conditions? Mark Huth reported that legally the County is responsible for the project approval, but not for the project. The County is responsible for assuring that the impacts have been addressed and that the conditions are met. If there are damages, then the SEP A mitigating statement doesn't say that the County will accept liability for damages. That must be sorted out in a Court of law between the parties. The discussion continued regarding SEP A and how it works, Commissioner Huntingford asked if the property Craig Smith purchased had been thinned or logged years ago? Mr. Smith answered that the property, he believes, was logged to some extent many years ago. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Smith has seen any slippage of his property since he has had his house on it? Mr. Smith answered that he has not. The Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there are flat areas on the sites that can be built upon? Jerry Smith reported that there hasn't been a proposed building envelop on either of the two lots that haven't been built on yet. The access to both of these lots are off of the lower road. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there will be cutting of any banks to provide access to these lots? Craig Smith reported that there is already a road cut into these lots. Chairman Hinton noted that the stormwater drainage plan required as a mitigating condition on this subdivision is an engineered plan which covers any land disturbing activities, impervious surfaces and the impact they have. Chairman Hinton asked about the open space area? Jerry Smith reported that it was the project proponents proposal to dedicate the open space on the plan. Commissioner Huntingford moved to deny the appeal and uphold the mitigated determina- tion of non-significance on the East Ridge Short Subdivision SP A94-0015. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the hearing and reconvened on Thursday evening at 7:00 p.m. at the Tri Area Community Center for the following hearing. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Proposed Zonin2 Code Maps: The Chairman opened the public hearing on the proposed zoning code maps for the 31 ± interest County residents present. He reported that written comments will be accepted on these maps at the Commissioner's Office until 5 p.m, on Friday August 5, 1994. Clifford Raiala, Gardiner, stated that Map 18 shows the Gardiner Heavy Industrial/Commercial District. This district only includes Olympic Northern Forest Products, He feels that the WI.. 20 tAt~ 0 1201 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gravel pit should also be included in this designation. It has existed for more than 12 years. About a year ago the gravel pit expanded into an adjacent five acre parcel. The County Planning Department didn't know about this expansion or that the land owner had changed. He then checked with Olympia regarding the Forest Practices Permit and the mineral extraction permit which were in order. When the Gardiner Community plan was done, the gravel pit was to be confined to the original five acre parcel. What good is County zoning if they (the Planning Department) don't know what's happening in their own County? Commissioner Huntingford asked if the five acre piece Mr. Rajala stated was in- dustrial/commercial, was designated through the Gardiner Community Plan? Mr. Rajala answered that it was a gravel pit when the Gardiner Community Plan was done and was grandfathered in. Frank Ludwig, 431 Glen Cove Road, explained that he is concerned with map 7 in Section 16, Township 30. The zone boundary line as shown, divides property lying east of the Bayview Plat and west of the Cove and Gise Additions. He submitted a map (see attached) which has the area he is concerned with marked in purple, Property that he owns lies immediately north of the Glen Cove Road and the zone boundary as shown divides it between the light industrial/commercial and general use (Tax Lot 28 immediately north of Glen Cove Road lying south of Denny's Plat and west of the Gise Addition) designation. He then pointed out on the map the boundary line and the section line he is talking about. He stated that he can see no logic in have the boundary line split some properties while in other areas it follows plat boundary lines. Dick Swenson, Gardiner, stated the area that the gravel pit Mr. Rajala discussed expanded into was zoned one acre residential. On map 18, there is a machine shop on Tax Code 48, and he asked what the County was going to do about that? This area is zoned one acre residential according to the Gardiner Community Plan. He asked what kind of teeth the County is going to put into this ordinance? Ravmond Pedro. Chairman Hinton explained that the corner lot at 4 Corners and Highway 20 is zoned commercial. This lot abuts Mr. Pedro's property, He asked Mr. Pedro if he has any problem with that area being designated commercial? Mr. Pedro answered that he doesn't own that parcel any longer. The discussion continued with Mrs. Birkland regarding this parcel and who owns it. Stan Bircher, said that he has had his question answered. Ronald Marlow, explained about the intersection (on Map 12) of Airport Cutoff and 4 Corners Road. Airport Cutoff Road used to be a County road and now it's a State highway. This is a main arterial intersection which should have commercial use, Having residential use in this area doesn't make sense. Guidelines for mortgage funding indicate that the amount of a loan is determined by the best use of the property. The property at the entire intersection is non-conforming for residential use. Getting money to build on the these properties could be a problem. He feels that whole intersections should be under consideration to be designated commercial, within the 660 foot radius of the intersection. Keturah Brown, 122 Vancouver Lane which is about 3/4 of a mile from the 4 Corners RoadlDiscovery RoadlHighway 20 intersection, She reported that she is also the co-chairman for the Quimper Planning Area Committee. She referred to Map 8. The Quimper Planning Committee is concerned with the area on this map designated general commercial. This committee is putting together a community plan and they feel these zone designations take away the right of the residents to make some of these determinations. The area designated commercial on this map is too large. There are some grand fathered uses on the Discovery Road side. The Committee recommends that only the area within the 660 foot circle around the intersection be designated commercia] until there is a need shown for more commercial property. Extending the Commercia] area as far as indicated along 4 Corners Road from VOl 20 ~At.! 01202 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Highway 20 in an area that is not currently commercial, encourages strip development. The Community Planning Committee prefers that a much smaller area be designated neighborhood commercial. Just because a single parcel extends up the Highway, isn't a good enough reason, Ms. Brown noted, to extend the commerciaJ zone that far. She added that there seems to be a mistake on this map, in that M-2 which is heavy industrial and is shown as "Airport Light Industrial." This needs to be corrected, Mark Stevenson, Martin Road, stated that there are continuing questions as to whether the County has the authority to make new commercial zones after the State's deadline for establishment of urban growth boundaries which the County didn't meet. Once the urban growth boundaries were established, it is his understanding that an new commercial zones should be within those urban growth areas because that is where the infrastructure exists or can be reasonably extended to supply the needs of the commercial zone. Part of the C-2 area of Map 7 was rezoned after the deadline for the estabJishment of urban growth areas. The parcel marked Eagle Eye which is Jocated on map 7 farthest to the southeast (a triangle between the Highway and the Port Townsend water line) was aJso zoned commercial after the deadline. There is another area (Hancock Parcel) that was zoned commerciaJ at that time and it is not listed on this map as commercial. He added that it is his understanding that the Prosecuting Attorney told the Growth Management Hearings Board that there is not adequate water to support commercial activities on these parceJs, This seems to indicate that even if these parceJs are zoned commerciaJ, they can't be developed commercially. There are also questions about the legality of the establishment of any new public water systems outside urban growth areas. These questions need to be answered, He then noted that he is concerned about an apparent change in the zoning of the Fred Hill property at the Airport Cutoff Intersection, He thinks they are currently under a conditionaJ use permit in the General Use zone. The maps Jists this property in the Light Industrial/Commercial zone. To the extent of this commercial zoning, more visibJe deveJopment wouJd be an owed along the highway. He urged that the Board look dosely at the rezone of the Fred Hill property. Chairman Hinton noted, in reference to Mr, Stevenson's comment about inadequate water, that the Fred HiJI property has one of the best weBs in the area. Julie Jaman, McMinn Road, stated that the zoning maps as currently proposed appear to reflect more poor planning. The GMA dearly states that regional commercial development must occur inside UGA's, The intent is to avoid low density sprawl and to fill in the vacant commercial land inside UGAs, The proposed industrial/commercial designations are not consistent with the UGA ordinance, or with the City/County Planning Policies. These policies specifically define where public water systems are to be deveJoped which is inside UGAs. The purpose of the City/County PJanning Policies and GMA is to prevent strip development and sprawl and inappropriate commercialization outside urban areas. This would help allay the subsidization by taxpayers of such development. It appears that the rezoning of 4 Corners, the Airport Cutoff and the Airport land itself couJd combine in such a way that taxpayers could be burdened with one of the potentiaBy Jargest mans in the State. The Jefferson 2000 survey and the work done by the current community planning groups, both indicate that the industrial/commercial designations on these maps are not in keeping with the vision of 75% or more of the citizens of this County. The designations along Highway 20 will destroy the greenbelt between Port Townsend and the Tri Area and severely impact the rural nature of the area. However, the Quimper Planning Committee strongly supports rural resource based industries (induding existing grand fathered uses such as Fred Hill) and that will be reflected in their pJan. The zoning maps should conform with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the Implementing Ordinance which identifies a 600 foot radius at intersections. These zones (CIon the maps) should be within a 600 foot radius, not whoJe parcels of many acres identified by parcel lines. The most critical issues for zoning and land use is the avaiJability of water -- who gets it? and who pays for it? and we don't have those answers yet. ·VGl 20 ur.~ 01203 A ..::::~~~~¡~~ii¡:¡:::::;:;::::::::::: ':::::~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hank Snelgrove, 270 Disney Road, Nordland with a business in Port Hadlock, said that he doesn't have a major problem with Map 13 (Port Hadlock), but he has a problem with the the line in the eastern most block of this map. The line goes to the east across the bay and up the sand pit. His concern is that currently the "defacto" commercial area in Hadlock is north of the Lower Hadlock Road. There is no commercial activity south of Lower Hadlock Road. Encouraging the siting of businesses on a shifting sand spit and lagoon shores and a very steep slope, isn't good policy. He noted that he would like to see this line follow the Lower Hadlock Road. W. E. "Gene" Seton, stated that the east line of the boundary at Four Corners is 660 feet from the intersection. He owns quite a bit of property at Four Corners and has been there for forty years. The definition of "grand fathered " indicates that you can have what is in place, but nothing else. As a grandfathered use, a business such as the UPS Service on his property, would not be allowed to expand. He doesn't feel it's right to take something that has been in that area for forty years and take away half of it. He stated that he doesn't feel the area identified on the map is too big at all. He urged the Board to zone what is there. Phil Akeridge, 150 Hadlock Avenue, Irondale, referred to an area on map 13 (Irondale) which has a grand fathered use on it for the past 30 years. He asked that it be shown as commercial or commercial/industrial. He explained that if that is changed then Daryl Hedman who is next to this property would have a right to petition for a commercial/industrial use on his property also. Sandra Everette, said that Map 4 (Beaver Valley) shows the commercial area expanded into her parcel. She explained that the potential commercial development in that area could not be as large as the boundary shown on this map because part of her property is wetlands and streams and areas that can never be built upon. They are interested in doing some minor development within 660 feet of the intersection, Pete Langley, asked why the Port Townsend Paper Mill property (Map 8 Glen Cove) is not designated? He explained that they have been using this property for years for various uses including a landfill. He also asked why the Glen Cove area is considered light in- dustrial/commercial when, because of the bulk plants located there, it should probably be considered industrial or heavy industrial? This is one of the only places that has the three phase power and the water to it to allow heavy industrial development in the future. He asked that the designation be changed (to M2) for only the Glen Cove area on the east side of the Highway. Gene Seton, explained that when he was on the Planning Commission, they spent a year developing the Highway 20 Corridor Plan, to preserve the greenbelt along that Highway. The only problem was that this plan was not put in the form of an ordinance so it couldn't be enforced, Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman thanked everyone for coming and closed the public hearing, the Board WI.. 20 t.rJ ,. n 04 ." 12 ..;:~:tj ~