Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081594 MINUTES WEEK OF AUGUST 15, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Com- missioner Richard Wojt was present, while Commissioner Glen Huntingford was not. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Senior Planner James Holland re: Joint Production of the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan with JeffersonCountv Economic Development Council: Senior Planner James Holland reported that authorization is needed from the Board regarding the Economic Development Council and their responsibility for the development of the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board concurred that this authorization is given to the EDC for this work. GMA Update: J ames Holland reported that the implementation of the Critical Areas Ordinance is proceeding. Administrative rules and inter- pretations are being developed and will be forwarded to the Board for their review and approval. He reported that even with a high workload, the turn around time on building permits has been about 2 weeks. The Western Growth Management Hearings Board Order signed on August 10, 1994, James Holland reported requires that the County do a number of things to come into compliance with GMA. There were three requirements in the order: 1. The County must eliminate any rUGA designations outside the City within 30 days of the date of the order. 1'0;_ . 20 ~AGf 01.133 , ~ 2. The County must clarify ordinance language to prohibit any unvested urban residential, commercial or industrial development outside properly designated rUGA's within 30 days of the date of the order. The order does not say "unvested," but the narrative with the order does discuss this. Whether a development is vested or not is defined by State statute. rf there is no rUGA, other than the City of Port Townsend, the only place in the County where urban residential, commercial or industrial development that Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is not vested under Washington State law can take place within the City limits. 3. Develop and adopt an appropriate rural density designation within 60 days of the date of the order. The use of the word "appropriate" indicates that the County must do a fair amount of analysis to provide the necessary information on which to base an appropriate rural density. Item number 1 of the Hearings Board order states that the County must produce information and analysis required by GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies to support possible redesignation of the Tri Area and Port Ludlow as urban growth areas. What this means is that the analysis required for the Comprehensive Plan must be done up front in order to redesignate any urban growth areas. Olsen and Greaves have done a fair amount of work on this analysis as part of their work as planning advisors for the Tri Area. However, to do this work for Port Ludlow will take quite a bit of time. He estimates that it may take just over 60 working days. The public process and citizen participation was not taken into consideration in the Western Hearings Board's timelines for adopting these mandatory amendments to the JUGA ordinance. James Holland recommended that the Board meet with the Prosecuting Attorney as soon as possible to get his perspective. He feels that the County can meet the deadlines, but the question is what will be the price in terms of the work scheduled for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Wojt asked what was meant by the Hearings Board when they say new residential development? James Holland answered that they are saying new "urban" residential development which he feels means any develop- ment at a density of greater than one dwelling unit per acre. The discussion continued regarding public process, since the Hearings Board order says that public hearings don't constitute public input. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Water and fire flow issues in Fire District #6 were discussed by several people as well as how the County handles political signs on private property, the enforcement of ordinances, the community planning process in the Tri Area, how the recent Growth Manage- ment Hearings Board order will impact economic development projects in Quilcene that will need a commercial designation, and the need for gun restrictions in developed areas of the County due to hunting. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner W ojt moved to delete Item 3 and to adopt and approve the balance of the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 94-94 re: Removing Weight Restriction on Railroad Over Crossing, Bridge No. 19E 2. CONTRACT re: Consulting Services to Develop Concept Plan for H.J. Carroll Park Project No. R01118; Madrona Planning and Development Services 3. DELETE AGREEMENT re: Reimbursable Work for Various Road Projects up to $50,000; City of Port Townsend . VOL 28fACf 01-·134 ..At;~I:¡·:111 ..::::d~1"1~11¡!!!!!1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 4. Final Approval and Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; 4 Lot Short Plat #SPll-93; Located Off Hazel Point Road, Quilcene; Stan Johnston, Ap- plicant 5. Final Approval and Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; 2 Lot Commercial Short Plat; Mark Moriarty, Applicant 6. Final Approval and Adoption of Findings and Conclusions; 3 Lot Short Plat #SP17-92; Located Off Old Gardiner Highway, Quilcene; Lee Rollins, Ap- plicant 7. CONTRACT, Assignment re: Harold J. Caldwell, Attorney, Contract for Superior and District Court Conflict Case Work for 1994; Assigned to John F. Raymond, Attorney BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Steve West re: Issuance of a Buildine: Permit for a Mobile Home on a site on Hie:hwav 104 West of the Hood Canal Bride:e {Permit Held due to lUG A Ordinance Provisions}: Kent Anderson reported that Mr. West applied for a building permit last Friday. He has been preparing to put a mobile home on his site for quite awhile, but was advised not to proceed with a building permit because he couldn't get permission for water. He is proposing a community well to serve two homes. Steve West stated that the site is owned by his in-laws and it has an adequate existing well that could serve a mobile home also. He has also submitted an application for a septic system. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth advised that he would like to discuss the Hearings Board order with the Commissioners in executive session. It sounds like Mr. West has just applied for his building permit and that permit should go through proper channels before the Board considers taking any action on it. Steve West reported that they have already ordered their mobile home and they are in a time crunch on it with a lot of money invested. Mark Huth explained that the County will have to decide what to do about the Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance quickly. The Board advised Mr. West that he would be contacted as soon as any action is taken with regard to the IUGA ordinance. Chane:es to Zonine: Code Maps: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth recommended that the Board not take any action on these maps until the County has time to determine what will be done regarding the Growth Man- agement Hearings Board's order. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Presentation; John Crawford, Washine:ton Counties Risk Pool: John Crawford, Executive Director of the Washington Counties Risk Pool presented the County with the Risk Pool's Golden Dragon award. Jefferson County was one of the original participating counties when the Risk Pool was formed in 1988. He thanked the County for their participation, leadership, and VOL 20 UG£ Qli135 ..;;i~ ..;.:.:.:.:.:. .,;.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .':::::::::::::::::~ .':':-:':':':':':':':'~ ..::::ii::¡r:::::¡¡::¡::m ..::;:l¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liii;i¡¡¡¡il ..:.:.:.:.:....:.:.;.;.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for handling their claims so well. He then presented Gary Rowe with a five year pen to acknowledge his leadership contribution to the Risk Pool over that time. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth re: Settlement AŒreement - Western Construction: Mark Huth reported that this agreement will settle the Port Townsend Community Center construction contract claim. The agreement allows the County to keep the retain age fund for the Port Town- send Community Center and release the funds for the Baylor Building. He stated that he believes this is a fair and equitable resolution of this claim. The Board advised that they would review the document this week. ProsecutinŒ Attorney Mark Huth re: Settlement AŒreement - Gunstone: Mark Huth reported that several claims would be settled with the Gunstone's by the approval of this agreement. The Board advised that they would review the document this week. ProsecutinŒ Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of Policy and Procedures on Statutory Vacations: Mark Huth explained that a State law was passed around the turn of the century which said that any previously platted area where the roads had not been opened for five years were con- sidered vacated. The Courts have determined that this means that these areas are automatically vacated, the County no longer had any interest in them and the vacation was done as a matter of law. That law was amended in 1909, through the efforts of various counties, so that it no longer applies, but the Courts have said for that period of time, platted roads that were platted prior to 1903 and not opened prior to 1909 (there are specific dates) are considered vacated. There are a number of plats in the County that were platted by the dates specified. The question then is were the roads opened for five years after they were platted. If they weren't, then they are automatically vacated. Whether this action land locks a property is not a County concern because the vacation was done by Court action. The question of whether a property is land locked or not is complicated. Private easements are not extinguished by this action, but they have to be determined between the private parties involved. Chairman Hinton asked if there is a policy or procedure regarding notification of property owners adjacent to these vacations? Mark Huth reported that the current County Ordinance does not require it. The only thing the County is doing on these statutory vacations, is acknowledging that they exist. The County's Ordinance could be changed to require notification of adjacent proper- ty owners. HearinŒ Examiner Recommendation; Petition to Vacate a Portion of 10th Avenue and a Portion of an Alley in Hessian Garden Tracts; Wallace Bowman, Petitioner: Public Works Administrative Assis- tant Eileen Simon reported that the request is to vacate a portion of an alley and 10th Avenue in Hessian Garden Tracts. She reported that Kennedy Street is currently used and maintained by the County, but it is not located within its platted right-of-way so 10th Avenue provides access to the north and south. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Board deny the vacation of 10th Avenue, but approve the vacation of the alley, subject to the following condi- tions: VOL 20 fAGI 0 1.~136 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The petitioners shall consolidate or otherwise bind lots 10 through 15 with lots 4 through 9 in block 1 and lot 16 with lot 1 in block 6 all lying south of Kennedy Road. This would avoid land locking the lower tier of lots. 2. The petitioner shall compensate Jefferson County for the vacated right- of-way in accordance with the provisions of the Road Vacation Or- dinance. Eileen Simon pointed out that a good portion of Hessian Garden Tracts was vacated in 1949. In 1983 the Prosecuting Attorney gave an opinion that vacated Turner Street which is adjacent to Mr. Bowman's lots on the south. Chairman Hinton asked if the Prosecuting Attorney reviewed the letter for Thomas Majhan, Attorney for Mr. Bowman? Mark Huth reported that he has reviewed the letter and agrees that 10th Avenue stops at the north line of the vacated Turner Street. There is no reason for a road to extend into an intersection with a vacated road. He added that the issue of the possible land locked lots, if they are indeed land locked, that occurred when Turner Street was vacated and 10th Avenue has nothing to do with that. Kennedy Road would remain open. Commissioner Wojt moved to set a hearing on this proposed vacation for September 6, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Closure of Nelson's Landine- Road to Throue-h Truck Traffic: The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding the proposed closure of Nelson's Landing Road to through truck traffic. Bill Leavitt, reported that they have 50 acres in this area. He understands that the bridge has been inspected and is rated for a higher load limit than it was previously. He is concerned that the County is taking full responsibility for opening that bridge to heavier loads. He also noted that there is bad sight distance at the intersection and asked if there will be a realignment at this intersection? Assistant Public Works Director Bob Nesbit reported that there is a project planned for this area which will widen the shoulders and move the intersec- tion. The bridge is rated to take any legal highway load the same as any other bridge. Chris Hanson, 141 Nelson's Landing Road, stated that this road is only 13 feet wide and it is okay for cars, but when truck traffic uses it, it gets dicey. The road isn't straight, it has dog legs in it and short sight distances. He is in favor of closing it to through truck traffic. This will resolve a lot of problems for people who live on this road. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the closure of Nelson's Landing Road to through truck traffic as proposed. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion. The motion carried. Gary Rowe reported that this closure will be effective when the signs are installed in approximately two weeks. Bill Leavitt asked if the road work will VOL 20 UGf 0 1..137· Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . be done before this closure? Gary Rowe stated that they won't put the signs up until the Cape George Road intersection is improved. Commissioner Wojt amended his motion to approve the closure effective at the completion of the intersection work at Cape George Road. Chairman Hinton seconded the amended motion and called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ProsecutinŒ Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of Land Use ReJ!Ulations on the Quinault Indian Reservation: Mark Huth reported that this issue should be addressed in executive session at some time in the future because the County is involved in a lawsuit about land use regulations on the reservation. HEARING re: General Use to General Commercial; 2.5 Acres Adjacent to Rhody Drive where it intersects with Four Corners Road and Airport Cutoff; Michael and Susan Graves. Applicants: The Chair- man read the hearing procedures and then asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) No one objected. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) Both 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) Both Board members answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) Both 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) Both Board members answered no. Roger Blaylock, Senior Planner, reported that the application is a request to change the use of a 2.5 acre parcel located approximately 780 feet north of the intersection of Rhody Drive and Irondale Road, from general use to general commercial. The property is on the west side of the Tri Area UGA boundary at the intersection of Rhody Drive and Irondale Road. The property is also outside the Highway Commercial Zone. The property was reviewed for this change in 1992 and denied at that time. There are several policies in the Tri Area Community plan which do not allow this property to be designated as commercial. This plan designates a commercial area within a radius of 660 feet around the intersection of Rhody Drive and Irondale Road. The Planning Commission is bound by the provision of the Comprehensive Plan which has a policy which excludes this intersection from being designated commercial. They made a recommendation that this request be evaluated. Chairman Hinton asked if there is any evidence as to why this intersection was excluded for commercial designation in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan? Roger Blaylock reported that there is not any evidence. He reported that the right-of-way had been acquired by the County for an intersection improvement project in this area, but now that road is a State road. Mike Graves, project proponent, was sworn in and reported that the County made plans and acquired the property to change this intersection. He ex- VOL 20 UGf .0 1...138 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . plained that at every meeting he has been to, he has always been told this property is in a commercial zone. This should be a commercial area. Ron Marlow. 2616 Anderson Lake Road, Chimacum and Roger Blaylock were both sworn in. Mr. Marlow asked Roger Blaylock if this intersection would meet the criteria for a commercial center because it condenses the commercial area and has room for expansion? Roger Blaylock stated he believes it is appropriate, from a planning point of view, to look at this area as a commer- cial area. The Tri Area Community plan was adopted after 1979 and takes precedence over the 1979 Comprehensive Plan in that area. Mr. Marlow asked that the Board listen to the tapes from the Planning Commission hearing before a decision is made on this. Chairman Hinton agreed to listen to the tapes. Each day 2,300 cars go by this property which is located on a major highway. Ingress and egress from this highway has to be approved by the State. The intersection meets the criteria for commercial. The guidelines for lending on properties states that the property must be appraised for its highest and best use, which in this case is not residential. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that this area should be commercial, but they didn't feel they had the authority to make it that. Jim Ramey, 2010 Rosewood, Port Townsend, was sworn in and explained that everything is referenced to the 1982 Tri Area Community Plan. He talked with Cindy Thayer (member of the planning committee at that time) and David Goldsmith about how that plan was developed. All four of these intersections are essentially the same. The exemption of this intersection from commercial designation was to help fill in the commercial areas at these other intersec- tions. This is poor policy. Ron Marlow reported that he was at the meeting at the Tri Area regarding transportation and this intersection is to be upgraded as part of the six year transportation plan. Penny Herrick, Planning Commission Chairman, was sworn in and reported that the Planning Commission recommended that this be denied at this time because the Tri Area community planning committee is working on their plan and the Planning Commission feels that the County should wait for that process to be completed. There are concerns by members of the Tri Area Community Planning Committee regarding commercial designation of that intersection. She recommended that the Board wait until the Tri Area Plann- ing group finishes their work. There is a group of people from Cedar Park that are concerned about the impact of existing commercial development on their properties and that the existing Interim Zoning Ordinance doesn't have much protection from impacts and that is why they are participating in the planning process. Jim Ramey stated that when they went before the Planning Commission for this re-zone request, there were four members that felt that this property should be commercial. There were only two members, out of the seven that didn't think it should be commercial. What they were in doubt about was whether they should lead the way to change the designation. Penny Herrick stated that the majority of Planning Commission members felt that this should be commercial in the future, but unanimously voted that it should be held until the Tri Area Planning group finishes their work. Roger Blaylock read the Planning Commission findings. VOL 20 rAG~ 0 1-·139 ..::::iii::!1 .,:::::::::::::::~:~::: ..;.::~~f~:::~;::?;:¡!i!:¡:¡:ii ml~¡~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ron Marlow again urged the ,Board to listen to the tapes of the Planning Commission meeting. Jim Ramev added that this is a large intersection and it can't in any way be thought of as a residential intersection. Mike Graves reported that the County purchased from every property owner around this intersection, property to realign and improve this intersection. The State took over these roads from the County and there are still plans for the improvements. Commissioner Wojt asked what effect the Growth Management Hearing Board's decision has on this request? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth answered that if the County approves this request it will be out of compliance with the Growth Management Hearings Board order. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Hinton noted that he doesn't feel that there is anyone in opposition to designating this intersection as commercial. He feels this request is in compliance with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan because it is adjacent to commercial properties within 660 feet of the intersection and it is bounded on two sides by arterial highways. As far as the Planning Commission's respect for the Tri Area Planning Committee's work and future determinations, this Board cannot delay a decision like this pending a future determination by a Planning Committee. Because of the final order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the County is unable to designate this area at this time, but rather than deny this request he suggested that it be continued until such time as the Board can do what is necessary with regard to the Hearings Board order. Mike Graves asked if there is a time frame for this work? Chairman Hinton reported that the Hearings Board gave the County specific time frames, but the Board hasn't determined how to proceed regarding this order yet. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. with Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Wojt both present. Commissioner Huntingford was not in attendance. HEARING re: Buildinl! Permit Appeal; G.E.· Development; Fire District #6: The Chairman read the hearing procedure and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) No one objected. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All 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. IJOI... 20 ~~G~ 01~14:0 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director, reviewed the background of this application. Elmer Paul and Gary Hilbert have developed an existing platted area off of Discovery Road. To support that development they have applied to the State Department of Health for approval of two Group B water systems known as Discovery Grove 1 and Discovery Grove 2. The DOH has approved the reports on these two systems for construction. He reported that during the course of planning for these projects the question came up about whether these systems would have to meet the fire flow standards of the County's Coor- dinated Water Service Plan (CWSP.) He reviewed the CWSP and made a determination that the requirement to build fire flow capacity didn't apply in this case. All the requirements of the CWSP must be met for rural systems except fire flow. The question is how rural is defined? There are specific calculations in the CWSP definitions for determining rural densities. The calculation does include roadways, open space, parks, easements, etc. and is a gross area calculation. This particular project creates 12 building sites on 13+ acres which is a density of one unit per acre. Bourtai Hargrove, Attorney for Fire District #6, read and submitted their appeal (see attached.) She stated that the main issue is safety. This develop- ment is set in a forest area which makes fire fighting more difficult. The Fire District hopes to alert the County to the danger of approving small sub- divisions in forestland without buffer zones, access roads large enough to accommodate fire equipment, and adequate water for fire suppression. They feel that the overriding concern in this appeal must be the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County. It is the Fire District's position that fire flow is mandatory for this subdivision under the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code, the Washington Administrative Code and the Jefferson County CWSP. The approval of this subdivision without fire flow may effect the insurance rating of all homeowners within the boundaries of Fire District #6. Chairman Hinton then swore in Larry Fay and Fire District #6, Fire Chief Robert Larson. The following are responses by Larry Fay to questions asked by Bourtai Hargrove: There are two individual water systems each serving 6 building sites. Each system consists of a single well, pump house which incorporates treatment for the removal of iron and manganese and a distribution system to get the water to the individual lots. The well capacity of Discovery Grove No. 1 is rated at 25 gallons per minute. Discovery Grove No.2 is rated at 50 gallons per minute. Two inch lines are not capable of providing 500 gallons per minute for 30 minutes to meet fire flow requirements. There is no reservoir to meet fire flow standards in the present plan for Discovery Grove. A 15,000 gallon reservoir would be needed to meet the fire flow requirements of 500 gallons per minute for 30 minutes. That could be reduced by whatever the pumping capacity of the system is. The nearest water system to this project operated by PUD #1 would probably be One Hawkeye Park which is less than a mile away. After checking the design, Larry Fay reported that there is a six inch main, which is capped off, between the well and the pump house. There is a fire hydrant shown, but there is not enough water for fire flow. A plat map of the two projects was reviewed. There is a loop road and the open space in the center of it, and the lots are adjacent. Larry Fay reviewed Section 4.61 of the CWSP (page 4-6) and noted that it says that the IJOl 20 U&~ 0 1·141 ..(or ..;:~:::::: ...... .':':':':':':':': .:.:.:.;.;.:.: ..::¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡: .' .,::¡:¡~:~~¡:~ ..:::~¡~¡rJ~futf~¡¡~~m]¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡; Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jefferson County Building and Planning Department may, either independently or upon recommendation from a local Fire Protection District, determine that the planned location of buildings in a development are in a grouped or cluster- ed configuration and thus additional consideration for fire protection is re- quired. This system was exempted from having to apply for water rights. Larry Fay then answered questions from Craig Fielden, Attorney representing G.E. Development: He was aware that the PUD was interested in this water system. There was a fire hydrant in the plan, but whether there is one in existence now, he doesn't know. Plans change frequently from the time of the initial application to final development. The following are responses from Robert E. Larson, Chief of Fire District #6, to questions from Bourtai Hargrove: He has been the Chief of Fire District #6 since 1991 and Assistant Chief for approximately five years, and a Firemen since 1978. He then listed the training he has gone through as a firemen and Chief. He was on the Discovery Grove site last Sunday. He stated that he measured from one well to the mobile home in the middle, which was 100 feet and then the additional mobile home that was set up was approximately 150 feet. All of the other lots are farther away from the well. Discovery Grove is set in forest. He explained that it is set in heavy forest, with a lot of brush and trees within 30 to 40 feet of the homes. The trees are drying up and dying and they are an extreme fire hazard. Two inch pipes were installed which are not sufficient for fire fighting. The houses are modular homes arranged in a horse shoe shape with two or three homes in the inside section and the rest in the outside section. Two lots are over one acre and the rest are under one acre. There is not a full acre between the houses. Considering the configuration of the lots, this area would be an extreme fire hazard at this time. If they had to fight a fire without fire flow they would possibly lose some of the homes. The access road comes off Discovery Road, at the bridge over the old railroad, and then to Nelson's Landing. There is approximately 300 feet of visibility on each side of the access road. The road goes from ap- proximately 16 feet wide to 10 feet wide. It is sufficient to get fire apparatus in, but without fire flow they would have to run tankers back and forth, set up holding tanks and block off the roadways. There is only the one access going in to this development. If the fire started on the north side of the subdivision, there wouldn't be any way for anyone to get out if there was an extreme fire hazard. It would take at least 15,000 gallons and may be as much as 20,000 gallons unless it was a pressurized system. We recommend that hydrants be placed on Discovery Road going into the plat, and two hydrants on the south end of the plat and one in the northeast corner. In a looped system they would require six inch pipes and a dead end system would require eight inch pipes. The nearest PUD line is approximately a half a mile away. When the first 34 units were applied for the Fire District submitted a comment, but that application was withdrawn. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks later there were two modular homes on the site and he called Mike Ajax about them. There have been repeated contacts and approximately three letters submitted on this project. The recommended fire flow is 500 gallons per minute for 30 minutes which is the level set forth in the Jefferson County CWSP. Fire Chief Larson responded to questions from Mr." Fielden as follows: He has not talked to or had correspondence with anyone at G.E. Development on this project. Tanker trucks are located at Cape George station and the Airport station. One is approximately 3 miles away and one is 6 miles away. Under the Uniform Fire Code he feels that fire flow is required at this site and he doesn't know of any other site that it would not be required. To his VOL 20 ~AG~ 0 1·1,12 ..::::::;:1¡1 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . knowledge Appendix 3 of the Uniform Fire Code has not been adopted by Jefferson County. Robert E. Larson, Chief of Fire District #6 gave the following responses to questions from Bourtai Hargrove: Some of the appeal letters that were sent to the County were also sent to G.E. Development and the Fire District attorney has talked to one of the representative of G.E. Development. Mr. Fielden noted that he feels the issue today is law versus policy. The purpose of this hearing is to determine what the law requires. Chairman Hinton then swore in Mr. Elmer Paul. Elmer Paul responded to questions from Mr. Fielden as follows. The only time they ever talked to the Fire District was on another subdivision a year and a half ago. The Discovery Grove subdivision was never discussed. They could have been in the process of purchasing the Discovery Grove property at the time they talked with the Fire District. It was right in that time when we were working on that. They received a phone call from the attorney for the Fire District about a month or month and a half ago. He explained that he was aware, through the County, that there was an objection coming from the Fire Chief, but that was long after the work was completed. The PUD has indicated that they want these water systems. Both of these wells are rated at 50 gallons per minute and are capable of supplying 180 homes. There will be 12 homes on the system and the PUD wants to convert this to a Class A system and at that point they would run their 6 inch lines into their main system. This is currently an approved Class B system which is 6 hookups per well. The width of the roads in this subdivision are a sixty foot easement with approximately 22 feet sur- faced. The trees are not dying. This is a very healthy forest. This area could have been clearcut, but they preferred to keep it in its natural setting. To say the trees are dying is a gross mis-statement. The original plan was for 35 homes in this area. Because of resistance, the plan was changed to twelve home sites and that omitted the fire flow requirement and the fire hydrant was not required. The County did inform them that the fire flow requirements were not applicable to this project in January or February and then Larry Fay sent a letter stating the same. Elmer Paul then responded to questions from Bourtai Hargrove: He explained that they feel this is a very comfortable and safe subdivision for customers and if the law forces them to put in fire flow, there wouldn't be a choice. They did not receive a copy of a letter from Jefferson County Fire District #6 to Michelle Wood (Planning Department) dated February 7, 1994. Larry Fay sent a letter in February or March that they were resisting and he said he reviewed it and they did not need fire flow. Elmer Paul responded to Mr. Fielden's questions as follows: If the law required fire flow for this project, Mr. Paul estimated that the system would cost about $30,000 to $40,000. He stated that he can't give an educated answer because its never been an issue. This cost assumes that a separate line can be done for the 15,000 gallon tank to the hydrants. All of the lots in this subdivision could be one acre or close to one acre, but the law requires total density, not individual lot density. 11 of the 12 home sites in this subdivision are currently one acre in size. Fire Chief Larson answered questions from Bourtai Hargrove as follows: It would be acceptable to the Fire District if, as suggested by Mr. Paul, the homes were by-passed and the 6 inch lines were put in to the fire hydrants. VOL 2(:) rAr;~ 01_¡143 ..:::::dil!lllllll.ill Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman Hinton asked if Fire District #6 encourages clear cutting of sub- divisions? Chief Larson answered that they encourage a buffer zone around the homes. The Chairman then asked what distance apart the four proposed hydrants would be? Chief Larson explained that they would be approximately 500 feet apart. The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Hargrove objected to opening the hearing to the public because it is a quasi-judicial hearing. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth advised that any public should be sworn in and will be subject to questioning from both attorneys. Julie J aman, member of the Quimper Planning Committee and a Board member of the OEC (Olympic Environmental Council) was sworn in. She noted that they are concerned with impacts to surrounding aquifers from this type of development and well capacity draw down as well as the lack of knowledge around recharge capacity for this aquifer based on this kind of density in a rural area. Under GMA and the CWPP (County wide Planning Policies,) capital facilities and land capacity studies have not been attended to in the process of this development. Under the CWPP and the Level of Service standards, public water systems of this nature are not appropriate in rural areas. This is semi-urban density. Health and safety issues are raised by the questions around the ability to provide water for this type of density. The County has an obligation to look into the legality of the proposal that the PUD take over this system. This would be the taxpayers subsidizing a developer in the County. Commissioner Wojt asked Ms. Jaman how this project would require subsidy from taxpayers? Julie Jaman answered that the taxpayers would have to all share in the fire protection that is required for this development. This is an urban subdivision in a rural area which requires different standards of fire protection. Pete Lang-lev, residing at 11 Crutcher Road, was sworn in. He explained that he is one of the taxpayers that has paid for the tankers to provide fire protec- tion in that area. He resides in that area and he resents the fact that there is more density in that area. He moved there to be in a rural area. N ow he is being asked to provide fire protection for development that is coming in. He doesn't feel that the people proposing the development are paying their fair share of the existing tax base to provide fire flow. He has volunteered for the past seven years as a firemen in this district. They have talked about giving these wells to the PUD and he feels the PUD is another bureaucracy that is failing. We've got to stop this and we've got to do it soon. Bourtai Hargrove then made her legal arguments (from page 6 of her submittal see attached): · The County adopted the Uniform Fire Code in February of 1993 and the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan in 1986. Under statutory interpretation rules, a more recent statute takes precedent over an earlier statute if they cannot be reconciled and are both still in effect. There is a specific disclaimer in the CWSP that says that standards in that plan are not intended to supersede any legally constituted and applicable standards that are more stringent. Section 10.401 of the Uniform Fire Code says that an approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided for all premises after the date the Code is adopted. This section goes on to say when a building or portion of a facility is . \JI}L 20 tAr;r 0'1·144 ¿ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided, when required by the Chief. Chief Larson has recommended a 6 inch system with 4 fire hydrants if the system will eventually be connected to the PUD water system. If this is going to be an isolated system it should have 8 inch lines, which could be directly to the fire hydrants. The important thing is that the fire hydrants must be supplied with water. Tankers provide very little water and it would not be sufficient for a fire in a subdivision of this size and configuration. · Under WAC (Washington Administrative Code) and the County's CWSP the Fire Chief is given authority and discretion to make determinations regarding what is sufficient for fire flow. The Fire Chief is authorized to set the location, number and type of fire hydrants and the width of the road necessary for fire apparatus. (Sections following 10.401 Uniform Fire Code). WAC 246 293.640 requires consultation with the local fire protection authority before the application of standards and authorizes the Chief to set higher standards for commercial and industrial buildings. WAC 246 293.670 allows alternate methods of fire protection provided they are approved by the Fire Chief. · There are not sufficient lines of communication between the County Planning staff and the Fire District. Greater cooperation is needed. · Fire Chief Larson is no longer requiring the more intensive standards in the Uniform Fire Code. He is requiring the minimum standards set forth in the Jefferson County CWSP. Ms. Hargrove summarized by stating that she feels the County has only one choice under the law and that is that fire flow must be required. Craig Fielden then presented his legal arguments: · Pursuant to the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) the WAC for fire flow was created. The WAC requires that the Public Water System Plan includes a map with the development classifications (rural - lot sizes greater than 1 acre, residential - lot sizes one acre or less, commercial and industrial.) These development classification are to be determined by any method acceptable to the Planning jurisdiction, which is the County. With this in mind the County created the CWSP which adheres to the WAC requirements. The Uniform Fire Code does not trump the WAC and the Jefferson County CWSP. The appendices to the UFC were not adopted by Jefferson County. There is no question that fire flow is not required at this development site. An action by the Board of Commissioners which is consistent with an ordinance does not open the County up to liability. However, if the County violates their own regulations, which would be the case if this development is required to provide fire flow that would open the County up to liability. With regard to the insurance issue raised by Ms. Hargrove, he doesn't feel that this development will create an insurance problem. These issues will be addressed when the update of the Comprehensive Plan is completed as required by GMA. If the Fire Chief can draw upon the Uniform Fire Code and make any requirements he wants, then he is in fact making law. It is not the Chiefs position to make law. There has been nothing presented that · · · · "Jot 20 Ufl 0 f..!-:45 /.::~ .,::::;:¡:¡::: .,::;:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡ Â1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of AUg11st 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gives the Fire Chief the authority to override properly enacted or- dinances or the Washington Administrative Code. Mr. Fielden summarized his presentation by stating that if his client's are made to do this, it would be at a substantial cost, it would open the County up to liability, and it would be unnecessary. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that he agrees with Mr. Fielden in his interpretation of the law. The County's CWSP was adopted pursuant to RCW 70.116. That statute requires the Secretary of the State Department of Health to approve that plan. At the time the plan was created, it was submitted to the DOH and they issued their approval of it. WAC 246-293 was developed to implement the Coordinated Water System Act and therefore the County's CWSP, states at Section 640 (1) "City, town or County legislative authority shall set minimum fire flows where local standards are adopted under. . ." The local standards are the County's CWSP. This gives the County the authority to set local standards for fire flow. WAC 246-293-680 talks about local standards and says ". . . Standards established by local jurisdictions shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval if they at least meet the minimum level of protection required by these regulations." If the County wasn't meeting the WAC reg11lation in its plan, the Secretary of Health would have been bound to not approve the plan. Since it is an approved plan, it has to be presumed that the County's CWSP meets the reg11lations and the intent of the Act. The other question raised today, Mark Huth continued, is that the Uniform Fire Code is in conflict with and therefore supersedes the CWSP. What is in conflict is two statutes since, RCW 36 adopts the State Fire Code by statute and the CWSP is adopted by statute. Section 10.401 of the Uniform Fire Code says that "An approved water supply, capable of supplying the required fire flow. .." Ms. Hargrove's arg11ment is that the Fire Chief has gone to the CWSP to adjudge what is the required fire flow, but he can use the Appendix out of the Uniform Fire Code to be g11ided in saying what is needed for a particular development. Mark Huth reported that if the appendix of a par- ticular code is not specifically adopted by the local jurisdiction, it does not apply. The County has not adopted Appendix 3 of the UFC. To say that the County apply those standards through Chief Larson's authority, when they have not been adopted by the County is a dangerous legal precedent to set and he would not advise the Commissioners to do that. What really applies is the CWSP and Larry Fay has indicated that given the lot sizes in this subdivision and the classification in that plan (rura!), this subdivision does not require fire flow. Mark Huth stated that he feels this is a proper determination and the only one that could be made under the County's current reg11lations. The issues about whether or not public health and safety is adequately protected by the current CWSP, or whether or not the CWSP needs to specifically address greater protection is a matter for future consideration and not something that can be applied to a currently proposed development. The development is vested under the reg11lations in place. Ms. Hargrove reminded the Board that the Fire Chief has not recommended the level of fire flow that is contained within the Uniform Fire Code appen- dices. He has recommended the level set forth in the CWSP. She noted that she disagrees with the County on the interpretation of the statutes and ordinances in question. She feels that the UFC is the deciding factor in this. \jOt 20 ur;F 0 ,1 ¡'.16 .~~¡¡~~~¡~¡¡~~l~~ ..::líjj:~¡¡IIII';¡I\\I:1111 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 15, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman Hinton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt stated that the issue is if G.E. Development must provide the fire flow requested by Fire District #6. Mark Huth advised that it comes down to the conflict in the statutes and regulations and he feels the Coor- dinated Water System Plan applies. He pointed out that the table in WAC 246-293 (second page) is almost identical to the table contained in the County's CWSP. It says for rural developments there is no fire flow required. The question raised by the Fire District is if this development is rural or not. WAC 246-293-630 includes definitions of rural and residential and the Fire District's argument is that, by using the parenthesis in this WAC, this develop- ment is residential. The developer's argument and the County's interpretation has been that the parenthesis don't control. The classifications within the Coordinated Water System Plan for rural and residential are the controlling factor. The table within the CWSP (page 416) under rural says "Compliance required with all general and specific provisions except fire flow. Fire Assis- tance recommended," and there is discussion within the plan about what fire assistance is. Larry Fay determined that since this subdivision had lot sizes of greater than one acre, that it was a rural subdivision and there are no fire flow requirements. Commissioner Wojt asked about the public safety argument made by the Fire District? Mark Huth answered that public safety is a policy issue that should be addressed in the update of the Coordinated Water System Plan. The policy cannot be changed on a proposal by proposal basis. Commissioner Wojt moved to deny the appeal. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Prosecuting Attorney reported that written findings and conclusions supporting this decision will be submitted for the Board's approval at a later date. AGREEMENT re: Reimbursable Work for Various Road Projects up to $50.000; City of Port Townsend: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the reimbursable work request for various road projects with the City of Port Townsend. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried. Applications for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Wojt move to approve the two applications from the Veterans Relief from the VFW Post #3213 $450.00 and American Legion Post #26 $400.00. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEE.TING ADJOURNED ~: ~'~l' .', f(;:!·E·A··L<¡· >~ ().. ic. J>... .......>...."'J.,. .,'\li~!~i<,(;:i;í>~1\·'/'i,~!, . ~i,..,....'.",....'...;_. '.';' ,. ....".' . . /";' \,:'~::.":~:.,;,¡,:'~,,:;::--,';-~:-', }i' <':,. -'. 'N. .t ,,'if' '. .' +- ~ \ . . .,. . .'¡""'!..J. -4.' \~Š-'E:\'" . Lor~~l~, ~~oard JEFFERSON COUNTY OF COMMISSIONERS ~~ . nton, Chairm IiQt_ 20 Uf,> 01.i1.i17 ..::~1~11~ ~