Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092694 MINUTES WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 Chairman Robert Hinton called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard W ojt. The Board interviewed two applicants who are interested in serving on the Planning Commission to represent the second Commis~ioner district. GMA Update: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd reported that the . 1'"North Port Ludlow Community Plan has been submitted to and reviewed by the .- , Planning Department and returned to the Committee. The staff of the Long Range Planning Division is working on the alternatives for the Comprehensive Plan to be presented to the Board and the public sometime in October. The land capacity analysis is being developed. The discussion continued regarding the amount of money in the Long Range Planning budget, the number of people workin~n that division, and the amount of work actually completed. Public Works GMA Project Manager Suzanne Drum reported that the consultants will be holding a meeting Wednesday on the next phase in the capital facilities planning process. The Water Utility Coordinating Committee meeting was held last week and a work plan was established. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following issues were discussed: The County's moratorium on subdivisions, and commercial and industrial develop- ment; the Growth Management Hearings Board Order and how it is being inter- preted; a recent meeting with State agencies regarding water; dissatisfaction with the planning committee meetings and process in the Tri Area; the need for Plann- ing Commission member~ who are independent, and a request for a temporary occupancy permit for a real estate building at Teal Lake Center. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete item 1 and 9 and to approve and adopt the balance of the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , ?J1; r.~.. 0 1508 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 26, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. DELETE AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Shelli15h Harvest Program on County Property; Quilcene School District 2. Letter of Commitment; National Americorps Program through the Olympic National Forest 3. CONTRACT re: Professional Services of the Health Department for the 1994- 1995 School Year; Port Townsend School District #50 4. AGREEMENT re: Student Assistance Program for Port Townsend High School; Olympic ESD #114 5. AGREEMENT re: Contract Services Provider for Student Assistance Program; Michelle Sanchez 6. AGREEMENT re: Consulting Services for Load Rating 19 Bridges; Chan's Engineering Services, Inc. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 105-94 re: Revising a County Project Designated as CR1138; Widen and Surface Cape George Intersection 8. RESOLUTION NO. 106-94 re: The Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Maple Street in the Plat of Captain Tibbals Lake Park 9. DELETE RESOLUTION NO. _ re: The Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Unnamed Streets in the Plats of W.J. Worthington's Addition and Josephine Campbell's Addition 10. Request for Full Reconveyance; Septic System Repair Program Loan; Ian Otto 11. Proclamation re: Jefferson County Employee Recognition Week; Week of September 26 through 30, 1994 12. CONTRACT, Amendment re: Public Works Department Labor Agree- ment for 1992 through 1994; Add Traffic Engineering Technician II and establish wage for position; Teamsters Union Local #589 13. Approval of Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund; $375.00; American Legion Post #26 14. AGREEMENT, Consultant re: Acquisition Services for CRI069 Larry Scott Memorial Park; Richards and Associates, Bremerton BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Valley Hills Subdivision Moratorium: Commissioner Wojt asked questions of the Prosecuting Attorney after his review of the tapes and the map from the last meeting on this subdivision moratorium (See Minutes of September 19, 1994.) The discussion turned to the parcel being subdivided, the area of that parcel under the forest practices permit and the meaning of contiguous ownership and how that is different from the same ownership of separate tax parcels that make up a project. Mark Huth reported that the applicant submitted a letter from a surveyor verifying that he had used aerial photography and photo analysis to establish the boundaries of the harvest area to which the moratorium is applied. Commissioner Wojt asked if the moratorium is to be established by the boundaries of the parcels identified in the Forest Practice permit application, or was it done from a review of what was actually cut of the parcel? Mark Huth noted that it would be helpful to know from DNR if they consider the map (the entire project area) submitted with the Forest Practice Permit as the land subject to the application or if th~y only consider the area actually cut. The legal description in the Forest Practices application does say ''pt. of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of ~\- ~ , .. 26 fAfF. 0 1509 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 26, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 15, Township 29, Range 1 West." He assumes that "pt." means part or portion. The map submitted with the Forest Practice application is a plat map which includes more than one contiguous parcel which is all in the same ownership. There is a difference between tax lots and ownership boundaries. A title search would have to be done to determine the chain of title on each parcel. The platting process establishes new lot lines for any area for legal ownership and taxing purposes. It would be helpful to know from DNR, Mark Huth continued, whether the map submitted with the forest practices application is controlling or whether the legal description, which is less than distinct, is overridden by the actual harvest boundaries. If this plat application goes forward it is still subject to all of the regulations of the platting process. The Board has already decided, based on the Subdivision Ordinance, that the moratorium applies to the entire parcel. Chairman Hinton stated that he feels the statutes are clear that the moratorium can only cover the area of the forest practice permit. The confusing thing is the intent of Section 3.30 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Wojt noted that the question is if the permit area boundary is defined by DNR as the harvest area boundary? Mark Huth noted that the DNR's purpose in reviewing the permit is to impose conditions for the harvest and he doubts if they review any area outside the harvest area. Chairman Hinton stated that he feels that Section 3.30 paragraph 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance only refers to the short subdivision process. The statutes refer to only the Forest Practice Permit area. Commissioner Huntingford asked what needs to be answered today? Mark Huth clarified that the questions are if the moratorium should be applied to the entire parcel being subdivided and a request that the moratorium be lifted for the portion of the parcel where a road will connect two cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Huntingford moved that the moratorium only apply to the harvest area and that the moratorium not be lifted for the road unless there is no other alternative. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion for discussion. The discussion turned to the size of the harvest area as compared to the forest practices permit application. Commissioner W ojt asked about the part of Commissioner Huntingford's motion regarding not allowing the lifting of the moratorium for the road? Chairman Hinton explained that originally the subdivision included two dead end roads and the School District asked that they connect them and make a looped road to enable busses to go through the subdivision. Commissioner Wojt noted that other alternatives for the road may be found when the subdivision is reviewed under SEPA. Commissioner Wojt then moved to amend the motion to say that the moratori- um only applies to the harvest area (the road area is included in the morator- ium.) Commissioner Huntingford seconded the amended motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Chairman Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. The Prosecuting Attorney advised that a written document outlining this decision will be created for the Board to sign at a later date and that he will contact the proponent's attorney to advise him, of this decision. The Planning Department will continue processing the subdivision application. va. 20 fAct o :1.51.0 , ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 26, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion/Adoption Proposed Ordinance RepealinJ!' and Replac- inJ!' Ordinance No. 15-1228-92 Settine- Fees for the Jefferson County Permit Center - Development Review Division: The Board reviewed information submitted by Kent Anderson regarding the cost of permits in other counties. Kent Anderson reported that if this fee ordinance is passed there will be money in the budget for hiring another Planner to do critical area reviews and provide assistance where needed when the CAO reviews are caught up. Commissioner Wojt reminded the Board that when the Permit Center was established the goals were as follows: 1) streamline the permitting process, and 2) if there was a slowdown in the permitting process due to lack of staff, it would be addressed. Chairman Hinton expressed concern that building permits trigger critical area review. About 70% of the reviews being done are due to building permits. This is an example of another unfunded State mandate. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the Critical Area ordinance is to be reviewed at the end of six months. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 13- 0926-94 setting the fees for the Development Review Division of the Permit Center. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner W ojt voted for the motion while Chairman Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Michael Glaefke re: Statutory Vacation of 3rd Street: Mr. Glaefke stated that he feels that the Board made an incorrect decision on the statutory vacation of Third Street (Resolution No. 27 -94) because incorrect information was provided by the Public Works Department. He referred to Ordinance No. 06-0615-92 (County Road Vacation Ordinance), Section 4, paragraph 10 which says ".. .the petition must show the land owned by each petitioner and set forth that such County Road is useless as part of the County road system and that the public will be benefited by it's vacation and abandonment." He explained that when he purchased his land in 1980 he was given a private easement for access to his property over Third Street. He then read from the Engineer's report that states "This street was platted on May 5, 1888 in the plat of Irving Park Addition. There was no road constructed on this right-or-way within 5 years of the date of platting, nor has it been open for public use since it was platted. It is therefore vacated by statute and it is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners concur with the statutory vacation." He stated that he has been traveling on this road for 14 years. He then read from an application to perform work on a County road right-of-way dated 1977 which indicates that the road was open. He added that he feels that Section 4.40 of the ordinance applies in this case and he hasn't seen any evidence that the Assessor's Office has been notified about the section of road that was vacated. Section 4.80 states in the second paragraph that "the petitioner must present proof that the road or right-or-way remained unopened for a period of five years following the dedication in the plat. Such proof shall be in the form of a sworn notarized affidavits or public documents duly certified." No sworn documents were submitted with the petition. Section 5, item 2 indicates that roads should not be closed, vacated or abandoned when land use, development plans, or recurring patterns indicate their usefulness !O fAŒ .."- Qf511 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 26, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for area circulation. Item 3 of that same Section says that the effectiveness of fire, medical, and law enforcement or other emergency service should not be impaired by the closure, vacation or abandonment of a County road. Appropriate authorities should be consulted. Mr. Glaefke reported that he has talked with the local Fire District and Sheriff and they knew nothing of this. The vacation of this portion of Third Street has added two minutes to emergency vehicle response time to his property. The last item is that the proposed vacation will not land lock any parcel of property. When this road was vacated it landlocked his property. Mr. Glaefke asked that the Board reverse their decision regarding the statutory vacation. Chairman Hinton noted that he is concerned with statutory vacations and the issues they have created for emergency services access and access to other properties. The Prosecuting Attorney has advised that these roads are statuto- rily vacated and all that is being done is clearing the County's cloud from the title. He noted that he has knowledge that this road was open in the 1950's. He stated that the Board will look into this matter. Geoff Hlavin stated that he has researched the Public Works file on this road. They have a survey from 1915 showing that this road was installed and in use. There is no information prior to that date showing that the road was or was not in use. The Public Works Department feels that the lack of evidence that the road was opened within the five years of platting means that they must recommend that it be vacated. Commission W ojt suggested, and the other Commissioners agreed that this item be placed on next week's agenda so that the Public Works Department can explain the process they followed in this statutory vacation. EMERGENCY SERVICES Bob Minty, EmerS!ency Service Coordinator re: Burnine- Permits: Bob Minty reported that a meeting was held with representatives of the Department of Natural Resources, the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, the State Department of Health, and the County Fire Chiefs. He then review- ed the recommendations made by this group to the Board: 1. The County adopt a General Rule Burn by resolution. This would allow a no fee, burning permit for burning piles less than 4 by 4 by 3 feet in size. Chairman Hinton asked who would issue the permits? Bob Minty reported that another meeting is to be held to discuss further what agency will issue the burn permits. Any burn larger than 4 by 4 by 3 feet requires a written permit. 2. The County enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority and request an extension of the November 1, 1994 deadline for compliance with the State law. 3. A single person should administer all the burning permits, and handle enforcement. The suggestion has been made that this be a DNR employee or a County employee. The DNR will still implement their own burn rules. Bob Minty will be preparing the Memorandum of Understanding with the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority and bring it back to the Board for consideration. . ~..: 20 fAfl 01512 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 26, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He will also draft a request for an extension of the deadline for this program in writing. John Parker, Fire District #3 Commissioner, stated that the Fire Districts don't have the money to implement a burning permit system and they are hoping that the County will provide some assistance. He noted that outdoor burning will be completely prohibited in a few years if a burning permit program isn't developed and implemented. The Board then interviewed two more persons interested in serving on the Planning Commission representing the third Commissioner District. HEARING re: Revision of Resolution No. 128-92 (City Resolution 92-112 Co un -wide PI ann in Polic' Definition of Mfordable Housin . Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed revision, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to accept the change in the definition of affordable housing as recom- mended. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT. Interlocal re: Shellfish Harvest Prol!ram on County Property; Quilcene School District: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement with the Quilcene School District for the District's shellfish harvest program on County property. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of September 19, 1994 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. From 3:30 to 4:00 p.m. the Board interviewed five persons interested in serving on the Planning Commission representing Commissioner District #3. ( I SEAL: ATTEST: ,¥Øl 20 fAr)~ 0 1513