Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112194 MINUTES WEEK OF NOVEMBER 21, 1994 Chairman Robert Hinton called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt. The Board interviewed a person interested in serving on the Planning Commission and then proceeded to the following business. Katherine Baril. Cooperative Extension re: Introduction of Water Quality A2ent and Update on the Relocation of the Cooperative Extension Office: Katherine Baril introduced Clayton Antieau, the new Water Quality Agent for the County. The funding for this position is from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. She then presented a floor plan for the new Cooperative Extension Offices in Shold Business Park at Port Hadlock and a copy of a report entitled Assessing County Change - the implications of social and demographic change on the Olvmµic Peninsula. GMA Update: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reviewed the progress of the work being done for GMA. The Planning Commission reviewed draft #4 of the rural element for the Comprehensive Plan. The draft will be ready for release to the public tomorrow. The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing on December 12, 1994. This will become a draft overlay zone for rural areas as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The following meetings are scheduled: · An aquifer recharge area meeting tomorrow from 2 to 4 p.m. in the Public Works Conference Room. A Coordinated Water System Plan workshop on Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Compliance Hearing of the Growth Management Hearings Board has been rescheduled for December 5, 1994 at 1:30 p.m. in the Public Works Conference Room. November 29, 1994 from 8:30 a.m. to Noon is the meeting for the Capital Facilities planning. · · · The Planning Department staff is continuing to work on the community plans. Chairman Hinton asked about the status of the work on community water systems? Kent Anderson, Permit Center Manager, reported that a form is being developed for community water systems that includes an explanation of the requirements for them. The State is still '101_ 20 ~M)~ 01329 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . approving two party water systems, but the County has asked for authority to issue that approval. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: a request that the 35th Street property be kept in public ownership and encouragement to the Board to maintain balance on the Planning Commission when they appoint new members. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO.124-94 re: In the Matter of Repealing and Revoking a License to Use Right of Way, Hiller Drive; William and Margaret PI om mer, Licensee 2. RESOLUTION NO.125-94 re: In the Matter of Vacating Woodman Road; Willamette Meridian; Douglas and Jane Kurata Hearin2 Notice: Final 1995 Bud2et Hearin2s: Week of December 5 thou2h 9. 1994: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the hearing notice setting the times for the final 1995 budget hearings during the week of December 5 through 9, 1994. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board then met with Planning Department staff for a workshop on Forest Resource Lands. After lunch the Board interviewed two persons interested in serving on the Planning Commission. Treasurer IIa Mikkelson and Assessor Jack Westerman re: Fundin2 for Newly Elected Officials Traininf!: Washin2ton Association of County Officials (WACO): Jack Westerman reported that WACO has a three day training for newly elected officials, but the Auditor's budget doesn't have any extra money to send the newly elected Auditor. There are training funds in both the Assessor's and Treasurer's budgets that weren't used this year, and they are willing to use these funds to pay for the new Auditor to go to this training. There is enough in the Sheriff's budget to pay for the new Sheriff and the Prosecuting Attorney can pay for most of the cost for sending the new Prosecuting Attorney. The Sheriff has offered to pay for the portion of the Prosecuting Attorney's fees that aren't covered in that budget. HEARING re: Amendment to Community Development Block Grant Fundin2 for Services Provided by Clallam/JetTerson Community Action Council: Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing for this block grant amendment. Lee Tickell, Director, for Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council, explained that grant extension is for funding which is used to supplement a variety of Community Action programs. Hearing no public testimony, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the amendment to the community development block grant as requested. The Chairman seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried. VOL 20 rAG~ 0 :1930 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revision of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SHI-86: To Construct a Metal Pole Buildin2: Ouilcene Bay: Coast Oyster Company Shellfish Hatchery: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the revision of the shoreline permit as submitted for Coast Oyster Company's shellfish hatchery. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried. IIa Mikkelson. Treasurer re: Surplus Property: Treasurer Ila Mikkelsen reported that Gene Seton has asked that parcel #948-901-502 be added to the tax title sale. The Treasurer asked if the Board would like this parcel sold? Commissioner Wojt moved that this parcel be added to the sale with a minimum bid of $1,006. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Hearinsz Examiner Recommendation: Petition to Vacate an Unnamed Allev Subiect to Conditions: Intersection of Ness Road and Rhody Drive: William and Kittv Sperry: Public Works Traffic Engineering Technician Bob Henderson reported that the Hearing Examiner recommends approval of this vacation with a condition that the petitioners compensate the County for the right-of-way. The Hearing Examiner also suggested that the County declare an intention to vacate the remaining unvacated portions of the alley. The Public Works Department recommends that the Board not consider vacating the rest of the alley at this time. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the vacation as recommended by the Hearing Examiner, but that the County hold off on declaring an intent to vacate the remaining unvacated portions of this alley. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Revisions to the .Jefferson County Franchjse Ordinance #2- 81: Bob Henderson noted that this draft ordinance is to update the County's Franchise Ordinance. He asked if the Board would like to have a public hearing scheduled on it? The Board directed that a hearing notice be developed and put on the Consent Agenda for approval. Discussion re: Administrative Reorszanization: Gary Rowe reported that he has presented the Board with three options for reorganizing the administration of County services. Chairman Hinton asked what the overall responsibilities of this position would be? Gary Rowe reported that more specific information would have to be developed over the next few months. He feels that this needs to be discussed between David Goldsmith, himself and the people in the Planning and Public Works offices. Chairman Hinton asked what the impact on the Public Works Department will be if this reorganization is approved? Gary Rowe reported that duties would have to be shifted within that department. In the long run it may mean splitting the functions that the Public Works Department has been doing into a different department, and it will possibly mean hiring a new Public Works Director. Commissioner W ojt asked about budget management? Gary Rowe reported that he relies on Anne Sears for much of the budget management work and he will continue to do so. He sees the current team approach to budget management being maintained. VOL 20 fAG~ 0 :1931 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Board concurred that the new position be called Director of Public Services and that Gary Rowe be promoted to that position. HEARING re: Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance No. 15-1028-94: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that this hearing is to take testimony on Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 which was adopted by emergency procedures on October 31, 1994. This ordinance was in response to Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's final order regarding the County's Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance previously adopted. He then explained the provisions of the emergency ordinance and how the WWGMHB order was addressed: · The City of Port Townsend was established as the only Urban Growth Area in Jefferson County. · A specific schedule was developed to meet the density requirements established by the Hearings Board. · Three (3) study areas were established: The Glen Cove Industrial Area for possible inclusion in the City's UGA, or as a stand alone rural industrial center. The Port Ludlow area for UGA designation. A study area for the Tri Area concerning aquifer recharge protection measures in that area and the effect of that on consideration of that area as a UGA. · The ordinance prohibits new commercial/industrial rezones or PUD's outside of existing zoned properties. · A monitoring system is established to monitor development activities that are occurring during the interim to determine whether or not planning options are being foreclosed. Mter testimony is taken on this ordinance, the Board can: 1) repeal this ordinance and replace it with a new ordinance, or 2) modify this ordinance based on the testimony. There must be a ordinance in some form to respond to the Hearings Board order. With regard to the Port Ludlow UGA, David Goldsmith explained that the ordinance requires (per the scheduled established) that the Port Ludlow UGA be determined within 90 days of adoption. He added that the backup studies and documentation for sizing of that UGA should be completed soon. The Chairman then opened the hearing for public testimony. Ted Shoulberg. City of Port Townsend Council Member. stated that he hand delivered a written response for the City (see attached) and then reiterated the following points in that response: · The City is concerned that the adopted ordinance appears to allow commercial and industrial development within these areas during the interim period. · The adopted ordinance does not designate truly rural densities (i.e. one dwelling unit per five acres), but instead relies on one acre minimum lot sizes. · The ordinance allows the County Health Department to continue to issue septic system permits for existing lots of record equal to, or greater than 10,000 square feet in size. This in effect creates an exemption from the one acre maximum density. · Continued development of the 10,000 platted lots in the Tri Area, greatly increases the risk of contamination to the aquifer, since the highest areas of platted density are over the areas of the aquifer with the highest susceptibility. · As a utility, the City is confused about how they are to coordinate and plan growth with Fire Districts, the PUD, and other water systems, when there is no workable interim level of service standard. · Even though that Interim Level of Service matrix for water supply systems has been revised by the County to be consistent with the 1986 Coordinated Water System Plan VOL . 20 UTE o 1932 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . requirements, the City feels that does little to transform the LOS matrix into a useful tool. There is also concern that this approach relies on an outdated CWSP which has not been applied consistently by County water purveyors and has little relevance in the changed land use planning context of the GMA. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the County is monitoring the number of permits issued in the Hadlock area and to this point there has been no harm to the aquifer. There is no reason to take away building rights on existing lots of record. Penny Herrick. stated that she thinks that one (unit) to one (acre) is appropriate in a scheme of a variety of densities for rural lands, but she is concerned that the County continues to use the Optimum Land Use map. This map is part of a Comprehensive Plan that is 15 years old. She doesn't feel it is consistent with what is being heard from the community planning committees or the Growth Management Act. She doesn't feel that the one to one (density) is the open space idea of most people planning for their communities. The one to one density follows the old Suburban category, which included a density of five (units) to one (acre), which points out that the whole logic of that system isn't consistent with what is wanted now. Gene Seton, asked who the "we" is when people talk about what we want today? He then explained that in the responses to the Quimper Community Plan questionnaire, 75% of the people wanted five acres or less. In the Port Hadlock area, there may be 10,000 lots, but that's not 10,000 building sites. It takes four to six of those lots to make a building site. If people can't build on a building site that is a taking, because nothing can be done with those lots. We cannot penalize the people who have invested in that area, by changing the rules on them. Steve Havden. representing the Olympic Environmental Council. submitted a letter (see attached) and summarized the following points: 1) The Olympic Environmental Council argued in the original hearing that public participation was not sufficient to meet the requirements of GMA. He reiterated that in this current process. The meetings that the County/City staff had specifically excluded participation or comment from the public. The Growth Management Steering Committee meeting where the Sepler Ordinance was discussed also excluded any comment from the public. The OEC wrote a letter of comment on the Sepler draft ordinance only to find that the County had scraped that draft and over a weekend produced this current ordinance without a shred of public participation or knowledge of what was going on. 2) There is a lack of analysis for this ordinance. The appendices included with the ordinance are fascinating, but they really don't tell much of a tale. They are only a small part of the information needed in order to really have a picture of what's happening and likely to happen out in the County. There is no information included on subdivisions and permits that have been applied for and are being processed right now. The subdivisions and permits that are in the pipeline involve hundreds and hundreds of lots (over 500 lots by his count.) There is also a whole array of people that have made pre-application dates, or have had pre-application interviews with the Permit Center, but haven't yet filed their application. Those people should be considered in the pipeline also. 3) With regard to the rural densities, everything in this ordinance is based on the 1979 Optimum Land Use plan. The names have been changed and the way it is described has been changed, but it's the same. The suburban densities have been reduced, which is evidence that the densities in the 1979 plan are unreal. He feels that the needs of the people in this County who have life savings tied up in small parcels of land must be addressed. To do a blanket sweep across the County would really do harm to these people. He feels it would be very easy to address that through a hardship clause in an ordinance. The concept of existing use zoning needs to be considered. This would require VOL 20 f~{,~ o 1-933 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that each parcel be zoned for what its current use is. This would give the mix of densities, it wouldn't compound takings problems, and it leaves options in the future. He urged the Board to take another look at the ordinance drafted by Rick Sepler as a place to start. David Cunningham. Pope Resources. pointed out that their written testimony (see attached) relates to two specific concerns, and some general concerns about the proposed interim ordinance. 1) He read the following from their written testimony: "One of the principle planning goals of GMA is to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and service exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Lands already characterized by urban development which are currently served by roads, water, sanitary sewer, transit, storm drainage, schools and other urban services are to be delineated for UGAs." He added that they believe that the Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area should have been delineated some time ago. Port Ludlow is probably the only candidate urban growth area in all of western Washington that's been subjected to a detailed and exhaustive environmental impact statement. The consequence of not delineating Port Ludlow is the only real moratorium going on in the County. They request that the County take whatever actions are necessary to reinstate the Port Ludlow UGA by amending the ordinance. 2) Section 9 and Attachment A of the ordinance deal with rural densities. Attachment A left out the central and western portions of the County. Everyone seems stuck on looking at only a portion of the map of Jefferson County, forgetting how large the County really is. Section 9.10 expresses allowable densities as "minimum lot area" rather than in dwelling units per gross acre. In doing this, land owners are deceived with regard to what the real density will be. When road rights-of-way (typically 20%), critical areas (typically 30%), community encumbrances (typically 10%) are deducted the landowners net useable area can easily be less than one half of their property. Effective density, therefore, in an area designated for one acre lots is only one dwelling unit per two acres. In an area designated for five acre lots, the density is quite likely only one dwelling unit per 10 acres. If density is described in density per gross acre, property owners can easily calculate their real density, they can be allowed to cluster or group allowable units on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site, and the on-site infrastructure costs would then be reduced which translates into lower housing costs. This ordinance implies that what is really happening is that the ordinance is simply going back to those densities prescribed in the existing Comprehensive Plan. This is not the case. There are some rather excessive down zones portrayed by the densities displayed in this ordinance. Modifications need to be made to the rural densities section. Wendy Wrinkle. Shine Community Action Council. stated that it is clear in Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 that the County is opting for a liberal, low road approach to future planning. On Page 1, item 5 under Findings the word "Urban" is missing. This should read "The Growth Management Act seeks to encourage development in urban areas." This focus is missing throughout the ordinance. She stated that she feels this ordinance: · Ignores the fact that existing platted lots, to date, are adequate to meet growth needs for the next 20 years. · Encourages unchecked urban sprawl by leaving the door open to vesting of unlimited subdivisions. · Uses outdated mapping and backup material that is not realistic in 1994 for GMA planning. · There is no plan to meet demands of the existing economy's stability, let alone that of this future urban disaster. · Urban densities of one home per one acre is planned randomly throughout the County. VOL 20 rA(¡~ o 1.934 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · No public facilities or adequate services are planned to accommodate the densities outside of UGAs. · There are conflicts with community plans, the CWSP, the DQ Program recommendations and many of the County's own draft processes that are underway (like aquifer studies.) · Emergencies are planned like increasing salt water intrusion in waterfront communities county wide by encouraging urban densities and individual wells along the coastline. · The Ordinance plans to fail GMA by failing to plan according to GMA requirements. · It affirms that the Board has every intention to ignore the message that the recent election brought and the thousands of hours of public involvement. She noted that she feels that the public is interested in realistic compliance with GMA requirements and is losing patience while the County stalls any efforts to move forward in a respectable fashion. Julie Jaman, submitted written statements from Janet Welch, former Planning Commission member, Quimper Planning Area representatives and her comments (see attached.) She stated that the one to one density is the largest problem outside the UGA designations. This density eliminates future development options and will lead to future down zoning with the rural overlay and recognition of the drafted community plans. Well head protection zones could render such densities un buildable, and health and safety crises, such as aquifer contamina- tion, salt water intrusion and inadequate water supplies, could be triggered. Community planning committee members have expressed all along that they don't want to be rate payers or taxpayers for development that doesn't have the kind of infrastructure it needs. This ordinance eliminates options for open space corridors and greenbelt buffers between Port Townsend and the Tri Area, between the Tri Area and Port Ludlow and between Port Ludlow and Paradise Bay. She noted that the map indicates "former suburban" areas, but nowhere in the ordinance is there reference to what is intended for those areas. This ordinance does not recognize existing or historic use patterns, rather it imposes densities which can radically alter existing uses and drafted community plans. This appears to be a deliberate flaunting of the will and interests of the citizens of this County. She asked whose bottoms up process this ordinance reflects? Frank Converse said that this ordinance has the effect of probably encouraging subdivision in areas that community plans may have other preferences. One to one zoning opens the door for subdivision of larger lots. It kills the options for whatever size zoning the community plans might come up with. He added that the County was working hand in hand with the community planning groups, but feels that this ordinance has the possibility of blocking their intent in a lot of ways. Penny Herrick. added that there are people that intended to subdivide a parcel to reduce their taxes or sell off a portion of their land to help themselves in their retirement. She doesn't feel the County wants to disenfranchise those people, she was shocked to find out that what was anticipated was taking 160 acre tracts and dividing them into one to one or one to 2 1/2 dwelling units. That's not the type of pattern that should be considered. That is what this ordinance does. Hearing no further public comments the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Chairman Hinton reported that the findings for the Port Ludlow UGA will be ready by November 30, 1994. VOL 20 rAf,F o 1935 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Goldsmith reported that the testimony will be summarized for the Board, and after changes are made to the ordinance, a hearing could be held on those changes. A workshop on the testimony will be held at 4:00 p.m. on Monday November 28, 1994. MEETING ADJOURNED <-----~ . . ." .,,, ,. ~4(/..."'-. /. ,:. .. "/ ~, SEAL: ,..... .. ø., '; > -. , Æ .,.. . ,I' ¡ . , . to ; .. I JEFFERSON COUNTY D OF COMMISSIONERS ~"- . ATTEST: VOL 20 rArE 0 :1936