Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020193 c..¿~ V' ~ÖJC: MINUTES WEEK OF FEBRUARY 1 1993 Mter a Finance Committee Meeting, Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. The Commissioners' held a briefing session with Planning and Building Depart- ment Director Craig Ward regarding County policy on boundary line adjustments within plats, the Quilcene flood control project, standards for projects and the authority to enforce permit conditions, and the process for developing findings, facts and conclusions on the Shoreline Amendments that are the subject of a hearing on February 2, 1993. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to ap- prove the minutes of January 25, 1993 as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Com- missioner Huntingford moved to delete items 2, and 8; to approve item 9 for funding through June with performance standards to be developed and reviewed before approval of the balance of the funding; and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as present- ed. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by· a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 10-93 re: Authorizing Use of Credit Cards on Behalf of Jefferson County in Compliance with R.C.W. 42.24.115 2. DELETE CONTRACf re: Service Provider for the Health Department; Charlen Westerman 3. Purchase Requisition re: Three (3) 1993 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Vehicles; Total Price $39,340.00; Olympic Ford, Marysville 4. RESOLUTION NO. 11-93 re: Order of Statutory Vacation; A Portion of Unopened Walker Street, in the Plat of Hamilton's Five Acre Tracts 5. RESOLUTION NO. 12-93 re: Establishing a Name for a Private Road; In the Blue Heron Heights Large Lot Subdivision; Woodpecker Drive 6. RESOLUTION NO. 13-93 re: Establishing a Name for a Private Road; In the Winberg Beaver Valley Tracts Large Lot Subdivision; Spring Hill Road 7. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Archie Tweedie $494.65; Marshall Kithcart $500.00; John Roske $500.00 8. DELETE AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1993; Jefferson/Clallam Big Brothers/Big Sisters; for $500.00. 9. AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1993; Economic Development Council of Jefferson County (Performance standards to be set and reviewed before last half of funding is approved). 10.AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1993; Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Program 'YVl 19 r,~C: n 1.jJj Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Public comments included: the County's five year contract for hauling solid waste, alternatives for dealing with solid waste, how the public comments are documented in the minutes, urging the Board to recognize and continue the work of the citizens committee on the critical area ordinance and policies, the need for the Board to analyze if the public comments were incorporated in the draft or- dinance, the need for guidelines from the Board on what they want communities to incor- porate in their planning under GMA, and concerns in the Port Ludlow community regarding growth. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Recommendation for Bid Award and Approval of Construction Schedule; Project SW 1022 Landfill/Septa2e La200n Closure: Solid Waste Specialist Jeff Frettingham reported that the Board deferred action on this bid award for two weeks to allow time for review of an alternative pyrolysis system for disposing of solid waste. Mter reviewing this new system and discussing it with other counties and the State Department of Ecology, Jeff Frettingham recommended that the County continue with their plans to close the landfill while they continue to explore new systems. Environmental Health Director, Larry Fay, explained that this technology has merit, but there are currently no operating systems in this country that deal with municipal solid waste. Pyrolysis appears to deal effectively with specific types of solid waste such as tires. Municipal solid waste is not as controlled, and it is not known how well this system will deal with it. Commissioner Huntingford moved to award the bid and approve the construction schedule for the closure of the landfill and the septage lagoon to Tri-State Construction, Inc. as recommended. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Dave Phinizv re: Request for Boundary Line Adjustment on Snow Creek Ranch Plat: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward explained that Dave Phinizy's request for a boundary line adjustment was reviewed and denied. It was suggested to Mr. Phinizy that he submit a plat alteration application. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the County's ordinance (No. 01-0318-91, Hearing Examiner Ordinance) requires that the Hearing Examiner review this request to determine if it is a boundary line adjustment or a plat alteration. He suggested that the Board not hear testimony on this today and that it be remanded back to the Planning Department so that Mr. Phinizy can meet with the Prosecuting Attorney, the Planning Department and the Assessor's Office staff to come to a resolution on the issue. Commissioner Huntingford asked if any of the lots have been sold? Mark Huth reported that they have and other property owners in the plat will be affected by the request. Craig Ward explained that Mr. Phinizy's request would affect 11 of the 65 lots in this plat and it would impact the plat open space which is owned in common by all of the lot owners. Commissioner Hinton asked what the Hearing Examiner reviews and how that is deter- mined? Mark Huth explained that County Ordinance outlines what the Hearing Examiner will review. Commissioner Hinton asked how long it would take this request to go l~'Ot. :19 , M' 1·,,' 0- 1-1-~~ .f '- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 3 through the Hearing Examiner process? Jerry Smith reported that this could be placed on the Hearing Examiner's schedule for February 16, or the first week in March. Mter further discussion of the Hearing Examiner Ordinance and the definition of a boundary line adjustment, Craig Ward said that he has an alternative approach for handling this request which he would like to work out with the Prosecuting Attorney, the Assessor and Mr. Phinizy. If this alternative approach can be worked out, he suggested that the Board review it for adoption as policy to handle boundary line adjustments in the future. Mter discussing this matter with Mr. Phinizy, Craig Ward reported that he has agreed to meet with the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Planning Department to negotiate a settlement. Final Short Plat Approval; #SPI7-91 Neal Swanson Short Plat; Four Lot Short Subdivision; Located Off of Summerville Road. Port Hadlock; Neal Swanson: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that all of the conditions of summary approval for this short plat have been met and all the required departments have signed off on it. Commissioner Hinton moved to issue final short plat approval for the Neal Swanson Short Plat SP17-91. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request for Conditional Use IZ56-92; Massa2e Therapy Business as a Home Occupation in the General Use Zone; Bill and Nola Bell: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this conditional use permit under the Interim Zoning Ordinance is for a message therapy business in a garage located on Airport Cutoff Road next to Leavitt Trucking and Excavating. The business will be operated Tuesday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing on this request and recommends approval subject to 13 conditions. Chairman Wojt asked if Evelyn Tice's objection regarding traffic was made part of the Hearing Examiner's record? Jerry Smith reported that it was. The Hearing Examiner found that this home business would not generate any more traffic than is typically generated by a single family residence. The State Department of Transportation and the County Sheriff were contacted regarding the traffic and they both indicated that this business would not contribute appreciably to the traffic problems that already exist on the Airport Cutoff Road. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit IZ56-92 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request for Conditional Use IZ55-92; 3.316 Square Foot Meetin2lReception Hall as Home Occupation in the General Use Zone; Robert Schladetzky: This conditional use permit is to construct a meeting hall which can be rented by the public, Jerry Smith reported. The site is located a quarter of a mile north of the Beaver Valley Store, next to Mr. Schladetzky's home. The size of the hall is over the 2,500 square feet allowed by ordinance for a home business. The applicant asked for a variance to allow an increase in the size of this home business to 3,316 square feet. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow the home business with a maximum size of 2,500 square feet and he denied the variance request to increase the size of the building. Jerry Smith explained that the Hearing Examiner makes recommendations on conditional use permits, but makes the final decision on variance requests. If the Board doesn't accept the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the conditional use permit they can hold their own hearing on it. In a case where a variance requested is denied an applicant can appeal that decision to the Board. ~Vot 19 t~r~· 'n ~1Z Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 4 Commissioner Hinton asked if the structure is complete? Mr. Schladetzky reported that the structure is currently a shell, that is framed in with the roof on. The Planning Department says if the structure is going to be used as a meeting hall, a kitchen and two rest rooms (one must be wheelchair accessible) must be included in the building as it exists. Mr. Schladetzky reported that a full third of the building is dedicated to a pipe organ. With the large open space available in this building he was hoping to generate some income to offset the cost of the building by renting space for meetings. There is about 1,500 square feet available for meeting space. If the kitchen and rest rooms are included in this area, and the safety requirements met it would mean that only 20 to 25 people could be accom- modated in the meeting space. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the conditional use permit as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mr. Schladetzky submitted a letter appealing the variance denial. Commissioner Hun- tingford moved to set a public hearing on the appeal of this variance for 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday February 16, 1993. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Rick Burrou2hs and Residents of Cedar Park re: Geor2e Forker's Rhody Drive Commercial Center: Rick Burroughs, Robert Hyskell, and David O'Kane presented a slide show to illustrate their complaints about George Forker's Rhody Drive Commercial Center. The slide show included pictures of the area, views of Mr. Forker's property from various houses in the Cedar Park area and views of it at night with the lights on. Rick Burroughs explained that he, Mr. Hyskell, and Mr. O'Kane as well as other residents of the Cedar Park area feel that Mr. Forker's commercial area is adversely affecting their property. He explained that a 20 foot wide landscaped strip is indicated on the site plan for this project, along the north/south property line (about 400 feet long). This is the property line that borders Cedar Park. There are small fir trees planted (about one every 10 feet) along the northern 200 feet of this fence line, but none planted along the southern 200 feet of it. There are vehicles and building materials stored in this area. He then noted that the soft lighting on the buildings is bright enough to allow him to read the conditions of approval for this project through his living room window at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Burroughs then reviewed information he received regarding lighting options for this type of project. He urged the Board and the Planning Department to work with the residents of Cedar Park and George Forker to create a win/win situation where Mr. Forker can do what he needs to do to make a living and the residents of Cedar Park can have their privacy. Mr. Hyskell then reviewed documents from the Planning Department files on this project. He read from a letter dated July 5, 1990 (Certificate of Compliance) which says "the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tri Area Community Development Plan and the Development Code." Since he is aware that the Development Code is in limbo because of a law suit, Mr. Hyskell noted that he is proceeding on the assumption that the Tri Area Community Development Plan still applies. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that the Tri Area Community Development Plan is an advisory document, not a regulatory document. He said that the conditions placed on Mr. Forker's project were done under the Development Code which was later voided by the Court. Without the Development Code the only authority the County has to regulate land use are the general police powers granted by the State Constitution. For this par- ticular project the County cannot enforce the conditions until the appeal of the decision on the Development Code is resolved. Commissioner Wojt asked what would happen if the Development Code is found to be a valid document by the appeals court? Mark Huth reported that if that happens the permit for Mr. Forker's project and its conditions would be valid and the County could enforce them. : VOl 19 ~,~r;tj 0 :11-3 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 5 Craig Ward explained that Mr. Forker received a letter from Jefferson County stating that he was in compliance with the conditions imposed under the development permit. The policies and regulatory standards in the County ordinance are vague and at the time the Planning staff reviewed this project for compliance with those policies and standards they believed that the lights were hooded at least to the same extent as required for other projects deemed to be in compliance. The determination was made that these lights were adequately hooded to: 1) avoid a condition of glare and 2) to avoid negative impact on the surrounding property. Craig Ward concluded by noting that this situation points out that these policies and standards are vague, and there is a need to improve them. George Forker stated that he owns the property being discussed. He explained that he can't build buildings where there are trees. He said that he hasn't had anything to do with creating a problem other than cutting the trees down and building his buildings. He noted that he is landscaping the area and when the weather gets better he will finish the landscaping. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Forker would be willing to do something to adjust the lights on these building so that they are directed down? Mr. Forker stated that he drove down Cedar Street the other night and did not see the lights shining across the road. Brian Hicks said that he has lived in Cedar Park for a number of years and when the trees were taken down the lights from Mr. Forker's buildings were more prevalent on the adjacent properties. David O'Kane, who lives across from Mr. Hyskell, read the cover letter submitted with the petition from the Cedar Park Subdivision. Gary Winberg suggested that the neighbors and Mr. Forker get together, do a landscape plan and solve the problem. The problem can be solved if the neighbors would get together, each contribute a few dollars, and do something about it. Chairman Wojt said that everyone has heard the testimony and what the County can and can not do. He doesn't see what the County can do, at least until the Court of Appeals makes a decision on the Development Code. Mter further discussion of the lights of Mr. Forker's project, the plans for more mini storage units, and the regulations that a new project would be subject to, Craig Ward reported that the Planning Department has no applications on file for Mr. Forker for any new mini storage units. Mr. Hyskell stated that they are willing to meet and work with Mr. Forker and discuss landscaping. George Forker concluded by noting that Mr. O'Kane and Mr. Hyskell have not been to his house to talk about this. He has been talking with Mr. Burroughs as the representative of the property owners in Cedar Park. Mr. Forker said he is willing to talk with these gentlemen. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and reconvened with all Board members present on Tuesday, February 2, 1993. The Board participated in a workshop on planning regulations required by the Growth Management Act and then met with representatives of the Planning and Building, Health, Public Works and Community Services Departments to discuss department strategy. That evening the Board returned at 7:00 p.m. for the following public hearing. ~~(Ol 19 HfF . n jt14 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 6 HEARING re: Amendments to the Jefferson CountylPort Townsend Shore- line Mana2ement Master Pr02ram; Port Townsend Urban Wateñront Special District: 23+ interested County residents were present. Chairman W ojt opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on the proposed amendments to the Jefferson CountylPort Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program regarding the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District. Jim Pearson, Planning and Building Department Associate Planner, reviewed the changes proposed in the Plan (see also Minutes of October 26, 1992). Chairman Wojt asked if a separate approval of these amendments by both the County and the City was necessary? Jim Pearson answered that past custom was to have separate approvals and that is why a joint hearing was held. Chairman Wojt noted that the Board only approved changes that would affect the County. Jim Pearson explained that the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District is entirely in the City limits. The Urban section of the Shoreline Program provides regulation for all urban areas within the County (including those in the City). One change that was made in that section was to make residential development a condi- tional use in the urban area. This amendment was to make the matrix consistent with the policy language. Chairman Wojt asked how much urban shoreline there is in the County? The largest shoreline urban area in the County is the area from the City limits to Old Fort Townsend (this includes the Port Townsend Paper Company property, Jim Pearson explained. Other urban shoreline areas in the County are: the Chimacum Creek log yard site, lower Port Hadlock (north of the Lower Hadlock Road), the Port Ludlow area from the sewage treatment plant, south to Ludlow Creek, an inactive log dump area on the east shore of Quilcene Bay (near Lindsay Beach Road) and the site of Coast Oyster and the Port of Port Townsend Marina on the west shore of Quilcene Bay. Chairman Wojt advised that written testimony was received from Dennis McLerran, Attorney for the City of Port Townsend and Bo and Patti Sullivan. This testimony will be included as part of the record of this hearing. He then opened the hearing for public comment. Kari McGill. Point Hudson Company. Port Townsend. said that her father, Skip Rowley who is the CEO of the Point Hudson Company, is ill and unable to be at this hearing. Ms. McGill then read a letter from Skip Rowley (see attachment). Garv Jonientz. 954 Hastings Ave. Port Townsend. submitted and read his testimony (see attachment). Bernie Arthur. 1320 Jefferson Street. Port Townsend. read the following: "I ask the County Commissioners and the Department of Ecology to discontinue the review of the proposed amendment to the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. I have submitted testimony at all hearings on this subject and have found the City to be blind to the need for a reasonable con- sideration for the overall effect of the amendment. I am a property owner who will be directly affected by the change that would eliminate residential and transient accommodations in the Point Hudson District. This change in use created by this amendment was done without any economic research. The contention that this amendment will remove the inconsistency between the residential uses on waterfront and the Master Program is false. The changes suggested in the amendment create more inconsistencies. The Point Hudson District boundary that is in the Waterfront Plan is at Monroe Street. The amendment has a wandering boundary line that is arranged to accommodate special interests. This change of boundary places the G2B Block of private property in with Point Hudson Port property which is public property. It removes property from the amendment in which a strong proponent of the amendment has a personal and potentially profitable interest. This proponent of the amendment also serves on the Shoreline Commission. This same shoreline commissioner has stated that they pushed this amendment through to stop the Point Hudson Company in its' planning process. ~ Vðl 19 t~r~ 0 1.15 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 7 The Point Hudson planning process is a private attempt to bring the interested public, private individuals and groups together to resolve the future of the Point Hudson area. This plan was to assist the City and the Port in the Point Hudson planning process, when the City and the Port could not continue because of funding problems. A copy of this study can be given to you for your review, if necessary. The DOE has since awarded the City a grant to continue the Steering Committee. The two groups working together could provide a good example of public and private planning, instead, give a signal to the private sector -- don't help, govern- ment will tell you what is best, just keep paying. The City and the County cannot prove the need for this amendment with its circuitous route of exemptions. The Historic District is exempt because of the economic need for residential units in the buildings. The Thomas Oil and Swan Hotel properties are excluded without good cause, other than vested interests. The question is asked 'why is Port Townsend Plaza exempted? what area of the Waterfront Plan explains this? how do these exemptions improve the ecological balance, the public needs and the public safety?' The City Council has many members who will benefit financially from these changes. The legal advisors of the City and County state that the amendment is only legislative. Does that make it moral and ethical? The amendment will be another case of private and public legal battles with the taxpayers the losers. As property owners we will pay our lawyers and as taxpayers we will be paying for the government to defend this poorly constructed law against us. The amendment is judicial because it takes away uses of my property and is very selective in the bargain. I believe in the continued update of the Shoreline Program and was a member of the Shoreline Board from 1979 to '82. I find that the changes needed are how to accommodate the growth of people, protection of the waters from pollution, the use of creosote pilings, the use of bottom paints, sewer pollution, air borne contamination, and the list goes on. I endorse the process of update, but this amendment is bad law. Let's do the job of governing with the highest ideal. Finally, it is rumored. . . (time limit expired) Patti Sullivan. 241 Van Buren. Port Townsend. read her previously submitted written testimony (see attached). She reported that she would place the Minutes of the Port Commission meeting of last Wednesday (January 27, 1993) before the Board for the County's record. Dana Roberts. 438 22nd Street. Port Townsend submitted a written statement. (See attached). Karen Erickson. 615 22nd Street. Port Townsend. said that there have been several things questioned throughout the public testimony on this proposed amendment and she hasn't heard any answers. She noted that the biggest question is where will water dependent and water related uses be found for the waterfront property? If the Port is going to have all of the water dependent/water related uses without any other businesses allowed and boat building goes downhill, more taxes are going to have to support the Port. This amendment doesn't leave room for the Port to expand or be economically viable. There are no water dependent or water related uses on private property on the waterfront. The only water dependent use on the waterfront in the last 8 to 10 years has been Paradise Bay Sea Farms, who moved after four years of renting. There doesn't seem to be a need to have water dependent or water related uses on the waterfront. Preserving maritime use is one of the main ideas of this ordinance. Karen Erickson stated that she has no problem with preserving maritime uses. The problem is that most people feel maritime uses include boat building and boat repair. There isn't any other industry in the maritime history of Port Townsend, but boat building and boat repair, that would survive on private property, yet these industries are not allowed on private property in the commercial waterfront of Port Townsend. It has always been zoned illegal. It is only allowed in the Port. She noted that she is not sure what water dependent and water , VOl 19 Uf,: o tl6 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 8 related uses that private property owners are supposed to attract in order to use the waterfront property. She suggested that a study on attracting marine oriented uses is needed before an ordinance such as this is mandated. She continued by noting that she has several questions on interpretation of the matrix: · Under commercial, non water dependent, urban, in the Port Townsend Urban Water- front District -- non water dependent is a conditional use. Does this include water related and water enjoyment as a conditional use or are they a primary use? · Under industrial and Port facilities -- non water dependent is a secondary use. A secondary use does not have to go through as much scrutiny as a conditional use. Why is non water dependent in the Industrial and Port facilities a secondary use and what is a non water dependent use? Is it water related, water oriented or water enjoyment? · Page 4 of the ordinance, Section 2, subsection 4.106 -- Port Townsend Urban Water- front Special District Shoreline Master Program. What Master Program is named the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District? She has gone through the original draft as well as draft 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 3, and the final ordinance and this wording does not appear in draft 1, yet it is a text change from the Shoreline Master Plan which has never been underlined. She indicated that she is not sure what this phrase means. · She aske~ what inconsistencies were corrected by the ordinance compared to the Urban Waterfront Plan? She explained that she believes the inconsistencies were with the Urban Waterfront Plan, which is a visionary plan that includes possible ideas for the future of Port Townsend and the waterfront. She doesn't recall that the, Urban Waterfront Plan was mentioned during any of the hearings on this amendment with regard to correcting inconsistencies with the Shoreline Management Plan. The Urban Waterfront Plan was developed through a process which included many participants in public hearings, and committees over many months. The result of this plan encouraged water enjoyment uses, community, commercial retail uses, motel/hotel uses, visitor services, specialize services and multi-family housing for the waterfront property in the Cross Roads District (where she owns property). · Most of the public has no idea that boat building, haul out or boat repair is not allowed on the waterfront. Why wasn't the zoning of the Port Townsend waterfront made public at the public hearings? Fred Apstein of the Port Commission, when told about the zoning of the waterfront property, was surprised because he did not know that boat building and boat repair is not allowed. This is another ordinance and heavy burden that the waterfront property owners will have to endure to be able to do anything on the waterfront. It is almost impossible with all the ordinances and changes over the last three years to plan for the future of the waterfront. The County will have to take all of the improvements that won't be made in the City because they are not allowed on waterfront property. Bernie Arthur: Bernie Arthur continued reading his statement. "The one last thing that I have to say is that I'm really upset after some discussion with the DOE. It's rumor that the DOE considered the opposition to this amend- ment as some kind of radical obstructionist thing. It's obvious because they changed the location of the meeting to a larger area in anticipation of us, radical obstructionist, I assume. I suggest that the opposite is true. We are trying to stop the City government from making a very undemocratic, unconstitutional law that will cost the taxpayers many dollars. I believe that the Bill of Rights was written for all citizens and not just for those in power and their friends. I hope the DOE and the City do not consider themselves to be above the law. I also hope that Jefferson County is not a police state where good, honest, public input is ridiculed and demeaned. The State budget deficit should indicate to the law makers that the resources are limited and that we all should extend the effort where the profit is , VOl 19 rY~ ~ tl7 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 9 best. Stop this amendment now, review the Master Program and make a good plan that is defensible, workable and understandable. Thank You." Richard Symms. President. Point Hudson Company. said that the Shoreline amendment has a drastic effect on the uses at Point Hudson to such an extent that there are no uses possible that would mean any kind of return to the citizens of the County. The citizens of the County will be in a position of receiving less than they should from property they own at Point Hudson when the lease expires. The City of Port Townsend, and the County Commissioners at the time, tried to incorporate most of what was in the Urban Waterfront Plan into this amendment, but they left out some important facts. In several instances in the Urban Waterfront Plan it states that the City shall encourage mixed uses whenever possible. The reason to encourage mixed uses is to have developments on which the developer can receive a return. In return for allowing these mixed uses, the citizens of the County would be granted better access to the property, and grant uses on the property that the citizens wouldn't have otherwise. In their effort to do a good job, they forgot some of the important points of the waterfront plan. Chairman Wojt asked the Prosecuting Attorney to review the Board's options with regard to this amendment. Mark Huth, Prosecuting Attorney, explained that at this point the amendments have been submitted to the Department of Ecology and according to recent correspondence the DOE plans to go forward with a public hearing on the City amendments regardless of any action the County takes. He advised that the Board not attempt to impose on the City, through the Master Program, the County's view of how the Program should read. With respect to County jurisdiction, the County is the sole legal authority, while with respect to the City jurisdiction, the City Council is the sole legal authority. If the County attempts to impose on the City through the Master Program, requirements for regulation of the City waterfront, they will be buying a battle that can't be won. He advised that the Board act only on the County portion of the Master Program. Because much of the testimony presented tonight deals with the City portion of the Master Program, he suggested that these arguments be directed to the Department of Ecology, because they are the final approving authority for the amendments. The DOE should hear that testimony and decide if the City's actions are appropriate for the City, and if the County's actions are appropriate to the County. Chairman Wojt asked if the Prosecutor means that the County should provide the testimony taken to the Department of Ecology at their hearing tomorrow night? Mark Huth sug- gested that the people who testified before the Board also testify before the Department of Ecology. The DOE won't be able to accept this testimony unless it is reiterated directly to them. He continued by saying that a major portion of this amendment was suggested by the City, passed by the City and encompasses City property. If the Board's intent is to rescind the City's amendment, that cannot be done by the County Commissioners. He recommended that if the Board takes action, they take action only on those portions of the amendment that deal with County property. Chairman Wojt asked if the City has land use control over the Port property within the City limits? Mark Huth answered that within the geographical boundaries of the City of Port Townsend, the City has control over land use matters on Port property. The County has land use control over Port property in the County. The discussion continued regarding the previous Board of Commissioners action in adopting these amendments and what exactly they were approving. Gary Winberg asked if the Shoreline Management Master Plan is challenged in the City and found to be· illegal, if the County has any liability? Mark Huth indicated that he would not answer that question in a definite manner because he speaks with authority for the County. The liability issue is why the County doesn't want to be painted with the same brush as the City Council in this amendment process. Vel '19 r~ŒO U8 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 10 Mr. Winberg then asked if the City would have any influence over non-City property in Jefferson County? Mark Huth reported that the City has no influence over non-City property in the County. Patti Sullivan asked if Mark Huth is saying that Port properties within the City are under the jurisdiction of the City? Mark Huth indicated that is correct. The County does not have authority to regulate Port property within the City for land use purposes. Patti Sullivan clarified her question by saying if the County taxpayers are paying on Port properties and the City is the land use regulatory body for the Port properties within the city limits, then the County taxpayers who live outside the city limits have no representa- tion for land use decisions on Port property. She then asked who represents the County taxpayer on County land within the City of Port Townsend? Mark Huth explained that the County is just another land owner within the City limits, and has no authority to zone County property within the City. For example the Courthouse itself is under the City land use and police jurisdiction. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels the Commissioners should represent everyone in the County, and he is still concerned about how much responsibility the County has for these amendments. He is not sure he has the right answers to his concerns which also include who represents the Port property. Commissioner Hinton echoed Commissioner Huntingford's concerns. He added that the Commissioners are not trying to impose on the powers of the City of Port Townsend. City representatives were invited to attend this public hearing as well as to sign on to the County's request to DOE to defer their hearing until more public testimony could be taken. The City declined both requests. Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels the Commis- sioners represent everyone in the County, and he has a real concern for the interpretations of various people as to what effect the City and County can have on Port properties, which are owned by all the citizens in the County. Commissioner Hinton moved to remand Resolution 106-92 as adopted by the previous Board of Commissioners, back to the Jefferson CountylPort Townsend Shoreline Commis- sion to assess the numerous concerns, impacts and issues derived from public testimony (verbal and written) and direct the Jefferson County Planning Department to request DOE, during their public hearing on February 3, 1993, to delay any action on this amendment until issues can be resolved at the local level. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford added that this action may not do any good, but it at least shows that the County wants to be separate from the City's action. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion and Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Chairman W ojt closed the public hearing. The meeting was recessed at the end of the public hearing on Tuesday evening and reconvened on Wednesday with all Board members present. The Board met with Mike MèCormick of the State Department of Community Development, Growth Manage- ment Division, and with the Superintendent and School Board President for Chimacum School District No. 49. The meeting was recessed after those meetings on Wednesday evening and reconvened on Thursday morning. All three Board members were present to meet with the Elected Officials in the morning. 'tot 19 UF 11 1-1~1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 11 In the afternoon the Board members met with Planning Department staff for a workshop on the proposed SEP A Ordinance to address critical areas as required by Growth Manage- ment. The following action was taken during that workshop: Commissioner Huntingford moved' to set aside the proposed SEP A Ordinance as it is; instruct the Planning staff to make changes to the SEP A amendment as discussed; and to reconstruct a stand alone critical areas ordinance. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford then provided the following direction to the Planning Depart- ment staff with regard to his motion: · Use the paste up copy of the proposed ordinance (to be provided by Commissioner Huntingford). Use AI Boucher's paper (dated February 1, 1993 Subject "A first approximation to a possible scenario for drafting a critical areas ordinance.") Provide recommendations on economic impacts to be imposed. Provide a comparison between existing and new regulations. When the ordinance is drafted hold more than one public workshop (3 or 4 around the County). Review the public comments received so the Board can make appropriate changes to the draft. · Take the revised draft to public hearing. · · · · · Commissioner Wojt asked for clarification on how the input from the forums already held will be utilized to help direct this process? Commissioner Huntingford explained that some of the items in the original ordinance may still be used in this new ordinance, or new options provided may be used. He added that changes to be made could possibly have been made if the hearing had been held in December. He feels it is a waste of time to take the same draft ordinance back to the people. They want to see something different and he feels that making this a stand alone ordinance is the way to proceed. The discussion turned to the difficulties brought up by a number of people regarding the time it will take to draft a new stand alone ordinance, and go through all of the procedural requirements. Eric Toews, Associate Planner, asked for more clarification of the Board's intent regarding the options that have been presented for possible inclusion in the draft ordinance. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board will continue to review the options to provide guidance to the staff for drafting the ordinance. Eric Toews asked if the staff would have the flexibility to reflect the Board's intent (as far as understood) in drafting this ordinance, which the Board would review and verify before the ordinance was taken to workshops? Commissioner Huntingford agreed with that procedure. Chairman Wojt asked if it is going to be a Board ordinance or a Planning Commission Ordinance? Eric Toews explained that the Board has two options under the Planning Enabling Act for drafting ordinances: 1) Do a Planning Agency ordinance where the Planning Department staff works with the Planning Commission to develop a new regulation which is recommended to the Board for adoption, or 2) Do a Board Ordinance where the Board directs Planning staff by providing policy input to draft the ordinance which is then taken to the Planning Commission for review and a report. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to have the ordinance drafted in a way that will work before it is given to the Planning Commission for review. Eric Toews reminded the Board that the Planning Commission has a definite and substantive role to play in the process of ordinance drafting and adoption. He advised that a new control would require environmental review and a threshold determination under SEP A. If the changes are substantial it is likely that the original threshold determination can not be retained. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to see some type of "User's Guide" for the draft ordinance that is taken to workshops. vot. ·1·1) 'U' ::f it.· ") l' 2f' \.. ' , . . . . '" Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 1, 1993 Page: 12 Chairman Wojt asked again who will control the ordinance, the Board or the Planning Commission? Commissioner Huntingford indicated that the ordinance is to be a "Board Ordinance" with Planning Commission review. He added that his intention is that this draft ordinance be a conglomeration of everything done to date with changes to be made as necessary. Eric Toews clarified that it is his understanding that the Board is directing the Planning Department, through this motion and following instructions, to draft an ordinance to take to workshops, to explain its operation and effect, to answer questions, and to informally accept public comment. Even though the workshops will be informal, the comments received could be used to make further modifications to the ordinance, under the Board ordinance approach, prior to taking it to public hearing for submission of formal testimony. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Eric Toews then advised that with this action to set aside the proposed November 18, 1992 draft SEP A Amendment Ordinance, all appeals of the SEP A threshold determination for that Ordinance are dismissed. The Board then continued with their workshop reviewing options and possible wording for a critical areas ordinance. SEAL: JEPFERSO //BOARD 0 MEETING ADJOURNED ATTEST: qI(9fluncz if I1ftM~ Lorna L. Delaney, (j Clerk of the Board ~,~!. 19 ~AtW .."!I. 1.21..