Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101193 C:h~ 'V" ~ö..c: MINUTES WEEK OF OCTOBER 11,1993 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. Treasurer and Prosecutin2 Attorney re: Surplus Real Property: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported on the procedures to be followed for selling surplus real property. Treasurer Ila Mikkelsen explained that 61 parcels have been proposed to be sold. Chairman Wojt asked what the City should do if they are interested in purchasing one of the surplus parcels? Mark Huth explained that the City should notify the County at or before the public hearing if they are interested in any parcel. An auctioneer will be hired to handle this sale. Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the public hearing on the intent to sell the County's surplus real property for November 1, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. A hearing notice and intent resolution will be prepared for next week's agenda. Bart Phillips. Economic Development Council re: Contract for Ouilcene Economic Development Strate2V: Bart Phillips reported that he has prepared the contract outlining the EDC's participation and coordination of the Quilcene Economic development strategy. The County is contributing $1,000 in staff time, the EDC will provide $2,000 in staff time and the steering committee will provide $500 in time for a total project cost of $13,500. This contract also details how the funding will be handled. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the contract with theEDC contingent on the review and approval of the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes of October 4, 1993 as amended. (The amendement was to add to the motion on the Seton vacation application - Page 3 - "Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the vacation as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. The Board considers the value of the Olympic Park area to be deeded to the County for additional right-of-way on Elston Avenue, as an equal value exchange for the protective easement to be dedicated to the Homeowners Assocation by Mr. Seton. The value of the vacation is set at $7,250.00, which reflects only the amount for the Olympic Avenue right-of-way.'') Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following issues were discussed: providing a place with camping facilities like those at the Fairgrounds (bathrooms, showers, laundry facilities and a phone) somewhere out in the County, that can be used by homeless people, and the need for Conservation Easements for fish and wildlife and how they are handled in the proposed critical area ordinance. VOLí 9 rM,t: on 1_300 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 1993 Page: 2 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported (in reference to item 11) that he has sent a letter to the Chimacum School District asking if they are going to comment on short plats due to their capacity problems. Commissioner Hinton noted that this plat was received by the County in June of 1992 before the School District reported their capacity problem to the County. Mark Huth reported that this issue revolves around when summary plat approval was granted, not when the plat was submitted to the County. Craig Ward reported that summary approval was granted in November 1992. Commissioner Hinton noted that there is also a condition requested by the Health Department that is no longer applicable. Mark Huth reported that the County may not be able to change some of these conditions without going through a public hearing. He will need to research the appropriate ordinances on these issues. Commissioner Hinton moved to delete items 7 and 11 and approve the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Request for Payment; Previously Approved Allocation ($1,745.61); Rhododendron Festival Association 2. LOAN AGREEMENT NO. 93-003-21; Water Quality Improvement Fund; Exhibit "A" Rehabilitation Measures; Exhibit "B" Premises; Exhibit "C" Promissory Note; Jack L. and Judith Smith 3. CONTRACT re: Professional Services; Jefferson County Community Alcohol and Drug Abuse Center for Evaluation and Counseling to Hospital Inpatients; Jefferson County Public Hospital District #2 4. CONTRACT re: Professional Services; Jefferson County Health Department for School Screening; Chimacum School District #49 5. Accept Recommendation to Approve Claim #C-15-93; Paint damage from over-spray of dry chemical expelled from fire extinguisher $833.94; John Franklin 6. RESOLUTION NO. 87-93 re: Intent to Establish County Roads; Seagull Way and Stadium Lane; Setting Hearing for 2:30 p.m. on Monday November 1, 1993 7. DELETE Call for Proposals; Project No. SWl113; Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station; Fixed Price Proposals Accepted until 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 1993 at the Public Works Department 8. Accept Resignation; Dale E. Leavitt; Stormwater Advisory Board 9. Request for Payment of Allocation; $3,125.00; Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Program 10. CALL FOR BIDS re; Indigent Defense Services and Conflict Cases for District and Superior Courts for 1994; Bid Opening Set for November 1, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. 11. DELETE Final Approval; Albert Loomis Short Plat #SP19-92; Three (3) Lots Northwest of the Intersection of Oak Bay Road, Osprey Ridge Road and Paradise Bay road in Port Ludlow BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Revision of Condition #18 of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP88- 0016; Inner Harbor; Pope Resources: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that Pope Resources requested, a couple of years ago, that the language of Condition 18 of the Shoreline Permit for the Inner Harbor (regarding building materials, colors, etc. of houses in this develop- ment) be amended. This condition applies to all purchasers of the lots in the area under this Shoreline Permit. There is a question regarding whether the permit condition should be revised first or if the Covenants should be revised first. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Board did not act on this request previously because of a pending lawsuit. That lawsuit is still pending, and there were houses that had violated this condition at that time. Pope Resources needs to provide evidence that all of the people who purchased lots in this area, with these conditions in force, are in agreement that this condition be changed as suggested. He also suggested that the Board hold a hearing on this matter. For the Board to act unilaterally and revise this permit, he feels, exposes the County to potential liability. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, stated that a public hearing was held on this matter and the County Commissioners asked that Pope Resources meet with the property owners to get consensus on the language of this condition. Pope Resources has done that. He asked why they weren't YOi_ t~] fN,t: 00 ~301 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 1993 Page: 3 advised of the County's position on this matter before today? He added that they don't mind doing what is necessary to resolve this issue. Mark Huth explained that he was not able to discuss this matter with Jim Pearson before today. He asked where the evidence is that the Port Ludlow property owners have agreed to this language change? David Cunningham answered that the County was presented with an attendance list from the meeting, and the minutes of the meeting. That information, Mark Huth pointed out, indicates that there were still people in disagreement with the proposed changes. David Cunningham stated that Pope Resources has the unilateral authority to amend the restrictive covenants on the plat. He added that the Shoreline conditions and the restrictive covenants must be the same to make them enforcable. Mark Huth suggested that Pope Resources make the changes to the covenants before the County takes any action on this permit change. Greg McCary, Pope Resources, stated that when the Commissioners reviewed this matter a couple of years ago they directed that a meeting be held with the property owners in this area to find out how they feel about this change. That meeting was held and the minutes and attendance list have been presented to the County. He said that he doesn't feel that the County would be exposed to any liability if this permit is changed. Mark Huth explained that the people purchased their properties in this area relying on the conditions which define the type and color of the building materials to be used to enhance or keep the value of their property up. Commissioner Hinton asked how the County is involved in enforcing covenants? Jim Pearson explained that this was a condition placed on the Shoreline permit as recommended by the Shoreline Commission and approved by the Board. Chairman Wojt asked Pope Resources if an agreement has been reached with the person who was in litigation with Pope Resources and the County? David Cunningham stated that as far as he was aware the litigation against Pope Resources has been resolved. Mark Huth added that the lawsuit against the County has not been dismissed yet. Without the Board providing public notice and having a meeting to listen to comments, the County would be acting without knowledge of how the property owners feel about this change. David Cunningham stated that Pope Resources could certify to the County that the lawsuit against them has been dismissed. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the Board meet with the Prosecuting Attorney for an update on the litigation. Greg McCary explained that all of the lot owners were notified of the meeting held in 1991 to discuss clarification of these issues. Mr. Loomis abstained from commenting at that meeting. Chairman Wojt asked what has been changed in this condition? Greg McCary reported that stone, brick and a type of synthetic stucco material would be added to permitted exterior building materials list. Tile, asphalt and wood would be permitted as roofing materials, and it would allow that "earthtones" be determined at the discretion of the Architectural Committee. Discussion re: Determination by Board to make additional chan2es to the draft interim Critical Areas ordinance based on the independent le2al review: Associate Planner Eric Toews explained that he placed this discussion on the Board's agenda to assure that the Planning Department has clear direction on how to proceed with this draft ordinance and the changes suggested in the independent legal review. Chairman Wojt stated that he would like to review the following: · Range of applicability. Will anyone who wants to build have to deal with meeting the conditions for critical areas? · How will third and fourth class wetlands be considered? How will buffering be applied to them? · How will a clear record be built that shows that the Board considered all of the choices presented and their reasoning for including specific choices in the ordinance. Eric Toews stated that the Prosecuting Attorney and Hillis Clark have both pointed out changes that need to be made to details which can be done if the Board concurs. Mark Huth suggested that there are two options: 1) change the draft, or 2) go to hearing on the present draft with a written agenda of the changes that were made previously and what options there are for additional changes. Eric Toews asked if this could be done in a regular Board VOL 1 9 PAC; 00 1302 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 1993 Page: 4 meeting? Mark Huth stated that it can be done either way, but he feels to do this in the public hearing is a safer way to build a record. The discussion turned to how many hours a hearing like this may take. Fred Tuso asked if it wasn't the original intent of the Board to have more than one hearing on this draft ordinance? Mark Huth explained that one hearing could be set up to review all of the issues and then additional hearings could be set up around the County to take testimony on the document. Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward asked if the Board would like the detail changes made to the document as discussed in the legal reviews? Commissioner Huntingford stated there are some changes that need to be made before the hearing, such as the use of the word "significant" and deleting the word "minimum" throughout the draft. Craig Ward stated that the Planning Department will prepare a document that shows what detail changes are made and submit it to the Board next week. Any unresolved issues will then be dealt with in the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford asked about Hillis Clark's comments regarding changes to the findings and establishing a record? Mark Huth explained that Hillis Clark is suggesting that findings in the ordinance only deal with the ordinance and not the politics of the discussions. Al Boucher asked if he is understanding correctly that the independent legal review is recommend- ing changes in language to make the ordinance legally defensible, but they are not changes to the substance or thrust of the ordinance? Craig Ward stated that the independent legal review could be interpreted that way. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Threshold Determination; Haida Gwaii Short Subdivision #SP-01-93; Toandos Peninsula; Ernest Kimball. Applicant: Chairman Wojt explained the hearing procedures and asked the following questions: Q) Is anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commis- sioners in these proceedings? A) No one answered. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Commissioners answered no. Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? A) All three Commissioners answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Commissioners 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) Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford answered no. Commissioner Hinton reported that he spoke briefly with Mr. Kimball a few minutes ago. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked Commissioner Hinton if that conversation would in any way effect his ability to decide today's matter fairly? Commissioner Hinton answered no. Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the SEP A responsible official issued a final mitigated determination of non-significance on this subdivision on August 16, 1993. Within the allowable time frame the proponent filed an appeal request of the MDNS based on the following four conditions: Mitigative measure #2 - Stormwater site plan and its planning, which was required prior to short plat approval. Mitigative measure #3 - This measure requires the applicant to contact the State Department of Fisheries to determine if a hydraulic project approval is required. The project proponent has submitted information that the State Department of Fisheries has stated that no hydraulic permit is required. Mitigative measure #7 - This mitigation has to do with the amount of shoreline setbacks for structures on the property. The Planning Department staff met with Mr. Kimball and have resolved the issue. On the final short plat survey map the Engineer will show the edge of the bank, the ordinary high water mark and the setback so there is no question where these setbacks are located. Mitigative measure #9 - This measure requires that the septic system design has to meet County Health Department requirements. Jerry Smith reported that the applicant has asked that this mitigation be deleted because the Health Department VOL 1 B r~CC on t303 · ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 1993 Page: 5 has issued septic permits on the two lots in the short plat. Jerry Smith reported that the project proponent has already complied with this condition, and the Planning Department was not aware of that until after the threshold determination was finalized. Commissioner Hinton asked if the proposed building is going to be setback further than 200 feet from the shoreline? Jerry Smith reported that there was some confusion over the language in the slope stability report. The Planning Department staff has met with the applicant and this matter is now resolved. Mter more discussion of the measures in question, Commissioner Hinton noted that all of the questions on these conditions have been resolved. Ernest Kimball stated that he has had this property for 14 years and 90% of the development work has been done on it because it was previously part of a larger project. He added that he has signed all of the necessary documents with the Health Department for the septic systems and they are all setback approximate 600 to 700 feet from the water. He added that he wasn't clear why this would be a condition when he has already met that requirement. His interpretation was that the requirement for the slope feasibility study and the setbacks from the water were confusing because the structures are all setback 280 to 400 feet from the water. He felt he needed to go on record to resolve these issues. This has been resolved because when the survey is done all of the setbacks will be referenced on the plat map as well as where the shoreline and building sites are located. He called the State Department of Fisheries and they would not provide a letter, but they did provide a number for the County to call to check on this. Commissioner Huntingford explained, regarding measure #2, that all runoff is required to be kept on the property. Since Mr. Kimball isn't being required to obtain a hydraulics permit, Commis- sioner Huntingford asked how this is being addressed? Mr. Kimball reported that he is being required to have a designed stormwater management plan for the lots. Chairman Wojt asked if mitigative measure #4 was discussed? Ernest Kimball answered that he has agreed to comply with that condition. Commissioner Hinton asked why measure #5 which says that chloride samples be taken on a semi annual basis is being required? Jerry Smith reported that the area where this subdivision is located has experienced sea water intrusion which brings chloride into water wells and the State Department of Ecology has recommended that this condition be included. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the State issues the permit for the well and now they are asking that the County take care of monitoring the well. Mark Huth agreed that the DOE should do this type of investigation, not the County. Mr. Kimball added that the well is set back approximately 1,000 feet from the shoreline. Chairman Wojt then opened the hearing for public comments. Hearing none the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Hinton asked why mitigation measure #6 ("In order to avoid significant impacts related to slope stability, any strucutural foundations constructed on fill greater than two (2) feet in depth shall have a geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the J effereson County Building Official for review and approval. The report shall be submitted with the application for building permit. ') was placed on this short subdivision? Ernest Kimball stated that this was noted in the slope stability report. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Mark reported that this condition could be deleted. Mark Huth also suggested that a time limit be placed on the chloride testing condition (mitigation measure #5). Commissioner Huntingford moved to modify the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the Haida Gwaii Short Subdivision by adding wording to Condition 5 to indicate that there will be one annual test, and delete Condition 6. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bob Harper. Ferrv Advisorv Committee re: Two Month Extension of Summer Surchar2e on State Ferry Fares: Bob Harper reported that non-commuting residents of the Olympic Peninsula can not longer take advantage of the Frequent User Discount Book for State ferries because there is an expiration date on them. When the summer surcharge was first implemented the Ferry Advisory Committee did not object because of the offset to local residents from the frequent user discount book. There is now a proposal to extended the summer surcharge an extra month in the spring and fall. VOL l~] rM' on t~04 , c Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 11, 1993 Page: 6 Commissioner Huntingford moved to write a letter of support of the Ferry Advisory Committee's position on frequent user discount books and the extension of the summer surcharge. Commis- sioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bud2et Mana2er Gary Rowe re: Community Bud2et Meetin2s: Gary Rowe reported that he has asked the Elected Officials and Department Heads for their input on holding community budget meetings. He reported that responses ranged from asking if this is the best time to have these meetings to if there is enough time for the departments to prepare for such a meeting. The Board concurred that there probably isn't adequate time for County Departments to prepare for such meetings, so they will not be held right away. Gary Rowe will review alternative ways to get information on the budget out to the community. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. Ma22ie Kelleher. President. Port Townsend Little Lea2ue re: Discussion of Work Plan for Fields: Maggie Kelleher, President of Port Townsend League, explained what they have planned for upgrading the fields at the Fairgrounds and to ask what the status is of the League's grant request to fund this work. The Board concurred that Commissioner Hinton meet with Maggie Kelleher later this week to visit the fields and review the work to be done. Chairman Wojt stated that the grant award is a match for the cost of materials to do this type of work. Crai2 Ward. Plannin2 and Buildin2 Department Director re: Briefin2 on Resource Lands: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reviewed the process that has taken place regarding the drafting of mineral and forest resource land policies. He then reviewed two memos on the various options the Board needs to consider to classify and designate mineral lands and forest lands of long term commercial significance. After discussion of the various options for designating forest lands and the need to define "long term commercial significance, II Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee be reconvened to review the options again with the maps presented by the Planning Department. Commissioner Hinton added that many people have gained knowledge regarding these issues over the past two years and he feels that they should be given a chance to review and comment on these options. Craig Ward recommended that a new committee be formed with the Board appointing the members to assure balance of interests. He stated that if the Committee is to serve in an official capacity to provide advice to the Commissioners, he feels they should be given that status from the Board. He reported that he is frustrated because the County continues to generate process instead of product. He asked for direction from the Board on how to proceed with these options? Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels there are some questions about the maps presented and how well they represent what the Ad Hoc committee recommended. He feels that group should meet again to review and provide input on the maps. The Planning Department will contact the participants in the Ad Hoc committee and bring a report back in a couple of weeks. Mineral lands will be reviewed at that time also. ...."'" G ADJOWNED, J ..¡, .' ~/ ø\" .fi. :...~ ":~~ \. :~~\~':.: /) ~~~~~t:o~ VOl J9 ~M.; on 1 ~05 ,