Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM122093 : '"ÃÓ~ ~':!;; Q MINUTES WEEK OF DECEMBER 20, 1993 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Community Services Director David Goldsmith re: Tri Area Plannin~ Committee Request for Funds for Posta~e: David Goldsmith explained that there are expenses being incurred by the community planning groups for developing, distributing and tabulating community surveys. The survey developed by the Tri Area Planning Committee is being reviewed by a consulting firm who does this type of work to make sure that the questions are as neutral as possible so the responses are the opinions of the people being surveyed. The expense for this review was absorbed by the Community Services Fund. The Tri Area Community Planning Committee has also submitted a request that the County pay the cost of postage for mailing the surveys and the postage for the return envelopes. There are six community planning groups and nothing has been included in the County's budget for these expenses. He then recommended that the request from the Tri Area Planning Committee be funded and that a budget be set for each community planning group for this type of expense. Commissioner Hinton moved to have the County pay for postage, up to $300.00, for mailing of surveys for the Tri Area Community Planning Committee. Similar consideration will be given for other community planning committees upon submission of a request with a proposed budget. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of Request to Modify the Contract for the West Jefferson County Visitor Center: Economic Development Council Director, Bart Phillips, explained that a contract was signed with the North Olympic Visitor and Convention Bureau for the operation of a visitor center in the West End. The maximum amount of this contract was $12,000. To date the NOVCB has billed and received $9,100. In re-checking their records, the NOVCB has identified actual expenses of $8,500, and they will be returning the difference to the County. A community group from the West End has asked that the balance of this contract funding be held over for use by them next year. Bart Phillips then reported that the funding left from the contract goes back into the reserves of the Hotel/Motel Fund. The Tourism Coordinating Committee (TCC) established by the County and the City budgets 95% of the amount of Hotel/Motel taxes that the County expects to receive each year. David Goldsmith reported that the money not spent is retained in the Hotel/Motel Fund. Commissioner Hinton stated that after talking with people in the West End, it appears to him that there are concerns about the contract with the NOVCB. The community group would like to have the funds left from that project (about $5,600) earmarked for their use next year. Bart Phillips suggested that if the Community group in the West End would like to take over the Visitor Informa- tion Center, they need to incorporate and then continue to participate in the TCC. He offered to help the group file the papers necessary to become a non-profit corporation. l VOL 19 rAr,~ 00 22{)O Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 2 Chairman Wojt stated that specific projects for this group can be funded under the TCC. Bart Phillips explained that many of the projects this group has asked to have the funding earmarked for are already in the TCC budget for 1994. Commissioner Huntingford reported that he will be meeting with residents in that area tomorrow and will discuss this with them at that time. Discussion of Procedures for Petitions for Commercial Rezone: Commissioner Huntingford started a discussion of some type of lid on new petitions for commercial rezone. To allow any more of these to start the process now is taking away staff time for working on other matters. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that the County could impose a moratorium to stop the filing of rezone petitions. A public hearing is required to do that and the facts would have to be developed to support such an action. He added that in addition to freeing up staff time, such an action would keep some GMA options open for Urban Growth Areas. If the County keeps redesignating areas outside of potential Urban Growth Areas as commercial that may at some point undermine the GMA process. Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that several individuals have come in and asked about the possibility of rezoning their properties (about two requests per month.) The Planning staff typically discusses the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to their request and lets them know if it is likely or not that their request would go through the process with staff support. There are only two or three current requests, however, that haven't been around for quite a while. The maps for the proposed zoning ordinance are being developed and they will tie the zoning maps to specific existing commercial uses. For example if there is a store within an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses, then the boundaries of the property that the store is located on will be mapped. There may be other properties that should be zoned commercial, but do not have existing commercial uses on them. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reminded the Board that the designations being made now are through an interim ordinance until the zoning ordinance is due for adoption next year. There is no guarantee that the designations under the interim ordinance will be necessarily grandfathered in the final zoning ordinance. Appointment of Person to Serve on the Civil Service Commission: Commissioner Hinton moved to appoint James J. Hill to an unexpired term on the Civil Service Commission. His term will expire April 21, 1997. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes of November 22, 1993 as read and the minutes of December 13, 1993 as corrected (Corrections - Page 5 - delete from second to last paragraph "to interview a person interested in serving on the Civil &rvice Commission (Barry Clausen.)" In the last item change "Commissioner Huntingford seconded" to Chairman Wojt seconded. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by members of the public present at the meeting: A "thank you" to the Commissioners Office staff and helpers who painted the Chambers; a request to the Board to take time to read the written comments submitted on the draft Critical Areas Ordinance; problems with Section 5.0 of the Interim UGA Ordinance (public infrastructure is not defined and intensification of a public service is not defined); the level of service standards in the Interim UGA Ordinance; urging the County to look at the infrastructure that has been financed by federal loans and the rules regarding the provision of these funds and how that will impact the UGA levels of service; why are there so many findings in the JUGA Ordinance; urging the Board to look at the GMA legislation and its impact on the people who are going to stay in this area for the long term; and the need for departments to operate in such a way as to reduce tax levies in the future. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete items 2 and 3 and approve and adopt the balance of the Consent Agenda as submitted. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Accept Recommendation to Approve Claim #C-22-93 $457.86; Damaged Windshield; Bonnie Blackstock LVOL 19 rAC~ 00 2201 " Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 3 2. DELETE ORDINANCE No. _ re: Interim Land Use Control Establishing Interim Urban Growth Areas and Amending the Lot Density Provisions of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance 3. DELETE RESOLUTION NO. _ re: Adoption of the 1994 Annual Budget Including the Current Expense, Public Works, Special Funds, Jefferson County Road Construction Program and County Tax Levy 4. Recommendation for Bid Award re: Indigent Defense and Conflict Services for 1994 for Superior and District Courts 5. Approve Right of Way Plans; Chimacum Road Improvement, Road Project #CR0953 (Federal Aid Project Number RS-QI61-(002) 6. Accept Resignation and Authorize Advertisement for Replacement; Jefferson County Rural Library District Board of Trustees; Tracy L. Mork 7. Approval Final Long Plat #LP04-93; Woodland Hills; Rasmussen Long Plat 8. Accept Resignation (Kirsten Badger) and Appoint Replacement (Mike Rice, Port Townsend Paper Corporation) as Recommended; Solid Waste Advisory Committee 9. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; American Legion Post #26 in the amount of $476.00 10. RESOLUTION No. 112-93 re: Establishing Special Fund to be Known as the DCD CDBG/Skookum Fund 11. Accept Recommendation to Reject Claim #C-09-93 $35,000.00; Improper Seizure; Richard & Valerie Lightbourne Adoption of the 1994 Annual Bud2et Includin2 the Current Expense, Public Works, Special Funds, Jefferson County Road Construction Pro~ram and County Tax LeVY: Budget Manager Gary Rowe reported that the UFCW employees wages in the '94 budget have been updated in accordance with the newly negotiated contract and the adjustments for mid-managers have been made. He pointed out that the transfer from current expense to the Health and Human Services Department has not been changed which means that the total of the Union salary increases for that Department will have to be calculated and a reduction equal to that amount made. Health and Human Services Department Administrator David Specter noted that this amounts to about $23,000 that will have to be absorbed by the Department. He reported that some of this amount can be made up by the beginning fund balance since the Health Department is expected to come in under budget in 1993. Gary Rowe reported that the budget can be adopted at the bottom line and then the Health Department can review and make the cuts necessary in programs to absorb this deficit. Gary Rowe reported that he has also submitted a memo summarizing information on staffing levels into the future. In the last five years the County has held to 4.9 FTE's per 1,000 population, but in the next five years that will have to go down to 4.0 FTE's to keep the budget balanced. Because demands will continue to go up, this will require a 20 to 25% increase in efficiency or reduction in programs or a combination of each. Commissioner Hinton stated that this budget is being balanced based on the maximum increase in property taxes allowed by law (106%) and by reducing the unencumbered account balance. He doesn't feel that the Board has had any meaningful discussion regarding evaluation of services to determine priorities and needs, other alternatives, or the long range effects of reducing reserves. There has been no consideration for a flat or reduced economy. He feels the Board has failed in providing accountability, fiscal responsibility and financial management of the electorate's assets. Increases have been approved this year in Solid Waste fees, camping fees and the 1/10th of 1% local option sales taxes. This budget considered a 6% increase in property taxes while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has remained between 2 1/2% to 2 3/4%. He feels that in the current economic environment the County must not "tax to the max" or deplete resources. Allowances must be made for the possibility of reduction in grants from the State and other sources and also possible losses as a result of Initiative 601. He said he cannot consider a budget approval in excess of 3% which is in line with inflation and the cost of living. He feels the focus should be redirected on economic development. The County can no longer continue to depend on property taxes or sales taxes. Efficiency must be increased, while the tax burden is decreased. Light industry, manufacturing and good jobs must be encouraged to provide a sustainable economy in Jefferson County. Chairman Wojt stated that the budget hearing at the end of the year is not the time for the County to look at a budget that takes into consideration changing the taxing structure. He added that he is sympathetic to some of the views expressed by Commissioner Hinton, but he doesn't see any practical way at this late date to answer those needs in the 1994 budget. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't feel comfortable trying to implement changes this late in the year. He is willing to work during the next 30 to 60 days to develop a plan to address such things as cuts in Health Department programs to keep the contribution from current expense at its current level, staff reductions over the next three years and other ways to lower the tax rate. He ~ VOL 19 rAŒ 002202 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 4 stated it is a little late in the process for the 1994 budget to make the changes recommended by Commissioner Hinton. Things done earlier in the year such as going back for another bid for the animal shelter and postponing action on some of the Solid Waste issues, have cost the County money. He is willing to work during 1994 to have a proposal outlining the direction the County will be taking in the future, in place before work is started on the 1995 budget. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 113-93 adopting the 1994 annual budget including the current expense, public works, special funds, Jefferson County Road construction program and the County tax levy. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion and called for a vote on it. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Board then met in EXECUTIVE SESSION with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth and Public Works Director Gary Rowe regarding potential litigation. BID OPENING re: Construction of a New Animal Shelter; Proiect No. ACF947: Public Works Architectural Project Inspector Valerie Green opened and read the bids as follows: BIDDERS BID AMOUNT 1. Premium Construction Group $ 274,464.58 Alternate 1 16,384.31 Alternate 2 2,668.45 Alternate 3 2,096.64 Alternate 4 4,447.47 2. Fisher Construction $209,445.00 Alternate 1 12,604.00 Alternate 2 2,846.00 Alternate 3 1,671.00 Alternate 4 1,237.00 3. The Lundstad Company $302,830.00 Alternate 1 26,257.00 Alternate 2 3,280.00 Alternate 3 1,092.00 Alternate 4 12,471.00 4. Son Construction $260,013.00 Alternate 1 12,253.00 Alternate 2 2,787.00 Alternate 3 2,209.00 Alternate 4 Credit <4,312.00> 5. Olympic Western Company $326,063.00 Alternate 1 19,909.58 Alternate 2 3,013.01 Alternate 3 3,444.21 Alternate 4 Credit <3,891.58> 6. Purvis Construction Company $323,215.00 Alternate 1 18,219.82 Alternate 2 1,533.24 Alternate 3 1,833.25 Alternate 4 -0- ~ VOL 19 rAG~ OCh203 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 5 BIDDERS 7. Primo Construction Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Credit BID AMOUNT $269,916.11 23,081.97 2,917.07 2,769.39 <3,550.94> 8. Halvy Corporation Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 $267,992.00 25,876.00 2,719.00 4,221.00 -0- Engineers Construction Cost Estimate $240,000.00 Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the Public. Works Department review the bids and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING re: Petition for Zone Chan~e; From General Use to Commercial Use; 9.85 Acres Approximatelv 100 Feet South of the SRI9/SR20 Intersection, East of SR19; Ea~le Eye. Inc., Applicant: Chairman Wojt read the hearing procedures and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Hiller West, consultant with Shockey Brent, reported that this petition, submitted by Eagle Eye, Inc. is to change the zoning of approximately 9.8 acres of property currently zoned General Use to General Commercial. The property is approximately 300 feet south of SRl9120 Intersection, lying east of SR19. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and has forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Commissioners. That recommendation was considered by the Board who determined to hold a public hearing on the request with the possibility of modifying the Planning Commission's recommendation. Janet Welch representing the Planning Commission reported on the findings that the Planning Commission made in their recommendation to deny: · Finding #3 - The Comprehensive Plan allows commercial development to occur at intersections. The Planning Commission feels the intention of that policy is to allow commercial development in areas where it will not create a traffic problem. The issue is the whole idea of traffic and the Comprehensive Plan intention of trying to minimize traffic congestion and impacts. · Finding #4 - This deals with the 660 radius for a commercial center. The Planning Commission found that this is not a relevant consideration. The Comprehensive Plan allows for flexibility in siting commercial centers. A commercial center has been created in this area which includes Olympic Greenhouse, Wheel In Drive Inn Theater and the Fred Hill properties as well as a number of vacant parcels. This commercial center is well in excess of 100 acres. The Planning Commission has found that this area is an existing commercial center, but the need for it to be expanded has not been shown at this time. · Finding #5 - This has to do with considerable public testimony the Planning Commission received which included concerns about: traffic problems, the prospect of strip development, the impact on adjacent property values, impacts to utilities, legal interpretation of the Interim Zoning Ordinance and the undesirability of locating commercial activity outside of urban areas. lVOl 19 rA.G~ 00 2204 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 6 . Finding #6 - This finding dealt with strip development. Strip development along roads and highways leads to unnecessary traffic congestion, automobile accidents, proliferation and signs and diminishment of adjoining property values. The existing commercial center has over 8,200 lineal feet of highway frontage. This request would expand that by another 1,000 feet. Janet Welch added that Chairman Wojt had reported at the last meeting on this matter that the Wiley rezone occurred in part because Mr. Wiley reported that he had been paying commercial taxes on his entire parcel of property and that he had an established business on the property. The Assessor's Office has indicated that there are no commercial taxes in this County. Chairman Wojt clarified that Mr. Wiley indicated that because he had commercial designation that affected the value of his property and therefore he was paying a higher rate of taxes. . Finding #8 - Overview of Comprehensive Plan and Interim Zoning Ordinance policies. Planning Commission found that the proposal is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and Interim Zoning Ordinance policies. The Planning Commission found that the petitioner had not clearly demonstrated that the proposal would be most consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and recommended denial of the zone change. She then reported that the previous Board of Commissioners in their 1992 findings on the Wiley rezone stated that properties would not be split for the purpose of rezoning. This is a contiguous piece of property. The discussion continued regarding whether parcels could be split by a rezone and what the change in zone would mean for regulating development on a commercially designated parcel. Donald Cote, Planning Commission member, stated that there were substantial presentations made by the applicants when the Board took action on this previously and the Prosecuting Attorney has since advised that no presentations should have been made at that time. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked the Board members if their decision today would be influenced by their prior decision? Each of the Board members indicated their decision would not be influenced. Commissioner Hinton asked what the Planning staff recommendation was on this rezone? Hiller West stated that the Planning staff report to the Planning Commission emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't give much guidance on defining the boundaries of the commercial zone. In the absence of that guidance, the Planning staff forwarded the information to the Planning Commission on an implicit standard under other adopted plans and the Interim Zoning Code, which is 660 feet from the intersection of two arterial roads. A small portion of the property does lie within 660 feet of the intersection. There are improvements scheduled for 1994 in the intersection which would move the intersection further south and change it to a "T" intersection instead of the current narrow angle intersection. If these improvements are installed in the future, they could be a basis for commercial use of this property. Mark Huth pointed out that this intersection project is a State project, not a County project. Commissioner Hinton asked what happened at the Planning Commission meeting? Hiller West reported that there were several Planning Commission meetings on this and the Hancock petition. Craig Jones submitted a letter dated November 12, 1993, and suggested to the Board that they uphold the minority opinion of the Planning Commission. Mark Huth interjected that the Board cannot uphold a minority opinion of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommendation is what it is no matter what the vote. Mr. Jones questioned why the Board can't consider a minority position, especially since the Planning Commission presented it to the Board. He then noted that he has submitted suggestions for findings and conclusions to support this position. Mr. Jones then pointed out the designations of the properties in the area around this zone change petition. There is no designation in Comprehensive Plan for this intersection which relates to a 660 foot radius. This property is wedged between SR19 and the City of Port Townsend water easement and on all sides the adjacent properties are either commercial or are not designated for any other use. The Comprehensive Plan marks this intersection as a "Commercial Center." In December 1992 the commercial zone was extended to include the Wheel In property to the south and the Olympic Greenhouse property to the north. Both of those properties are considerably out of the 660 foot radius, and to the south the Wheel In property extends further than the proposed Eagle Eye property. If this property is rezoned commercial, it will complete the designation in a blocklike manner. Factors that are important to finding that this rezone is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan are: the property is in reasonable proximity to the intersection of SRI9/20; the property is located adjacent to existing commercial development in a blocklike manner; the zone change will not promote the spread of sprawl or strip development at the intersection of SRI9/20; VOL 19 rAG~ 00 2205 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 7 and approval of the petition will be consistent with the Board's redesignation of this intersection. Mr. Jones concluded by noting that with regard to the commercial tax issue, there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that sets a guideline or policy regarding the way a particular piece of property is taxed. That is not the issue. The issue is where should the commercial center be located. Chairman Wojt stated that an easement is not a legal splitting of the property. Craig Jones stated that is correct, but there is no requirement that the property cannot be split. This easement is an absolute barrier. There is no way that the rest of this property can be considered contiguous with this portion of the parcel, because of the power and water easement. Any subsequent attempt to request a commercial designation of the property on the other side of the easement would be subject to a hearing in front of the Commissioners. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing. Pete Bradv, 81 Martin Road, stated that he feels that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is that commercial uses will be located properly in terms of demand to serve the local, nearby community. The 660 feet is a limitation, it is not a mandate. A quarter mile to the north of the northerly boundary of the 660 foot circle is Old Fort Townsend Road which is the start of the industrial district that runs a mile and a half to the Port Townsend City limits with a total acreage of 446 acres. Light industrial uses are permitted there and, with a general use permit, any use allowed in the general commercial district is also permitted. Rezoning areas as commercial will mean that any commercial use project can be placed there without further review, while a conditional use permit is required in the industrial area. He stated that Finding number 17 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance should apply to this petition. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth interjected that the findings of an ordinance do apply to the ordinance because they are part of the basis for passing the ordinance. The question Mr. Brady raised previously is if a project must be proposed in order to request a zone redesignation? The answer given Mr. Brady was no, a specific project does not have to be proposed. Finding #17 doesn't give a time frame for the development of the property. A person does need to show that by the Interim Zoning Ordinance their property should have been designated commercial and the reasons for that. The Board must then determine if the redesignation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Julie Jaman, Hastings Avenue, stated that she is an active participant in the Quimper Community Planning Committee. There seems to be a trend impacting this planning area. This (rezone petition) has an appearance of usurping this planning process. The Quimper Planning Group is developing a survey for citizens of the area. They have not established the boundaries of the area yet, and it could include all or part of this request. She suggested it may be appropriate for the Board to wait to hear from the people who will be impacted by the proposal. The process of rezoning seems to fly in the face of what the community planning committees are doing. The people in this area sound as if they are inclined to persist with the rural nature of this area which includes what happens along the highways. She urged the Board to wait to hear from the Planning group before approving this zone change. Palmer Osborn, 83 Martin Road, read and submitted a letter for this hearing and the next hearing (see attached. ) Mark Stevenson, 460 Martin Road, stated that he owns 4 1/2 acres that touches the Hancock property on its northeast corner. He doesn't feel that either of these rezone requests fit the criteria in the Interim Zoning ordinance. The 660 foot radius only touches a little of the Eagle Eye property and it doesn't touch the Hancock property at all. The concerns of more than just the landowners seeking the rezone should be taken into consideration. The 44 acres of properties currently designated commercial in this area provides over a mile of Highway frontage (not including the Fred Hill or Olympic Greenhouse properties). Adding the Eagle Eye and Hancock properties will increase the highway frontage to 7,200 feet. That sounds like strip commercial development. Mr. Stevenson then referred to the Comprehensive Plan policies for commercial development that say that commercial development should be located in areas where a reasonable demand can be expected for the needs of the nearby community. He explained that he and his neighbors along Martin Road don't see a need for a commercial zone in this area. There isn't a need for such a vast area for commercial development. He also hasn't seen anything in the Comprehensive Plan that obligates the citizenry of the County to help a property owner raise his sale price. Mr. Stevenson continued regarding concerns for water. Many of the residences in this area have private wells and there is real concern regarding the consistent quality and quantity of water in that area. He concluded by noting that proceeding with commercial rezoning, is undermining the process of the Growth Management Act. . VOL 19 rA(~ 00 2206 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 8 Steve Havden, Port Townsend, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, stated that there are two policies under the City/County Joint Planning policies that he feels relate to this: Policy 7.3 "Each Urban Growth Area and rural center is considered the commercial and business hub in their respective areas of the County. UGA's should be viewed as regional service and retail centers, while the rural center focus is on the local community retail and service needs." Policy 8 ''Rural areas are those lands located outside UGA's and resource lands. Activities such as regional retail commercial facilities, business office parks and similar high intensity land use developments are considered urban in nature and are inconsistent with rural area designations." The implication of UGA designation is that once these areas are identified, everything outside them with the exception of rural centers and resource lands, will be considered rural areas. This kind of acreage at the intersection of major State highways is not rural center oriented. If this is approved, it will create acreage outside of, and between two urban growth areas in the County that already have heavy investments in commercial development. With regard to the 660 foot area, Steve Hayden reported that the 1987 Zoning Code that was thrown out by the Court due to procedural problems and replaced by the emergency Zoning Ordinance, did specify that this would be the guideline for the extent of commercial development around an intersection. This is a judgement call, but there is plenty of information to refer to indicating that the size of the commercial area should be limited to that area. He encouraged the Board to limit the change in the Eagle Eye petition to that area inside the 660 radius. He also urged that the Board redesignate the portions of the Wiley and Olympic Greenhouse property outside that area back to General Use. Charles Landau, 85 Martin Road, said that he feels the traffic in this area is an issue. He doesn't feel that the change in the intersection proposed by the State will alleviate the problems. The further south the intersection is moved, the blinder the intersection will become. The idea of a commercial center at this intersection is absurd. He doesn't see the need for more commercial property in this area. Ted Rogers, 2201 Cook Avenue, stated that he feels that it appears that this rezone application should be rejected as not being in the best interest of the community. Gene Seton stated that he owns both sides of this property, but it is actually physically split. They can not go across the pipeline or use that ground where the easement is. Hearing no further comment the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford asked Janet Welch how she arrived at 8,200 feet of existing highway frontage? Janet Welch indicated how she measured the commercial designation fronting on SRI9120. The discussion continued regarding the Wiley commercial designation and the location of Old Theater Road. Janet Welch added that there is currently 113 acres of commercially designated property in this area. Mter more discussion of the designation of certain properties in this area, Craig Jones clarified that the Fred Hill property was designated commercial by an amendment to the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. It is designated on the Interim Zoning Ordinance as General Use and there has not been a petition by Fred Hill to change that designation. The Interim Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the rezone as petitioned for by Eagle Eye. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. Commissioner Huntingford amended his motion to direct Hiller West to prepare written findings and conclusions. Commissioner Hinton seconded the amendment to the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Petition for Zone Chan~e; From General Use to Commercial Use; Ap- proximately 5 Acres on the West Side of SR20, 800 Feet South of the SR20/SR19 Intersection; Myrl Hancock, Applicant: Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing and asked the following questions: . VOl 19 rAG~ 00 ~~20? Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Q) Q) Page: 9 Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Q) Hiller West reported that this property lies on the west side of Highway 20. The petition is to change the zone of a parcel approximately 5 acres in size from the General Use to the General Commercial designation. This property is approximately 700 feet from the intersection. The same issues apply to this petition that applied to the Eagle Eye petition, and it is also being reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Emergency Zoning Ordinance which contains the criteria for approval. The Board concurred that the testimony from the Eagle Eye hearing that applies to this petition be adopted. Janet Welch, member of the Planning Commission, then reviewed the Planning Commission findings and conclusions. Ande Grahn, Planning Commission member, explained the Planning Commission's deliberations regarding the 660 foot circle from an intersection for siting commercial development and how that fits with "blocklike" fashion. Myrl Hancock, stated that he has had a commercial business on his property for 27 years. He has a commercial driveway and a commercial building permit. Tom Majhan, Attorney representing Myrl Hancock, stated that he doesn't feel including this property in the commercial designation could be construed as strip development. There are commercial properties to the north, south and east of this property. This is not a pristine area. The Chairman then opened the public hearing. Pete Bradv stated that he feels this is strip commercial development. It is up to the Board to make a judgement as to what is appropriate in this location for a commercial center. The business on this property has non-conforming rights and even rights under the general use designation for an application for a different type of use. There have been concerns raised about water in this area. He feels that given the proximity of residential properties, it is not a big hardship for someone to submit for a condition use permit and submit a plan. Hiller West clarified that with reference to the conditional use permit process, this property is currently outside the 660 foot radius of the intersection, which means that a project could be developed as allowed under the General Use zone or the existing business on the site could be maintained. Those uses permitted under the General Commercial Zone could not be proposed under the Conditional Use permit process, a rezone would be required. Charles Landeau, 85 Martin Road, stated it is obvious to him that this is strip development. His feeling is that if the Board does approve this, they should say to the citizens who will vote in the next election, that they feel strip development is the way the County should go in the future. Mark Stevenson, 460 Martin Road, stated that the northeast corner of his property touches the corner of Mr. Hancock's property. This property is clearly out of the 660 foot radius. There is no need for more commercial property in this area. This would be another step in strip development which is discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management guidelines. The Quimper Community Planning Group is working to come up with a community plan which involves more citizens rather than a plan that comes about by the actions of a few property owners who are in a position to start businesses. This area is not in an urban growth area. Mr. Stevenson continued by noting that he has a private well downhill from Mr. Hancock's property. When Fred Hill drilled a well on that property, other wells in the area went dry. There is a question about the ultimate supply of water if development filled the entire area designated commercial. One of the fears regarding the VOL 19 rAC~ 00 2208 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 10 rezone of this property to commercial is that citizenry as a whole, through their County government, loses another bit of control over what happens on this site. He stated that he doesn't necessarily oppose any development on this site, but he would like to see specific plans. He feels this application should be denied. Commissioner Hinton asked if any of the homes in that area are served by public water? Mr. Stevenson answered that some of the residents whose wells have gone dry have water service from the City. Myrl Hancock asked Mr. Stevenson how deep his well is and how many gallons a minute it pumps. Mr. Stevenson didn't answer. Mr. Hancock stated that it is 124 feet deep and it pumps 20 gallons a minute. He then asked how deep Fred Hill's well is and when Mr. Stevenson stated he is not a well driller, Mr. Hancock answered that it is 450 feet deep and pumps 400 gallons a minute. Fred Hill's well is not causing his well to go dry. Mr. Hancock said his own well is 150 feet deep and pumps 20 gallons a minute plus. All of the grading he did out on his property was done 15 years ago. Steve Havden, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, asked (in addition to the testimony he gave on the Eagle Eye rezone) the Board what their definition is of "blocklike" is, if they think this is blocklike? He asked that the Board define blocklike. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't feel that the County can limit access to the currently designated commercial properties. The State may limit access to these highways in the future. He reported that the Board and Planning staff have discussed the possibility of a moratorium on the County accepting any new rezone petitions, but it doesn't appear that will be done. Mark Huth reported that the rezone petitions are approved under an interim emergency ordinance and when a new Zoning Ordinance is adopted, the uses on the properties will dictate what the zone will be, and these zone designations may not be permanent. Commissioner Huntingford stated he would like it on the record that he will not approve any more extentions of this commercial zone along the highway corridors, until interim UGA boundaries and all the GMA planning is done. Gene Seton stated that every project proposed on any of these properties, must be reviewed by the Planning Department and the access must be approved at that time. Craig Jones asked for a clarification of Section 13 (lO)(e) which says that "Unless a change in circumstances is demonstrated, any zoning change granted under this subsection shall not be modified as a result of such review. Said zoning change shall be incorporated in the final official control described in Finding 11." He stated that his understanding of this is that once the zoning change occurs it will be incorporated into the final zoning code. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that GMA regulations will be different than the Zoning Code. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing. Chairman Wojt asked if this zone change petition is not approved, and a change in use is proposed for the property if that change would require a conditional use permit? Hiller West answered that it depends on how much similarity there is between the existing use and the new use. There is also a question of when and how long an existing use is abandoned. Commissioner Hinton stated that this property is located adjacent to commercial properties in a blocklike fashion. He then moved to approve this petition for rezone and to direct staff to prepare findings and conclusions for adoption. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against. The motion carried. Lois Smith, Juvenile Services Director re: CONTRACT with State DJR/DSHS for Juvenile Service Pr02rams and Report on Proposal for January 1, 1994 to June 3.). 1995: Mter an explanation of what this contract covers by Juvenile Service Director Lois Smith, Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the contract with the State DJR/DSHS for Juvenile Service programs. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , VOL 19 pAr,r 00 ~~209 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 11 Interim Land Use Control Establishin~ Interim Urban Growth Areas and Amendin~ the Lot Density Provisions of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance: David Goldsmith reported on suggested changes to the draft ordinance to clarify Section 5. The Board indicated that they would review these suggested changes further. CONTRACT #G9200331, Amendment No. 1 re: Grant for Fundin~ Marine Science Center Pro~rams; State Department of Ecolo~y: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that this contract amendment is to change the lead agent from Jefferson County to the City of Port Townsend for the grant for the Marine Science Center. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and have the Chairman sign this contract amendment. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Tuesday morning. Commissioner Hinton and Chairman W ojt were present. Commissioner Huntingford was at a meeting in the West End. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance AuthoriziDlZ the Execution of an A~reement Between Jefferson County and the Jefferson County Veterans' Service Officers Association for the Disbursement of Funds from the Jefferson County Veterans Assistance Fund: Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing. Albert Porter, 1310 lrondale Road Port Hadlock, stated that the agreement proposed is good if we were living in 1950. Things like rent, food, prescriptions and doctor fees have increased. There is no where to rent in this area for $300.00. He feels that the amounts for these items should be raised to be more realistic. Chairman Wojt explained that the hearing today is regarding the Ordinance which would authorize the County to enter into an agreement with the Jefferson County Veterans' Service Officers Association. After being assured that the agreement will be on the Commissioners agenda for consideration at another time, Mr. Porter stated that he supports a Service Officers organization and feels this should have been done years ago. Mr. McCracken, American Legion Post #26, asked if the document being discussed is the Jefferson County Service Officers Association By-Laws? The Clerk of the Board explained that the draft Ordinance being discussed is not the By-Laws and that the ordinance was published in the Port Townsend Leader. Pat Bowen, 61 West Maple, Paradise Bay, explained that the agreement between the Service Officers and the County is a draft to work from. When the Service Officers Association is setup then they can work out what will be included in the agreement. Albert Porter stated that, by State law, the Commander is responsible for his post and all his people and the Commanders are being left out on this agreement. It should be an agreement of the service organizations of Jefferson County. The Commander appoints the Service Officer who can be removed the next day. He added that he feels the ordinance should be drawn up between federally recognized agencies for veterans relief like the VFW, American Legion and Am Vets. The Service Officers work for the Commanders. He pointed out that with regard to the portion of the agreement that deals with rent for the post, the State says that the County will furnish a place for all organizations chartered by the federal government to meet. He feels the wording (of the Ordinance) should be changed to say that the County is authorized to enter into an agreement with the posts and chapters in the County. Robert Farr asked Bud Porter to explain what changes he is asking for in the ordinance? Bud Porter explained that the ordinance should be changed to say what the RCW calls for which is that the organizations recognized by Congress to be chartered, administer the Veterans Relief Fund. Robert Farr stated that if the ordinance is changed in the way suggested by Mr. Porter that everything would be as it is currently. VOL 19 rAC~ 0022:10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 12 Ken Austin. Stevens Avenue, Port Townsend, stated that the he feels the ordinance should say the Service Organizations not the Service Officers. He added that he can't make out a form to authorize the transfer of funds to someone without the signature of the Post Commander. The top authority in each Post should be the one to make that final decision. Chairman Wojt asked the Prosecuting Attorney to clarify the question of what organization should be authorized to execute an agreement with the County - the Jefferson County Veterans Service Officers Organization or the Jefferson County Veterans Service Organizations? Mark Huth explained that it's up to the Veterans to decide how they want to deal with the County. If the ordinance is changed to say the Posts, that is not an organization. The intent of this proposed ordinance was so that the County would have a liaison between all the veterans organizations. If the ordinance is changed to refer to the veterans organizations, then there is no need for it because that is how this is operated now. Whether the organization is the Service Officers Association or the Post Association, that is up to the Veterans to decide. This ordinance was modeled after the way the Veterans fund is set up in Pierce and Thurston counties. That was the model suggested by the veterans when they came to the County previously. Without an identified organization, there is no need for the ordinance and we would be back to operating the way we are now. Pat Bowen, 161 West Maple, Paradise Bay, stated that all Service Officers are appointed by their organization. Every Veterans Relief form has to be signed by the Adjutant or the Commander so they are still a part of this Service Officers Association. All the Service Officers Association would be doing is looking over the forms to see that they are properly filled out and everything is taken care of so that they go before the Commissioners to be paid. The Service Officers Association would have a set of bylaws and if the Commander wants to kick out the Service Office for his organization and appoint another one, that's his prerogative. All Service Officers have to be sworn in by the Post to uphold their duties. He recommends that the Ordinance be passed as is. Bob Farr stated that if the name is left as the Service Officers Association the County will know who they are dealing with. The Commander can appoint a different Service Officer, but the County and other organizations will know they are dealing with a Service Officer. Bud Porter stated that it's the responsibility of the Commander to notify the Auditor's Office who the Post Commander, Service Officer, and Adjutant are every year. Lee Morgan, Quilcene VFW Post 3213, stated that he doesn't feel this ordinance needs to be changed. The Commander of the Post has to approve every request for relief that goes through the Post. The Commander appoints the Service Officer and should have enough confidence in the Service Officer to handle the situation and do as the Post wishes. If the Service Officer doesn't do that the Commander can replace him. Mr. McCracken, 111 lrondale Road, Port Hadlock, stated that the change to Jefferson County Veterans Service Organizations would be far more appropriate than Service Officers Association. Duane Goetz, 3075 So. Discovery, Port Townsend, stated that he feels that the name should be changed to Veterans Organizations. Ed (he didn't say his last name), said that he feels it should be Veterans Organizations. The Service Officer is elected and he doesn't feel there is any advantage to the organization, to be changing them all the time. Most of the Posts are so small that there aren't enough people to change them. Bob Farr stated that if this was called a Veterans Organization then anyone in the Post can be appointed to handle these application? If the name is the Service Officers Organization, then only a Service Officer can be appointed to handle them. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved that the record be left open for written comments on this ordinance until December 31, 1993 and that the ordinance be scheduled on the Commissioners Agenda for action on Monday January 3, 1994. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Wednesday morning. All three Commissioners were present. VOL 19 fAC' 00 22~ll Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 13 Review. Discussion and Consideration of Comments Received and Review and Determination of Policy Choices; Draft Critical Areas Ordinance: Planning Director Craig Ward reviewed the handouts prepared by the Planning Department (Summary of comments from individuals on the draft #6 of the ordinance dated December 14, 1993; a memo dated December 8, 1993 from , the Planning Department to the Board regarding the Prosecuting Attorney's recommendations on the draft ordinance; and a Planning Department Memo dated December 16, 1993 summarizing existing regulations that provide environmental protection. Chairman Wojt stated that one of the things to be done today is to go through and establish a record regarding the reasoning on the particular choices made on the options presented. The Board and Planning staff then discussed the best way to proceed through this material. Commissioner Hinton then outlined the areas of his concerns and possible direction to expedite the process. He feels that everyone can agree that the County is in a dilemma with the CAO and attempts to satisfy the requirements of the GMA. There have been many attempts to develop a Critical Area Ordinance from a myriad of draft ordinances. Having read and heard the numerous concerns, complaints and problems on this draft ordinance, he questions if it can be saved at this point. Many comments were received at the public hearing that this ordinance should be scraped. The Board has neither the legal background or planning experience and must rely solely on the Planning staff to develop the goals and ordinances. The Board members have repeatedly directed staff toward production of a CAO that: considers the DCD guidelines; considers the need for consisten- cy, coordination and predictability in an ordinance; consideration of the goals of GMA with allowance for tradeoffs; that will protect critical areas and buffers from development proposals which pose significant environmental impacts; protection of land owners from arbitrary and discriminate action; an ordinance that has fairness and equity in balancing individual and collective interests; an ordinance that is clear, concise and defined; and an ordinance that replaces the broad administrative authority of the Director to impose his interpretations. All of these areas of concern were brought out in the public hearing, as well as, numerous other concerns such as environmental issues, constitutional violations, process, inadequate definitions, inconsistent and variations of purposes, practical information and effects on proposed development, non conforming uses, physical impacts, due process and wetland recognition and protection. The question is how do we rectify all these various concerns? This Board must take a responsible, positive, leadership role to take the necessary steps to produce quality and professional planning for Jefferson County's future. County Ordinance N . 05-0601-92 sets out the requirements for letting County contracts. Section 12 of that ordinance a lows for emergencies. Commissioner Hinton moved to direct the Planning Department to prepa e report for the Board within one week stating that an emergency exists and that the public interest 0 the County would suffer material injury or damage by delaying enacting the Critical Areas Ordin nce and request a waiver of the provisions of the Procurement Ordinance. Chairman Wojt state that he feels that the draft ordinance is an effort of the Planning Department staff to ferret out t wishes of the Board. What has come down to the Board through the two attorneys reports an the testimony received from the public, is that there are some difficulties with this ordinance, in pa ticular the scope of the items that trigger the ordinance the areas that have been inadequately covere such as buffer sizes, aquifer recharge areas, and wildlife and shellfish considerations. He hen reviewed the process used in Clallam County. He feels that if the issues and concerns are ad ressed and the record is established and the Board promises the public that they will see to it that pe mits are dealt with in a timely way, then many of the difficulties discussed by Commissioner Hinto would be handled. The real question is would hiring someone else to do the job over again, be a saving to the public. Commissioner Hunti gford stated that he feels some of the things that Commissioner Hinton said are true. At this point, hether a consultant is hired or not to write the ordinance, this Board will still have to make the de isions on setbacks and buffers, etc. There are still a lot of questions regarding how this ordinance ill be implemented, how the rules will be set down, and who has discretion over it. Mark Huth stated th t he feels the ordinance and his review of it speak for themselves. The real problem is does th ordinance go far enough. The Board can address the issues identified by indicating the ration Ie for their choices, or by choosing to make a change. He feels that Chairman Wojt is right, if anot er consultant is hired the Board will just be presented with the range of choices that already exist. feels the ordinance is as clear and concise as possible. This ordinance, as any law, requires technic I language and even words of common understanding are often defined by the Court in a different anner than the common person would know. If an emergency is declared, as proposed by Commi sioner Hinton, what is the emergency? Is it that we haven't been able to come up with an ordinance and that we should? This would imply that the County shouldn't pass any VOL 1 9 PAU 00 ~~2:l2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 14 further subdivisions or allow any further land use because its an emergency that the critical areas be protected and in the interim that could call for a moratorium. This is a very dangerous road to take without considering those additional steps. Both the Growth Planning Hearings Board and the Superior Court (Columbia County and Okanogan County decisions) have ordered Counties to get with the program. The County would have very little defense to say that the ordinance can't be done. Delaying the process any further won't resolve anything. Commissioner Hinton's motion died for lack of a second. Eric Toews then proceeded with the review of the issues as outlined in his Memo to the Board dated December 8, 1993: I. Attorney Recommendations regarding non-policy issues: 1. Mark Huth's memorandum discussed the need to make clearer reference to the 13 specific goals within the Growth Management Act. The Prosecuting Attorney's memo provides the basis for the Board to discuss their rationale. Eric Toews stated that he feels this item can be addressed after discussion of the more substantive issues. Mark Huth stated that if the Board has read the Memo, thought about the goals, and then based their decisions on those goals, this recommendation has been met and a finding can be included in the ordinance that indicates that the Board has considered the goals set forth in the Growth Management Act. 2. Mark Huth's memo pointed out that it should be specified within the text of the ordinance that the Critical Area Maps and Field Guide were prepared for information only and shall not serve as regulatory devises. Eric Toews suggested that a statement with regard to the maps be repeated throughout the ordinance (beginning with Section 6 - possibly within the section on classification and designation 6.30, page 24). Eric reported that the maps will be used as a "red flag" devise. If at the underlying site inspection for the triggering permit, a critical area is found, then the County Planning staff would initiate critical area review. If the proposal site includes a mapped critical area, then the critical area review would be initiated. If there is a mapped critical area and the site inspection finds that there is not actually a critical area, then the critical area review would be waived. As the ordinance is written building permits are not a triggering permit. Craig Ward reported that after the pre-application, if there is a triggering permit, a site inspection will be made by Planning staff. These procedures (pre-application conference, site inspection, etc.) are not explicit in this ordinance because they are in the underlying ordinances (Subdivision Ordinance, etc.) Commissioner Huntingford stated that he agrees with this provision of the ordinance. He would like to see language added to this ordinance to indicate the ordinance where the processes are delineated. Eric Toews stated that an amendment will be made to Subsection 5.201 to clarify this. Commissioner Hinton asked who would resolve a dispute about a critical area on a particular piece of property? Eric Toews answered that an appeal of an administrative decision may be made to the Hearing Examiner. All matters appealed to the Hearing Examiner may be finally appealed to the Commissioners. Commissioner Huntingford asked how an applicant would know that they have the option to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision? Craig Ward reported that information is provided to the applicant by the Hearing Examiner and Planning staff. Commissioner Hinton asked again who will make the determination that a critical area exists on a piece of property? Craig Ward reported that he or his staff would make that determination. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the County will need to have someone on staff with adequate background to make these determinations. Craig Ward reported that there are many determinations (aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat, etc.) that the staff is not comfortable making. If the County is going to have someone on staff to review one type of critical area (such as wetland), he questioned if the same service should be provided for other critical areas? Since the applicant is the one benefiting by the application, then they should provide expert testimony on the other critical areas, at their own cost. Commissioner Hinton and Chairman Wojt agreed that maps should be used for informational purposes only. 3. Eric Toews continued by noting that the Prosecuting Attorney pointed out that the ordinance fails to state explicitly that action within critical areas, in violation of the standards and conditions of the ordinance, are expressly prohibited. Mark Huth suggested that such a statement be included. Chairman Wojt noted that there was also public testimony indicating this as a problem with the ordinance. Eric Toews explained that Section 3 (Scope) and Section 12 (Legal Provisions) could both include wording to state this more explicitly. Mark Huth stated that he recommends that the penalties in this ordinance be civil violations. VOL 19 rAr' 00 2213 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 15 Chairman Wojt stated that he is in favor of adding this language. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he supports adding this language, but he is concerned about notification of people who may be in violation when there is no permit. Mark Huth explained that proposals that don't fall under an ordinance that triggers a permit subject to this ordinance, are not regulated by it. Commissioner Hinton stated that he agrees that this language be added. 4. Eric Toews reported that there are number of development proposals that would require a triggering application under this ordinance, but would not require a public hearing. For example a short plat would be a triggering application under this ordinance, but the approval is administrative in the Subdivision Ordinance and does not require a public hearing. Mark Huth recommended that a public notice of the pending application and pending critical area review be made, in this type of situation. This notice could be incorporated within the notice provisions already required in the Subdivision Ordinance, but would be an additional notice requirement for applications under the Zoning Ordinance, the Camper Club Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Program. Commissioner Huntingford stated that his concern is that mitigation measures are provided by the County and not the neighbors. Eric Toews stated that the notice is not provided to allow individuals to influence the administrative decision. The notice is to allow individuals to avail themselves of the appeal opportunities that are available under the existing ordinances. The County would determine adequate mitigation for the administrative decision. If someone felt aggrieved by that administrative decision they can appeal it. Mark Huth added that his purpose in suggesting this process is to keep new information from coming in at the final stages of the approval process. This provides notice to neighbors to raise concerns as soon as possible in the process. Commissioner Huntingford asked what would be required of the applicant for this notice? Craig Ward stated that whatever the notice requirements are of the underlying application (Subdivision Ordinance, Camper Club Ordinance, Shoreline Management Program, etc.) In terms of a short plat applications this would mean a statement added to the notice already required. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels this addition is fine. Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels this is another layer of regulation and he opposes it. Chairman Wojt stated that he agrees it is necessary. 5. The Prosecuting Attorney pointed out the need to explicitly incorporate by reference the Flood Plain Management Ordinance into this ordinance to make it clear that flood hazard areas have been addressed. This would not add an additional layer of regulation, it would simply incorporate by reference that ordinance. Commissioner Hinton asked what condition the Flood Plain Management Ordinance is in? Mark Huth reported on what the Flood Plain Management Ordinance requires. Eric Toews asked if incorporating this ordinance would raise some confusion on the part of applicants regarding if the permits under this ordinance are subject to the provisions of the Flood Plan Management Ordinance? Mark Huth answered that the applications under this ordinance will be regulated by the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Building permits, for example, which are exempt under the Critical Areas Ordinance, through this reference would be regulated by the CAO for frequently flooded areas. The burden on building permits would not be expanded. The Flood Plain Management Ordinance is triggered by a building permit. Chairman Wojt asked about the public testimony which indicated that the Flood Plain Management Ordinance doesn't deal with all of the issues. Mark Huth stated that the underlying question is if incorporating the Flood Plain Management Ordinance in this ordinance is sufficient to protect these areas. He added that in his review he felt that the Flood Plain Management Ordinance met the minimum guidelines for frequently flooded areas. Craig Ward pointed out that there are issues in the minimum guidelines such as, the effect of build out within flood plains and the possible effect of global warming on the height, frequency and damage potential of floods in the future, which the Flood Plain Management Ordinance doesn't address at all. Mark Huth pointed out that this is an interim CAO and to try and address global warming in it is beyond its scope. This can be considered at the time of the Comprehensive Plan update and by then it should be clearer whether or not the County is required to go that far in regulating critical areas. Chairman Wojt stated that there are problems in the flood plain that are supported by evidence of flooding and the higher water table. Craig Ward said that the Flood Plain Ordinance is narrow in scope and was met to comply with federal laws on how the County issues building permits. There are issues that need to be addressed, but there is little information. VOL 19 PAC' on ~~21. 4 · , ,¡ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 20, 1993 Page: 16 Commissioner Huntingford stated that after considering both these ordinances, that the Flood Plain Management Ordinance should be adopted by reference into this ordinance. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Hinton agreed. 6. Subsection 10.302 (on page 48 of the draft CAO) relating to the responsibility for costs incurred when consultants are engaged. The subsection states that the County is responsible for paying the costs for hiring consultants to review and interpret data and findings submitted on behalf of the applicant. Mark Huth pointed out, in his memo, that there is a potential violation because this may constitute the lending of public credit in violation of Article 8, Section 7 of the State Constitution. Mark Huth stated that the County cannot spend money on behalf of one individual. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the County has standards set, but through the process on an application feels that the standard should be expanded, such as a buffer, shouldn't the County pay in that case? Mark Huth answered that in that case the County would be acting on behalf of the public, not the developer. It would have to be clear that this was being done for the public health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Hinton asked if there is any liability to the County if the staff is not technically qualified to make these determinations? Mark Huth answered that if an arbitrary decision is made, the decision could be overturned and if the person was damaged by that action they could make a claim for damages. \ Eric Toews clarified that this subsection deals with consultants retained by the County to assist the County in reviewing special reports submitted by the applicant. This is not the initial wetland delineation for instance. Mark Huth pointed out the problem is with the wording in the ordinance which says "on behalf of the applicant." This wording should be removed. Mark Huth reported that the legal issue is if the County is hiring the consultant for County purposes or on behalf of private parties. Each Board member agreed that this paragraph be re-written. The Board concurred that this discussion and review be continued until January 4, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the four applications for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund as submitted by American Legion Post #26 - $476.00, $340.00, $400.00 and 446.52. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Repayment of the Loan from Current Expense for the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 114-93 authorizing the repayment in full of the loan (see Resolution No. 20-92) from the Current Expense Fund to the Hotel/Motel Fund. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED "'/<.-><,......, SEAL: Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board VOL 19 rM~ on 22:15