Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012192 -<> à:'--~ ~ ....... û~ ./ MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 21, 1992 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. The Commissioners met in a briefing session with Community Services Director David Goldsmith. Associate Planner Jerry Smith re: Hearin! Examiner Rules: Planning Department Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that when the Hearing Examiner Ordinance was adopted last year it gave the Hearing Examiner the authority to develop procedural rules for his hearings. The Board is to adopt the rules once they are completed. Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Department staff has reviewed the rules and feel that they fit the provisions of the ordinance. The rules do not agree with the Section of the ordinance which says that all hearings must be audio taped, and need to be updated to reflect that this must be done. The Planning staff will develop this amendment to the rules and bring them back to the Board for adoption. Bill Medlicott. President-Elect and Larry Mulvey. Vice-President. Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce re: Fundin! for 1992 Visitor Guide: Bill Medlicott introduced himself and Larry Mulvey of the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce and Dan Y oura of the Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Medlicott asked that the Board approve funding in the amount of $10,350.00 to the Port Townsend Chamber for the printing and distribution of the 1992 Visitor's Guide. He noted that the other Chambers of Commerce support this request. Dan Y oura added that the Chambers of Commerce have worked together on many issues regarding tourism. They would like the funding for the Visitors Guide to be in addition to the $25,000 that has been allocated to be distributed to the four Chambers. Chairman Dennison stated that the Hotel/Motel Fund budget is in balance and there is not an additional $10,000 available. The allocation can be approved for payment, but where the money will come from must be determined. Dan Y oura reported that the State has just announced that they will not be funding the regional tourism councils. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the minutes of December 9, 1991 as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to delete item 11 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CONTRACT re: Energy Conservation (Modify Interior Lighting) at the Jefferson County Corrections Center; Ahearn Eleétric . 2. Approve Notice of Comparative Bid Purchase; Installation of Closed Circuit TV Nideo System; District Court ., '~~ t8 rM~OO· 92 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 2 3. Approve Notice of Comparative Bid Purchase; Equipment for CCTVNideo System Between District Court and Jefferson County Correction Center 4. Approval of Hiring Accounting Firm; Perform Audit of Bayshore Recycling; Baker, Overby and Moore, Port Angeles 5. Approved Payment of Claim #C-16-91 in the Amount of $483.86; Accident at the Tri Area Community Center; Jefferson Neighborhood Center 6. RESOLUTION NO. 6-92 re: Payment of Fees to Bayshore Enterprises for Animal Licenses Issued by the County Auditor for the Term of the Contract Extension 7. Approved Request for Payment of 1992 Contribution of $4,404.00; Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority 8. Approved Treasurer's Statement of Receipts and Disbursements for the Period October 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 9. Approved Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; VFW Post #4607 (Space Rent) $240.00; Patricia Zergman $479.59; Craig R. Marley $500.00; Gregory L. Mowers $500.00; John M. Cheney $500.00; Herschel L. Atkinson $50.00; Erney O. Lashua $180.00; Charles H. Norris $500.00 10. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING re: Bio-solids and Septage Management; City of Port Townsend 11. Item Deleted CONTRACT re: Upgrade to Courthouse Phone System and New Health Department Phone System; NSN Northwest 12. Signed Findings of Fact re: Waiver for WardfLarsen Large Lot Subdivision 13. RESOLUTION NO. 7-92 re: 1991 Budget Transfers; Various County Departments 14. Accept Notification of Termination of Animal Control Contract Extension Effective April 15, 1992; Bayshore Enterprises 15. CONTRACT #KC25891A Amendment re: Regional Support Network Mental Health Services; Peninsula Regional Support Network BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PlANNING AND BUILDING Planninl! & Buildinl! Department Director Crail! Ward and Office Supervisor Lynn Krumm re: Equipment Purchases and Proposed Fee Schedule for Department: Craig Ward and Lynn Krumm came before the Board to discuss equipment purchases. The Board directed them to contact the Public Works Department regarding the purchase of a sorter for their laser printer. The other item is a 486 computer for mapping. Chairman Dennison stated that there should be some alternatives for utilizing the expensive mapping system that the County currently has in the Public Works Department. Proposed Fee Schedule: Craig Ward submitted a work sheet of the current fees charged by the Planning and Building Department and proposed fee increases as well as fees charged for the same items in other counties. The Board will review the material submitted and take the proposed changes under consideration. PUBLIC WORKS Discussion of Land for Fire Districts to Use for Testinl! Their Trucks: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that the Fire Districts have asked for use of a piece of County property located near the Corrections Facility for installation of a station to test their pump trucks. The Board concurred that the Public Works Department develop an agreement for the use of this site as requested by the Fire Districts. PlANNING AND BUILDING Final Plat Approval; LP5-90 Teal Lake Villal!e; 99 Lot Clustered Residential Subdivision for Detached Sinl!le Family Residences; Teal Lake Road and Paradise Bay Road in Port Ludlow; Pope Resources: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this plat is ready for final approval. The Teal Lake Village Plat consists of 99 clustered, residential lots for single family __ 18' U~~ 00 93 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 3 residences. The project proponent has posted a bond with the County to guarantee that the improvements will be made. The Health, Public Works, Planning and Treasurer's Offices have all signed off on the final plat. Commissioner Brown moved to issue final approval for the Teal Lake Village Subdivision as submitted. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Reuort on Shoreline Violation Comulaints A2ainst Poue Resources by Bert Loomis: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that he contacted Mr. Loomis and his attorney about this meeting as well as sending them a copy of his Memo to the Board. On September 16, 1991 Mr. Tilden (Attorney representing Mr. Loomis) presented a number of allegations regarding violations of the shoreline permit SDP88-0016 which authorizes development of the Inn Harbor area of Port Ludlow by Pope Resources. Jim Pearson then reviewed the complaints one by one: * Failure to re-vegetate the sewer easement and the adjoining clearing. There is a vegetation management formula (VMF) under the shoreline permit that regulates clearing seaward of the Building Setback Line of the plat. These alleged violations are within Zone 3 (the area more than 15 feet back from the Ordinary High Water Mark to the Building Setback Line). The VMF allows in this area, removal of 60% of the foliage above four feet in height. None of the under story vegetation was to be removed from this area in order to protect water quality and soil erosion. There is a 10 foot wide sewer easement. Pope Resources was to re-vegetate the sewer easement. They replanted the area with sword ferns which the Board approved in August 5, 1991. Mr. Loomis asserted that the area cleared for the sewer line was 55 feet in width and 3,000 feet in length. He also asserts that the re-vegetation that was done was inadequate, because a number of the ferns died. The planting should have been more dense and more varied species should have been planted. Mr. Loomis concurred that planting trees over the sewer easement would not be appropriate, but he asserts that Pope should have been required to plant trees in the adjoining cleared areas. The staff response to these allegations is that the building setback line for Ludlow Point Village was determined on the final plat by the Board in their actions on July 8 and 22, 1991. Re- vegetation of the area cleared for the sewer line is an issue only where clearing was done seaward of the building setback line. This has occurred on portions of Lots 20 to 31. Lots 32, 33 and 34 (owned by Mr. Loomis) of Ludlow Point Village are not included in this review because they are subject to litigation at this time. Craig Jones, Attorney for Pope Resources, reported that Lot 32 has been transferred from Mr. Loomis to Pope Resources within the last month. Jim Pearson continued noting that on Lots 20 to 31 there was approximately 1,100 feet where clearing had occurred seaward of the building setback line. He reported that the clearing that was done is at least 2 1/2 times the width of the easement on these lots. Most of the ferns planted by Pope in this area survived. There is grass and small alder coming up also. The under story vegetation is important because of water quality. He added that he did not direct on-going soil erosion in this area. Jim Pearson recommended that the Board consider the following: * Should Pope Resources be required to replant additional under story vegetation (denser and more variety of species) on the sewer easement were it is seaward of the building setback line? * Should Pope Resources be required to plant trees on the portion of the sewer line clearing outside of the sewer line easement? * The Board previously approved the re-vegetation plan and the question is can they now require that more re-vegetation be done? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that the Board needs to consider if there is any purpose served by requiring more re-vegetation. Craig Jones, Attorney for Pope Resources, stated that when the sewer was constructed there was no requirement for how wide a swath would be cleared. The Vegetation Management Formula was not prepared and approved until many months after the sewer line was installed. Before the sewer installation the swath was flagged and approved by the County. Mter the sewer was installed, Pope Resources worked with the County on the Vegetation Management Formula. Pope Resources worked with the County all through this process. Chairman Dennison stated that now that the sewer line is installed, the intent of the vegetation management formula must be considered. The intent of the VMF was for slope and soil stabilization and for aesthetic considerations. 'J0l ·18 r~ 00 94 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 4 Craig Jones added that even though the sewer is in and the area has been re-vegetated, there is still a need for enough room to get the necessary equipment in for repairs in the future. The vegetation management of this area now and in the future was then discussed. Chairman Dennison stated that the agreement with Pope Resources says that not more than 60% of the vegetation be cut and the County and Pope can work together to see that this intent is met in the future. * Failure to enforce Permit Condition #18 regarding exterior building materials and paint colors. Specifically the house on Lot 23 (Jim Watson, owner) which was painted blue. Mr. Loomis states that this is a violation of the condition which requires the paint colors to be earth tone. Pope Resources and Mr. Watson contend that the blue/gray color of the house blends with the Pacific Northwest foliage, mountains, and sky and is therefore an earth tone. The Planning Department feels that blue/gray is not an earth tone. Another issue, Jim Pearson added, is whether enforcing this permit condition is the responsibility of Pope Resources? Commissioner Brown stated that there was a letter in the response from Pope Resources which indicated that there are designers that feel that this color is a typical Northwest earth tone. Jim Pearson reported that the shoreline permit authorizes the development and it binds the developer as well as the property owner to the conditions. This means that it is the County's responsibility to enforce this condition, not Pope Resources. The next question is if house color is a violation that the County wishes to pursue? Commissioner Brown stated that he does not feel the color of this house is a violation of this condition. Craig Jones reported that a meeting of the residents of Ludlow Point was held by Pope Resources in October (90% to 95% of the property owners attended) and they hashed out what they would consider appropriate colors for this area. He then submitted a report of that meeting to the Board. Mark Huth asked if the Covenants to the plat have been amended to reflect these changes? Craig Jones reported that they cannot amend the covenants until the Shoreline Permit is amended. Chairman Dennison asked what the South Bay Community ARC (Architectural Review Committee) is and if they would send a letter to the Board indicating that they agree with this change? Craig Jones reported that the ARC is a committee of the South Bay Community Association which is the main homeowners association for the entire South Bay development. Mark Huth added that the Board must decide what is acceptable to them in the Shoreline Permit Condition. Chairman Dennison asked the Board members if they feel that the color of this house is outside of the intent of the Shoreline Permit condition? Commissioner Wojt stated that the intent is to keep the buildings from standing out, and he feels that this color meets that intent. Mark Huth stated that Pope Resources has asked to revise the Shoreline Permit condition to give them more latitude in determining the colors and building materials used in this area. Chairman Dennison asked that the ARC send a letter directly to the Board regarding their agreement on colors and building material types. It was a consensus of the Board that the color of Mr. Larsen's house does not violate the general intent of the Shoreline Permit condition. * The next allegation, Jim Pearson reported, regards Permit Condition #19 which states that residential setback lines shall be as depicted on Exhibit A (preliminary Plat of Inner Harbor). Mark Huth reported that Mr. Loomis has sued the County over this issue and he advised that the Board and staff should not make any decision on this allegation today. * The next allegation is that Permit Condition #16 (no shore defense work should be constructed) was violated, Mr. Loomis claims, by the placement of rock on a bank located northerly of the Community Center. Jim Pearson reported that there was erosion in this area which fronts on the log dump. There is a very steep bank which was being eroded by run off from the uplands. This was brought to the attention of Pope Resources, and they then did this work to keep the erosion from spreading. Chairman Dennison asked why there was a Shoreline Permit condition that says no shore defense work? Jim Pearson reported that this condition was to protect the entire shoreline of the property because of its value as juvenile fish habitat. It is felt that the construction of bulkheads (shore defense work) would be detrimental to that fish habitat. This area is not subject to a lot of wave action and thus it was determined that there isn't a real need for bulkheads in this area. vot 18:t~r.~ 00 95 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 5 Chairman Dennison clarified that the work that was done by Pope Resources in this area was to keep upland erosion at bay and was not considered shore defense work. Jim Pearson noted that after reviewing the definition in the Shoreline Program he did not feel that this work was shore defense work. The Board may want to require Pope to place soil and re-plant the area, however. The Board concurred that this work was not shore defense work. Jim Pearson will make a video tape of the area to review with the Board before re-vegetation is considered. * Permit Condition #7 states that water quality monitoring shall be developed by the project proponent with County approval, to provide information on the water quality of Port Ludlow Bay. A monitoring point shall be located in the Inner Harbor. Mr. Loomis alleges that Pope Resources has not complied with this condition, and specifically that only one sample of sedimentation has been taken in the Inner Harbor area. Jim Pearson reported that the County, along with Pope Resources and the Protect Port Ludlow Bay Committee have entered into an agreement to do water quality monitoring (Resolution No. 107-90). There are two sampling stations on the property subject to this Shoreline Permit. One is a sediment monitoring station in the Inner Harbor and the other is a storm water sampling station on the small creek that flows into the lagoon on the easterly shoreline of the property. The drainage of that creek is primarily the area south of Paradise Bay Road. The Inner Harbor station was sampled on July 10, 1988 and September 8, 1989. The creek was sampled during intense rainfall on October 4, 1991. Sampling of the Inner Harbor was not conducted during 1990, which was during a period of clearing for roads and utilities. Subsequent to Mr. Loomis's allegation there was sediment sampling conducted in Port Ludlow Bay on October 13, 1991. Commissioner Brown asked the Planning Department to check the agreement between the County and the Protect Ludlow Bay Committee on water quality monitoring. Mark Huth reported that since the monitoring was done in 1991 and the report submitted indicates that the sediment is basically stable from what it has been in the past, he feels, the intent of this condition was to get the monitoring done and that is what has happened. So, even if there was a violation because the sampling was not done in 1990, it was a technical violation. Craig Jones reported that there was no intentional violation of the agreement on the part of Pope Resources. When the water monitoring program was approved the sampling station at the Inner Harbor was not part of it. When this was brought to Pope Resources attention they then included this sampling station and will continue to monitor it in the future. Mark Huth then summarized the findings and conclusions of this meeting: Violation #1: Staff is to work with Pope Resources to come up with a plan regarding the re- growth in the cleared sewer easement. Violation #2: The Architectural Review Committee will be asked to submit a letter regarding their agreement on colors and building material types. Violation #3: Left because it is the subject of litigation Violation #4: Jim Pearson will provide the Board with visual evidence of what the erosion control work looks like and then they will decide about re-vegetation of that area. Violation #5: Since the monitoring has been performed, which is the intent of the Shoreline Permit condition, there is no violation. Discussion of the Interim Zonine Ordinance: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that the maps adopted with the Interim Zoning Ordinance were precisely detailed maps. A process was put into the ordinance to allow new maps to be created and adopted through a public process for a fee of $500.00. Many calls were received from the public indicating they felt that $500 was unfair since all of the maps necessary had not been included in the ordinance. He added that they are proposing to add three more maps to the ordinance: 1) the Tri Area Highway Business District, 2) the Gardiner Industrial Area, and 3) the Port Hadlock Community Commercial Area. These maps are precisely detailed and parcel specific. The text amendments include: 1) waiver of the $500 fee for administrative remedy for maps, and 2) definition of home occupations and that they will be handled as conditional uses. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that the amendment process for the Interim Zoning Ordinance is the same process as was used to adopt the original ordinance. These amendments should be sent to the Planning Commission for their review and a report of their findings and recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. ViJI.. 18f~ m 96 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 6 Chairman Dennison then read a letter from the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce dated January 21, 1992. The Chairman reported that the enactment of the interim ordinance was to fill the gap left when the County's Development Code was overturned by the Courts. An emergency was declared and the interim code was adopted. The intent in adopting the interim code was to create a status quo situation with what was in place at the time the Development Code was overturned. According to the Court that overturned the Development Code, the County must have parcel specific maps for the designated areas. Commissioner Wojt asked that the reason there weren't public hearings on this interim ordinance be explained again. Chairman Dennison explained that the Board is not required to hold public hearings when an "emergency" ordinance is being considered. In addition the intent was to re-create what was in place under the Development Code and that Code went through intensive public scrutiny before adoption. The County will be updating the Development Code under the requirements of the Growth Management Act. This interim ordinance was meant to fill in the gap until that happens. Public hearings will be held before any final long term ordinance is adopted. Craig Ward stated that in addition to the maps, it has been brought to the attention of the Planning Department that the requirements for home businesses are too restrictive. Definitions and thresholds for home businesses have been drafted to amend the interim ordinance. The proposed amendment will make applications for home businesses a conditional use, which will require that an application be submitted. The Brinnon Commercial area was mapped and included in the Comprehensive Plan, Craig Ward reported. That map will be updated and made parcel specific. A meeting of the Planning Commission has been scheduled for tomorrow (January 22, 1992) night so that they can review these amendments and make a report back to the Board. Commissioner Wojt asked if home businesses that are currently operating are grandfathered? Assistant Planner Eric Toews reported that all uses existing at the time of the adoption of the Interim Zoning Ordinance (January 6, 1992) are grandfathered. (See Section 2 - Scope of Ordinance). Chairman Dennison asked those present for comments or questions: Chuck Russell said that the intent of the ordinance was mentioned several times. If there was an intent to include Port Hadlock in the ordinance later it should have been stated in the ordinance. Craig Ward reported that in cases where maps in the Comprehensive Plan did not include a precisely detailed (site specific) commercial area, the County did not have the legal ground to make a determination if a specific piece of property was in or not in the commercial area. In these cases the administrative remedy was meant to be a way to clarify the maps. Darlene Robertson stated that the Board indicates that their intent was something, but in the law, intent has no justification. She asked what people are supposed to do about their plans while this is all being ironed out? Chairman Dennison reported that until there are specific maps, they will have to wait. Mrs. Robertson added that if the County had the audacity to pass this ordinance without any public dis~ussion, even though they have the right to do that, the intent should have been stated directly in it. Glenn Robertson stated that everyone is more than willing to bear with the Board, if the Board is willing to bear with them. He asked if the lines on these maps are set? Craig Ward reported that the maps will be reviewed by the Planning Commission tomorrow night and they can recommend amendments to them. Mr. Robertson asked that Lot 125 (7th Street Addition) be added to the commercial zone on the Tri Area Highway Business District map. Craig Ward explained that these maps were based on the wording in the Tri Area Community Plan which is part of the Comprehensive Plan. This plan indicates that properties in the Highway Business District should adjoin County Road 12. So, properties that do not front on the Highway were not included in the commercial zone. Lot 137 was redesignated by the County to be commercial. Gene Seton said that the Development Code allowed commercial activities to be built along side existing commercial activities. At Four Corners he previously had a sawmill which has since gone out of business. In this ordinance he would have to apply for a conditional use permit in order to place a business next to this property. Anyone that may want to put a business on it would not wait the time (7 to 8 months) it takes to go through the conditional use application process. The County has to have a process that isn't as lengthy as the one being proposed. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Seton what he would suggest be changed in the Ordinance to make it work? Mr. Seton stated that wording should be added to the ordinance which says that commercial can be put next to another ~{Jl 18 t~Œ m 9'7 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 7 commercial property. A shorter process which is no more than 90 days is also needed. He added that a streamlined permit application would also help. Walt Woiack asked if there is a certain date for a more streamlined permit process? Chairman Dennison stated that there is no date for this yet. Mr. Wojack suggested that the County provide full disclosure to applicants of what exactly will be needed for their project. Aaron Benson asked why notice wasn't published that this ordinance was being considered? Chairman Dennison stated that this ordinance was on the Commissioners agenda for several weeks. Commissioner Brown reported that because this was intended to be an emergency, interim regulation it didn't have to go through the public hearing process. Glenn Huntingford stated that he attended the Commissioners meeting on January 6, 1992 when then ordinance was discussed and he understood that the intent of this interim ordinance was to keep the status quo from the Development Code. He was surprised to find out about the changes in the maps. He added he doesn't see what these maps accomplish. Mark Huth answered that the law requires precisely detailed maps in an ordinance. The maps in the Development Code were found to be deficient by the Court and if they were used again for the interim ordinance the County would be using them at its' peril. Fredrick Tuso stated that the Brinnon Community Plan identifies neighborhood commercial areas (Yelwicks, Pleasant Harbor, etc.) and he asked how they will be mapped? Craig Ward reported that they will try to map the Brinnon Commercial area immediately. There are a number of neighborhood commercial areas which show as a dot on the Comprehensive Plan Optimum Land Use maps, but there is no specific map or description for them. He stated that being located in one of these areas is considered when a conditional use application is reviewed. Phil Broms stated that he is in the transient accommodations business. This type of business is only allowed in the general commercial use in the interim ordinance. Since his property is outside the general commercial area it falls under the General Use zone. In this zone general commercial uses are prohibited. He understands that his business is grandfathered, but it appears that it would be a conditional use if he was to add hotel rooms. The Tri Area Plan refers to the area of the Old Alcohol Plant (his property) as a resort. He added that he doesn't see any reference to a resort in the interim ordinance. John McGinn stated that he is interested in moving his Tri Area business to a larger facility. The larger facility has been commercial in the past and he asked if it will still be designated commercial? Chairman Dennison stated that if the property was designated by the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Plan as commercial, then it would remain commercial under this interim ordinance. Tonv Bodenheimer stated that in 1989 he submitted for a commercial designation for his property in the Chimacum area because property across the street had been designated as commercial. This request was for an extension of the 660 foot commercial area which surrounds an intersection of arterial roads. His request was denied at that time. Later it was redesignated as commercial without anyone applying to have that done. The commercial designation was extended beyond the 660 feet from the Chimacum intersection, all the way to Chimacum Creek. He suggested that since the Board is drawing these maps that they look at the businesses where they are currently located and not use the cookie cutter method of 660 feet around intersections. Griffith Short asked if a residence would be conditional use on all the property that is designated commercial? Eric Toews reported that residential uses are not subject to this interim ordinance and they are allowable uses. Mr. Short then questioned the commercial designation of some property along a waterfront bluff, which has higher value for residential uses. Commissioner Brown suggested that this be drawn to the attention of the Planning Commission so that they can review this inconsistency. Craig Ward reported that the area Mr. Short is questioning was identified as commercial in the Tri Area Community Plan. Roger Short stated that he was involved in many of the Growth Management meetings and he was very surprised when he heard there would be a zoning meeting. He said that he doesn't agree with the basis for the "emergency" which was the Commissioners reason to pass this ordinance. He said that he doesn't recall that the Board indicated any intent to clarify the issues that have been brought up here. He questioned if the Board's intent is to pass regulations without the public knowing? Chairman Dennison stated that the emergency was determined on a whole range of findings. The choices were: 1) to continue the moratorium until something could be developed to replace the ~iJl 18 t!#~~ 00 98 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 8 Development Code, 2) do nothing which would mean no land use controls at all, or 3) develop a code that would reinstate what was done under the previous Development Code on an interim basis. Marv Phillips stated that she doesn't buy the premise of an emergency. She has a problem with the fact that there are no maps developed for the Quilcene Community and the Board is not prepared to discuss it. This whole thing seems to be restrictive and designed to stop growth. Commissioner Brown asked her what alternative she would like? Mary Phillips stated that she protested the Development Code vehemently because she felt it wasn't well thought out and the mapping was inconclusive. This ordinance isn't any better. Commissioner Brown asked her again if she felt that everything would be manageable if there was no land use control? She answered that she feels the regulations in place such as the Subdivision Ordinance, City Ordinances, Shoreline Management and the Forest Practices Act provide enough protection. She added that she isn't saying nothing should be done, she feels what is done should be done in an open, fair and informative way. Commissioner Brown reported that a public process will be done when the permanent ordinance is developed. The discussion continued regarding land use controls and if they are needed. Mary Phillips then asked if there are any places in the County that are designated for heavy industry? Craig Ward reported that there are dots on the map, but ironically many of the areas that are used for heavy industry have been used that way for a long time. There are no parcel specific maps for those areas. He added that heavy industrial uses are conditional uses, just as they were in the previous Development Code. Eric Toews reported that the Center Industrial Area was precisely detailed map added to the Comprehensive Plan Optimum Land Use maps in January of 1990. He reported that the Planning Department will check to see if there are any other properties that went through the Development Code designation change process, and if so they will be included. Sam Swanson, Planning Commission Member, reported that there is a map of the Quilcene commercial area which the Planning Commission held hearings on. It is a parcel specific map. Gene Seton, a member of the Planning Commission, explained that the 660 foot commercial area at the intersection of major arterial roads only applies when there is no community plan which designates the commercial area. He then questioned where heavy industry can be located in the County? In this ordinance those areas have been made light industrial areas. Chairman Dennison explained that heavy industry can happen as a conditional use in the light industrial zone. Gene Seton stated that the heavy industrial areas of the County, which were already in place, have been eliminated by this ordinance. Mr. Seton then asked if a conditional use permit is needed for a business to locate within the 660 foot commercial zone around intersections? Craig Ward answered that is correct? Gene Seton then asked if a line can be drawn around the businesses in the Four Corners area to approve it as a commercial zone without having a specific business wanting to locate there? Craig Ward responded that this could be done through the Administrative remedy section of the ordinance which would define the Commercial Zone through a public process. Mr. Seton added that he feels the County has enough control without this ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is in place. Mark Huth reported that the law states that the Comprehensive Plan is an advisory document, not a regulatory one. The Subdivision Ordinance only address dividing the land in pieces, not developing property. The Shoreline Management Act only protects the shoreline and the Forest Practices Act only regulates the cutting of timber. The Development Code was to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Aaron Benson asked how long ago the Development Code was thrown out? Eric Toews reported that was overturned in August of 1991. Since part of the reason for throwing it out was incomplete maps, Aaron Benson asked what has been going on during that time? Mark Huth reported that the County had to go through a process to find someone to draw the maps. Staff was hired and the drawing was begun. Craig Ward reported that many of the Assessor's maps are obsolete and one of the first things that had to be done was to produce parcel specific maps for the entire County which should be done this summer. It is estimated the entire process necessary to adopt a new Development Code will take as long as 18 months. Walt Woiack stated that he has heard three terms used today, 1) conditional use, 2) grandfathering, and 3) interim. With reference to grandfathering, Mr. Wojack stated that normally when something is grandfathered in a zone and for some reason the project is destroyed (up to 50%) it is not rebuilt. Expansion can only be 20 to 25% of the project. This creates a real problem and eliminating the term "heavy industrial" is an error. The County could codify the types of heavy industrial uses that will be allowed in the zone. With regard to a conditional use - putting a compatible use next to v~ 18t~í~~ 00 99 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 9 another compatible use is fine if they are in the same zone, but to put a heavy industrial use next to a grandfathered heavy industrial use in a light industrial zone, won't work. The term interim has been used to mean that public notice and public input isn't required. This gives the impression that the public has no need to know. The discussion turned to the needs of the business community in the County, the public's impression of this ordinance and the process that was used and should have been used for it's adoption. Chuck Russell stated that much of the dissatisfaction expressed here could have been eliminated if the intent was clearly stated in the emergency ordinance. Nancy McConaghy asked the Board members how they think the business owners felt when they found their property was not listed in this ordinance and they were told it would be considered a conditional use? Richard Emerson asked if this Ordinance will help people know what they can do with their property with some degree of certainty? He added that there is an element in this County that will be opposed to commercial property anywhere. He asked what the barriers and timetable are for getting this ordinance adopted? Chairman Dennison explained that this amended ordinance will be adopted as soon as the maps are ready and the Planning Commission reviews them and forwards a report to the Commissioners. Craig Smith said that the business community needs to be represented and they need room for their businesses to grow. JOY Goodrich said that there is a large population of people in Hadlock who don't feel they are being heard. They are not anti-growth. The business people are interested in seeing this County grow. An unidentified man reported that the area of Irondale Road, Randolph Street and Curtis Street is an area where many low income people live and it has just been made a commercial zone. Sam Swanson reported that this area (Irondale Road, Randolph Street and Curtis Street) has been designated as commercial according to the Comprehensive Plan since 1979. He then clarified that Planning Commission held hearings regarding the Center Industrial area and established a boundary for it. The Planning Commission also held hearings and established boundaries for the Chimacum commercial area. The areas north of the Chimacum intersection where the Economy Garage is located were discussed and established commercially at a separate public hearing for that area. He added that when the Board sent the emergency ordinance to the Planning Commission they did not feel that the intent was to take away anyone's zoning. Glenda McDonald asked what the area around the airport is zoned? Craig Ward stated that the Planning Commission reviewed that area when they were reviewing the interim zoning ordinance. The Planning Department put together maps to try to interpret the boundaries of the commercial and industrial areas at the airport and the mill. It was not clear from the information available what the boundaries should be. Those two areas need to be defined through the public hearing process. Craig Ward and Chairman Dennison suggested that Mrs. McDonald call the Planning Department for more specific information about her property. Commissioner Brown suggested that wording be added to this amendment to the interim ordinance that says that the intent is that the designations of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code still apply even though they may not be specifically mapped. Chairman Dennison thanked everyone for coming. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Thursday at 1:00 p.m. Chairman Larry W. Dennison and Commissioner B. G. Brown were both present. Commissioner Richard Wojt was out of town at a conference. Craie: Ward Plannin2 & Buildin2 Department Director re: Discussion of Plannin2 Commission Policy Recommendation on Forest Resource Lands and Process for Adoption: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward explained that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss what process will be used for consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation on resource lands and critical areas. ~oc 18a~~ 00 1.00 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 10 The policy recommendations of the Planning Commission are substantially the same as those of the citizen work groups, Craig Ward reported. There are some important deviations, however, in forest and agriculture resource lands. As a result there are really two sets of recommendations. The Planning Department needs direction on what process the Board would like to see used from this point on in drafting the necessary ordinances and which of the two recommendations should be used in the drafting that language. The Department is currently drafting ordinance language for critical areas. Direction is also needed from the Board on whether they want the drafted ordinances to be brought back to them for review before they are sent on to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and report or if they would like the ordinance sent straight to the Planning Commission. Craig Ward reported that he doesn't believe one ordinance can be written to cover both resource lands and critical areas. To do it right will require two separate ordinances. The Board concurred that separate ordinances be written for critical areas and resources lands. Chairman Dennison stated that he would like the issue of resource lands reviewed by the Board further. Commissioner Brown suggested a third alternative. He would like to see an interim ordinance drafted that is less complex than either the recommendation from the Planning Commission or the citizen work group. He would like to see this theme followed for all of the designations, unless there is a designation that is more vulnerable than the others which would require a more comprehensive policy. Craig Ward stated that everyone wants the Ordinances to be as simple but as effective as possible. Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't understand exactly how some of the goals in these recommendations will work and how they will be accomplished. The discussion continued on the goal of these policies, the definition of long term significant resource lands, and how to best protect them. Craig Ward asked if the Board is suggesting that another process be started with the Board's involvement to develop policies for resource lands which will use the information from the work group and the Planning Commission? Commissioner Brown indicated that is what he would like to do. Craig Ward added that better maps are needed and they are being developed right now. They will not be ready before the March 1 deadline, however. Commissioner Brown stated that as long as the County is moving forward with developing the policies, he doesn't feel it would be in anyone's best interest to hurry the process and put out a document that doesn't meet the needs of Jefferson County. Craig Ward asked the Board for a date that they would like to see completion of this process? He noted that he has to file an annual report with the State Department of Community Development on the County's progress with Growth Management. He would also like to let the State know if the County will be able to meet the March 1 deadline or not. Commissioner Brown stated that he is more interested in the product than the time table. Chairman Dennison stated that he wants to take the time to be able to understand the two recommendations that have been received before anything else is done. Mark Huth suggested that first the Board review the recommendations so that they are comfortable that they understand them. Chairman Dennison clarified that the document will go to the Planning Commission either as their document that they are recommending to the Board for adoption or as the Board's document that they are asking for a report on. This doesn't need to be decided at this time. Dates will be set for the Board to have workshops on these recommendations. Mark Huth suggested that a review date be set. Chairman Dennison directed that DCD be notified that Jefferson County is still working to meet the March 1 deadline, but there have been some difficulties and it may not be met. Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: Craig Ward reviewed the Planning Commission's report and recommendation on the commercial zone defined by each of the maps adopted with the Interim Zoning Ordinance: Port Hadlock Community Center Commercial Zone: The assumption was used that if possible properties would not be divided by this zoning. One parcel on the far left side of the map is owned by Sam Swanson and the Planning Commission recommends that it not be included in the Commercial Zone. ~Ol 18 r)f;t 00 1_01 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 11 At the very top of the map along the water there is commercial property shown, but since the Community Plan used the section line (which can be precisely detailed), and did not include it in the commercial zone, they recommend that this area be excluded from the Commercial Zone. The community plan is vague the area of Lower Hadlock which includes the spit and is bounded by Lower Hadlock Road. The commercial area in the community plan did include the spit and the potential for commercial development along the lagoon. The Planning Commission recommendation is to use the intersection of Lower Hadlock Road and Oak Bay Road as a point to start a line that is parallel to the bearing of the section line below it and would run due east across the spit. Mark Huth clarified that instead of the exiting line (on the map which Planning staff proposed) which runs along Lower Hadlock Road, the line suggested by the Planning Commission would start at Tax 15 and run straight across to the right hand border of the map. The Melwood Terrace Plat Lot 1 should be included in the commercial zone. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this map subject to these revisions. The Tri Area Highway Business District Commercial Zone: The assumption used in evaluating the boundary for this zone were: 1) a 660 foot radius around the intersections of Ness' Corner with Rhody Drive and Irondale Road with Rhody Drive, 2) a 330 foot zone along either side of Rhody Drive, 3) properties adjacent to Rhody Drive, and 4) current use of the properties and requested redesignation, were used as approximate boundaries. The Planning Commission recommends that lots totally within the 330 foot zone on either side of Rhody Drive be included in the commercial zone. The Hessian Gardens Tract was vacated and the lots are now in a single ownership. The Planning Commission recommends that within this vacated plat that a line be run that is 330 feet from the Center of Rhody Drive from the middle of Turner Street down to the next defined lot (Tax 942902002) in the commercial zone. In the area bisected by Charles Street, the Planning Commission recommends that the boundary of the commercial zone be established at the quarter section line. Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 (at the bottom of the map) are in single ownership and are outside the 660 foot radius from Ness's Corner. The same person owns Lots 12 through 15 (designated vacant) and 1 through 8 across Rhody Drive (A & G Auto). David Young reported that there is a single family residence on Lot 6 and it is also being used for a storage area for automobiles and hulks. Craig Ward reported that the Planning Department staff recommends that these lots be designated commercial. The remaining parcel that the Planning Commission had concern about was Lot 125 (on the west side of Rhody Drive) in the Seventh Avenue Tracts. How this lot would be designated was discussed at the last meeting on this proposed amendment. The property owner says that the lot is used for commercial purposes, but it is shown as vacant land on the tax rolls. The staff did not include it in the Commercial Zone. David Young reported that this lot and lot 124 (Hadlock Padlock) are not owned by the same person. Frederick Tuso reported that there is a structure on this property which is used for storage of items used in the business located on Lot 124. Commissioner Brown stated that since it is an adjoining property which is being used in conjunction with the commercial operation it makes sense to include it in the commercial zone. Craig Ward reported that the Planning Commission recommended that this lot be included in the commercial zone if it was used for commercial purposes. The Board concurred that Lot 125 be included in the Commercial Zone. Mark Huth ask that the Board make it clear for the record what areas are being included in the commercial zone and which ones are not. The following determinations were made: On the Tri Area Highway Business District Commercial Zone Map: · Lot 125 - in the Commercial Zone · Two triangles south of Lot 125 - in commercial zone. · Area bisected by Charles Street (a long vertical band to the far south) - in the commercial zone. · Area just north of Lillian Street (belongs to A & G Auto on both sides of Rhody Drive) - in commercial zone. On the Port Hadlock Community Center Commercial Zone Map: · Williams property - (at top of map on water) Planning Commission recommended it be excluded - Board concurred that it be excluded from the commercial zone. · Property owned by Sam Swanson (left hand side of map) - exclude from commercial zone. · Lot 1 in Melwood Terrace Plat - include in commercial zone. '.Jot 18 r~f;t 00 ~oa " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 12 · Area around lagoon - Robert Greenway, Planning Commission member reported that the Planning Commission reviewed all the properties against the existing Community Plan. Dick Broders who owns the property reported that there is a dock on the property which has been used commercially in the past. Patricia Warren, representing the Jefferson County Historical Society and the Tsetsibus Heritage Council, urged the Board to consider more than just the interpretation of the Community Plan for the designation of this property. There are other maps in the Community Plan which show this area as unstable, having moderately compressible soils, severe drainfield limitations and subject to flooding. In addition the Heritage Council interprets the Shoreline Master program as designating this area conservancy and they feel that zoning it commercial disregards the physical characteristics of the land. After more discussion of this property the Board concurred that it be included in commercial zone as recommended by the Planning Commission. On 'the Brinnon Flats Commercial Zone Map: Craig Ward reported that the properties adjacent to Easy Street and Corey Lane are in question on this map. There is a loop on the Community Plan map which includes properties that are being used for commercial purposes but are not shown as commercial on the Assessor's records. The Planning Commission recommends that lots adjacent to Corey Lane and Easy Street that are being used for commercial purposes be included in the Commercial Zone. Other alternatives for delineating the commercial zone boundary line were discussed. Eric Toews reported that Mike Matthews, owner of Brinnon Auto and Marine, pointed out to him that the proposed line the Planning Commission reviewed (which kept Lot 3 of Carroll's Hood Canal View Estates out of the commercial zone), would have excluded the video shop, the video gallery, and the Booster Club from the Commercial Zone. Chairman Dennison stated that the intent is to include the video shop and video gallery in the commercial zone, he added that he doesn't see any reason to include the Booster Club because it is not a commercial use. The Board concurred that the areas of the map recommended by the Planning Commission be included in the Commercial Zone. Gardiner Industrial Area: Craig Ward reported that the Planning Commission recommended that this map be adopted as presented. This map is the one in the Gardiner Community Plan and is precisely detailed. The Board concurred that this map is accepted as presented. Craig Ward then reviewed the text changes to the Ordinance which the Planning Commission recommends on fees for the administrative relief and the home businesses. Eric Toews reported that the Planning Commission also recommended that the Board adopt an additional finding that clarifies that grandfathered parcels are not affected by the operation of this ordinance. Any lawfully existing activity at the time of adoption of the Ordinance be allowed to continue. He then read the suggested language for a new finding #19 ''Any building structure or use lawfully existing at the time of enactment of this ordinance, though not in compliance with the provisions contained here and below, shall not be prohibited." The Planning Commission had public comment, Craig Ward reported, that the Tri Area Highway Business District map represents strip commercial development and is inconsistent with County policies. The Planning Commission noted that they recognize that this is a form of strip commercial development but the Zone is consistent with the community plan. The Planning Commission's statement has been incorporated in a finding. Commissioner Brown reiterated that any administrative rules devel9ped for this Ordinance be approved by the Board. Eric Toews reported that the original ordinance directs that after development of Administrative Rules they must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board for their adoption. Craig Ward suggested that wording be included in the ordinance that references that fees will be charged and then the fees can be set in a separate ordinance. The Planning Commission recommendation is to eliminate the $500 fee for the administrative procedure. Eric Toews then reviewed the Planning Commission's report, including findings, as a result of their review of this amendment to the interim zoning ordinance. Craig Ward reported that the maps will be finalized and the ordinance wording changes will be made as the Board has indicated. This amendment will be brought back to the Board on Monday January 27, 1992 for adoption. '101.. 18.. rAF on 103 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 21, 1992 Page: 13 CONTRACT re: Upe:rade to Courthouse Phone System and New Bealth Department Phone System; NSN Northwest: Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign the contract with NSN Northwest for the upgrade of the Courthouse phone system and the new phone system for the Health Department as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNEIh..., ,..-,"'" , --~"'" if>" ...'" r. I) '.t ...~v~' " ---'."; I,. . ....~' J ¡'£~~ /~¡ :r. \ t: . \~"J .0;'*1' ¡ ~ ó ¡ \ .' :\. _.- . ... J t ,~' '- ,'" -. , .. / \'11' ''';, ~_.:;-~ .:4 / '>i-_*, . ,. . . ,'-"",,¡,f "~ .. ~ 0'\ t\>'< JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: ~~ ATTEST: ct.~ani! M~ Clerk of the Board vet 18 .r~l¡· (Jl 1-04