Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM030292 T c:..t~ 'V" ~Ò.c: MINUTES WEEK OF MARCH 2, 1992 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. W ojt. The Commis- sioners met in a briefing session with Human Services Administrator Ella Sandvig, Cooperative Extension Agent/Chairman Sally McDole, and Community Services Director David Goldsmith. Public Comment Period: Fredrick Tuso asked what the strategy meeting is that is scheduled for Tuesday? Chairman Dennison explained that this is a meeting with the Planning, Public Works and Health Department staff to discuss and coordinate their activities. It is an open meeting and the public is invited to attend. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Approval of Posting a Comparative Bid Purchase; Deck Replacement Work at Bayshore Motel 2. Call for Bids; One (1) Used Three Axle Truck, 1984 or Newer; Bid Opening Set for March 16, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 16-92 re: Revising a County Road Project Designated as CR0953 (Chimacum Road Improvement) 4. AGREEMENT No. LA-1416, Supplement No.1 re: Federal Aid for CR0953 (Chimacum Road Improvement); Washington State Department of Transpor- tation 5. Revised Federal Aid Prospectus re: CR0953 (Chimacum Road Improvement); Washington State Department of Transportation 6. Approved State Liquor License Special Occasion License; ABATE of Washington 7. Approved 1992 Dance License; Hadlock House Restaurants 8. AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1992; Jefferson County Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Program 9. CONTRACT, Addendum re: Wage Classification of Jefferson County Public Works Recycling Coordinator for Contract Period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991; Teamsters Local #589 18 r,~r~ 00 322 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 2 10. AGREEMENT and Request for Payment of First Quarter Allocation re: Program Funding from the 1992 Hotel Motel Tax Fund; Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce 11. Request for Payment from HoteljMotel Tax Fund; Health Department Sewage Disposal Permit; Quilcene Historical Museum BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: Chansdn2 the Name of a Platted Road in Ever2reen Addition; From Third Street (also known as Alder Avenue): Public Works Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon explained that Third Street in the Evergreen Addition was named Alder Street on the original plat. The name was changed to Third Street several years later. Third Street is located near the County Landfill. Currently there are no addresses assigned on Third Street but a short plat is being planned for the property adjacent to it. Since there is another Third Street in the County in the Port Hadlock area with established addresses, the Public Works Department is asking that the name be changed to avoid confusion in the future. The names suggested for this street are J essmar Street, Coventry Road, or Lupin Drive. These names do not duplicate any other named streets in the County, Eileen Simon noted. Chairman Dennison opened the hearing for public comment. Hearing no comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to change the name of Third Street in the Evergreen Addition to Lupin Street. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Solid Waste Advisory Committee re: Request for Rate Increase at the Landfill: Gary Rowe reported that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee will be sending the Board a request for a rate increase for dumping at the County landfill. This will be on the Agenda next week for the Board to set a hearing date. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BID OPENING re: CH0940 Replace Courthouse Roof with New Slate and Copper Roofin2 and Minor Masonry Repair: Public Works Director Gary Rowe opened and read the bids received for the Courthouse Roof replacement project as follows: BIDDER: BID TOTALS: 1. Mark Construction Alternate 1 - $24,630.00; Bid includes sales tax Project completion 140 calendar days $ 593,978.00 VOl 18 rAGt 00 :r23 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 3 2. Tachon, Inc. Alternate 1 - $15,695.68; Bid includes sales tax Project completion 180 calendar days 734,286.17 3. Pacific Rainier Roofing Alternate 1 - $23,481.00; Bid includes sales tax Project completion 153 calendar days 673,259.00 4. Diamaco, Inc. Alternate 1 - $32,879.00 Bid includes sales tax Project completion 180 calendar ,days 635,481.00 5. Queen City Sheet Metal and Roofing, Inc. Alternate 1 - $21,602.00 Bid includes sales tax Project completion 126 calendar days 512,328.00 6. AGCI Alternate 1 - $11,933.00 Bid includes sales tax Project completion 100 calendar days 499,180.00 Engineer's Estimate Alternate 1 - $24,010.00; 125 calendar days. 600,000.00 Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department check the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Repairs to Memorial Field Fence; City of Port Townsend: Public Works Project Manager Al Scalf reviewed the draft agreement with the City of Port Townsend for the repairs to Memorial Field fence. After discussion of the agreement and the "hold harmless" clause. The Board asked that this item be rescheduled because the Prosecuting Attorney was unavailable. Appointments to the Parks Advisory Board: The Clerk of the Board noted that there are a total of four vacant positions on the Parks Advisory Board: three vacancies from District 3 and one from District 1. Last week the Board interviewed three applicants interested in representing District 3 and two applicants interested in representing District 1. Commissioner Brown moved to appoint Tom Madsen, Daniel Taylor, and Dick Broders to the positions representing District 3 and Jim Tavernakis to the position representing District 1 on the Parks Advisory Board. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Boundary Line Adjustments at Kala Point: Planning & Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that several Kala Point property owners have requested an appeal of a departmental interpretation of State Law and the County's va!. 18 r~r' on 324 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 4 Subdivision Ordinance regarding boundary line adjustments. There are several requests from Kala Point property owners for boundary line adjustments. In two separate instances the owners of a lot on each side of a third lot have gone together to purchase the third lot and thus have a common interest in that lot. These property owners are now asking that their common interest in the lot they purchased together be divided. Bill Cartwright is the first property owner to request this type of lot division. Craig Ward stated that State law exempts this type of lot division from the subdivision regulations if it is determined to be a boundary line adjustment. If that exemption does not apply then the plat must be altered. The property owners are not creating any additional lots. They would actually be eliminating one lot which would be split and added on to the two adjacent lots. The process for boundary line adjustments is a confusing issue especially for the Assessor's Office and the Planning Department, Craig Ward added. Craig Ward then read a statement from the State Attorney General's Office regarding this issue. The Attorney General states that since this proposal is to divide a lot in half (the number of lots will decrease) it does not appear to fit the exemption criteria. If this reduction in the number of lots is allowed as an exemption, there would not be an official record of the change because a new plat map is not filed when a boundary line adjustment is made. The Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed and agrees that this situation does not fall into the category of an exemption. Craig Ward added that if this exemption does not apply, it will require that the property owners go through the lengthy plat amendment process. He reported that he has advised the property owners that they should group together and apply for the plat amendment. Chairman Dennison clarified that if this is handled as a boundary line adjustment it would create a record keeping problem for the County departments. Craig Ward reported that the Assessor's Office relies on the plat maps for information. When changes are made through a boundary line adjustment, the maps can no longer be relied upon because this type of information would not be on the plat map. Assistant Planner Eric Toews reported that the Prosecuting Attorney could be asked to help develop a process which would require that a plat map be submitted for a boundary line adjustment. Craig Ward said that this type of process could be developed in conjunction with the draft subdivision ordinance. The discussion turned to how a boundary line adjustment would effect the public, and the legislative intent for allowing boundary line adjustments in the State law. If a number of individuals request the same type of boundary line adjustment within a plat it would essentially redesign the plat, Eric Toews reported. Craig Ward reported that another issue with regard to this request from the Kala Point property owners is the assessment of fees and the way the covenants of the plat are applied. Chairman Dennison reported that this issue has come up in other planned communities where assessment fees were on a per lot basis and the adjustment would reduce the number of lots. An agreement was made between the property owner and the Homeowners Association to address these issues. Commissioner Brown reported that the County does not enforce assessment fees or covenants on plats. Craig Ward reported that treating these requests as exemptions and allowing a boundary line adjustment will set a precedent for all of the Kala Point lots, as well as how this type of issue is dealt with on other plats in the County. Chairman Dennison stated that he could see a detriment if more lots were being created than the infrastructure could handle. It makes sense that the property owner requesting the adjustment pay the cost of the work necessary, but there is a question if the public needs to be involved with this type of request, as required in the plat amendment process. VOL ,18 rAGf 00 32S. Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 5 Eric Toews reported that using the plat maps in enforcing the Subdivision Ordinance would be unreliable because of adjustments made with no clear paper trail of what was done. Chairman Dennison asked if a paper trail can be created when this type of adjustment is made? Eric Toews reported that one could be developed, but that has not been done yet. Bill Cartwright stated that all of the people involved in this lot merger situation are retired and plan to spend the rest of their lives on their property. They have purchased lots adjacent to their lots and want to split them so that there is no confusion about the ownership of the lot when they die. They want to take three lots and adjust the boundaries to make two lots. He and another man have had their lots surveyed. To go through a process which requires a petition of all of the lot owners at Kala Point IS unnecessary. John Kuller stated that there are six property owners involved in this request that each own two lots and their house foundations are across the boundary lines of these lots. There is no question of them selling these lots in the future. Dick Broders suggested that this could be handled the same way a road vacation is handled. Tom Dochtorman stated that he would like to split the lot he owns in common with his neighbor because of ecological concerns. The lot owned in common is depressed (lower) than the lots on either side of it and there is a deer run through it. This boundary line adjustment is not unique, it has been done in the past. He stated that they have all of the legal papers prepared for this request to go through. Alan Carman stated that he works for David Evans and Associates. They were hired by Mr. Dochtorman and Mr. Kuller to survey the lots for their boundary line adjustment request. They have been working on this for quite a while at a good deal of expense to the property owners. If the County requires everyone to file a new plat for a change such as this (as required in the plat amendment procedures) the same plat will be refiled many times. He suggested that a single page be filed which details the boundary line adjustment, as a condition of granting the exemption. Craig Ward questioned if RCW 58.17 would allow the County to place conditions on an exemption? Alan Carman suggested that since the County requires that an exemption be applied for, they have the opportunity to condition it. Craig Ward then reviewed the plat amendment requirements that include that a petition be submitted with the signatures of the property owners effected, or if it is a plat with covenants, all of the parties subject to the covenants agree to the change. Once that is done the County is required to hold a public hearing on the requested plat amendment. Alan Carman reported that many surveyors are concerned about how ethical it would be for a surveyor to certify a change to another surveyors plat. There is also a question of uniformity. In King, Pierce, Snohomish and Clallam counties a boundary line adjustment is all that is required to change a line in a plat. Commissioner Brown stated these applications have been made and it is governed by the rules that are in place now. He stated that the County has allowed these boundary line adjustments within a plat in the past and he feels that it should be allowed in this instance. Darvl Anderson. David Evans and Associates stated that every County, except this one, allows this type of situation to be handled by a boundary line adjustment. He suggested that the Board call some other counties to see how they handle this. VOt 18 r~f;r on 326 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 6 Ralph Stark, resident of Kala Point, stated that he and Mr. Dochtorman purchased the lot between their properties together because neither of them could afford to buy it by themselves. They checked with their neighbors and the Board at Kala Point (he has a letter dated May 24, 1991) and then purchased the lot. This was six months ago and they would like this resolved. Commissioner Brown moved to handle these requests as exempt from the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance requiring a plat amendment, and therefore consider them a boundary line adjustment. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of County Sponsorship and Construction Inspection of Propos- ed Project on Bi2 Quilcene River: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that there is a threat to Dan Newman's house and septic system on the Big Quilcene River due to flooding. The flooding has also disrupted of the Coast Oyster shellfish beds and the salt marsh areas. The immediate issues are the concerns of the State Department of Fisheries for upstream passage of adult spring chinook. This situation constitutes an emergency and is exempt from the Shoreline Master Program, Jim Pearson reported. Jim Pearson added that how the necessary work will be paid for has not been determined. The State Department of Fisheries has stated that they do not have any funds available for the necessary work. Mr. Newman is willing to do the necessary work to correct his problem at his own expense. Commissioner Brown stated that since the Department of Fisheries is going to benefit from Mr. Newman's work he feels they should participate in the cost. Jim Pearson reported that Mr. Newman has a right to replace the dike and the Department of Fisheries has agreed to let him do that. Commissioner Brown stated that expenditure of County funds can be justified due to damage done to the County road and the need to protect the road in the future. Commissioner W ojt moved that the County sponsor the flood repair project on the Big Quilcene river. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP91-0012; Four Lot Short Plat SP21-91; Duppenthaler-O'Flyin2 Short Plat; Located Between Hi2hway 101 and Hood Canal Northeast of the Entrance to Seamount Estates; R. E. Duppen- thaler: Jim Pearson reported that a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance was issued for this project on August 14, 1991. The mitigative conditions have been included as conditions of the Shoreline Permit. He then reviewed this proposal to subdivide 4.4 acres into a four lot short plat on Hood Canal south of Brinnon. This property is in a conservancy designation in the Shoreline Management Plan and Hood Canal is a shoreline of Statewide significance. Jim Pearson then reported on the Shoreline Commission's review, findings of fact and recommendation for approval of this subdivision. Dick Broders stated that he is concerned with condition (#5) which prohibits the construction of docks, piers and floats on these lots. Jim Pearson reported that Mr. Duppenthaler's representatives are aware and have agreed to this condition. Dick Broders added that this is taking rights away from future property owners. Commis- sioner Brown stated that the future owner will purchase this property knowing that he does not have the right to construct a dock, pier or float on this property. vaL 18 f~F on 327 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 7 Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Shoreline Permit with the findings and conditions as recommended by the Shoreline Commission. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Review Summary of Issues and Guidance on Draftin2 Resource Land and Critical Area Ordinances for Growth Mana2ement: Craig Ward reported that this is a follow up to last week's meeting regarding policy direction for Growth Management ordinances. He then reviewed a summary of the discussion and guidance from the last meeting. Forest and Agriculture Resource lands: · Direction was given to develop performance standards using private forest land grades 1 through 4 on both the east and west side of the County. The approach is to be consistent in the County. Commissioner Brown noted that since the Board will be meeting in the West End on March 10, the final direction on this may be held off until this is discussed with residents in that area. Commissioner Brown asked what this policy would do to the density of these parcels? Craig Ward stated that the density of some parcels may change. Twenty acres is a minimum parcel size for designating forest resource lands. · Using the Department of Revenue Designations of Forest lands and Agricultural Lands. Craig Ward recommends that these tax incentive programs not be used as a criteria for inclusion in the forest and agriculture resource land designations. · Definition of Long Term Commercially Significant. Craig Ward reported that this definition will include soil types, parcel size, and some percentage of soil types on a particular parcel. Glen Huntingford suggested that a larger parcel size be considered. People with parcels less than that size can opt into the designation if they want. Dick Broders stated that the Growth Management Act minimum guidelines definition of long term commercial significance includes more things than have been mentioned here such as proximity to transportation, UGA's, and the provision of public services, etc. Several options were discussed regarding the designation of parcels for agricultural lands and forest lands in one ownership. Chairman Dennison asked the other Board members which option they would like to use? Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels more time should be spent discussing these issues. The discussion of designating agricultural resource lands will be continued until Monday March 9, during the Planning Department's business. Commissioner Brown added that he feels there are several ideas that have been suggested and he would like to see used in combination to meet the needs of Growth Management and have the least impact during the interim. · Clustering: Craig Ward stated that clustering can be done right now. Since it can be done now, requiring that it be done will assure that larger parcels will not be broken down. · Should Planning Commission's FRL-2 be used? Last week the Board said it should be used, Craig Ward reported. This only applies to parcels over 160 acres in size with a majority of soils in the private forest land grades 1 though 4. Craig Ward reported that in order to protect forest resource lands, he feels that parcels 20 acres and over need to be protected. He does not believe that lots smaller than 20 acres (even with good soils) have long term commercial significance for forest resource lands. VOl. 18 fM,' on 328 . . Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 8 The suggestion was made that a choice be included in the interim ordinance which would allow a property owner either one unit per 20 acre density (in the FRL-2 Designation) or if they' cluster a density of one unit per five acres would be allowed. Chairman Dennison suggested that this discussion be continued to Thursday at 1:00 p.m. The meeting was recessed. The meeting reconvened at the appointed time on Thursday March 5, 1992 with all three Commissioners present. Prosecutin2 Attorney Mark Huth, re: Board Attendance at the Meetin2 of the Property Ri2hts Alliance: Mark Huth reported that the question has come up regarding whether the Board members attendance, as invited, at a meeting being held by the Property Rights Alliance would constitute a Commissioners meeting, and what notice would be required if it did constitute a meeting. Under the Open Public Meetings Act it would be a meeting if two or more of the Board members were present and the Board took action. "Action" includes a number of things such as: listening to testimony (directed to the Board), deliberation, discussion, consideration, review, evaluation and any final action such as a vote on a motion or proposal. If any of these things occurred then it would be a Commissioners meeting. If it is a meeting the notice required would be that required for a special meeting of the Board. He reported that special meetings require that notice be provided to all members of the Board and to the media that has a request on file which is in writing. The media (Mark Talkington of the Leader) was notified by the Chairman and Commissioner Wojt on Monday that the Board would be attending this meeting. Chairman Dennison added that he also told the Peninsula Daily News. Since the proper notice has been made, Mark Huth stated that if there is a meeting, the Special Meeting notice requirements have been met. As the Board's legal adviser, Mark Huth asked that the Board members not speak about the Interim Zoning Ordinance because of pending litigation. He also suggested that the Board not answer any questions regarding zoning or interim zoning because this could be taken as a position that would impinge on the pending litigation. Part of the law suit involves the Growth Management Act and the allegation is that the County didn't comply with the GMA in passage of the Interim Zoning Ordinance. So, if any questions come up, particularly concerning how an ordinance should be passed under the Growth Management Act, he feels those questions shouldn't be answered either. He suggested that people submit such questions in writing for him to review and determine if they can be answered. Chairman Dennison reported that Gary Winberg just informed them that the purpose of the meeting is to listen to the invited speaker, Chuck Cushman. He indicated that the Board members would not be expected to speak or answer questions. Commis- sioner Brown noted that the flyer on this meeting says that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Department have been invited to answer questions and make comments. Discussion of the Plannin2 Department Memo Re2ardin2 Draftin2 the Necessary Ordinance for the Growth Mana2ement Act: Craig Ward continued the review of the Memo to the Board dated March 2, 1992 regarding policy alternatives for the drafting of Interim Ordinances for Resource Lands and Critical Areas as required by the Growth Management Act. VOl.; 18 rA~r on 329 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 9 Item #5: Should we adopt the standards related to proximity to populated areas and the possibility of more intense uses of the land as proposed by the work groups and Planning Commission? Craig Ward reported that there are several statements in the minimum guidelines that deal with the proximity of potential resource lands to Urban Growth Areas (UGA), and to areas that are likely to have more intense uses put on them than Resource Land designation would infer. The direction given last week was that staff should prepare standards relating to the proximity to populated areas and the possibility of more intense uses of the land. The work groups discussed the types of criteria that should be considered: · The availability of public facilities. · Whether or not the area is served by sewer lines. · Proximity to designated UGA's. · Density of surrounding land uses. Parcels surrounded by a majority of parcels with a small lot size. Proximity to major arterial roads. Areas within a quarter mile of existing sewer lines. (This would currently only apply to Port Ludlow and the City of Port Townsend.) . . Craig Ward recommended that performance standards be developed that would exclude lands from the Forest Resource land designation that otherwise meet the soil types and parcel size, but also meet some of these other criteria. The Planning Department staff recommends the following four criteria for excluding parcels from the Forest and Agricultural resource land designations: 1. Parcels within quarter of a mile from an existing sewer system. 2. Parcels that are bounded on 50% or more of their perimeter, by parcel with an average density of 2 1/2 acres. 3. Areas designated as Urban Growth Areas (UGA). 4. Areas that are within 200 feet of the saltwater shorelines. The discussion continued regarding the tax incentive programs for timberlands and open space and how they work with and would be impacted by these designations. Assessor Jack Westerman then explained how the tax incentive programs work. The criteria for designating critical wildlife habitat was also discussed, including how other Counties have handled this issue, and the takings issue. Craig Ward noted that it will be a rare situation that through the County's review and mitigation process for development proposals, any potential reasonable use of a property will be excluded. The intent is to allow reasonable use of the property and to protect the resource and critical areas. The Board concurred that the policies be drafted as the staff has recommended. Item #6: Transferrable Development Rights be treated in the Interim Ordinance. The Board concurred with the staff recommendation that this issue is too complicated to address in the interim ordinances. Item #7: Should we include "clustering" as part of the interim ordinance? This issue will be dealt with at another time. Item #8: Buffering: Craig Ward reported that the setbacks and buffers recommended (100 foot setback from wells, 75 foot setback from buildings and 50 foot vegetative buffers) would be on the lands adjacent to designated forest resource lands. Discussion ensued regarding the reasoning behind the setbacks and buffers recommended. Craig Ward reported that there is a variance procedure built into the ordinances. If people feel that the setbacks or buffers cause them a hardship or make their property unbuildable, then these requirements can be waived. He added that when a development permit is applied for a title notice is required for all properties, within 300 VOL 18 PAr' on 330 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of March 2, 1992 Page: 10 feet of land designated as resource lands. The notice would state that the property is in or near designated agriculture or forest resource lands and a variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of a limited duration. After discussion of what a vegetative buffers is, and how it could be defined, the Board concurred that the ordinances only address the building and well setbacks and not address vegetative buffers. Senior Planner James Holland suggested that this policy direction discussion be concluded and the Planning Department staff work on drafting the Resource Lands ordinance for the Planning Commission to review. Chairman Dennison stated, and the Board concurred, that the policy review be continued to give the Planning staff policy direction for drafting the ordinances. James Holland reminded the Board that this review is taking longer than was anticipated when the time line was adopted for this work. Craig Ward reported that the Planning Department staff has drafted a fish and wildlife component of a critical areas ordinance. The draft ordinance does not designate as an ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) the area 200 feet from shorelines, even if it is defined as a wildlife critical area. Minimal management guidelines would be developed for this area particularly for conversion of this property for roads and utility corridors. Only properties where there is clear evidence of fish and wildlife habitat use would be defined as critical areas. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS '~ (J.". Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board , , 18 fY: Dr') ~ .-)'1' ~~~~