Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM050492 ...... ~ MINUTES WEEK OF MAY 4,1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: the swimming pool and the situation with the lifeguards, GMA hearings, the purchase of a vote tabulation system by the Auditor's Office, and the impacts of upland logging on oyster beds. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of April 6, 1992 as amended. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Brown moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Request for Payment of Second Quarter Allocation; Hotel Motel Tax Fund; Jefferson County Historical Society 2. Bid Award; CROI003 Installation of Warning and Stop Barricades at the South Discovery and South Jacob Miller Road intersection; to Evergreen Utility Contractors for Bid Price of $2,371.60 3. RESOLUTION NO. 34-92 re: Establishing the Dates of 1993 Budget Submissions, Review Hearings and Final Adoption; Hearings the First Week of December (7 to 11), 1992 4. Call for Bids; One (1) New Service Body and Crane; Setting Bid Opening for May 18, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 5. CONTRACT re: Purchase of One (1) 1992 Holden Industries Ramp Trailer, Model TD02422; Star Rentals and Sales of Pasco per Bid Award 6. GRANT G0088160 AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 3 re: Flood Control Account Assistant Program Funding for Flood Control Management Plan; Big Quilcene and Dosewallips Rivers; State Department of Ecology 7. GRANT #G9200259 CONTRACT re: Health Department Solid Waste Enforcement Program; State Department of Ecology 8. GRANT AGREEMENT #6-3852-1 re: HVAC and Lighting Modifications (Phase II) at Jefferson County Corrections Center; Puget Sound Power and Light \,,;..,..! :.!VU<_ lB¡;,~~ 09 423 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 2 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS HEARING re: Redistrictin2 Plan for County Commissioner Districts: Chairman Dennison introduced David Goldsmith, Community Services Director and member of the Redistricting Committee to explain the proposed plan. David Goldsmith explained that the purpose of the U.S. Census is to make adjustments to the House of Representatives in accordance with population. It is also used by the County to review the County Commissioner Districts to see that they are equal. The State Legislature states that Commissioner Districts should be: as equal as possible in population, as compact as possible, consist of geographically contiguous areas, the population data should not be used to favor or disfavor any racial or political group, and community integrity should be maintained. He then reviewed the historical information regarding how the districts were set up in 1980 and the assumptions that were used at that time regarding growth. He then reviewed the assumptions that were used by the current Redistricting Committee in their report to the Board. Discussion ensued regarding the size of precincts in the County, the considerations that go into changing precinct boundaries and the process for changing precinct boundaries. Chairman Dennison and Commissioner Brown explained that precinct boundaries can be changed at anytime not just when redistricting is done. Chairman Dennison suggested that a committee of interested citizens work with the Auditor to address the precinct boundary Issue. Chairman Dennison then asked for public comment on the redistricting plan. David Woodruff. 371 South Bay Way, Port Ludlow: Mr. Woodruff spoke in favor of Option A. He noted that he doesn't see the logic of dividing a community undergoing rapid growth, such as Port Ludlow, and that may become a separate municipal organization in the future, between two Commissioner Districts. Jane Jewett. 241 Saddle Creek, Kala Point: Mrs. Jewett stated that the Kala Point community has submitted two letters regarding redistricting. She added that they are concerned that the option the Commissioners are considering does not preserve an existing community (IrondalelPort Hadlock) of related mutual interests. Commissioner Brown pointed out that being placed in a new Commissioner District doesn't mean that the interests of that community are represented differently especially for land use regulations such as Growth Management. Chairman Dennison reminded those present that the only time Commissioner Districts come into consideration is during a contested primary election for County Commissioner. Once the primary election is over, all County voters vote for all County Commissioner positions regardless of District. Carol Grondahl. 5090 West Valley Road, Chimacum: Carol Grondahl asked if the Port and PUD Commissioner Districts are set by this plan? Commissioner Brown answered that in the past the Port and the PUD have used the County Commissioner Districts, but they can set their own Commissioner District boundaries. She then asked if the Port and PUD have to meet the same deadline as the County? The Board members stated that they do not know what the deadline is for the Port and PUD. Dave Woodruff: Mr. Woodruff reported that there is interest in having a five member Port Commission for Jefferson County. If that happens then the Port Commissioner boundaries will have to be redrawn. Kirbv Neumann-Rea. Dailv News: Kirby Neumann-Rea asked Commissioner Wojt if he would continue to reside in District #3 under Option A? Commissioner Wojt answered that he would still reside in District 3 in both Options A and B. ~VØL 18 -",00· ,'t,l,',cr " ; ,....(),~ 42~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 3 Mari Phillips: Mari Phillips asked if Option A is adopted what it would mean to District #3 to have the airport within its boundaries? Chairman Dennison reported that Commissioner District boundaries only impact who votes in specific elections. All planning for the County is done on a county wide basis. All of the community plans in the County would still apply to their specific communities, no matter what Commissioner District the community is in or split between. Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown moved that the public comments received be reviewed and the adoption of the Redistricting Plan be put on the agenda at a later date. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SDP91-0021; Construct a Rock Retainin2 Wall and Prepare Property for Development; Lots 10 to 15 of Olele Point Tracts; Thomas and Barbara Hermsen: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reviewed this proposal to prepare property for the construction of a single family residence by construct- ing a 550 foot long rock retaining wall with an average height of 10 feet. The Shoreline program exempts construction for a single family residence, as well as 250 cubic yards of excavation, from the Shoreline Permit process. Because this project will involve excava- tion of 4,700 cubic yards, it is not exempt. The proposal includes a 550 foot long rock wall on Lots 10 through 15 of Olele Point Tracts. The rock wall will be constructed of 3 to 5 ton base rocks and 1,000 pound top rocks. The backfill material will be excavated from the site. The wall is located land- ward of the ordinary high water mark and is not a shore defense work. Additional grading will be done to direct drainage away from the wall. The work on this site was begun without prior authorization. The applicant was required to obtain the services of a licensed engineer to develop a site grading and storm drainage plan. Jim Pearson continued by noting that this area is characterized by a basalt rock formation with a soil overlay. The soils are between 20 and 30 inches deep. There has been exten- sive grading and filling on the site. The septic system is located off-site. He further reported that the Board is to consider approving the shoreline permit for the existing wall, the extension of the wall onto the two additional lots, repair of portions of the wall that collapsed, and the grading and filling on the site. The Planning staff reviewed this permit and finds it consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and performance standards of the Shoreline Management Master Plan and recommends approval with nine conditions. He added that the proponents have requested to be allowed to use non-native vegetation on the landward side of the wall. Condition number 7 states "Disturbed soils landward of the wall shall be re-vegetated as soon as practicable after construction and grading using species of under story vegetation native to the site." Jim Pearson stated that this wording was an error when the staff report was written for the Board. Mrs. Hermsen reported that the low portion of the wall that needs a drain installed at the bottom, is the portion that is being re-constructed. Commissioner Wojt asked Mrs. Hermsen if she would have any problem replacing vegetation seaward of the wall with native vegetation? She answered that would be no problem, but she added that she doesn't want that same restriction for her yard, landward of the wall. Jim Pearson suggested that condition #7 be revised to say "Disturbed soils landward of the wall shall be re-vegetated as soon as practicable after construction and grading." Ryan Tillman, Engineer hired by the Hermsen's, noted that the soils on this site are indicated as stable by the Jefferson County Soil Survey. He reported that the basalt rock . VGl 18 FAt£ 00_ 425 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 4 is considered rotten and once water hits it, it goes down into the rock and not across the top of it. Commissioner Brown moved to change condition #7 to reflect the new language suggested by Jim Pearson, to adopt the findings, conclusions and conditions and approve the shoreline permit as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Finalization of SEP A Threshold Determination; Subdivision #LL09-91 of a 20 Acres into a 4 Lot. Lar2e Lot Subdivision; Property Located 2 miles Southwest of Port Townsend City Limits; Hi2hlands Trust. Glen R. Wood: Jerry Smith, Associate Planner, reported that the environmental review of this large lot subdivision began last fall when a mitigated DNS was issued. The mitigated DNS was revised and before it was finalized and signed, the neighboring property owners reported that there were erosion problems caused by the subdivision. The Board required that a drainage and erosion control plan be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works and Planning Departments have reviewed the storm water management and erosion control plans and the staff recommends that Mitigative measure number 1 be revised to say "Prior to final large lot approval, the applicant shall implement the temporary/permanent soil erosion control and storm water management plans as approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the Department of Public Works to ensure he maintains the structures as recommended." They also suggest that mitigative measure #2 be revised as follows: "All areas disturbed during construction of roads, utilities, residences, and appurtenant residential development shall be re-vegetated upon completion of construction. All areas disturbed for road construction and underground utility installation on slopes of 15 percent or greater, or on road cut/fill slopes shall be hydroseeded or otherwise replanted in conformance with the storm water management and erosion control plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works prior to final large lot subdivision approval." An additional mitigative measure is being suggested which would say "The areas adjacent to and within fifty (50) feet of the public and private roads shall be replanted to re- establish the vegetative buffer consistent with the Forest Practices Permit." Chairman Dennison asked if the DNR required this buffer? Jim Pearson clarified that the DNR Forest Practice Permit requires this buffer because of the County's Timber Conversion Policy (Resolution No. 37-90). The DNR has been informed that, to date, this condition of the Forest Practices permit has not been met. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the matter of the DNR enforcing land use conditions on Forest Practices permits was discussed at a meeting he had with DNR representatives. He explained how these land use issues will be handled in the future by the DNR. Glenn Wood stated that it is hard for a developer to know where roads will be located on a site before the trees are cut, making it hard to know where the 50 foot buffers should be located. Jerry Smith reported in answer to Commissioner Wojt's question regarding water, that there is a condition (#4) on the project that before any private well is drilled written proof must be submitted by the lot owner that an application for water service has been made to the Cape George Water Company. The discussion continued regarding the water resources in that area, and whether the area is an aquifer recharge area. It was noted that a letter was received from the Cape George Water Company stating that they will not provide water to this subdivision. ~VOL 1;8;f~ Œl 426 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 5 Chairman Dennison asked if any of the persons present would like to comment on this project. Tom Foley: Mr. Foley reviewed the letter he submitted to the Planning Department dated April 30, 1992. He reported that Jill Spear, another adjacent property owner requests that the outside of a curve in the road near her property be re-vegetated. The access road for this project abutts her property line at this point. He asked what the time schedule is for re-planting of the. buffer areas on this project? Chairman Dennison stated that the County can ask for a surety for this work to make sure that it is done during the appropriate season. Mr. Foley reported that emergency services (Cape George Fire District) would be provided quicker access through the Cape George Highlands, but an easement would be required for such access. The discussion turned to how such an easement could be attained. The Board suggested that Mr. Wood work with Fire District #6 and the Cape George Highlands homeowners to arrange for this easement. Mr. Foley then asked if the buffers must be maintained in the future? Mark Huth reported that it is a condition of the stormwater and erosion control plans, which also address the slopes being re-vegetated with specific types of vegetation. Mr. Foley suggested that the maintenance of the buffers be made a condition of the road maintenance agreement. Glenn Wood asked if the condition regarding the water wells would still be part of the mitigation? The Board advised that Mr. Wooçl has met that condition already. Mr. Wood then asked about the buffer and what is required for re-vegetation? Commissioner Brown stated that the intent of the buffer is to protect the stability of the slope. Mark Huth stated that the property owners will have to turn in a plan for removal of trees in the buffer area. Chairman Dennison suggested that language be added to the end of mitigative measure #1 to indicate that maintenance work done on the buffer area must be done in a manner that assures slope stability. Commissioner Brown moved to uphold the MDNS with additional language added to condition #1 to address maintenance of the buffers, and the other amended conditions as proposed by the Planning Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Hearin2 Examiner Recommendation on Conditional Use Permit #IZ08-92; Proposal to Construct a Deck Addition for Outdoor Seatin2 to Existin2 Loun2e of the Port Ludlow Harbor Master Inn; Pope Resources. Applicant: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reviewed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the conditional use permit submitted by Pope Resources for their proposal to construct a deck addition to the lounge area for outside customer seating at the Port Ludlow Harbormaster Inn. Commissioner Brown moved to approve and accept the findings, conclusions and recom- mendation of the Hearing Examiner as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Hearin2 Examiner Recommendation on Conditional Use Permit #IZ06-92; Proposal to Construct a 24 foot by 60 foot Commercial Buildin2 to Store and Repair Golf Course Maintenance Equipment; Chevy Chase Golf Course; Chevy Chase Golf Club: Jerry Smith reported that the Hearing Examiner recommends that the conditional use permit for the commercial storage building at Chevy Chase Golf Course be approved subject to three conditions. lVGL 18 r~1j~OO-u 427 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 6 Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to approve this conditional use permit with the conditions as recom- mended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Final Short Plat Approval #SP3-90; Subdivision of 10.28 Acre Parcel into 2 Lots; Located Two Miles South of Chimacum on the Beaver Valley Road; Finnis Brewer: All of the necessary departments have signed off on this short subdivision, Jerry Smith reported and the Planning Department recommends that final approval be granted. Commissioner Brown moved for final approval of the two lot short plat #SP3-90. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Roy Sprin2er. Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council re: Self Sufficiency Housin2 Project: Roy Springer reviewed the history of this self sufficiency housing project for the six interested area residents present. He noted that after the application was made for funding of this project, meetings were held with the residents of the area around the property identified in the application. After these meetings, it was found that the property identified for the project was not appropriate and a portion of the grant funding was lost. Mr. Springer reported that CAC will start the process again and this time work with the County to find property suitable for this type of project. Once that is done CAC will hold meetings with the neighbors of that property to let them know about the project. When the residents of the area have had a chance for review and provide input on the project, an application will then be made for more grant funding. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. Review of Comments and Information Submitted; Draft EIS. Teal Lake Center: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the comments received on the draft EIS for the Teal Lake Center Planning Commercial Development (PCD) were reviewed at the Board's April 13 meeting. At that time a total of 13 comments had been reviewed that were received through April 2. The comment period officially ended on March 23, 1992. The Fire District, Point No Point Treaty Council, the Jefferson County PUD, Pubic Works, Health Department and the Washington State Department of Transportation, comments were all received after the March 23 deadline, Jerry Smith added. Dean Reynolds stated that when he originally talked with the Planning Department about this project, he was asking for one business. He was told that wasn't possible, and was advised that three businesses is the minimum needed for a Planned Commercial Developm- ent. He was originally asking for a gas station/convenience store. To meet the provisions of a planned commercial development he included a basic needs hardware store, and a communications center (copy machine, fax machine, mailboxes, etc.) or a mini storage. He explained further that he is looking for a small retail business that he can grow into, as a way of getting his family established for the future. He only purchased six acres to do his original project. He purchased additional properties on either side (40 acres) of the original 6 acre site to act as a buffer from other properties. Other businesses were mentioned as possibilities for this project such as a motel. These other businesses were suggested as a worst case scenario, but they may not ever be put in. Mr. Reynolds stated that he understands how a planned commercial development works and that each business that is put on this site will have to be reviewed by the County. He added that he is not intending to build this whole project. He only intends to have a maximum of two buildings on the original six acre site. Greg Waddell, a consultant for the project, stated that they submitted this application as a master plan for a commercial area. They looked at the worst case, highest uses that could lVOL 18 irA1£OO 420 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 7 potentially go on the site. In response to Chairman Dennison trying to clarify what the exact scope of the project is, Dean Reynolds noted that it has never been described as more than 40 acres in size. Of that 40 acre project site, only 15% would ever be covered, even in the worst case scenario. After discussion of the master plan for this PCD and how that differs from the draft EIS, Greg Waddell reported that this is a non-project EIS. He added that each business that goes in at this site will have to go through the environmental review process. He feels many of the comments and staff recommendations are about design issues, not master plan issues. Mr. Waddell asked what happens to the master plan? Chairman Dennison again explained why this project is being reviewed as a planned commercial development. Dean Reynolds stated that he has agreed to submit his project as a PCD because he felt it is in an area where commercial development should be located, but he has never intended to build all of the project himself. Chairman Dennison stated that a programmatic EIS is the only time the County can review the cumulative impacts of a project like this Planned Commercial Development. Dean Reynolds stated that he is trying to build a business for his family. He is willing to do what he needs to have one business, or the three businesses required, but he can't afford to build a skyscraper and wait for it to fill up. Anyone that buys next to his property will be told that it is commercial even though he will not be putting commercial uses near his property line. The discussion continued regarding the magnitude of Mr. Reynolds project, its relation to the whole planned commercial development, the length of time it has taken for the County to review this project, and how the cumulative impacts can be addressed for the total project build out. Greg Waddell suggested one way to address some of the concerns on potential cumulative impacts is to have performance standards included as mitigation in the EIS that would outline what future projects are expected to do with regard to sewage systems, storm water management, etc. Chairman Dennison asked Greg Waddell to review the staff recommendations and comments. G.H. Stocker letter: Greg Waddell recommended mitigation that has to do with water quality monitoring (pre development baseline water quality study and monitoring stations on the project site) to address the concerns noted in the letter. E. Zahn letter: This letter noted concerns about erosion, shoreline degradation and the natural beauty of the area. Erosion control has been addressed by the EIS. Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Department has asked that the EIS discuss storm water run off peaks in greater detail. Greg Waddell asked what specifically should be discussed further? He feels the information in the EIS is adequate. The draft EIS has tables which address pre and post development peak flows for each alternative on six month, one year, ten year and 100 year storms. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels the storm water detention and filtration areas should be identified for the master plan. Greg Waddell agreed that these areas need to be identified, but added that he feels these details can be included as mitigation in the EIS which would indicate that these items must be addressed before any building is begun on the site. Margaret Freeman letter: This letter expressed concern that this project will open the door to strip commercial development. Greg Waddell stated that the project will have buffers around it. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Waddell if he is interpreting the buffer being left around the site as non-commercial so that other commercial activities would not be allowed to adjoin this property as provided in the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Waddell indicated that he feels the EIS includes mitigation (page 42) that would give the County the ability to do that. Jerry Smith stated that this mitigation may not do what it says because of the wording in the Comprehensive Plan. Greg Waddell agreed with Commissioner Brown's suggestion that a mitigation be added to clarify the lVOL 18 cf~~ m _. 429 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 8 intent regarding the buffer around the project. Dean Reynolds asked how large the buffer has to be? The Board stated that will depend on what the area is used for. Jerry Smith suggested that performance standards be included in the EIS for the buffers. Roger and Dorothy Olson letter: This letter expressed concerns regarding the contamina- tion of wells, trespassing of RV Park customers on private property and traffic. Greg Waddell reported that the well issue has been addressed. The trespass of R V Park customers on private property can't be addressed and the comment about traffic impacts has been addressed. State Department of Ecology letter: Their concerns have been addressed. Carl Johnson letter: All of the issues he raised have been addressed. On the comment about wanting a smaller project, Greg Waddell stated that the Board could identify what types of future uses will be allowed to go into this planned commercial development. Fire District letter: Greg Waddell stated that the information he received from the Fire District was used in the draft EIS. Later the Fire District submitted a comment saying that the information was incorrect. Dean Reynolds has since talked with the Fire Chief and they will discuss the project with him again and then address any concerns in the EIS. Point No Point Treaty Council letter: The master plan will identify the open space area in more detail, Greg Waddell reported. There is no residential development proposed for this project. The Master Plan and the EIS talk about a "village" type of develop- ment with pathways for walking and bicycles. Retaining natural vegetation is also addressed in the EIS. Jefferson County PUD #1 letter: Bob Leach, Manager of the PUD, has been consulted about how to arrange for water and water rights as well as Health Department approval. There are two wells on the site right now, Greg Waddell added. Health Department letter: Dean Reynolds stated that the EIS includes a chart of what the water usage is expected to be for each type of business that was suggested for the project. County Public Works Department letter: Greg Waddell reported that they did a traffic analysis for peak hour traffic on Teal Lake Road at maximum build out of the 40 acres. The analysis indicated five trips at peak hours on Teal Lake Road. State DOT letter: They have no problem with the left turn channelization suggested. The four staff recommendations have all been discussed. Commissioner Brown asked if the proponent and staff have clear direction on what the applicant needs to do to finish the EIS? Chairman Dennison stated that he agrees with Greg Waddell's suggestion that performance standards be developed for the issues defined. Commissioner Wojt said that the comments each being addressed in the EIS is a good suggestion also. Chairman Dennison noted that he would like to see the motel taken out of the master plan for thiß site. Dean Reynolds stated that it is his understanding that removing the motel from the master plan doesn't mean that someone couldn't propose a motel for this site in the future. Chairman Dennison agreed that it would not preclude someone from making an application to place a motel at this site. The Board directed Dean Reynolds and Greg Waddell to work with Jerry Smith of the Planning Department to develop performance standards for the following issues: stormwater management and buffering commercial uses. .VGL 18 fA~~ mr 430 ~ ~ t , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 4, 1992 Page: 9 The discussion turned to the traffic impacts of this project and the condition of Teal Lake Road. Commissioner Brown stated that anyone turning into the businesses on this site will have to go through the Teal Lake Road intersection. Greg Waddell stated that there may be other projects in the future that will impact Teal Lake Road and they want to see a sharing of the cost for improvements of the intersection with any other projects in the area. The discussion continued regarding the traffic impacts and the need for the project proponent to work with the Public Works Department regarding improvements to this road. Greg Waddell asked what the next step is once the EIS is finalized? Jerry Smith reported once the EIS is final, the next step for Mr. Reynolds is to make application for a conditional use for his site specific part of this Planned Commercial Development. Chairman Dennison asked where the master plan comes into the picture? As a result of the EIS review, the master plan will have to be revised and accepted. When that is done the first phase of the planned commercial development can be submitted. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: ATTEST: ~~C¡ .;j [)J~ Lorna L. Delaney, (J Clerk of the Board ~VOL 18 :f~~E Drl. 431: