Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM052692 .. U~ <v ~Óh: MINUTES WEEK OF MAY 26. 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. Adoption of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance: Associate Planner Eric Toews explained that all of the changes that the Board requested have been made to this ordinance. A Determination of Non Significance was issued on the Ordinance May 6, 1992. No comments which would indicate that a withdrawal of the DNS is warranted, were received during the comment period which ended on May 21. The DNS has been finalized. Eric Toews reminded the Board that the family gift exemption provisions of the previous ordinance have been removed from this ordinance because the Prosecuting Attorney has determined that this exemption is not legal. This type of division will be processed as a standard subdivision. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 04-0526-92, the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, effective June 1, 1992 which repeals and replaces Ordinance No. 1- 75 as well as Resolutions 51-90 and 62-90. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There were no public comments. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to delete items 2, 3 and 4 from the consent agenda and to approve the remaining items as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Reappointment; Alternate to the Board of Equalization; Three Year Term (Expires May 31, 1995); Lars Watson 2. Item Deleted - Bid Award; Adopt Recommendation of Public Works for New Service Body with Crane; Award to Nelson Truck Equipment Company for their bid price of $14,521.49 3. Item Deleted - CONTRACT re: Purchase and Installation of a Conveyor System at the Jefferson County Recycling Center; REM Conveyor Systems, Airway Heights, Wa. 4. Item Deleted - Resolution re: Creating CR1050; Oak Bay Road Culvert Replacement and Retaining Wall Repair 5. Sign Letter to U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development re: Support of Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council's Application for Housing Assistance Under the Section 8 Existing Housing Program V(( 18 fA~OO 49::' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of May 18, 1992 as written. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Special Occasion Liquor License; Jefferson County Home Builders: Commissioner Brown moved that the County has no objection to the Special Occasion Liquor License requested by the Jefferson County Home Builders for June 2, 1992 at the Port Ludlow Community Center. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Creatin2 CRI050; Oak Bay Road Culvert Replacement and Retainin2 Wall Repair: Public Works Roads Projects Manager Bruce Laurie explained the history behind the original project for this intersection. A contractor installed the guardrail, but the retaining wall failed and that is why the guardrail must be replaced. This project will repair the retaining wall and the guardrail, and it will also replace the 36 inch culvert located in the bottom of the fill. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 41-92 creating CRI050 for the Oak Bay Road culvert and retaining wall repair. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CONTRACT re: Construction of the Coyle Community Center; Shademan and Associates. Inc.: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the contract with Shademan and Associates, Inc. of Bellevue for the construction of the Coyle Community Center. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. WATER QUALITY Teresa Barron re: Preliminary Draft; Ludlow Watershed Action Plan: Teresa Barron, Planning and Building Department Water Quality Specialist, reported that the Ludlow Watershed Management Committee has completed the preliminary draft watershed action plan which includes 56 recommendations to control non point source pollution in the watershed. The plan also identifies the potential agencies or organizations that may be able to implement those recommendations. She then reviewed a summary of the recommendations and estimated costs for each. She noted that each agency needs to review the recommendations and make a determination on whether they can implement those they are charged with. If the agency assigned determines that they cannot implement any of the recommendations they need to advise the Planning Department of why, so that specific recommendation can be eliminated from the plan, with cause. Teresa Barron continued by noting that the recommendations that received consensus of the Watershed Management Committee were: Recommendation R-l "Freeze additional net pen aquaculture in the Ludlow Watershed until more is known about its effects on water quality," and Recommendation R-16 ''prohibit aerial application of pesticides in the Ludlow Watershed." Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't feel that these are recommendations that can be implemented as they are stated. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth advised that because the VOL 18 r~~ 00 4ÐZ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 3 County is the lead agency and adopting authority for this document, the Board should review these recommendations and determine which they want changed or deleted from the preliminary draft, and advise the Watershed Committee so they can reconsider them. The discussion continued regarding some of the specific recommendations, the costs associated with them, and the process the Committee used in determining their recommendations, as well as the accountability of the Committee for their work and the need for creative solutions for the identified needs. Craig Ward noted that these recommendations are a wish list that have not had a priority assigned to them. He suggested that the Committee assign priority to these recommendations and be asked to suggest creative solutions like ways to involve volunteers, etc. Mark Huth reported that the WAC requires that the Watershed Committee include a fiscal element in the plan. Teresa Barron reported that the Committee's plan was to send out this draft and when they have input back from the implementing agencies, they will assign priority to their recommendations and develop the fiscal element. Teresa Barron was directed to take the Board's comments and recommendations back to the Ludlow Watershed Management Committee. A public hearing must be held on this preliminary draft plan by July 15, 1992. A hearing notice will be developed and submitted to the Board for approval. PLANNING AND BUILDING HEARING re: Conditional Use IZ09-92; To Develop 3.6 Acres Zoned for General Use with an Office Buildin2 for Real Estate and Related Uses; Loomis Proper- ties. Bert Loomis: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Board has a copy of the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner along with a copy of the Planning Department staff report. The Planning staff recommended approval of the conditional use, however, after the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the application he recom- mended that it be denied. Chairman Dennison asked if this request must conform to all of the planning standards for conditional uses? Mark Huth answered that all the standards for conditional uses must be met and the staff report from the Planning Department indicated that they were. John Hansell, Perkins Coie, Attorneys for Loomis Properties advised that this application is for a conditional use permit (commercial use in a general use zone) for the Port Ludlow Real Estate Center, an office building for real estate and related uses. This application complies with all applicable criteria for a conditional use permit. The Hearing Examiner concurred with the Planning staff on this except for one aspect of the proposal. He felt that the Comprehen- sive Plan location criteria had not been met. Mr. Hansell stated that they are asking that the Board make a policy decision regarding which interpretation of this requirement is appropriate, that of the Planning Department staff or the Hearing Examiner. There are two pertinent points, Mr. Hansell noted: 1) The Comprehensive Plan doesn't require this proposal to locate at the intersection of two arterial roads. The Comprehensive Plan map designates this site as a commercial center. The Comprehensive Plan intends that commercial development locate either at a designated commercial center or at the intersection of two arterial roads. 2) Even though the Comprehensive Plan doesn't require it, this proposal is located at the intersection of two arterial roads. This application was made in February when the County's Interim Zoning Ordinance was in effect. There was no list of County road classifications or a definition of arterial road at that time. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word arterial must be used in the absence of a definition. Jefferson County has designated both roads (Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road) as arterial under the plain and ordinary meaning. Jefferson County has designated both of these roads as collectors under a federal classification system which is the vo¡_ 18 fAŒ 00 493 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 4 equivalent of an arterial on the local level. The traffic counts for the roads are included in the written information submitted for this application. Bert Loomis. P.O. Box 3590 Silverdale, stated that a 4,000 square foot office building has been designed to fit in with the existing residential structures. The design of this proposal was done to save many of the large, existing trees along Oak Bay Road as a buffer. The proposal uses as much natural landscaping as possible and natural materials with earth tone colors. Commissioner Wojt asked if the grade of the site has been a problem? Bert Loomis reported that the building has been setback a substantial distance on the site so that the grade is not a problem. David Cunningham. Pope Resources, explained that he was involved with the development of the County's Comprehensive Plan in the mid 1970's. The prevention of strip commercial development was a main goal during the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Three policies were developed for locating commercial developments in the Plan: 1) locate at the intersections of arterial roads, 2) locate adjacent to existing commercial development, and 3) locate in a planned commercial development. The most important of these three policies was the location of commercial developments at the intersection of arterial roads. This was also the easiest policy to indicate on a map. He then reviewed aerial photographs of the Port Ludlow area (Exhibits 1 and 2). David Cunningham added that the dot on the map was to denote the intersection of Oak Bay and Paradise Bay Roads. Chairman Dennison stated that the adjacency provision really doesn't address the goal of preventing strip commercial development. David Cunningham agreed that this was the weakest of the three policies. David Cunningham stated that he feels the Hearing Examiner missed the point of the Comprehensive Plan maps which shows the intersection of Oak Bay and Paradise Bay Road as an arterial intersection. John Hansell pointed out that there is a proposed list of road classifications for Jefferson County that hasn't been adopted yet. This proposed list includes Oak Bay Road as an arterial, but does not include Paradise Bay Road. Eric Toews. Assistant Planner reported that the Planning Commission considered the Administrative Rules implementing the Interim Zoning Ordinance. A part of those Rules was a list of road classifications supplied by the Public Works Department. That list depicted Paradise Bay Road as an access road, not an arterial or collector. The Planning Commission considered the implications of the road classifications on proposals for commercial develop- ment, specifically at the intersection of Paradise Bay and Oak Bay Road. They concluded that it was not a problem to leave Paradise Bay Road classified as an access road, due to the fact that the Optimum Land Use Map, adopted with the original Comprehensive Plan in 1979, depicted that intersection as a commercial intersection. They felt that even though this intersection, under current road classification, is not the intersection of arterial roads, it had been and would continue to be suitable for commercial development based on the original Comprehensive Plan map. Eric Toews added that the dots on the map serve as a basis under emergency zoning for a conditional use approval for a commercial development when precisely detailed maps are not available. Chairman Dennison asked what the long term impact would be from the adjacency policy, if this conditional use is granted? Mark Huth noted that the Hearing Examiner asked that same question and was advised that the lots to the north and east of this site are subject to restrictive covenants that state they are for residential purposes. The lot across the street (which could be impacted by this decision) is limited by the ravine that borders it on the east. Bruce Laurie, Construction Engineer for the Public Works Department, stated that the question of the Oak Bay and Paradise Bay Roads being arterial is determined by the Federal Functional Classification. Both of these roads are classified as minor collectors. In the early 1980's the responsibility for functional classifications was transferred from the State Department of Transportation to the County Road Administration Board. In that transfer Paradise Bay Road was re-classified from a minor collector to an access road. The Public Works Department has requested that this road be reclassified as a major collector, but this request is being held up until a statewide study is completed. Mark Huth asked Bruce Laurie if Paradise Bay Road \iìl1_ 18 fAF 00 49~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 5 was mistakenly indicated as an access road when Public Works submitted the list of road classifications to the Planning Department for use in the Interim Zoning Ordinance? Bruce Laurie answered that it was listed as an access road. John Hansell reiterated that they agree with the Staff report that this proposal complies with all of the applicable criteria for a conditional use permit. He then reported that Mr. Loomis objects to the following conditions of approval suggested in the Planning staff report: Condition 8: This condition would move the entrance to the site all the way to the western boundary of the parcel. They feel that the present configuration of the lot is the best use of the lot. They asked that if this condition is required that it be modified to allow the entrance to be placed within 10 to 15 feet of the western boundary. This will allow a line of sight to be retained for cars entering and exiting the site. They also asked that the building be moved to the west also, so that the driveway doesn't dominate the property. Chairman Dennison asked the purpose of this condition? Bruce Laurie reported that part of the intersection is channelized to allow storage of vehicles waiting to make a left turn. He stated that it would be best to have this driveway as far to the west as possible from that channelization. Chairman Dennison asked if a buffer can be left from the western property boundary? Bruce Laurie advised that would not be a problem. John Hansell stated that the condition as modified is agreeable if the building can also be moved to the west. Condition 15: This condition requires that Jefferson Transit be contacted. The project proponent feels it is somewhat vague. Mr. Loomis is requesting that it be deleted, but if it is not deleted that it be modified to identify what is being required, Commissioner Brown explained that the reason this is required is to see if an accommodation is needed for Transit services. If an accommodation is required for Transit it can then be incorporated in the project at an early stage. Mark Huth reported that when the Public Works Department did an intersection project in that area, Jefferson Transit didn't require any accommodation. Mr. Hansell noted that he feels the condition is acceptable. Condition 7: This condition requires a soils engineering report. Mr. Loomis feels this is a very costly report and that there is no basis for requiring it at this time. He is requesting that a soils report, if required, be limited to the area of the footprint of the building to determine if a more costly soils engineering report is necessary. If the more costly report is needed he would then be willing to do that. Mark Huth suggested that the word "engineering" be taken out of this condition and that Public Works or the Building Inspector review the soils report when it is completed. The condition in the Hearing Examiner report that states the uses of the site are limited to those in the application. John Hansell said that the application indicates office uses related to real estate. He noted that they aren't sure how that will effect the project. Chairman Dennison noted that the purpose of that condition is to assure that the proposal doesn't change to an intense use that will create a much greater impact than has been anticipated. Commissioner Brown added that this doesn't mean that the site can't be used for a different purpose. It means that as the purpose is changed the project will be reviewed to determine if there is any additional impact that needs to be addressed. Chairman Dennison then opened the hearing for public comment. Tom Hanson. 2510 130th Avenue NE Bellevue. stated that he owns Lot 12 and is opposed to this project. He reported that a lot line adjustment (see Exhibits 3, 4 and 5) was approved by the County which made Lot 13 (which was 5.8 acres) 3 1/2 acres and Lot 14 (which was 1.4 acres) about 3 acres in size. The plat map before the lot line adjustment indicates that Lot 14 is not a building site. He feels this lot line adjustment was done improperly, incorrectly and illegally and asked that the Board declare the lot line adjustment improper and restore these lots to their original configuration. V(\~~ 18 r~f,çOO 495 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 6 He stated that when he purchased his lot~ the real estate company and Pope Resources represented to him that the two lots had the capability to be divided one time and that the minimum size could be one acre. He noted that the maximum density would have been four residences. With the lot line adjustment, Lot 13 and 14 each have the capability of two residences and with Lot 12 there is now a density potential of six residential units. He continued by stating that if the County finds that the lot line adjustment was proper, he feels the conditional use application is flawed. Mr. Hanson continued by stating that if the County allows this project, then lot 13 could apply for a commercial use, which could lead to the deterioration of that area. Other important issues that Mr. Hanson feels the County should review are: Mr. Loomis indicated that this project is important to the area because there is a need for an additional real estate office, which he questions because he counted nine real estate companies that service this area; Loomis Properties indicates that they have a great sensitivity to the area, but Mr. Hanson feels that his history in the area doesn't show that because when Mr. Loomis came to South Bay Lane he got into a war with the County and Pope Resources because of clear cutting. Mr. Hanson urged the Board to review the Hearing Examiner's record. Commissioner Wojt asked how much frontage Lot 13 has on Mr. Hanson's property? Mr. Hanson reported it has 300 feet of frontage on Oak Bay Road and the commercial building will be approximately 400 to 500 feet from his property line. Mark Huth stated that the issue is still whether or not this area is commercially designated. He noted that he feels the Hearing Examiner improperly decided the lot line adjustment because that wasn't before him as part of this application. A boundary line adjustment is an administrative procedure which has a specific appeal process. Mr. Hanson raised this issue before the Hearing Examiner and Mr. Huth said that he reviewed it then and found that it was done properly. The Hearing Examiner recommended (Condition 3) that Mr. Loomis short plat these lots to create Lot 14. As the discussion continued regarding whether this parcel is designated as commercial, Mark Huth reported that the Planning Commission considered the designation of this intersection for the Interim Zoning Ordinance and decided that it was previously designated commercial by the Comprehensive Plan. John Hansell stated that it is his opinion after reviewing the record that the boundary line adjustment is legal, but Mr. Loomis would be willing to go through the short plat process if the Board determines that is necessary. The Board indicated that it is not necessary for Mr. Loomis to go through the short plat process for this lot. David Cunningham reported that the intended use of this property was never residential. This property was held off the market for a long time while a local community group explored funding for a health care facility. When that didn't materialize several church groups looked at this site. He noted that it is obvious that Mr. Hanson is an unsatisfied purchaser and Pope Resources does not want unsatisfied purchasers. He reported that Pope Resources would purchase for the full amount of Mr. Hanson's purchase price or trade property with Mr. Hanson. He also added that these lots were created legally. The property was surveyed and the map was recorded and tax statements have been received on each lot. The lot line adjustment criteria requires that additional building sites are not created. Pope Resources has drafted and is prepared to execute an agreement to deed both Lots 13 and 14 to Mr. Loomis in their original condition so that he can go through the short plat process, if the Board feels that is necessary. Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown stated that the lot is a legal lot the way it was created. He asked Mark Huth if he feels that the lot was created legally? Mark Huth stated that the lot creation complies with the density provisions and he checked the boundary line adjustment and found it to be proper. The only remaining question is if this site is a commercial area. His discussions and review of the creation of the Interim Zoning Ordinance commercial designations have led him to the opinion that this is a commercial area and is proper for a conditional use permit. vot 18 r~r,ç 00 496 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 7 Commissioner Brown moved to approve the conditional use permit with conditions amended as discussed and with findings of fact that will be developed by the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison then clarified that the amended conditions are: Condition 8 - The access road will be moved to the west with a buffer left from the western property boundary to meet the County needs regarding channelization at the intersection. The building can be moved to the west also. Condition 7 - A soils report covering the area of the building footprint will be submitted for approval to the County and a determination will be made from that if a further soils/engineering report is necessary. Hearing Examiner Condition on Office Uses - The wording of this condition says" . . . shall be limited to . . .". Mark Huth with draft language for a condition to address the concerns raised by the Board. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Dennison was not present at the meeting during review of the following items because he was involved in certification of the May 19, 1992 election. Amend Determination of Si2nificance to Impacts to Include Archaeolo2ical Sites; Mixed Use Residential. Commercial and Recreational Development (SDP91-0017); Inn at Port Ludlow; Pope Resources: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the Inn at Port Ludlow project and it has come to the attention of the Planning Department that archaeological impacts should be addressed, since Indian remains were discovered on a lot in the Port Ludlow area. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the staff recommendation to amend the determination of significance to include impacts to archeological sites and to require an archeological assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Chan2es in Forest Practices Re2ulations and Chan2es in SEP A Procedures for Class IV. General Forest Practices: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that a meeting was held with the DNR regarding new Forest Practice Permit procedures. Jim Pearson explained that the DNR has authority for Forest Practice Permits except in the case of Class IV permits when the County has land use considerations. When someone applies for a Class IV Forest Practice permit (conversion) the DNR will look at the application as the first stage of development. If the County requires a permit for the development then the DNR would like the applicant to go to the County first. The County would be the lead agency for SEP A on that permit. Mark Huth reported that the DNR will make the applicant state the use they will convert the property to when they submit the Class IV Permit application. The DNR will take any areas identified by the County (i.e. buffers or open space) out of the permit. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels this will help the County. Chairman Dennison brought up the issue of the SEP A process being triggered by the requirement for a permit and the discussion continued regarding how that will be impacted by this new DNR procedure. Jim Pearson and Mark Huth suggested that the County update the Conversion Policy (Resolution No. 37-90) in light of these new procedures. Craig Ward reported that the County will be handling SEPA on these Class IV permits very soon. Plannin2 and Buildin2 Department Director Crah~ Ward re: a) Discussion of Interim Zonin2 Ordinance and New Legislation. and b) Department Budget Matters: Mark Huth reported that State law (RCW Chapter 207, 1992) will soon require that the Board hold a hearing before a moratorium or interim zoning is imposed. This becomes effective 'j0'- 18 r~FOO 497 · , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1992 Page: 8 June 11, 1992. He questioned if it would be in the County's best interest to hold a public hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance even though it was adopted before the effective date of this law. The Board advised that before the Interim Zoning Ordinance is extended, if necessary, a public hearing will be held. The work plan for the Development Code was then discussed. Craig Ward reported that it includes the hiring of a consultant to do the Environmental Impact Statement for this document and the development of the precisely detailed maps. Craig Ward explained that there is a new law that requires the County to do radon testing as a condition of issuing the certificate of occupancy. The Planning and Building Department will have to provide the radon test kits to permit applicants. The Planning Department can charge a fee to recover the cost of the test kits. This law is effective June 15, but the State Building Council must approve the vendor for the purchase of these kits. In addition to this additional cost, Craig Ward reported that the Department is going through SEPA notice boards and no fees have been established to recover this cost. Chairman Dennison asked for an estimate of what these items are costing the County as well as information on the cumulative impact of the fees charged by all County Departments for construction. Craig Ward then reported that a full set of color maps for critical areas will cost approximate- ly $450.00. A set of maps will be made available at the County Library for public review. æ(YVK~ . Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL '}()1 18 r~r' on 49B