Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM071392 u~ 'V" '"ÃOh: ~Q MINUTES f WEEK OF JULY 13, 1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner B. G. Brown was present. Commissioner Richard E. Wojt was not present because of jury duty. Public Comment Period: The automatic vote tabulation system to be purchased for the Auditor's Office and Property Rights Alliance comments on Growth Management and takings were discussed. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS Vacation (Statutory) of a Portion of Walker Street in the Plat of Hamilton's Five Acre Tracts. Quilcene: Lois Smith and Janet Reeves. Applicants: Admi¥istrative Assistant Eileen Simon reported that the applicants have asked that the County do the paperwork for a statutory vacation of the portion of Walker Street that abuts their property. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that the statutory vacation process applies only to plats dedicated before March 12, 1904 with streets that were not opened during the five year period after the plat was approved. State law says that the easement in these plats is extinguished when the road is not opened during the five year period after plat approval. Harold Newman, Quilcene, stated that he applied and was issued a permit by the County to open this right-of-way five years ago. He also has a road approach permit for his property. He has designed a garage with access from this portion of Walker Street. Chairman Dennison explained that the State Legislature has addressed street rights-of-way in plats filed before 1909. Harold Newman added that the law states that there has to be proof that the road has not been opened. Chairman Dennison answered that the public record is all the County has as proof to determine if a road has been opened or not. Mark Huth asked Mr. Newman if he has opened the right-of-way in the five year period that he has had the permit? Mr. Newman reported that adjacent property owners built a fence across the right-of-way. The County Engineer notified the property owners to take the fence down, but it is still standing. Chairman Dennison reiterated that State law dictates that the right-of-way no longer exists and the County doesn't have a choice about granting this vacation. ~VOl lc , . m- fAf(""'" a rM;£·· UU ( ~, ;¡ - , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 13, 1992 Page: 2 Mr. Newman asked how he can be compensated for building a garage that he has no access to? Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that the County has a process for people to file a claim against the County. If a claim is filed it will be investigated. Arlene Newman asked what proof has been presented to show that the road has not been opened? Eileen Simon reported that the public records have been searched and do not show that this street was ever opened. Sworn statements have also been submitted by long time residents of the area stating that, to their knowledge, the right-of-way has never been opened. Pictures have also been submitted that show trees growing in the right-of-way. Mark Huth said that since the road wasn't opened before 1895 it is vacated by law. The law doesn't require any proof other than a review of the public record. He then asked what public records there are for roads in existence before 1909? Eileen Simon reported that the Public Works Department has road logs for the years 1912 to 1915, road plans and road files and none of these show that Walker Street was opened for public use. Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 62-92 ordering the statutory vacation of a portion of Walker Street in the plat of Hamilton's Five Acre Tracts. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Wojt joined the meeting. Bob Henderson. 911 System Coordinator re: Discussion of Proµosed Ordinance to Re2ulate Jefferson County Road Approach Permits: 911 System Coordinator Bob Henderson reported that this proposed ordinance is to regulate road approach permits issued by the County. Mark Huth added that this ordinance clearly delineates the criteria used for granting these permit. Public Works Director Gary Rowe stated that he doesn't feel these rules will change the way road approach permits are handled now, because it only articulates the process the County currently uses. Commissioner Brown moved to set the public hearing on this proposed ordinance for July 27, 1992 at 11:30 a.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SHERIFF HEARING re: Proposed Enhanced 911 Excise Tax Ordinance: Sheriff Mel Mefford explained that Enhanced 911 was approved for the State by passage of Refere- ndum 42 and implementation of E911 was addressed by the legislature with the passage of ESHB1938 during the 1991 session. A Steering Committee (John Parker representing the County Fire Commissioners, Howard Scott representing the Fire Chiefs, Jim Newton representing the City Police, Bob Minty representing Emergency Services and Mel Mefford representing law enforcement) has been meeting to plan for implementation of E911 in Jefferson County. This ordinance, Mel Mefford continued, will provide funding for the implementation of E911. The enhanced 911 system will provide, on a computer screen, the address for the phone where the 911 call originates. The tax will raise about $60,000 per year. Everyone in the State is already paying $.20 per month on their phone lines. This tax is collected by the State and will be given to counties as a grant for implementing E911 systems. Mel Mefford concluded by noting that Section 2 of the ordinance says that the system shall be implemented no later than December 31, 1992. This needs to be changed to read December 31, 1998. He then introduced Dick MacLauchlan from u.s. West Telephone Company. Mr. MacLauchlan explained that the installation of E911 includes the system design, coordination of ordinances, grants and contracts, and the installation of the necessary equipment. 911 was designed to be an instantly recognizable emergency phone number across the U.S. The recent changes to the system have been so significant that it is now ~ VOL 1 B fM;E 00 7DS . , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 13, 1992 Page: 3 called enhanced 911. Part of the new enhanced system includes identification of the telephone from which 911 was dialed. This information is matched with the County's address information. The address and location information is then provided to the emergency dispatch center. If the Enhanced 911 system is installed before 1994 there will be no installation fee from the telephone company (U.S. West). Mel Mefford reported that last year the dispatch center processed 4,751 911 calls. As of June 30, 1992 there have been 450 more calls than last year during the same time period. Dick MacLauchlan stated that most 911 dispatch centers receive prank calls and E911 should cut down on the number of prank calls because the police will know exactly where they are calling from. He noted that his office will help coordinate the development of the contracts with each of the telephone companies that serve Jefferson County. Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against this proposed ordinance, the Chairman closed the hearing. Mter discussion of the effective dates, Commissioner Brown moved to adopt OR- DINANCE NO. 08-0713-92 with the correction to the date in Section 2 to read December 31, 1998. The ordinance effective date is August 1, 1992 and the effective date for the tax is September 15, 1992. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to delete item 6 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Automatic Feed System for Optical Scan Vote Tabulation System; Business Records Corporation 2. Approval of Payment of Claim #C-07-92; Damage to Buried Cable; $509.48; U. S. West Communications 3. R.eject Claim #C-04-92 in the Amount of $235.27; Pedestal Damaged by a Mower; U. S. West Communication 4. RESOLUTION NO.63-92 re: Vacation (Statutory) of a Portion of Second Street in the Plat of South Port Townsend 5. DECLARATION OF COVENANT re: 100 Foot Radius Around Water Supply Well; Jefferson County Landfill 6. DELETE ITEM Adopt Findings and Conclusions For Modified Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance; Six Lot Large Lot Subdivision; Head of Quilcene Bay; Padraic Burke 7. GRANT AGREEMENT NO. G9200331 re: Habitat Utilization and Water Study By the Port Townsend Marine Science Center; State Department of Ecology 8. Letters of Appreciation to Mental Health Advisory Board Members; Lois Smith, Victor Dirksen, John Nowak, Orabelle Connally, James Hermanson, Madelyn Pitts, and Jennifer Stankus 9. Approval of Transfer of Equipment from Mental Health Inventory to Substance Abuse Inventory 10.AGREEMENT re: Boundary Line Adjustment; South Point; Pederson/Buchman APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes of June 22 as corrected and July 6, 1992 as written. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Discussion of Buildin2 Setbacks and Hei2ht Restrictions in Proposed Buildin2 Code Ordinance: Assistant Planner Eric Toews reported that the Planning staff has researched the need for the County to establish building setbacks and height re- strictions. These setbacks are necessary for the following health and safety reasons: 1) to assure adequate sight distance and provide recovery areas along roads (front yard setbacks), . VGl 18rAŒ 00 789 \ . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 13, 1992 Page: 4 2) to help alleviate the possibility of fires leaping from structure to structure (side and rear yard setbacks) and provide better access to structures in case of a fire, and 3) to assure that local fire departments have adequate equipment to fight structure fires (height limitations). Most rural Fire Districts have equipment that can fight fires in structures that are 35 feet in height. The setbacks proposed in this ordinance are consistent with what is required in adjacent counties. The front yard setback amount is based on the classification of the road. Commissioner Brown stated that since the standards in this ordinance will only apply to new construction he would like to see language that would address the differences in setbacks caused when a road classification is changed. Any new construction along such a road would be subject to greater setbacks than existing homes were. He asked that language be developed to handle this situation like the shoreline program handles bluff setbacks which is to allow the setback for the new construction at a distance that is an average of the setbacks of the existing residences. Mark Huth noted that if this is done it would essentially be grandfathering all the houses on the road to the old standards. Eric Toews noted that the average setback in the shoreline program is for the protection of views, not for safety reasons. The discussion continued regarding the need for the setback from the road and how to impose those setbacks when a road classification is changed. The discussion turned to the need for setbacks for fences. Eric Toews reported that the last time the Board reviewed this proposed ordinance, they indicated that they wanted the setback requirements deleted for fences that exceed six feet in height. These fences are required to have a building permit. He asked that the Board reconsider deleting this from the proposed ordinance. The same rationale that supports front yard setbacks for structures also applies to fences, which have the capacity to diminish sight visibility. Chairman Dennison asked if a fence would have the same setback requirement as a structure? Mike Ajax reported that in many jurisdictions fences that are within the setback area are restricted to lesser heights. Chairman Dennison noted that he could see that the safety issues for a fence built along the right-of-way are the same as for a residence. Mike Ajax reported that fences under six feet in height do not require a building permit and can be placed at the land owners property line. Eric Toews added that there are many fences under six feet that obstruct visibility as much as a fence over six feet in height. Chairman Dennison agreed with Commissioner Brown's point that ordinance provisions should make sense. In this case requiring setbacks for fences over six feet and not requiring them for fences under that height, doesn't address the safety issues in a reasonable way. Eric Toews noted that it would be easier to leave this provision in the ordinance and then delete it after the public hearing. He reported that the Planning staff can review ordinan- ces from other counties to see if there is a better way to address fence setbacks. Chair- man Dennison agreed that it would be easier to leave this provision as written and then delete it after the public hearing. He asked that the Planning staff review ordinances from other counties to see how they treat setbacks for fences. That information can then be presented at the public hearing. Commissioner Brown noted that any changes made to the ordinance after the public hearing will have to be substantiated by findings of fact. Mark Huth reported that a proposed ordinance is published to advise the public of what is being proposed for adoption. The Board can raise the issue of safety and fence setbacks at the public hearing and ask staff to provide information. He suggested that the Board adopt the comments made at this meeting as part of their consideration at the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to set a public hearing for this proposed ordinance for August 3, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of Fee Schedule Amendment for Plannin2 and Buildin2 Deµart- ment: Senior Planner James Holland reported that the Planning Department is proposing to amend the Planning Department fee schedule to include the following items: Radon Test . VOL 18 fAtf 00 800 , . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 13, 1992 Page: 5 Kits, Interim Zoning applications, publication of pending SEP A threshold determinations, notice boards for SEP A threshold determinations and large lot subdivision applications. Commissioner Wojt asked if the fee for the Radon testing covers all the costs associated with these tests? Building Inspector Mike Ajax reported that it does. James Holland then reviewed the costs associated with the applications for redesignation under the interim zoning ordinance. Commissioner Brown asked if the fees proposed are based on actual costs and in line with fees charged by neighboring counties? James Holland reported that they are. Office Supervisor Shirley Van Hoover stated that the fees being requested at this time are only new items. The most equitable way to establish a fee for the Planning Department's review of plats was then discussed. Commissioner Brown stated that he wants to see justification for the amount of fee based on the amount of time it takes Planning staff to process plats. On the fees for SEP A publications, the suggested fee is to cover the new requirement that a pre-threshold determination notice be published, James Holland reported. Mter discus- sion of the costs for these publication, Chairman Dennison suggested that the wording be changed to indicate that the actual publication costs will be reimbursed. The final fee proposed is for the boards used for posting SEP A notices at the property. The fee would be reduced by $5.00 per board if the notice boards are returned to the Planning Department. James Holland noted that he will do more research on the items requested and report back to the Board at a later date. Ed Markusen. and Frank Reithel of the County Library Board re: County Property Near the Library: Edward Markusen reported that the County Library Board would like to purchase the County property adjacent to the library, especially if the Parks Advisory Board doesn't have any plans for a park in that area. The Library Board wants to assure that this property is not developed in the future for a use that would be incom- patible with the Library. Frank Reithel reported that library users are already parking on this County property at times. Chairman Dennison asked if the concern is that the property be available to the Library for parking and/or a park? Edwatd Markusen indicated that is correct. Chairman Dennison asked if the County would have to sell the property to the Library District in order for them to make improvements to it? Commissioner Brown stated that this property was purchased by the Road Fund for a gravel source and it would have to be purchased by the Library District to be put to any other use. Gary Rowe reported that this property is currently in a maintenance phase for gravel extraction, and no gravel has been taken off the site for the past two years. Commissioner Brown noted that the County will have to review the future need for this property. The County is willing to provide the Library with the land that they need to utilize. The Board indicated that they would like the Library Board to develop a long term plan for expansion and parking needs at this site. Commissioner Brown assured Mr. .Mårku~~~nd Mr. iReithel that the possibility of this County property being used in some ,/wa,t¡l¡t~~J;;e<~ncompatible with the Library is not likely. ¡ .:) .<~¡;~_ '" . .. ".~ .~. "t f' ;..:.. ..'.... i T....I.~. ..'...........~.......!. 0..' ~Rf'ŒD JEFFERSON COUN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS \ ;~T"',... I ~~/ . ~ . \ .::>p ,.¡... /.! ~'.. \. ". .., .". ~- ,¡; I: . ,,~.} 'i¥TE~~ . . ' .. cP~'~' "~. M Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board ¡ / , VOL 18 a~f 00 801