Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110292 \. i:h~ y> ~Öþ:": " MINUTES WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown··and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. " Commissioners' Briefln2i Session: Associate Planner Jim Pearson submitted copies of existing sections of the Shoreline Master Program including: Section 4.105 Urban, 4.20 Project Classifications, 4.201 Primary, 4.202 Secondary, 4.203 Conditional, and the Classification Matrix. He then explained how the proposed changes in the master plan would effect urban areas in the County. He noted that the currently designated urban areas along the County shoreline include: the Port Townsend Paper Company mill site, Irondale Log Dump, Lower Hadlock (north of the boat launch), Port Hadlock Marina and Inn (Alcohol Plant), Port Ludlow (from the Pope Resources Sewage Treatment Plant to Ludlow Creek), the log dump area on the east side of Quilcene Bay (near the Lindsay Beach Road) and the area around Coast Oyster and the Quilcene boat ramp on the west side of Quilcene Bay. He explained that the Shoreline Commission has recommended deleting the words "or multi- family residential development," from the Urban definition. This deletion is recommended because it is not consistent with the text of the performance standard for Urban. Policy #1 states that "Development in urban areas should be managed so it enhances and maintains the shoreline for a variety of urban uses, with preference given to water dependent and water related uses." Residential development is not a water-related, water-dependent, or water- enjoyment use. It doesn't need to be on the shoreline and doesn't provide for public access to the shoreline. Performance Standard #1 (which was part of the changes due to the Union Wharf project) states that "development should be limited to those uses which can be clas- sified as a water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment use. Non-water oriented development, while not preferred, may also be authorized as a conditional use provided said development recognizes the public access directive of the Shoreline Management Act and makes provisions for the public's continued and enhanced enjoyment of the shoreline." The classification matrix indicates that residential development is a Primary Use which is inconsis- tent with the policy and the performance standard. The text in the Master Program would prevail over the use matrix. He stated that the way the Master Program is currently written doesn't make any distinction between the different kinds of residential development. The Shoreline Commission recommends that residential development (other than single family residential development) be a conditional use in the urban area. Jim Pearson explained that building a single family residence on a single lot would be exempt from the Shoreline Program. Building multi-family residential projects would be a conditional use. Commissioner Brown asked what criteria there are for deciding what type of public access is commensurate with the impact of a project? Jim Pearson stated that case law has guided the 18 00:1147' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1992 Page: 2 criteria for public access. In the Nolan case, a single family residence caused an existing view corridor to be blocked and the State of California required that the property owner provide physical access to the shoreline to mitigate that loss of public access. That case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because the mitigation was not commensurate with the impact. Any conditional use would be required to go through the permit process and be reviewed by the Shoreline Commission and finally the County Commissioners. He then reviewed the criteria for public access that are listed in the performance standards. The question of whether this amendment is a change in the Master Program came up at the joint hearing, Jim Pearson reported. He reiterated that there is an in-consistency in the program between the text and the matrix. The text of the Master Program would override any determination made from the matrix. The discussion continued regarding the criteria for assurance of public access, the Nolan Case regarding mitigation for loss of view, and the role of the State Shoreline Hearings Board. Commissioner Wojt asked about the issue of the timeliness of the notification of the public hearing? Dave Robinson reported that there were three consecutive weeks of notice of the Shoreline Commission hearing, as required. There was an additional hearing (with the City Council and County Commissioners) and two public notices of that hearing were published. Michael Hildt, City Planning Director, reported that this amendment, once it is approved by the City and the County, must go to the State for final approval and adoption. Dave Robison then explained the uses allowed in an area adjacent to the Boat Haven district of the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront. Commissioner Wojt asked if it is true that the City zoning in these areas will not allow water-dependent or water-related uses and how that will be handled? David Robison reported that water-oriented uses will be allowed in the C2 zoning. The Shoreline Commission broadened this wording to water-oriented uses. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The proposed amendments to the Shoreline Management Master Program, and the schedule for hearings on the draft clearing and grading and critical area/resource land ordinances, were discussed. Several people requested that the Board hold hearings on these draft ordinances in the rural areas of the County. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes of October 12, 1992 as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Notice of Public Hearing re: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1-84; Increasing the charge for processing checks returned to offices; CHANGE IN HEARING DATE to November 16, 1992 at 11:30 a.m. 2. Request for fourth quarter allocation from the Hotel/Motel Fund; Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce, Inc. 3. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; William B. Brown $500.00 4. Accept Resignation: John C. Illman, Planning Commission 5. Reappointment to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Kirsten Badger to a two year term (term expires 10/23/94) and Ken Radon to a two year term (term expires 10/23/94) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 104-92 re: Amending the Centennial Clean Water Grant to Implement the QuilceneIDabob Bays Watershed Action Plan 7. RESOLUTION NO. 105-92 re: Statutory Vacation of A Portion of Curtis Street In the Plat of Port Hadlock 8. CONTRACT re: Purchase from Vendor List of one (1) Ultrasorb Closed Loop Water Treatment System, Model SM; American Equipment Company, Inc. of Fife, Washington IJOl 18 f~ 00 :1148 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1992 Page: 3 9. Notice of Public Hearing re: Comments on Draft EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow and the Port Ludlow Development Program; Pope Resources; Hearing set for November 17, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. at the Port Ludlow Fire Hall BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Bud2et Mana2er Gary Rowe re: 1992 and 1993 Bud2et Reductions: Budget Manager Gary Rowe submitted and explained the budget cuts for 1992 as submitted by each office. He noted that the personnel cuts, if any, were to be made effective in the first part of November. The discussion turned to the unfilled position in the Juvenile and Family Court Services department and the part time position in the District Court office. Gary Rowe noted further that he will be sending a memo to all County departments advising them of the levels needed to balance the 1993 budget which is still about $200,000 out of balance. Even with the cuts proposed for 1992, there is still a $150,000 shortfall which would have to be taken from reserves. The Board indicated that they would like to discuss the proposed cuts with the Director of Juvenile and Family Court Services before any action is taken. Request for County to Maintain Portions of Forest Drive: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that there are two portions of Forest Drive that are privately owned. A petition has been submitted by area property owners to have the County maintain this road. These portions of the road have been open to the public for the last 10 years. State laws says that if a road has been opened to the public for a period of 10 years, it is a County road. He reported that the County has two choices: 1) start to maintain the road (and face the consequences from Mr. Egan), or 2) approach Mr. Egan about purchasing the right- of-way from him. Rudy Achtenberg stated that he was in touch with Mr. Egan last week who says he is 52 years old and will be leaving the property to his children. Mr. Achtenberg said that he doesn't see why the County can't take over the road, black top it, and make it a County road. Commissioner Brown asked if this petition has been reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney? Gary Rowe stated that it will be forwarded to the Prosecuting Attorney for review. Hearin2 Notice re: Appeal of Hearin2 Examiner Decision on a Subdivision Variance and Preliminary Plat; Bishop Gardens Lon2 Subdivision; Loren Bishop, Applicant: Commissioner Wojt moved to set a public hearing on November 16, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. for this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decisions on the Bishop Gardens Long Subdivision. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Consideration of Amendments to the Jefferson County/Port Townsend Shoreline Mana2ement Master Program; Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District: Chairman Dennison reported that the Board is considering the proposed amendments to the Shoreline Management Master Program with respect to the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, and making the use matrix consistent with the program text regarding urban waterfront uses. A public hearing was held in conjunction with the City Council. f'ül 18 f~E (J()t149 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1992 Page: 4 Commissioner Wojt asked Dennis McLerran, City Attorney, for answers to the issues raised during the earlier review? Dennis McLerran stated that the letter from Erwin Jones received by the County today raises public notice issues similar to those brought up during the public hearing (letter from Gary Huff and a letter from the attorney's representing the owner of the Thomas Oil property). It is his opinion that the public notice requirements have been met. He reviewed the process and hearing notices with the State Department of Ecology and they feel comfortable with what has been done. With regard to the issue of takings for the Indian Point property, the letter indicates that the intention of the property owners is to put a motel on the property. Dennis McLerran reported that a transient accommodation project would be allowable on that site as a conditional use with water-enjoyment uses allowed on the ground level. Dennis McLerran further reported that he discussed the amendment with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth, and he concurred that the conditional use was already a requirement of the Master Program and the amendments are to maintain consistency between the text of the Master Program and the use matrix. He then reviewed the Nolan Case. The State Shoreline Management Act has public access provisions and requirements incorporated in it, which is different than the circumstances of the Nolan Case. He explained that in Nolan v. the California Coastal Commission the U.S. Supreme Court was looking at a requirement for a lateral easement along the shoreline in a specific case. In the Master Program, public access is required for conditional use permits. There are two distinctions between the Washington State law and this California case: 1) The Washington State Shoreline Management Act is based on the Public Trust Doctrine. Public trust principles with respect to public use and access to the Shoreline are incorporated into regulatory form through the Shoreline Management Act, and 2) In Washington, individual permitting decisions require public access considerations. Commissioner Brown added that he is concerned about the requirement for 50% water- oriented use. He asked what would happen if that requirement cannot be met? Dennis McLerran answered that the 50% ground floor requirement comes into play when a project includes a transient accommodation or residential use. He noted that there has been quite a lot of public testimony on this requirement. Commissioner Wojt asked what examples can be given for uses in a building to meet this requirement? Dave Robison, City Planner, reported that water-oriented uses include water- dependent uses (uses such as boat building, boat storage, marina related uses, etc.), water- related uses (uses that help support water dependent uses), and water-enjoyment uses (uses that derive economic benefit from being on the shoreline because of views and access to the water). He added that any other commercial use could be located in these areas. The 50% requirement is for any new or expansion of a residential or transient accommodation use along the shoreline. Dennis McLerran stated that the types of uses would be determined appropriate on a case by case basis. Chairman Dennison reported that a question was raised this morning regarding the 200 foot shoreline zone being expanded in the area of the Boat Haven. Dave Robison, Dennis McLerran and Jim Pearson all indicated that the shoreline zone (200 feet back from the shoreline) has not been changed. Chairman Dennison asked if the City Council made a change to the "Union Wharf" section (page 8) since the joint hearing? Dave Robison explained that the question was raised regarding the deletion of the Union Wharf amendment at the joint hearing. The City Council supports the restoration of Union Wharf, but they do not want to see a project of the intensity and scale of the development that was originally considered. The City Council suggested that the words "and non water-oriented uses. . ." (page 8, number 6 in the second sentence) be deleted. The Council voted to leave in the Union Wharf language with the deletion of this wording. Commissioner Brown noted that the amendment was added to allow projects on Union Wharf that were not water-dependent. If this wording is taken out then there isn't much of the intent of the amendment left. ~ot , .1150 18 rA~r 00 . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1992 Page: 5 In response to Commissioner Wojt's question, Dennis McLerran then explained the SEP A process that this amendment has undergone and why the City was the lead agency. Commissioner Brown asked if the use classification matrix or the text has been applied to shoreline applications? Jim Pearson answered that the only application that has been submitted in an urban waterfront area since the Shoreline Program was amended (the policy and performance standard for the Union Wharf project) was a hotel project at Port Ludlow and it was required to provide public access. The discussion continued regarding whether the amendment changed any of the Shoreline Management Program that applies to the County. Dave Robison reported that one other change was made by the City Council since the joint hearing. On Appendix D the City Council agreed to amend the Point Hudson Marina District boundary to correspond to the existing Thomas Oil property ownership boundary. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 106-92. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion for discussion. He noted that he would like to make this approval contingent on a letter from the Prosècuting Attorney agreeing that this amendment is not a change that will impact the County. Commissioner Wojt agreed that this be added to his motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Extension of Moratorium per Resolution No. 89-86 and Amend- ments to Aquaculture Provisions and other related sections; Shoreline Mana2ement Master Pr02ram: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that this moratorium is an emergency measure to be in place until the County revises the Shoreline Program sections on aquaculture. The Board has already held public hearings on the Shoreline Commission revisions to the Shoreline Master Program regarding aquaculture. He reported that he is working on making the changes as requested by the Board after the public hearing, but is not finished yet. He recommended that the moratorium be continued. Commissioner Brown moved to extend the moratorium for six months or until the amendments to the Shoreline Program regarding aquaculture are adopted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Jim Pearson then submitted and reviewed copies of the changes to the Aquaculture section of the Shoreline Program that were made by the Board after the public hearing. He reported that the Board needs to review these changes, issue a final SEP A threshold determination and then consider adoption of the amendments. PUBLIC HEARING/COMMUNITY MEETING re: Community Development Block Grant Application for a Multi-Faceted Transitional Center for Disadvanta2ed People; Skookum Educational Service Corporation: Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing/community meeting on the proposed Community Development Block Grant applica- tion for the multi-faceted transitional center for disadvantaged people as proposed by Skookum Educational Service Corporation. Kirby Neuman-Rae stated that he has discussed this proposal with both Jim Westall and Bonnie Lichty and feels it is a good idea and hopes that the block grant is approved. Hearing no further public comments the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 107-92 an application for a Community Block Grant to the State Department of Community Development for the transitional center for disadvantaged people of Jefferson County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 'Vot 18 fAÇ,¡: 00 .1151 ... '...' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1992 Page: 6 Jim Westall reported that they met with the Port Commission last week. The Port Commission approved the project and provided a letter of support for the grant application. SE~f.. ci . ....~ ",. ,f -< .. " .:::01 \ iØ .. ,~~ ~ . , '.ft'. ' ~i~\· " ,,7\·. . \,<\"." " ';'\ '>_ '~1I,;~w ('" ,.. _\ ' >:;___:, _'-e;_~..,,- ¡, .:) 1] "\ v ~ A1TEST:'" ~-' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS cI~ÆfL~ ~QJ~r Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board ',lot 18 rAÇ,~ 00 :1152