Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061791 . ~ '.. MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 1711 1991 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojl. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Bob Mintv. Emergency Services Coordinator re: Special Events Permit for the Olympic Music Festival. Quilcene: Emergency Services Coordinator Bob Minty reported that the Olympic Music Festival permit is in order, and has been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departments. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Special Events Permit for the Olympic Music Festival as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Adoption of the Hazardous Waste Manaaement Plan: Jeff Frettingham, Public Works Solid Waste Specialist, explained that the Hazardous Waste Management Plan was adopted at the public hearing held on April 22, 1991 and this resolution finalizes that action in a form that the State Department of Ecology will accept. Commissioner Brown moved to approved RESOLUTION NO. 60-91 adopting the Jefferson County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Establishina Names for Private Roads: Country Ridae Development: 911 System Coordinator Bob Henderson reported that these private roads are all in the same subdivision off Eaglemount Road known as the Country Ridge Development. There is no conflict with other road names in the County. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the following: RESOLUTION NO. 61-91 re: To Establish the Name for a Private Road; Brothers Road RESOLUTION NO. 62-91 re: To Establish Name for a Private Road; Kel1ny Lane RESOLUTION NO. 63-91 re: To Establish a Name for a Private Road; Blue Moun- tain Road Commissioner Brown seconded. the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. . '\ . '.". { ~ì .1 c f :..~,.~ 00 ,'"'"' n Y'f1 J01'V ,:",' >1m! . , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 2 Application to Open County Road Riaht-OJ-WaY re: Phipps Road and 10th. Avenue. Irondale; Gene Seton. Applicant: (See also Minutes of May 28, 1991) Bob Henderson reported that the Prosecuting Attorney reviewed this application and determined that it is not exempt from State Environmental Policy Act review. The Board concurred that the applicant be provided an environmental checklist to start the SEPA process. HEARING re: Adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Manaaement Plan Update: Jeff Frettingham submitted a summary of the Com- prehensive Solid Waste Management Plan update. He explained that the consulting firm of R. W. Beck and Associates prepared this update of the original plan which was adopted in 1983. The update was reviewed by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the State Department Ecology. This plan addresses solid waste management within the County in five year increments, for the next 20 years. The plan includes information on: · The County landfill as well as the five drop box sites and the recycling program, which are all operated by the Public Works Department. · The recycling goals. · The options dealing with the landfill or possibly exporting waste because the landfill does not currently operate to the State's minimum functional standards. In order to meet the minimum functional standards the landfill cell will have to be lined. · The City of Port Townsend through an intergovernmental agreement and will be reviewed and adopted by the City Council. · The system costs, the costs of recycling, and composting. · Population increase projections as they relate to the amount of solid wastes generated in the County. · Other options for waste disposal such as energy recovery and incineration with cost estimates. Jeff Frettingham concluded by noting that whatever option for dealing with solid waste is finally adopted by the County will be costly. Chairman Dennison asked why this plan update does not satisfy the new requirements for waste reduction and recycling. Jeff Frettingham answered that this update was started in 1989 and the guidelines for Waste Reduction and Recycling have been changed since then. Jefferson County must comply with the new requirements by July 1992. The new guidelines require that a realistic 1995 goal be set by the County for Waste Reduction and Recycling with documentation of exactly how that goal will be reached. The State would like each County to adopt the State goal of 50%, but they realize that this may be difficult for small, rural counties. Jefferson. County's recycling goal was set in the previous plan at 30%. When this update was started the consultant looked at this goal and provided costs for reaching a 20% and a 30% goal, but did not identify a specific goal. Chairman Dennison opened the pu~lic hearing for comments for or sgaïnst adoption of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Managèment Plan update, Joan Best: Joan Best asked that the County look at all wastes when looking at the 50% recycling goal, even waste collected by private parties. In particular, she noted, things like automobiles and large pieces that a private party may collect and send to Seattle for profit. Jeff Frettingham responded that the information in the update was developed from the figures on collection at the landfill and the drop box sites. It is realized that this is not all of the waste generated by the County. The County will try to identify all of the wastes generated and where it is recycled or disposed of. Car bodies do not come under the solid waste disposal regulations, however. AI BOucher: AI Boucher stated that he has read the plan, attended a number of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meetings, read the Memorandum from the SWAC to the Board, as well as the Public Works correspondence on the plan to the State Depart- ment of Ecology. He has also reviewed Phase 1 of the Regional Solid Waste Plan, He noted that this plan is the most professional document he has reviewed, but there is no comparison of the benefits to the cost of the program. He then reviewed the following specific items in the plan: l Val 17 r~G~ 00 , r>~$1. ~.....~'-~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 3 1) Chapter 4: Priority 1 is to reduce the waste stream. In the Chapter 6 forecast of waste generation over the next 20 years, a constant is used for pounds per day, per capita. He added that he doesn't understand why this was done and feels it should be re-examined, 2) Close Out Costs for the Present Landfill: Table 9 where the costs over a twenty year period are developed, the closure for the present is shown as $71,000 per year in debt service. The assumption is that General Obliga- tion Bonds will be issued for this expense. In the same chapter the policy is established that a debt obligation should not exceed the life of the asset. Closure has no future life, but he added that he fe.els the County should consider a minimum five year debt amortization for closure costs. If this is done the annual cost would be increased $100,000 per year over what the document shows (this would change the summary statement in Chapter 1). 3) The Recycling Goal (20% or 30%): In Chapter 4 the consultant uses 30% as a goal and given that this is not realistic for this County the recom- mendation is a 20% goal. The SWAC recommended 30% without any justification for that recommendation. He urged the Board to reject the SWAC recommendation, due to the costs, Chapter 1, Table 3 outlines the costs. Mr. Boucher urged the Board not to commit to capital costs until it is demonstrated that the capital improvement is realistic and will be used. The Regional Plan cites a statement from the County that currently the recycling ratio is 8.~,.b. There is another table with information from a Department of Ecology that shows 24.~,.b recycling for the County. 4) On Page 26, Chapter 4, the consultant is dealing with recycling and makes the statement that recycling is best served if there is no direct charge for the service. AI Boucher stated there is no requirement that the County subsidize a recycling program, but since it does, the public is not paying a direct charge, but an indirect charge for recycling through an inflated service fee, The State Department of Ecology in a footnote on page 3 of their document says that the perspective that recycling is best served with no direct charge for the service, does not promote environmental policy. This implication, Mr. Boucher con- cluded, should be explored thoroughly. Jeff Frettingham explained the conflict in the report on the recycling percentages for Jefferson County. The figures used were derived in two different ways. One percentage was developèd from figures in the regional solid waste management study. This regional study was done by the eight county consortium which was formed to look at solid waste management in the region and it was. not required by the State, The Phase 1 part of the regional study was done through a questionnaire sent to each of the participating county. The figures were developed based on information provided on the tons of waste that went over the landfill scale and the tons that were processed at the Recycle Center. The Department of Ecology used a set of non-specific, statewide parameters to develop their figures. Hearing no further comment for or against this plan update, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. He noted that there are some issues that are worth looking into further. Commissioner Wojt moved to table the adoption of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for further review. There was no second to the motion, The motion died. Commissioner Brown stated that since the public hearing has been closed, the testimony will be reviewed by staff and recommendations made for changes to the plan. These recommendations will be brought before the Board at a later date. ~ VOL ·1 "'7 r rf -'''9· /f;j t~r,~ ùÜ' _ b -~,d _. ~. wm_., Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: . Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 4 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Discussion of Renovation of Commissioners Chambers into Office Space: Facilities Manager Frank Gifford came before the Board to discuss their office space needs and how the current Commissioners Chambers could be renovated to provide that space. PLANNING AND BUILDING State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: Proposed Addition to an Existina Truck Repair Shop: 1520 Center Road. Chima- cum; Lee Short. Applicant: Associate Planner, Jerry Smith reported that Lee Short is expanding his existing truck repair shop at .1520 Center Road in Chimacum. The proposal is for a 20 foot by 17 foot addiJion on the rear of the existing building for offices and storage. This site is one and a half miles south of the Chimacum intersection adjacent to Center Road. There is 300 feet between the proposed building addition and the west property line. Jerry Smith then reviewed the environmental checklist for the expansion project. Chima- cum Creek is approximately a quarter mile west of the site. There will be a storage area for recyclable material (anti-freeze, batteries, oil, etc.) which must comply with the provis- ions of the County's Hazardous Waste Management plan. The current Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is rural Oow density residential uses), There are no envir- onmentally sensitive areas (ESA's) on the site. Environmentally Sensitive areas have been identified to the west and south of this site, however. The Planning Department feels the only possible adverse environmental impact from this expansion project may be due to the storage of hazardous materials on the site. Jerry Smith then reviewed the proposed mitigative measure which deals with the storage and handling of recyclable hazardous materials. Chairman Dennison asked about storm- water runoff from the site. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and indicated that there would be no adverse impact due to stormwater runoff. Commissioner Brown moved to issue a mitigated determination of non-significance as recommended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Reauest for a Variance: From Road Rlaht-of-Way Construction Standards. Includina a Variance from a Condition of Summary Approval to Implement an Erosion Control Plan; Mats Mats Area Frontina on Oak Bay Road and Jefferson Avenue: Ken Thompson and Ellen Thiesen. Applicants: Jerry Smith submitted the Planning Commission recommendation for these variance requests for a short subdivision in the Mats Mats Bay area. This proposed short plat is to re-divide Lot 103 of Olympus Beach Tracts, which is a 3.8 acre parcel (one lot would be 2.3 acres and the other would be 1.5 acres) which fronts on Oak Bay Road as well as a platted 30 foot right-of-way known as Jefferson Ave. Jeffer- son Avenue is approximately 0.6 miles in length. As part of a summary review and ap- proval on the short plat, the Planning Department staff had to consider an amendment to the County Subdivision Ordinance which requires that roads that provide access to or within a short subdivision shall be constructed, ballasted and surfaced according to the standards of the Jefferson County Public Works Department. Public Works recommends a condition of approval for the short plat that the proponent provide an additional 30 feet of right-of-way to the county from the end of the existing road to the end of the short plat property. The three conditions of short plat summary approval that a variance is being requested from are: 1) The applicants shall construct Jefferson Avenue to County Road Standards. ~ Vûl .' - . ('13 \ r.--:'.,_.' '1""" rn' , .J'-) .. I t~Œ UL- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 5 2) 3) An additional 30 feet of right-of-way along Jefferson Avenue from Pioneer Avenue through Lot 103 shall be deeded to Jefferson County. An erosion control plan shall be developed to prevent further erosion of the logged slope and shall be implemented before any construction of homes can occur on the lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the requests for variance against the criteria for issuing variances which states "1) There exists extraordinary conditions or unusual circumstances peculiar to the property and not the result of the action by the applicant; 2) A literal enforcement of the regulations would result in unnecessary and undue hardship; and 3) Justice would be done and the public interest secured by granting of a suitable variance. " The Planning Commission concluded that there was a lack of evidence that there were extraordinary conditions or unusual circumstances and they recommend denial of the variances requested. The Planning Commission noted that they were sympathetic to the request, Jerry Smith added. Ken Thompson, applicant, stated that Jefferson Avenue (located just north of the Port Ludlow Resort) is not quite· a mile long from Oak Bay Road to Pioneer Drive. The first 150 feet of it is a 60 foot easement and is paved. The next 1 ,200 feet of the road, ,also paved, is a 30 foot easement, which continues for the balance of the road. The next 2,000 feet is a County maintained gravel road. The access to this property is about 200 feet of gravel road and 600 to 700 feet of dirt road. To gain the additional 30 feet or right-of-way from the east side of the road would mean that it would have to come off the Port Ludlow development 20 foot green belt and private properties with wells and septic systems, etc. If taken from the west it would interrupt telephone poles, wells, water meters, and a tree farm, The owner of the tree farm (Mr. Toepper) supports this variance request. Bringing this road up to County standards means, Mr. Thompson continued, taking out a 12 foot paved road and replacing it with a 24 foot gravel road, for almost 2/3 of a mile, None of the residents of the area want any change on Jefferson Avenue. If the road is put in from the north, it would make Jefferson Avenue a through street, making it a quick short cut from Oak Bay Road to Swansonville. This is a peaceful road that the neighbors don't want widened. Dick Toepper asked if his letter was provided to the Board? Jerry Smith reported that his letter is summarized in detail on page three of the staff report. Mr. Thompson continued by noting that a petition has been submitted to vacate a portion of the right-of-way on Jefferson Avenue, so that the road can not become a through street in the future. Every property owner in the area except one has signed the petition. Chairman Dennison asked what the maximum subdivision density is in the area? Jerry Smith reported that the "suburban" designation of the Comprehensive Plan allows five residences per acre. Mr. Toepper stated that a half mile of this road is along his property. If his property is ever subdivided, the extra thirty feet would be taken from the subdivision. Commissioner Brown expressed concern about the possible vacation of a portion of this right-of-way so that it could not ever be made into a through road, Subdivision of the property in the Mure may indicate a need to allow the traffic to circulate through the area. Ellen Thiesen stated that the Subdivision Ordinance (1-75) Section 5.30, 2. Roads was referenced by the Public. Works department on their March 11 recommendations to the Planning Department, as the reason that upgrading the road and providing the additional easement is being required on this short plat. She stated that it appears that the Interim Provisions to the Subdivision Ordinance (dated May 1990) indicate that if the County is being asked to maintain private roads within a short plat, those roads and the roads accessing the short plat must be brought up to County standards. She stated that there are not any private roads in this short plat and they are not asking the County to do any road maintenance. Chairman Dennison answered that this section does not apply to this request because Jefferson Aven.ue is a County road. Commissioner Brown added that the section referred VOL 17 r~r>: OÖ~ ':'0)-' ~''''.' J. -' ,-,- -_, ,jiI¡¡;¡¡¡¡r_ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 6 to addresses roads that were to remain private and does not apply in this matter. Ellen Thiesen asked what the provision is that requires this road to be upgraded? Chairman Dennison stated that the discrepancy between what the Public Works Depart- ment is recommending and what is required by the Ordinance needs to be straightened out. Commissioner Brown added that there is also the Planning Department requirement of an additional 10 feet which needs to be reviewed, Ellen Thiesen stated that there have been two short plats approved along Jefferson Avenue (one in 1981 and one in 1984) which were not required to upgrade the road or provide, the additional right-of-way. She added that she doesn't feel it is right to have them meet standards that other applicants have not been required to meet. Chairman Dennison asked that the Planning Department arrange to have someone from the Public Works Department explain the difference betw&en their recommendation and the Ordinances. Public Hearina: Plat Amendment: Combine the East 72.91 Feet of Lot 3 of Garten View Short Plat to Adjoinlna Tax 12 within the South-east Quarter of Section 34. Township 28 North. Ranae 1 East. WM: Robert Garten. Petitioner: Jerry Smith explained that the proponent owns the adjacent, unplatted three acres as well as the three lots of the Garten View Short Plat. He is proposing to take a portion of platted Lot 3 (reducing it to about an acre in size) and add it to his adjacent unplatted property, Chairman Dennison asked why this is being done? Jerry Smith reported that the ap- plicant wants to increase the size of Tax 12, where his residence is located (the unplatted property). This would leave Lot 3 about the same size and shape as Lots 1 and 2 of the Garten View Short Plat. Chairman Dennison asked when Tax 12 could be re-subdivided if this change is made? Jerry Smith reported that this action wouldn't increase the number of lots. The new Tax 12 could be subdivided immediately. Robert Garten stated that re-platting Tax 12 would be hard because there is only a 15 foot access easement to the property, off Stark Road. There is no access to Highway 104 because it is a limited access highway. He added that he wants to do this to provide extra room on the property where his residence is located. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed plat amendment, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the plat amendment with the condition as recom- mended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, Certificate of Compliance: Conversion of an Existina Residence into a Six (6) Bedroom Bed and Breakfast: Gardiner Beach Road. Gardiner: William and Patricia Goldfoos Applicants: Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this project at their June meeting. The project is to convert an existing residence on Gardiner Beach Road to a bed and breakfast establishment. The Planning Commission reviewed the request with three criteria in mind: 1) The use does not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare, or generate unacceptable impacts beyond the property boundaries, 2) The activity will not be developed or located in a man- ner that will cause significant adverse impacts to the designated use of the surrounding properties, and 3) that the use is not contrary to the overall goals and objectives of the County Comprehensive Plan or the Gardiner Community Development Plan, The Planning Commission concluded and adopted findings that addressed these criteria. They noted that the proposed additional traffic is not considered unacceptable and there would be no further substantial adverse impact from the traffic. They concluded that the bed and breakfast would comply with the overall goals. and objectives of the County Comprehensive Plan and the Home Business policies of the Gardiner Community Develop- ment Plan. The proposal was determined to be marginal as far as policy 19 of the Gardiner Community Plan, which states that any use that caters to a seasonal or transient visitor should locate within the commercially designation areas. 'VL1l 1 Î r~f:; Oø~ ~."~'J'" \-~ ~-- )¡;) Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 7 The proposal, according to the Planning Commission complies with the intent of the three criteria. The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve the Certificate of Compliance for the bed and breakfast subject to a total of 12 conditions of approval. Jerry Smith reviewed the suggested conditions of approval. In response to questions from Chairman Dennison regarding the Home Business policies, Jerry Smith explained: Home Business policv #3: This policy has to do with the height and dimensions of the structure to be used for a home business which should be compatible with the charac- ter of the surrounding area, He reported that the staff concluded that this structure, because of its height and architectural style, doesn't appear to fit in with what is in the surrounding area. Home Business policv #9: This policy addresses the size and character of the signs used for a home business. They should be in keeping with and not detract from the residential character of the neighborhood and should not be illuminated, The proposed sign for this bed and breakfast was a 4 foot by 4 foot (16 square feet in area) sign. The staff feels this is out of character with the Development Code standard which is that no sign be larger than 8 square feet. Chairman Dennison asked if the Planning Commission or staff addressed this proposals apparent conflict with policy #19 of the Gardiner Community Development Plan? Jerry Smith reported that this was discussed at length by the Planning Commission. The staff recommended that this bed and breakfast be limited to three bedrooms, in response to that policy. The Planning Commission addressed this policy by recommending that this proposal be a bed and breakfast enterprise, rather than a commercial enterprise. The Gardiner Community Development Plan has 12 policies regarding Home Businesses, but it makes no specific reference to bed and breakfast establishments. The Planning Commission, Jerry Smith reported, relied on the three criteria from the Development Code (Section 6.520 Home Businesses). Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't see how the Planning Commission addressed Criteria #C, which refers to the Gardiner Community Development Plan? Jerry Smith reported that they looked at the project to see if it was contrary to the uoverallu goals of the Gardiner Community' Plan. The discussion continued regarding the Planning Commission recommendation, the Planning staff conclusions and how the project meets the provisions of the County Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and the Gardiner Community Development Plan. Jerry Smith reiterated that the Gardiner Community Development Plan doesn't specifically state "bed and breakfast" policies. Mark Huth reiterated that in the Development Code bed and breakfast establishments are included as home businesses, while they are not in the Gardiner Community Development Plan. Chairman Dennison stated he feels that the Gardiner Community Development Plan treats bed and breakfast establishments separately in the commercial section of the plan. Mark Huth explained that if the intent of the Community Plan had been clear the project would not have been referred to the Planning Commission. Mark Huth added that the Community Plan is a policy document, while the Development Code is a regulatory document. This means that the Community Plan defines how the community would like to see things done, while the Development Code defines how things will be done. If there is a conflict between the two, the Development Code controls. Chairman Dennison asked about the Comprehensive Plan requirements as they relate to the Community Development Plan, and which would take precedence? Mark Huth explained that the Community Plans are a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed, after discussion, that Community Plans take precedence over Comprehensive Plan provisions, but the Development Code implements both. The Development Code allows bed and breakfast establishments to be a home business, while the Gardiner Community Development Plan appears to place this type of transient accommodations in commercial areas, The Planning Commission looked at the affect of the bed and breakfast establishment on the surrounding area and found that it would have an effect but could not determine that it would be adverse. Chairman Dennison asked if they reviewed the traffic impacts? Jerry Smith reported that the Public Works Department provided information on the traffic VOL 17 f ~c: 08~' ,~·ò\-:,""') (i'> J<..J J.~. ..;¡¡ · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 8 impacts. Commissioner Brown asked about the staff recommendation to go from 6 to 3 bedrooms? Jerry Smith reported· this recommendation was made to reduce the possible adverse impacts. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels that it doesn't matter if the number of bedrooms is one or the maximum, the project doesn't meet the Community Plan Policy #19. Mark Huth asked if any written testimony had been submitted to the Board and if the Board had copies of the letters that were submitted to the Planning Commission? Jerry Smith reported that the testimony (written and oral) given to the Planning Commission was summarized for the Board in the staff report. The Clerk reported that letters were also received by the Board from Jim and Trish Warner, Dennis and Diane Martin and William and Florence Movius. Chairman Dennison asked about the Assessor's comments regarding the subdivision of the property where. the Castle is located. Jerry Smith reported that the Castle and adjoining barn are located on a six acre parcel which is made up of portions of two existing acreage tracts. An application may be made for a boundary line adjustment, Mark Huth stated if the land can not be divided to make the sale of the property then having this permit will not mean anything. It would be better to know if the land can be divided to allow the sale before the permit is acted upon. Chairman Dennison stated that he has serious questions about whether this project can meet the criteria set out by the Planning Department. Commissioner Brown added that he needs to understand some of the questions that have come up on this project before he is ready to take action on it. Mark Huth reminded the Board that if they are going to do something other than what the Planning Commission recommends then they must develop their own findings. Commissioner Brown moved to table action on this request until 2:00 p.m. on July 1, 1991. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion in the absence of Commissioner Wojt. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Jerry Smith reported that the transcript of the Planning Commission public hearing on this matter will be provided to the Board. The Board recessed their regular meeting to attend a monthly regional (County/City) growth management meeting in the Public Works Conference Room. The meeting was reconvened with all members present at the Gardiner Community Center at 7:00 p.m, HEARING re: Certificate of Compliance and Conditional Use for the Con- version of an Existlna Barn as a Bicycle Hostel: Located adlacent to Gardiner Beach Road in Gardiner: William and Patricia Goldfoos. Applicants: Chairman Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time and apologized to those present because it was discovered that the proper legal notice was not published for this hearing. He explained that the public hearing could not proceed at this time and must be re-scheduled. The first date that the hearing could be held, with proper legal notice, is July 1, 1991, but the Community Center is not available on that date. Commissioner Brown moved to set the hearing for July 1, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers at the Courthouse. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. After discussion of the best time and place to hold this hearing and if the deliberations on the other Goldfoos project could be held at the same time, Mr. Goldfoos said that July 17 would be a better date for him. Commis- sioner Brown moved to rescind his previous motion. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, Commissioner Brown moved to set the public hearing on the Bicycle Hostel project for July 17, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Gardiner Community Center. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion Which carried by a unanimous vote. ; VGl - 1 7 r~r)~ 00 - {""ory .....;;:y '" .~ . , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 17, 1991 Page: 9 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Hearing Notice: Adoption of Six Year Transportation Plan; Set for July 1, at 10:45 a.m. 2. Call for Bids: Pavement Markings 1991; Approve and Set Bid Opening for July 1, 1991 at 10:30 a.m. 3. Approval of a Fireworks Stand Permit; 4581 Rhody Drive; Chimacum Band Boosters 4. Appointment to the Stormwater Management Advisory Board; Richard Rothrock Deferrina the Effective Date of the Jefferson County Hearlna examiner Ordinance No. 1-0318-91: Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 64-91 deferring the effective date of the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Ordinance to August 5, 1991. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Adoption of An Omnibus Ordinance Amendina the Jefferson County Development Code. the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. the Jefferson County Camper Club Ordinance. and the Jefferson County Road Vacation Or- dinance. in Order to Conform with the Jefferson County Hearina Examiner Or- dinance: Commissioner Brown moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 04-0617-91 adopting the Jefferson County Omnibus Ordinance. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Fireworks Stand Permit; For Nesses Corner Road and Irondale Road in Hadlock: Eauitese Pony Club: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Fireworks Stand Permit as submitted for the Equitese Pony Club. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .-4f.>iiL ..... ~ 'fI'þ--? ~ "-î" r ~-""";;,_ >~.. . hI·'· \~. ~.. . . : \'! '·~~~·~~i· #.:.~ '~tL -~.. ......'.;# ....- ( .. ø/J ~ C "-i'. A. .. " .. /J " ". \~:-:--~,. . ..... if -/ - ~.~9 S Il~ ·c) '* ~ //",: -""...... "...-""- "'-:;' ~ ~.-~ ..~~ .......~ ~ Larry W. ~ B. G. Brown, Member ATTEST: [orna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board !Vûl Þ- ·..,0;<"') 17 L r-<,-¡" .\ , ';'c.. '-'" ta.r~;:- fl':! - r ~.. v.....