Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051490 ~ ...... ./ .... :.:.:.:.;.;.;.;...:-:.; ..... .:::::~:~{:::::::::::: ',,:.:.' . .' " ............. ... .............,........ .............,...... .XRUTBS WEEK OF KAY 14, 1990 Chairman George Brown called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Larry W. Dennison. APPROVAL OF M:INUTES: The Minutes of April 9, 1990 were approved by motion of Commissioners B.G. Brown seconded by Commissioner Dennison. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. patricia Warren Museum Director Jefferson county Historical Society: Xntroduction: Patricia Warren introduced herself as the new Director of the Historical Society's Museum, and invited the Board to visit the museum. She added that she is interested in any ideas they may have for new exhibits at the museum. The Museum is going to make a concerted effort to broaden their activities to cover the whole County. Discussion of Petition from UDDer Hoh Residents to Close the Open Ranae in that Area: commissioner B. G. Brown moved to set the hearing for public comment on the petition to close open range in a portion of the Upper Hoh area for June 19, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. at whatever accommodation can be found in that area. commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. -.C".... PUBL:IC WORKS Patricia Zerqman reI ADQlication to open Right-of-way: 14 Foot Alley Chalmer's Second Addition: scott and patricia Zergman: County Engineer, Bob Nesbitt, reported that there is a 14 foot wide platted alley in the Chalmer's Second Addition Plat which Scott and Patricia Zergman are applying to open for access to their property.The only legal access to their lot is through this alley. The Public Works Department has reviewed the application and recommends that the right-of-way be opened for a private driveway on the condition that it be flagged before any construction is done. The Fire District will have to approve this access also. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the request to open the right-of-way as recommended if it is approved by the Fire District #1 Fire Chief. commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 16 fAG€ 00 \'"', , ¡}i_ 309 :~ -:':' ··¡··.···.dä~i;:;.:·:_ å~ "J¡i: ,':'j-at " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 2 Establishina a Name for a Private Roads: Fern Road. OspreY Way. Foxglove Lane: Toandos Peninsula: Administrative Secretary, Eileen Simon, reported that the roads being named are located on the Toandos Peninsula. There are similar names, Fern Way (in chimacum) and Osprey Ridge Road (in Port Ludlow), but it is felt that since they are located in a different fire and postal district, they will not be a problem. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that the problem with names that are similar is when an emergency is reported to 911. If someone reported the wrong Fire District on an emergency call there could be confusion. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to table action on this request until the applicants are contacted and asked to suggest other names for Fern Road and Osprey Way. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Establishing a Name for ,a Private Road: SouthDort Lane: East Discovery Bay Area: CommissionerB. G. Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 49-90 establishing the private road name of Southport Lane since there are no other roads in the County with the same or similar names. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT: Su~plement #2 Extension of Time and Contract cost Revision: CR0816. CR0817. and CR0825: David Evans and Associates: Aubrey Palmer, Technician IV for the Public Works Department, reported that there has been an increase in cost of the title work covered by this agreement and a decrease in the budgeted work, as well as an extension of the time for the agreement. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve Supplement #2 to the Agreement with David Evans and Associates as presented. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT: Public Works Trust Fund Loan for Beaver Valley Road CR0517 and CR0811: Washinaton state Department of Community Development: Bob Nesbitt reported that this agreement is for the Public Works Trust Fund loan for the Beaver Valley Road Project CR0517. After discussion of the loan, Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the agreement with the State Department of community Development for the Public Works Trust Fund loan. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. signature Authorization for Public Works Trust Fund Loan: commissioner B.G. Brown moved to have the Chairman sign the signature authorization for the Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bid Award for Pavement Markinas MT0895: Bob Nesbitt reported that the recommendation is to award the contract for pavement markings to stripe Rite, Inc. for their bid amount of $89,151.69. commissioner Dennison moved to award the bid for pavement markings to Strip Rite, Inc. of Auburn and to authorize the Chairman to sign the contract upon presentation. commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Reimbursable Work Agreement: Work on city streets: city of Port Townsend: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the reimbursable work agreement for work on Van Ness and Gaines Streets for a total of $14,749.37, with the city of Port Townsend. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VOL 16 rAG£ 00 307 II commissioners' M~eting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 3 ADDlication to ODen Riqht-of-Way: SDruce street Irvina Park Addition: Larry Garo. Applicant: Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, reported that the recommendation is to approve this application to open right~of~way for a private driveway with the condition that the right- of-way be surveyed and staked by a licensed surveyor. Commissioner B. G. Brown asked why the driveway wasn't required to be placed in the center of the right-of-way? Gary Rowe advised that after the right- of-way is staked for the survey, the applicant will be advised to build the road in the center of the right-of-way. commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve this permit as conditioned including a condition that the road be built in the center of the right- of-way. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Bid openina: LandscaDingat the Port Townsend community Center: Frank Gifford, Architectural projects Coordinator, opened and read the bid received for the landscaping of the Port Townsend Community Center project: BIDDERS: BID TOTALS: Greg Mitchell Landscaping, Port Townsend Engineers Estimate $52,572.04 38,646.00 Since the bid received is more than 10% over the Engineer's Estimate, Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to rej ect the bid. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Bid Award re: Courthouse Renovation Phase III: District court courtroom and Second Floor Restrooms: Frank Gifford reported that after reviewing the bids received for the renovation of the second floor of the Courthouse, the recommendation is to accept the bid of Melco, Inc. of Sequim for their low bid of $122,769.28. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to award ,the bid for the District Court Courtroom renovation as recommended. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Call for Bids: Port Townsend community center pavina: The bid call for the paving work at the Port Townsend Communi ty Center was approved for May 29, 1990 at 11: 00 a.m. by motion of Commissioner Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HUMAN SERVICES Ella sandviq. Human Services Administrator reI Procedures for Sianina contracts: Ella Sandvig asked if the she can sign contracts between the Human Services Department and other County Departments? The Board advised that only the Commissioners can obligate the county by signing contracts. PLANNING AND BUILDING Hearing reI Petition to Vacate Lot Line: Lots 18 & 19 Port Ludlow Division 3: William & Mina Cash: Eight interested area residents and William Cash were present when Associate Planner, Jerry smith, reviewed the findings on this request to vacate lot lines in Port Ludlow Division 3. Mr. Cash is requesting to vacate the lot line between two adjacent lots that he owns. Each lot is approximate 15,000 square feet in size. There is a home built on Lot 18. ' VOL 16 308 f'Atr· :~-:r:-,;";,,,;;tj< Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 4 Jerry smi th continued by' noting that there is a requirement in the R.C.W. that states that in the case of a Plat with restrictive covenants, all of the property owners subject to these covenants must agree to any change in those covenants, which this request would require, and proof of the property owners agreement must accompany the petition to vacate. The Port Ludlow Maintenance Commission has responded that this request would be essentially a re-plat of these lots and according to the restrictive còvenants this cannot be done. Jerry smith added that in checking with the prosecuting Attorney about this situation, he feels that this petition should be returned to the applicants so that all of requirements of the R.C.W. can be met. William Cash stated that he will gladly continue to pay the double lot assessment. A vacant lot will not be considered, in his application to get an equity loan on his home, which he needs, and if the lot line is vacated, he would then be eligible for this ho~e equity loan. Mr. Cash stated that he understands that if this lot line is vacated that he can not build a separate residence on that lot. He can however petition the Port Ludlow Maintenance Commission to build another structure on this portion of his land. Chairman George Brown then opened' the public hearing and asked for comment for or against this request. Elizabeth Zahn: Elizabeth Zahn stated that she is opposed to replatting the lots at Port Ludlow. Bill Wilke: Bill Wilke stated that he supports the position of the Port Ludlow Maintenance commission, which is opposed to this request. In response to a question from Commissioner Dennison, Mr. Wilke responded that he feels the Commission would lose control over the building that could be done on this lot if the lot line is vacated. William Cash stated that he read the regulations and feels that all he could build on the combined lot would be a structure attached to his house (a garage), which is all he intends to do. Mrs. Zahn added that she feels granting this request would set a precedent for future requests. Mr. Wilke added that if this request is allowed a person could combine two or three lots, which is what the original covenants were designed to control. commissioner B. G. Brown stated that in most instances covenants are met to keep people from subdividing a lot into smaller lots. This request is the opposite of that. If this request is approved, Mr. Cash will have one lot and will only be allowed to build one residence on that lot. Commissioner Dennison reiterated that this request, if granted, would mean one less lot, which would mean one less sewer and water tap, and one less house which would actually provide more control. Mrs. Zahn added that the sewer and water taps are provided based on the number of lots. William Cash stated that he doesn't want to sell that resulting larger lot, but if he did, he understands that he would have to re-plat the lot again. Bob Rickard: Mr. Rickard stated that with all of the controversy going on about growth in the county, when a property owner comes in good faith and requests to lower the density of a plat, he should be encouraged. Hearing no further comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. The question is whether this request violates the covenants of the Port Ludlow Plat because it is a replat. Replatting means taking a piece of property and breaking it down smaller. Commissioner Dennison moved to table action on this request until the county's legal counsel can be consul ted on whether this request is in violation of the covenants. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. \/01. i £) fAi;~ <00 3 (.~ ¡r"1 ". IJ .,Jf commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 5 Hearinq reI Petition to Vacate Plat VP03-90: All Lot Lines in seeley's Addition to Fowler's Park: Robert L. Jacaueline Rickard: Jerry smith reported that this plat was done in the 1890's. A survey was prepared within the last four years which indicates that the plat ends on the bluff above the water and not at the water line of the straits of Juan de Fuca as indicated on the plat map. The objective of this plat vacation, Jerry smith continued, is to lower the densi ty of the area by eliminating the small platted lots and converting it into five acre tracts. The request is not to vacate the platted streets, however, since some of them go to the water and cannot be vac~ted according to R.C.W. Jerry Smith then reviewed the findings on this petition. R.C.W. requires that all property owners in this plat agree to the vacation and affidavits from the property owners stating that they agree with it have been submitted. Chairman George Brown then opened the public hearing and asked for comments for or against the request. Jerry Probot: Mr. Probot stated that he owns the property adjacent to the southwest corner of this proposed vacation. He asked what the access will be for this property and how the sewer and water will be provided? Robert Rickard answered that he purchased this property that has approximately 1,800 feet of waterfront. Portions of the property are located in the city and the County. He added that he could not afford to keep all of this property and decided to divide it into four lots. A six inch water main, electricity and cable television lines were run to each parcel. There isa conventional septic system for each parcel and the effluent is pumped to a drain field on a separate site. The streets that are not being vacated are actually off the bluff in the water. The Chairman closed the public hearing. commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the vacation of the lot lines in Seeley's Addition to Fowler Park as petitioned. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Current Use Tax Assessment C4-90: Classification of 15.2 Acres As Timberland Open SDace: West of Paradise view Estates Plat. Port Ludlow: Alan and Bonnie Fure: Jerry Smith reviewed this request for classification of 15.2 acres as timberland open space, submitted by Alan and Bonnie Fure. This property is currently timbered and a Forest Management Plan has been developed for it. The property was part of a larger piece which was designated timberland before it was divided. It must' now be classified as timberland open space to keep the same taxation rate. The Planning Commission recommendation, Jerry Smith reported, is to transfer this property into the timberland open space designation with the condition that a Forest Management Plan be done every four years. Wayne Wilson who Ii ves just north of this property, explained his concern that the Forest Management Plan calls for clear cutting the property and re-planting it with Douglas Fir seedlings. He asked if there is any follow-up to assure that these requirements are met? He also asked that if the property is clear cut, what would be done about the stormwater runoff from the site. He stated that the would like to see these issues addressed. Jerry smith reported that the Forest Management Plan does not address the issue of stormwater runoff, but the Forest Practices cutting permit, which would be required, does address them. Wayne Wilson stated that he is concerned that th~re be something up front to address concerns about stormwater runoff, because if the property is logged, it would be done before the adjacent property owners would have a chance to work with the logging company on these concerns. Commissioner Dennison stated that it is the responsibility of, the 3~n J_~ ~.J! VOL 16 fAIl " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 6 property owner, not the logging company, to see that the conditions of the Forest Practices cutting permit are met. Wayne wilson noted that he is not opposed to the re-classification of this property. commissioner Dennison moved to table this matter until a legal opinion is provided about placing a condition on the forest management plan to require, that a stormwater plan be done when the property is clear cut. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. current Use Tax Assessment Cl-90: classification Of 5.5 Acres As Timberland ODen SDace: OuimDer Peninsula Western Side of MiddleDoint Road: John and Leah Stalina: Jerry smith reviewed this application to classify 5.5 acres as timberland open space. A Forest Management Plan has been done on this property. The Planning commission reviewed the request and recommends that the classification be approved with the condition that a schedule for the management activities be followed. Jerry smith then read the schedule for the management activities. Julie Jaman stated that the people that live in that neighborhood are concerned about the urban growth that is headed that way and that this type of protection would be a favorable proposal for that area. commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the open space application as recommended by the Planning Commission. commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING reI pro~osed Interim provisions Amendinq ordinance 1-75 the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance: More than 38 interested area residents were present when Planning and Building Department Director, David Goldsmith, explained that this hearing is to take public testimony regarding proposed interim guidelines to provide standards for ,creation of 5 to 20 acre subdivisions under the County's Subdivision Ordinance. The interim prOV1S10ns were published in the May 2 and 9, 1990 issues of the Port Townsend Leader and they detail a process for large lot subdivisions. This large lot subdivision process is to deal with parcels in excess of five acres and less than 20 acres in size. It would require a review and approval process and standards including: that roads be developed to County standards; establishment of road maintenance agreements; drainage detention; each parcel would meet the Health Department standards for on-site septic disposal; environmental review would be required on any parcel that contained art identified environmentally sensitive area; and each parcel would be surveyed. The burden for these requirements would be placed on the developer. There is a requirement that lots created through the large lot subdivision may not be re-subdivided as a short plat for five (5) years. They may be re-subdivided under the long subdivision regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance, however. The two major issues, David Goldsmith continued, are concerns about the road standards and the requirement that the sewage disposal permits be issued before the subdivision is finalized. Environmentally sensitive areas are defined in the County's Development Code and include: wetlands, slopes in excess of 15%, geologically hazardous areas, and unique bird, animal, plant community habitats. These areas are mapped and noted in that Ordinance. The maps are kept in the Planning and Building Department. There is also a concern about people who have been caught in the middle while these provisions are phased in, David Goldsmith continued. He added that some operating procedures need to be developed for handling properties during the phase in period. The Chairman then opened the hearing for public comment regarding these proposed interim provisions. Jim Olsen. Windemere Real Estate in Ouilcene: Mr. Olsen stated that some form of grandfathering needs to be addressed for five acre and above parcels that have been surveyed and recorded, and have been in the V(ì!_ 1'6 r~r;~ 0(1 3Jf:1 ".., ';..d..I. commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 7 process of selling (at least one sale). He feels that these properties should be able to continue under the rules and regulations that they were originally formed under, and should not be restricted from sale under this new ordinance. commissioner Dennison asked how the effective date to apply for a grandfathering section should be established? Mr. Olsen stated that they represent a number of people who have their life savings tied up in a 25 or 30 acre development, and the roads are all done based on the standards at the time and they were all approved and this Ordinance be saying you can't sell that unless you do all of this road work. This may be impossible for these people. David Goldsmith added that Mr. Olsen is referring to parcels where there was a survey. The only segregation which has occurred has been at the time of the sale and that may have been done over the last 15 years. What Mr. Olsen is saying is that if a is survey filed and there was a least one sale, which indicated the intention to qo along wi th the survey, that the development should be grandfathered. The date of the moratorium should be the cut off date. Assessor Jack Westerman: Jack Westerman clarified that if one parcel was in escrow on April 3, and a survey had been recorded with the county Auditor prior to April 2, then someone who has been trying to sell the other properties for the last ten years would not be subject to these new regulations. David Goldsmith replied that the applicability of these rules would be to everything past the moratorium date where there wasn't any clear intent. Skip Wood: Mr. Wood asked what the difference is if a landowner had purchased some property six months ago for development and had it surveyed and started putting in roads, and then the moratorium was imposed? Chairman Brown stated that this is one of the problems that will have to be addressed. This public hearing is to bring out the concerns with these provisions. Kay Goodhue: Kay Goodhue asked if sectíon 7.204 Envíronmental Revíew, means that this review would be completed under SEPA guidelines? David Goldsmith responded that if an environmentally sensitive area was identified in the parcel under review it would be required. Ms. Goodhue then asked who would determine that an environmentally sensitive area was included? That is determined by the Planning Department, David Goldsmith noted. He continued that when a proposal is brought forward for its' approval, it is checked out against the maps that identify environmentally sensitive areas and the Planning Department staff knowledge of the areas. The property owner or his representative is responsible for filling out the environmental checklist. Ms. Goodhue asked if the staff goes out to the site and checks it? David Goldsmith advised that the staff does not always go to the site. They check against the many resource maps available to them and the environmental determination is sent to State (Fisheries, Wildlife, etc.) and local agencies for their review. Ms. Goodhue asked if the neighborhood indicated that there was Osprey, Heron and Eagle nests on the property, would it be considered an environmentally sensitive area? The environmentally sensitive areas are defined on maps, David Goldsmith reported, he added that many times the Department of Wildlife is consulted regarding endangered species and wildlife habitat. Kay Goodhue added that you can't protect the species wi thout protecting the habitat for the species. In the course of development review, if an environmentally sensitive area is found (like a Heron-rookery), mitigation will be proposed to deal with it, David Goldsmith added. Would there be such a thing as having neighborhood residents review the checklist to see that it was filled out properly, Ms. Goodhue asked? David Goldsmith responded that there is a time' frame for review of an environmental checklist and the best way to make sure that sensitive habitats are protected is to make sure that they are mapped and documented and these documents are submitted to the Planning Department. Ms. Goodhue asked that Admiralty Audubon be listed on the list of agencies to review these environmental determinations. Vo.l. ',- 16 rAr.~ on 3""~ t;;) t _.',kS commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 8 David Goldsmith added that Sectíon 7.204 Envíronmental Revíew says that subdivisions that include a sensitive area will have an environmental review and a threshold determination and in these instances the environmental clearance shall be completed and so indicated on the certification checklist. It was suggested that sectíon 7.501 Subdívisíon Checklíst be changed to state (last sentence first paragraph) "Planníng and Buíldíng Department for envíronmental revíew, m~r~:~.I, when required (then refer back to section 7.204) complíance wí th....th'Úi section. . . " Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman stated that under sectíon 7.20 Admínístratíon there is no reference to an item that came up at the round table which was a way of having public notice other than in the newspaper. She proposed that a public Qotice sign which is quite visible (3 feet by 3 feet, or 9 square feet), be required, so that people could see it from the roadway for a change in land use. One suggestion for determining the size of such a sign was to have the developer determine the size of the sign, by making the sign the same size as the signs that would be used to advertise the property for sale. There is no place in sectíon 7.202 Revíew Procedure for public challenge of the administrative review and this should be included somewhere, Julie Jaman continued. There should be some assurance that the public has a procedure to challenge the approval that is given by the Planning Department. Julie Jaman continued by noting that in the section on roads (Section 7.302), there is a lot of technical information. In reference to the Parks survey, walking is the number one recreation in the County. The whole roads reference in this proposal is auto oriented. We need to project for the needs of pedestrian traffic, and the pollution problems caused by development. Safety for walking, riding bikes and horses, etc. is not addressed in this County or in the proposal. Julie Jaman suggested that a 100 foot easement be required for these needs. sectíon 7.305 Unsuítable Land this section, Julie Jaman added, should be titled something else, possibly sensitive land. These lands are not unsuitable. Wetlands and water retention areas such as bogs, etc. should be addressed. The section that says recreation area should be changed to passive recreation. It would serve no purpose to have motor bikes, etc. zooming through sensitive areas, but walking or bird watching might be tolerable. Julie Jaman continued by asking how Environmentally Sensitive Areas (buffers) are protected from the owner? David Goldsmith responded that they are protected the same way any property area is protected from anyone. There was a great deal of discussion (at the Subdivision Round Table) about timbered resources and conversion of timbered land. This land is being clear cut and then developed. How to keep the character of the rural area by keeping buffers and interior wooded corridors when properties are going to be converted was also discussed. This issue should have more attention in these provisions. Trees serve as noise buffers, they help to clear the air, and it is important to protect this in the subdivision process. These trees should not all be mowed down. Paul Kav: Paul Kay stated that he purchased 64 acres in Quilcene about 20 years ago that he's always planned to develop. As he's developed this property he has met the stream setback requirement and the drainage requirements of this proposed ordinance. Mr. Kay added that he purchased an all weather easement (road) because there was a logging road beside his property that was rocked and graveled. It runs right along the top of all his property. He put power in during 1988 and hired a surveyor in January (1990) and was proceeding to layout the provisional five acre tracts. Mr. Kay noted that he got caught, .like some others, in this process. His concern is the all weather road. It has a surface of about 11 to 12 feet and a space of about 18 feet (not counting a ditch). Under these rules that road would have to be widened further. He stated he would not have bought an all weather road, if he'd known this was going to be done. The width of that road is sufficient for the current traffic and possibly all the future traffic. He would have to widen the road to 24 feet of paved/gravel surface to connect to a 12 foot road "VOt 16 ur;r ~ 3'\3 .: It :_i, commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ~ay 14, 1990 I Page: 9 i (East Quilcene Road) County Ro d that bas been there many rears and performed very well. Mr. Kay added thþt he has been put 1n a more difficult problem than the c0'llnty is in and he's gone through the process that he thought was proper. We sþould have an all weather road requirement rather than a 24 fOlt wide rrad requirement. Paul Kay further stated that wi th r~gard to the sewage disposal requirement, he doesn't know ho to do that. He can get an approval but what if the person who purchase the fi~e acre tract doesn't choose to build where the testing and app~oval is ~iven? I Gene Seton: Gene Seton asked i a 24 f09t wide travel surface or a 24 foot wide road, ditch to dit h is being required? Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, explained hat road~ay width is the distance from ditch to ditch. Mr. Seton sked if ¡that means a 24 foot running surface? Gary Rowe stated th t it is 124 feet wide, ditch to ditch. So, you are requiring a road tha is better than what many of the County roads are currently, Gene Seton qUestio1ed? I Commissioner B. G. Brown asked if Mr. sèton has a suggestion for what is reasonable? Gene Seton ans ered th~t a variety of road standards should be defined depending on the dens i ty . A main road needs to be wide, but a road to feed two 0 three qouses doesn't have to be that wide. A 20 foot running surfac for a feeder road and a 24 foot surface for the main road was suggested. We need different standards for roads .. . I w1th d1fferent traff1c volumes. : ¡ Commissioner Dennison added tha~the courtty has to be careful with large lot subdivisions, especially si ce it i~ likely that the parcels could someday be divided further, i I creasing! the density of the area and requiring the County to come in 5 to 110 years later and improve the roads at that time. ! I I I commissioner B. G. Brown then sked if lit is best to build a 20 foot road or a 24 foot road, up fro t, if yoµ think you're going to need a 24 foot road ten years from no? Gene!Seton stated that he feels it would be best to do it up front. ! I I Jack Westerman asked that in an rea thatl will not be subdivided further in the future, if there is a w y, on t~e face of the survey, to note that a 20 foot wide road would e allow~d? The round table group was trying to address just five a re or greater parcels, forever. Jack Westerman stated that he feel the co~cern was regarding the county having to go in to change the r ad from ¡20 feet to 24 feet wide if the property is short or long platt d later.: Chairman George Brown stated that he doesn't feel a restriction shou~d be placed on a piece of land that only 20 acres can be sold a d it can:' t be subdivided further in the future. : : Gene Seton: Gene Seton stated t at a cov~nant can be placed on property that a parcel cannot be broke down aqy further. Commissioner B. G. Brown asked, again, how the cou1ty can dtstinguish in these guidelines, what triggers that a road can ~e planne~ as a 20 foot road instead of a 24 foot road, or whatever widtJh makes s!ense to serve the parcels being divided? Gene Seton responded hat thislwould have to be determined on each subdivision at the time of he surv~y. This Ordinance should leave some leeway in road sizes. . I I cliff Larrance: Mr. Larrance st ted that! he is in the rock crushing and construction business. The wh Ie coyl~ Peninsula is served by an 18 foot wide road with nine foot raffic lanes. If road lanes are built 24 feet wide no one will drive n them. !They drive down the center and unless they are graded continu lly the ~rass grows in within the first year and within two years the 've got I Alder trees growing on them. There's no reason to build a r ad that is not going to be used. There is no reason to take that land ay from growing trees. Roads that wide look like an airstrip when the are fin~shed. Most crushed rock roads are 15 to 20 mph roads. Mr. L rrance s~ated that he is concerned that prices don't get so high that the youpg people of the county can't afford to buy a five acre tract He feels that a 21 foot surface, with three feet of ditch on each si e and 181 feet of paved or crushed rock would work well. ! : VOt I 16 ,00.1- . . . ,., f'AGf 3~4 commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ~ay 14, 1990 Page: 10 Scott Walker: Mr. Walker stated that the city has a requirement that neighbors in a subdivision will agree not to contest an LID formation . . I . 1f, 1n the future, the road needs to be W1dened. i I Harold steinke: Harold steinke stated t~at he lives on Thorndyke Road and has been a Jefferson county citizen since 1952. In the last 23 years he has sold a total of 39 five acr¢ parcels. He has four parcels left that are not included in the mor~torium. He feels the County shouldn't make any bigger changes in tbe five acres parcels than is necessary. If people are required to p*t these big roads in the cost of developing and selling will increase to twice the price. Many people don't want to live in a Port Ludlow type ~evelopment where there is high density. : I I On the environmental issues, Mr. steink~ stated that he is really sort of an environmentalist who loves nature I and Jefferson County. If the soil is right and clear cutting is doné carefully there will not be erosion. Even when the land is cleared and not replanted there is a lot of lush growth on it in ten years. Oniall of the five acre parcels people buy, 95% of the ,land ends up not! being used. This kind of land has more animals and birds than the old !growth woods do. I .. i.. Mr. Ste1nke recommended that the County Igo back 1nto the s1te approval process (for on-site septic systems).! To get final septic system approval a decision has to be made on w~ere the house is to be placed. Mr. steinke asked who will do this? He! added this is kind of a catch 22. The County road specification is going to make it impossible to take 10 or 20 acres and divide it up w~th a comparatively reasonable cost to future purchasers. Mr. stei*e suggested that the date a legitimate survey was recorded, be used,! and let the people sell their property. I I I Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that tne soil evaluations were not a guarantee and when they were used some people indicated that they were, and that is why the County stopped doin~ them. i David Cunninqham. Pope Resources: David Cunningham stated that a couple of months ago 25 people with very different points of view were invited to a Subdivision Round Table. That grouR didn't think it had the final word on what the subdivision changes in!Jefferson County were going to look like, but since then there really hasn't been another public forum to discuss substantive changes to the su~division regulations. In lieu of any other public input some of the ¡guidance from the Subdivision Round Table still makes pretty good sen~e. I The Round Table spent a lot of time on ~he matter of five acre tracts. Five acre tracts encourage sprawl, beca~se that's what the regulations make fairly easy to put on the market. !Another problem with five acre tracts is when they are re-subdivided iþto one or two acre parcels, a whole host of problems arise. Suddenly I roads and water systems aren't adequate, there is no survey, etc. ! The round table spent a lot of time o~ the very issue of large lot subdivisions. The group wanted to crea~e some incentives (for smaller rural tracts - one to two acres) and som~ dis-incentives (for five acre parcels). This proposed ordinance is a fairly strong dis-incentive for five acre parcels, but there isn't any incentive for the one to two acre pieces. ' I David Cunningham suggested that in the next 45 days the Planning Department staff be directed to develop þome interim regulations to try to encourage the development of smalle~ parcels (one and two acres). Generally speaking, Pope Resources dqesn 't obj ect to most of the standards that are proposed. . i I There are some problems in the proposal as it is, such as a proposition to repeal section 3.409 which is density !clustering. Density Clustering is one of the best tools the County has to accommodate growth and maintain open space insensitive areas at the same time. It was a that 20 adequate I consensus of the participants ¡in the, feet of surface with crushed! rock, for the five to twenty acre parcels. I I Subdivision Round Table all weather roads was VO( 1 315 commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ray 14, 1990 I The proposed interim regulations sectíoni 7.403 seem to say that you are going to have to have stormwater retentión ponds and stormwater systems to manage volumes of stormwater on five! to twenty acre parcels, David Cunningham continued. Water volumes and ~unoff are not the problem with five to twenty acre parcels. We should direct the drainage requirements to guard against soil erosion. He state~ that he doesn't feel there is an emergency that requires these inteJtim regulations, in the first place, but since it's here he encourag~d the Board to take action on it, make the modifications that have i been suggested and lift the moratorium so that the Planning commissi9n can get on with adopting the real regulations. . i I David GOldsmith noted that the Density ~rovision wasn't dropped, it is in Section 7.306. ! David Cunningham continued, stating that the notion of trying to put a lid on five acre parcels was to slow do~ the consumption of the rural land base in the county. He suggested ~hat the County make it tougher to make five acre tracts, but on the oth~r hand make it a little easier to do one, two or maybe three acre parcals. I , Page: 11 Paul Kav: Mr. Kay asked if the major penalty in this process is water? David Cunningham responded that he feel~ the major penalties are paved roads, storm systems and water systems. ! Deputy prosecutina Attorney. Mark Huth:¡ Mark Huth asked that someone from Public Works discuss the road stan9ards. ¡ Garv Rowe: Gary Rowe reported that the Ordinance requires that the roads meet the standards of the Public Works Department. These standards apply to roads whether they are public or pri~ate. Because there has been a five acre exemption, there was no prbcess to follow and no road standards that applied. The roadway width is from shoulder to shoulder (including the shoulders). The standards are set up so that as the needs for bicycle and pedestrian pathwa~s increase the shoulder widths increase to accommodate that need. If a separate bike and pedestrian pathway is constructed away from the ro~d then the shoulder width can be reduced. The surface type is genera~ly determined by the estimated amount of traffic on the road. The unifdrm fire code requires a twenty foot cleared roadway for access to a lbt in excess of 150 feet from another developed road. , I I Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman reiterated that if bicycle paths and walking paths were provided off the roadway, thht the width of the road could be negotiated to a narrower width. Gary! Rowe reported that is correct. Julie Jaman then asked who sets the standard? Gary Rowe answered that there are local agency guidelines for th~ design of roads throughout the state. There is the American Assoqiation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1984) standa~ds and additionally the State sets standards for arterial roads (higher volume roads). I Earl Burqett: Earl Burgett asked if therb will be a process for appeal. Gary Rowe responded that there is a standard variance procedure in the Subdivision Ordinance which includes cri~eria that each variance request is measured against. The road design st~ndards are not in the body of the Subdivision Ordinance, but they have Ibeen published with the interim . . ! prov~s~ons. I I Tom Beavers: Tom Beavers stated that he ~ade an offer to buy a piece of property in January when the rules app~ied. He made a commitment to develop the property in a way that is attractive and similar to the properties around it which are five acré parcels. He reported that he served on the Round Table and they cameiup with the suggestion of a 20 foot all weather road which is what he had constructed on the property. He also recorded the survey. Then the mqratorium was passed. The price to develop the property has just about t~ipled since this moratorium was insti tuted. The people in the neighborhqod are very concerned about the development and the appearances of it. ¡ He told them he would try to make these roads look like what they've got, which was about an 18 foot road with rock on it. People say the road looks like an airport runway going in and the neighbors feel it looks like overkill. He asked if over 10 parcels are developed a paved ~oad is required? Mr. Beavers ¡ :;';1~_ 16 rM/ n 316 :Ýi commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 12 ! stated that he feels he's been caught in this bind. ! Another concern, Mr. Beaver noted, is ~he double perc situation. He said "I had a guy wí th a backhoe díg perc! holes and when he was Ïíníshed he asked when I wanted hím to come back ahd díg the real ones." Because you have five acres, the person that bqys it may not want to put his house where these tests were made, so he will have another perc done and another septic permit for where he wabts to build his house. The developer has to come up with the money to put in the roads and the septic system approvals and then the purchasers says the septic approval isn't where he wants to put his buildin9 site. He stated there needs to be some sort of system where an indication is made whether the property will perc or not, but to design the whole thing is a problem. I Commissioner B. G. Brown asked if Mr. B~avers feels that the old site evaluation system wouldn't cause problems, as it did in the past, if it was re-established? Tom Beavers stated !that he knew the problems with the last site evaluation system and agr~ed that they may come back to haunt the county. He added he doesn J t know the solution to this problem. Commissioner B. G. Brown s~ated that you can have four different people look at a piece of prop~rty and they will all put their house in a different place. No good solutions have come to mind for this problem. ! I Gary Rowe added that many properties get I subdivided and initially there aren't that many houses built, which wi~l give a false reading on the amount of traffic that will be generated þy the subdivision. If the road is not built to a standard originally, t~en when the lots are developed and more houses are built on them the rqad may not be adequate. I I I Tom Beavers stated that he measured roads around the County. The Jacob Miller Road was 19 feet wide and there wasn't any shoulder to it and it seems to work well. He is beingrequiredito put in a 24 foot wide paved road. Gary Rowe responded that the County feels that the Jacob Miller Road is inadequate for the volume of truqks that use it and if the money was there it would be improved. I ! Gene Seton: Gene Seton said that possiblr what is needed is a statement on the Deed that if an LUD is needed at a! later date to improve the road that the property owner will participarte in it.. The septic permi t system has been working real good for him. They guarantee that the five acres will be suitable for on-site septic. They sell the property with that guarantee and the buyer picks wher~ they want their house and the perc holes are dug. If the property isn't suitable in that area the purchaser will have to place their hous~ where it is. If the property isn't suitable anywhere, then it is notl sold. In response to Chairman . I . . George Brown's quest~on about how they would handle property requ~r~ng a mound system, that they would pay fori the cost difference between a . I... . . normal system and a mound system, ~f that ~s the only way to get sept~c approval for the property. commissioneriDennison stated that he thinks that is what the County is trying to ÇJet at. Whether or not every developer is willing to make that kind of a guarantee is not known. Mr. Seton added that it's up to the real est~te people to put in the Earnest Money agreement that if the property is~'t suitable for on-site septic then the purchaser doesn't have to buy it. commissioner B. G. Brown asked what mecþanism the County could use to assure that the Real tors put that statement in their Earnest Money Agreements? The county can't require what people put in the Earnest Money Agreements. Gene Seton suggested that the County pass an Ordinance that the Title companies coulØ not close a sale until there is an approved septic system permit issued on the property. This would give the buyer an opportunity to pick h~s place. I , Tom Beavers: Mr. Beavers added that he a~rees with Gene (Seton) on that. There should be a requirement that befor~ a sale of property could close a septic system permit must be provided~ If this was a requirement you wouldn't have people selling properties! from old plats without septic system approval. I ! Commissioner B.G. Brown noted that he do~sn't know how legal that would be. Commissioner Dennison added that there is also a question about how legal the LUD requirement would be. \1;'" I 1 B f"r,~ ori- 3:t? commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ¡ May I I I , 14, 1990 Page: 13 Pat ThomDson. Bayview Properties. Port L~dlow: Pat Thompson stated that she is in favor of making sure that all ptoperties have a septic permit. She added that she feels it should be t~e property owners that have to prove that they have a buildable site. ¡ She suggested that possibly a disclosure to all buyers should be con~idered. The disclosure would say that there is no septic permit on this property. A buyer might want to buy the property without a septic ipermit because they may have another use for the property. The ideaithat the Realtors are selling property without septic permits is not 90rrect. It is her experience that the Realtors are the ones that are disclosing problems and the need for the septic permit. i I I Ms. Thompson concluded by noting that no!matter what is done for septic permits, the Health Department is the problem. There is not enough people power in the Health Department. ¡Commissioner B. G. Brown asked how long the turn around time for the Høalth Department services is in Jefferson County compared to neighboring! counties? A man reported that it takes seven weeks in Snohomish Couþty and three months in King County. I i Ellen Wood. ERA Realty Estate: Ellen woo~ stated that a tool to be used immediately when a person decides not t~ get a septic permit on their property would be waiver form the Real Es~ate offices use that discloses that the property may not be a buil~able site. This allows the purchaser to decide if it makes a diffe~ence to them. I I Bill Perka. Realtor in Port Townsend: Mr.: Perka said that he agrees with what people have said about the roads and the septic permits. The Commissioners ought to look at what a r~al 24 foot road is. It looks like an airstrip. A road on a 60 foot wide easement does not have to be 24 feet wide. To put a burden of thi$ type of road on an individual property owner, when that road may never¡be a public road, is overkill, Mr. Perka added. As far as a septic per~it, a waiver could be used and could be something that would go with the property. A soils evaluation done by an installer, instead of a septic! permit, would keep the expense down. Mr. Perka continued that there is a dif~erence between an easement and . . I . the actual road w1dth. A 60 foot easement is 1n effect allover the County. Requiring that a 24 foot wide r~ad be put in is not in keeping with the rural character of this area. : I I Stan Johnston: Stan Johnston stated that in Brinnon there is pretty rough terrain and 24 foot wide roads ard going to be a burden. People don't want that. On the septic issues,! he stated that the installers should have more power to give an opin~on about the suitability of a site. An opinion by an installer would IhelP a lot. Jack Westerman: Jack Westerman stated that there isn't anywhere in the Ordinance which' says that the survey! has to be recorded with the Auditor. Commissioner B. G. Brown reported that it is a State law that surveys must be recorded with the county Audi tor. David Goldsmi th responded that the provisions provide that the survey must be recorded with the County Auditor and that the subdivision has to be given a name. Jack Westerman noted that this will be Igood for the Realtors and the buyers because at that point the Assessdr's Office can segregate these subdivisions in the five acre tract books. Jack Westerman then asked who will police the septic system waiver, even if it is placed on the face of the plat? Skip Wood: Skip Wood suggested that ~aYbe in the Road Maintenance Agreement a clause could be included tha~ would provide for the widening of the road. He reported that he sold about 80 five acre parcels last year. The on-site septic permit was ap~lied for when the property was sold and the people knew they had a pe~mit on the property. It seems redundant to have the developer hire aQ engineer who is licensed and bonded and then have the county go out ~nd check their work. i Sam Boling: Mr. Boling noted that he has a couple pieces of property that are swamps that aren't suitable for on-site septic systems and asked why he should have to pay the co~nty $450 to come and tell him that? There should be some sort of exemption for people who know their ~ i 3:t8 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 i Page: 14 property isn't suitable for on-site septic system, and they want to do something else with it. In Brinnon, Mr. !Boling continued, cutting a 24 foot wide road in a hillside would be r~diculous. Cliff Larrance: Mr. Larrance stated thatihe agrees with Sam (Boling) on the road issue. There are steep slopes ip Brinnon and Discovery Bay and the County should look into accepting søme 16% grades where necessary and go back to the 18 foot road. I David cunningham: David Cunningham statèd that there were a couple of good suggestions made here that are faitly easy to implement. On the matter of a septic tank permit the regu]ation could read that you have to have a septic tank permit before you ¡process the subdivision or you provide a restrictive covenant running ~ith the land that the property won't be used for residential purposes. On the matter of road maintenance, the Ordinance can say that !the Road Maintenance Agreement will require that the roads are constrµcted to a standard that will accommodate further re-subdivision of th~ lots or it won't . Subdivision regulations are a consumer protection. I i Ed Saualis: Ed Squalis stated that he is ia newcomer to the area. He has been developing in King and Snohomish Counties for the last eight years. On Grades and slopes: the 14% requiremen~s could be relaxed if some kind of restriction is included on the build~ng permits which would require that sprinkler systems will be installed ¡in every home. The grade deals more with fire control than anything el~e. 1 I There are now wetlands issues in the st~te, Mr. Squalis continued, and the environmental impacts must be mitigated. If you have more than an I acre and a quarter of property you come! under Army Corps of Engineers review. Mr. Squalis asked how difficult the County is going to make it to do a five acre segregation? Is it gþing to be made so restrictive and costly that it doesn't pay a developßr to go through the work? If a 40 foot wide right-of-way is allowed for roads (7.302) what happens in the future when you want to re-subdivide? What is going to be done with five acre lots and what that will qo to one and two acre parcels? I . I . th F. H. Brewer. SEO Group. S1lverdale: Mr.!BreWer asked the Board 1f ey have met much resistance from property!owners since this subdivision proposal requires that the property I owners maintain the roads themselves? . i i Commissioner Dennison responded that h~ wasn't sure what Mr. Brewer meant. Mr. Brewer clarified that it is standard in most counties in the State that the County makes demands and has standards of road building because the County is going to have the road deeded as public access and it will maintain the road. He stated that! he finds it extraordinary that Jefferson county is asking the private þwners to maintain these roads through the history of mankind. . Commissioner B. G. Brown reported that! the county doesn't have any obligation to take over private roads in the future unless they are brought up to County Road standards, as established at that time. This requirement has to do with the health and safety aspect of the subdivision. Gary Rowe added that the developer requests that the roads in the subdivision be allowed to be pr~vate. This requires that the County issue a variance to allow this. I The County doesn't relax the road standards, just because the Dev~loper wants the roads to be private. The standards are set as a con~umer, fire protection. I Mr. Brewer stated that road maintenance ¡agreements are hard to enforce among property owners. David Golds~ith responded that the Road Maintenance Agreement is like a restrict~ve covenant and the County does not enforce them. The only time enforce~ent may be necessary is if the road becomes impassable and then it wQuld be for health and safety reasons. Mr. Brewer concluded that the roads as required in the Ordinance would be expensive roads to maintain. Sixty feet is not a standard right~of~way. 1 I I Gene Seton: Mr. Seton noted that in section 7.306.1 (Density SUbdivision -- Minimum Lot Size) density can't be- c)ver one house per five acres. He added that he thought the Round Table discussion was to go to a higher density. David Goldsmith stat~d that higher density is not l' B 0,1 n., 319 '}"'tf f ~r,~" , , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 15 covered in these interim provisions. It will be addressed in the re- draft of the Subdivision Ordinance. That is the next step. Jim Olsen: Jim Olsen re-emphasized the need to go to the next step to get the better density. There is a need to have a buffer between densities. The west side of Quilcene jumps from five per acre to one per five acres. There's no buffer and we're running out of good buildable land down there. Paul Kay: Mr. Kay asked that if he has to build the 24 foot wide road that feeds into the narrow County road, will the County change that road immediately? Gary Rowe answered that the County is not financially capable of making a commitment to improving any particular road immediately. Tom Beavers: Mr. Beavers stated that there is a time factor problem in developing a. property. Before any of' thj.s (the sUbdivision) can be approved the road has to be constructed. The power company can't get in for six months so you're final road can't be installed until the utilities are installed. Is there anyway the property can be sold before the final approval is given? Commissioner B.G. Brown asked what the County could require as guarantee? Gary Rowe reported that in the last few years the County has been accepting letters of credit or money put in escrow or an assigned saving account. We recognize that not every situation works for everyone and the County has been trying to work with developers on this issue. Bob Falsted: Mr. Falstedasked for clarification on the density subdivision. He stated that he has 40 acres that he wants to subdivide into five acre parcels. If he kept a five acre parcel for himself and wanted to build two or three duplexes on it, would this be allowed? David Goldsmith answered that in the density subdivision doesn't increase the number of units you can build on the property. The Comprehensive Plan or community plan dictate the density for the property. F.H. Brewer: Mr. Brewer asked if it was possible to enforcing minimum safety standards on these roads and on roads constructed already in Jefferson County? Commissioner B.G. Brown responded by noting that enforcement is subject to manpower. Homeowners on private roads are on their own except for emergency services and fire protection if the road is passable for emergency vehicles. Paul Kay: Mr. Kay asked what do we do now? Commissioner B. G. Brown answered that the purpose of the hearing today is to gather public input and then changes will be made to these interim provisions so that it is a more acceptable document. The changes will be made by Thursday, when the moratorium ends, and then it will be adopted. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that part of this process will be deciding how to deal with people caught in the transition. Jim Olsen: Mr. Olsen asked if processing can be done on sales that are being held now because of the moratorium, on old plats that have been around for years and just happened to get caught in the middle of it? commissioner B. G. Brown answered that they are going to have to try to define what category those fall within and what mechanism will be used to move forward. Jack Westerman: Jack Westerman stated that he is hopeful that the Board can make the changes that are needed in place of extending the moratorium for another 30 days. The Board members concurred that their goal is to make the necessary changes and not have to extend the moratorium. Hearing no further comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. * * * vic Dirksen. Administrator. Jefferson General Hospital reI "Thank You: vic Dirksen, Administrator, Jefferson General Hospital, reported that the Hospi tal will n~t be needing any additional· space in the Vot '8:20 · . commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 16 basement of the County's Multi-services Building for their proposed nuclear medicine facility and thanked the Board for their consideration of the request. Commissioner Dennison added that the issue of the use of the lower floor of the Multi-Services building will have to be discussed more in the future. John v. and Marilyn Pedersen reI ProDosed Development of Pulali Point: John a;nd Marilyn Pedersen provided maps and pictures of the Pulali Point area. Pulali Point is to the left of Jackson Cove (Brinnon area) and is an area of 39 plus acres of old growth timber and is an average of 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding area. It is a wetland area and drains into the Pedersen's property which is directly to the north of it. The indians of the area used to meet in Jackson Cove every year for clam and oyster harvesting ceremonies. Many protected species use this area. Marilyn Pedersen explained that there are about 25 residents of this area which have access to their properties by a single lane road. There are four new wells on that point which all go dry in the fall (late September, October and November). The point is surrounded by Camp Parsons, which is owned by the Boy Scouts. John Pedersen stated that he first came to Camp Parsons in 1929 as a Boy Scout. He felt that the Boy Scouts would be good caretakers of the area, but they have clear cut most of their Camp Parsons land a few years ago. He added that they seem more concerned about the bottom line than providing a true wilderness experience. The Boy Scouts will be given a large amount of property adjacent to Camp Parsons in the near future (the Harold Johnson property). There is a parcel that is approximately 139 acres with waterfront that is in the process of being sold and possibly developed. John and Marilyn Pedersen asked the Board for their help in protecting this area. The meeting was recessed at 6:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday with all Board members present. After the Health Board meeting the Board members returned to consider the following items: state Environmental Policy Act Review: Shoreline Permit Exemption #90-0l7 for Maintenance Dredginq of Marina Entrance Channel and DisDosition of Dredged Materials UDland: Bridaehaven sDit/xarina: Bridaehaven Community Club: Associate Planner, Jim Pearson, reviewed the environmental checklist for a shoreline permit exemption request for maintenance dredging at the Marina entrance channel in Bridgehaven. The Planning Department staff recommends that the Board issue a determination of non-significance for this project. This project requires a Army Corps of Engineers and a Washington State Department of Ecology permit. commissioner B. G. Brown moved to issue a determination of non- significance for this shoreline permit exemption as presented. The Chairman seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Dennison. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ADplications for, Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner Dennison moved to aDDrove the followinq aDDlications for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: William D. Burney $500.00; Herschel Atkinson (2) S50.00 each; and Alvin R. Hirschel $500.00. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed on Tuesday at the end of the business day and reconvened on Wednesday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. All Board members were present. Decision re: Interim provisions Amending Ordinance 1-75 the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance: No one was present when Chairman George Brown called the meeting to order to discuss the proposed interim provisions amending Ordinance No. 1-75 the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. '/.~; 16 rM-~ on 3.n1>" 4f1 ~1i. -"',j,*' . · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 17 planning & Building Department Director, David Goldsmith, submitted the final draft of the interim provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. This final draft is a result of the draft from the Planning Department staff on which public comment was taken on Monday. Changes were made to that original draft to reflect the concerns discussed at that hearing. These 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) interim provision do the following:L The exemption threshold is raised from five acres to twenty acres. Amends the short plat section of the Subdivision Ordinance to deal with road standards for short plats. It creates a new "large lot" subdivision provision for parcels between five and twenty acres in size. a) The lots in a large lot sUbdivision will have to be surveyed. b) There is a requirement for the construction of roads, which are to be designed according to the private road design standards. These standards call for a 20 foot wide, unobstructed, roadway width. Fourteen feet of that would be a crushed rock surface. (This is a reduction in width of four feet from the original draft and a reduction in the amount of surface that must have crushed rock). c) A road maintenance agreement must be provided among the lot owners. d) The parcels in the subdivision must meet the Health Department requirements for on-site sewage disposal, a community drainfield or sanitary sewer, prior to submission of the subdivision for adoption OR a warning can be placed on the face of the plat which says "that the lots, parcels, or tracts wí thín the subdí vísíon have not been approved for the ínstallatíon of an on~síte sewage system. It ís not known íf the lots, parcels or tracts contaíned hereín can or wíll constítute a buíldíng síte and no buíldíng permít wíll be íssued by Jefferson County wí thout fírst satísfyíng the sewage disposal requirements established by the Jefferson County Health Department." e) There is a security arrangement so that the final approval of the plat can be sought before the final gravel is put on the road as long as a form of security is provided and the work will be done within one year. There is still a provision for a large lot density subdivision. There is a requirement for an environmental review if the subdivision contains an environmentally sensitive area. A simple checklist will be given to the applicant. When a large lot subdivision meets all of the requirements the approval is administrative. 6) David Goldsmith then reviewed the resolution to adopt these interim provision. He noted that there is a paragraph delineating how five acre subdivisions that were caught in the middle of this process will be handled. If a survey was recorded prior to April 2, 1990 (the date of the moratorium), and a lot was segregated and sold prior to that date OR a waiver was received from the Board of County Commissioners because of their finding that "substantíal progress toward development of a large lot subdívísíon had been undertaken and the applícatíon of the ínterím provisions would not be ín the best ínterest of the cítízens of Jefferson County," the subdivision would be exempt from these provisions. This resolution would direct the Planning to review the subdivision ordinance and the interim provisions and make proposed amendments and send them back to the Board within 180 days of the date of the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will also rescind Resolution No. 36- 90. commissioner B. G. Brown asked what the options would be if the Planning commission can not meet the 180 day deadline? David Goldsmith reported that the Board would have a choice to either rescind the interim provisions or extend them. After further discussion of the administrative process, Commission¡er 'lIV. 1 R r~i.; on " 322 Lu_c 'N~.Mft! - ~, ~" ~, & ., ,,-; commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 14, 1990 Page: 18 Dennison inoved to approve and sign Resolution No. 51-90 declaring interim provisions and directing the Jefferson County Planning commission to review and make recommendations concerning the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED '-. š JC JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~¿~ George C. Brown, Chairman ~ B. G. Brown, Member ./·\1 1r "(~ O~ .' r", f') 2",,·) v ,~