Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080904 ~~ ~~o~^_ ~ //SON-~~ :iTl.. ~-ç.;. 0.; c::s k~ .~. =(& \~ ~\ ~~ . I \~ ~/ ~8/¡ O<\()/ ._ IN // --....----- District No.1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of August 9, 2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of July 19, and 26, 2004 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING: County Administrator John Fischbach reported on the following: · The UFCW contract negotiations with the large grocery chains in the Puget Sound area have been settled. The details of the settlement are not available yet, but they will have an impact on the County's UFCW contract negotiations. · The Board received an e-mail asking why Dan Baskins from Fred Hill Materials was riding with an employee in a County vehicle near the Shine Pit? The County employee was following up on questions raised regarding the pit operation during a Public Comment Period. He was doing a site visit and Dan Baskins, who is familiar with the operation, was showing him around. Two memos regarding the results ofthis site visit were presented to the Board. · Jean Baldwin, Health Director, introduced the new Environmental Health Director, Dan Bruce who has over 25 years of experience in the environmental and public health field. Hood Canal Bridge Revenue: Treasurer Judi Morris stated that the information was incorrect that she recently received from the State Department of Transportation regarding projected sales tax revenue for Jefferson County from the Hood Canal Bridge proj ect. The State will receive $1.7 million and Jefferson County's Current Expense Fund will receive approximately $291,000. Criminal justice and Transit will also receive a portion of this revenue. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9, 2004 fJ'''''·'''' ~ . L ~ , 1t,1\I/I:l'~"" PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the fire danger signs that the Board funded have been mounted on stakes and delivered to the fire districts for distribution; the rain last week helped dampen the forests, but the hot weather puts us back where we started; the County Commissioners are to be commended for their extra efforts to make the County "agriculture friendly" because good rich farmland should be used for farming, WSU/Extension needs to be kept at the present funding level because they do a great job promoting agriculture; last year 600 people signed up for the organic farm tour; and the profit from the produce grown on small farms stays in the County and helps the economy. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item #1 and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETED AGREEMENT, Amendment No.1 re: Pennit Process Improvement Initiative; Jefferson County Community Development; Latimore Company, LLC (See item later in minutes.) 2. Award of Community Park Grant Funding for Improvements to Jefferson County Park and Recreation Facilities; 1) East Jefferson Little League; 2) South Jefferson Little League; 3) Northwest Kiwanis Camp; and 4) Quimper Trails Association 3. Final Short Plat Approval; Newman's Domain Short Plat #SUB03-00028; Two Lots Located Off of East Qui1cene Road and Mountain View Road, Quilcene; Patricia & Patrick Stumbaugh, Applicants BID OPENING re: Publication of County Legal Notices: John Fischbach opened and read the bids into the record. BIDDER: The Port Townsend Paper Company The Leader AMOUNT: $7.75 per column inch (6 columns, 11 picas wide) $22.79 for the sample advertisement Peninsula Daily News $5.50 per column inch (9 columns, 7.5 picas wide) $18.65 for the sample advertisement The County Administrator stated that he would review the bids and get back to the Board with a bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Titterness noted that readership and distribution needs to be taken into consideration when awarding this bid. HEARING re: Proposed Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Funds: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. John Fischbach stated that there is a question about the ER&R request for $157,000. Auditor Donna Eldridge advised him that this is not necessary because Resolution No. 41-04, signed by the Board on August 2, authorized the County Auditor to move the funds from the ER&R Fund into the Jeff Com Fund as an inter-fund loan. Budget Manager Allen Sartin explained that he uses the budget side of the system to make financial projections and when transactions are done off Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9,2004 IJ"'" "" ;':,._ -s 'Í~\'III;¡'\''''' budget, it can be difficult to keep track of them. Donna Eldridge stated that if the appropriation/extension resolution is passed as drafted, it will indicate the $157,000 as a double expenditure and it is a loan, not an expenditure for ER&R. The County Administrator recommended that the resolution be approved per the Auditor's recommendation. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comment for or against the proposed budget appropriations/extensions, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 43-04 with the deletion of the $157,000 loan from ER&R. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION from 11 :00 - 11 :45 a.m. with the County Administrator, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. Agreement, Amendment No.1 re: Permit Process Improvement Initiative; Latimore Company: (See Item #1 on the Consent Agenda.) Chairman Huntingford stated that the Board took this agreement off the Consent Agenda because they want to clarify the scope of work. Director of Community Development Al Scalf pointed out that he would like to see the Latimore Company do a review of the permit plan data base from a planning and legal perspective. He is concerned that the language in DCD's standard forms and letters is too bureaucratic. Organizational issues also need to be reviewed. An organization chart was prepared to reflect the 2005 budget, but it may not represent the most efficient use of staff expertise and time. He would also like the Latimore Company to work with Port Ludlow regarding the EIS and ongoing permit issues. Commissioner Titterness noted that having an independent person do a performance audit of personnel would help build trust in the community. It is his understanding that this was to be part of the original agreement and he would like to see it included in the scope of work. In a recent conversation with the County Administrator, Kurt Latimore stated that he would reach some conclusions and write a letter to the County regarding a preliminary assessment. Al Scalf noted that he feels it is his responsibility to evaluate staff. Commissioner Titterness added that he would like to see some clarification on the scope of the agreement as the result of this discussion and have it brought back to the Board. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9,2004 ~"!J"'" '\ ~..~- f\'fl ...\.,(~' Deliberation & Possible Decision re: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Proposals MLA 04-29 and MLA 04-30: Director of Community Development Al Scalf stated that this is an opportunity for the Board and staff to discuss any concerns that the Board may still have regarding the UGA information. He reviewed the history of development in the area. A move toward urbanization was seen as early as the 1890s when Irondale was platted. · Beginning in1979, the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Community Plan were used as guidelines for growth until the Growth Management Act was adopted by the State in 1990. · In the early 1990s each community in the County was given the opportunity to develop a community plan, but they did not meet the strict GMA requirements. · In 1994, the County designated a Tri Area Interim Urban Growth Area. The designation was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board by the City of Port Townsend, Olympic Environmental Council, and 1,000 Friends of Washington. The UGA was invalidated and the Hearings Board ordered the County to provide additional analysis to substantiate a UGA. Special studies were done to substantiate the UGA. This included a regional economic forecast and an environmental review which supplemented the EIS for the Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1998. · In 1999, the Board designated a Provisional UGA. The planning boundaries have changed slightly since that time. · In 2002, the County began to look at interior zoning in the UGA. · In 2004, a UGA Citizen Task Force worked on the development regulations for the UGA. There have been numerous citizen committees involved throughout this 10 year process. A substantial public record, at a substantial public cost, has been brought forward to this point. The staff recommendation is for the Board to adopt the Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area as appropriate under the Growth Management Act. Kyle Aim, Assistant Planner, explained that the revised Urban Growth Area chapter replaces the original Chapter 2 in the Comprehensive Plan. The original Chapter 2 which will become an appendix. The Comprehensive Plan language was amended for consistency with the adoption of the UGA. The General Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan and Stormwater Plan were added. The UGA Task Force created the development regulations for the UGA that amend the Unified Development Code. There are revisions to the landuse map in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map in the UDe. Senior Planner Josh Peters reviewed some of the issues raised in the Board's public hearing on August 2. Chairman Huntingford noted that several people at the hearing had a copy of the landuse map from the open house that was held in November, 2003. Josh Peters stated that the UGA Task Force suggested revisions to the landuse map during their review which began early in 2004, and their recommendation was forwarded to the Planning Commission on May 19. There is also a minor change on the map to a parcel off Chimacum Road adjacent to the Methodist Church that had been zoned public and is in private ownership. A second parcel east of Chimacum Road and attached to Church Lane is split zoned on the map and also needs to be corrected. Commissioner Titterness asked about the residential properties that the Task Force recommended for rezone to commercial. Josh Peters replied that the B & R Trailer Court is zoned "high density residential" and designated as future commercial. The process to change it to commercial would involve a UDC amendment Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9, 2004 i)!J~.-"."'" ; ..... ..~ ~f~''''''' ·\(/) ~~.,\. and a policy decision. One approach is a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment done outside the annual amendment cycle which would require an application fee and a formal process. A "suggested amendment" approach could be taken which would allow the policy makers to consider a specific area to be rezoned as commercial. Or it could be a combination of the two approaches. A similar approach could be taken for the Curtiss Street neighborhood. Staff has a list of all the parcels that the UGA Task Force recommended as commercial. This area was zoned commercial in 1994 and was downzoned. Jim Pearson, Public Works Department, noted that at the hearing on August 2, there was testimony regarding traffic congestion on SRI9. A number of studies have been conducted which have proven that, with or without the UGA, as traffic increases, the level of service will decrease. In the existing Comprehensive Plan and in the proposed changes, a policy basis for that area has been defined. An action item was suggested that the County make a commitment to work with the State Department of Transportation and local property owners on Rhody Drive and SR116 to develop access management strategies. This is a tool to deal with the congestion. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that the Transportation Plan notes that 80% of the increased traffic will be in the Port Hadlock core and 20% will be on Rhody Drive with people using the highway as a conduit. Chairman Huntingford asked ifthere is any information on stormwater that Public Works staff would like to add? Jim Pearson stated that the Department has done the analysis to identify the existing soils in the area. They are aware of existing development patterns and have worked with the landuse map to determine the locations for future development. There is an analytic basis, natural conditions, and the policy basis to make sure that the UGA can be developed without impacts related to stormwater runoff. They didn't hear any testimony that would change their current recommendation. John Fischbach asked staff to discuss the testimony regarding odors from the sewage treatment plant and possible concerns about degradation of the aquifers. Al Scalf stated that, through the public process, the Planning Commission chose Alternative #2 which would site the treatment plant on Elkins Road behind the County jail. The next step is to examine the site for potential environmental impacts, including odors, and do a hydrogeologic assessment of the area and the effects on the aquifer. The sewer plan is a Growth Management planning document in the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearings Board order directed that sewer planning be examined and this has been done. The specifics are still outstanding. Regarding the availability of water, the water service to the UGA is done by the purveyor. The City of Port Townsend was the water purveyor and sold the system to the PUD. Under the Coordinated Water System Plan, the PUD has submitted a Water System Plan amendment to the approving agency which is the State Department of Health. The amendment identifies population, service area, the number of existing and future hookups, and the supply side or source of the water. The Coordinated Water System Plan is the document that addresses the water supply for the UGA. Commissioner Titterness stated that one of the questions that was raised was if the County had done enough analysis on the cost of sewer treatment options? The draft ordinance addresses the cost range associated with the range of options. Al Scalf replied that the cost of a sewer hookup has been a key question in the community. The General Sewer Plan examined the gross cost of the sewer plant alternative and the cost per acre in a Local Improvement District (LID), the cost per system hookup, and the cost per equivalent Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9, 2004 ::~(. ~ tl/I, ..(,~' residential unit (ERU). The true cost to the citizens for construction will not be known until further planning, including design and engineering, is completed. A financing plan would be proposed for the LID and residents would vote on the utility. In the Capital Facilities plan, a broad range is quoted. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the sewer system is being developed around commercial and multifamily needs of the community and most ofthe cost will be borne by the commercial users. Chairman Huntingford noted a question from the hearing about the process for rebuilding a single family residence in a commercial area. Al Scalf replied that existing single family residences would be considered conforming uses, however new construction of single family residences are not allowed. The Administrator can approve a remodel or an enlargement for a non-conforming use up to an additional 200 square feet, or 10%. If that threshold is to be exceeded, the applicant would need to apply for a conditional use permit and go before the Hearing Examiner. Accessory dwelling units are permitted outright as a use, subject to a Type 1 permit and cannot exceed 1,250 square feet. A deck or a fence would be considered an accessary use structure and would be allowed. Commissioner Rodgers asked how the residential uses in the commercial rezone area would be taxed? Josh Peters explained that he spoke with the Assessor who said it amounts to "highest and best use" of 100% of fair market value. If a vacant parcel is zoned commercial, the taxes could increase because the property is more valuable as a commercial use. If a house exceeds the value of the property, the highest and best use would be the residence. If the house is valued at less than the value of the property, the Assessor would appraise the land as vacant commercial and not value the home. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that if there is a house of value in the commercial rezone area, there would be no increase or a minimal increase related to the zoning. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA is designed for Jefferson County and the traffic increases would be internal in the UGA with most of the traffic supplying or using businesses. In terms of water, most commercial users are low water users, except for restaurants. There really wouldn't be that much change in the water use. If the sewer system is designed similar to the system in Sequim, a considerable amount of water would be treated and returned to the aquifer. Commissioner Titterness stated that a number of people at the hearing were disappointed to see a certain segment ofthe community trying to create more divisiveness over the UGA in order to get people on the record to slow the process. The TriArea was first proposed as an Interim UGA in 1994 and for 10 years the County has been working on the process. The special studies were done and the documents are available. During that 10 year period, 66% of the existing commercial land in the County was downzoned and this created a need for additional commercial zoning. In the early 1990s the retail leakage in the County was $70 million and now it is over $100 million. The growth is focused in the TriArea because of affordability. This process wiIl create an incentive for more affordable housing in the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. He agrees with the Staff recommendation to reflect the Curtiss Street area as residential in the zoning map, with the potential of becoming a future commercial area in the planning map. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9, 2004 IJ"'''''"' ;'. .,' ...·.·..s 'Í'. :.'.'........ <.111,...(0(' Chairman Huntingford stated that Curtiss Street was zoned commercial until 1994 when it was downzoned. If that areas stays as residential with the option of future commercial, will it have an affect on the Boat School? Josh Peters answered that the Boat School's property was rezoned during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle last year. Chairman Huntingford noted that there are some businesses in that area. He asked if the other Board members would support zoning the existing businesses in the Curtiss Street area? Ifproperty is clearly residential, could it stay residential and still have commercial businesses in the area be zoned commercial? Kyle AIm stated that a mixed use zone requires retail on the lower level and residential use above so another type of zone would need to be identified. The Task Force expressed concerns about using commercial property for residences. Josh Peters stated that every parcel would need to be reviewed. The Board asked that the Planners work on resolving this issue in the Curtiss/Randolph Street area. Chairman Huntingford stated that most of the other concerns on his list have been addressed. Regarding the water issue, he thinks that the County needs to look at incorporating the PUD information that is available in the Coordinated Water System Plan and including their service area as part of the document. In reviewing the population forecast numbers, he doesn't see a lot of change to the residential areas. The only impact may be from an increase in water useage may come from multifamily housing. A UGA is designated to contain growth and the goal is to control sprawl. Regarding the ESA buffer comments, he doesn't see anything in the lower portion of Chima cum Creek that will be affected by the UGA. The density is the same along Rhody Drive and he thinks there will be more protection with setbacks from the stream. A better job will be done of addressing stormwater, and sewer will be available some day. Chairman Huntingford stated that the County has worked very hard with other governmental entities and citizens to try to work through all the issues and it is important to address all legitimate concerns. There are people who came to the hearing just to make a statement. The County tries to stay out of the City's business and over the last few years, the City is trying to stay out of the County's business. He received an e-mail that went to the City Council on August 8 from a member of the People for a More Livable Community. There are several paragraphs in the e-mail that really bother him because he wants to see the County be able to grow at a reasonable rate, and he wants to see his kids and other families get a start and be able to live here and have jobs. There has to be some reasonable amount of growth. He read a portion ofthe e-mail. "While some of you will favor using City water to subsidize and facilitate County development for the usual reasons - opportunities, jobs, jobs, jobs, doing so is hardly in the long term interest of the City. Overreaching is not environmentally sustainable. Even without the specter of global warming on our horizon, climate change with extreme fluctuations and snow pack...." "You have been elected to take care of our City, not to provide the fuel for County over-development. The City's long term interests are regional and consist of slowing the County growth and development to a level that is sustainable and which simultaneously protects precious resources. Extinction is not an option, especially if the recipients of the precious Chimacum basin waters are resort guests, Walmart, waterfront mansions, and highway sprawl." Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 9, 2004 !J.'.'.'..'."" l,',..,', .!; ~i' . ....,.' ~,- II/I ...(o~ Chairman Huntingford stated that the County works with other governments to do the right thing. Staff does a good job and the County tries to move things forward in small increments. The public needs to know that thirty people who have not participated in the public process over the last 2-5 years showed up at the public hearing and the Board listened to their comments. They purposely came to try and stop any growth from happening any place else in the County. His family has lived in Jefferson County for a long time and he wants his kids and grandkids to be here and work and have jobs in this area. Jefferson County will never have Boeing jobs, but there are a lot of opportunities for people to live and work in the community and the Commissioners wants to be able to encourage this. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt the ordinance approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendments MLA04-29 and MLA04-30, the Unified Development Code Amendments regarding the IrondalelPort Hadlock Urban Growth Area as presented in the draft with the amendments that the Board discussed including resolution of zoning in the Curtiss Street area. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board thanked the UGA Task Force, the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff, and the residents in the Tri Area who contributed to the process. (Staff will make the changes and put the ordinance on the August 23,2004 agenda for final signing.) \\ \l '\ 1 ¥ , .þ~¥~t¡~JO,URNED '...) -. 1'" . ~"..... t c;:; ....¡f ,.. ",. À¡p! A,L "\. . , ~ò"~.J... "''', ,:~. ", ' . ! 1 \ '; : ,~~ ........ '" ~~, t t , I . \ ,( " "f· . '.' ., ':': '..":\, "-'" #... \ ,: ~~ ,/ I ' .~ '" "l ;). -r:~ ~ 't: ! _ '" .I . ·.....~..~_~I ( . , JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS " ? ATTEST: Qt ¿it Î1('.fJJ-f> ('/f) L jrllie MattHes, CMC / · Deputy Clerk of the Board Dan' ~mber Page 8