Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1992 36 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 6,1992, Cont. ADJOURNMENT There being no further adjourned at 10:34 PM. r Clise declared the meeting Mayor .. Attest: ~~ MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15, 1992 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this Fifteenth day of July 1992, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presiding. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Vern Jones, Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Robert Sokol, Sheila Westerman and Cindy Wolpin. Also present were Planning Commission Members Ernie Baird, Mark Welch, cindy Thayer, Lois Sherwood, Randy Maag, Bob Rickard, Clerk-Treasurer David Grove, City Attorney Dennis McLerran, Planner Dave Robison, and City Consultant Lisa Palazzi. Councilmember Camfield arrived at 7:10 PM. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Mayor Clise explained that there will be no action taken on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance this evening and that all testimony is ",ranted. Dave Robison noted that this is draft #8 and explained the process the draft ordinance has gone through since th~ beginning of the year. Mr Robison explained that this ordinance comes due to the Growth Management Act that was passed in 1990 that says that all cities and counties within the State of Washington must designate and protect environmentally sensitive areas and then went on to summarize the areas: wetlands, fish and wildlife hslbi tat, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas. Mr Robison then explained the process that: would be required if a building site is in one of the environmEmtally sensitive areas. Mr Robison introduced Lisa Palazzi, consultant working with the City on the Environmentally Sensi ti ve Areas ordinance who is a soil scientist in wetlands and stormwater management. Mr McLerran addressed the issue of how this ordinance fi ts wi thin the constitutional limitations regarding the regulation and use of property. Mr McLerran discussed the difference between taking and substantive due process and stated that this regulation, on its face, does not have a constitutional problem. Mayor Clise requested questions for clarification from the public before opening the hearing for public testimony. David Wren questioned why "extraordinary hardship" on page 7 appears to be struck out of the document. Mr McLerran responded that after he became involved in this, about draft 4 or 5, the language was specifically taken out of court cases regarding reasonableness as opposed to extraordinary hardship and that the reasonable use exception process is in 6.4 on page 22. . I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15,1992, Cont. Jim Hermanson questioned if the city is going to bear the cost of appeals or is the landowner going to. Mr McLerran respondE~d that the appellant is the one who bears the burden of appeal and that there is the ability to work with staff at the administrati VI:! level before one would get to an appeal. Cal McCune questioned if this ordinance in any way begin to cause some of the buildings downtown to be made safer. Mr McLerran responded that the only area where that would come into play is if there was a substantial renovation or remodel in which building permits are needed under the Uniform Building Code. Monica Mick-Hagar questioned how much it would cost to appE~al and why is there a fee. Mr McLerran explained that there has not been a final decision on how much an appeal would cost although an earlier draft had a $250.00 filing fee for appeals: the reason for a fee is that you do not want frivolous appeals in either direction and then explained the provisions for adding on to an existing house within an environmentally sensitive area. Don Barr explained that he has plans to build on his property which seems to be in an environmentally sensitive area and questioned how soon the city would respond to make an initial investigation as to whether he has a problem on his lot and if the appeals are from what is found on this investigation rather than what is shown on the map. Mr Robison responded that site inspections would be made as soon as possible, especially if there is a permit pending and agreed that there should be an appeal process of the sensitive area determination and will check to be sure it is clearly spelled out in the ordinance. Ms Palazzi confirmed that the maps are no't being used for regulatory purposes, but purely as guidelines. Lee Wilburn questioned if the 26% figure being used for the area of the city wi thin the ESA includes buffers. Mr Robison responded that the 26% figure is a little misleading because the ordinance does not regulate shoreline areas and seismic areas in the downtown and things of that nature and that it does not include buffer areas. Mr Wilburn requested an estimate of what a wetland buffer might be. Mr Robison responded that there are two options in the wetland section and the buffers go anywhere from 25 feet for a category 4 wetland to 150 feet for category 1 wetlands like :Kah Tai Lagoon. Mr Wilburn stated that the minimum lot area in 7.1, page 24, should be addressed due to the differences between modern surveys and the surveys in the older plats; and stated that the types of bonds required on 12.8 on page 48 and 14.0, 3.B on page 49 are unavailable. Kay Goodhue requested clarification of D and D.3 page 46, density transfers and is density credit optional. Mr Robison responded that is one area of the ordinance that still needs some work and it is intended allow for clustering. The questions really can not be answered until this section is clarified. Kathryn Jenks questioned if page 18, 5.4 F sub 1 means that 250 square feet of impervious surface requires a special report but everything else on a remodel does not and requested that the aggregate of 250 square feet be inserted as in 5.2 C page 15. Mr McLerran clarified that the intention for the 5.4 F.1 language is that the 250 square feet be a threshold: for additions undler that amount of square footage there would not be a special report required. shirley Rudolph questioned if the process is still required if property is surrounded by the green area on the map. Mr MGLerran responded that the State Department of Community Development guidelines for adoption of cri tical areas interim regulations strongly recommend that the maps be performance based, meaning that 37 38 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15,1992, Cont. because the accuracy of the available data is rough, there will be questions asked relating environmentally sensitive areas whether the property is shown on the map or not. David Wren questioned what constitutes an aquifer recharge area. Mr Robison responded that an aquifer recharge area is a subsurface area that collects and stores groundwater. The intent of the Growth Management Act and the ordinance is to regulate the uses that have a potential to contaminate the aquifer. Ms Palazzi stated that the attempt was made with the maps to locate areas that are expected to be more hazardous in terms of more likely to result in contamination, areas that are extremely porous where the water is readily accepted into the soil surface and into the underlying geologic layers. steve Hayden questioned if this or any other ordinances regulate activities that threaten these sensitive areas. Mr Robison responded that there is a performance standard approach to try to protect those areas from adverse uses and impacts. The ordinance really looks at alteration and disturbance of sensitive areas and not the use of the areas unless it has the potential for adverse impacts through that alteration or disturbance. Bob Gibson questioned if the city is going to compensate owners of homes in these sensitive areas for loss of value. Mr McLerran responded that this is not an easy issue but stated that he has dealt with an environmentally sensitive ordinance in another community where it did not have any impact on property value with respect with properties that were either in or out. The constitution does not provide that compensation comes into play until you get to the point that there is no reasonable use of the property, although property tax relief may be available in some instances. These regulations supplement regulations that are already there, i.e., the state Environmental Policy Act. Cindy Wolpin clarified that existing homes do not have any impact at all under this ordinance. Mr McLerran responded that he does not think there will be a perceived difference; existing houses are specifically identified as continuing to be legal uses under the ordinance. Doug Lamy, Swan Hotel, questioned if his permits are vested, will he be allowed an extension should his building permit process go beyond the period of review. Mr Robison clarified that shoreline and SEPA matters are exempt from this ordinance. David Wren questioned if owners of property designated on the map notify a prospective buyer that they are in an environmentally sensitive zone regardless of whether the property is vacant or has a home on it. Mr McLerran responded that there is case law with respect to real estate brokers and agents with respect to property owners that requires disclosure of items that would substantially impact the purchase decision by someone. Matters like zoning and so on are matters of public record. There being no further questions of clarification, Mayor Clise opened the hearing to the Public. Kay Hermann, who lives in Port Angeles, was recognized and stated her concern that she had not been notified that her property could be designated an environmentally sensitive area and that she has had no opportunity to participate in this decision. She also stated that she does not feel that her property cannot be designated environmentally sensitive without being inspected and feels that this ordinance would affect her property value. Steven Moriarty, attorney representing Kay Hermann, was recognized and stated that he sees two issues in the ordinance that he feels give the property owner grounds to challenge the enforcement of the ordinance: 1) being placed in an environmentally sensitive zone without being notified 2) the ordinance makes reference to I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15,1992, Cont. "reasonable use" but does not give any definition of reasonable use. The ordinance should be drafted to make sure that an owners property rights are not ignored and should provide reasonable use parameters and not rely on staff interpretations and notice should be sent to each property owner if they are designated as bE~ing in an environmentally sensitive area. Mr McLerran commented that this is a legislative action, like comprehensive planning, dealing with all the parcels of the city as a whole and not with a specific individual site; a quasi judicial rezoning would require no"tice to each individual property owner and a specific hearing. General notification through the newspaper and the kinds of public process and hearings that have gone on so far on this ordinance is adequate to meet due process requirements. The reasonable use exGeption process is intended to allow a factual inquiry to look at the specific facts and circumstances of the individual pi'ece of property. The city has done what is legally required and would be limiting things too greatly if a set of specific criterium for reasonable use was set. Bob Rickard was recognized and stated that there will be no public testimony taken at the Planning Commission meeting tomorro'~. Margaret Lee was recognized and stated her concerns about aquifer recharge areas and wetlands specifically on page 29. She stated that there is not enough attention given to the use of chE~micals and pesticides and would like to see much more specific langiuage as to who or what agency is going to supervise of take control of that necessi ty to protect our aquifer. Ms Lee stated that she has submi tted a list of pesticides which have a high potential for leaching into groundwater as well as an outline for a model ordinance to address local pesticide use explaining that some of this information could be included in the ordinance being discussed. David Wren was recognized and opposed the ordinance stating that his home and vacant land at 409 Q Street are taken under emergency powers by city hall by wrapping it with the environmE~ntally sensitive areas ordinance and questioned the fair value of his land and called it an unjust law. Don Barr was recognized and stated that he had not heard of this ordinance until he saw the map published in The Leader even though there have been other hearings and suggested that there should have been a larger effort made to be sure everyone knew it was going on. He further stated that he and his wife feel that the basic intent of the ordinance is a good thing for the community and hope that its problems can be straightened out. Cal McCune was recognized and spoke about the environml:!ntally sensi ti ve areas not recognized in the ordinance: 1) the! smoke problem during the winter in the Kah Tai Valley 2) the downtown area in relation to earthquakes. Mr McCune stated that hE~, as a downtown property owner, has the feeling of being buffeted :for the last four years in his desire to develop his property and requested that the Council have a thumbs up, green light attitude toward construction downtown. Kathryn Jenks was recognized, thanked city staff and officials for this ordinance, and stated that she has known about it. since January and has seen many instances in the newspaper of it and lots of meetings, stating that she feels there was adequate public notice. Ms Jenks stated that this is the first of three steps: the second being the purchase of wildlife corridors and habitat and the third step being a combined, long-term effort of public education as to why environmentally sensitive areas are so important. Ms Jenks suggested that a volunteer citizen group be formed 1:0 help with this, that the group be information gatherers only and never have a part in the process of deciding or advocating and que:stioned who and what will benefit from this ordinance. 39 40 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15,1992, Cont. willi Smothers was recognized, thanked city staff and all the volunteers who have worked on this ordinance and stated that out of this process we will have the most fair and just policy to scrutinize development and insure that the quality of life will be assured in this community. He is currently building a home adjacent to an open space and feels that his property value will increase because of the open space. James Hermanson was recognized and commented that to assess a fee to stop a person from appealing is distressing and stated that a fee would exclude many from appealing. Mr Hermanson further stated that he has always considered himself an environmentalist but now feels that the Growth Management Act, County Commissioners and city officials in a sense are creating precipitating genocide on the small property owner and this if his land is reduced in value because of legislation, that the rest of the citizens should bear the cost. Byron Swigart, speaking on behalf of puget Power, was recognized summarized his comments and gave written comments to the Council and Commissioners. In his summary, Mr swigart petitioned council for corrective action on his comments sent in earlier and not taken into account in the current document stating portions of draft #8 would seriously obstruct the ability of puget Power to carry out its statutorily mandated duty and that much of the language is confusing and ambiguous. Mr swigart stated that in an emergency, time is of the essence and requested that the requirements for director approval in cases of emergencies, repairs, routine maintenance and improvements in the existing utilities systems be deleted. In emergencies, the imposition of unnecessary obstacles to a prompt response is contrary to public safety, health and welfare. Jolene Anderson was recognized and presented a formal rebuttal on behalf of the Jefferson County Homebuilders Association which she distributed to the Council and Commissioners. Ms Anderson invited the Council and Commissioners to meet with the Homebuilders to discuss a more balanced approach to drafting the final document. Glen Huntingford speaking for the Jefferson County Property Rights Alliance was recognized and distributed a letter from the alliance stating their concerns for the draft ordinance which he read. Bernie Arthur was recognized and stated his concerns about the use of "rapid growth" and "adverse" in the findings of fact, the effect on the environment and why this ordinance is needed. Mr Arthur also questioned how this is going to affect the people in the cost of living in this community and stated that if this is passed, who is going to get to live here. Linda Newberry was recognized, stated she has been participating in this as a private citizen, and that it is time to start listening to what the earth has to say and to what are responsibilities are. She urged that the council and commission pay attention to what the facts say and not listen to scare tactics because there are people who do care about the environment. Betty Wren was recognized and stated that she agrees with her husband and that just because they are property owners doesn't mean that they don't care' about the environment and resents being painted "ungreen". Monica Mick-Hagar was recognized and stated that the property she plans on building on is in one of the zones, very steep land on the south side of Morgan Hill. She thanked everyone who has worked on the ordinance and then stated that she is glad that there is a very good potential that this ordinance will become a reality and the only way to keep the beauty here is to think on an individual basis on each piece of property. I I I I I I MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15, 1992, Cont. Lee Wilburn was recognized and urged everyone to derail this project saying that as much work as has been done, there is still a way to go. He suggested a short and simple interim ordinance as this ordinance needs an environmental impact statement. Mr Wilburn pointed out changes he would like to see and then stated t.hat he thinks that the substantive ideas of the ordinance are headed in the right direction. Paula Mackrow was recognized and explained that the intent of the Growth Management Act was that internal ordinances would be in place last September with extensions to this March to prevent further degradation of all sensi ti ve areas before they can be identified and designated. Since we are so far over the deadline, she urged that we proceed with considerable haste to me!et the mandates of the Growth Management Act. Michael Atkins was recognized and stated that one of the fundamentals of ecology is the interconnectedness of nature and explained that the whole Quimper Peninsula is an environmE~ntally sensitive area and should be treated as such. Forest Shomer was recognized and stated that we should respl9ct the water and that without water there are no plants or civili:1!:ation. We should keep as much water as falls out of the sky in place in the soil, sub-soil, aquifer and in the living tissue of plants and animals. Mr Shomer stated that this ordinance begins to review the community in terms of watersheds instead of the planned grid of 100 years ago and urged the city to continue in the direct.ion of watershed management instead of political grid management. Byron Ruby was recognized and stated that his nephew will be upset when he discovers that his property is in an environmE~ntally sensitive area and could prevent him from building or would cost him a lot more money to build when he comes to retire here. He urged more study before this ordinance is passed and recommended that it not be dumped in the community's lap in a short ti]ne. Daniel Yesberger was recognized and stated that his property in one of the environmentally sensitive areas, he had not heard of any of the hearings, has been logging just enough of his property to pay his taxes and will now probably have to clear cut it to ma]{e sure he can get his own timber off his own property. Kay Goodhue was recognized and stated she feels intimida1:ed but that people have a right to express their opinions, to address council and the planning commission. She further stated that the council and commission have done an excellent job with the ordinance will all the public hearings, testimonies and input and come up with draft 8 which is much improved from others and feels that she has been listened to, her input has been heeded and feels that it is long overdue. Janeen Hayden was recognized, thanked everyone for the efforts put into the ordinance and stated that the ordinance is a good result. Ms Hayden also stated that the ordinance doesn't do what shl9 would like, the buffers are smaller than she would like, the size of parcels to be regulated are bigger, but it does clearly say that we care about these aspects of our environment and we are willing to do something about it. Every day that goes by, we are losing things that are important to us as a community. Ms Hayden stated that 70% of those who responded to the survey done by Jefferson County a year ago spoke loudly and clearly about the preservation of air quality, water quality, forests, fish and wildlife habitat and wetlands and that this ordinance is one step in that dirlection. steve Hayden was recògnized and stated that the photographs on the wall taken about ten years apart tell an important story - the tree cover on the second one is dramatically less, the number of miles of road are dramatically more and asked that we think about the 41 42 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY 15, 1992, Cont. changes in the last ten years in terms of flooding and water run- off problems from big storms. This ordinance goes a long way toward protecting the system that has been here for at least ten thousand years and could last a while longer if we protect the wetlands, drainage, and tree cover. Doug Mason was recognized and stated that his property is in an environmentally sensitive area, understands why the ordinance has the provisions that it has and how it is going to affect his property and is glad that the city is doing what it is doing because there are important qualities about his property that need to be regulated and protected. Kathleen Mitchell was recognized, thanked everyone for the process of this ordinance and commented that the maps are to be used for guidelines only; it is important to make a commitment to protect critical wildlife habitat, wetlands and water quality; and this ordinance is how it can be done; and thinks that this ordinance and the Growth Management Act are not a takings, just a means to have appropriate development and is a good starting point. David Wren was recognized and admitted that his previous statement was harsh and explained his reaction to mistakes even though he has been assured that he is really not in the environmentally sensitive area and that it is just a little error; his life, for many years, has been ruined by "little errors" and he reacts very strongly to them and stated that this law is too rough and has no "give" in it. Doug Lamy was recognized and stated that he sees the need for an advocacy instead of an adversarial relationship with city hall. There being no further testimony, Mayor Clise closed the hearing to the Public. ADJOURNMENT There being no further coming and expressing adjourned at 9:51 PM. everyone for the meeting Attest: ~~ Clerk-Treasurer MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 20,1992 The City Council of the city of Port Townsend met in regular session this Twentieth day of July, 1992, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presiding. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Jean Camfield, Vern Jones, Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Robert Sokol, Sheila Westerman and Cindy Wolpin. Also present were Clerk-Treasurer David Grove, City Attorney Dennis McLerran, City Planner Rick Sepler, Police Chief Jim Newton and Public Works Director Robert Wheeler. I I I