Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda 09-07-2016Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA Gardiner Community Center September 7, 2016 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us 6:30 pm OPEN HOUSE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE  Staff and Planning Commission Meet and Greet  Public Discussion 7:35 pm REGULAR BUSINESS  Call to order/Roll call  Approval of Agenda  Approval of Minutes – June 15 & July 6  Staff Updates  Commissioner Announcements 7:45 pm CONTINUED BUSINESS  Election of Chair/Vice Chair 8:00 pm DISCUSSION OF OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC COMMENT When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is … i An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response; ii Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time; iii Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record; iv May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit. 8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT  Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 13 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present *P* Nilssen: Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Felder: Present Sircely: Present Giske: Absent E Phillip Morley Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present Public in Attendance: 7 Approval of Agenda: Approved Approval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Lorna Smith is not here today but she may call in. That’s why I have the speaker here. She may attend via cellphone after the presentation she’s giving. STAFF UPDATES DWJ I sent out dates for the “Road Show Meetings” which are the Comprehensive Plan Update meetings. I hope you all got the email I sent so the dates are locked in. They will be held in different locations throughout the County. We’re going to start out on July 6th at Port Ludlow, July 20th will be at the West End. It’s for the whole summer. There will be two parts to each meeting, an open house the first part of the meeting where we will engage the public and engage them in a dialogue and talk about the Comprehensive Plan, what it is and why it’s important, what do they value most, where they want to see change. And then the second half of the meeting will be a more formal sit-down meeting like this where we can conduct some business but it will be primarily to listen from the public and primarily to take public testimony/comment like we do at our normal comment period. Comments on the Comprehensive Plan and if someone doesn’t want to write their comment they can give them to us verbally and that will be a part of the record as well. So we’re just looking for as many alternatives to provide people to give us input on the Comp Plan and what they think is most important. Speak Up is almost ready to be released. That is an online web portal for the citizens to go online. It will be the same thing you can do at one of our Road Show meetings, it’s an alternative to going to one of our Road Show Meetings. You can just go online and do the same thing. So it’s just another alternative for people to engage with us on input for the Comprehensive Plan Update. And we have a couple other features too. Meeting in a binder, where if you don’t want to go to a Road Show Meeting, or go online to Speak Up, you can hold your own Road Show Meeting in your own house, club or school. All that material will be released and coming out in The Leader on the June 22, 2016. That issue of The Leader will have an insert that will have information about the Comprehensive Plan Update, The Road Show and Speak Up. CK We don’t have our flyers yet. When we get them we will ask each of you to spread them out in your districts. If you use social media, maybe you can release something from our website link so people know. We would like you all to engage your people, your constituency, and that one on one piece will be very helpful. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 13 DWJ Yes you’re basically ambassadors of the County in the Planning area. So think of it in those terms and we will provide you with materials as we get them and we’ll provide you with a basic script of how to engage people, and give them basic information about the Comprehensive Plan. Kind of like an elevator speech, just to get the dialogue going. It’s just to help you if you need help. It’s coming up in three weeks. ?? I commit to going to Clear Water and am wondering if there’s any travel expense allotment or if that had been discussed? DWJ That would be a good question for Phillip Morley who’s getting out of his car right now. We tried to get some coordinated transportation for the Brinnon Trip coming up in January and we didn’t pull that off but this is a lot farther so I can try again. We’ll follow up on that for mileage. CK By the end of the meeting tonight, I hope to take a vote and I want you to be thinking about sending forth a recommendation to the BOCC tonight on the regulations as they are then. We will still have a findings and regulations step. It’s a whole step by step, reading the findings and conclusions. Those have to be produced based on whatever we send forward. We’re talking about doing that on the third Wednesday on the 29th of June because on July 6th we’re scheduled for the Port Ludlow Road Show. If there is enough of you that can’t make the 06/29/16 meeting, we can talk about other dates. Mike Nilssen is our new Planning Commissioner. PM Thank you to Mike Nilssen and also to Jean Ball, who also applied, two well qualified candidates I appreciate both of you for putting your names in the hopper for public service, this is an important role. The Commissioners could only choose one, so thank you both for your willingness to serve. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR We’ve been working on a draft of the regulations and sending it back and forth between staff and the Planning Commission and will continue this tonight. 17.80.020 Development Cap. CK Mr. Hull had some capitalization and editorial comments that aren’t in this copy but we will include his comments. DJ I took out 17.65.050 from the Open Space Reserved Section and put it into the Golf Course Section because that’s where it’s better suited. CK The sole source aquifer question. DJ The comment: An approved plan for directing untreated runoff water, runoff away from the aquifer and treating all onsite runoff with advanced bio-filtration or better at construction? MJ I saw nothing that indicated all wastewater should be treated on site. KC Do we have minutes for last meeting? I’ve been noting my comment for a year. I’m getting tired of it. I’d like to see the BOCC run a meeting with the last six months to a year of minutes gone. It’s hard. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 13 This process that we’re doing sounds like it has a lot of problems in it, as opposed to, and if I had the minutes I’d read it to better understand better, but you mentioned it and I believe that, we don’t have to write or rewrite all of this. We can provide direction through a verbal written advice from us. Directing them to pay attention to whatever issues we feel most important and most of us can start pidgeoning those pretty quickly. Such as the Tribes, which again, we’re creating regulations for a site that the Tribe is on and we aren’t even privy to the discussions and we’re trying to make the decision for them? We can’t do that. So we can simply say in a letter, drafted, please understand that we are concerned that the Tribe and the County come to a mutual agreement with how this is to be developed with Statesman. OK? Then we don’t have to wrestle through a lot of this. I think the same thing is true for the issues with proper treatment of the Golf Course which we’re all concerned with the use of pesticides and whatever organic or inorganic material. Because in some cases, too much organic material isn’t good for the aquifer or the system. So in some cases we can direct them: please be sure this is addressed. I would move that we address this differently, in a written formal statement of what we would like to have done as opposed to this, which I think has a lot of problems. CK I completely agree with you and I think that’s worthy of quick discussion so if we decide to move forward with that, we do it. MS I would state that that’s basically what we’re doing. We’re editing this, in order to send along our thoughts of how it could be better as recommendations. From the point of view of the citizens that we’ve connected with both for and against the project and that’s what we’re supposed to do. We’ve got a lot of time in this and we’re pretty close. KC But for us to go in and put forward something that we know is going to be struck down in different ways. We’re at the very first point where we ended last time is dealing with the density and number of units. And again, we’ve negotiated with them once, asking for certain things, one of them is reduction of units. Another is reduction of Golf Course links and number of holes. All of which they’ve met. And now we’re saying reduce from 890 to 300 units? CK Why don’t we do a straw poll on shall we move forward on editing the regulations, which we’re half way through as we’ve been working on? So let’s move forward. PM To help with your deliberation, I don’t want to take you completely off the spot but in addition to the option as Kevin has pointed out and as we discussed last meeting where you can offer commentary in your recommendations to the BOCC asking that certain issues be addressed. The other thing is, while I think it’s good to have discussion for the question of redundancy in the code, and I’m not suggesting you should shy away from that, but if those technical draftsmanship issues are going to hang you up and prevent you from getting to your goal, bear in mind, like I said last meeting, since we don’t have minutes, is that this will still get reviewed by Departmental Staff and Legal Staff to advise the board in the final form of this. And I would anticipate, regardless of the fine work that you will do on your recommendations, the Board is probably going to need to make some further revisions, hold their own public hearing and finalize these regulations. So if that eases your burden a little, to help you get to your goal, I offer that. CK And we can add that to our recommendations: If there’s redundancies in here, which are covered elsewhere . . . 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 13 ?? And I want everyone to remember also, we’re an Advisory Board. We can advise the heck out of the BOCC, but all of us, I know I will be there, and I encourage everyone to be at the BOCC when their making a decision and going to make the votes, that’s when our voice has to be heard. CK Back to the issue. DWJ1 I’m again happy to scratch my note “or better at construction”. Thought I had last meeting. DWJ2 There’s another note, “sole source aquifer” and the section on “the approved organic vegetation and Site Management Plan”. That should be a new sub section. DJ So that would be B and the next one is C. CK So we just handled DWJ 1 and 2. DWJ3 Someone needs to listen to the recording. DWJ4 I put in 50’ from top of bank. So that’s fine. We’re at 17.70.020 DWJ5 The following uses may be allowed in the buffer and open space areas in MPR-OSR zone after a determination by whom? The County would make this determination after review of a Critical Areas Study. DWJ6 Restoring to natural condition. So we’re taking out the strike out, and keeping the restoration in. DWJ7 Passive Recreation, including trails, that does not reduce . . . DWJ8 All agreed. DWJ9 LS Ok everyone agrees to scratch it because Shoreline Management Program doesn’t apply. DWJ10 All agreed. DWJ11Same. All agreed. DWJ12 Same. All agreed. DWJ13 Strike it. All agreed. DWJ14 It’s already there, it’s redundant. Strike it. DWJ15 All agreed to changed density to setback. DWJ16 That was just a typo, should have been Ch. 18.25 not 18.27. DWJ17 PM Any change in development cap that may be negotiated in government to government that is between the Tribe and the County is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission at this time. In terms of the approach of redesigning the wastewater treatment that goes beyond any significant adverse environmental impact identified in the EIS seems to me is a bit overstepping. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 13 LS It’s my understanding that in general, municipalities use SEPA as a guideline, if there are additional significant environmental impacts that weren’t considered in the EIS then it would need to be considered. Proposed mitigation can be based on the EIS can be based on policies or best available science. The EIS is just a guidance document in my view. CK I spoke with David Goldsmith about this and he seems to agree with you that there’s nothing that stops us from adding additional restrictions we just can’t do more than the FSEIS allows. We couldn’t up the number of units. Also spoke to him about the ordinance the BOCC enacted that allowed the NPR to be created, the “thirty conditions” and he seemed to say the same thing about that. That it wasn’t an authorization, it was a limit. LS That ordinance ultimately resulted in the line on the map that we call the MPR district but that’s all it did. Then added the conditions, when the MPR regulations go forward they’re supposed to address those thirty conditions. PM I won’t belabor the point of in-excess and proportionality I’ve made my point and I would suggest that the Planning Commission continue. CK One of the things I’ve felt in reading the FSEIS was that I understand the five options that were reviewed and in reading the public comments and the five options them being: the two no action options, one of them was to leave the MPR as it is today, the other was to restore it, to take out the infrastructure, buildings and campgrounds. The three other options were the various versions of the resort as proposed as it went on. I think option three was the option where we had the nine hole Golf Course. What I read, was the least impact on this very sensitive place, was that the two no action options had less impact on the environment than any of the action options. I understand that document was finalized, but when I read some of the public comments I’m not clear, and I’m not talking about the Tribe, I’m talking about some of the other scientist’s (and the other groups) who wrote in, who had big concerns mostly about water in, water out. It’s not clear to me that they were addressed. I know this document is final but I worry that we regard it as a perfect document. It’s not clear to me. I still find concerns. KC Being one of the three that was there, we made the decisions based on a lot of very good information that was given. I went through my notes, that I referred to we made the decision on the FSEIS no slide options, we were given a presentation and we went through a lot of work and discussion, and we immediately eliminated the two no actions options, and seriously looked at the others. I went through my notes, I wrote all the comments including what was going on in the crowd at the time and two thirds to three quarters of the individuals there were for the project. Several people (for the project) still had concerns, like traffic and water, all those kinds of issues we were addressing and they were all valid points and of the twenty five to thirty percent that said they weren’t in favor, they said they would be in favor if those issues were addressed. I believe they have been and we were pushing them to address some more, which is what we ought to be doing. That’s all water under the bridge. Let’s keep moving. Even something as simple as saying fifty gallons per person, let’s say they do, as we discussed in the last meeting, the low impact development techniques where there’s a lot of great water recycling being done, then all of a sudden it’s twenty or twenty five gallons a day per person. Are they still stuck with three hundred because we’ve written it in here? Or are they now allowed to have six hundred and fifty or seven hundred because that same volume of water is now able to be handled by that many more because a lot of the light grey water, medium grey water is now being diverted, handled better and released back into the aquifer. So I just have a problem setting a finite number. CK If I could be clean, what I would do today is I’d say, what we really should have done is to say instead of reverse engineering this resort into this location, from my logical point of view, what we should have done is say how much water can this resort support? My point is instead of using a number of units, we should use a performance measure, and say: if you can do this much water, then you can do these many units. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 6 of 13 KC I think the performance based has it’s own problems. That’s what the FSEIS addressed, it had been over a thousand units before. MS I’d like to ask Phillip again, are you saying that the notion of how many units in an MPR is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission based on stuff that’s already been decided and things that have already happened? PM What I’m saying is two things: 1) there may be a limit that gets negotiated government to government in consultation with the proponent. They may change their proposal and that may be reflected in the Development Agreement that may ultimately also get reflected in the development phase. 2) Outside of that Treaty Rite Issue that’s being handled in the government to government process, I’m raising a caution flag, recognizing however that your actions are advisory only and that there are others that can potentially pull us back from the danger zone. But I’m signaling to you that I believe that if you’re unduly restrictive in what you do, without sufficient justification in the EIS as to mitigating a significant adverse environmental impact, that it creates, if it were to be adopted as such, would create a liability to the county, in terms of what are reasonable expectations of the property owner. So I’m cautioning you about overstepping. LS I would counter that, first of all, The Planning Commission can recommend essentially whatever they want. We’re not attempting to be unreasonable here. I have now reviewed a number of other County’s MPR regulations and they almost all address density. And none of them allow the density per acreage, that this MPR is allowing. I think we have to bear in mind that that number was a proposal prepared by the developer and wasn’t put through much of any impartial screen. So compared to other County’s and their MPR’s, this is a very high density in my opinion. PM Bear in mind there was an environmental analysis at the time of the Comprehensive Plan that allowed up to 890 units. MS Later in this document there will be a maximum number that we will recommend, but there’s also restrictions that are on total number of people there and traffic based on the water and special issues too. LS County’s and City’s impose so many requirements which is what controls the density of development 1:06:43 in certain zones, right? That is an issue that normally is separate from water availability because water rights is a very complicated issue. Statesman’s already been granted water rights, but just because there’s sufficient water should not be the only factor that’s controlling what kind of density goes out there. That’s just one thing, and EIS itself of course looked at a number of other constraints. CK I’m just stuck on the fact that it will have three times the density of Port Townsend in Brinnon. KC I think we’re still comparing apples and oranges. Looking at the density, I would expect it to be denser in an MPR where I don’t have schools system and park system. I’d be curious on those other MPR’s how where they designed for use? Port Ludlow, another MPR is a very different animal than what their proposing at Black Point and to suggest that we should do the same density as Port Ludlow I don’t think would be appropriate any more than it is to say Port Townsend. I understand everyone’s issue about overbuilding. But a developer is worried about overbuilding. We can set the limit, I’d like to move on. I’m not going to agree to any 300 because the science has said that 890 is fine. ? I disagree. The option is in there for no less than 65% of the total, which is 578. This is written by the developer, it is a suggestion, and I believe it is appropriate for our commission to discuss density. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 7 of 13 KC It’s a legitimate concern but the numbers are arbitrary. They’re negotiating it in a meeting we’re not even privy to and we’re trying to come up with a number that they’re talking about. MS I strongly suggest that we skip this, leave the original number and each of us write a letter to the Commissioner’s. CK I’d like to have a straw poll as to how we can address this and move onto it. OK, I’d like a straw poll on 300 please: 4 yes, 4 no. We’re at a draw. Straw Poll for 890? 4 No, 3 Yes, 1 Abstain. So we’re going to leave it unedited. PM One suggestion is you can leave it with an X for right now with a recommendation to the BOCC to fill that number in as informed by their government to government negotiations with the Tribe. All agreed! And the same for DWJ18 on the square footage. Put an X in, for the BOCC to fill in after the government to government negotiations with the Tribe. And everyone agrees to scratch out lobbies. DWJ19 Resort Plan and Development Agreement. DWJ20 OK to leave it off. DWJ21 Everyone’s fine with the scratch. DWJ22 Everyone disapproves of the scratch. DWJ23 OK with the scratch. DWJ24 Leave as it was originally. DWJ25 All agree with this change. DWJ26 It’s required elsewhere so take change out. Sentence ends at: project level details. DWJ27 All agree with change. DWJ28 Staff agrees with change. DWJ29 OK leave that in (the whole paragraph of (2). Also (3) Add: As set for in any applicable agreement. PUBLIC COMMENT James Fritz, Port Townsend: I would like to speak on the future of Discovery Bay. The Discovery Bay Motel has a Class A water system. It meets the same requirements as Port Townsend. Walter Moe is licensed to run a Class A water system, he’s a journeyman electrician, plumber and an excavator. It serves about 45 to 50 homes and businesses. Because the water is perfect. The water that comes out of Discovery Bay looks like coffee. There’s a lot of organic material in the glacial till, there’s volcanic’s underneath there. If Walter Moe was killed in an accident who would run it? Presumably the PUD would take it over. The only guarantee you have that the area would continue would be if you build a Motel. Now it’s listed as a site for a Motel in the Comp Plan, he has a Class A water system, and he now has a sewer system that meets all the requirements for a 100 unit hotel. The only problem is the foot print is 7,500 square feet. You can’t build a 100 unit Motel on a 7,500 square feet, you need about 60,000 square feet. You also need to raise the height level from 35 feet to 50 feet. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 8 of 13 It’s at the bottom of a hill so it won’t cut off anyone’s view. If these two requirements are changed, then he can go ahead and build a motel. The interest rates are low right now. So now is an ideal time to build a Motel. If you look at the advantages, you’re looking at 50 to 60 jobs. One hundred people, paying $100.00 or more for a Motel Room so you’re dealing with $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 daily coming into Jefferson County. It doesn’t compete with Port Townsend. You’re dealing with people that go back and forth on Hwy 101. The only reason anyone heading to Port Townsend would stay there is because Port Townsend is full. It’s a plus situation for everybody. I know the County doesn’t need $200,000 to $300,000 more tax dollars! Rob Mitchell from Brinnon The scope of this development is critical and the MPR is basically and end running around with the gross management act. It would be one thing if this resort was built someplace where it could be truly self-contained but it’s not. It’s in the middle of Hood Canal. The effect of this resort on Brinnon and traffic and pollution is going to be a stranglehold. It’s going to be very profitable for the County and for the Developer but it’s going to really hurt that entire area. The Developer has always stuck with 890 units because that’s his profit margin. He’s never been willing to cut it down and I don’t think he will. I think it’s the absolutely wrong place for an MPR. Roma Call with the Port Gamble, S’Klallam Tribe I just simply wanted to say thank you to the Planning Commission for all your work on this document. It’s really looking good and I really appreciate all your work on it. We’re looking forward to meeting with the County and Developer soon about all the technical meetings. But we appreciate everything you’ve been doing, we know you’ve put a lot of hours on this. Jean Ball Quilcene Page 4, under item 3, on the kettle ponds, we discussed last meeting to alter the verbiage instead of saying kettle pond it should just say kettle. So strike all ponds. At the very end of that paragraph it says: with adequate native vegetation buffers. I find that to be nebulous, what does that mean? We have in Jefferson County Code which specifies which class a vegetative buffer shall be provided and I think there should be some reference as to what you intend for that. For instance a Class A buffer is a total visual screening. On page 4 again, Article 4, Subsection C it states No Golf Course green shall be constructed over a sole source aquifer, the site grating and excavation shall be minimized. I find that to be unclear and also nebulous. Article D under that same section states Land disturbing activities such as grating and filling etc. There was in the previous draft reference to the wet land references. What happened to that?! I’ve used here in my comments and symbol that has a name, it’s called an interabang, which has a question mark and an exclamation point used simultaneously at the end of a sentence. I find myself using that a lot with these drafts. Now I know it has a name. Page 6: 1770.010 with purpose, it says: the zone to provide for a natural vegetative buffer area. That is completely unclear and we have plenty of verbiage within the code to use. Page 7, 1780.020 The final two words in there are internal open space. What is that? Thank you. I have some comment on the previous draft on page 5, 1770.010 under kettle ponds #4 no filling of wetland shall be allowed. I wrote under there hell yeah! It was stricken from the current draft. I find that disturbing. #5 says all development land disturbances shall protect and avoid all important cultural or historical sites that are listed by the State Historic Preservation Officer by local Tribal Jurisdiction. That was another Hell Yeah comment from me. #7 also Hell Yeah! Barbara Moore Lewis I want to talk about public meetings because this is a really important meeting and it’s important that it’s open to the public. The government to government meetings are open to the public, they’re not secret. If there are Commissioner’s there you have a right to go and hear what’s being said. I would very much be concerned with public meetings where citizens aren’t able to have transparent government. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 9 of 13 I just want to clarify that and it’s my opinion, I’m sure the technical meetings are going to be boring to someone like me, but if people want to go and support the people that are there, I don’t see why that would be a problem. I believe in transparent government. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR (Continued) KC Going back to 1770.010 the kettle ponds: All the ponds were struck. I thought we already addressed the issue that this isn’t a sole source aquifer. CK I was reading and was going to bring that document that said that more than 50% of the water for an area is from a single aquifer is what the definition that I read said. Lorna looked into this and she said there is a small secondary aquifer on that point but it’s not providing more than 50% of water to the site. KC I’m sorry, we’ve got a licensed hydrologist by the state saying this is not a sole source aquifer and we’re questioning his credentials? I understand you did the reading but this is a State Licensed Hydrologist, who knows the law, knows the rules and says this is not a sole source aquifer. So you’re saying that he’s wrong because of what you read? LS I’m not a hydrologist but everybody living there is drawing off one aquifer, then it is a sole source aquifer. CK So let’s not call it a sole source aquifer. MH What is the buffer around the kettles? Is it 5, 10 or 50’? DWJ There are no identified buffer’s around the kettles. Do you want one? MH Yes along kettle C but I really don’t know, 25 or 50’? My concern also besides water intrusion is soil stability if you take it and buff it down to the top. Maybe the Tribe could tell us what it should be. KC I think it’s something we should forward to BOCC for their government to government with the Tribe. CK So in Sub 3 under kettle’s we’re going to put buffers should be protected and preserved? KC Preserved and protected. Then kettle buffer’s an issue for the Tribe and the County to discuss. CK Everyone agrees. DWJ1 CK Sole Source Aquifer on page 4 are we striking on 17.65.050 sub A Sole Source Aquifer is struck but the rest of the paragraph stays. And another reference just below it. Can we just replace it with Critical Aquifer Recharge Area which is different? It is mapped that way. DWJ Some of it is, not all of it. KC Why not leave it as Aquifer Recharge Area and the maps delineate the rest? 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 10 of 13 CK So we’re just scratching the first three words “Sole Source Aquifer”? Well-head Protection and Aquifer Recharge Area is the heading. CK Everyone agree to strike the first sentence, and start off at Permeable soils? All agreed. KC It talks about advanced bio filtration. Can it be changed to current? It changes every four years. CK Everyone agrees, strike “Advanced Bio filtration”, replace with “Current Bio filtration”. DWJ30 Everyone is ok with striking “as specified”. DWJ31 DWJ Why would you have to go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if you’re just reducing the size and scope? LS Because if the boundaries were to change. PM So what you could say here is “enlargement of the scope of the Pleasant Harbor MPR or revision to the boundary of the MPR shall require. So you can word scope it, or work this out. CK So you can work on that David? DWJ32 DWJ I don’t see why it would reduce the flexibility of the developer so I’m ok with that. CK All agree. DWJ33 It should be in subsection two. LS Yes, I agree with David on that. DWJ34 LS I guess it’s an arbitrary number but ten percent seems rather major. KC I don’t have a problem with ten percent. CK Ten percent can be quite a difference. What’s the basis for ten? We’re so concerned with the size of the development, so ten percent could be a big deal. CK Straw Poll on 5%: Yes 4 No 3 and one abstention. So we’re at five percent and moving on. DWJ35 CK So Lorna is ok with that. Don’t do her strikes. DWJ36 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 11 of 13 DWJ I agreed with that strike but how and who would the determination be made? KC I think that would be the director. DWJ37 Both staff and legal have a problem with striking it. PM I believe this is referencing the latest FSEIS. So we could certainly clarify the nomenclature but I respect that the Planning Commission is debating whether even with clarifying whether they want it in there. CK I think what I’m hearing from Lorna is: As long as it’s clear which document they’re referring to and that it’s appropriate that it’s in here, then they might be ok with it. LS We want the most recent document. CK That would be the 2015 FSEIS. PM Would it be: and applicable Environmental Impact Documents? CK It say’s pertinent documents. We are going to edit it so it says Resort Plan FSEIS and then other pertinent documents. PM Which would be Subsequent SEPA Documents. OK DWJ38 DWJ I prefer the SEPA standard language and not change it from substantial to additional. CK We’re ok with that. DWJ39 It’s not the County’s business. CK We’re going to strike sub a. Everyone agrees. DWJ40 All agree DWJ41 Add the word also, for clarity. Everyone agrees. DWJ42 Everyone’s good with it. DWJ43 All agree that reinstating is not necessary. DWJ44 All agree to stick with SEPA language. DWJ45 OK to scratch the words Golf Course here only. PM The inclusion of the words Golf Course are certainly consistent. CK So we’re ok with scratching Golf Course. DWJ46 OK to leave it alone and stick with original text. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 12 of 13 DWJ47 Everyone is ok to scratch “Port Ludlow”. KC 17.65 030 We are all good with the height restrictions. The equipment will be provided. We’ll have to have a ladder truck down there. An apparatus. Current Code states and can handle up to 50’, this says up to 80’. So we should change it “to exceed up to 35’ in height”? It has to be there prior to construction. All agreed. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS We have two options. One would be to entertain a motion to approve these as noted. I’m a little worried about the omissions that we didn’t catch. We’re currently pretty close but if we did decide to revise the draft and review it together before the next meeting, it seems like we could vote to send the recommendation forward and have prepared and go ahead and complete the findings and conclusions at the next meeting. That would just give us a chance to go through all these revisions and everyone could go through it with our notes to check it. If we can get this done quickly, I’m happy to help in any way that I can so it can go out to the Planning Commissioner’s very quickly and then they can comment back if there’s anything that they notice. That would be good. PM Sounds like a great plan, a slight nuance you may want to consider with your direction here, would be to vote to recommend it forward as amended with an understanding that at your next meeting you will review staffs revised version to make sure it accurately reflects your direction. The reason I’m suggesting that is because it then closes the door on revisiting questions and re-debating the issues, it’s just a matter of did we get it right or not. ?? I would so move that we approve the changes that we made tonight to the document KC My motion is that we approve tonight the changes that we made to the document, incumbent upon us to verify that the changes are accurate prior to next meeting so that when we come to the meeting we can approve it. CK So we’re reporting to staff before the next meeting? CK What I’m asking for is that the edits be done and sent out so that we have reviewed them and sent anything we noticed back to David beforehand, not just save them for the next meeting. We all agree? Second on Kevin’s motion. Any discussion? ? Are you including Title 17 and 18 in the vote? Yes. CK All in favor? Yes 6, No 1, and Abstaining 1. Motion passes. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, 2016 Page 13 of 13 OBSERVER COMMENT Page 4, Item 2 It states Additional Large Trees. What’s “Large Trees” KC It’s a species. The larger trees. LS If there’s language David could research in the critical areas code that would work. KC I’ll look into this. It’s a very specific species. And also, a minimum size at planting. PM One of the issues about the size of the tree is its vulnerability. Please don’t specify something that’s too big or they may all die. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 06/29/2016 at 6:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 9:48 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2016. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center July 06, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Call to Order at 7:05 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Nilsson: Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Felder: Absent U Sircely: Absent E Giske: Present Joel Peterson, Asst. Planner Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present Patty Charnas, Director, DCD Anna Bausher, Asst. Planner Emma Bolin, Asst. Planner Pat Hopper, Asst. Planner Public in Attendance: 33 Approval of Agenda: Approved Approval of Minutes: April 6 and June 1 not approved. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS This is our first night of the road show here at Clearwater. OLD BUSINESS CK On June 15 the Planning Commission voted on draft regulations, making them undraft regulations for the Brinnon MPR and we voted to send forward the draft edit we’ve been working on for nearly six months to the BOCC. So that’s a recommendation to the BOCC and they have no obligation to listen to us. On our special meeting on 06/29/16 we completed that process and came out with our findings of the Planning Commission and we wanted to also send forward our story of the last six months and researching this project because this is the first time that Jefferson County has had a MPR built here from scratch. Port Ludlow was the only other one in the county but that was after the Growth Management Act of 1990 was passed. So we sent forth our story to the BOCC of our investigation. We drafted a letter and the BOCC heard it on 06/29/16 and got copies. I want to say this process of reviewing this MPR was a huge learning curve for all of us. It’s been a very long process for us all. For clarification two of the planning commissioner’s drafted this letter (Lorna Smith and myself) to the BOCC and we’re bringing it forward as a draft for you to consider signing it. We can send it as a minority or a majority report and we can vote to send it forward. That’s the decision for tonight if any individual wants to sign it DWJ So for clarification, you redrafted the regulations that we’re proposed, and you voted to send those forward as part of your recommendations, you also developed findings that we’re required according to Jefferson County Code, and you voted to send those forward and instructed staff to include that in your recommendations. So you satisfied your duty under Jefferson County Code and you’ve also met your deadline of July 11, 2016 so you are free to forward any more correspondence you wish to as an individual or as a group and I want to make sure you understand that. LS I move that the Planning Commission forwards this letter before us to the BOCC. MJ I second that. CK Any discussion? 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center July 06, 2016 Page 2 of 5 TG If this letter was forwarded it has to come from the Commission, not from individuals. It’s written as if it were the Commission speaking, in my mind it would have to be completely re-written if it’s only from two or three of the members of the Commission. Whether it’s a minority report or a majority report, no way, if it goes forward in my opinion. Then it needs to go forward as a document from the Commission making it clear how many members support it and how many don’t. Secondly there’s a lot of content about learning experience. I understood it and I don’t think it is valuable to have that written down. It seems to me the point of the letter is that they accept it and you suggesting to the BOCC what you would like to see them do. If that was the point of the letter, voting on whether we go forward with this letter or not centers on page 7. If we agree that those things need to be done, considerably we would support the letter. If we don’t agree, then we shouldn’t support the letter. I think the introduction, that section of it, is a bit wishy washy. If it’s a recommendation, the people that support it, then I would say this is our recommendation. What can I say? LS I was going to say if you’ve got some recommended wording, I’d like to see that. CK That would be great Mr. Giske. Mr. Giske did mention that before, and we thought it was a great comment. TG I’m not necessarily supporting this but if this letter goes forward, then say that the Planning Commission recommends that the BOCC give careful consideration to the process, to these conditions before they move forward. Something like that. CK Does anyone have any comment about a rewrite of this first business on page 7, the first line that it’s in bold. He’s just asking that it have a little more emphasis. MJ Where it mentioned an anthropologist report. LS I think before we take a vote on this letter I’d like to make a few comments: I commend all my fellow commissioner’s greatly, particularly Ms. Koan for really sticking with this very difficult topic and for digging down and looking at what was really going on. A number of us had concerns about the process from the beginning. Concerns that the Development Recommendations were comingled with an examination of a specific development that was a cause for concern and we would try to address that with a letter and we let the BOCC know that so we all burned the midnight oil working on this and hopefully it will be the most difficult issue we have to deal with for a while. CK All in favor of this letter: 4 Yes, 1 Abstain, 2 Against. (Kevin Coker and Richard Hull against) KC Let’s be clear, there will be four signers. I do not want this to reflect my opinion. If it’s a minority report or a majority report, it should be signed by the individuals who support it. I do not support this. LS I respectfully disagree. That was not the motion that I made. The motion that I made was for the Planning Commission to forward this letter. I think that it moves forward from the Planning Commission and I think that those opposed should say so, decide and are very welcome to submit a minority report. MJ I suggest that we list the individuals who are opposing it and we list the individual members that agree to send it forward. LS You could call it a friendly amendment that came after we voted. I think that who voted in which direction is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center July 06, 2016 Page 3 of 5 CK I’m getting nods so this will be slightly edited to have the correct date and who it is addressed to and the address and the signature of the Planning Commission and a list of who voted and how. Thank you Planning Commissioners. STAFF UPDATES: None PUBLIC COMMENT: Terry Albright 161-5 N Bay Ln, Port Ludlow. My wife and I have property here since 1999. I’m currently on the Port Ludlow Village Council, past president for two years and am on the Development Committee. On behalf of the Village Council we’d like to welcome you Commissioners and staff. This is a very exciting development. An opportunity for us to provide you with feedback. So now we’re beginning to understand a MPR. I want you to know that my experience on the council for four years, is the resident’s concern about the quality of life and there have been a number of things that have come up that have caused great consternation to them including: the pit to pier project, traffic, tree harvesting, water quality, seeing auto’s in the residential area, and the quality of schools. So we want to bring this to your attention, on behalf of the council, going forward we hope we can develop a comprehensive plan that will deal with these issues and hopefully develop a better quality of life. Bob Mitchell, Brinnon. Port Ludlow is a perfect example of where a MPR should be located. It’s at the end of a road where the negative impacts are minimal. Black Point is the worst possible location. It’s in the middle of route 101 which is in the middle of Hood Canal. Which is the only major route for all traffic, tourism and commercial to serve the peninsula. That’s all I need to say. Dennis Shultz, Port Ludlow. In the years I’ve been here I’ve served on the Planning Commission, the Conservation District, E. Jefferson Watershed Plan and the Conservation Futures Fund. So I’ve been involved for a long time. Something I don’t see mentioned in here is the Economic Development of any importance. We have an Economic Development Council that does nothing. One of the essential parts of a Comp Plan should be the Economic Development of the County. This County has a state wide reputation of being unfriendly to business, driving businesses out of the County and nobody wants to come here. They’ve driven the young people out because there aren’t any jobs there isn’t any affordable housing. There’s something that his Comp Plan feeling is looking for good clean new business’s that can come in and create a healthy economic climate. This county is a retirement county, that’s all it is and we’ve got to do something about it because we just going downhill. We’re all getting older and eventually this county is going to collapse on itself. You’ve got to do something about it. This plan has absolutely nothing in here to look at about developing new business for the County. Allan Kiesler, Port Ludlow. This is wonderful. I was looking at your population projects. That’s 1.3% growth per year? One thing I’m looking at here is. The population is aging. What are you going to do for seniors? In terms of infrastructure? We really don’t have many Senior Care Services? Some are leaving. The County is going to have to encourage that. I don’t find anything in the Economic Plan that talks about that. The County is getting older, the oldest in the state, and it’s projected to get up to 1.5 years older in the next ten years. We need a senior component in there that should be a part of this plan. Now is the time to do it and I think your growth projections are wrong. With us baby boomers retiring costs in Seattle are 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center July 06, 2016 Page 4 of 5 going to be sky high. Home sales in Port Ludlow outsold Port Townsend two years in a row and they aren’t youngsters coming in. Patty Patterson. I have an advanced degree in urban studies so I’m very interested in this stuff. I’d like to echo the idea of Senior Planning. I think that’s essential since that’s a growing portion of our population. There’s a major medical center here that we can begin to incorporate into that planning process. Allan Kiesler, Port Ludlow. There are approximately 220 cities in the State. Port Ludlow is considered to be #148. Look at our tax dollars of what we contribute to the county and see what we get back. Just look at the grass around the roads there’s a ten foot right-away, and you can see it’s not been mowed. The money’s all centered on Port Townsend. Not Port Ludlow. I’m wondering if as a City, I don’t think we’re represented. Like Washington D.C. It’s a lot like Port Ludlow. My comment is I think Port Ludlow needs a little more emphasis in you plan. Neil Wood, Port Ludlow. Like others I hadn’t planned to say anything but my interested has been sparked about seniors. One of the things that’s come to my attention is the lack of coordination between the Jefferson Health Community and the healthcare community in Kitsap which has better quality emergency care, cardiac care and other advanced services. I think there is great opportunity for Jefferson County to coordinate the services for medical for everybody and for specialty services that we need. As far as specialist are concerned you’re going to have to travel. I can go into Harrison and my test results will be video conferences with the Mayo Clinic. You can have a Mayo Clinic surgeon right there in the operating room. Dennis Schultz again. The County has unfriendly Planners. It also has an unfriendly language to anybody that wants to build. I’ve dealt with a number of builders around the state who refuse to have anything to do with Jefferson County. I’ve talked with several designers who will not come here because of the attitude of the County Government. It’s very unfriendly. They don’t want roads; they don’t want any development I know of millions of dollars of waterfront homes that haven’t been built because our County won’t let them do it. You’re not friendly. Heather Graham, Chimacum. Dennis and I had opposite experiences building a house in Chimacum. I’m on the creek which is considered shoreline. I had an easy time with DCD and septic largely because I read all the rules. My dad was developing property in Oak Bay on the water within 500’ of a bulkhead on the beach and he had challenges because his property was so small because he was within 200’ of the shoreline. He also had a farm, that he had troubles building a home on which was a 100 yr. old dairy farm. So I understand some of the challenges that people have developing property here but as someone who has decided to stay here and develop in this County I feel that it’s been a lot smoother than what other people were talking about. So I feel like there’s things to work with but its site specific. Jean Ball, Quilcene. I’ve been here over fourteen years and one of the things that constantly arises in conversation is economic development. Jobs here are very limited. I’m a tree hugger and a woodworker. Jefferson County is a county divided by a vast wilderness. I’ve moved here for that wilderness and am staying here because of it. I just bought a house in Quilcene and I’m spending lots of money in other Counties that I’d rather be spending here at home but it’s not an option. We have water issues in Jefferson 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center July 06, 2016 Page 5 of 5 County. I have a water based business, I install irrigation and I’m very mindful of water use, consumption and the source of that water. ?? We need to change our building codes so business’s in Jefferson County can grow beyond a certain size and expand their facilities. This County is run by two group’s people. The City of Port Townsend and the State Department of Ecology and it needs to change. This County has never been able to turn down a grand from the Dept. of Ecology for anything. As a result, they do what the Department of Ecology wants, not what the people of the county want. There’s a common denominator being talked about here is jobs. We’re interested in adding jobs around here that will entice people to come here to work, not just retire. How much does Jefferson County spend on economic development incentives outside of the County? Encouraging people from other counties to establish themselves in Jefferson County. And how much is spent doing that and how does that compare with other counties in the state and neighboring states. Could we do something about regulating the friendly bridge? If you’re trying to establish business here, you want some certainty to be able to make it across. We’ve got two senators that have seniority now. Gary Nobles, Port Ludlow. I can’t resist telling about an antidote of a woman that used to cut my hair. She looked at me with tears in her eyes and said Mr. Nobles, why couldn’t we have just one big box store in Jefferson County? Don Coleman, Brinnon. You asked about Economic Development. Jobs are key element in Economic Development. The challenges that we see is the fine line of protecting the environment and still building something that will create jobs and bring more people in here. It can be done. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS: None OBSERVER COMMENT: None Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 07/20/2016 at 6:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 8:23 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2016. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD