Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM021400District No. 1 Commissioner: Don Harpole Distrid No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Walt Depuh/Counh/Administrator: David Goldsmith Public Works Director: Gory Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lama Delaney, CMO MINUTES Week of February 14, 2000 Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Dan Harpole were both present. Assessor Jack Westerman and Treasurer Judi Morris re: Property Tax Relief for Homeowners; S JR 8212: Assessor Jack Westerman reported that S JR 8212 would reduce the State tax levy by $200.00 for each permanent residence in the State. He urged the Board to pass a resolution in support of this bill to provide relief to local tax payers. The Legislature has a chance, by approving this legislation, to offer the voters an alternative for any initiative that comes up for the reduction of property taxes. This bill is currently being reviewed by the House of Representative's Finance Committee. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 15-00 in support of S JR 8212 and that the resolution and a cover letter be sent to the State delegation, as well as members of the House Finance Committee. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: A thank you to the Board and the Prosecutor's Office for the recent Court ruling on the asphalt batch plant at Cape George; there is a great deal of support for the removal of the batch plant from the residents in that area; the Court's decision can be appealed and several people urged the Board not to allow this plant under any circumstances; a comment about why the EDC did not attend the public hearing last week on their Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and there is a need to have an asphalt batch plant in the County and the best location is a gravel pit. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole moved to delete Item 1, and to approve Item 11, as modified, and the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETE Resolution re: Vacate a Portion of Blanche Avenue and Marion Street; Morrissey Addition; Nancy Stratton, Petitioner (See item later in Minutes.) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 16-00 re: Vacate a Portion of Holly Street and Evergreen Avenue; Evergreen Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 o 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Addition; Jerry Lamphear, Petitioner AGREEMENT re: Temporary, Full Time Seasonal Maintenance at Memorial Field and HJ Carroll Park; Jefferson County Public Works; William Riley Brazil AGREEMENT re: Detention Services; Juvenile and Family Court Services; Kitsap County AGREEMENT lnterlocal re: Provide Pre-pregnancy Family Planning Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; State Department of Social and Health Services AGREEMENT Amendment #1 re: Group A - Non Community Water Systems Enhancement Project; Six (6) Month Extension, N08075; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; State Department of Health Request to Approve Waiver of Ordinance No. 04-0828-98, Section 13 (Public Notice Requirements); for a Boundary Line Adjustment; Leon Harris Out of State Travel Request to Attend NACM Mid Year Conference in Kansas City, Missouri; David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator Out of State Travel Request to Attend National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition Conference in Reno, Nevada; Glen Huntingford, County Commissioner Out of State Travel Request to Attend NACo Conference in Washington, DC; Richard Wojt, County Commissioner Letter Conceming Proposed 4(d) Rule and the Impact on Jefferson County Residents; Representative Norm Dicks Reappoint Member to Serve Another Term on the Jefferson County Rural Library District; Term Expires 4/1/05; Patience Rogge Appoint Person to Serve on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) for District #3; Term Expires 2/14/02; Cynthia Lesh COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Planning Manager Warren Hart reported on the following: The Port Ludlow Development agreement is being finalized by ORM and should be submitted to the Department by March 18, 2000. The Department anticipates that the public hearing on the agreement will be scheduled on May 1, 2000. The Department has been advised that the County received a summary judgment on the Broders v Jefferson County case regarding SEPA mitigation tees for the Chimacum School District and the Port Ludlow Fire District. The Planning Departments on the Peninsula will be hosting a Planning Conference on Saturday, February 26, 2000 at the Port Townsend Community Center. The topic is the "Planning Short Course." The Department wants to include a public education section on the provisional UGAs in the final work plan before it is adopted. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Commissioner Harpole reminded the Department that a review of SB5019 still needs to be done. The Department has contacted other counties regarding the form of a "Request for Proposals" for work on the County final development regulations. The Board met in executive session from 10:45 to 11:05 a.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Planning Manager from Community Development regarding pending litigation. Recommendations from Prosecuting Attorney re: Lakeside Industries Asphalt Batch Plant: Commissioner Harpole moved to request that the Prosecuting Attorney's office send a letter to the Attorney for Lakeside Industries demonstrating the County's recognition of the Court's decision. They can apply for a Conditional Use Permit at anytime, but until there is approval of a permit for asphalt batching, they are to cease all operations regarding asphalt batching. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS Vacate a Portion of Blanche Avenue and Marion Street; Morrissey Addition; Nancy Stratton, Petitioner: (See Item #1 on the Consent Agenda.) Terry Duff; Public Works Department, reported that Leon Lopeman has indicated his support of this vacation petition. Mr. Lopeman has access to his property and the right-of-way is still subject to private easement, if vacated. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 17-00 ordering the vacation of a portion of Blanche Avenue and Marion Street in Morrissey Addition. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Review Draft Letter to Public Utility District #1 (PUD) re: Telecommunications Roundtable Meeting: Commissioner Harpole authorized the draft letter, and added that he would like the letter copied to all of the people that received the PUD's letter. The Board concurred that this letter be signed and sent. Petition for Road Vacation for a Portion of Platted 3faa venue Located in Irondale; Mike Millican Petitioner: Terry Duff reported that this petition was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner originally in 1997. He remanded the petition back to the Department to be reviewed under the traffic circulation plan of the Tri Area Special Study. That part of the Study was completed to a point that allowed a determination to be made by the Department. The right-of-way would not be needed for any traffic circulation and the Department recommended approval. The petition went before the Hearing Examiner again in January of this year. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Commissioner Harpole moved to support the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve this petition as submitted. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Director's Update: Gary Rowe, Director, reported: At a meeting with the DNR last week regarding the Indian Island Park, it was reported that this property is on a list for possible exchange for other properties. This list has not been made public. Gary Rowe will follow up with the DNR about this list and what may happen to this property. The water fountain on the second floor will be replaced. The sign for the Larry Scott Trail should be done soon. The Public Works Department met with the PUD a few weeks ago regarding the possibility of transferring the water wells in Brinnon and Quilcene. The process to transfer these wells to the PUD will be started. The building at Fort Worden has been inspected and could be used for records storage. The Records Manager will visit the building to determine if there would be a problem with moisture. Commissioner Harpole suggested that the County ask if the basement in Building 204 is available for storing records because it is heated. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Department Update: Director of Nursing Jean Baldwin reported: A portion of the hours for the Community Health Analyst are being funded by a grant from the Center for Disease Control. The Hospital has submitted a letter indicating that they will not be funding the portion of this position as they have in the past. The Area Agency on Aging (03A) is interested in taking over this position and will be discussing that in the future. Recently there were 3 illegal methamphetamine drug labs discovered in the County. The Health Department works with the Police and the owner on the clean up of the site. The cost of this clean up process is tracked by the Fire Department and the Health Department. The Fire Marshal received a call stating that the Health Department Offices are not in compliance with the fire code. There has been an inspection and since most of the spaces are not public, they are in compliance with the Fire Code. Some of the funding for Family Planning agencies was cut because of the passage of 1-695. The Governor has provided some financial help, but not as much as was hoped. The Department will be working to get more funding. The Environmental Health workload is a continuing concern. This problem is being reviewed and will take more time to work out. The Board thanked the Health Department staff for their work on the Prevention Works Conference. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Status of Developmental Disabilities Employment at the Recycling Center: Commissioner Harpole stated that he felt that the people who work at the Recycling Center seem to be satisfied with their jobs. Anna McEnery, Developmental Disabilities Coordinator, reported that the Department has hired a person to talk with the people at the Recycling Center to make sure they know there are other job opportunities available for them. An outside evaluator also visited the site to determine the health and safety issues at the Recycling Center. The Public Works Department, Skookum Industries and the Development Disabilities Advisory Board will review that evaluation. Three (3) Applications for Assistance from the Veterans' Relief Fund: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the 3 applications for assistance from the Veterans' Relief Fund as recommended by the Service Officers Association in the amounts of $197.38, $240.00, and $315.51. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Deliberations re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Commissioner Harpole noted that in the discussion of the work plan for DCD, there was consideration given to not taking any Comprehensive Plan amendment applications for 2000. He suggested that no Comprehensive Plan amendments, whether they are site specific or policy amendments, be taken in any of the following planning areas: Quimper 2A, Tri Area 1-20, and the Brinnon Sub-area Area 11. This would mean a very limited Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for 2000. Chairman Wojt asked how, and if, this would actually limit the amendment process? Commissioner Harpole noted that 9 of the 15 amendments submitted this year would not have been accepted if this suggestion had been in place. Planning Manager Warren Hart noted that policy amendments that come up in 2000 that have to do with these planning areas could be held out until the sub- area planning is completed. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez reminded the Board that there is no obligation in the RCW that the amendment process be done every year. Chairman Wojt explained that the amendments before the Board will be reviewed in numerical order. Warren Hart reported that staff has spent time reviewing SHB6094 as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan; and how it relates to implementation strategies. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 CPA 99-01: Patrick Smith; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and noted that any impacts could be mitigated at the time of a project proposal on this site. State DCTED recommended that this be denied. The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation. The Planning Commission did not issue a minority report. Warren Hart advised that it is within the Board's purview to determine if this should be included in the logical boundaries. Commissioner Harpole noted that on October 5, 1999 the Board held a hearing where a provisional UGA was proposed and this property was included in the expanded logical boundary options. If the Board would have decided at that time to do an expanded logical boundary and not a provisional UGA, an additional 8.5 acres from this property and the Spigarelli property would have been included. He feels that both of these properties could be considered as in-fill and as within the logical boundaries under SHB6094. Commissioner Huntingford read the findings of fact from the Planning Commission. He stated that this property has commercial water taps and fire flow available to the site. He doesn't feel that DCTED looked at these issues the same way the County did. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve CPA99-01. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford noted that more discussion is necessary about the appearance and qualities the County wants to see in a rural crossroads. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Harpole asked the next step in the process? Warren Hart reported he will work with the Prosecuting Attorney to put together findings of fact for this decision CPA99-02: Walter Moa; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and noted that any impacts could be mitigated at the time of a site specific project application on this site. State DCTED recommended that this be denied. The Planning Commission recommendation was to deny. The Planning Commission issued a minority report. Commissioner Huntingford noted that it is his recollection that during the Comprehensive Plan deliberations the Board agreed to allow a motel on this site, but they evidently did not take into account how much property would be needed for the project. Commissioner Harpole asked that a map of this site be reviewed. Warren Hart reported that there are numerous parcels owned by this property owner that are split by the Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of Februar7 14, 2000 zoning. He added that in 1998, when the zone boundaries were established, the Board decided not to use parcel boundaries for the zone boundaries. Warren Hart reported that the Board included the built environment in the boundary, but SHB6094 allows undeveloped land to be included inside the logical boundary. Commissioner Harpole noted that there are other issues regarding development on this property including parking, drain fields, 7,500 square foot building, setbacks from salmon streams, fire flow, and access. All of these issues would have to be mitigated and addressed before any type of motel project could be approved for the site. In August of 1998, it was the Board's intent to allow the remodel project for the motel to go forward. Chairman Wojt asked if the proposal is approved for 7.62 acres, and the proponent uses only 4 acres to meet his needs, could the line be redrawn to that boundary? Commissioner Harpole asked if approval of a CPA can be conditioned? David Alvarez answered that it probably cannot be approved with conditions. Warren Hart reported that the applicant has requested that a little over 7 acres of land be included in this zone, even though he owns more land in the area. Commissioner Harpole moved to add a finding as part of this CPA deliberation that the maximum building size is 7,500 square feet and that any proposed project for the site will go through a continual process of community involvement and input to mitigate impacts. The Board has been aware of the 7,500 square foot limit on the motel building and they support Walter Moa's efforts. Warren Hart suggested that the findings include the wording that the built environment existed in July, 1990 and that SHB6094 allows the inclusion of undeveloped land within the logical boundary. Commissioner Harpole moved to support CPA 99-02 and requested that staff create the appropriate findings of fact. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CPA99-03: Kenneth Livingston; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued an DNS. State DCTED recommended that it be denied. The Planning Commission recommended that it be denied. There were no minority reports issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harpole asked if this property is in the area covered by the sub-area plan? Warren Hart reported that it is. Chairman Wojt noted that the sub-area plan is the process for reconsidering the tight line boundaries in the Tri Area. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the Assessor has advised that this property was down zoned when it was taken out of the commercial zone. Commissioner Harpole stated that current Comprehensive Plan policies will not allow this property to be designated as commercial because it is not contiguous with other commercial properties. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there wasn't a "leap frogging" issue until the property was down zoned by the County. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Commissioner Harpole moved to deny the application. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. Warren Hart commented that a decision is important on all the site specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments where a separate sub-area planning process is taking place so that the staff is given clear direction. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt vote for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion which carried. CPA99-04: Stan Johnston; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staffs recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and noted that any impacts could be mitigated at the time of a project application on this site. State DCTED recommended that it be denied. The Planning Commission recommended approval. There was no minority report issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve this amendment as recommended in the Planning Commission's findings. Commissioner Huntingford questioned how storm water issues would be addressed if this parcel is developed? Warren Hart reported that several adjacent property owners stated concerns about the storm water runoff issues from clearing and road building. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt abstained from voting. The motion carried. CPA99-05: Don Spigarelli; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staffs recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and noted that any impacts could be mitigated at the time ora project application on this site. State DCTED recommended that it be denied. The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation. There were no minority reports issued by the Planning Commission. This property is part of a sub-area planning process. Commissioner Harpole noted that when the Board went through an extensive hearing process for the Tri Area and issued a provisional UGA, this 5 acre parcel was included in the expanded logical boundary of both options that were suggested. He supported including this property in the logical boundary. The question in front of the Board on this application is if it should be included in the General Commercial Crossroads designation.'? Any project on this site would require mitigated impacts because of the proximity to a public well. The criteria for designating this property was not consistently applied. Warren Hart noted that this property is bordered by a right-of-way which is allowed in the SHB6094 criteria. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve CPA99-05. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CPA99-06 - Staff recommended, and the Board rejected and docketed this amendment. CPA99-07 and CPA99-08 were rejected and docketed by the Board. CPA99-09: Chuck Finnila; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staWs recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and in order to address impacts encouraged by the amendment. Certain studies would be required before a specific project application. State DCTED recommended that it be denied. The Planning Commission recommended that it be docketed. There was a minority report issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the testimony at the hearing brought up the fact that in the Brinnon Community Plans beginning in 1982, the residents designated three separate commercial areas so that if one area was cut off because of flood or fire, services from the other areas would still be available. This idea was reinforced when fire department buildings were built in all three commercial areas. Commissioner Harpole stated that the community obviously supports this proposal. He noted that he is having trouble seeing the 1990 pre-built environment for this application. The language in the County's policy doesn't support this application and there is currently a sub-area planning process for this area. Chairman Wojt said that the Board does not currently have the option of designating this property as a Master Planned Resort. Commissioner Harpole noted that a Master Planned Resort is considered a sub-area plan and it can be adopted as an amendment at any time without having to wait for the next Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Warren Hart reported that this CPA and the following CPA are the hardest to deal with in terms of the County's policy. The best way to handle them is through the sub-area planning process. He asked that the Board provide clear policy direction to the Brinnon Sub-area Planning Group. Commissioner Huntingford stated that if the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan isn't changed, the sub-area planning group may not be able to make the changes they feel are necessary. He is opposed to the Master Planned Resort designation in this case. Commissioner Harpole noted that he heard comments at the public hearing on future development in this area which includes a substantial marine trade, a permitted restaurant, some commercial services, and a residential area. To him, these types of businesses would indicate a resort. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Warren Hart noted that the MDNS on this amendment is the same as the one issued on CPA99-10 which requires that the County address significant cumulative impacts prior to approval of the amendment and specific studies would need to be completed. Warren Hart asked that the Board give DCD clear direction to take to the Brinnon Community Planning Group Commissioner Huntingford asked for more information about the Master Planned Resort designation and how the community would be effected if LNP 5.1 in the Comprehensive Plan is changed or not changed. Commissioner Harpole moved to table CPA99-09 and CPA99-10 until later in the week when more information is available from staff. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. CPA99-10: Linda Tudor; Applicant Commissioner Harpole moved to table CPA99-10 until later in the week when more intbrmation is available from staff. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CPA99-11: Michael Whittaker; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS; all of the potential project impacts could be mitigated at the time of a site specific application. State DCTED recommended that this be approved. The Planning Commission recommended that it be denied. There were no minority reports issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harpole asked if there are permitted septic systems on this site? Warren Hart reported that there are four dwellings with septic systems, but DCD doesn't know the status of the septic systems. Commissioner Huntingford noted that if the septic exemption is applied or this amendment is approved, the results will be the same. He doesn't think that it will cause a "domino effect" as DCD has indicated. Commissioner Harpole suggested that the density exemption process is more applicable for this property because the property owner will be certain of the results at the end of the process. He added that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process can be appealed on this property because there are critical area issues and also concerns about the designation of adjacent properties. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve this amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Harpole moved to deny this amendment based on policy language in the current Comprehensive Plan and the County's inability to create a defensible decision for the applicant. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford asked the cost that the applicant was assessed to go through the CPA process? Staff reported that the application fee is $250 and it is not refundable. The Chair Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. CPA99-12: Lela Hilton; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staWs recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and noted that any impacts could be mitigated at the time of a project application on this site. State DCTED recommended that this be approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to approve. There were no minority reports issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve CPA99-12 as recommended. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion the which carried by a unanimous vote. CPA 99-13: Bruce Bailey; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS and noted that any impacts could be mitigated at the time of a project on this site. State DCTED recommended that this be denied. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to deny. There was a minority report issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harpole asked if the PP & R (Private Parks and Recreation) designation was changed on this property? Associate Planner Alice King reported that the PP & R designation was changed to rural residential, I residence on 10 acres. The request is to change the zoning from rural residential, I residence on 10 acres to rural residential, 1 residence on 5 acres. A portion of the parcel on the northwest side of the Chevy Chase golf course is platted 1 residence on 5 acres. However, the part of the parcel that is contiguous to the golf course has a greater density. Commissioner Harpole noted that one of the areas of concern with this application is the level of ambiguity of LNP 3.3.1. Does the "established pattern" criteria apply to individual parcels or to the ownership of a block of parcels as represented in this case? Staff was asked to create a map that showed the existing lots of record around the site and not just the land use designations. 80% of the parcels surrounding the property are 5 acres or less. Commissioner Harpole stated that this isn't about whether the Baileys can keep a golf course open or mitigate to place homes on the acreage. The Board must look at the policy and make a determination on the request based on the policy. Information introduced into the hearing shows that there is an abundance of lots in the Quimper Planning area and that number includes the 95 lots on this property Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 that were once vested in the Bailey's proposed Planned Unit Development application. The total lot count on the Quimper Peninsula will be reduced by 50+ lots if this amendment is approved because the PUD application was allowed to expire. Commissioner Huntingford asked that the Planning Commission's minority report be entered as a finding of fact for this application. He reiterated that the issue before the Board is a policy issue as stated by Commissioner Harpole. Commissioner Huntingford said that he thinks LNP 3.3.1 needs to be reviewed for a possible domino effect around the County, but he is not willing to use it to deny this amendment. He feels more discussion is needed on the LNP and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment may be necessary to change it. Warren Hart explained that the Board can define any of the LNPs that they feel are vague. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve CPA99-13. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion for discussion. Chairman Wojt questioned whether these are considered separate parcels with contiguous ownership? He stated that one of the questions brought up in the hearing testimony was whether the pattern of ownership was historic? Opponents to this amendment are concerned that in the future, a person could go out and buy large holdings of adjacent property and use the established pattern criteria to their advantage. Warren Hart feels that there has been adequate discussion relating to both sides of this issue and what the ramifications of this amendment could be on subsequent applications in the future. The Board needs to adopt a finding: do they interpret LNP3.3.1 from the Planning Commission's perspective or from a different perspective? Commissioner Harpole said that he doesn't see that approving this amendment would set a precedent, but he agreed that the LNP needs to be clarified. Chairman Wojt gave an example of 4 parcels that are surrounded by 5 acre lots, all in different ownership. If the owner of one of those parcels asked for a designation of 1 residence on 5 acres, they would be told no. However, if the parcel owner purchased the other 3 parcels, they would be granted the CPA. He stated that the Board looked at several parcels of property that fit this criteria before they adopted the Comprehensive Plan and it was agreed that the ownership had to be historic. The question is: if you own all the lots, do you get to count the periphery? Or if you have separate lots, do you have to count the lots separately? He believes the issue is quite clear. Commissioner Harpole agreed that there are real issues about the policy that have to be addressed for either side of the argument. The policy is not clear about how this gets interpreted parcel by parcel, distinct from using ownership as the criteria. He believes that when the Board went through these designations before the Plan was adopted, they used the "established pattern" criteria. Chairman Wojt reiterated that, if this CPA is approved and the property is designated I residence on 5 acres, any development would require a subdivsion application and public process. He has concerns that the Quimper Peninsula will become an area with only one size of lot. Approval of this CPA would be another Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of Februar7 14, 2000 step toward removing the variety of lot sizes which are associated with a rural area. Commissioner Huntingford stated that everybody has a different idea about what rural looks like. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Harpole and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion which carried. CPA99-14: Olympic Property Group; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued a DNS and noted that no other environmental analysis is necessary at this point. State DCTED recommended that this be approved. The Planning Commission recommended approval. There were no minority reports issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve CPA99-14. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CPA99-18: Jefferson County Telecommunications Advisory Committee; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued a DNS and no additional environmental analysis is necessary at this point. State DCTED recommended that this be approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to approve. There were no minority reports issued by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve CPA99-18 with the Planning Commission's findings of fact. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 4:45 p.m and reconvened at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 to continue deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. All three Board members were present. CPA99-20: Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Quiicene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 The Department issued an MDNS; additional environmental analysis would be required prior to approval. State DCTED recommended that this be denied. The Planning Commission recommended that this be denied. The Planning Commission issued a minority report. Commissioner Harpole stated that some of the issues represented by this request deserve further consideration. The County doesn't have final development regulations in place to address other types of commercial opportunities, and since the Board wants greater flexibility in the use tables when the regulations are set, the deletion of Section 5.1 would be a problematic step at this time. The final development regulations will partially address these concerns. The South County and the Tri Area are both currently involved with sub-area planning processes that need to go forward. He added that Section 5.1 needs review and possible refinement in the future. Chairman Wojt noted that until the final development regulations are in place, modifying the ElCO Use Table may be a better way to address these concerns. Al Scalf explained that when reviewing Section 5.1, the additional information from SHB6094 warrants consideration. The Department originally took a "tight line" perspective in the GMA interpretation and now under SHB6094 there are broader opportunities. Commissioner Harpole noted that he feels that one of the goals in the current Comprehensive Plan is to be able to review the Plan with a broader base of uses in mind. Al Scalf recommended that new language be developed for Section 5.1. Warren Hart reported that the Board can modify an application that has come forward. The Board can direct staff to review the LNPs that apply and bring revised language back to the Board for consideration. Commissioner Harpole outlined the process for this type of modification, and asked if the appeal period tbr all of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments would be held up until this modification is complete? David Alvarez suggested that all of the amendments that have been resolved can continue to be processed and the 60 day appeal can start on them. The amendment to be revised can then go through the modification process. Warren Hart noted that from a staff resource standpoint, he would prefer to make this issue part of the larger analysis to be done for the development regulations. Commissioner Huntingford noted that it makes more sense to make some change now and then when the development regulations are drafted they would include those changes. He noted that several years ago the County was called to the Governor's Office to discuss what could be done to make the Growth Management Act work. When changes were suggested, they were put in legislation that later was vetoed by the Governor. The following year the legislation was reintroduced and passed as SHB6094. He feels that some changes to LNP 5.1 need to be made to allow the South County communities to meet their goals. He feels Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 that LPN 5.1 and 5.2 need to be reviewed and refined. The Board has the opportunity to do this for the rural areas of the County. Chairman Wojt feels that adopting this amendment as is would mean that nothing would happen because there are tight lines around the commercial areas. However, it would lead to review of the tight line areas. The tight line areas are only interim right now and they will be reviewed. He said that the ElCO is limiting options, but there is a hearing scheduled to extend the ELCO. He asked about the process tbr revising the ELCO? Al Scalf stated that the ElCO can be revised under administrative clarification for similar uses or through a legislative action. A public hearing would be required. Warren Hart added that if staff is directed by the Board to look at LNP 5.1, other policies will also be opened up for review. One change leads to another and it will become a lengthy process that requires a lot of work. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the truth of the matter is how will this Board interpret SHB60947 He asked why the wording could not just be included in the Plan? Warren Hart said that the Board would still have to interpret specifics for the County even if the wording of the bill was adopted. Commissioner Harpole stated that it was noted in the hearing testimony that the lack of development regulations in the South County and LNP 5.1 created a "brick wall" for economic development. When he compares the restrictions posed by the EICO and the Comprehensive Plan, the more problematic document is the EICO because of the lack of flexibility and development standards relating to the tourist industry and small businesses. The Comprehensive Plan is the means to create greater opportunities. Let the policies stand for now and work on the development regulations. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted 18 months ago and there are still no development regulations in place. Things are not moving forward. Right now people are not allowed to develop their property. Commissioner Harpole moved to reject CPA99-20. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he is voting against the motion because he feels the County hasn't performed well in moving forward with the development regulations and this lack of action has put people's lives on hold. He feels the people of the County would be better served by opening the sideboards up a little and allowing people in the rural areas to live. Commissioner Harpole stated that he feels there are some legitimate community concerns both pro and con on this amendment. Policy modification at this time will delay the final development regulations. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 CPA99-21: Economic Development Council; Applicant Warren Hart reported that a memo dated February 15, 2000 was received from the EDC Executive Team explaining that the Executive Committee unanimously voted to withdraw its amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on that date. Commissioner Huntingford moved to accept the withdrawal of the amendment as requested by the EDC. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford added that in the past few years the Board has allotted funding to help the EDC promote economic growth in the County. Although this CPA may not be the means, he feels that the EDC needs to continue to work on a strategy that includes recruitment of new businesses and retention of existing businesses throughout the County. CPA99-22: Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce; Applicant The Board forwarded this CPA to the Planning Commission based on staff's recommendation. The Department issued an MDNS; additional environmental analysis would be required prior to approval. State DCTED recommended denial. The Planning Commission recommended that this be denied. The Planning Commission issued a minority report. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Commissioner Harpole stated that impacts from a policy amendment are significantly different than the impacts from a site specific request. There are issues that need to be reviewed, but he feels that the best benefit for the people in the rural areas of the County is for the County to move forward as soon as possible with the final development regulations. Commissioner Huntingford reiterated that the Board continues to talk about the concerns and problems for the people of the South County, but the Board isn't helping these residents. What are we doing to help them right now? Commissioner Harpole moved to reject CPA99-22. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt voted tbr the motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. CPA99-09: Chuck Finnila; Applicant CPA99-10: Linda Tudor; Applicant Warren Hart reported that the staff reviewed the RCW on Master Planned Resorts and a key issue is that an MPR may be authorized by a County only if the Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies policies to guide its development. The County's Comprehensive Plan does have specific language pertaining to the Master Planned Resort designation of Port Ludlow. However, it doesn't have generic criteria for creating MPRs in other areas of the County. A draft of policies to create MPRs has been developed, but an MPR can't be considered until these criteria are adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wojt asked the zoning of the Black Point area before 19907 He asked if there is any way the proponent could go forward with some part of the project? Commissioner Harpole asked if there are activities that are already permitted? Al Scalf answered that there is a restaurant permitted on the property represented in C?A99-09 and there is a vested building permit on the CPA99-10 property. Commissioner Harpole asked if the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning Group could create appropriate findings of fact that support the Neighborhood Commercial Crossroad designation through the public process? Al Scalf answered that could be done. These areas were in existence before 1990. Warren Hart reported that the Sub-Area Planning Group could make a case for the following: 1) an MPR, 2) one or both areas as small scale recreation areas that promote tourism, or 3) the criteria for LNP 5.1 is met and the existing zoning is commercial. This application basically says that the criteria of LNP 5.1 is currently met and this area should be moved forward as a neighborhood commercial area. He feels the Board should make a decision on this now instead of waiting a year for this to come back through the Sub- area Planning Group. The recommendation from staff was to reject this amendment. State DCTED recommended that this amendment be rejected. Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 The Planning Commission recommended that this amendment be rejected. Chairman Wojt pointed out that it is hard to deny that there is full support from the community to see this development happen. The question for him is how do we do this without putting the whole Comprehensive Plan in jeopardy? There is vesting for development on the property defined in CPA99-10. Chairman Wojt asked if the project proponents can proceed with the golf course without this change? Warren Hart suggested that the Sub-Area Planning Group could make this part of their planning. Commissioner Huntingford noted that this decision is totally up to the Board. David Alvarez said that the Board needs to decide if the amendment meets the criteria. Warren Hart added that the SEPA determination noted that additional environmental analysis needs to be done on this before the amendment could move forward. Commissioner Harpole asked if the Board's direction to the Sub-Area Planning Group could include that the Board is hoping that they will favorably address this proposal through their planning process? There is a general interest on the part of the Board to move this along, but to do it in a manner that is justified under the law. Chairman Wojt stated that he feels this is necessary for the County's overall protection and for the protection of the people who have the desire to make these projects work. Commissioner Huntingford asked A1 Scalf to read several passages from the Comprehensive Plan. EDG 8.0: Promote the development of tourist and tourist related activities as a provider of employment and business opportunities in defferson County. EDG 8.6: Develop, enhance and promote defferson County's visitor, cultural, historical, entertainment, and recreational facilities and attractions to foster tourism. LNP 4.8: Assist the community of Brinnon within the limits of available resources in a public process to investigate the feasibility of an additional location fbr fisture commercial development through a comprehensive study lo examine factors including, but not limited to, environmental issues, economic viability, ditture growth projections and iE/i'astructure requirements consistent with the GMA requirements. Chairman Wojt questioned if this is better handled through the sub-area planning process? Commissioner Huntingford explained that he wants to send a message by finding a way to approve CPA99- 09 and asked that it be incorporated into the sub-area planning process. Warren [tan stated that the amendment has to be consistent with GMA and the Hearings Board decisions in terms of rural areas of intensive development. The analysis has to show the steps where all the growth management indicators have been reviewed. Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Chairman Wojt's concern is that even though this proposal does meet many of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, the magnitude of the project as a whole has not gone through required environmental studies. Warren Hart stated that if the Board decided in favor of the CPA, it could be challenged regarding its redefinition of the logical boundary which would not meet the current definition found at LNP 5.1. However, there are other options available through the sub-area planning process. David Alvarez agreed with Warren Hart from a legal point of view. Commissioner Harpole stated that to approve either CPA would "fly in the face" of LNP 4.8 and LNP 5.1. To move forward with these CPAs would go against the policies as stated in the Plan. This is a land use decision. The Board needs to be proactive in the sub-area planning process. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Board would reconsider modifying LNP 5.1 ? Commissioner Harpole stated that there are other options to get to the same point without modifying the policies. The surest option is the definition of criteria for small scale tourist related businesses in the final development regulations. In his opinion, the development regulations need to come first. Commissioner Huntingford said that it seems the Board is inclined to approval, but doesn't see how they can take that action under the current Comprehensive Plan. If these CPAs are put on hold or rejected and if they come back favorably through the sub-area planning process, would the Board be able to address them in a timely manner? Commissioner Harpole answered that he would be inclined to respond favorably if they could adequately demonstrate community preference and GMA compliance. Commissioner Harpole moved to reject CPA99-09 submitted by Chuck Finnila because of conflicts with LNP 4.8 and 5.1, and the knowledge that community preference and GMA compliance will be addressed by the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning process. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the motion could include an acknowledgment that the Board would be supportive of this if it comes back favorably through the Brinnon Sub-Area planning process? Commissioner Harpole agreed that he would be supportive of this if community preference and GMA compliance are addressed in their process. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion and asked how long a process the sub-area planning for Brinnon is anticipated to be? Warren Hart reported the process is anticipated to take 14 to18 months. He explained that the schedule laid out in the grant application for the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan shows a thorough overview of all the components that must be addressed. Commissioner Huntingford added that the Brinnon Community has submitted two community plans to the County since 1982 that included this type of development in this area. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page 19 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 14, 2000 Commissioner Harpole moved to reject CPA99-10 because of conflicts with LNP 4.8 and LNP 5.1 and that the BOCC would give favorable consideration to a plan regarding this CPA if it is brought forward by the Brinnon Sub-Area Planning Group with community preference and GMA compliance. Commissioner Huntingford se. ysgmd~ t~e~,mot~on wNc carried by a unanimous~vote. MEETIUG~:IJDURN. EIS~ o '~, / JE NTY~ ~ ) / X' "J.~ .I - /-' a ,, ~~rdW°Jt, Chair ~ ~ ~ ATXEST: X , ~, ~ Loma De aney, ~ ~ ~. Clerk of the Board ~ Glen H~~" ':mber~i~gf~ Page 20