HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121800District No, 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of December 18, 2000
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Dan Harpole
and Glen Huntingford were both present.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the Minutes of
November 27, 2000 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Judi Morris, Treasurer re: 1) Interest Bearing Warrant for Fire District #4 and 2) County
Owned Property Documentation: Treasurer Judi Morris reported that the construction of the new fire hall
for Fire District #4 is almost completed. The District has enough money to pay current bills, but they would
have to use funding earmarked to carry them through the first quarter of next year. She suggested that an
interest bearing warrant for $21,487.00 be issued for the District. The expense for the warrant will be
covered by the District's taxes as they are received and will include enough to pay the interest on the funds.
The Treasurer reported that she has compiled two binders listing all County owned property, where each
parcel is located, and how it is currently being used. This information includes a map showing the location
of each property also.
HEARING Continuation re: Country Ridge Road Improvement District #4: (Continued
from Monday, December 11, 2000) The Chairman called the hearing to order. Commissioner Huntingford
asked if there is any additional information? Will Butterfield, Public Works Department, stated that the
Board's packets contain a summary of options. Commissioner Huntingford said that he received a call from
Tom Foley. He advised Mr. Foley to contact the Public Works Department with his suggestion to file a
restrictive covenant regarding access on their property. Chairman Wojt asked if a restrictive covenant would
change the situation? Virginia Mclntyre advised that this was suggested because some of the other lot
owners expressed concern about what could happen in the future if they no longer owned the property. Gary
Rowe, Public Works Director, pointed out that a restrictive covenant would be binding on all heirs and
assigns.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Tom Foley added that they can't imagine anyone wanting to build a primary access to the property from
Blue Mountain Road in the RID, but they are willing to attach a restrictive covenant prohibiting any future
development of a primary access from this road. They feel this would settle the issue.
Gary Rowe noted that he thinks Tom Foley and Virginia McIntyre have made their case and they will not
benefit from the RID. However, if an assessment is not assigned to their parcel, who will pay the amount
due? A notice to all the property owners in the RID is required if it is to be divided among the other parcels.
The current cost of $4,357.00 per lot would increase to about $4,500.00 for the other property owners.
Another option is for the County to pay the cost. Chairman Wojt asked what it would cost to go back
through the process to re-set the assessment roll? Will Butterfield answered that the advertising alone is
about $700, plus stafftime, and hearing time.
Commissioner Harpole pointed out that the County's method of assessment has been well-defined
throughout this process. Tom Foley and Virginia Mclntyre were encouraged to stay in the process all the
way to the end and they've had to incur some expenses. It was their choice to hire Mr. Erickson. The idea of
a restrictive covenant to prohibit the use of the RID as a primary access to their property could still allow
future property owners to use the RID as a secondary access. If this restrictive covenant is allowed, he
suggested that the assessment be cut in half with the County absorbing 50% of the cost and the other
property owners paying 50%. He doesn't want to have to go through the process again. If covenants can be
brought forward that are legally binding, there may be some merit to reducing the assessment by 50% and
having the County's General Fund pick up the 50% of the assessment. He is trying to find a solution that is
fair to this group of property owners as a whole, and fair to Mr. Foley and Ms. Mclntyre.
Chairman Wojt stated that RIDs are done to help property owners deal with road and road maintenance
problems and there will always be some property owner who will have a mitigating circumstance. He
questioned if this would set a precedent? Commissioner Harpole responded that he shares Chairman Wojt's
concern, but on the other hand, if the RID process can include a legally binding covenant, it would provide
flexibility in these situations.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that he is concerned about the additional reduction because the Boundary
Line Adjustment has already reduced the amount Mr. Foley and Ms. Mclntyre owe by one lot. He asked if
there are any other parcels that are in a similar situation? Will Butterfield answered that Tract 1 has a similar
situation because their primary access is from Eaglemount Road. However, he believes Tract 1 has a trail
from Blue Mountain Road in the RID. The purpose of the assessment roll hearing is to bring forward any
problems the property owners have with the assessment. This property owner had an opportunity to address
the assessment roll and they didn't. They have always been a proponent for this project and signed the
original petition. Chairman Wojt noted that because the assessment roll hearing is closed, they have lost
their opportunity to file a complaint about the assessment roll. Will Butterfield reported that the assessment
roll was published and all property owners were notified by certified letter of the hearing.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Commissioner Harpole stated that he feels the willingness of Tom Foley and Virginia Mclntyre to put a
legally binding covenant on their property is a strategy with some merit. Will Butterfield suggested that if
this is allowed by the Commissioners, that Mr. Foley have the covenant drafted as soon as possible so that
the assessment roll can be set immediately.
Commissioner Harpole moved to direct staff to expeditiously enter into negotiations with Tom Foley and
Virginia Mclntyre regarding the placement of a legally binding covenant on their property that states that the
access off of Blue Mountain Road will not be allowed as a primary access in perpetuity. Only secondary or
lesser access would be allowed. If and when this covenant is developed, the assessment for this property
would be reduced to 50% of the assessment for the rest of the parcels in the RID. The other 50% of the
assessment for this parcel will be absorbed by the County General Fund. Commissioner Huntingford
seconded the motion and stated that he feels this is similar to a situation where a water system is put in and a
particular lot has to share in the cost even if they don't use water from the system. He feels the boundary line
adjustment provided part of the solution for Mr. Foley and Ms Mclntyre by reducing their cost by half. Even
though the owner of Tract 1 can't file a complaint now, if he knew this was an option he may have asked for
the same consideration.
The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion. Commissioner
Huntingford and Commissioner Wojt vote against the motion. The motion DID NOT pass.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 91-00 confirming the final assessment
roll and certifying the same to the Jefferson County Treasurer for collection regarding Country Ridge Road
Improvement District (RID) #4 (improvement of Blue Mountain Road and Country Ridge Drive) as
presented and recommended by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Harpole seconded the
motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Wojt voted
for the motion. Commissioner Harpole voted against the motion. The motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: four people urged the
Board to appeal the decision of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; public
opinion is shifting strongly against the Democratic Party and this person would like to see a Democratic
Commissioner and a Democratic Prosecuting Attorney in 2 years; the country is going into a recession and
the County is in a bad position to deal with it; two people urged the Board to pass the UDC on an interim
basis; allow the new Commissioner a chance to have input on the UDC; there needs to be more help for the
South County; the UDC has many flaws that need to be corrected, for example, an existing gravel pit that is
used periodically will require a Conditional Use Permit before it can be used; the need for the Board to work
through the process with the UDC to see how it will work "on the ground" before it is adopted.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to delete Items #4 and #5 and to adopt and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda
as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 92-00 re: Providing a Positive Cash Balance for the YIPPEE (Youth Initiative
Program) Fund
2. RESOLUTION NO. 93-00 re: HEARING NOTICE; Proposed Budget
Appropriations/Extensions; County Departments and Specific Other Funds; Hearing Scheduled for
Monday, January 8, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers
3. RESOLUTION NO. 94-00 re: Providing a Loan to the Special Projects Fund From the ER&R Fund
4. DELETE Resolution re: Establishing a New Fund Entitled the Port Ludlow Drainage District Interim Fund (See
item later in Minutes)
5. DELETE Resolution re: Providing a Loan to the Port Ludlow Drainage District Interim Fund from the General Fund
(See item later in Minutes)
6. AGREEMENT, Supplement #4 re: South Discovery Road/Railroad Bridge Overcrossing
Replacement, Project No. CS 1176; Jefferson County Public Works; Polaris Group
7. AGREEMENT re: Biological Evaluations for Projects Located on the Hoh River, Project No.'s
XO 1313, XO 1436, XO 1458, and XO 1462; Jefferson County Public Works; Marine Surveys and
Assessments
8. AGREEMENT re: County Programs Agreements - General Terms and Conditions (Replaces the
Basic Interagency Agreement-1995); Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington
State Department of Social and Health Services
9. AGREEMENT re: Assessment Services for Community Health Indicators; Jefferson County Health
and Human Services; Bremerton Kitsap Health District
10. AGREEMENT re: Consolidated Contract for 2001; Jefferson County Health and Human Services;
Washington State Department of Health
11. AGREEMENT re: Interagency Loan for $60,000; Jefferson County Housing Authority
12. Two (2) Requests for Community Park Grant Funding; Gatheringplace for $1,000, and Quilcene
Community Center for $4,000
13. Letter of Congratulations for Achieving Rank of Eagle Scout; Kenji Crosland
Port Ludlow Drainage District Interim Fund and Providing a Loan to the Drainage
District Interim Fund: (Items #4 and #5 from the Consent Agenda) Public Works Director Gary Rowe
advised that he met with the Drainage District Commissioners last week and they have requested that the
amount of the loan for operating expenses be increased by $20,000. This is a loan with interest. The
District plans to do an assessment in 2002 that will pay back the loan. The resolution establishing the new
fund does not need to be changed.
Commissioner Harpole moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 95-00 establishing a new fund designated
as the Port Ludlow Drainage District Interim Fund and RESOLUTION NO. 96-00 providing a loan to the
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Port Ludlow Drainage District Interim Fund from the General Fund with the amendment to increase the loan
amount by $20,000 to $44,500. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
The Board met in Executive Session from 10:06 to 10:45 a.m. with the County
Administrator, Prosecuting Attorney, and Director of Community Development regarding pending litigation.
Appeal of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Decision on the
County's Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Commissioner Harpole moved to request that the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office prepare the documents necessary to begin the appeal process of the Hearings Board
decision on the County's Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the
motion. Commissioner Harpole noted that he personally supports this because there is a level of ambiguity
in the decision from the Hearings Board regarding the County's ability to address LAMIRDs (Limited Areas
of More Intensive Rural Development) presently and into the future. This decision directly challenges the
legislative authority of the County Commissioners and he adamantly and wholeheartedly disagrees with that.
He would like to see the Hearings Board consider, as this Board had to consider, the balance of 13 planning
goals of the Growth Management Act including issues such as economic development in rural parts of the
County.
David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, pointed out that the appeal is only about the LAMIRDs and
not the other sections of the decision.
Commissioner Huntingford agreed with Commissioner Harpole that the County has worked hard to come up
with a Comprehensive Plan that balances the goals of the GMA. He feels the other issue is rural economic
development which is vital to Jefferson County and all rural counties. The State has provided funding
packages to encourage rural economic growth. It seems contradictory that the Hearings Board has said that
the County cannot expand these LAMIRDs which will shut down any economic growth. He feels that with
the passage of SB6094, State Legislators fully intended to have counties allow economic growth in rural
areas. This is an issue the County needs to work on legislatively, at the same time that the appeal goes
forward. His fear is that all the work on the Brinnon subarea plan could be useless because of this Hearings
Board ruling. He said that the Board has to appeal this decision on behalf of the citizens of the County.
Chairman Wojt stated that he agrees. The legislative question and the balancing of the 13 goals are the basis
for the County's appeal. Based on advice the County was given by the State Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development (DCTED), these areas don't constitute sprawl.
The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
The Board then reviewed the issues to be resolved for the 2001 Budget.
Class Action Law Suit Challenging I-722: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, David Alvarez,
explained that a Judge has allowed the balance of the counties that were not included in the class action
lawsuit challenging 1-722 to now join in the suit. Thurston County will act as the information conduit for
the counties.
Commissioner Harpole moved to include Jefferson County in the class action lawsuit on 1-722.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. He asked exactly what this will mean to the County?
David Alvarez explained that the County will be under the umbrella of an injunction and will be bound by
the decision of the Court. The two issues that the Court will address are the fee increases and property tax
levy limits. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt voted for
the motion. Commissioner Huntingford abstained from the voting. The motion carried.
HEARING re: Setting the 2001 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for Levy in
2000 and Collection in 2001: The Chair opened the hearing on setting the ad valorem tax levies for 2001.
Charles Saddler, County Administrator explained that, based on direction from the Board, the 2001 budget
is currently set at $12,254,371 which includes $247 in additional property tax revenue through the
imposition of an IPD or a 2.61 budget levy. There will be approximately $444,508 in the end of year cash
carryover. The biggest area of expenditure has to do with Law and Justice staffing proposal. Under the
current proposal, the first year staffing would be 4 dispatchers on a phased hiring basis at a total cost of
$68,497; 3 correctional officers with a February start date at a cost of $102,705; 3 patrol deputies at a cost of
$82,337 with a staggered hiring schedule; 2 security officers for $47,917 and 2 data entry clerks at $30,693.
The total first year funding costs for these Law and Justice positions is $332,149. Second year costs to the
Current Expense Fund are $502,990. The Conservation Futures Tax is budgeted in a separate fund for
$153,000. Total revenues and expenditures are $22,041,661 for the other funds. Combined with the
General Fund, the total would be $34,300,000.
Commissioner Huntingford asked what the overall percentage increase in the General Fund budget is?
Charles Saddler reported that the 2000 amended budget is $11,131,000 and the 2001 budget is proposed at
$12,245,000 which is an increase of $111,000 or a 10% increase over last year's base budget.
The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony.
Alan Frank, Port Townsend, said that the 2.61% tax increase puts a reasonable fence around spending. He
reminded everyone that just because dollars are budgeted, doesn't mean they have to be spent. He asked that
the Commissioners challenge their County Administrator to continue to look for proficiencies. The idea that
more taxes and spending is going to improve service to the citizens is not only destructive, but it minimizes
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
creativity and citizen initiative. He hopes that in 2002 there is more money in the General Fund than
anticipated.
Steve Welling, Nordland, said that he doesn't know of many people in this County who got a 10% increase
in their wages last year. He continues to be astounded that just because the County has the right to tax, they
continue to implement the maximum amount that is written in the books. This isn't the way it works for
most people. Will the County prosecute 5,000 property owners if they decide not to pay the increase? There
isn't enough jail space, Prosecuting Attorneys, or enough in the budget to run it through the Courts.
Judi Morris, County Treasurer, stated that the County could have enacted a 106% levy, and she commended
the Board for enacting the IPD of 1.42% in 2000, and the 2.61% in 2001. What this means for the taxpayers
is $688,000 in taxes that could have been enacted for 2001 that won't be. That's a fairly dramatic amount of
tax relief. She feels that the Commissioners are making a great effort to uphold the taxpayers wishes to keep
taxes down.
James Fritz said that the Commissioners should be commended for keeping the tax increase at the rate of
inflation. This needs to be adequately mentioned in the newspaper.
Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, noted that the property taxes also include an amount for the County Road
Fund as well as for the Current Expense Fund. The Road Fund is requesting a tax rate of 2.61% and he
recommended that the Board adopt that rate.
Steve Welling stated that as a small hospitality operator in the County, he is already paying a 2% special tax
which means that he charges his customers 10.2%. When they ask why, he tells them that the extra 2% tax is
to promote tourism in the County. His customers feel this is a slap in the face. This is very distressing to a
smaller business owner. He runs an 8 cabin operation. This small operation still brings in a significant amount
of dollars to the County in terms of money spent on dinner, fuel, shopping, etc. He is already looking at heavy
taxes on his business and now he's looking at more taxes on the property where it is located. When you add up
all of the taxes and fees, about 30% of his income goes to taxes. He asked if the Board wants to see small
businesses all over the County close down?
Hearing no further comments for or against setting the levy rates as suggested, the Chair closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford clarified for the people who commented on the amount of increase from last
year, that the increase is approximately $14.00 on a $100,000 house.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford recommended that the levy rate be set at 2.61% and then moved to approve the
following resolutions setting the levies:
RESOLUTION NO. 97-00 re: Adopting the Limiting Factor for the Jefferson County
Regular Property Tax Levy
RESOLUTION NO. 98-00 re: Increase for the County Regular Levy for 2001 Taxes
RESOLUTION NO. 99-00 re: Adopting the Limiting Factor for the Jefferson County Road
Lew
RESOLUTION NO. 100-00 re: Increase for the Jefferson County Road Levy for 2001 Taxes
Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Harpole moved to have the County Administrator draft the appropriate levy letters to the
Assessor and to approve that letter and the budget adoption resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 101-00 re: Adoption of the Annual Budget Including the General Fund,
Public Works, Special Funds, Jefferson County Road Construction Program and County Tax
Levy
Letter to Assessor Jack Westermen re: Setting Levy rates for Jefferson County for 2001
Letter to Assessor Jack Westerman re: Exceeding the $1.80 levy limit.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Charles Saddler asked for clarification from the Board regarding the portion of the funding in the 2001
Budget for Law and Justice staff positions that may not be certain until after June. He will need to work with
the Sheriff's Office and other affected departments because those positions cannot be filled sooner than the
schedule that was outlined and approved by the Board. Additional funding sources will need to be reviewed
at the midpoint of the year before these positions are filled.
Commissioner Harpole moved to direct the County Administrator to follow through on the Board's
directives regarding funding options for the phased hiring in the Sheriff' s Office and other affected
departments in mid 2001. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
Deliberation and Adoption: Regional Services Agreement with the City of Port Townsend:
Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith presented this agreement for the Board to sign.
Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the Regional Services Agreement with the City of Port Townsend.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Deliberation and Adoption: Interlocal Agreement re: E-911 Dispatch Services; Jefferson
County Fire Protection Districts #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and the City of Port Townsen& Commissioner
Harpole moved to approve the interlocal agreement as presented by David Goldsmith. Commissioner
Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Deliberation and Adoption: Unified Development Code: Planning Manager Warren Hart
~iistributed a matrix listing the Commissioners' concerns about the draft UDC. This document includes the
description of the issue, the section, and the page where it is addressed. He explained that several of the
kems listed were resolved at last week's workshop with Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford.
Staff has also made additional housekeeping revisions or clarifications that will be presented to the Board
today. Commissioner Harpole asked that staff review all the changes that were made last week in his
absence. The following items were discussed:
Definition of Administrator: Warren Hart stated that the UDC Administrator is the Director of
Community Development or a designated representative. He added that he is currently the
designated representative by resolution of the Board. A1 Scalf clarified that he is the Chief
Administrator for DCD and Warren Hart is the Administrator who considers land use projects.
Buildable Lot Size of 12,500 Square Feet: Mark Personious, the Consultant, reported that there is
additional wording that clarifies the intent. "However, for purposes of septic system approval, an
area smaller than 12,500 square feet shall not be recognized as a buildable lot unless a waiver is
authorized pursuant to Chapter 8.5, Jefferson County Code." This waiver allows the Health
Department to go below 12,500 square feet when alternative methods of treatment are approved.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to accept staff's recommendation regarding
acknowledgment of the waiver regarding 12,500 square feet for a buildable lot. Commissioner
Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Definition of an RV Park: Mark Personious explained that the definition was not changed, but there
were several revisions made regarding the RV Park performance standards in Section 4.
Commissioner Huntingford clarified that his objection to the definition was the language that
required vehicles to be licensed. The Consultant replied that the intent was to differentiate between
mobile homes and RVs. Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete the sentence which
requires vehicles to be licensed. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by
a unanimous vote.
Mineral Resource Lands: Mark Personious explained that when the section regarding mineral
extraction and processing was reexamined there was an inconsistency between the use table and the
performance standards. In the original draft, mineral processing, including gravel crushing, sorting
and screening, was proposed as a conditional use in rural residential areas. This was done to cover
existing grandfathered pits. The Planning Commission changed the use table to prohibit mineral
processing in residential areas except in locations where a resource land overlay exists. Section 4.24
wasn't changed and only deals with new or expanded pits. Staff recommends that the Board accept
the original language in the use table by changing the 2nd line in the table under rural residential to
"conditional use permit" instead of"no." Commissioner Huntingford moved to accept staff's
recommendation to change the use table. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
Nurseries: Warren Hart explained that last week Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford
took action to allow nurseries as a permitted use in rural neighborhood crossroads.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Marine Based Business in Quilcene: Warren Hart stated that there was no change to the UDC based
on the discussion that this is an existing non-conforming business that can continue to operate and
have retail sales. It is not considered a home business.
Right to Farm and Forestry: Warren Hart stated that the RCW requires a disclosure statement and in
the UDC they have done away with notice to title. Instead this would be a condition on the building
permit or the plat. Anyone who farms on a 1 to 5 acre parcel that is not zoned agricultural is not
covered under the right to farm provision and would have to apply for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Commissioner Huntingford questioned the possibility of designating small parcels of
five acres or less as agricultural land all around the County?
Forest Land Set Back Requirement: Warren Hart explained that the setbacks originated in the Interim
Control Ordinance and as the result of negotiations with forest land owners. There is a system in
place to allow the Administrator to waive the setback. Any substantial changes would require more
input from staff, the Planning Commission, and forest land owners. Chairman Wojt questioned why
land within 500 feet of forest land requires any kind of disclosure notice when the buffer is only 250
feet?
Increasing and Averaging Buffers: Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification on the
Administrator's criteria to require increased buffers in an ESA and who would pay the bill for
additional studies? Warren Hart replied that the criteria is on page 28. It states that any additional
report or work that results from the Administrator's determination of a negative impact would be at
the expense of the applicant.
Wetland Replacement: Mark Personious stated that the table and recommended replacement ratios
were taken from San Juan County and they coincide with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife
requirements. Commissioner Huntingford said that replacement at 3 to 1 is more than no net loss. He
asked if that makes the assessed value of the wetland 3 times as great as non-wetland? David
Christensen, Environmental Health Department, explained that the issue is the value of the wetland
on habitat and not the assessed value of the property.
Planned Residential Rural Development (PRRD): Warren Hart stated that no changes have been
made to address the Commissioners' concerns in this section. There is a minimum amount of acreage
required to do clustering and there is a maximum requirement on the number of residences allowed
to set a cap and prevent sprawl. Each cluster has to be separated by 600 feet. Commissioner Harpole
asked about open space preserved in perpetuity. Warren Hart stated that the presumption is already
there. Commissioner Harpole moved to add language to clarify that open space be intended for
perpetuity. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion.
Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford
abstained from the vote. The motion carried. The discussion continued on PRRDs and comments
that were made during the public hearing about limiting the size of a PRRD. Mark Personious
explained that if a property owner has 300 acres and the maximum amount of acreage for a PRRD is
225 acres, the rest of the property could be subdivided into 5 lots in a separate process. He added
that the PRRD is a discretionary process and may not be suitable for all property.
Buffer and Riparian Habitat: Commissioner Harpole stated his concerns about a document from the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife challenging the County's 150 foot buffer. Chairman Wojt
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
added that the Tribes and Fisheries are recommending wildlife corridors. Dave Christensen,
Environmental Health, explained the background for the data in his report that is the basis for the
current UDC regulations. He said that 150 feet is generally protective and 250 feet may be over
regulation in many cases. Warren Hart added that when they began the UDC project, they
acknowledged that the ESA standards would not be taken into consideration in the document
because they were not finalized. These standards still haven't been finalized. Commissioner
Huntingford stressed that in rural Jefferson County there is already a lot of land set aside for wildlife
habitat. He questioned whether the County will get credit for the amount of work that has already
been done to protect habitat. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez reminded the Board about
the Tribes testimony during the public hearings about how the buffer needs to be measured. Dave
Christensen explained that the UDC language addresses the use of the channel migration zones by
allowing the Administrator to increase buffers if there is evidence of a migrating channel. He added
that these areas aren't clearly mapped right now. The location of the100 year flood plain is also an
area where work still needs to be done to collect and map the data. Warren Hart clarified that the
UDC does allow building in the flood plain under certain circumstances.
65 DNL at the Airport: Warren Hart explained that no change was made in the UDC because it will
be addressed next year through the sub-area plan.
RV Campgrounds: Mark Personious explained the changes and deletions in the performance
standards that were made as a result of last week's workshop: Page 4.23, #6 Standards A-3 and A-5
were deleted. Standard 10 was modified to allow associated commercial activities but they have to
be scaled to the size of demand. Standard 8 regarding off-street parking spaces was redefined to be
less specific. Standard 15 was revised to read that "adequately sized waste water disposal facilities
shall be required." This would allow the owner to do a single pump station or stations at each site.
Exempt Outdoor Uses: Mark Personious explained that Section 4.38 was not changed. It is
informational only and lists projects where a permit isn't required.
Seawater Intrusion: Warren Hart explained that staff originally recommended changes in the UDC
because they felt that there was adequate protection. The Shine Community Action Council and the
City of Port Townsend did not agree to the changes because they felt they did not meet the
conditions of the stipulated agreement with the County. Staff then recommended that the language
from the stipulated agreement be put back in the UDC. Commissioner Huntingford has concerns
about whether this is considered a substantial change and will require another public hearing.
Chairman Wojt feels that because this was part of the public hearing comments, the Board has the
authority to make the change. Commissioner Huntingford replied that the stipulated agreement refers
to several issues that the County doesn't have the legal authority to regulate. He questioned why
these issues need to be in the UDC? He said that there are other BMPs in other sections of the
ordinance that address protection against seawater intrusion. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David
Alvarez advised that he doesn't think there is a huge due process problem and he suggested that the
Board could adopt the wording that was published and schedule a hearing on that section only in
January. Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the original language from the November
16 draft UDC replace the current language until more review has been done relating to the
conditions that the County can affect in the stipulated agreement. Commissioner Itarpole
Page 11
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford
and Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion.
The motion carried.
Rural Restaurants: Mark Personious explained that seating in these restaurants is limited to 50. More
seating may be allowed if the owner can demonstrate in the permit application that there is a demand.
The standard regarding fast food restaurants has been eliminated which means that drive thru food
service is prohibited except for expresso stands.
Barking Dogs: Warren Hart explained that the intent is not to leave barking dogs out all night.
Cottage Industries and Home Businesses: Mark Personious explained that based on the public
comment received, and discussions with the Board, the following changes have been made. The
standard that owners must certify that they meet the standards every five years has been deleted. The
Comprehensive Plan stated that this standard needed to be considered, but wasn't mandated.
Commissioner Harpole stated that several people commented on the cumulative effects of several
home businesses being allowed in the same neighborhood and the disruption it could cause. Mark
Personious replied that standards were developed to increase protections for adjacent properties and
still give people the opportunity to create or expand home businesses. He said the UDC is as
consistent as it can be with the Comprehensive Plan because the policies did not allow much room
for interpretation. Chairman Wojt stated that some people expressed concerns about the number of
cottage industries located on a parcel. Mark Personious answered that only one cottage industry can
be on a premises because cottage industries are more intensive by definition. More than one home
business is allowed. Warren Hart added that if a person has a low impact home business that doesn't
affect the neighborhood, they are exempt. Commissioner Harpole moved to delete Paragraph S
under home businesses. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Small Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses: Mark Personious explained that the UDC standards
regarding this designation are more extensive than in any other county. He feels that this section
meets the intent and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wojt stated that he still has
concerns about how close these businesses can be to one another and the cumulative effects. Warren
Hart explained that there is criteria listed for the Administrator to use in order to prevent cumulative
effects and sprawl. The RCW does not give restrictions on how close these types of businesses can
be. Mark Personious added that other counties that have adopted this land use designation have
defined specific areas; but the UDC makes this land use designation attainable in any rural area of
Jefferson County as long as the property meets the criteria and performance standards.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that it is important that staff push the envelope on this land
designation.
Shoreline Management Master Plan: Commissioner Huntingford said that it is his understanding that
the current SMMP will be included in the UDC document.
Reassess Parking Standards: Commissioner Harpole asl~ed to see an incentive put in place for
reduced parking standards for businesses that have common wall construction. Warren Hart
explained that there is a provision that allows an applicant to request a modification to the minimum
number of parking spaces required providing a study that substantiates this request. There is also a
Page 12
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
provision that allows owners of two or more adjoining uses to utilize the same parking lot under
certain circumstances. Commissioner Harpole stated that this issue and the next issue that will be
discussed are critical discussion and debate elements in UGAs.
Building Size and Height and Lot Coverage: Commissioner Huntingford feels that these issues need
to be addressed as soon as possible. He has concerns about 5 acre parcels in neighborhood/visitor
crossroads where only one 7,500 square foot building can be located. He thinks the UDC needs to
allow more building coverage on those parcels.
Buffer on Rhody Drive: Warren Hart explained that the buffer in the UDC is 30 feet from the right-
of-way and an additional 20 feet for a building.
Pedestrian Circulation Provisions: Mark Personious reported that the word "public" has been added
in from of the word "pedestrian." Commissioner Harpole moved to accept staff's
recommendation to add the word "public." Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Lettered Painting on Vehicles and Signage: Warren Hart explained that this section addresses
development standards aborn when a permit is required and when a permit isn't required. Lettering
paimed on or magnetically flush on a motor vehicle in the normal course of business is exempt, but
if someone paints a sign on a junker vehicle and leaves it on their property, it is not exempt. Mark
Personious stated that based on public comment and the Board's comments, the criteria that
"sandwich board signs shall be located not more than 150 feet from the business" has been deleted
and off-site signs have been increased to a maximum of 12 square feet and are to be located no more
than 600 feet from an intersection. Commissioner Harpole moved to accept staff's
recommendation for modifications regarding signage. Commissioner Huntingford seconded
the motion which carried by unanimous vote.
BMPs regarding Routine Maintenance: Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't think this
sort of direction needs to be in the UDC. Warren Hart explained that these BMPs apply only to
mining, quarry, and batch plant operations in critical aquifer recharge areas. Staff proposes to delete
the 2nd sentence of paragraph 2A on page 24 which states "At least 3 references from parties familiar
with common business practices in the subject field or known expertise shall be included in the
report." Commissioner Harpole moved to accept staff's recommendation regarding the 2na
sentence of paragraph 2A. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford stated concerns about why items that are exempt are
mentioned in the ordinance. Warren Hart suggested that the optional BMPs could be taken out of the
UDC and listed on a separate handout, however it is easier if they are part of the code. Commissioner
Huntingford suggested using a bolded font to distinguish between BMPs that are recommended, but
not required, and mandatory BMPs. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve making a
distinction between optional and mandatory BMPS. Commissioner Harpole seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford reminded the staff that
both he and Chairman Wojt expressed concerns at last week's workshop about the need to remove
"optional" or "exempt" items from the UDC.
Page 13
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Commercial Septic on Non-Commercial Property: Chairman Wojt explained that this was addressed
last week when the Board agreed that a commercial septic field can be built on non-commercial
property.
Septic Systems and Building Permits: Mark Personious stated that Section 6.4 regarding sewage
permits currently states that "Septic permits in compliance with chapter 8.15 of the Jefferson County
Code shall only be issued in conjunction with an associated building permit." Staff recommends
extending this sentence to read "except for RVs on individual lots where the septic system shall be
limited in size to only accommodate the RV." Commissioner Huntingford said that he doesn't have a
problem with the RV language, but he feels strongly that people need to be able to build in phases.
People need to be able to pay as they go when they are building. Warren Hart replied that the
reasoning behind this is that septic systems have been permitted in the past on properties that were
not reviewed closely to make sure they were buildable and most people assume that if they have an
approved septic system their project is vested. In order to address Commissioner Huntingford's
concerns, Warren Hart added that property owners will have the option of having a true vesting of an
application without actually having the complete engineered drawings that are required. This vesting
would be good for three years. Commissioner Huntingford responded that he has never seen the
County deny anyone a building permit, whether they have a septic system in the ground or not.
Warren Hart explained that it takes a lot more staffing time to review individual permits. Every year
there are more critical area reviews required on property. Commissioner Huntingford moved to not
change the permitting process for septics and homes. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Harpole added that the Health Board made a recommendation to tie these two permits
together and the vesting option is available. Commissioner Huntingford responded that he feels this
is being done for County government's benefit and not for the benefit of the people. Environmental
Health Director Larry Fay hasn't demonstrated that there is a problem with septic systems
constructed since 1988. Commissioner Huntingford reiterated that he feels that this regulation does
not meet the needs or wants of the general public. It was his understanding that the Board was
waiting to hear back from the Realtors on this issue. Chairman Wojt recalled Janet Welch's
testimony that this regulation would harm her business, but she thinks it is a good move on the part
of the County. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the added language regarding septic
systems for RVs. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Table 6.1: Mark Personious stated that this is a typographical error that the Minor Collector Road
classification includes local access roads. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve this revision
as recommended by Public Works staff. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Site Plans: Warren Hart explained that at the workshop last week the Board approved the addition of
language in Section 7.5 (11) to clarify that this only applies to preliminary approved site plans.
Page 14
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Notice Regarding Extinguishment of Preliminary Approved Binding Site Plans: Commissioner
Harpole explained that any owners with preliminary approved binding site plans that could be
affected by the new UDC regulations need to be noticed. Warren Hart replied that the only
preliminary approved binding site plan that hasn't met the requirements in the UDC is Kala Square
and they will be sent a letter.
BLAs: Warren Hart explained that after a discussion at last week's workshop, there was no change.
Five Year Timeframe for Final Long Plats: Warren Hart stated that there was no change after the
discussion last week regarding the basis for the regulation in the RCW.
Floods and Flood Control and Additional Requirements: Commissioner Huntingford stated that staff
answered his question on these provisions. There was no change.
UDC Timelines for Project Review: Warren Hart prepared information to clarify timelines for
project review and providing notices. SEPA and Regulation Reform under GMA will now run
concurrently. If the permit has to go to the Hearing Examiner, it will take more time.
Conditional Use Procedures: Warren Hart explained that this is in the context of specific criteria for
the Administrator to assess impacts to neighboring properties. Staff's proposal went before the
Planning Commission and they reversed the language. If a certain number of comments are received
on a project, it goes to the Hearing Examiner for a full public hearing. Staff feels there are adequate
protections. Some of the larger projects that are conditional uses will go directly to the Hearing
Examiner. Staff's recommendation is to leave the conditional use permitting process the way it is.
UDC Amendment Process: Warren Hart reported that the Comprehensive Plan must be amended
from May to December. The UDC can be amended at any time as long as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The current amendment process would be used. It would take approximately
90 days or more depending on the complexity of the change.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Warren Hart explained that referencing
the text from the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan was done whenever possible although staff was
working on a tight timeframe. The two chapters where staff is trying to link development regulations
and the Comprehensive Plan are Section 3 and Section 4. All of the other chapters consist of only
one or two policies from the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that when the UDC is adopted, and
then goes through an amendment process, staff could develop another level of analysis as a
companion document. This is a difficult j ob because it requires going line by line. Sometimes the
policies are generic and require staff research and interpretation. The staff' s recommendation is to
move it along as it is.
Chairman Wojt stated that during the Board's discussion on the Findings of Fact, Commissioner
Huntingford mentioned the ordinance that would be repealed regarding the density exemptions. Warren Hart
replied that the November 16 draft UDC references these exemptions in Section 6.5.4.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he asked in last week's workshop about the development setback for
reserve tracts on Agricultural Lands. Mark Personious replied that this was brought over from the
Agricultural Lands Ordinance.
Page 15
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford listed issues that still need to be addressed: lot size, parking lot issue, and
comments on Conditional Use Permits. He asked that these issues be reviewed as soon as possible.
Chairman Wojt suggested that the Planning Commission be given the task of reviewing these issues within
the next 90 days. He added that he is in favor of enacting the UDC right now.
Commissioner Huntingford cautioned that once the final UDC is in place, the amendment process will take
at least 90 days. He added that staff has to move on to other projects such as the UGA and the subarea plans.
Work on these projects would have to be postponed or the amendments to the UDC would get put off. The
UDC needs to be adopted as an interim ordinance with a goal that the final document be adopted before the
Interim Critical Area Ordinance expires at the beginning of next year. He stressed that the Board needs to
meet with staff about the outstanding issues and come to some sort of agreement before final adoption.
Chairman Wojt feels that the same amount of time will be spent working on the outstanding issues whether
the UDC is adopted in final form or as an interim ordinance. His view is that the UDC adoption will give
everyone relief by eliminating a lot of ordinances that are past their prime.
Commissioner Harpole interjected that there are 5 topic areas that he would like to see more review on.
· Saltwater Intrusion
· Small Scale Recreation and Tourist Designation
· Building Size and Height and Lot Coverage Standards
· Conditional Use Procedures and Criteria for the Administrator
· Consistency with the Adopted Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
Commissioner Harpole stated that he feels the benefits of adopting the UDC at this time outweigh the
outstanding issues. The document allows considerable new opportunities in Jefferson County especially
regarding ADUs and home businesses. The clarity of the ordinance will help in the UGA discussions. If
UGAs are put in place, there will be a lot more discussion about development standards, community and
character. His preference is to adopt the UDC with an associated workplan that is directed to the County
Administrator with a specific timeline. This would require further review by staff and the Planning
Commission with possible modification. He thinks it is more important to get the UGA done first and then
go back and do all the necessary amendments on the UDC.
Commissioner Harpole moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 11-1218-00 as modified by the discussions
from last week and today that were voted on by the Board and that an associated workplan to address
the Board's outstanding issues be developed for the County Administrator to oversee, that staff and
the Planning Commission use this workplan regarding further review and they put together a
response to the Board within 90 days. The effective date of adoption is today. Commissioner
Huntingford seconded the motion.
Page 16
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 18, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford asked staff their opinion about the effective day. Warren Hart replied that staff
has prepared an ordinance with findings of fact for the Board' s packet today. He asked that the Board
clarify in their motion that the ordinance they are adopting is the November 16 draft of the UDC including
the changes made on December 6 that staff recommended to the Board. The Board concurred. The effective
date on the current document is January 2. Staff would prefer an effective date of January 15 in order to
deal with training and the transition regarding permit plan and applications.
Commissioner Harpole modified his motion to set the effective date as January 15, 2001.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has two other concerns regarding the findings of fact. He
mentioned that the timeframe for processing permits is not addressed. Commissioner Huntingford moved
to include language stating that it is the Board's direction and preference that permits are issued
within a 120 day timeframe. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the other issue is that the Board needs to see a
final, complete document before the ordinance is adopted.
The Chairman then called for a vote on the original motion to adopt the ordinance with the modified
effective date. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion. Commissioner
Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried.
Commissioner Harpole moved to direct the County Administrator to work with the Department of
Community Development staff regarding the five issues of concern shared by the Board and to also
include the Best Available Science (BAS) issues and to have a report back to the Board within 90 days
for possible amendments to the UDC. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous ¥~t¢('' ~
MEETING ADJO~gL~
ATTEST:
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
Dan Harpole, Member
Page 17