The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM121001District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 10, 2001 Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioners Dan Titterness and Richard Wojt were both present. The Board met in Executive Session from 8:15 a.m. to 8:3 0 a.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding a personnel matter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of November 19 as presented and to correct the last sentence regarding the Soskin Claim on page 8 of the November 26, 2001 minutes to show that "Commissioner Titterness and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion, and that Commissioner Wojt abstained from voting." Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: Dave Christensen, Natural Resources Manager updated the Board on WRIA 17 planning. Chairman Huntingford asked how $500,000 for WRIA planning will benefit the West End of the County? Dave Christensen answered that there are two reasons why the proposed WRIA instream flow studies are important: 1) Residents in the West End are concerned because the City of Seattle has said that they want water from the Sol Duc River. 2) In order to provide proof of potable water for any type of commercial project, a water right is required. The State Department of Ecology uses the information in WRIA studies as a basis for issuing water rights. Discussion continued about DOE's ability to process water rights, financial impacts, and conducting instream studies. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: No one appeared to comment. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Re-appointment to the Parks Advisory Board: Commissioner Wojt moved to reappoint Rick Tollefson to another 2 year term on the Parks Advisory Board. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chairman Huntingford asked for clarification on Item 6 on the Consent Agenda. County Administrator Charles Saddler reported that the Auditor asked that the Board approve payment of all 2002 expenses that need to be paid from the 2001 budget. Chairman Huntingford stated that he has concerns about holding a public hearing on the proposed fee schedules on Christmas Eve because it may appear to the public that the County is waiting until the last minute and that the Board doesn't want their participation. He feels this hearing needs to be held after January 1, 2002. Commissioner Titterness noted that the hearing can't be postponed because the fee increases have been figured in to balance the 2002 budget. Chairman Huntingford suggested that the hearing could be postponed and the Board could readjust the budget. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. The Chair called for the vote. Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Huntingford abstained from voting. The motion carried. 2. 3. 4. 5. RESOL[ITION NO. 93-01 re: Setting the County Conservation Futures Levy for 2002 Taxes HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Fees for Various County Departments; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 24, 2001 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers AGREEMENT re: Amending the Custody and Administrative Labor Agreement; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Teamsters Local 589 MEMORANDtlM OF [INDERSTANDING re: Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA); Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Jefferson County Housing Authority MEMORAND[IM OF AGREEMENT re: Watershed Planning Activities; Jefferson County Health and Human Services, WRIA 17 Planning Unit Lead Agency; City of Port Angeles, WRIA 18 Initiating Governments Request for Pre-payment of 2002 Conference Expenses from 2001 Budget; Various County Departments Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 BID OPENING re: Provide, Deliver and Install One (1) New Heavy Duty Closed Door or Open Door Horizontal Baler: Richard Talbot, Public Works Department, opened and read the bids received after explaining that bids could be submitted an open door or closed door baler. Bidder: Solid waste Systems Inc. Blankenship Equipment Repair Recycle Systems G.K. Industrial Systems Open Door Closed Door $120,046.82 $67,020.16 96,276.36 70,029.56 105,619.86 76,741.28 No bid No bid Commissioner Wojt moved to have Public Works staff review the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 10:15 to 10:59 a.m. with the County Administrator, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Director of Community Development, and Natural Resource Manager regarding actual litigation. HEARING re: 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Associate Planner Randy Kline reported that there are 9 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in the 2001 amendment cycle. He will give a brief overview of each amendment, including the Planning Commission's recommendation, and DCD's recommendation if it was different from the Planning Commission's recommendation. Public testimony will be accepted on all the amendments after the staff presentation. There are 5 proposed site specific amendments and 4 suggested policy amendments. The Planning Commission held public hearings on September 5 and November 7, 2001. Their recommendations were submitted to the County Commissioners on November 27 and December 3, 2001 with copies of DCD staff reports addressing the requisite criteria in Section 9 of the Unified Development Code. MLA OI-O0200: Frances Thompson, Applicant This site specific amendment request is for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignation from a rural residential 1:5 (1 residence to 5 acres) land use designation to Glen Cove light industrial designation. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend that this request be denied at this time. A more appropriate time to address this request will be when LAMIRD boundaries in the Glen Cove area are reviewed. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 MLAOI-O0213: Linda Sexton, Applicant This site specific amendment is for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignation from a rural residential 1:5 (1 residence to 5 acres) land use designation to a neighborhood/visitor crossroad district. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend that this request be denied at this time. A more appropriate time to look at this request is when the LAMIRD designation is addressed. MLAOI-O021$: Craig Durgan, Applicant This is a suggested policy amendment to allow multi-family housing and manufactured mobile home parks in neighborhood/visitor commercial crossroads and general commercial crossroads. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend approval of this amendment. A minority report was also submitted by the Planning Commission. MLA O I-O0217: Jefferson County, Applicant This is a suggested policy amendment for the Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Unified Development Code text amendment to enable the siting of master plan resorts in Jefferson County. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend approval of this amendment. MLAOl-O0221: Jefferson County, Applicant This is a suggested policy amendment for the Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Unified Development Code text amendment relating to bulk and dimension criteria in rural industrial districts. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend approval of this amendment. In addition, DCD recommends that the amendment, as it relates to Table 6-1 in the UDC, be restricted to rural industrial districts only. MLA01-00224: Eugene and Anna Brown, Applicants This site specific amendment request is for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignation from a rural residential 1:5 (1 residence to 5 acres) land use designation to an unspecified commercial land use designation. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend that this request be denied at this time. This Irondale property is within the Provisional Urban Growth Area for the Tri Area. This request will be addressed during that process. MLAOl-O0225 This is a suggested Comprehensive Plan policy amendment to the criteria for initial and future designations of rural commercial land use districts. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend approval of this amendment. MLA 01- 0022 7: Mark Secord, Applicant This site specific amendment request is for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignation from a rural residential 1:20 (1 residence to 20 acres) land use designation to a rural residential 1:10 (1 residence to 10 acres) land use designation. This property is located on Marrowstone Island. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request. DCD recommends that this request be denied. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Commissioner Wojt asked why DCD recommends denial of this amendment? Randy Kline replied that the parcel is located adjacent to Fort Flagler State Park. DCD's recommendation for denial is based on the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. There was a brief discussion about setting a precedent that would allow more density on Marrowstone Island if this request is approved. Commissioner Titterness asked the designation of other properties in the area? Randy Kline answered that the parcels to the west and south are designated rural residential 1:20 (1 residence to 20 acres.) The Board reviewed a map of the area that indicated other densities in the area are 1:5 and 1:10. MLAOl-O0232: J. Frank Schmidt 81 Sons, Co., Applicant This site specific amendment request in the Brinnon area is for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignation from a resource lands/commercial forest and inholding forest land use designation to an unspecified rural residential land use designation. Both the Planning Commission and DCD recommend that this request be denied at this time. There are plans to establish a Forestland Task Force to review incompatible uses between commercial forestlands and residential lands throughout the County and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. A policy amendment was also submitted, but it was not docketed because of the plans to establish the task force. Chairman Huntingford stated that the applicants for this amendment have spent time and money going through the amendment process and it appears their request is being put "on hold." He asked staff how they plan to deal with this? Randy Kline explained that currently there is no specific time frame for establishing the Forestlands Task Force. DCD needs direction from the Board to move forward. Chairman Huntingford stated that he wants this issue dealt with before the next Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. He asked if DCD plans to refund the applicants' money? Randy Kline replied that he will discuss this with the Prosecuting Attorney. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf added that there is limited staff for the number of priorities that they have been asked to address. Randy Kline concluded the staff report. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. MLA OI-O0200: Frances Thompson, Applicant Chairman Huntingford read the following: The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 the hearing? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Huntingford: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendment; will be based solely on the estabfished record and that you will then compare that estabfished record to the appficable criteria fisted in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Huntingford: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? There was no comment from the audience. Alice King, said that she is speaking for herself and the People for a Livable Community (PLC). They are in agreement with the staff report that this amendment should be reviewed during the coordinated review of the entire Glen Cove area when the final boundaries will be set. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00200, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLAOI-O0213: Linda Sexton, Applicant Chairman Huntingford read the same opening statement as the previous amendment and asked the following questions: Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponent; or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Titterness: Yes. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendment; will be based solely on the estabfished record and that you will then compare that estabfished record to the appficable criteria fisted in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Huntingford: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? There was no comment from the audience. Alice King, stated that she is speaking for herself and the People for a Livable Community (PLC). They are in agreement with the staff report that this amendment should be reviewed during the coordinated review of LAMIRDs. Hearing no other comments for or against MLA01-00213, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLAOI-O021$: Craig Durgan, Applicant Chairman Huntingford noted that this is a suggested policy amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Alice King, stated that she is speaking for herself and the People for a Livable Community (PLC). She explained that this amendment purports to facilitate affordable housing. They concur with the Planning Commission's minority report that they do not see any provisions that encourage the building of affordable housing and mixed use standards such as an apartment with a grocery store underneath it. Mobile home parks are currently allowed in every rural district in the County. In addition, this amendment conflicts with LNP 5.2.3 that the intent of the rural village centers is to provide employment opportunities. In their opinion, mobile home parks and apartments don't provide employment opportunities and it is not a good use of valuable commercial land. Hearing no other comments for or against MLA01-00215, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLA O I-O0217: Jefferson County, Applicant This is a suggested policy amendment for the Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Unified Development Code text amendment. Linda Tudor, Brinnon, stated that she supports this amendment. In her opinion Jefferson County is one of the most beautiful areas in Washington State and there is an abundance of opportunity for master plan resorts in the County. It is important that regulations are in place to allow development while maintaining the environment. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Sandy Mackie, stated that he is an attorney from Olympia representing two clients in Jefferson County who will be affected by this amendment. He has done land use and environmental work since 1975. He supports the amendment to allow siting of master plan resorts in Jefferson County. Recreation planned resorts are permitted by the State Legislature. Currently there is only one master plan resort allowed in the County and this request allows for more. Part of the statutory criteria for a master plan resort is to identify unique features in an area and the supplemental information in the Planning Commission report identifies unique amenities that master plan resorts can use to their advantage. He feels that development agreements should be used with master plan resorts because development can take place in phases and an agreement addresses the building, the timing, and what happens if the building doesn't get done. Very often capital facilities are contained inside a master plan resort and the State Legislature and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board make it clear that those facilities are not to be used to contribute to sprawl outside the master plan resort. He noted that the Planning Commission and DCD staff did a good job addressing all the issues. The unanimous approval of the Planning Commission needs to be recognized by the Board and speaks well for the proposal. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00217, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLA Ol-O0221: Jefferson County, Applicant This is a suggested policy amendment for the Comprehensive Plan and an accompanying Unified Development Code text amendment. Nancy Dorgan, submitted and read her comments. (See permanent record.) She added that she was speaking on behalf of herself and People for a Livable Community. Alice King, stated that she could not find a definition for associated commercial in the UDC. The only reference to associated commercial was associated commercial activities are intended to directly serve the needs of the land use activities existing within the district. Speaking for herself and the PLC, Glen Cove should be light industrial. Lifting the bulk and dimension restrictions on light industrial, should not mean that they are also lifted on the associated commercial. She asked for clarification of the definition of associated commercial in the UDC. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00221, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLA01-00224: Eugene and Anna Brown, Applicants Chairman Huntingford read the same opening statement as MLA01-00213 and then asked the following: Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford, noted that Anna Brown asked him about the Comprehensive Plan amendment process when they first thought about putting in the request. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Titterness: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendment; will be based solely on the estabfished record and that you will then compare that estabfished record to the appficable criteria fisted in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Huntingford: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? There was no comment from the audience. Alice King, stated that she is speaking for herself and the People for a Livable Community (PLC). They concur with the staff report that this property needs to be considered with one of the UGA amendments. They disagree with the part of the staff report that recommends that this could be a convenience crossroad. The structure on the property was used intermittently for commercial purposes until 1986. The commercial use isn't "grandfathered." It isn't providing services to the rural area and it isn't an existing area of more intensive rural development. It doesn't meet LNP 5.4.1. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00224, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLA O l-O02 2 5 : Jefferson County, Applicant This is a suggested policy amendment for the Comprehensive Plan. Alice King, stated that she is speaking for herself and the People for a Livable Community (PLC). She believes that the intent of this amendment is to remove the requirements for previous zoning contained in the Comprehensive Plan and used initially to identify land use districts. However, she thinks that the applicability of LNP 5.1, including (c) which states the existing uses provide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods and services is also being removed. She doesn't think the County is interpreting the RCW correctly. The language in the RCW referring to limited areas of more intensive development states rural development consisting of the in fill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 residential or mixed use areas. It also states that a County shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development. These areas exist and they are more intensive than the surrounding areas and that is why they need boundaries to minimize and contain them. Linda Tudor, noted that she supports this amendment. This policy is the most problematic of all the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The State Legislature passed ESB6094 to amend the Growth Management Act because they found that some of the original directives drastically hurt development in commercial areas in rural counties. Jefferson County needs jobs, economic development, and strong communities. It is important for the County to encourage opportunities for residents to be able to live a good life. In ESB6094, they used words like development and redevelopment, they did not intend the rural areas to be stagnant or for residents to live forever with what they had in 1990. She supports the changes that are recommended in the Planning Commission minority report. Tom McNerney, Chairman of the Planning Commission, advised that the Planning Commission had a majority report and a minority report on this amendment. The Board also received written comments from several Planning Commission members that they no longer support the majority report because of the confusion at the time it was passed. There were changes in the last minute and they did not recognize the intent and importance of those changes. He noted that the votes of five Planning Commissioners would have made the minority report the majority report. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00225, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLA Ol-O022 7: Mark Secord; Applicants Chairman Huntingford read the same opening statement. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponent; or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Titterness: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendment; will be based solely on the estabfished record and that you will then compare that estabfished record to the appficable criteria fisted in the Comprehensive Plan ? Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Huntingford: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? There was no comment from the audience. Tom McNerney, noted that the DCD and the Planning Commission differed on this amendment because the Planning Commission looked at Marrowstone Island as a whole and they felt that it would not create additional pressures on the Island to redesignate the density of the parcel because most of the existing waterfront lots are 1 and 2 acre lots. This property would become 2 ten acre lots instead of a 20 acre lot. The criteria in the Comprehensive Plan can be interpreted to reflect both recommendations. There is an entirely different perspective if a map of the whole island is reviewed rather than just the lots adjacent to the subject parcel. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00227, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. MLAOl-O0232: J. Frank Schmidt Si Sons, Co., Applicants Chairman Huntingford read the opening statement. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Titterness: No. Commissioner Wojt: No. Chairman Huntingford: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Titterness: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Titterness: Yes. Commissioner Wojt: Yes. Chairman Huntingford: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? There was no comment from the audience. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Craig Jones, stated that he represents J. Frank Schmidt & Sons regarding this site specific amendment on a timberland buffer and a suggested amendment for the Comprehensive Plan on consideration of timberland buffers. His clients, in good faith, went through the entire Comprehensive Plan Amendment application process this year. For several years, the County Commissioners and the Planning Commission have been aware of the need to address timberland buffers on small lots because of incompatible uses that result between land use districts. Several people in the community have given significant testimony at Planning Commission meetings about this issue. The Planning Commission recommended that these applications be docketed, but DCD said they did not have the staff resources to reconstitute the Forest Land Task Force in 2001. As a result, these applications have been put "on hold." It is not appropriate for the County Commissioners to deny these applications because their merits have already been considered. He requested that the Board continue these 2 proposals into next year without approval or denial. None of the other amendments in the 2001 cycle will impact timberland areas in the County. His clients should not have to go through the amendment application process again. In addition, he asked the Board to consider formation of the Forestlands Task Force shortly after the first of the year. If the group can meet during the first 3 months of the year, their recommendation can be available for the 2002 amendment cycle. Tom McNerney, Planning Commission Chair, stated that the Planning Commission did not intend to reject or approve this amendment. They were assured by staff that it would be forwarded to a Forestlands Task Force for their review and recommendation. The Planning Commission was under the impression that the final decision on the amendment was merely being delayed until they received the recommendation. He is concerned that DCD has not developed a schedule for 2002 to reconstitute the task force. Linda Tudor, stated that she has concerns about this site specific amendment being turned into a countywide forestland buffer issue. She is very familiar with the subject property. It is surrounded on 3 sides by high density residential. Why wasn't this application addressed as a land use map correction? Could a portion of the property be addressed immediately and the other portion be dealt with when the Forestlands Task Force gives their recommendation? John Lockwood, noted that at the Planning Commission hearing several people spoke against this amendment and he wants these comments taken into consideration. Part of the original proposal was to upzone all forestlands that bordered residential properties of a higher density and this would call for full scale rezoning of lands in the County. If this site specific amendment is an example of the general proposal, he thinks it should be denied and he doesn't think it is worth carrying forward into next year. It is his opinion that the County shouldn't waste more staff time on this issue. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA01-00232, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony on this amendment. Chairman Huntingford explained that the Board will begin deliberations on the proposed amendments. Commissioner Titterness stated that in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the history of the Growth Management Act, the goals of the GMA, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and the efforts Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 of the community over the last several years, he has concluded that many of the goals conflict with each other. One of things to accept when deliberating on these amendments is that there will have to be tradeoffs. MLA OI-O0200: Frances Thompson, Applicant Commissioner Wojt moved to deny MLA01-00200 on the basis of the testimony received and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford noted that when the Comprehensive Plan was approved, a lot of properties in the County were downzoned. It seems that even with the current amendment process, things still get postponed. Twenty years ago Glen Cove was designated as a light industrial area. In following the GMA guidelines, much of the Glen Cove property was tightlined and downzoned to residential. The County actually zoned property in a light industrial area for residential use. This is a conflict of land uses and he expects to see more problems in the future. Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. MLAOI-O0213: Linda Sexton, Applicant Commissioner Titterness moved to deny MLA01-00213 on the basis of the testimony received and the recommendation of the Planning Commission and DCD. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MLAOI-O021$: Craig Durgan, Applicant Commissioner Wojt moved to deny MLA01-00215 on the basis of the minority report from the Planning Commission and the testimony received. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve MLA01-00215 based on the testimony received, the Planning Commission's recommendation and DCD's recommendation. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Commissioner Titterness and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. MLA O I-O0217: Jefferson County, Applicant Commissioner Wojt moved to approve MLA01-00217 on the basis of the testimony received and the recommendation of the Planning Commission and DCD. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MLAOl-O0221: Jefferson County, Applicant Commissioner Wojt moved to approve MLA01-00221 on the basis of the DCD recommendation that this designation be restricted to the industrial areas of the County. Commissioner Titterness clarified that Commissioner Wojt' s motion is based on the DCD recommendation of Table 6.1 which would allow no lid Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 on industrial and 20,000 square foot lid on commercial. This was the original notice to the public. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to ask staff to move forward with public participation and addressing the other issues that were brought forward regarding bulk and dimension for a UDC amendment. Commissioner Titterness and Commissioner Wojt accepted the friendly amendment which carried by a unanimous vote. MLA01-00224: Eugene and Anna Brown, Applicants Commissioner Titterness moved to deny MLA01-00224 on the recommendation that the property is already being reviewed through the Tri Area UGA planning process. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford asked if a business could currently be located on this property? Randy Kline replied that right now the property can only be used for residential purposes. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous. MLA O l-O02 2 5 : Jefferson County, Applicant Commissioner Titterness moved to approve MLA01-00225 on the basis of the Planning Commission's minority report and testimony from the Planning Commission Chair that this should have been the majority report. Chairman Huntingford added that the minority report was very similar to DCD's recommendation. Randy Kline explained that both recommendations accomplish the same goal, though the methods used may be different. DCD would not have any specific concerns relating to the minority report. They will rely on the criteria in the GMA and SB 6094 to delineate new commercial boundaries. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MLA 01- 0022 7: Mark Secord, Applicants Commissioner Titterness moved to approve MLA01-00227 based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, testimony received, and that a great deal of the property in that community is more intensely developed than the 1:10 acres designation requested by the applicant. Commissioner Wojt disagreed and pointed out that the criteria used is based on adjacent property. Chairman Huntingford stated that he would like to do more research on this amendment before the Board makes their final decision. Commissioner Wojt moved that deliberations on this amendment be continued until tomorrow afternoon when the Board will reconvene for other business. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MLAOl-O0232: J. Frank $chmidt & Sons, Co., Applicants Chairman Huntingford stated that they have talked about the issue raised in MLA01-00232 regarding commercial forestland buffers for the past three years since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Forestland Task Force needs to be formed soon. Commissioner Titterness asked staff if continuing this amendment to next year is an allowable process? Randy Kline explained that his understanding is that this site specific process. The applicants came before the Hearing Examiner in 1997 and asked to be removed from the forestland designation; but the property didn't meet the criteria. In order to meet the criteria, an accompanying Comprehensive Plan policy amendment would have to be passed. The Comprehensive Plan Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 specifies that a Forestland Task Force is required to give a recommendation on any policy amendment dealing with forestland. He thinks that the Board has to accept or deny the amendment. Charles Saddler stated that if the Board decided to continue the amendment to next year, the issue would have to be factored into the DCD work schedule for 2002. David Alvarez stated that the UDC is silent regarding the continuation of an amendment. Commissioner Wojt moved to deny this amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Titterness moved to continue the amendment to next year based on the facts that a policy in the Comprehensive Plan requires the Forestland Stakeholders Task Force to give a recommendation on any revisions, this site specific amendment cannot be approved until the policy is reviewed by the task force, and that DCD makes the formation of this task force a top priority for 2002. David Alvarez asked that a reference to the Comprehensive Plan Policy that requires the formation of the Task Force be read into the record. Randy Kline stated that the policy is listed under the strategies portion of the Natural Resources chapter on page 4. Section 4.43 reads establish a cooperative process as resources become available among timber company representatives, land owners, environmental groups and other interested parties to address concerns related to incompatible land uses between existing small parcels and adjacent forest lands. David Alvarez added that it references corresponding Comprehensive Plan Goal 4.40. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. The Board met in Executive Session from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the County Administrator regarding personnel. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday afternoon. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Major Industrial Developments (MIDs): Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that Josh Peters, Associate Planner for Jefferson County and Jeff Randall, Planning Manager for the City of Port Townsend have been working together on this project. Josh Peters stated that the Board received a memo from DCD dated December 10 that discusses a list of issues that the City submitted at the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting held November 29 regarding the City/County interlocal agreement on MIDs. DCD has also received a letter from the State Office of Community Development (OCD) regarding the County's proposed regulations on MIDs and development agreements. Jefferson County is the first county to set up a process that uses the MID provisions in the GMA and OCD is interested in any issues that have come up. It appears that they are pleased with the direction of the project. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Commissioner Wojt asked staff to explain the procedure beginning at the point when an MID proposal is received. Josh Peters pointed out that he is referencing the process as outlined in the current draft interlocal agreement. · The applicant contacts the County regarding a proposed project on property located in the County. · The County sets up a pre-application conference, and notifies City staff so that they can attend and share documents. · The City has a certain number of days to comment on the application. The City's input is important because one of the required findings to be made by the County when reviewing an MID application, is that there is no suitable property within the UGA to locate the proposed project. · The County will accept an application even if the City's input notes a more suitable location in the UGA. · The applicant is made aware of the City's findings. · An MID located in the County is a conditional use according to the Comprehensive Plan. It requires a SEPA review and comment periods for the public. The City of Port Townsend would have another chance to comment during this time. · A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner would be scheduled. The public and the City of Port Townsend would have another chance to comment at this hearing. The Hearing Examiner has 10 days to issue a written decision which is the final decision of the County. · The Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to an Appellant Examiner for a closed record hearing. The Appellant Examiner's decision can be appealed to Superior Court. · The law states thatfinal approval shall be considered an amendment to the land use map without having to go through the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. However, the County' s Unified Development Code (UDC) requires that a change in the land use map go through an amendment process per Section 9. · The Comprehensive Plan requires a Type III amendment process for an MID. The final step for approval is to create a UGA for the MID. Chairman Huntingford stated that he is concerned about all the time, effort and money that an applicant and the County will be required to spend on this process. The applicant shouldn't be required to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, which is not required according to the law. Josh Peters replied that OCD also questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is necessary. Commissioner Titterness said that he wants this to be a simple process and pointed out that there will be additional controls provided in the development agreement. Josh Peters replied that the development agreement is an optional element to an MID proposal unless phasing of development is part of the application. However, the conditional use permit thoroughly addresses required conditions and enforcement procedures. He went on to explain that the Hearing Examiner's decision on a conditional use permit could be a recommendation rather than a final decision, and the County Commissioners could take action on the final approval. The Board's approval could be done simultaneous to the change in the land use map. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Commissioner Titterness asked if the final step would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission? Josh Peters stated that all Comprehensive Plan amendments must go through Planning Commission review and if the procedure is changed, Section 9 of the UDC regarding changes to the land use map would have to be revised. Chairman Huntingford reiterated his concerns about the separate, additional process for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He thinks it needs to be a Board directed change. Josh Peters stated that originally it was suggested that an MID/UGA land use map Comprehensive Plan amendment could be done outside of the annual cycle, but would follow UDC Section 9, including Planning Commission review. Now they are leaning toward making an amendment to the land use map on final approval of an MID application without having to go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process per UDC Section 9. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that locating MIDs can be very controversial. The Hearing Examiner makes a decision based on the facts and testimony from the hearing. The Commissioners have to deal with the political repercussions. A1 Scalf recommended that the County Commissioners not get involved in making quasi-judicial decisions regarding land use. Josh Peters reiterated that in order to change the land use map without a Comprehensive Plan amendment, Section 9 of the UDC would have to be revised. He believes that the development agreement could complicate the process because he thinks that it also requires a separate public hearing. Al Scalfnoted that an agreement is approved by the Board, although in the case of a development agreement for an MID, the Board could have the Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission hold the hearing. Jeff Randall, City of Port Townsend, explained that there are still many complex details and jurisdictional issues that need to be addressed. The State Legislature allowed local governments to take on MIDs, but did not go into the details of how to actualize them. He doesn't have any more input than what the County staff has offered, although he feels that it is important to make sure the will process work before it is implemented. The City is still having problems with the definition of an MID. He encouraged the Board not to take action on the UDC amendment until the interlocal agreement is fully executed. The City intentionally left a lot of the County/City relationship out of the UDC amendment because they wanted it addressed in the interlocal agreement. There isn't a clear, thorough picture of the process yet and he doesn't think the Board should take action until there is. Commissioner Wojt asked what the City will do if they receive an MID proposal under 40 acres? Jeff Randall explained that a 40 acre proposal doesn't fit with the current City zoning and would require a rezone. However, they have the ability to consider a site specific rezone through a subarea plan and this doesn't have to be done during the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. There is vacant land available within the City limits that is currently zoned R2 because there is no infrastructure in place yet. This land could be rezoned for an MID. Commissioner Wojt asked if the City could accommodate 2 or 3 projects of approximately 40 acres? Jeff Randall replied that he doesn't see these types of projects coming into the County at that rate. Josh Peters added that the wording in the UDC was kept simple regarding the current inventory. They Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 propose keeping the inventory current through the interlocal agreement and updating the information every two years. The County will need the City's help in determining the inventory information for the Port Townsend UGA. A disagreement related to a particular MID application would come before the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Titterness stated that OCD said that suitable land is land that is readily available and does not have to be rezoned. He asked if the City could do a sub-area plan rezone within the 120 days allowed for a permit to go through the system? Jeff Randall answered that he was not sure. He added that the position that the City is taking is that an MID approval in the County is a rezone. Commissioner Wojt asked what precautions there are to prevent the County from being taken over by MIDs? Josh Peters explained that this issue came up in Planning Commission deliberations. DCD decided to support the Planning Commission's recommendation that they do not want to set a limit on the number of permitable MIDs until the ordinance is reviewed again. This issue has also been brought up by the City, OCD and a minority report by the Planning Commission. DCD suggests that limiting the number of MIDs is a legislative decision. There is language in the law that when an MID UGA is created, precautions be taken that non- rural development does not occur outside the boundaries. Commissioner Titterness pointed out that there is language that priority shall be given to MID applications for sites that are adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the UGA. This would create an opportunity to expand the UGA to include the MID. Josh Peters explained that DCD's memo addressing the City's concerns recommends clarifying Table 6-1 in the UDC and the density, dimension, and open space standards per zone, by creating an additional column in the table for MIDs. He pointed out that there is a mechanism for evaluating cumulative impacts in the Conditional Use section of the UDC. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Guy Rudolph, Irondale, stated that he attended the Planning Commission meeting on MIDs. There were a lot of questions left unanswered that still aren't clear. He asked why it is so important that this be done right now? Amanda Kingsley, Cape George, stated that her personal concern is the asphalt plant at the Cape George Wye. She feels that heavy industry should not be located in rural residential areas. She is on the Board of Neighbors Against Asphalt Batching which represents several hundred residents in the Cape George area. They have concerns about water quality, air quality, traffic and the erosion of the character of the neighborhood. Based on her experience, if someone buys a rural residential property, they should be assured that it is going to stay that way. Property owners should be protected. The MID loophole should be carefully monitored. She agrees with Commissioner Wojt that the County could wind up with little MID islands everywhere. Strict regulations for siting MIDs should be dealt with at this point rather than later. She asked what would happen to the land use designation if an MID was created and then sold? Would it revert back to the previous zoning? Why is Jefferson County the first county to enact legislation regarding MIDs? Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, representing People for a Livable Community, said that the OCD letter noted several comments on development agreements. The current draft of the UDC amendment doesn't require a mandatory development agreement. A development agreement is a good tool for review and control and should be included in the final draft. She asked that the Board not rush into passing this legislation as it is currently represented. Chairman Huntingford asked Josh Peters how long the County has been working on the MID process? Josh Peters replied that they began in October, 2000. John Lockwood, Port Townsend, speaking for himself and People for a Livable Community, stated that the public has brought up many concerns over the past year about the MID process. The first response from the County regarding these concerns was in the memo addressing the City's questions and OCD's letter. People don't want MIDs scattered up and down the highway between Chimacum and Port Townsend and there is nothing in the UDC ordinance to keep that from happening. There is no statement about how big or small an MID can be and several MIDs would ruin the rural character of the County. An MID, located in the County or the City, is a rezoning action because it changes rural residential or any other designation to an industrial designation and it is putting infrastructure in place where it doesn't currently exist. Many people in the City are concerned about the tax implications of having MIDs in the County near the City limits. Most of the housing to support MIDs will be built within the City. For every tax dollar received from residential development, $1.15 is paid out. This means that building residential housing is a losing proposition from a tax viewpoint. The City taxpayers will be required to absorb the bulk of the added money required by the fire district and police. There has been no effort to address this issue. OCD raises questions about cumulative impacts in their letter. An interlocal agreement is not an appropriate means to address issues regarding MIDs because there is no provision for public input. He asked that the Board not take action on this because there are serious problems that would create a lot of negative impacts. Michelle Sandoval, Port Townsend, said that she commented on MIDs through the Planning Commission, through the County process, and through the City's public hearing. During this time she put together three pages of concerns and solutions. Some of her concerns have been answered. At the County Commissioner's meeting on November 13, Commissioner Titterness stated that the Planning Commission members could attend the MID hearing because he didn't want to incorporate their minority report that didn't offer any solutions. She thinks it is the Board's job to offer solutions. Regarding Commissioner Wojt's question about what happens after the 40 acres of land in the City is used for MIDs, there needs to be a trigger that says if the City is "filled up," the County shouldn't have to go to the City. There are no provisions for the number of MIDs that will be allowed. The public needs to know that there is a certain number of cumulative acres. It is important to look at the worst case scenario. Community buy-in should be up front to prevent litigation later. A development agreement should be required for all MIDs. One issue that hasn't been addressed is the hierarchy of most desirable areas. The cumulative impact of the total acreage that will be rezoned needs to be considered. This could be a good thing ifMIDs provide jobs for local residents. Page 19 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 David Alvarez noted that a development agreement is a contractual agreement between the developer and the County. The public does not have any input. A developer may want to include a stakeholder group in the development agreement process; but it is the developer's choice. Guy Rudolph, speaking for the Tri Area Community Club and the Irondale Community Action Neighbors, asked how the public would be notified about an MID proposal? A lot of the proposals that go through the Hearing Examiner aren't highly publicized. Josh Peters responded that the ordinance was crafted to require the approval of a development agreement by resolution after a public hearing. If a development agreement relates to a project permit application, there is an appeal process. MID proposals made pursuant to 3.8. lA require siting close to a UGA if the amount of property for the proposal exceeds the amount of property available within the UGA. Proposals made pursuant to 3.8. lB are for natural resource based industries requiring location near agricultural land, forest land or mineral resource land. There are provisions in the code that deal with future use of the land, abandonment of the site, and reverting to a previous land use district. There wouldn't be 100% lot coverage because 100 foot buffers on the sides and 50 foot buffers along the road are required. Commissioner Titterness complimented staff for doing an excellent job of bringing this information forward in the draft ordinance. He stated that, judging from the testimony received today, it appears that there are still revisions that need to be made. He would like to see the following items added to the ordinance: requirement of a development agreement, that the decision be a Type II! decision, and that a review of function be done after 5 MIDs have been sited. Commissioner Wojt asked if the Board will have another public hearing after the changes are made to the ordinance? Commissioner Titterness replied that he feels the changes would be substantial and would require another hearing. Commissioner Wojt added that another issue concerned whether an interlocal agreement is an appropriate document for listing procedures or if the procedures should be incorporated into the ordinance? Commissioner Titterness replied that there is no requirement for an interlocal agreement in the RCW, but he thought it was a requirement of the countywide planning policies. Commissioner Wojt suggested that staff be directed to take the comments presented at this hearing and make the necessary changes. Chairman Huntingford feels that since the Board has conducted a public hearing, the Board needs to give detailed direction to staff about the changes they want. Commissioner Wojt stated that the area regarding "decommissioning" needs to be clarified. Josh Peters explained that decommissioning isn't included in the draft ordinance, but was included in the Planning Commission's recommendation. The language was changed after the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting in October to suitable environmental remediation and/or restoration per SEPA review. Page 20 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 Commissioner Titterness moved to direct staff to move forward with the draft ordinance by incorporating the requirement for development agreements for all MIDs, that it will be Type III decision, and that after the siting of 5 MIDs or 5 years, whichever comes first, there will be a general County review of the process. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is some way to use the number of estimated employees in an MID as a requirement of the proposal? Chairman Huntingford replied that the Board shouldn't limit the businesses in the County based on the number of jobs that it will provide. Commissioner Wojt said that he thought the goal of the MID ordinance is to encourage more jobs for residents, not to encourage large buildings that don't employ a lot of people. He would like to see this addressed in the ordinance, if possible. Josh Peters stated that there is a section in the ordinance that refers to the conditional use requirements and he suggested that explicit criteria be added regarding some form of cost/benefit analysis using number of employees per acre. Chairman Huntingford said that he did not feel comfortable adding that criteria because of how this could be interpreted. Commissioner Titterness accepted the amended motion that a review of criteria for public benefit be included in the revised draft ordinance. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion The Board concurred that when the revisions are made to the draft ordinance, a workshop be scheduled before the public hearing. Josh Peters asked for clarification on adding the column for MIDs in Table 6-1 and he asked for direction from the Board about continuing negotiations with the City regarding the interlocal agreement. Commissioner Titterness replied that the County has received the City's comments and has responded to them, the City currently has the draft MOU and he feels that it is up to the City to take the next step. A1 Scalf stated that they will continue to work with the City. Commissioner Wojt recommended a friendly amendment to the motion to include revisions to Table 6-1. Commissioner Titterness accepted the amendment. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Deliberations re: 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; MLAOl-O0227: (See earlier in minutes.) Chairman Huntingford stated that the Board asked for more information on MLA01- 00227, a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding a property on Marrowstone Island that is currently designated 1:20. The applicant is requesting that the parcel be redesignated 1:10. He explained that he received information from DCD and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and he is ready to make a decision. Page 21 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 10, 2001 ~ Commissioner Tittemess moved to approve MLA01-00227 based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Commissioner Tittemess and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commission Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Discussion re: Closing the Courthouse on Christmas Eve: Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith presented several options for the Board to review regarding closing the Courthouse Office on December 24, 2001. He explained that the employees would have the option of taking time off using comp time or vacation time or taking time off without pay. The County can publish a notice that the Courthouse would be closed. He suggested that the Courthouse offices close at noon and the employees have the option of working or not working. Treasurer Judi Morris added that she always stays on Christmas Eve in her office and they don't have any people from the public come in to transact business. She recommended that the Board close the Courthouse offices from noon to 5 p.m. David Goldsmith added that some of the other County facilities may need to remain open because they have already scheduled appointments for that day. Commissioner Tittemess moved to close the Courthouse at noon on December 24 and to allow the Department Head's who have offices located in other facilities to make the decision about closing their offices to the public that afternoon. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board interviewed Louis Hoffer who is interested in serving on the Jefferson County Ferry Advisory Committee. Appointment re: Ferry Advisory Committee; Louis Hoffer: Commissioner Wojt moved to appoint Louis Hoffer to a four year term on the Ferry Advisory Committee. His term will expire December 11, 2005. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY Gle~ Page 22 Public Hearing 2:00 pm Department of Community Development Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Agenda Request To: Board of County Commissioners Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator From: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Randy Kline, Associate Planner Date: December 10, 2001 Subject: Line in/line out language for 2001 Suggested Policy/Comprehensive Plan Amendments (File Numbers MLA01-00215, MLA01-00217, MLA01- 00221, and MLA01-00225) Statement of Issue: These four (4) formal suggested policy amendments were included as part of the 2001 annual amendment final docket. The attached information includes proposed Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code language that has evolved based on the Planning Commission public hearing, Planning Commission deliberation, and Board of Commissioner comment at their December 3, 2001 public session. These documents provide a summary of Planning Commission and Department of Community Development recommendations on these proposed policy amendments and are intended for the Board's use during the public hearing. Alternatives: This information is presented for BOCC consideration and use at the December 10, 2001 public hearing. Department of Community Development Recommendation: The Department of Community Development recommends adoption of the DCD recommendations, which ~n many cases correspond to the Planning Commission's recommendations. Fiscal Impacts: The work item listed above would be performed within the current 2001 adopted budget for DCD. Reviewed by: Charles C Sadd"ler', ~o-u-n"t~, Administrator MLA01-00215: Regarding the Allowance of Multifamily Housing and Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks in Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads and General Crossroads Comprehensive Plan changes as recommended by the Department of Community Development consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation: Insert a new Land Use Policy 5.5.3 (Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads) and a new LNP 5.6.3 (General Crossroads) which would read: LNP 5.5.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of limited multifamil¥ housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units and manufactured/mobile home parks. LNP 5.6.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of limited multifamily housing opportunities such as multi-family residential units and manufactured/mobile home parks. Unified Development Code changes as recommended by the Department of Community Development consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation: In Table 3-1: Allowable and Prohibited Uses "Multifamily Residential Units (3+ Units)" would be changed to a "Yes" use in Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads and General Crossroads. In Table 3-1: Allowable and Prohibited Uses "Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks" would be changed to a "Yes" use in Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads and General Crossroads. MLA01-00217: Resorts Regarding the Siting of Master Planned Comprehensive Plan changes in addition to those included with the original application recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by the Department of Community Development: Add the following language to proposed Comprehensive Plan policy LNP 26.7: Plan approval shall provide that facilities serving the resort, which may be urban in nature, not be used to serve development outside the resort areas, except at appropriate rural densities, uses, and intensities. Change proposed Comprehensive Plan policy LNP 26.11 by replacing "may" with "shall" so that it reads: Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development Agreements, as authorized by RCW 36.70B. 170, to implement these policies. Add an additional Comprehensive Plan policy at LNP 26.13 to read: New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas of existing shoreline development, such as marinas and shoreline lodges, which promote public access to developed shorelines, and/or locations which promote public access and use of National Parks and National Forests. Additional Unified Development Code changes recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by the Department of Community Development: Add the following language to proposed Unified Development Code Section 8.11(1): Development Agreements shall be required with Master Planned Resorts. MLA01-00221: Regarding Bulk and Dimensional Standards in Rural Industrial Zones Comprehensive Plan changes recommended by the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development: s.s.2~) The following policies apply to uses within the Glen Cove Interim L/C Zone and the Glen Cove Potential Final Urban Growth Area: · Outside of the Glen Cove Interim L/C Zone, but within the Glen Cove Potential Final Urban Growth Area a structure housing an existing business shall be allowed to expand up to a building cap of 20,000 square feet (subject to meeting the bulk and dimensional requirement of 45% maximum Ic, t covcragcthe underlying land use designation). · Any proposed expansion outside of the Glen Cove Interim L/C Zone, but within the Glen Cove Potential Final Urban Growth Area shall only be approved if the expansion is to accommodate the structure housing the existing business on sire. Expansion in this area for speculative purposes or to accommodate a new business shall be prohibited &sa(c) Unified Development Code Changes Recommended by the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development: Unified Development Code Section 4.26 Corresponding language included at Unified Development Code Section 4.26 would be amended consistent with the above referenced Comprehensive Plan changes. Unified Development Code Section 6.5 (Table 6-1 and accompanying "Notes" section) Insert the development standard "Maximum Building Size" in place of "Building Envelope Size," as initially proposed by DCD, and replace allowable building size for the Rural Industrial Districts (which are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet) with "None Specified." This would eliminate restrictions related to building size in Rural Industrial Districts only. In the "Notes" section define "Maximum Building Size" in the following manner: Maximum building size is measured as the area occupied by the footprint of an individual structure. A parcel may contain more than one structure of the maximum allowable building size. This definition is intended to clarify that "building size" refers to the size of each individual structure and is not a cumulative measurement. For example, on a two acre lot in a Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad as many structures could be placed on that parcel as allowed based on imperwous surface coverage but no single building could exceed 5,000 square feet in size. In Table 6-1 (see attached) include a discrete development standard entitled "Area of Building Coverage" which would apply to Rural Industrial districts only at the ratios currently used for 'Area of Impervious Surface Coverage." "Area of Impervious Surface Coverage" would continue to apply for all districts except Rural Industrial districts. The Planning Commission recommendation and Department of Community Development recommendation differ regarding this issue. DCD recommends restricting Table 6-1 changes to Rural Industrial districts only. The attached Tables 6-1 illustrate the difference between the Planning Commission recommendation and the DCD recommendation. In the "Notes" section define "Area of Building Coverage" in the following manner: Maximum area of building coverage is measured by the percentage of total lot area occupied by the footprints of all structures. A final issue relates to impervious surface coverage on small pre-existing legal lots of record, such as in Irondale, and the difficulty these parcels have in meeting the ~mpervious surface coverage reqmrements. DCD recommends including a subscript in Table 6-1 related to "Area of Impervious Surface Coverage" indicating that impervious surface coverage restrictions on lots less than one ( 1 ) acre in s~ze in Rural Residential Districts will be subject to the stormwater requirements in UDC section 6.7 and must meet the "Area of Impervious Surface Coverage" to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the Administrator. In the "Notes" section of the UDC include a line that reads: Pre-existing legal lots of record less than one acre in size in Rural Residential Districts are subject to the stormwater requirements in UDC section 6.7 and must meet the "Area of Impervious Surface Coverage" to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the Administrator. MLA01-00225: Regarding Clarification Related to Initial and Future Designation of Rural Commercial Areas (also known as LAMIRDs, "limited areas of more intensive rural development") Comprehensive Plan changes recommended by the Department of Community Development: For purposes of initial Comprehensive Plan adoption, all interim rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the following minimum criteria: a. The commercial area existed as a built environment on July 1, 1990 b. The existing zoning is commercial; and c. The existing uses provide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods and services. Leave Land Use Policy (LNP) 5.2 as it currently exists in the Comprehensive Plan. Include a new LNP 5.9 to address future expansion of Convenience Crossroads, Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads, and General Crossroad that reads: LNP 5.9 Revisit designated Rural Crossroads and establish boundaries consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(51 and other applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Include a new LNP 4.10 to address future expansion of Rural Village Centers that reads: LNP 4.10 Revisit designated Rural Village Centers and establish boundaries consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5) and other applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Include a new LNP 11.4 to address the future expansion of Rural Industrial districts that reads: LNP 11.4 Revisit designated interim Rural Industrial districts and establish boundaries consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5) and other applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-00225 Clarification Related to Initial and Future Designation'of Rural Commercial Areas (LAMIRDS) DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-224 Submitted by Eugene and Anna Brown DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-00221 Bulk and Dimensional Standards in Rural Industrial Zones DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 0~.;,..~. ~ ~.,~,~,'-~,-. ~ ~ ;~'~ EkE] N rn E r-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-00217 Regarding the Siting of Master Planned Resorts DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS ~ClTY Testimony? ,, Dr-II--1 ......... [5] ~ D JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-00215 Multifamily Housing and Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks in Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads and General Crossroads DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY I Testimony? I YES NO MAYBE E2~F~ E2 E~ F~ EIE~Q E2 E2 F-q , E2 Fq [2 ,, E2 E2 E5 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-213 Submitted by Linda Sexton DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA01-200 Submitted by Francis Thompson DATE: Monday, December 10, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE BBB Comprehensive Plan Amendments Final Docket July 2001 MLA01-00200 ! Site-Specific ! Francis Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re- .i i Thompson designation from a Rural Residential 1:5 Land i Use District to the Light I i Industrial/Commercial (Glen Cove) Land Use i District 1 i ' MLA01-00213 I Site-Specific ! Linda Sexton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re- , i designation from a Rural Residential 1:5 Land i i ' Use District to a Neighborhood Visitor { I Crossroad District ! MLA01-00215 ! Suggested ' Craig Durgan Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to i i allow multi-family housing and i manufactured/mobile home parks in i Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroad i i (Mats Mats, Discovery Bay, Four Corners, ~ Chimacum, Gardiner) and General I ! Commercial Crossroad (Ness' Corner, ~ ~ Irondale/SR 19 Intersection, and SR 19/20 ! ! Intersection) MLA01-00217 Suggested i Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and accompanying [ Unified Development Code text amendments i !ii to enable the siting of additional Master Plan Resorts in 3efferson County MLA01-0022! i Suggested i Jefferson County i Comprehensive Plan and accompanying i i i Unified Development Code text amendments I ~ as related to bulk and dimensional criteria i i ! (building size and height) in the Rural ~ ~ Industrial Districts [OVER] MLA01-00224 MLA01-00225 Site-Specific Eugene and Anna Brown MLA01-00227 MLA01-00232 Suggested Site-Specific Site-Specific 3efferson County Mark Secord (original applicant M. Mraz) 3. Frank Schmidt & Sons Company Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re- designation from a Rural Residential 1:5 Land Use District to an unspecified Commercial Land Use District. Comprehensive Plan policy amendments to the criteria for the initial and future designations of Rural Commercial Land Use Districts (aka - LAMIRDS, Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re- designation from a Rural Residential 1:20 Land Use District to a Rural Residential 1:10 Land Use District Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re- designations from Resource Lands - Commercial Forest and Inholding Forest Land Use Districts to an unspecified Rural Residential Land Use District December 7. 2001 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PLC COMMENTS ON SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS MLA01-00200 Site specific amendment to Glen Cove LI/C boundary PLC concurs with the Department of Community Development staff report recommendation to deny the requested re-designation and address the proposal through coordinated review of the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial zone when Jefferson County revisits the area in order to create the final boundary. MLA01-00213 Site specific amendment to Chimacum Neighborhood/Commercial boundary PLC concurs with the Department of Community Development staff report recommendation to deny the requested re-designation and address the proposal through coordinated review of the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad when Jefferson County revisits the area in order to create the final boundary. MLA01-00224 New convenience Crossroad Comments submitted separately MLA01-00227 Site specific amendment to Rural Residential property on Marrowstone PLC concurs with the Department of Community Development staff report recommendation to deny the requested re-designation as the property in question does not meet the Criteria in Goal 3 for RR I: 10. It is important to maintain the integrity of the criteria as they relate to Rural Residential property throughout the county. Re-designation of the subject parcel has the potential to create pressure to change the land use designations of surrounding properties. MLA01-00232 Site specific amendment affecting Commercial Forest Land Land designated as Commercial Fores! of Long Term Significance cannot simply be removed from the designation upon request. PLC COMMENTS ON POLICY AMENDMENTS MLA01-00215 Mobile home parks in commercialzones 12~'[~ t/.3~'}-~'l PLC concurs with Minority Report and has submitted comments separately MLA01-00217 MPR No comment M LA01-00221 Removal of Bulk and Dimension restrictions on Industrial Zones Bulk and Dimensional restrictions is lifted at all should be lifted only for light and heavy industrial uses. According to the UDC. associated commercial activities are intended to directly serve the needs of the land use activities existing within this district. Bulk and Dimensional restrictions should continue to apply to the Associated Commercial uses in the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial Zone. MLA01-00225 Deletion of LNP 5.1 Comments submitted separately . People for a Livable Co~nmunity December 7. 2001 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Re: MLA01-00215 The amendment states that its intent is to provide much needed affordable housing. The Minority Report notes that the amendment does not contain any language that would promote affordable housing and that there is no corresponding UDC language or county policy that would encourage the units constructed through this amendment to be priced in an affordable range once constructed or to be maintained as affordable units after initial occupation. Serious consideration of affordable housing requires that these issues be addressed. The Comp Plan has an entire chapter dedicated to Housing. If the Board wants to encourage affordable housing it should look to implementing some of the policies in its adopted Comprehensive Plan HSP 2.7 Encourage and support greater opportunity for the development of innovative housing types, such as residential units in mixed-use development and single family attached housing, duplexes and triplexes which are limited in scale, multi-care facilities and development patterns such as clustering, in Rural Village Centers provided adequate infrastructure and services are in place. HSG 3.0 Cooperate with the appropriate agencies to create programs aimed at conserving and improving the County's exisung housing. HSP 3.2 Support efforts of the Jefferson County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity and the Community Action Council to obtain Housing Preservation Grant Program funding for the repair and rehabilitation of dwellings for low income renters and owners. How many of the action items dealing with affordable housing have been accomplished since adoption of the Plan in 19987 One of them. acuon item #7 page 5-20. refers to a countywide study of housing conditions as a basis to develop a regional subsidized housing repair program. This study was done, spearheaded by a planner from Clallam County. Meetings were held for a year and attended by the Head of Community Action Council among others. There is at least one copy in the Department of Community Development. Have the Commassioners ever endorsed it? Is it being used or is it sitting somewhere on a shelf gathering dust? You do not build affordable housing you preserve it. While manufactured home parks can be considered "affordable housing, according to Table 3-1 in the Uniform Development Code manufactured/mobile home parks are allowed in all Rural Residential zones and in Rural Village Centers. Where is the need to take up valuable rural commercial land in sprawling mobile home parks when they can be permitted almost everywhere else? PLC concurs with the Planning Commission Minority Report dated April 29, 2001. Allowing multi-family housing and mobile home parks in rural commercial zones will eat up valuable rural commercial land and lead to sprawl. Alice King, People for a Livable Community q~mg ueqJ eu! ::3 !/ /~/ u0!;~e~0ea,~ ~ I o o o o o o o o o o leplsnpul~eeH ~ z ~ z z z ~ z z o z o z o z o z o 0 0 0 = (e~0O Uelg) ~1~ le!OJemm°O/le!Jlsnpul z z z ,- ~,! iJ~ I peseG-e3Jn0seule!J~snpul il ~ ~ o o o o o z z z z z z z z o o o z° z° r~ ~t pe0Jss0JOleJeueg ~ ~ o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~z z z z z p~OJ$$Oj0~00 ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o 5u!pl0qUl~leJn~ ~ ~ o o m m ~ o o o ,'~ 'le!0Jemm00 - 1s010~ > z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ o ~ o o December 7, 2001 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Re: MLA01-00225 The County has decided that the designation of Rural Commercial areas will be guided by the criteria in RCW 36.70A.070 alone. Unfortunately, the County cannot reach consensus concerning the intent of this legislation. According to RCW 36.70A.070 (5)(d) Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development exist and are more intense than the surrounding rural area. Such "existing areas" may be recognized and delineated by a boundary drawn to "minimize and contain" the more intensive development. RCW 36.70A.070 (5)(d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection. LNP 5.1 was intended to clarify the intent of the RCW. Deletion of the entire policy will obscure not clarify the RCW by which the County says it intends to be guided in the designation of its rural commercial areas. LNP 5.1 (b) requiring previous commercial zoning is a County imposed criteria and could be eliminated without violence to the GMA or the Plan. LNP 5.1 (c) on the other hand. clarifies that the area of more intensive rural development must exist and provide services in order to be recognized. LNP 5.1 (c) The existing uses provide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods and services. Its deletion, while not eliminating the necessity for the area to exist, may unfortunately lead to more confusion and more appeals unless the County accepts the intent of the policy and of the GMA: that a LAMIRD exists and serves the public at the time it is recognized and delineated. That the County does not accept this is evidenced by the staff report on MLA01-00224 wherein the location of a defunct store is seen as meeting the criteria for a Convenience Crossroads. While the County may be confused, the Growth Management Hearing Board is not. People for a Livable Corfimunity December 7, 2001 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Re: MLA01-00224 According to RCW 36.70A.070 (5)(d) Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development exist and are more intense than the surrounding rural area. Such existing areas may be recognized and de lineated by a boundary drawn to "minimize and contain" the more intensive development. RCW 36.70A.070 (5)(d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection. Under Current Use of the Property, the Staff Report states on page 1: The property contains a structure that has been used commercially, on an intermittent basis, between 1890 and 1986. The Staff report goes on to state on page 3 that the property meets the criteria in LNP 5.4 and that the proposed amendment MLA01-00225. which will delete LNP 5.1, would "further ensure this proposals consistency with the Comprehensive plan in reference to designation as a Convenience Crossroad." Policies LNP 5.1.5.4.1 and 5.2.2 in the Comprehensive Plan reflect the intent of the RCW. LNP 5.1 (c) The existing uses provide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods and services. LNP 5.1 (c) makes clear that that a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development exists and provides commercial services at the time it is recognized. Its deletion, while not eliminating the necessity for the area to exist, may unfortunately lead to more confusion and more appeals unless the County accepts the intent of the policy and of the GMA: that a LAMIRD exists and serves the public at the time it is recognized and delineated. The GMA says nothing about "ideal" locations or defunct historic commercial enterprises. LNP 5.4.1 Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following additional criteria; b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling public with basic consumer goods and services. The property in question does not meet LNP 5.4.1. The existence of the more intense area is also referred to in LNP 5.2.2: LNP 5.2.2 Crossroad intersection of major and/or local roadways where a predominately pre-July 1990 contained and concentrated commercial area or use is serving the local rural population and/or the commuting/traveling public. The property in question does not meet LNP 5.2.2. Page 2 comments on MLA01-00224 The use has been defunct for so long that it is not even grandfathered. Approval would create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, such as the defunct Center Valley store. Whether or not it ~s an ideal location for "serving the Irondale community" is a decision that needs to be made by the sub-area planning committee. PLC agrees with the Staff's recommendation to address this proposal through the urban growth area planning that is currently taking place as part of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Outside of a UGA, however, the parcel does not meet the criteria for a LAMIRD, People for a Livable Community Page 2 comments on MLA01-00224 December 10, 201 ,/4,~f~ Jefferson County Board of Commissioners "~'~~,, Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 2001 Public Hearing~'~'~"',?, MLAOl-0221 Public Comments by Nancy Dorgan, People for a Liveable Community: The Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study was deemed complete on December 3, and the Board decided against planning for a Glen Cove UGA. Maxing-out development in Glen Cove now under this amendment should not be a backdoor alternative for urban development. The Trottier Report that was part of the Special Study determined that only 28 acres of additional industrial land were needed in Jefferson County for the current planning period. That isn't very much, and even that figure was based on an unrealized rate of growth and more restrictive development standards than those in this amendment. As Mr. Seton pointed out to the Planning Commission during its November 7th hearing, this amendment never makes the distinction between that vague category of "associated" commercial uses in Glen Cove and light industrial uses in Glen Cove. Therefore this amendment does nothing to protect our prime industrial land for industrial development and the benefits it brings to our economy and workforce. Scarce industrial land should be reserved for industrial development and the amendment needs to be revised so that it does not apply to the commercial uses already permitted throughout Glen Cove. While discussing commercial districts in general, p. 3-12 of the Comprehensive Plan, states that land use ordinances like the UDC will include: "Development standards, including an upper building size cap for each zone and corresponding bulk and dimensional standards designed to preserve the existing rural character of the neighborhood through requlation of size and scale." Note the use of the word "neighborhooc/'. We should not just be considering "industrial districts", even though that is the only term used in the amendment. The issue of building caps was so important when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted only 2 % years ago that a specific number -- 20,000 sq. ft.mwas included in the Plan so that those writing the subsequent regulations would be absolutely clear about how to implement the Plan's intentions. I think p. 3-12 of the Plan still applies, at least to Glen Cove. The County's application for this amendment never used the term "rural charactef', so the amendment likewise never analyzed any cumulative impacts on the rural character of Jefferson County. Exhibit C-a of the application vaguely referred to "potential" limitations to expansion of existing businesses or the siting of new businesses, but no documentation about that need was given. This amendment does much more than what might be needed. In the meantime, the widely held citizens' values in the Jefferson 2000 Survey still apply to the decisions made by this Board. 'You should remember that this amendment is silent on the crucial GMA element of preserving rural character. The amendment application merely says that the amendment is GMA-consistent because that statute doesn't say you can't eliminate building caps in rural industrial districts. The statute, however, remains very explicit about protecting rural character from inappropriate development. I think the vast scale of this amendment is highly inappropriate and would clearly harm the rural character of our county. This amendment ignores the fact that every industrial district has distinct boundaries, which are shared with rural residential lands. Instead of acknowledging those neighbors, this amendment makes radical changes without proposing any increases in setbacks or buffers that could at least partly compensate for closer, bigger buildings and much closer, bigger parking lots. The amendment also raises serious unanswered questions about hugely increased amounts of impervious surfaces and how stormwater will be safely managed at rural levels under our current Iow levels of enforcement. The Planning Commission majority responded to this radical amendment by making it even more extreme and suggesting the elimination of building caps in all of the commercial LAMIRDS. A forthcoming UDC amendment to that effect was also discussed two days ago at the Board's amendment workshop as a solution to the lack of sufficient public process on the idea at this point in the Plan amendment cycle. The cumulative impact;~_,,p,TjJf,JCat new UDC amendment in conjunction with amendments #221 and ~that sites trailer parks in LAMIRDS obviously cannot now be assessed by the Board, but those impacts certainly should be considered if the Board adopts the Planning Commission's recommendation at this point. Combining trailer parks with maximum building sizes in all commercial LAMIRDS will create very ugly LAMIRDS. Infill is good, but it should at least be of an appropriate scale. The resulting vision of combing amendment #;~'-with the Planning Commission's version of no. 221 isn't a pleasant one, and it isn't good planning for our future.