HomeMy WebLinkAboutM050800District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No, 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of May 8, 2000
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Glen
Huntingford and Dan Harpole were both present.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the minutes of the
week of April 24, 2000 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
CO UNTYADMINISTRA TORS BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles
Saddler explained that a main issue of continuing concern is the challenges facing the Department of
Community Development. The only way to implement the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, is to adopt a
new Unified Development Code. The staff has developed a draft work plan with the top priority being the
development and implementation of a Unified Development Code.
Al Scalf reviewed the history of the development of the current Comprehensive Plan which is in
compliance with the State's Growth Management Act. He noted that currently a combination of pre-
Comprehensive Plan regulations and interim development regulations are being applied.
Chairman Wojt noted that the County has tightened the areas where commercial development can occur
and he asked if the tight line in the Glen Cove area needs to be adjusted while the final development
regulations are being drafted? Charles Saddler reported that the City of Port Townsend has proposed a
larger Urban Growth Area in the Glen Cove area than the UGA the County has proposed. The County has
not responded to the City's proposal. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the City identified the original
Glen Cove area in their Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Harpole noted that the City identified the area
as an FUGA (future Urban Growth Area.) He directed that a Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee meeting be scheduled to discuss this proposal and the County's response. Another topic for
discussion at the meeting is the implementation of 5019.
Charles Saddler stated that the Board needs to decide if they want staff to continue work simultaneously on
both the Glen Cove and Tri Area UGA determination processes. DCD staff recommends that these two
areas be addressed separately because there are different issues in each area.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 8, 2000
Warren Hart, Planning Manager, explained that the original schedule for the development of the UDC with
the consultant was 12 months. To reduce that time to implement the UDC by January 1,2001 will increase
the consultant costs; the integration with the Shoreline Master Program and the Endangered Species Act
regulation would be put on hold; and the CZM brant would not be accepted by the County. He noted that
there would be a very tight schedule of public meetings for the Board to get the UDC adopted by January 1,
2001.
Commissioner Harpole asked if the work on the UDC could be assigned priority to give direction on some
of the "timely" items that impact the Brinnon sub area planning efforts? Charles Saddler reported that there
are opportunities to address the needs of the Brinnon and the South County area, but that depends on the
Brinnon Planning Group and the information that is revealed during the planning process.
The discussion turned to how policy will be developed regarding the planning criteria for things like density
bonus, clustering, small scale recreational, etc. and how these items will be implemented and regulated.
Warren Hart noted that, with an accelerated schedule, some items will be a top priority while others will not
be addressed. He then noted that in order to meet the new UDC deadline the Department will have to
commit 1 I/2 FTEs to this project. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this work plan can be
accommodated within the current DCD budget? Warren Hart answered that, with the exception of the
consultant contract for the UDC, all of the items on the work plan can be accommodated within the
Department's budget. Charles Saddler suggested that the funds being provided to the County to replace
losses from 1-695 could be used to finance the consultant contract.
Charles Saddler asked the Board to reconsider their action regarding acceptance of site specific
Comprehensive Plan Amendments this year. He then read from an LNP which says that the County will
consider Comprehensive Plan Amendments once every five years. He noted that all of the professional staff
available this year will be allocated to doing work on UDC process. Not accepting any amendments this
year will allow the land use process to be addressed and improved.
Commissioner Huntingford moved that Department move forward with the UDC as presented in the
schedule provided today. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Harpole moved to have staff bring forward a resolution stating that the County will not
accept any Comprehensive Plan Amendments and to include in the resolution findings of fact to support
that decision based on the staff work load. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion and asked
about the possibility of the County accepting amendments this year and docketing them for future review?
Commissioner Harpole modified his motion that staffbring back information on options for possibly taking
amendment applications and docketing them until the UDC is in place or the option of not accepting any
amendment applications. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the modified motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 8, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: County Administrator Charles Saddler introduced Sarah
Levar who is the new Coordinator for the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to delete Item 4 and to approve the balance of the items as submitted. Commissioner
Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 39-00 re: Creating a County Road Project Designated as CR1494; To Chip
Seal North Andrew Avenue
2. RESOLUTION NO. 40-00 re: Creating a County Road Project Designated as CR1495; To Chip
Seal East Island View Avenue
3. RESOLUTION NO. 41-00 re: Accepting Vendor Bids for Supply of Asphalt Concrete for 2000
Maintenance on Various County Roads
4. DELETE Resolution re: To Enter into a Development Agreement with Land Owned by Pope Resources per Chapter 36.7013.170 and Chapter
36.70B.200 Re~'ised Code of Washington (See item later in Minutes)
5. AGREEMENT re: Temporary Help; Jefferson County Public Works; Teamsters Local #589;
Richard Moore
6. Final Short Plat Approval, Cote de St. Onge Short Plat, #SUB98-0007; To Divide 1.75 Acres into 2
Residential Lots; Abutting Ludlow Bay Road, Port Ludlow; Rene and Dorothy St. Onge, Applicants
7. Accept Recommendation to Pay a Reduced Amount for Two (2) Claims for Damages: 1) #C-I 1-00,
$200.00, Loss of Personal Property, Patricia E. Porter; and 2) #C-12-00, $112.00, Loss of Personal
Property., Donald D. Pruitt
To Enter into a Development Agreement with Land Owned by Pope Resources per
Chapter 36. 7OB. 170 and Chapter 36. 70B. 200 Revised Code of Washington (Master Planned Resort):
(See also Item 4) After thanking everyone for all the hard work and determination, Commissioner
Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 42-00 to enter into a Development Agreement with
land owned by Pope Resources per Chapter 36.70B. 170 and Chapter 36.70B.200 Revised Code of
Washington. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Interim Controls Ordinance (ICO) to
Provide the Zoning Administrator with the Authority and Criteria to Review Applications for Consistency
with Section 13 Use Table: Planning Manager Warren Hart reported that this hearing is to address a
revision to the Interim Control Ordinance, which will give the Zoning Administrator authority to review
applications for consistency with the Use Table in Section 13. It would give the Zoning Administrator the
authority to clarify omissions and other factual situations that arise regarding the use tables. The new
Section 13 puts in place regulations to enable an applicant to come forward and request an interpretation.
The Zoning Administrator would determine where that particular use would fall within the use table and
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 8, 2000
within different zoning districts and whether the use would be a permitted use or a conditional use. The
Zoning Administrator would publish the determination and there would be an appeal period. After the
appeal period, if it was approved, the project would be allowed to go forward. If it was denied, it would
take a legislative action of the Board to add the use to the use table for that zoning district.
Chairman Wojt asked about pre-existing non-conforming uses? Warren Hart explained that a person with a
pre-existing, non-conforming use could ask that the Zoning Administrator review the use to see if it fit in
the use table, but there are other regulations that cover these uses.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ryan Tillman, Tillman Engineering, made the following comments:
Section 13.20:
This section states that because of the unique qualities orfi~cts underlying aparticularproposed
landuse. He feels that it would be easier to just say that the land use isn't listed in the use table. That
way similar situations could be used as a basis for requesting a similar interpretation.
The estimated cost has nothing to do with criteria or with the authority of the Zoning Administrator
and should be removed.
Proposed Section 13.31:
He would like to see Section 13.31 added to denote the timing required for notice to applicant and to
set a time frame for the Zoning Administrator to make a decision. David Alvarez, Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney reported that Section 13.7 states that the Zoning Administrator has to make a
decision within 25 days. Warren Hart pointed out that the proposed changes do not specify the
timeline for notifying the applicant that a decision has been made.
Section 13.5
Define unreasonably incompatible, unreasonably conflict and where is the definition of rural
character taken from?
Regarding the wording require the extension of urban services. Does this allow new urban services
to be created as long as the other services aren't extended? Can a water system be made outside of an
urban growth area for commercial use? The criteria needs to be more specific.
Section 13.100
Regarding the appeal process, he suggested that the "non-appealable" be included. The Zoning
Administrator should not be able to say that the use is not in the table, therefore Section 13 can't be
used to clarify, it.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 8, 2000
Section 13.120
The Procedures Ordinance is clear regarding time limits for the Director's interpretations and is
much stricter than this proposed ordinance. The two ordinances should be consistent.
He stated that it is important to clarify where projects stand that have been vested since the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted in 1998. If applications since that date have been denied, can they be resubmitted under
this appeal process? What is the date that this new ordinance will be effective? The legislative intent of the
Commissioners needs to be stated. He added that he supports these revisions.
Bill Marlow, Irondale, stated that he feels the ordinance should be made as simple as possible. This would
be in everyone's best interest.
Hearing no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Warren Hart stated that there are two different code interpretations. The County defined code
interpretations as something that is ambiguous in the code, that it doesn't give clear direction. This is a
completely different procedure and interpretation specifically for projects related to the land use table only;
not to the rest of the text portions of the Zoning Code or the ICO.
Ryan Tillman gave the example of a project being reviewed for more than one reason and the confusion that
could result from different decision, notice, and appeal timelines. David Alvarez stated that Planning staff
has suggested that there is the need to allow more time for review of criteria and for the appeals that could
result from this amendment.
Warren Hart explained that if a proposal in the pipeline is vested or at some point in the past was denied
because of the strict interpretation of the use table, there will be an opportunity for the proposal to go
through the appeal process as the result of this amendment. Chairman Wojt stated that the goal of this draft
amendment to the ICO is to allow a project that won't have any type of impact on an area, to go forward.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if there will be more allowed uses and less conditional uses in the
Unified Development Code? The process is dragged out in the case of a conditional use determination.
Warren Hart explained that this ordinance is a preview of the Unified Development Code. There will be
traditional use zones, conditional use permits, performance zoning, and development standards.
Commissioner Harpole noted that Ryan Tillman has raised a number of questions and staff needs to provide
more information to the Board. Commissioner Harpole moved to remand this back to staff to do further
work to address the issues brought up today and then bring it back to the Board for consideration.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Warren Hart reported that he can have the information requested on the Board's agenda on May 22, 2000.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 8, 2000
The Board interviewed the following citizens interested in serving on the Planning
Commission: 2:30 p.m.- Jerry Gilmore - District # 1; 2:45 p.m. - Derek Stacey Thompson - District #2; 3:00
p.m - Burton Lipshay - District #2; 3:15 p.m. - Michelle Sandoval - District # 1;
3:30 p.m. - James Fritz - District #3; and 4:00 p.m. - David Whipple - District #3.
Appointments to the Planning Commission: After interviewing the Planning Commission
applicants, Commissioner Harpole moved to reappoint Michelle Sandoval as a Planning Commission
member from District # 1 (term expires March 17, 2004.) Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to appoint Derek Stacey Thompson to a vacant position on the Planning
Commission representing District #2 (term expires March 17, 2002.) Commissioner Harpole seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to reappoint David Whipple to another term on the Planning
Commission as a District #3 representative (term expires March 17, 2004.) Commissioner Harpole
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
MEETING ADJOURNED
Seal::.:... , ?..j/...: ,/ /,, ·
ATTEST: '.. ~. .
Lorna Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
JEFFE~S~RD OF COUNT5 ~..~
~/QMMI:
len~Hun~
Page 6