Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100499JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. 1 Commissioner: District No. 9. Commissioner: District No. 3 Commissioner: Daniel Harpole, Chair Glen Huntingford, Member Richard Wojt, Member , OI.YMPIC PENINSUI,A I Clerk of the Board: Director of Public Services: Deputy Director of Public Services: Lorna L. Delaney Gary A. Rowe David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of October 4, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dan Harpole, in the presence of Commis- sioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt. The Board met in Executive Session from 8:30-9:00 a.m. with the Public Services Director and the Interim Public Works Director regarding personnel. PUBLIC SER VICES BRIEFING SESSION: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported on the following: · A draft resolution with the City to jointly develop capital facilities, telecommunications and technology services was reviewed. Gary Rowe will draft a final version to be presented to the City and the County for adoption. · At the Budget Roundtables last week, the Board asked for more information from the Commu- nity Development Department regarding staffing and the changes that have been made in the last few months. They also asked for follow up from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office regarding a Code Compliance Officer and how that position would be coordinated between the Department of Community Development and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. · Gary Rowe advised that he will prepare information on 1-695 for the public information forum that is being scheduled. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: No public comments were made. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete Item 9 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote 1. HEARING NOTICE re: Planning Commission's Recommendation on the WWGMHB Direction to Amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on the Capital Facilities Element and Land Use and Rural Element; Set for Monday, October 18, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers in the Courthouse 2. AGREEMENT re: Fletcher Creek Fish Passage Barrier Culvert Replacement; Project CD1382; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Fish Passage Grant Program 3. AGREEMENT re: Tarboo Creek Fish Passage Barrier Culvert Replacement; Project CD1378; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Fish Passage Grant Program 4. AGREEMENT re: Construct Fletcher Creek Culvert Replacement; Project CD1382 Lower Hoh Road; Jefferson County Public Works; Addleman Logging 5. AGREEMENT Supplemental #1 re: Extend Completion Date; Culvert Replacement Consult- ing Services; Jefferson County Public Works; Entranco Inc. 6. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Recruitment of County Administrator; Jefferson County Public Services; Ken Lynn, Communication Educators 7. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Recruitment of County Administrator; Jefferson County Public Services; Fred Owen, Owen Human Resource Consulting 8. AGREEMENT re: Provide Medical Services to Inmates; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Health Care Delivery Systems 9. DELETE Agreement re: WRIA 17 Planning Unit; Jefferson County Environmental Health; Triangle Associates 10. Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE) Grant Proposal; Conduct Two (2) Workshops on Near Shore Environment; Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 11. Special Event Permit re: Wild Olympic Salmon HomeChuming Festival; Saturday, October 16, 1999 at H.J. Carroll Park in Chimacum; Elizabeth Becker, Applicant 12. Plat Amendment, SUB99-0009; Mountain View Large Lot; Located off of Beaver Valley Road, Port Ludlow; Beth Templet 13. Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund, $75.00; Service Officers Association 14. Out of State Travel Request re: Attend County Engineers Conference; Laughlin, Nevada; October 19 - 22, 1999; Public Services Director, Gary Rowe COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Planning Manager Warren Hart reported on the following: Green Crow has withdrawn their application for designation of mineral lands in Brinnon. The Valley Hills Large Lot Subdivision application has been canceled. Several letters were sent to the applicant over time, but they did not provide information or meet with staff as requested. CVOL Page 2 · ~ r - '*",: ~' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 The WWGMHB's decision to direct Jefferson County to amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding certain sections of the Capital Facilities Element and Land Use and Rural Element will be reviewed by the Planning Commission this week and the Board will hold a public hearing on their recommendation on October 18, 1999. The CDBG planning grant application was submitted last week. The Board asked that an update on the Fire Code Advisory Committee's Ordinance be made next week. The Board met in Executive Session with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and the Planning Manager from 10:30-11:00 a.m. regarding litigation. PUBLIC WORKS Director's Update: Interim Public Works Director Frank Gifford reported on the following: · A bottle washer was put on the list of items declared surplus by the Solid Waste Division. Benton County has expressed an interest in purchasing this equipment for $1,000 and they are willing to pay the transportation costs. Frank Gifford added that the value was estimated at several hundred dollars and Benton County's offer is reasonable. The County is required to reimburse the Department of Ecology 65% of the sale proceeds. Commissioner Huntingford moved to pull the bottle washer off the surplus list and that the Public Works Department proceed with the sale to Benton County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. · Jim Pearson presented the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Chairman Harpole asked that any recommendation made by the City Council be presented to the Board as soon as possible so the Board will have time to review it before the hearing. The Board also asked that the Planning Commission's minutes from their second hearing be provided as soon as possible. The Board reviewed the procedure to be used at the hearing tomorrow evening. Chairman Harpole asked if a subarea plan could be done in the Tri Area and the Glen Cove areas before a UGA is designated? Staff will check into this possibility. Commissioner Huntingford also asked the staff to review the GMA to be sure that the County is following proper procedures if a UGA is designated. He added that if a UGA is not designated, a development or density threshold needs to be established to determine at what point that area could be reconsidered as a possible UGA. · The crematorium at the Animal Shelter will be in place by November 1, 1999. Page 3 :VOL Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Hearing Examiner's Recommendation re: Petition for Road Vacation; Portion of an Alley in the Plat of lrondale #5; John Swallow, Representing Loren Bishop: Terry Duff, Public Works Department, reported that the Hearing Examiner recommended that this vacation be approved excluding the alley adjoining Lot 28, Block 126. Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Changing Name of Private Road from Nelson Place to Woodhaven Lane: Chairman Harpole opened the public hearing after Heather Calkins, Public Works Department, reported that there are no addresses on this road and there are no similar names in the County. The petitioners submitted a written comment noting that they have discussed this with the neighbors in the area and all of them agreed with the name. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed name change, the Chair closed the hearing. Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 83-99 changing the name of a private road in the Discovery Bay Village Plat to Woodhaven Lane. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. George Steirer, Clallam County re: Update Housing Needs Assessment: George Steirer, Clallam County Planning Department, explained that Clallam and Jefferson Counties received a Community Development Block Grant in 1998 to do a housing needs assessment for both counties. The Affordable Housing Committee was formed with members from both counties to do this study. He presented a draft of the Jefferson County housing statistics, and the final recommendation the Commit- tee has adopted for both counties. He asked that the Board review and adopt the recommendation. Chairman Harpole questioned how this affordable housing recommendation would impact the Afford- able Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan? George Steirer reported that this study is referenced in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation is in compliance with the Plan. Commis- sioner Huntingford asked that the wording in bullet 2 be changed so that people don't think "support" means financing. Chairman Harpole suggested that this recommendation be forwarded to the Planning staff for review and recommendation regarding adoption. HEARING re: Adoption of Final Development Regulations for Master Planned Resort at Port Ludlow: Chairman Harpole introduced Civil Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez and Faith Lumsden who was the lead in developing this ordinance with the Mediation Group. David Alvarez explained that some numbers in the ordinance have been revised since the hearing notice was published. Version #4 is before the Board today. The substance of the ordinance will not change but technical amendments will be required. Mr. Alvarez suggested that the ordinance be advertised again, with a final hearing on October 25. Faith Lumsden added that the revision concerns the number of sewer hook up measurement units that will be available in the area. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Faith Lumsden explained that the comments received at the joint Planning Commission/BOCC workshop on July 19 and the Planning Commission hearing have been addressed in the ordinance. She also reviewed the list of Planning Commission concerns and explained how these issues were addressed in the ordinance. Changes to the original ordinance include: · Section 3.903 regarding plat alterations. The current procedure for plat alterations includes a public hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner and to the Board for final approval. The formal application process was clarified in this section. · In Section 3.904, there is a specific reference to future environmental review for possible noise impacts if the resort builds an outdoor amphitheater. · A conceptual site plan is required for the entire 200 acres that Olympic Resource Management (ORM) owns at the south edge of the community. · A new EIS and a recommendation from the Department of Community Development will be required for any new resort development. The new EIS will supplement the 1993 EIS. · Any conditional uses allowed in single family zones and the Village Center Zone have to go through the conditional use permit process. · The existing Forest Land Ordinance is referenced regarding commercial forestland buffers. The buffer is 250 feet. In this ordinance, the downward limit that DNR could allow is 200 feet, with a minimum of 150 feet. This ordinance guarantees that anyone who owns a platted lot will not lose their development rights even though there is a development cap. ORM has 326 lots approved through the preliminary plat stage, but the infrastructure is not installed. Development of these lots is also guaranteed in the ordinance unless they decide to withdraw the plats before final approval. This current total number of guaranteed lots will only allow an additional 133 units to be developed. There is a provision in the ordinance that ORM, the only developer with vested preliminary plat applications, agrees that the plat applications be subject to this ordinance. ORM has sent a letter to the County confirming that they agree with this provision. The Chair opened the hearing. Conrad Yunker, explained that he paid for a sewer hook up on an undeveloped lot and asked if there is a requirement in the ordinance to utilize this hook up within a certain time frame? Faith Lumsden stated that there is no time frame if the hook up is already paid for. Walt Cairns, stated that he has comments about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc.; bm he will address them directly to Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. Mike Derrig, 705 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow, is concerned that the ordinance will not be adopted today. Version #5 lists 133 units left to be developed in the area. All prior versions of the ordinance listed 437 units. This revision has lowered the number of units to be developed by 70%. The Mediation Group agreed on 437 units. In Section 3.805, the Comprehensive Plan listed a development cap of 2,250. A reduction to133 units does not affect this cap. In Section 3.802, it is the County's obligation to count the number of units that can be developed within 60 days. He asked the Board to adopt the ordinance today Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 and that the County begin the process of determining the correct number. He submitted and read additional comments. (See attached document.) He also submitted the MOU with Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. Thomas McKay, 40 Mariner Place, Port Ludlow, stated that he is in favor of adoption of the ordinance. He has an issue with the economic impact to the community. If the ordinance is adopted, ORM will be able to go forward with the development of the resort which will create jobs and increase business in the County. He feels that if the ordinance is not adopted, property values will decrease and taxes will increase. Peter Joseph, stated that he is part of a group of property owners who are represented by the law firm of Foster, Pepper and Shefelman. He referenced a letter from the law firm dated September 29, 1999. These properties are located in the plat where resort development would occur and they have concerns about ORM selling their development rights to a resort developer from out of the area. As neighboring property owners, these residents do not want the quantity or quality of the current designated open space, including greenbelt areas, publicly accessible shorelines, and designated common areas, to be dimin- ished by any future resort plan. They want this ordinance to address the right for plat residents to approve all future plat revisions. Dick Moser, 63 Seabreeze, Port Ludlow, stated that he does not want the adoption of this ordinance to give developers license to modify the land use in platted areas. The ordinance needs to address plat revisions in more detail. Faith Lumsden explained that any development in platted areas cannot change lot lines or any open space or trails unless it goes through the plat alteration process. In order to begin that process, State law requires that 51% of the property owners in the plat have to agree to the revision. Ms. Lumsden added that she believes Jefferson County requires a higher percentage than the State. Mr. Joseph asked for information on the exact percentage in the County ordinance. Ms. Lumsden reiterated that no changes can be made to a plat without going through a separate land use process. Jim Laker, 612 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow, asked for clarification regarding the sewer system. He stated that sewer hook ups don't mean anything if there are no sewer lines in the area. He added that putting in sewer lines is an expensive undertaking and asked to see the MOU with Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. Chairman Harpole agreed to read the MOU into the record after the comment portion of the hearing is closed. Katherine Laird, stated that she is with the law firm of Davis, Wright, Tremaine in Seattle. They represent ORM. She supports Mike Derrig's comments and encouraged the Board to adopt Version #5 today. She does not feel that the numerical corrections are substantive. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Bill Funke, submitted and reviewed his statement.(See attached document.) He asked Faith Lumsden if the ORM lots that have preliminary approval could be vacated and their development rights transferred? She stated that any plat that has not gone through to final approval could be subject to a plat amendment. He feels that the Mediation Group based their decisions on the number of units to be developed that were furnished during their discussions. Several of these schedules are attached to his statement. Regarding the MOU with Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., there is no mention of water, which would be an integral part of any sewer system. In addition, he feels that many affected property owners were denied the opportunity to participate in the ordinance's planning process and that residents who bought their property several years ago did not envision the neighborhood packed with commercial and resort development. He supports the Planning Commission's recommendations and the recommendations listed in the letter from Foster, Pepper & Shefelman representing the Ludlow Bay Village property owners. He requested that these recommendations be incorporated into the final ordinance. Stan Kadish, 41 Foster Lane, Port Ludlow, asked for clarification. Originally there was a cap of 2,250 units on residential development. The last information he saw indicated that the cap was 2,576. Can residential units be switched to commercial units? Faith Lumsden stated that this transfer could happen, however the cap will not change. This ordinance puts a cap on total development. Mr. Kadesh asked if a variety of types of residential housing can be built in each new subdivision? Faith Lumsden stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that prohibits mixing townhouses or duplexes or single family residences, etc. in the same plat. It would depend on the market. She stated that if this was the case, there would be ample time to comment during the public process on the subdivision. Jim Laker, stated that at the present time the sewer system will not handle 2,250 units. One more separation tank will have to be built. The estimate to hook into the sewer line is $4,000 per unit. He asked if ORM plans to pay for this? Chairman Harpole read the Memorandum of Understanding with Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. (OWSI) into the record. (See attached document.) He asked if there were any other public comments. Unidentified Man, stated that in paragraph 6, #4 of the MOU, compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permit is not the responsibility of each sewer connection, but of the treatment plant. Faith Lumsden explained that if OWSI cannot comply with the conditions of the permit, they would be required to withhold sewer hook-ups until they can meet that standard. Bill Funke, stated that in paragraph 6, #3 "At time of connection or connections, a property owner within the MPR seeking sewer service shall pay the then-prevailing connection fee in accordance with the OWSI fee schedule." He noted that people have paid for sewer hook-ups and don't intend to build right now, he asked that the language "unless prepaid" be added for clarification. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Jim Laker, requested that the figure of 2,250 sewer hook-ups be reviewed because the current system does not have that capacity. He asked if the information in paragraph 6, #4 includes the area that is not currently sewered. The permit that OWSI has from the State is only for the people that have sewers now. He would like to see #4 removed from the MOU. Faith Lumsden stated that #4 cannot be removed. She stated that NPDES permits do not deal with a specific geographic area, but with volume of discharge. Peter Joseph, asked that the following language from Foster, Pepper and Shefelman be added to the ordinance if the Board approves it today. "If a plat alteration requires a change in the boundaries or use of a common area tracts(s), as designated in the existing plat, the consent of all property owners shall be required as part of the plat alteration process, as required under state and local laws." Commissioner Huntingford stated that this language is already in place in the Subdivision Ordinance which would have to be adhered to if a plat alteration application was made. Katherine Laird, stated that she objects to the addition of any of the language proposed by Foster, Pepper and Shelfelman because it is paraphrasing by adding something that is different than the language in the Subdivision Ordinance. Hearing no more public comments, Chairman Harpole closed the hearing. There was a brief discussion about all the County, State and City ordinances that will require compliance before any development can take place in the MPR. The Board feels that the ordinance before them and the MOU do not need to enumerate the specifics in each ordinance that is referenced. Chairman Harpole added that Version #5 is more restrictive that Version #4 and the County has the authority within 60 days to verify the numbers and make changes in the ordinance if necessary. David Alvarez explained the comments from the professionals and the audience indicate to him that this is a numerical change and would not be considered a substantive change. However, he is concerned about procedural issues. Chairman Harpole stated that if the Board adopts Version #4 today, staff is required in the ordinance to verify the numbers of units. He does not think that another public hearing is necessary on Version #5. Commissioner Huntingford stated that if the only difference between the 2 versions is Section 3.805, then it may be possible to amend the language of that section in Version #4. Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete the language in Section 3.805 of Version #4 and replace it with the language of Section 3.805 as found in Version #5. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford moved to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. regarding provision of sewer service within the boundaries of the Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 08-1004-99, Version #4 as amended, repealing the interim development controls of Ordinance No. 10-1214-98 and adopting new development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. The Board met with Jim Pearson to review the options and the process for the hearing on the Tri Area/Glen Cove Urban Growth Area scenarios. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of business and reconvened at the Chimacum Grange at 7 p.m. for the following hearing. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Tri Area/Glen Cove Urban Growth Areas (UGA) Scenarios: Chairman Harpole explained the procedures for the hearing. He stated that the Board has read the Planning Commission's hearing minutes and the comments that have been received to date. He opened the public hearing. Janet Baker, 180 Fir Circle, Port Hadlock, stated she testified at the Planning Commission hearings. She explained no one on the Planning Commission is from the Tri Area and she feels the residents in the area were not fairly represented during the planning process. She does not think that the Board should make a final decision tonight. Any decision that the Board makes should go before the voters for approval. Suzanne Schmidt, 240 S Maple, Port Hadlock, said she would not like to see the area destroyed by too much commercial growth. She feels that the Tri Area has been penalized for not becoming a UGA. She suggested that a citizens' committee of residents from the Tri Area should look over the scenarios and make a recommendation. Tom LaBissoniere, explained that he owns 18 acres at the intersection of SR 20 and Old Fort Townsend Road. This property has been included in the Glen Cove area for future UGA designation consistently since 1995. Last night the Port Townsend City Council agreed that they support the original Compre- hensive Plan FUGA designation of all the properties to Old Fort Townsend Road on both sides of SR20. However, his property is not included in the County's Study Section 3 or Study Section 7. He asked that the Board designate property within the historical Glen Cove/SR 20 Commerical Industrial Corridor for future UGA designation because the section line and the intersection of Old Fort Townsend Road both meet the State definition of "logical boundary." He requested that the Board include his property in either Study Section 3 and Study Section 7 and that it also be included in a future UGA designation. Don Brickey, 210 W Fitchberg, Port Hadlock, stated that he has attended 2 meetings on this issue and no other residents from Irondale or Port Hadlock were in attendance. He feels strongly that these residents do not want a UGA. He asked the Board to listen to what the residents in the area have to say and base their decision on that information. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Erik Frederickson, Frederickson Electric, 402 Glen Cove Road, said that he has written and given testimony at other meetings on this issue. The only additional information is to point out that the Planning Commission recommended that Section 6 be included in the logical boundaries. Francis Ludwig, 431 Glen Cove Road, stated that he has spoken before at other meetings. He asked the Board what the City of Port Townsend' s Comprehensive Plan has to do with where he lives in the County? He does not live in the City and did not vote for the City Council. He does not want to live in a UGA or be told what to do by the City and their planners. Freida Fenn, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, explained that she is in favor of Scenario 2 as a modest proposal where businesses would have room for expansion and the rural character of the County would be protected and enhanced. She has attended the Port Townsend's Planning Commission meetings on this issue where they said that there is no urgent need to expand Glen Cove as a UGA. She feels that if Scenario 3, which was recommended by the City Council, is adopted that it would encourage strip development along SR20. At meetings she has attended, none of the business owners from the Glen Cove Industrial Business Park area have spoken in favor of a UGA designation. Developing the infrastructure in Glen Cove would be costly at this time. A light industrial area and businesses that create living wage jobs need to be encouraged in the County. She wants the Board to consider hosting a series of meetings to discuss future economic development in the City and the County. Joe Pipia, 1540 22nd Street, Port Townsend, doesn't feel that the people of Port Townsend are pushing for an expanded UGA. He stated that the issue can always be revisited and there isn't a great need to act on the City Council's recommendation and adopt Scenario 3 at this time. Guy Rudolph, Tri Area, stated that the Tri Area Community Club has revised their proposal and are recommending that the Board does nothing right now because the scoping document wasn't completed in time for Tri Area citizens to vote on the incorporation. In addition, several items have been left out of the document that were listed in the original scope of work. He doesn't think that it meets the County- wide Planning Policies. Glen Cove and the Tri Area are separate areas and separate issues. The airport issue hasn't been addressed. The water service for the area is in question and the transportation issues haven't been addressed. These are the same UGA boundaries that were suggested in 1995 and didn't work. He cautioned the Board to be careful about what they decide to do. Gene Seton, 4890 S Discovery Road, Port Townsend, stated that his preference regarding the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study would be for the County to rezone all the commercial and industrial property in the County that was downzoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. SB6094 gives the local government that authority. He prefers Scenario 3 with some changes in the map. He listed several businesses that are now outside the boundary line that should be included. He is concerned about the lack of good paying jobs in the County. Page 10 ,:.*, r, *' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Ray Vines, 331 Bayshore Drive, Port Ludlow, explained that he owns Lots 1,2, and 3 in Melwood Terrace in Port Hadlock. These lots were downzoned from commercial to residential when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Lot 1 has been redesignated commercial, but without the other lots, he cannot build on it. There never will be any houses built there because it borders a commercial area. He asked the Board to make a decision that will allow him to use his land. Russ Tillman, Nordland, said that he owns a parcel of property in the center of Port Hadlock. He is in favor of Scenario 2 with some modification in the implementing ordinances. The maximum building size is 20,000 square feet on a piece of property. A business requires 3 acres. The object is to densify smaller areas so that businesses are not spread out all over the County. He suggested that the square footage of buildings be increased and the size of a building be determined by the septic requirements. Doug Joyce, Chimacum, stated that he supports Scenario 2. Roger Evans, 4950 E Quilcene Road, Quilcene, explained that he and his partners acquired property on SR20 ten years ago and have purchased several other parcels in the same area since that time. The property is located at the entrance to Port Townsend. They have worked closely with the City and the County to enhance and protect this corridor and now their property is downzoned. Emperor Turtle I, thanked the Board for their commitment to the County and for taking on the hard decisions. Mike Regan, stated that he does not abide by the drawing of lines. He lives and owns property in the Tri Area and doesn't feel that any of the scenarios are acceptable. Designating a UGA does not automati- cally bring growth. Incorporation of the full Tri Area boundary, or the entire water service area, is necessary for the residents to be in control of where and how much growth the Tri Area can accept. He asked that the Board include the whole Tri Area in the UGA or leave them in the County. If the Board chooses Scenario 1 or Scenario 3, the remainder of the water service area should be included as an urban reserve area. Mariam Smith, 191 Nesses Comer Road, Port Hadlock, stated that she agrees with Guy Rudolph's comments regarding the information outlined in the scope of work for the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study that has not been completed. The residents have a right to know how much they will have to spend for infrastructure. Dan Lockhart, Discovery Bay, explained that he recently purchased a commercial center on Rhody Drive. The people in the Tri Area should be given the right to decide what they want for their commu- nity. The amount of commercial property in the County was reduced substantially when the Comprehen- sive Plan was adopted. Much of the commercial property that remains is considered rural and there are stricter development restrictions. Page 11 i~r;,, ~:. ~.~:~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Rob McMillen, explained that he owns a small landscaping business in this community. His business would do much better in Silverdale or Kingston, but he doesn't want to live in a community that looks like that. He thinks growth needs to be carefully managed. Scenario 2 would be best or waiting until there is more information about the cost to the residents. More citizen input is necessary. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, stated she has been to several of the City's meetings on Glen Cove and she feels there is no evidence that the residents of Port Townsend want a Glen Cove UGA. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, explained that he is a small business owner in the City. He supports the development of a light industrial base because those businesses will bring higher paying jobs. He supports the capacity of local businesses to have adequate space to expand. The City's future urban growth area, outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, was contingency planning and there was no public input. He feels that the residents of Port Townsend want to preserve the rural character of the County and the small town character of the City. He disagrees with the City Council's recommendation and supports Scenario 2 or doing nothing until there is more citizen input. Debbie Barrett, owns an old church that has been restored. The County approved an application to convert the church into an inn in 1984. The approval document lists several other types of businesses that could be allowed in the church. She thinks Scenario 2 is the best scenario because it does not create sprawl, but the church is not included in this scenario. She wants her property included so the resale value will not be diminished or limited because of restricted use. Nancy Dorgan, The County staff's willingness to educate the public on these issues is appreciated. Guy Rudolph, asked several questions. Will the findings of fact that the BOCC bases their decision on be published? Jim Pearson answered yes. Were there comment letters that the public was not able to see? Chairman Harpole replied that all the comment letters are available. What is the status of the Chimacum Creek Park grant? Commissioner Wojt stated that he spoke with a lobbyist for IAC and he said that it is a high priority project and they are working to get it approved. John Lockwood, said that he would like to see the town nature of Port Townsend preserved. He doesn't want to see sprawl. Could the County Commissioners create a policy to purchase public open space at a rate which keeps pace with the population growth in the County? The County should create ordinances that limit big box stores and large retail areas. He would like to see a countywide plan developed to encourage local businesses and shopping within the County. Don Young, explained that he is tired of the process. Why is Port Townsend part of the discussion tonight? The people in the Tri Area need to stand up and say what they want for their community. Jim Posey, Port Hadlock, explained that he sat through the 3 Planning Commission meetings. He thanked Commissioner Wojt for attending those meetings and asked if the Board received all the testimony and information from the meetings? Commissioner Huntingford said that they had seen all that information. He feels that the Planning Commission didn't make a definitive decision and pushed it Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 back on to the Board. None of the current scenarios work to the consensus of any group. Most of the residents in the Tri Area don't know what is going on tonight. He asked the Board to go beyond what the Planning Commission recommended and look at how the people in the Tri Area live. He said that the information on annual salaries of the residents is inflated. The Board needs to take everything into consideration when they make their decision. Commissioner Huntingford explained that the reason he did not attend the Planning Commission meetings is because he feels that it is the Planning Commission's job to take comment and that if he was there it would distract from the Planning Commission and people would want to get the Board involved. He referenced a letter that Mr. Posey wrote and said that he read all the testimony and the Planning Commission minutes. Chairman Harpole agreed with Commissioner Huntingford. Dan Lockhart, said that no matter which scenario the Board adopts, there are people that are going to be unhappy. He urged the Board to have some flexibility with whichever scenario they choose. Gene Seton, stated that most people in the County go to Silverdale to shop because we do not have a variety of businesses here. In order for our money to stay here, we need businesses here. Janet Baker, stated that she isn't against businesses coming into the County. She suggested that a citizens committee should be established to give input on what kind of businesses should be allowed. The people of the Tri Area deserve to have a voice. Steve Aurdal, 384 Larson Lake Road, stated that he supports Scenario 2. He doesn't feel that the Tri Area has been represented in this process. There have been several opportunities for Tri Area residents to get involved, but they have chosen not to get involved. Gene Seton, stated that the Tri Area needs to represent themselves. When they developed Glen Cove, they left a green belt along SR20 (SR 20 Corridor Policy.) This was only policy and it needs to be an ordinance. The Chairman closed the testimony portion of the hearing. The Commissioners went into deliberation. Chairman Harpole stated that this has been a long process and thanked the citizens who have been involved. He commended the Planning Commission's efforts. He feels that they work hard and deliberate thoroughly in order to give the best advice possible to the Board. He thanked them for their dedication. He explained that the Board unanimously agreed to 9 principles when they began this process. They include: · Rural character and small town atmosphere is viewed by most as a major asset that must be maintained. · New growth should be channeled into areas already characterized by urban growth. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Capital facilities must be scaled to the need and to the ability of business, homeowners, workers and the public to finance them. Infrastructure development is only an improvement if it addresses a quality of life need and imposes no unnecessary cost burden on residents and businesses. Affordable housing is a significant issue and overriding goal. Future infrastructure improvements must be appropriate for the planned development densities in the County. The Tri Area must be allowed to develop as a community with or without a UGA designation. Business owners must be protected and allowed to thrive whether they are located inside or outside a UGA or a tightline boundary. Whatever solutions are found for the unincorporated study area, there should be no harm done to the aspirations of the City of Port Townsend or the South County region in terms of how each wishes to grow. He stated that in the Planning Commission's deliberations and recommendations, the areas where they agreed were: 1) Planning for the future of the Tri Area should be a "bottom up" process, consistent with the GMA, that should provide opportunities for the citizens to determine their future as a community. The sub area planning process for the Tri Area should be a high priority for the County, and begin immediately; 2) Portions of the Tri Area are characterizedby urban development. Some Planning Commissioners believe that designating a UGA now is the best way to assure appropriate planning for infrastructure, however, other Planning Commissioners believe that some Tri Area citizens don't wish to accept the increased densities that would accompany a UGA designation; and 3) the Glen Cove/Tri Area Study has demonstrated the need for expanded business and employment opportunities in the Tri Area. Some of the Planning Commissioners believe that the County should expand logical boundaries now to meet this need and some believe that designating expanded logical boundaries now would be inappropri- ate because it would deprive the community of a voice in determining how much commercial and industrial land should be designated and where it should be located. Chairman Harpole stated that Guy Rudolph has been involved in this process from the beginning and he read a letter from Mr. Rudolph dated September 29, 1999. (See attached letter.) Chairman Harpole agrees with the letter. He explained that creating a UGA is more than just adding commercial or industrial land, it is how to accommodate population growth. We are a fast growing County and we are under pressure to adapt. The percentage of growth in the rural areas of the County has doubled in the last 19 years. Chairman Harpole added that the County needs to hear directly from the residents in the Tri Area and Glen Cove about what they want. A sub area planning process should be put into place as soon as possible. Commissioner Wojt explained that Scenariol seems to make the most sense for Glen Cove. Section 3 and Section 5 weren't included in that scenario because it would encourage strip development. We need to create a scenario that allows the community to enter into a dialog resulting in a product that addresses their needs. . . Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't think that small residential lots should be downzoned or consolidated to create a more rural atmosphere in the Tri Area. The water issue, the sewer issue and the transportation issue will have to be faced whether it is today or sometime in the future. A UGA doesn't have to look like a city. The Tri Area can maintain a rural character. He would like to see a sub area plan developed by residents of the area. He doesn't want the Tri Area split, he would rather see a larger boundary that will keep the community together. Regarding the Glen Cove area, his preference is closer to Scenario 3. He is not interested in the new proposed boundary by the City of Port Townsend. He is interested in the tightline boundary in Scenario 1 with possible expansion. The green belt area will need to be addressed. Right now there is only a water system in this area and any new business has to include extra property for septic systems. There are questions about whether "stand alone UGAs" that are near a UGA are acceptable to the State. Commissioner Huntingford added that, as Commissioners, it is their job to figure out how they can lead citizens to look at infrastructure issues, but it is up to the residents to decide what they want their community to look like. Chairman Harpole stated that when the logical boundaries of Glen Cove were crafted, they were based on the built environment pre- July 1, 1990 as stated in SB6094. The definition for "built" was "above ground and clustered." The scenario presented at the Planning Commission's hearing was based on this boundary with some revisions because of the water service area and the presence of pre-1990 businesses. They did not know the City's recommendation at that time. He is concerned about the Board's agreement to make their decision based on the 9 principles which include "whatever solutions are found, there should be no harm done to the aspirations of the City of Port Townsend." He feels that common grounds for both the City and the County are: 1) to be proactive about growth and not reactive; and 2) we cherish this place and we want to move forward. He thinks that expanding the logical boundaries in the future makes sense, although he also has concerns about this. The properties that have been discussed tonight should be given top priority for future commercial development and designation as commercial lots. One of his main concerns is that the City's sewer treatment plant will need to be expanded within the next 20 years to meet the needs of the estimated population growth. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there are large amounts of acreage available inside the city limits that can be developed. The City has no reason to seek commercial expansion outside the city limits. In addition, when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, large numbers of acres throughout the County were downzoned from commercial to residential and to turn around and give the City more commercial acreage in a UGA wouldn't be equitable. Chairman Harpole clarified that he thinks this area is a future urban growth study area, not necessarily for commercial or industrial use. He thinks that the Board may want to just look at the area that was studied for right now and not add the City's proposal. Commissioner Huntingford agreed. There was a discussion about the possible boundaries of the Glen Cove UGA, the issues that would require further planning once the boundaries are designated, and the procedures if a provisional UGA is designated. The planning issues would be addressed jointly by the County, the City, and the landowners in the Glen Cove area. Commissioner Huntingford added that he has not heard anyone in the Glen Cove area say that they want to be part of the City. However, in the future it may serve the property owners to Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 have infrastructure ties with the City. Other questions that the Board still needs clarification on are the annexation process and revenue sharing. Jim Pearson stated that the designation of a provisional UGA means that there are issues that need to be resolved before it can be finalized. The issues need to be clear from the beginning. Commissioner Wojt stressed that what the property owners want is the most important issue. Chairman Harpole stated that there is a relationship between the designations of the Tri Area and the Glen Cove area. He thinks that both areas should be designated provisional UGAs. Sub area plans are essential. Commissioner Huntingford moved to establish a provisional UGA in Glen Cove based on Scenario 1 with the addition of Section 1 (east of SR 20), Section 6 and Section 7 and the deletion of the triangle of land owned by Francis Ludwig. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Harpole requested that staff bring forward a timeline and a list of items that need to be addressed in the development of the UGA within the next 2 to 3 weeks. The follow up is crucial. He added that the results of the study will go to the Board of Commissioners first and then to the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. The Chair called for the vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The discussion turned to the Tri Area UGA. Commissioner Huntingford has concerns about the tightline boundary in the Tri Area which doesn't allow for open space or rural densities. He asked how the Chimacum area, the school and H.J. Carroll park would be tied into this? He suggested that the residents of the Tri Area look at their original community plan, which is similar to a subarea plan, and make any revisions they feel are necessary, He reiterated that the Board needs to support the decisions of the residents who live in the area. This could mean possible conflicts with the Growth Management Hearings Board or the City of Port Townsend. Commissioner Wojt stated that the Tri Area is a unique community in Jefferson County. There are several critical areas such as wetlands that will never be developed. He is also concerned about the transportation corridors. Chairman Harpole suggested that the Board take the tightline boundary proposed for the area and designate a provisional UGA. Recommended studies would include: · the feasibility of incorporation · tiered infrastructure · a boundary review · the community issue of Tri Area, not a "Bi Area" · a review of the community plans · and application of the 9 principles Page 16 25 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 4, 1999 Commissioner Huntingford stated that most of the information that they need to make a final decision is already available and needs to be compiled in a timely fashion. There has to be a time limit to get this done. The infrastructure, the septic issue, and the water all will have to be addressed whether the area remains rural or becomes a UGA. Chairman Harpole noted that designating a tighline UGA with an urban reserve area may be the best answer. That way in 3 years or 5 years they could incorporate into a city. Commissioner Wojt asked Planning Manager Warren Hart what the Department of Community Development will do to expedite the process? Warren Hart replied that a dialog must be restarted with the community along with the issues that Chairman Harpole recommended. Commissioner Wojt clarified that the Board may adopt a provisional UGA within the tightline area and a reserve urban area of the proposed incorporation area. Warren Hart added that to allow the sub area planning process to move forward the urban reserve area needs to be included. Jim Pearson explained the definition of the term urban reserve and cautioned the Board to be aware of how much area they include in a UGA that is not characterized by urban growth. Warren Hart agreed that annexation area may be a better term. Commissioner Huntingford noted that he doesn't like the term annexation area. Warren Hart stated that the data supports the area in Scenario l, and the community supports an expanded area. Commissioner Huntingford moved to designate a provisional Tri Area UGA as presented in Scenario 1, the Port Hadlock-Irondale UGA and directed staff to work with residents in the community to create a subarea plan for the entire planning area, Sections 1-20. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion and added that the parameters around community dialog that Chairman Harpole listed earlier in the discussion concerning the subarea studies and the 9 principles be included and that a timeline be presented as soon as possible. The Chair called for the vote, The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED SEALi~ ~L~Loma CMC Delsey, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Page 17 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Al Sca/f, Director December 15, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners ~r~) A1 Scalf, Director of Community Development Supplement to Minutes of October 5, 1999 Tri-Area / Glen Cove Public Hearing This document is intended to memorialize the record of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners public hearing on October 5, 1999. The hearing was held to take public testimony regarding potential land use redesignations to meet the findings of the Tri-A.rea/Glen Cove Special Study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The Special Study indicated that there was a need for additional commercial and industrial land to accommodate projected employment growth during the next 20 years. The Special Study also indicated that the areas centered around the Glen Cove light industrial / commercial zone and Port Hadlock and Irondale are characterized by urban development. Based on information developed through the Special Study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the Board of Commissioners had previously on August 24, 1999 developed the following three Scenar/os: · Scenario I: Designating an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in Port Hadlock and expanding the boundary of the existing Glen Cove light industrial / commercial zone. · Scenario II: Expanding the boundaries of the existing Glen Cove light industrial / commercial zone and the existing commercial zones along Rhody Drive and in Chimacum. · Scenario III: Designating an Urban Growth Area in Port Hadlock and Irondale and an Urban Growth Area in Glen Cove connected to the City of Port Townsend. It is important to note that neither the Special Study nor the SEIS included any decision or conclusion that any one of the three Scenarios listed above was better than the others and should be chosen. The Jefferson CoUnty Planning Commission held a series of public workshops and hearings on September 15, 22, and 29, 1999 to consider the Board of Commissioners Scenarios. The Planning Commission recommended expanding the existing light industrial / commercial Building Permits/Inspections (360) 379-4450 Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 boundary in Glen Cove. The Commission could not agree on agree, however, on the following principles: · a direction for the Th-Area. It did The Port Hadlock / Irondale area is characterized by urban development. There should be additional opportunities for the citizens of the Th-Area to plan for their future through a community planning process. Some Planning Commissioners supported designating a UGA as the best way to ensure appropriate planning for necessary infrastructure. Some Commissioners believed that Tri- Area citizens don't favor the changes to their community that would accompany UGA designation. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the Scenarios on October 5, 1999. At[er the conclusion of public testimony, the Board of County Commissioners reiterated the nine principles it had developed to guide their process: · Rural character and small town atmosphere is viewed by most as a major asset that mffst be maintained. · New growth should be channeled into areas already characterized by urban growth. · Capital facilities must be scaled to the need and to the ability of business, homeowners, workers and the public to finance them. · Infrastructure development is only an improvement if it addresses a quality of life need and imposes no unnecessary cost burden on residents and businesses. · Affordable housing is a significant issue and overriding goal. · Future infrastructure improvements must be appropriate for the planned development densities in the County. · The Tri-Area must be allowed to develop as a community with or without a UGA designation. · Business owners must be protected and allowed to thrive whether they are located inside or outside a UGA or a tightline boundary. · Whatever solutions are found for the unincorporated study area, there should be no harm done to the aspirations of the City of Port Townsend or the South County region in terms of how each wishes to grow. In regard to the Glen Cove area, the following consensus was reached: · The existing Glen Cove light industrial / commercial zone as well as other adjacent areas east of SR20 are characterized by urban development. · It is feasible to serve Glen Cove with an urban level of infrastructure. · The City of Port Townsend in its Comprehensive Plan has identified a Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) that encompasses land outside of the City on both sides of SR20 from the City limits south to Old Fort Townsend Road. The FUGA covers approximately 470 acres. Large portions of the FUGA, particularly west of SR20, are not characterized by urban development. Designation of the entire FUGA as a UGA is neither appropriate nor necessary in order to accommodate the projected need for commercial and industrial employment. 2 Based on these considerations, the Board of County Commissioners identified an area in Glen Cove encompassing 245 acres that they propose to designate as a UGA. It is mostly east of SR 20 from the City limits south to Old Fort Townsend Road. Prior to designating a UGA, the County will work with property owners, the City of Port Townsend, and the PUD to develop agreements regarding issues such as provision of urban infrastructure, revenue sharing, and development regulations. In regard to the Tri-Area, the following consensus was reached: · Although portions of the Tri-Area are rural, the Port Hadlock / Irondale area is characterized by residential and commercial development that is urban in nature. · It is feasible to serve the Port Hadlock / Irondale area with an urban level of infrastructure. The cost of serving the remainder of the Tri-Area with urban infrastructure would be significantly higher. · The Th-Area has a strong sense of community from Chimacum to Irondale and Port - Hadlock. These areas have a common history, goals, and problems. Planning for the Tri- Area must support and not divide this community. · It is the Board's responsibility as community leaders to plan for appropriate infrastructure to serve the needs of the Tri-Area. Based on these considerations, the Board of County Commissioners identified areas in Port Hadlock and Irondale that they propose to designate as a UGA. Prior to formally designating a UGA, the County will continue the community planning process that involves residents and property owners, the City, and the PUD. This process will resolve issues relating to UGA boundaries, provision of utility service, provide factual support for any incorporation proposal brought forth by private citizens, and location of commercial, industrial, and multi-family areas. It will also address how the entire Th-Area (both inside and out of the UGA) can continue to develop as a community. This process will rely heavily on previous Tri-Area community planning work.