Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010995 ,',-,y:',"'''''), "- ............................ ............................. ....._,........... .... .............................................................,........................'...... ... ... ................................................ .., .................................-...........................................................................'. . . . ... .. . . .. .... .. . . . ... . . . . . . .. ...... ... .... .... lilll!:::::::jl:i!i¡I¡I¡IJIII~'i~lï!ïllj!:;¡·¡!¡!:/:¡:::¡:::;::¡¡¡¡!¡I¡I¡:¡¡;;::;i:::¡:::::::¡ i;:;;;;;;:;::;¡;:~Z~~~¡;f:::;:;::;;::;;::;:;:;: ::jj?t:::?:::?? ..:: j?::::jj:j:iqi:rîjjAsjjjß9Wi/ . ...... ..... .. ,......... .. .. ........................ . ............................ ......................................................'.' ............................. ........................................ ......... ...... ..... ................. ... ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ............. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.. ...... ..............,.... ................. ........... ........................ ...................... ... ...... ... .................... .. ....................................... ................................... .................................... .. ............. / r-=tí Cl ---.. MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 9, 1995 Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioners Robert Hinton and Richard W ojt. AGREEMRNT, Consultant re: Appraisal Services for Properties on the Big Quilcene River; John Sodergren, MAl: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agree- ment for appraisal services for properties on the Big Quilcene River as submitted by John Sodergren. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes as submitted for December 19, and 27, 1994 and January 3, 1995. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: Public Services Director Gary Rowe submitted and reviewed the updated schedule of GMA meetings. There was a discussion of the community meetings being held by the Board and the need for a strong facilitator; the need for another community meeting at the Tri Area; and the atmosphere of intimidation around Growth Management for some people. Kent Anderson reported that there was one building permit in the Hadlock area and two subdivision applications. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: A "thank you" to Gary Rowe and his staff for the outline developed for review of the community plans; concern for the planning process in the Tri Area; the Planning Commission's understanding that they are not to work on the development of any interim ordinance, except resources lands; and the need for time to do the planning. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Hinton moved and Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion to adopt and approve the items on the Consent Agenda as submitted. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. VOl. 21 (.\r,~ 05 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes : Week of January 9, 1995 ................................... THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 1. RESOLUTION No. 2-95 re: Establishing a Graduated Pay Scale for Certain Elected Officials in Jefferson County 2. RESOLUTION No. 3-95 re: Establishing the Prosecuting Attorney's Salary for 1995 3. Accept Resignation from the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Board; Franz Klitza 4. Final Subdivision Approval; Short Plat #SP07-91; 5 Acre Parcel into 2 Lots for Recreational/Residential Use; Located Near Intersection of Jacob Miller Road and Hidden Trails Road, Port Townsend; Peggy Norcutt, Applicant 5. Final Long Plat Approval #SUB94-0056; Creating a 4 Lot Long Subdivision; Located off of Prospect Avenue, Port Townsend; Carole and John Swallow 6. Appointments to Gardiner Community Center Advisory Board; a) Re-appointment to a Three Year Term (Term Expires October 1, 1997); Don Smathers b) New Three Year Term (Term Expires January 9, 1998); Earl W. Gibson BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Final Subdivision Approval; Hazel Point Large Lot Subdivision #LP09-93; 41.2 Acres into 8 Lots; Pacific Funding Corporation, Applicant: Associate Planner Jim Pearson explained that this subdivision has been reviewed by the Planning, Health and Public Works Departments and the recommendation is to approve it. Commissioner Hinton moved to issue the final subdivision approval for the Hazel Point Large Lot Subdivision #LP09-93 as presented. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding litigation from 11: 15 a.m. to Noon. VCL 21 rg¡~ 06 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes : Week of January 9, 1995 .... ... ..... ........... ............ HEARING re: Amending the Draft Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordi- nance to Include Port Ludlow as an Urban Growth Area: After moving to the Superior Court Courtroom, Chairman Huntingford opened the hearing on the proposed amendment to the Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance to include Port Ludlow as an IUGA. Senior Planner James Holland pointed out on a map the boundaries of the proposed Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area. Written testimony will be presented and made available trom the Planning staff. Stan Kadesh. Co-Chairman of the Port Ludlow Planning Committee, stated that a committee was formed to develop a Port Ludlow Community Plan which will then become part of the County Comprehensive Plan. This Committee has met for the last 9 months and has completed a draft plan of growth and development for Port Ludlow for the next 20 years. This committee has reviewed the fmdings and the draft ordinance and submit the following recommended changes to the ordinance (see attached letter.) He added that the Committee can only consider the IUGA designation for the Port Ludlow area if all of the changes and corrections recommended are included. Mr. Kadesh concluded his testimony by urging the Board to take into consideration the changes recommended by the Committee and to include them in the ordinance as written. Commissioner Wojt asked what the 20.3% (Page 5, Section IV Other Urban Services - Second paragraph labeled 4, second line) represents? Stan Kadesh explained that this figure should actually be a little less than 12% Rae Belkin, read and submitted a statement in opposition to designating Port Ludlow as a UGA (see attached.) She then outlined corrections that she feels need to be made to the fmdings. Chainnan Huntingford asked if 16 units per acre was what was being considered with regard to affordable housing within the UGA? Rae Belkin stated that she doesn't know what is planned or what is meant by affordable housing. Dan Y oura, stated that he has been a resident of Port Ludlow since 1978 and he is in favor of designating Port Ludlow as an Urban Growth Area. He feels that according to the Growth Management Act, Port Ludlow clearly falls within the definition of an Urban Growth Area and it should be recognized as such. He also requested that the UGA boundary be extended north of Port Ludlow along Oak Bay Road to include the Mats Mats commercial zone. The Mats Mats commercial area was designated by the County in 1989 and includes 7 historically commercial properties on the comer of Oak Bay Road and Olympus Boulevard. He feels it would be appropriate to extend the north boundary of the UGA to include the already designated Mats Mats commercial area since commercial development can only take place within a UGA. If the Mats Mats commercial area is not included in the UGA it would be relegating the area to a shanty town status. He then submitted a letter requesting that the Mats Mats area be included (see attached.) Extending this boundary to the north would also include the Fire Hall which would answer concerns raised by previous speakers, since the Fire Hall would then be within the UGA. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, stated that the existing ordinance (#15-1028-94) imposes rural acreage densities and prohibits the extension and full utilization of urban services such as water and sewer in Port Ludlow and as such constitutes a de facto moratorium. Unless the VOL 21 r'\G~ 07 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ................... .... ............ County adopts an amendment to this IUGA Ordinance for Port Ludlow, development will stop; the water and sewer facilities currently developed will not be fully utilized or extended; and several hundred units remaining, that are part of the Port Ludlow Development Plan will not be completed forcing the cost of infrastructure to be divided among the current property owners and residents. This is not Pope's plan, it is not a fair scenario and it is not consistent with the Port Ludlow Development Plan and EIS approved by the County last year. One of the goals of Growth Management is "To encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Port Ludlow is such a place. He then reviewed the GMA definitions of urban growth and urban governmental services and stated that Port Ludlow has these services and the capacity to accommodate the target population. He asked that the following documents be added to the hearing record: · A white paper done by Lany Smith, Director of Support Services for Pope Resources which summarizes the urban service capabilities of Port Ludlow. · Copies of the draft and final EIS's for Port Ludlow (including all the technical appendices.) · Planning Commission Report on this proposed IUGA Ordinance Amend- ment. The Countywide Planning Policies concludes that "Lands already characterized by urban development which are currently served by roads, water, sanitary sewer, transit, storm drainage, and other urban services are to be delineated as UGAs." An IUGA at Port Ludlow meets that policy. Another policy adopted by the County says that the Port Ludlow Master Plan should be utilized to guide the UGA boundaries at Port Ludlow and that has been done. There is a map in the Planning Commission record which shows that the IUGA proposed for Port Ludlow fits very nicely within the water service plan area approved by the State Department of Health. It also fits the sanitary sewer plan area approved by the State Department of Ecology, and the Development Plan that was the subject of the EIS two years ago. The sole purpose of the IUGA at Port Ludlow is to continue the extension of water and sewer services as planned and approved in order to finish the development plan. The environmental implications of the IUGA for Port Ludlow were considered when the EIS was done for the entire development program. That Development Program is the IUGA implementation that is being discussed today. He noted that he doubts if there is another UGA in the State that has had the exhaustive environmental review that Port Ludlow has. David Cunningham noted that the GMA requires early and continuous public participation in the topics considered. The County held a public hearing in October of 1993 on this subject; the Countywide Planning Policies had public hearings in 1992; the environmental review process had an exhaustive set of public meetings and hearings; this particular IUGA amendment had several public discussions before the Planning Commission; and then there is today's public hearing. They believe there is no other GMA designation that's really available for Port Ludlow. The Countywide Planning Policies state that fully contained communities should not be considered until some undefined future date, after an undefined study has been completed and the Growth Management Act says that Master Planned Resorts cannot be designated on an interim basis. ··:·:·:·:·:·:·1··:·..·:·:·:·:·:·' ,,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.' .:.:.:.:.:.:. .......... ....... .......... ...... .......... ....... .......... ...... ........... ......... ,,::::;:::::;:::::;:::;:;:::::;:::::::::::::::;:: VOL 21 r~Œ 08 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ..... ... .......... ................. Pope Resources agrees to the suggestions made by the Port Ludlow Community Planning Committee with respect to modification in the proposed ordinance. The map is identical to the Port Ludlow Master Plan and EIS. Even though all of the facilities at Port Ludlow are privately owned, some are available to the general public, and some of the utility systems are regulated by public agencies. He feels that GMA was pointing toward the generic sense when it says public services. They feel that the Board should conclude that the Port Ludlow IUGA is consistent with all GMA requirements; that its had more than adequate environmental review; that its had ample public participation and that it should be approved. Commissioner W ojt asked David Cunningham about the concerns raised about fire services and affordable housing? David Cunningham answered that Port Ludlow is a fraction of the size of the Fire District, which is governed by three elected Fire Commissioners, and he doesn't feel that the institution of a UGA will make any difference on the facilities planning that the Fire District does. The Fire District is planning new facilities, programming, manpower and operations and he doesn't feel the UGA will effect that at all. He feels that affordable housing is a county-wide issue and the GMA requires that the County address it in the Comprehensive Plan. Pope Resources will be a participant in a constructive discussion on solutions for affordable housing to the extent possible. They don't believe that provision for affordable housing is a necessary ingredient of an interim urban growth area. Commissioner W ojt then asked if Pope Resources feels that the level of service standards for fire services in a UGA has been adequately addressed for this designation? David Cunningham answered that as far as fire service provisions in Port Ludlow, there is a Countywide Coordi- nated Water System Plan which spells out the standards at which any landowner in the County is required to build facilities. The State Department of Health requires fire flow standards with respect to water systems. Everyone in Port Ludlow pays property tax to the Port Ludlow Fire District. Many properties who pay property tax to the Fire District don't receive any services (including the Pope Resources properties). In addition each time Pope Resources has a new subdivision approved they must also pay a SEP A impact fee. Pope Resources feels that fire service is adequately addressed in Port Ludlow. Franz Gruber, stated that he is the manager of Jefferson County Water District #1. He reported that the Ludlow Water Company (the company that serves the proposed UGA area) sent them a copy of their Water System Plan and he and the Commissioners of Water District # 1 reviewed this plan. They felt that the plan was reasonable and addressed the needs of the community which is important to them because they are neighbors of the community. He was surprised when, after the deadline for commenting on the plan, he found that there was a proposed UGA for this same area served by the Ludlow Water Company which included a density of up to 16 units per acre. This worries him because when they reviewed the Ludlow Water Company plan they were under the impression that the density was a maximum of 5 units per acre. The actual density is probably less than that. This is a concern because they are tapped into the same aquifer (the south aquifer) and the Ludlow Water Company's best wells are in the south aquifer. He asked that this process be slowed down enough to look at the water system plan further. Howard Slack, Chainnan ofCLOA, (a committee made up of the elected Chainnan of the various community committees in Port Ludlow) stated CLOA supports the work being done by the Community Planning Committee. They request that the changes submitted by Mr. Kadesh be adopted. .. ..::)~:??~~t!~~t~~t ..::::ffrfr~grrf: VOl. 21 r,'G~ 09 Commissioners I Meeting Minutes : Week of January 9, 1995 .. ... ........ ...................... Wendy Wrinkle, Shine Community Action Council, asked that the testimony for the appeal of the Ironwood and Creekside Plats and the Hearing Examiners record on that matter from March and April of 1994 be included as part of this hearing testimony because it is pertinent to the same issues being raised. She stated she is in opposition to including Port Ludlow as a IUGA because it is not consistent with GMA goals and consistency with GMA is mandatory. 1) The City UGA is on record as fully capable of handling the full growth projections for GMA. Under RCW 36. 70A.IlO and 36.70A.020 Port Ludlow as an IUGA would violate the goals of GMA: a) Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient man- ner. The Countywide Planning Policies say that Interim Level of Service Standards for public services and facilities located inside and outside UGA's will be adopted by the County and its UGAs. This has not occurred. b) Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low density development. 2) The pre-existence of urban densities, water and sewer service, does not qualify Port Ludlow as an Urban Growth Area. The full range of analysis and consistency with GMA goals is required. Detailed analysis is missing on: land use projections, transportation, rural lands, capital facilities, housing (including low income,) economic development, industry and conservation. 3) Pope Resources has submitted the FEIS as the analysis to support designation of Port Ludlow as an IUGA. The FEIS is an analysis of a ten year plan, for a low impact, retirement and vacation community and it does not begin to address IUGA impacts. She noted differences that would occur between addressing impacts in the FEIS and an IUGA analysis for water usage, sewer service, school impacts, fire district impacts, transportation and police impacts. 4) The fmdings are inaccurate based on inaccuracies in the Port Ludlow Fact Sheet. For example the 1994 Port Ludlow Water System Plan was submitted to the State for review in July and was not submitted to the surrounding areas (including the County) until December 22, 1994 for review and comment by January 6, 1995. The 1994 plan is not yet approved by the State Department of Health and does not address IUGA projections. She submitted a copy of a 6 page comment letter to that Plan (see attached), which is not highly positive. The State's concerns include water rights and future subdivision. Water rights need to be carefully examined. There is an approved 1989 plan in place but it does not include what is being considered today. The Port Ludlow Fact Sheet uses figures of 590 permanently occupied residences versus 695 vacant or undeveloped. For the purpose of population accommodations the occupancy figures are used, while for historical water usage figures they want vacant sites with meters averaged into the calcula- tion to give a low usage. The Fact Sheet also says that sewer is capable of serving all platted lots developed with sewers. What about the lots without sewers and is this consistent with future planning for an IUGA? 5) The draft plans being developed by adjacent community planning groups (Shine, Mats Mats, Paradise Bay, and Swansonville) will be radically impacted by an IUGA designation of Port Ludlow. The County Commissioners have a respon- sibility to the community planning efforts to see that accurate and applicable IUGA analysis is done. The impact fees for fire and schools were heavily negoti- ..·····1·····.. ......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ....... ......... ........ ......... ....... ......... ....... .......... ...... .......... ....... ............ ...... ........... ....... .,:::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:::=:=:=:::::::::::::=::::::" VOL 21 rAG~ 10 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes : Week of January 9, 1995 ..... .............................. ated and these impacts have been b1anketly applied, not only to the development area, but to the greater Port Ludlow area from Thorndyke to Oak Bay. The loss of appropriate impact fees to the schools and the fire district will require significant levying to accommodate those costs. The most outstanding concern that the people of Port Ludlow should have is that Policy #6 of the Countywide Planning Policies allows the UGA boundaries to be changed whenever it can be shown that the criteria set forth for size and boundary delineation may no longer be met. The problem is that the boundaries are not fixed, they are very flexible. With the two year build or pay a fee program in Port Ludlow, the acceleration of building in Port Ludlow should be considered as an issue. Chainnan Huntingford noted that the boundaries could expand or they could shrink. He then asked if the Shine Canyon, and Teal Vista I and II developments would be outside of the proposed IUGA? Wendy Wrinkle answered that they are outside the proposed IUGA. Chair- man Huntingford noted that the City of Port Townsend is also on record (Michael Hildt at a Growth Management Steering Committee meeting) as saying that they might take the County back to the Hearings Board if the County doesn't designate other JUGA's because the citizens probably really don't want that many people in Port Townsend. Craig Jones. Attorney for Pope Resources, asked that the entire record of the approvals of the Ironwood and Creekside subdivision applications be included in the record. Marianne Moe, President of Jefferson County Home Builders Association, read a letter of support for the designation of Port Ludlow as an IUGA (see attached.) Julia Cochrane stated that if it is projected that 2,500 people move to Port Ludlow in the next 20 years, then hopefully affordable housing is an issue. In pre-draft of the Comprehensive Plan it is noted that the County should work with Port Townsend and other UGA's in providing special needs housing. If the residents of Port Ludlow are uncomfortable with affordable housing requirements and detennine that their urban type services should be private and available only to those who can pay association fees, then why are we considering this an urban growth area? Urban by definition means diversity and the people who have spoken from Port Ludlow seem desperately afraid of this. She added that density doesn't necessarily mean affordability. Steve Hayden. representing the Olympic Environmental Council, stated that the OEC testified in the appeal hearings on the Creekside and Ironwood plats that Pope was "cooking the books" on their water numbers in their EIS. They still believe that is the case and according to the letter (review letter from Karl Johnson, DOH on Pope's Water Plan - see attached) the State has similar concerns. He then read from that letter regarding water rights. The issues raised by the OEC back in April are now being raised again in the updated, revised water plan, by the DOH. This means there are still serious issues. Before the County commits to designating the Ludlow area as an IUGA these questions need to be addressed. Pope Resources is setting up the scenario that there will be ultimately not only a political constituency, but perhaps a health crisis, which will force the County (once this is an IUGA) to use Countywide tax money to solve the problem. That's not what this should be about. He urged the Board to have staff look very critically at these issues, including the Water Plan. He feels that the County should ask DOH for ... ..............¡,;................ ........ ...... ........ ...... .......... ....... ........... ....... ........... ....... ........... ....... ........... ....... ............ ........ ............ ........ ':'::::::::::::;';'::::::..,:;:::::::::=:=::: VOL 21 rAG~ 11 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .. ................................. an extension on the time to comment and the County should do its best work to uncover the smoke in this program. Lany Cooney, Pastor of Morningside Fellowship in Port Ludlow, stated that they have a conditional use permit to build on Oak Bay Road. He noted that given proper consideration to the water issues in this area, he is speaking in favor of the IUGA. Any possibility of a morato- rium on future development in this area would not be good for that community. There are good things happening in this community. It takes a certain amount of effort, strain and risk to do things in the community. Anything done that would jeopardize the profit line for the business people, will thwart good development in that area. He would like to see an easing of regulations for those taking risks and developing businesses in this area. Dave Clevenger, Vice President of the Jefferson County Home Builders Association, spoke in favor of Port Ludlow being designated as an JUGA. He feels that Port Ludlow falls within the characteristics as put out in the RCW's. To address the concerns about water, he urged the County Commissioners to research and look into alternative water sources being used in the Middle East and in some counties in the U.S. We need to research the new advances in technology and maybe utilize some of those sources for our future development needs. Greg McCary, Pope Resources, stated that Mr. Kadesh mentioned that the Recreation Centers could accommodate 623 people. Those buildings were sized in contemplation of a community of 4,000 people. They never intended that 4,000 people would be in the building at one time. With regard to the JUGA and the Fire District, Port Ludlow is just a fraction of the property within the Fire District boundary. The JUGA won't change that. Mr. Gruber expressed concern about the density of 16 units per acre, and it's.true that some properties might experience a higher density than 4 (units per acre) but that's limited to just a few sites. The JUGA designation does not change Pope's Development Plan. The Development Plan was approved under the EIS and that's the document that is followed. Ron Marlow said that the Growth Management Act was implemented in order for planned growth. Port Ludlow was planned in 1966 originally and they have actually provided better structure and better planning over a period time. The facilities out there (such as the golf course) are organized. Whenever they want a subdivision, they're professionals and they've always worked with the County. They have followed through with their plans. O.H. Gardner stated that he was part of the community planning group that reviewed the proposed ordinance and made recommendations for changes that would make the ordinance palatable in their community. The final vote of the committee was unanimous for the recommendations to be presented to the County. Mr. Gardner stated that he voted for the revised ordinance for two reasons: 1) He felt that it was inevitable that Port Ludlow would be a UGA, and 2) He understood that Pope Resources could not continue their development or facilities as presented in the FEJS unless it was made a UGA. He added that he feels that he and most of the people in Port Ludlow don't know what a UGA is. He is highly critical of the way this was brought up by the County because there were no informational meetings held in the area. They don't know what the UGA is going to mean to the citizens of Port Ludlow. He doesn't feel that the County has done its homework or done a professional job on this. He feels that the County should take the time to meet with interested people in the Port Ludlow commu- nity to explain this better. ·············8······..·····... ........ ....... ................. ............. .......... ...... .................... .............. .......... ....... ..::::~~~~tt!jjjjjj!j::::;)~~ftjj~ VOL 21 r~G: 12 Commissioners I Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .... ............ ................... Chainnan Huntingford asked how Mr. Gardner feels the inforination can best be given to the community? The County has had community planning meetings, "On the Road" meetings, and public hearings in the Port Ludlow area. Mr. Gardner answered that this is an important issue to the community and the County should make sure the citizens understand it. He doesn't feel that its appropriate that the County rely on the Leader to provide infonnation. He feels that the Commissioners should put together a group in the area to get the infonnation out. Bernard Belkin said that he feels that how cost effective it is to designate the Port Ludlow area as an IUGA must be looked at. Taxes are going up because the federal government is going to be cutting back on grants. If infrastructure is going to be modernized or increased it will mean more dollars. The people that bought into the Port Ludlow community were told they were going to have a retirement community for those that can really afford it. Now, you're saying what about low cost housing? That was never in the plans for the development. What about the contract that Pope had with these people when they purchased their property? Rae Belkin commented as a follow up to Dan Y oura's suggestion to include the Fire Hall and the Mats Mats commercial area in the proposed UGA, that two years ago a survey of 109 different property owners in the Mats Mats area were delivered and 52 were returned. The results were: o 93% felt that the Mats Mats area should not be in the UGA. o 7% voted to be included in the UGA. o Of the 93% who voted no on being in the UGA, 13% said they were agreeable to the Mats Mats commercial zone and the Fire Hall being included in the UGA. Guy Rudolph stated that residents in the Tri Area are also concerned about what a UGA is and isn't and what it will or won't do. Tom Hanson stated that he has a home and a parcel of undeveloped property in Port Ludlow and he urged the Board to approve the IUGA because it makes a lot of sense and seems like the right thing to do. David Cunningham reiterated that he and Pope Resources support the Community Planning Committee's modifications to the ordinance that were submitted to the Board today. Commissioner Wojt asked what a UGA means to David Cunningham? He answered that it means what it says in the Growth Management Act. It's an area with a particular character and it is only in that area where systems like water, sewer, and stonnwater can be expanded or developed. Port Ludlow fits this definition as far as Pope Resources is concerned. All of the ingredients (including fire, police and schools) are in the Port Ludlow area. In the context of Jefferson County Port Ludlow is a UGA. Bernard Belkin asked if there will be public access to the private property that these people have been paying for? Are we going to support a private development? Would this be co-mingling public money with private money for their profit? Pope had a plan for this area long before the IUGA came into existence and they'll have a plan after its gone. Mr. Belkin added that he is in opposition to this designation. Chainnan Huntingford closed the hearing and the Board concurred that written comments will be accepted until 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday January 10, 1995. ······1········· ........ ...... ..:::(/fr/· :.jt~1~J ....................... ........................ ........................ ....,..................... VOL 21 13 rAG~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ................................... HEARING re: Proposed Changes to the Jefferson County Zoning Code (Sections 3, 12 and 13): Pennit Center Manager Kent Anderson reported that inconsistencies have been found in the Zoning Ordinance since its implementation and these changes are proposed to improve it. The changes have been reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission. They are: Section 13, BULK AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS o Subsection 13.20 Table 5 (Off Street Parking)- Auditorium, sports arenas, theaters and similar uses were inadvertently left out of the chart and this change will correct that. o Subsection 13.30 - Table 5 is renumbered because it should be Table 6 o Subsection 13.50 - Table 6 is renumbered because it should be Table 7 Section 12, BULK AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS o Subsection 12.20 - Added title of residential uses. o Subsection 12.30 Exceptions #4 - All structures except fences are not allowed in the setback area. The setbacks are 20 feet from the street in front, 10 feet from the rear and 5 feet from the side. Fences less than 3 feet in height would be allowed in the setback. o Subsection 12.30, Exception #1 - As written the ordinance requires a ten foot setback from any other building on the same or adjacent properties. This penal- ized properties where a building existed on a property line. The recommended change is to delete the end of the sentence which says "and ten feet from any building on the same or adjacent property. " Section 3, DEFINITION o Subsection 3.10 Definition #60 LOT LINE FRONT - The intent of the ordinance was to have all setbacks made from all arterial streets that abut a lot. There is confusion about this because the ordinance only addresses which street is the front yard. Building Official Mike Ajax explained the ordinance said, that on a comer lot, the side that the rear of the lot was determined as being opposite the side that the driveway came in on. This change is to clarify how the setback will be applied on a comer lot. The Chairman opened the hearing for public testimony. Alan Cannen asked about the change to the definition of lot line front? Kent Anderson noted that the change is the addition of the following sentence "In addition to the aforementioned, setback requirement in this ordinance comer lots shall be measured from all streets abutting the lot." Alan Cannen noted that the first part of the definition says "all public streets, private streets or dedicated vehicular access easements," which is fine, but later in the definition it says "dedicated easement." This doesn't indicate what type of easement is being referred to. This assumes that it is a dedicated access easement, but it is not specifically stated that way. As this ordinance is written it can severely hinder project design. He feels this definition allows setbacks from dedicated internal easements. He doesn't see that the County should have any interest in regulating setbacks from a private road within the boundaries of the property. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the hearing. ... VOL 21 rAG~ 14 ........7:...................... ...... .. .... ...... . ..... ....".. .... ....".. .. .... ......... .... ........ . . .... ......... .. .... .......... ..... ......... ... .... ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::ill::::::: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .... ... ............... ............. Commissioner Hinton asked that the Planning Department review the defInition of Front Lot Line and see if the wording can be changed to address Mr. Carmen's concerns about setbacks from an internal easement. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled hearings and recon- vened on Tuesday morning. All three Board members were present and met in Executive Session with the Public Services Director regarding personnel from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. Request for Payment of Fourth Quarter Allocation: Olympic Gateway Visitor Center: Commissioner W ojt moved to approve the payment of the fourth quarter allocation as requested by the Olympic Gateway Visitor Center. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was then recessed and reconvened on Wednesday afternoon for the following workshop. All three Board members were present. Final Short Plat #SPA94-0009; Two Lot Short Subdivision Off Center Road in Chimacum: John E Morgensen. Applicant: Associate Planner Jeny Smith reported that all the required departments have signed off on this short plat. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the fmal short plat #SP A94-0009 as submitted. Commissioner W ojt seconded the mòtion which carried by a unanimous vote. Workshop to Review Testimony Received Regarding the Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance and Consideration of Adoption: Senior Planner James Holland explained that he will be reviewing the testimony received regarding the proposed designation of Port Ludlow as an Interim Urban Growth Area. The following areas of concern were raised in the testimony (see attached): .l) Population - A population growth fIgure of 2,500 was allocated to the Port Ludlow IUGA. The question raised was, why this be done when the City of Port Townsend expressed its ability to accommodate all of the forecasted population over the GMA planning period? The history of the GMA population projections shows that Port Ludlow has been consistently allo- cated an urban population growth fIgure by the County Planning Depart- ment and the City's population consultant. The 2,500 fIgure is less than the fIgures suggested by County Planning (August 1993) and the City consul- tant (1994) for the Port Ludlow planning area. The difference occurs be- cause not all of the growth will occur within the Port Ludlow IUGA bound- ary. The City of Port Townsend, even though it has said that it has the capacity to accommodate all projected urban growth over the 20 year comprehensive planning period, does not have the actual desire to have all that growth. The most preferred development scenario identifIed in the City's comprehensive planning process is a ··..1··1······· ...... .. ..... ...... . ..... ....... .. ..... ........ .. ...... ........ .. ..... ................. .... ........... ,,::::;::::::::::::':' ';':' ';:;:::::::; ............................................... ................................................. VOL 21 r~.C~ 15 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ................................... medium growth scenario which means the City would receive about 5,500 in additional population. The OFM forecast is approximately 8,000 people. There- fore for the County to allocate 2,500 persons for growth in the Port Ludlow IUGA would mean that approximately 5,500 people would be projected for the City which corresponds with their preferred development scenario. Chairman Huntingford asked if the City and County have adopted the population figures? James Holland reported that a meeting is scheduled with the City to fmalize population projections. Gary Rowe reported that the City and the County have agreed to petition the Hearings Board for adoption of the City consultant's population figures. Chairman Huntingford asked what the total projected bui1dout is for the Port Ludlow area? James Holland answered that it is between 4,200 and 4,400 people. Commissioner Hinton noted that the City Council has never made a statement regarding the projected growth that they can take. James Holland reported that is correct and the City's Comprehensive Plan is still at the draft stage. 2) Affordable Housing - The Planning staff position is that the County has a commit- ment through the Countywide Planning Policies to address the affordable housing issue in the Comprehensive Plan update. The draft Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for completion by June 30, 1995. It is staffs belief that while afford- able housing is an issue that must be addressed, the best place to address it is through the Comprehensive Plan process, and therefore it is not necessary that this issued to addressed in the interim urban growth area ordinance. After more discussion of how to address affordable housing, James Holland reported that there is a report that was done on the homeless in Jefferson County in 1993 and there is another report on the housing problems in the County from 1990. Com- missioner W ojt asked if Port Ludlow dealt with the issue in some measure in their EIS? James Holland answered that the environmental review considers impacts on housing. .3.) Impacts on Fire District #3 and the Chimacum School District - The County has received comment from Fire District #3, but they did not provide specific evidence that they will not be able to provide adequate fire protection. Pope Resources routinely pays a development exaction to Fire District #3 for every lot that is created through platting within the Port Ludlow area. The County, through the Fire Districts, has additional fire protection bonds and levies on specific proper- ties. With respect to the Chimacum School District, James Holland noted that in some respects the same comments apply. As part of the County's development review and approval process, Pope Resources is required to pay a flat fee per lot to the Chimacum School District for each lot that is created. The Chimacum School District is in the process or has already adopted a Capital Facilities plan. How many students Port Ludlow generates has been discussed since 1993. The argu- ment has been made that the Port Ludlow development generates fewer school ....11··2······· ...... .. ..... ...... . ..... ............... .... ......... "::::::;:;:;:;:;::.:;::".::::::::: ........... ..... ,.::::::::::::;:::::;:;:;:;:::;:::::;:::::::::;:: VOL 21 rAG~ 16 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .................................. . children per capita than other areas. The impacts upon the school district as a consequence of lUG A designation are likely to be less than would be the case for designating an IUGA in an alternative location. Chainnan Huntingford asked if the issue of fire flow in the Port Ludlow area has been adequately addressed as far as infrastructure? Gary Rowe answered that the Coordinated Water System Plan sets standards for fire flow for developments and this development meets that requirement. Commissioner Hinton noted that the fire services were a topic that was hotly debated during the EIS process. The fmal EIS was adopted and was not appealed. The EIS included mitigation fees for the Fire District and the School. James Holland added that the GMA language is that these are facilities and services "typically" provided by cities. The word typically suggests that: 1) its possible that the facilities and services can be provided privately, and 2) it is possible that not every urban growth area will be a city. Commissioner W ojt said that level of service standards must be developed for services within a UGA and one standard is emergency vehicle response time. Gary Rowe reported that a level of service standards for the UGA hasn't been set. There are many characteristics associated with UGA's and obviously fire and police protection are indicators of an urbanized environment. That doesn't mean that because they are indicators that they have to be set at a certain standard (say equivalent to Seattle or Port Townsend.) Gary Rowe added that he feels a reason- able level of service standard to be adopted by Urban Growth Areas with regard to fire protection would be fire flow standards, not numbers of people they have to have in the fire department. The discussion then turned to whether the Board is saying why and how the needs are being met on all of these issues. Senior Planner James Holland pointed out that there has been an environmental review for the Port Ludlow development and that review covered these issues. The point was raised, in written testimony, that the development environmental review was done for a retirement community and the IUGA is a different thing. The Port Ludlow Community Planning Group has recommended that the densities in the draft IUGA ordinance (5 dwelling units per acre with 16 dwelling units per acre in certain locations) be amended. In reviewing the maximum buildout from the densities proposed, the ordinance in its current fonn would allow a maximum buildout of 6,000 units, while the Port Ludlow development plan would allow considerably less. If the draft ordinance is amended to include the densities recommended by the Port Ludlow Community Planning Group, it's Planning staff opinion that the character of Port Ludlow in its Jefferson County context, will not change. Depending on how other jurisdictions such as Kitsap County have done their UGA sizing, there may be some overflow of urban commuter development into southeastern Jefferson County. Should that occur, Port Ludlow may become a more bedroom type community toward the end of the 20 year planning period. James Holland added that it is his opinion that for the majority of the 20 year planning period Port Ludlow's character will remain unchanged. Commissioner W ojt pointed out that many people in the area feel that if Port Ludlow is a UGA, it could become something that the people in the area don't want. Commissioner Hinton asked when the Port Ludlow plan was done? James Holland reported that the original plan for Port Ludlow was done in the 1960's and again in 1978. Commissioner Hinton asked if the plan now VOL 21 rAG~ 17 ,,:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ":::=::'I'::::::::a':::::::::::::::: ...... . ..... ............... .... ......... .':':':':':':':': .:.: :.:.:.:.:. ,.;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;.; ':"':',:::::::;:: ....................... ........................ ................................................. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ................................... is significantly different than the original plan? The current plan is a clarification of the original plan, James Holland reported. The current plan is smaller and less dense than the 1966 plan. Commissioner Hinton asked how the UGA will alter that plan? James Holland explained that if the density recommendations of the Port Ludlow Planning group are adopted, it would reduce the maximum density for the areas designated as "suburban" under the Comprehensive Plan from 5 units per acre to 4 units per acre. This is consistent with retaining an urban character, but it is a reduction that has been allowed in the past. The proposed IUGA boundary is smaller than the total area covered under the Port Ludlow development plan. The areas omitted from the IUGA, but that are in the Development Plan, are areas of low density development. James Holland reported that no comment was received from the Chimacum School District on the proposed IUGA designation for Port Ludlow. 4) Public facilities - water, sewer, and stormwater systems - Water - James Holland reported that the Board has reviewed several quasi-judicial issues and the EIS that have covered these items over the past several years. A number of arguments were repeated in the oral and written testimony. A new issue regarding the new draft water plan which the Ludlow Water Company has forwarded to the State Depart- ment of Health, was raised in the testimony. Reference was made in that tes- timony to a letter from Karl Johnson, DOH, to Larry Fay, Jefferson County Environmental Health Director regarding that draft water plan. Larry Fay feels that the State DOH reviews plans according to their standard blueprint engineering criteria. The State Department of Ecology is concerned with actual use of the water system. Many times the two Departments do not agree. There has been a lot of work done concerning the availability of water for Pope's Port Ludlow development. It is Larry Fay's opinion that the State Department of Ecology would not have issued the water right, if they didn't believe there wasn't enough water to satisfy it. The water right is 456 acre feet per year out of the south aquifer. The evidence the County has been given, with respect to water, is a large number of scientific reports saying there is sufficient water. On the other side, the County has been given a series of contentions saying there isn't enough water. Commissioner W ojt reported that it is his understanding that there is still discus- sion regarding approval of the 1995 water plan because there is a question whether present and future obligations can be met. In reality they don't have an approved water plan yet. James Holland reported that the 1990 water plan is approved and still in effect. The County has previously made a determination that there is sufficient water and the County reviews new plats to determine the sufficiency of the water supply. The JUGA designation will not change the County's practice of reviewing each plat application for sufficiency of water supply. The County adopted, in November 1991, one of the preliminary requirements of the Growth Management Act which is that proof of potable supply must be made before any building permit can be issued. Chairman Huntingford stated that there seems to be some fear that if Port Ludlow becomes a UGA, the County will be obligated, if there is a water shortage, to come up with funding to help provide more water. This is addressed in the EJS which says that if it is found through the monitoring program that the water supply VOL 21 fAr,>: 18 .. ,':':':':':':':':':': .::,('j:::iit:::;;':::i? ·:::~~~~~t~~~~~~~!¡m~~~r~: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ................. ......... ......... isn't sufficient, Pope will have to bring water in. Chainnan Huntingford said that he is of the opinion that the County should not be obligated for that, since Pope is planning for maximum bui1dout of 4,200. Commissioner Hinton pointed out that the County does require proof of potable water before a building pennit is issued, but he has never seen anything that says that the County is responsible for providing the water. Chainnan Huntingford said that he understands the concerns of surrounding landowners over the water issue, but he can't make a decision saying there is not water when the people who have the knowledge and infonnation (State Departments of Health and Ecology) haven't said that. He has to go along with the scientific infonnation presented in the EIS. Commissioner Hinton agreed that he has not seen any scienfitic evidence provided to dispute the experts regarding water. Sewers - The number of lots within the proposed IUGA that are not on the sewer system or scheduled for sewer service was brought up in the testimony to the Planning Commission. Lany Smith, Facilities Manager for Port Ludlow stated that there are 104 platted lots within the Port Ludlow development that are not scheduled for sewer service and therefore require septic systems. Planning staff research found that there are a total of 6 lots (not on the sewer system) in the Port Ludlow development that are being denied on-site septic pennits. Pope Resources has allocated capacity in their sewage treatment system to service the other scheduled developments that lie within their sewer service area boundary. Chainnan Huntingford asked how the sewer service area boundary equates to the IUGA boundary? James Holland reported that there is a very close correlation between the sewer service area boundary, the water service area boundary and the IUGA boundary. Any proposed developments identified in the Ludlow develop- ment program that are not sewered are either old lots, or large lot developments which rely on on-site services. The other issue raised in the testimony, James Holland continued, regarding sewer services is the intent and ability to provide these services. Pope Resources has a large amount of capital facilities (treatment facilities and sewer mains) to service substantial portions of the development. The capacity calculations indicate that 4,236 people (or the equivalent) can be served by the existing sewer treatment facility. The population of Port Ludlow at the end of the 20 year planning period is expected to be in the region of 3,600 people. That leaves an excess sewer capacity of 600 people which can be accommodate through subsequent residential development or commitment of the sewer capacity to commercial and other developments within the Port Ludlow IUGA. Most commercial activities generate less sewage products than a typical residence. To address a question from Rae Belkin regarding the need in the future for an additional sewer treatment facility, James Holland stated that it is extremely difficult for anyone to answer that question at this point. In testimony, Rae Belkin asked if the presence a water, sewer and stonnwater systems constitute a UGA? James Holland compared this to the urban develop- .. ·····15..·· ...... . .... ........ .... ........ . ..... ........ . ..... o . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... .," ..... ,,::::;:;:;:;:;::::': ";"':',:;:;:;:;:; ....................... ....................... ........................ ........................ VOL 2 J. r~G~ 19 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ....... ..... .............. ......... ment in the City of Port Townsend which is an urban growth area because it is an incorporated city. Currently there are a fair number of residences developed on the perhipery of Port Townsend (from the North Beach area to the southern boundary of the City), that are on septic systems. There are other cities in the state that rely substantially on septic systems. The point is that an U GA either has the facilities in place or has the potential and ability to provide urban services or facilities. Stormwater - Regulations on stonnwater management and treatment have been gradually strengthened over time, James Holland reported. The older areas of the Port Ludlow development (north) were built with the acceptable stonnwater management practices required at the time. Many major cities in this State discharge portions of their total stonnwater directly into surface waters. Port Ludlow is no exception. Chainnan Huntingford clarified that any current develop- ment has to address stonnwater. Existing stonnwater systems are fixed on an as needed basis when problems arise. James Holland added that the County condi- tions development approvals based upon the Stonnwater Manual adopted by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Commissioner Hinton added that the City of Port Townsend doesn't have a stonnwater ordinance (even though they have challenged the County's proposed ordinance) and few stonnwater facilities and most of those run into surface waters. Pope Resources is required to have a monitoring program in Port Ludlow Bay. 5) Environmental Review - Points were raised by a number of people, James Holland reported, concerning what environmental review has been done. He explained that when the County first started working on the IUGA ordinance in August of 1993 there was environmental review of those draft ordinances. A determination of non-significance was issued in September of 1993. Changes were made to that draft and it was adopted in January of 1994. The County must determine, for this ordinance, whether there is a significant change in environmental impact associ- ated with this proposal. Are adverse impact likely that have not been addressed in prior environmental review? An independent private consultant was hired to conduct a supplemental environmental review to detennine if there were any significant adverse impacts associated with this proposed ordinance. The review was completed on Monday (this week) and fOlwarded to the SEPA responsible official, Kent Anderson. Kent Anderson made a detennination that there would be no adverse impact associated with this proposed ordinance that had not been considered under prior environmental review with one condition: that the den- sities proposed in the hearing draft of the ordinance (5 dwelling units per acre and 16 dwelling units per acre) be clarified. Chainnan Huntingford asked about the extensive environmental review just done for the overall Port Ludlow development? James Holland answered that is correct and another environmental review will be done when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. There have been a total of 3 non-project environmental reviews and one project environmental review with a total of 2 Environmental Impact Statements, done on the Port Ludlow area. ····1..·1...... ...... ... .... ...... .. ..... ....... .. ..... ........ . ...... ........ . ..... ......... ..... .......... .... .......... ..... ......... .". .... ........... ..... ..;:;:;:;:;:;:;=;=::::::::::::::;:::::;=;=;:;:;:: VOL 21· rAG- 2n Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ...................... ............. 6) Level of Service standards - The City of Port Townsend expressed the opinion that the County should use specific numeric level of service standards "which clearly define both the quantity of water to be supplied per person per day and adequate fire flows." The fire flow issue is being addressed through the revised Coordinated Water System Plan. In the context of Port Ludlow, the per capita water consump- tion figures were addressed in detail in the Environmental Impact Statement, and they are currently being used for capacity estimation purposes. Chainnan Huntingford asked if the Level of Service chart, done with the original IUGA ordinance, is still in place? Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported that it is included in the amended ordinance and refers to it in the Coordinated Water Service Plan for water issues such as fire flow. Rae Belkin also asked if property assessments will go up because of the higher level of service being available (whether the service is received or not) if a sewage treatment plant is placed in an UGA? James Holland answered that property assessments may not go up, but there could be a substantial increase in utility bills for UGA residents due to capital facilities costs. Every capital facility has a design life cycle and needs to be replaced. Chairman Huntingford asked if the replace- ment cost can be attributed to the UGA designation? James Holland answered that he doesn't believe that use of a facility (such as a sewage treatment plant) to its capacity accelerates wear and tear and therefore impacts the replacement date. Lack of use could require early repair and replacement, just as excess use would. To say that, replacement of facilities is accelerated because ofUGA designation, can't be supported. 7) Actual IUGA boundary - There was a request that the proposed IUGA boundary be extended northward to include the Mats Mats commercial area, James Holland reported. Rae Belkin responded that only 7% of the people who responded to a community survey wanted the boundary changed. Pope Resources has brought up the issue of the exact boundary of the IUGA. James Holland reported that Mr. Y oura's point is that the Mats Mats commercial area is outside the IUGA boundary and its potential for becoming anything more than a grandfathered commercial use isn't great. Rural commercial standards would be applied to that commercial zone. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner W ojt concurred that the boundary be left as it is in the draft ordinance. James Holland reported that the map reviewed by the Planning Commission is the relevant one, but that map was not available at the Commissioner's hearing on Monday, because it was loaned to someone who did not return it before the hearing. 8) Public process involved with the draft ordinance - A complaint (Olympic Environ- mental Council) was received that the public process was not as full as it could have been and that public access to information was not adequate. James Holland reported that once the Board directed Planning staff to initiate an ordinance process, they made every effort possible within available resources to disseminate .. ..::::::fff~:r~mt:. ..::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:)!¡:¡Ii:;:;:: VOL 21 fAr,Ç 21 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .............. ..................... the infonnation as widely as possible. That included: constructing a special mail out list for preliminary ordinance infonnation; ample distribution of meeting notice infonnation; and use of the Leader on a more than "bare bones" legal requirement basis. The infonnation made available and distributed to the public for this process was the best available, given staff resources. It is the Planning Depart- ment's opinion that they acted in good faith and with good effort to distribute the public infonnation as widely as possible. Commissioner W ojt asked if there were any specific details noted by GEC about why they feel there wasn't adequate public infonnation? James Holland answered that he believes that the 0 EC was making a general comment because they did not point out anything specific. James Holland added that the capacity of any County for full and continuous public input is reflected by that County's resources. 9) Consequences of non-designation of Port Ludlow as an IUGA - Pope Resources and Planning staff raised the point that there are potential severe negative fmancial implications for existing residents of not designating Port Ludlow as an JUGA. Maintenance and capital costs being spread across half the people originally envisioned. Utility bills could increase substantially if Port Ludlow is not desig- nated as an JUGA. There are more than financial consequences, there are effi- ciency issues. If urban development does not occur in Port Ludlow, it must occur elsewhere. For urban development to occur elsewhere, it must be accompanied by urban facilities and services, which do not exist in the amount or location neces- sary. If Port Ludlow is not designated as a IUGA there is the possibility that the taxpayers will be directly or indirectly required to pay for the same public facili- ties twice; 1) the residents of Port Ludlow will be saddled with a bill meant for twice the number of people, and 2) by the costs for facilities the diverted growth will require facilities in other areas that all taypayers will foot the bill for. Commissioner Hinton added that the taxpayers and homeowners of Port Ludlow have submitted complaints for several years that they are paying high property taxes and have paid for the infrastructure in Port Ludlow through the purchase of their property. The GMA authorizes funding to UGA's prior to rural areas, so they will get funding before other areas of the County. Commissioner W ojt pointed out that there were comments from residents who will be outside the UGA questioning how they would be effected by the Port Ludlow UGA. Gary Rowe reported that the environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan will address issues in areas outside the Port Ludlow UGA and other UGAs. 10) General GMA issues - A comment was received that Port Townsend, being a UGA, is fully capable of handling all the population growth for the County. It was also suggested that designation of Port Ludlow as a UGA would violate the Growth Management Act, particularly the urban growth goal. a) The urban growth goal is violated. Port Ludlow is not urban, that it does not possess adequate facilities and services, and that said service cannot be provided in an efficient manner. No further evidence to support those contentions is offered. ..... .. VOL 21 fAr.' 22 ··:::::::::1·:····::8······::::::::: ,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.' :.:. :.:.:.:.: ,.:::::::::::::::::' .::.. :::::::::: ,,:::=::::::::;=::;:;=;:::::::;=:::::::::=;=;=:=: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .................................. . b) The school reduction goal of the Growth Management Act is violated, because inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land will cause sprawling low density development. The Growth Management Hearings Board considers sprawling development in an urban context to mean not allowing maximum densities of at least four dwelling units per acre. There is no evidence to support the contention that the anti-sprawl thrust of the Growth Management Act is being violated if Port Ludlow is designated as a UGA. c) Another concern raised in the hearing testimony, James Holland explained, is that the pre-existence of urban densities, and water and sewer services do not qualify Port Ludlow as an Urban Growth Area. Planning staff believes that there is a minimum size for a viable urban area which is probably in the region of 1,000 people. Port Ludlow currently has a population in excess of that. There is a difference between an urban pocket and an urban area. The staff has proposed that in this County the difference between an urban pocket and an urban area is contiguously developed land that has a total population in excess of 1,000 people. In Jefferson County, Port Ludlow fits that definition of urban. Jefferson County Home Builders commented that they don't like a popula- tion ceiling or allocation being made. Commissioner W ojt asked if the County has any choice in this under GMA? James Holland answered that the County's room to maneuver on this under GMA is limited. Chainnan Huntingford added that all the County is doing is planning for the popula- tion predicted to come in 20 years, not capping the population that can come. 11) Community Planning Issues - The Ludlow Community Planning group submitted written testimony which included a number of recommended modifications to the ordinance. Many of their recommended changes were to clarify and correct portions of the ordinance. The Planning staff believes that the County should make the clarifying recommendations submitted by the Community Planning Com- mittee. They also suggested that the density provisions of the draft ordinance (Sections 9.11 and 9.12) be changed from 5 dwelling units per acre in areas not adjacent to designated collectors and 16 dwelling units per acre in areas directly adjacent to or accessible from collector roads. The Planning Committee recom- mends that Section 9.11 be modified and that Section 9.12 be deleted and refer- ences be made to the map that they included with their testimony. Their recom- mendation is to allow a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre in single family areas, and the multi-family areas having a maximum of 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Planning staff reviewed this proposal and compared it with the Ludlow Development Plan as reviewed in the EIS. The Planning Committees proposal would reduce the maximum buildout of Port Ludlow without consideration to water resources, sewer capacity, or environmental constraints. Changing the densities as proposed would still result in urban densities by the standards of Jefferson County as well as State standards. The Planning staff feels that using the densities suggested by the Planning Committee would actually clarify the density provisions and they would address the key concern raised in the most recent environmental review that density provisions be more clearly focused. Staff .. VOL 21 rAe' 23 .. ....ij.. .9,...... ...... . .... ............. " ......... ,.::::::::::;:;::' :;.: ::::::::: .................. ..... .......... .......... .. ...... ..;:::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;.......;:....::::;:::;:;:; ........................ ......................... ,- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 .. ................................. recommends that these amendments be made and that if they are, that a precisely detailed map be produced using the Assessor's parcel data showing the allowable densities associated with specific parcels within the JUGA. 12) Recreational Facilities/Open Space - James Holland reported that Rae Belkin and the Ludlow Planning Committee both pointed out that many of the amenities talked about in fmding #6, while referred to as public, are mainly private. There are some public recreational areas in Port Ludlow. The County has had a policy that 10% of a long plat be dedicated as open space. As the consequence of a decision in a recent Supreme Court case, the County must revise this policy for open space or recreational space requirements. There are clear standards that have been suggested for the provision of open space within urban areas. The County must, for the Comprehensive Planning process, develop appropriate standards which consider available funding capacity to secure public areas. James Holland pointed out that most residents of the Port Ludlow IUGA have access to at least a portion of the private facilities. The issue of public access and public recreation is related to two circumstances: 1) residents of the Port Ludlow IUGA who don't have use rights for any of the private facilities because of the way the development occurred and 2) the general visitor. There are some facilities useable by the general public. A point to remember is that there are a fair amount of destination recreational areas provided by the County or the State within eastern Jefferson County. Recreational facilities available within eastern Jefferson County as a whole must be considered in making a detennination regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of facilities. Commissioner Hinton pointed out that under the Growth Management Act, regardless of who pays for the infrastructure of a water system, it's called a public system. James Holland added that the characteristics of certain types of goods and services allow them to be labeled public (i.e. a telephone system.) James Holland then presented Draft 3 of the ordinance which include all of the changes recommended by the Port Ludlow Community Planning Committee. Commissioner W ojt pointed out that the Growth Management Hearings Board didn't say that Port Ludlow shouldn't be an IUGA, but that the County needed to do the proper analysis before designating it a IUGA. James Holland responded that Clallam County developed a fonnula for calculating IUGA size which has been applied to the Port Ludlow area. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that if you look at the Hearings Board's decisions to date, it doesn't appear that they are very willing to search through a lot of material to find out if the County has done the work necessary to designate an IUGA. James Holland answered that he feels the work done for this proposed ordinance amendment is much more accessible than when this was done in 1993. Chainnan Huntingford said much of the infonnation for this detennination was available and he feels that the Planning staff has tried to address all of the infonnation requirements. James Holland added that there is a substantially enhanced level of analysis with this proposed ordinance amendment than there was with the original IUGA ordinance. VOL 21 rAt,> 24 ....]2...(1..... ...... .. .... ...... . ..... ....... . ............. .. .... .......... .... ......... ..... ......... ., .... .......... ..... .................. .. ......... .,::;:;:;=;=;=::::;:;:;:::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 1995 ................................... Chairman Huntingford asked if the changes to draft 3 are substantial enough to require that another hearing be held? Commissioner W ojt stated that he feels that the Prosecuting Attorney should review the changes and make a recommendation on whether he feels another hearing is required. Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels all of the issues raised in the Public Hearing and in the written testimony have been adequately covered. He then moved to approve draft #3 as an amendment to Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 to designate a Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area per RCW 36. 70A.II0 which shall include a section requiring a precisely detailed map of the UGA which details the densities as amended. This approval is subject to review by the Prosecuting Attorney for a determination on whether another hearing is required. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion. After discussion of what the Prosecuting Attorney will be reviewing and what the Board is voting on, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt abstained from voting. The motion carried. SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . ,f) ~ " , 10 A TrEST: Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board ........... VOL 2t rAC' 25 ·....j2·z·..· ...... . ..... .':':':':':':'.': .:. :.:.:.:.:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ......". .. ..... ......... . ...... ......... . ...... ......... . ...... ......... . ..... .......... . ..... ....................... ....................... ........................ ........................