Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112095 MINUTES WEEK OF NOVEMBER 20, 1995 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford in the presence of Commissioners Robert Hinton and Richard Wojt. The Board met in executive session with Prosecuting Attorney regarding potential litigation. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Special Event Permit re: Wild Olympic Salmon: Emergency Services Coordinator Bob Minty reported that this application has met all of the County's requirements. The insurance requirements have been met and approved by the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner W ojt moved to approve the Wild Olympic Salmon special event permit as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion and Possible Adoption of Emer~ency Density Ordinance: Public Services Director Gary Rowe explained that the proposed emergency ordinance defines what is urban and rural in terms of commercial and industrial development. The ordinance recognizes existing lots of records and allows commercial development if it does not require extension of urban services. New subdivision applications will not be allowed for any density less than 1 unit per 10 acres. This ordinance reflects the recent Hearings Board decision which have provided guidance on allowable density in rural areas. AI Scalf, Community Development Director, explained that there is confusion and the Permit Center staff is having trouble advising the public on what development is allowed in the County and what can be done with pending subdivision applications. Gary Rowe added that the County currently has a request in to the Superior Court to make a determination on what is and isn't allowed in the Port Ludlow area because the IUGA Ordinance for Port Ludlow has been repealed at the direction of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Commissioner Wojt asked Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Paul McIlrath, to explain the impact of this proposed emergency ordinance. Paul McIlrath explained that within the last month there have been a large number of cases that have come forward from the Western and Central Hearings Boards with clear definitions of urban and rural. Density of one unit per 10 acres is clearly rural, but there are other options allowed. The County is working toward adopting its Comprehensive Plan, but until that is done people need direction. This emergency ordinance provides guidance until the Comprehensive Plan is done. Page: 1 \ Itd '-\,.,1, ?1 ....,.. ..."""'- r.,~G: 01230 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Commissioner Wojt asked the status of subdivision applications submitted recently? Paul McIlrath stated that if an application has been submitted, and is in the process, it will be reviewed under this ordinance. Chairman Huntingford asked if under this ordinance existing lots of record will stay useable and buildable if they meet septic and water requirements? Paul McIlrath reported that is correct. Chairman Huntingford asked about the status of commercial lots. Paul McIlrath answered that existing commercial businesses in rural areas are conforming uses under this ordinance. Any new proposals that meet the visual and functional character of rural land use will be allowed. If the proposal does not meet the provisions of the ordinance it will be considered a non-conform- 109 use. Commissioner Wojt asked about forest land designations and if they would be changed by this ordinance? James Holland stated that designated forest lands would not be changed by this ordinance. John Swallow asked if his application for a five lot subdivision (less than one acre lots) would continue to be processed? Gary Rowe reported that if a subdivision has preliminary plat ap- proval it will not be affected, if the project does not have preliminary plat approval it will not proceed any further. Gene Seton asked about his commercial lots outside a UGA? Paul McIlrath answered that if a commercial lot exists, commercial development could happen if the project meets the criteria of the emergency ordinance and does not require the extension of urban services. Dave Clevenger asked about the Tri Area where it may require an extension of the City's waterline to build on a lot? Chairman Huntingford asked about previously defined service areas? In the case of the City's water service area, would the County use the 1986 plan? Gary Rowe stated that the County is working with the City to reach agreement regarding their policy on how they define an extension of the City's water service area. Steve Hayden noted that there are no provisions for hardship cases in this ordinance. Paul McIlrath reported that those type of issues are covered in other County ordinances. Chairman Huntingford reported that the Board members have some questions that they would like answered before this is considered for adoption. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would like to take a vote on this emergency ordinance today. Penny Herrick asked about existing commercial areas and if applications for new business uses in an existing commercial area would be allowed? Chairman Huntingford answered that it is his understanding that it will depend on what type of commercial business is being proposed. Jack Westerman stated that "extension" has to be defined. Until that is done none of these questions can be answered. Commissioner W ojt stated that the difficulty is with how the City defines extension within their service area. Michael Rolio suggested that the County change the "existing lots of record" to mean any application that has been determined to be substantially complete instead of only allowing those applications that have preliminary approval to proceed through the process. Later that day: Community Development Director AI Scalf noted that the question was raised earlier about what would happen to a parcel of land outside the City limits if this emergency ordinance is passed? He explained his understanding to be if there is an existing lot of record, provided that the health requirements (water and septic) can be met, the lot could be built upon. There is no moratorium on building permits. Chairman Huntingford added that there is a question about lots of record that require the extension of urban services (water or sewer) to meet the health requirements. The question is what exactly is meant by expansion of urban services. Page: 2 VOL 21 rAG~ o 1.231 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Commissioner Wojt reported that the City has indicated that within their service area they will abide by County land use decisions. Their proposed service area is a little smaller than it presently is. Chairman Huntingford added that existing commercial lots of record will be allowed to develop as long as the project stays rural in nature and is to take care of the needs of the community. There is still a question if the density will be 1 unit per 10 acres or be changed to 1 unit per 5 acres in the ordinance. Gene Seton asked about extension of services? Commissioner Wojt reiterated that if a line had to be extended, but it was in the City's defined service area, they say they will honor that. Gene Seton said that he is talking about property within the POO's service area. Commissioner Wojt answered that the line could be extended to a lot within the defined service area. The question earlier was what the City would do within their service area and the City will not consider such a request an extension of urban services. The discussion then turned to applications in process at the time this emergency ordinance is passed and how that will impact them. Gary Rowe advised that he will be putting together more information on some type of hardship clause and Prosecuting Attorney David Skeen stated that he will work with AI Scalf to answer the questions that the Board has raised. (See also last item in these Minutes.) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: the proposed density ordinance and how it will impact people who are working on land develop- ment; how the emergency ordinance will impact the hearing on the Port Ludlow IUGA this afternoon?; if the emergency ordinance is passed before the 2 p.m. hearing would that hearing be necessary; what would happen with applications in process if this ordinance is passed? (AI Scalf reported that there are currently 20 applications in process it is his understanding that those applications would be denied if the emergency ordinance is passed); urban type services defined in the ordinance include private services in Port Ludlow which is not right; the "fairness" of emergency regulations; why there is an emergency all of a sudden; the need to have clarification of when applications are vested; the process being out of control at the Planning Commission; when a subdivision application is vested and what will happen with the applications at the Permit Center that are not to the point of preliminary plat approval; the two separate issues involved with pending applications - 1) vesting of applications, and 2) if an application is vested under a null or illegal ordinance; GMA is not new and these issues have been discussed for the past four years; the need to fight to retain existing lots of record; and the vandalism of the windows and the cars at the Permit Center. Proposed Resolution re: Irondale Incorporation Petition: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reviewed the findings on this proposed resolution which would reject the petition for the incorporation of Irondale. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 108-95 rejecting the petition for the incorporation ofIrondale and directing the Clerk of the Board to return the petition to the petitioner. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page: 3 VOL 21 rAG~ o 1.23.2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Request for Temporary Exception to Density Standard for Reasons of a Family Emereency: Vireinia Woodward. Applicant: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the request ffom Virginia Woodward for the exception to the density standard due to a family emergency. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Hearine Examiner Findines. Conclusions. and Recommendation re: Teal Lake Villaee. Division 2. Preliminary Lone Subdivision: Fifty-four Lots located Northeast of Teal Lake Road and Sprinewood Drive in Port Ludlow: Pope Resources. Applicant: Paul McIlrath reported that in consideration of the fact that a declaratory judgment request has been submitted to the Superior Court regarding applications submitted in the area of the former IUGA, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office recommends the Board not take any action on this Hearing Examiner recommendation at this time. Commissioner Hinton asked how this application is different ffom the Loomis application that was approved? Paul McIlrath clarified that there are distinctions between the Loomis applica- tion and the application submitted by Pope Resource. The Loomis application had preliminary plat approval. The Teal Lake application is a 50+ unit development with a density such that it would be characterized as urban. It's quite clear that Pope Resources was aware of the situation regarding the IUGA ordinance. This particular application was submitted two days after the County adopted it's ordinance. It is unclear if there is a good ordinance on the books because of the series of appeals and revocations of ordinances. The question is what ordinance are they claiming to vest under. RCW 58.17.033 states that substantially complete applications are vested. But, that is contrary to what the Hearings Board Orders are saying regarding urban style developments outside of Urban Growth Areas. That is what the County is going to Court to find out. The County has invited Pope Resources to join the declaratory action to get a prompt resolution ffom the Court. He feels that if Pope Resources will assist the County by not fighting the declaratory action, there will be a prompt resolution to the request. Craig Jones, Attorney for Pope Resources, submitted a memorandum regarding the issues and then stated that with regard to the Teal Lake Village Division 2 Plat, all preliminary plat requirements have been met. The application was filed in January of 1995. In February, Jim Pearson certified that the application was complete, which complies with Section 6.202 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This is what is required to be vested. The Planning Department staff and and the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of Teal Lake Division 2. There has been no objection of any third party with regard to the vesting of that plat. There has been no effort by the County to ask the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board if there is any issue with regard to the vesting of those plats, and the Hearings Board hasn't taken any action to try to stop this County from approving that plat. Any deviation from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation requires another public hearing with an opportunity for everyone to be present (Section 6.210 of the Subdivision Ordinance.) There is no basis for the Commission- ers to do anything but approve Teal Lake Division 2. Craig Jones continued by stating that, in his opinion, Teal Lake Division 2 is vested in accor- dance with RCW 58.17.033. This RCW sections says that a plat is vested in accordance with the laws in effect when an application is complete. There wasn't even an appeal of the Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance when this application was determined to be complete in February. That ordinance was the law of this County and the law under which this application was submitted and there was no challenge to it. The GMA specifically recognizes the vested rights issue. The legislature said, in the last legislative session, that if there is a finding of non- Page: 4 VOL 21 fAGE o :1233 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 compliance and a remand, it will not effect vesting during that period of remand. That is exactly what happened with the Port Ludlow IUGA. The Teal Lake or other Port Ludlow plats were not impacted at all by the decision of the Hearings Board. Pope Resources has a right to rely upon the vested rights doctrine. The Hearings Board did not change Pope Resources' reliance or the ability to rely upon that ordinance. Even if the Hearings Board would have found the ordinance invalid, it would have only had a perspective effect on any applications that were not vested prior to the date of that decision. The legislature was absolutely clear that anyone vested, would remain vested under the law in effect when the application was complete. The Hearings Board's Skagit County decision is totally inappropriate and inapplicable to this situation. The County passed Resolution No. 91-95 which specifically says the County will continue to process these plats. The only real difference between Mr. Loomis' application and Pope Resources' application is the size of the project. The County went forward and approved the Loomis project. Mr. Jones concluded his statement by saying that the County should also move forward and approve the Teal Lake project in accordance with the recommendation of the staff and the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Wojt asked about the points Mr. Jones raised regarding the Hearings Board Order for the Skagit County issue? Paul McIlrath said that the order has to be read in its entire context. He directed the Board's attention to all the other Hearings Board orders which include clear language that give direction regarding urban densities outside urban growth areas. The issue is that there is a conflict between the statutory interpretation ofRCW 58.17.033 and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. The County doesn't know what the answer is. We don't know if the "laws in effect" are valid laws. This has all been thrown up in the air by the decision of the Hearings Board. The County does have a case pending in the Superior Court and an answer will come from that. Chairman Huntingford asked about the action that Kitsap County took to process all vested applications, when their Comprehensive Plan was found invalid? Paul McIlrath stated that was a policy decision by the Planning Department in Kitsap County to interpret their existing application as vested, but they didn't have the direct application of a Hearings Board decision (Port Ludlow.) The County is also required to have a compliance hearing on what has been done and will have to justify continuing to process applications, if that is done. Commissioner Hinton noted that at the time the Teal Lake application was found to be substan- tially complete, the Hearings Board had not made their determination. Paul McIlrath advised that the County has been told that the ordinance was not a good ordinance. The County is faced with not knowing the status of that ordinances. All three ordinances have been revoked, ostensibly because they were not valid ordinance. He is not sure there was an appropriate law in effect at the time the application was submitted. That is why the Superior Court has been asked to resolve this question. Chairman Huntingford asked what level of information the County has to provide to adopt the UGA for Port Ludlow? At the time the Interim UGA was adopted the community planning group supported that action, and the County felt that the necessary work had been done. Paul McIlrath explained that Pope Resources has filed an appeal of the Hearings Board decision. It is hoped that the Court decision will give the County some guidance on what is enough and what more needs to be done. Commissioner Wojt moved to postpone a decision on Teal Lake Village #2 preliminary long subdivision until such time as the Court makes a ruling on the County's request for declaratory judgment. Commissioner Hinton stated that he has a difficult time believing that the Hearings Board's arbitrary decisions take precedent over a judicial decision. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. He stated that he feels the County needs to have this issue clarified by the Court. He called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page: 5 YOL 21 fAGf O 1°3 ') ¡(",~, .... Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Amendment to the Jefferson County Shoreline Mana2ement Master Pro2ram. Section 5.60. "Docks. Piers and Floats": Associate Planner Dennis Thomason reported that the Prosecuting Attorney has done legal review of this amendment to the Shoreline Management Program section. The Chairman of the Shoreline Commission and members Leonard Palmer and Cedric Lindsay were present to answer any questions. Commissioner Hinton asked if the Department of Ecology has reviewed this amendment? Dennis Thomason answered that DOE has done an initial review of the amendment. After adoption, the amend- ment will be submitted to DOE for their official review and comment. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the amendment to the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program Section 5.60 and to direct the Development Review Section to forward it to the State Department of Ecology. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner W ojt moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 109-95 re: Creating a county project designated as CRS 1176; to replace railroad over crossing bridge with culvert, lower road grade and widen road on South Discovery Road 2. HEARING NOTICE re: 1996 Jefferson County Budget Hearings Set for December 4 thru December 8, 1995 in the Lower Level Conference Room in the Courthouse 3. Approve Application for Assistance rrom the Veteran's Relief Fund; American Legion Post #26 for $75.00 4. Approve 60 day extension for Eastridge Short Plat Final Plat approval, expiration date January 7, 1996; Craig Smith, Applicant 5. Approve findings, conclusions, and decisions; preliminary long subdivision; 3 lot long subdivision; John Nesset, Applicant Discussion re: Final Draft Flood Plain Mana&ement Ordinance: Assistant Planner Lesa Barnes reported that a comment was made that this ordinance name should be changed to be more reflective of what the ordinance is about. The suggestion is to change the name to the Flood Damage Reduction Ordinance. There were also two minor changes made in the definitions portion of this draft ordinance as a result of the Prosecuting Attorney's legal reVIew. Deputy Public Services Director, David Goldsmith, reported that the amended ordinance was a result of changes necessitated by changes in the federal law. He suggested that the ordinance be adopted today and made effective in 30 days. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 18-1120-95 to be known as the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, effective 30 days rrom today, and that copies of the ordinance be forwarded to the Jefferson County Flood Control Advisory Boards, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA.) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HEARING re: Intent to Lease Bayshore Motel: Facilities Manager Warren Steurer reported that the purpose of this intent to lease is to privatize the operation of the Bayshore Motel which the County owns and operates. If the Board determines is it appropriate to lease the motel, then a request for proposals will be advertised. Page: 6 VOL 21 rAGE o 1.235 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Deputy Director of Public SelVices, David Goldsmith, asked if the there is an escalation factor in the lease agreement for increasing the amount offunds that will be provided rrom the lease to the Brinnon Senior Fund? The utilities costs have been going up every year and the added cost will have to come rrom the County's general fund ifit isn't provided for in the lease. Warren Steurer reported that there was no additional amount identified for this in the lease documents, but that can be changed. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Sam Boling stated that he doesn't see anything wrong with the County getting out of the motel business. He does feel that if a private owner builds a motel in Brinnon, however, the County should close this motel. Charles Marley asked ifthere is any law regarding competition between a motel owned by the County and a privately owned motel? Lorna Ward asked about the $2,500 for County expenses? Warren Steurer reported that this would be for costs associated with the County's oversight of the lease. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved that the Public Works Department start the process necessary for leasing the Bayshore Motel. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Update on County Roads Located in the West End: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported that there will be a meeting tomorrow with the State regarding the repair work to be done on roads in the West End. She advised that she would like to work with the Hoh Tribe on a interlocal agreement for provision of emergency selVices on Tribal properties. Creatin~ a County Project Desi~nated as CR1242 Van Trojan Road; Ri¡:ht of Way Surveyed and Roadway Located for Possible Ri~ht of Way Acquisition: Transportation Program Manager Bruce Laurie reported that this project is to gather information on, and sUlVey the existing road to see if it is located in the right-of-way. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 110-95 creating a County project designated as CR1242. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request for Out of State Travel for Moderate Risk Waste Coordinator; Public Works/Solid Waste Division: Chairman Huntingford questioned ifit is necessary to send an employee to this training out of the State? Klara Fabry stated that she feels it is essential to send this employee to this conference to help her learn her job. Chairman Huntingford asked ifthere is a training within the State that she could go to? Klara Fabry answered that she just recently attended a training session in Olympia. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Out of State Travel request for the Moderate Risk Waste Coordinator. Due to the temporary absence of Commissioners Wojt, the motion died for lack of a second. The Public Works Director advised that she would submit more information regarding this conference to the Board for their review. Discussion re: Letter of Fire Flow Requirements for Jefferson County Transfer Station: Public Works Technician Frank Hall reported that he had a meeting with Page: 7 VOL 21 f'AŒ o 1236 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Mike Ajax the Building Official regarding the SEP A mitigation on the fire flow requirements for the Jefferson County Transfer Station. He also updated the Board on recent discussions with the Fire District and the City. They are still negotiating terms. No action is required from the Board at this time. HEARING re: Emerl:ency Ordinance 17-1002-95: Repealin~ Ordinance #01- 0117-95 (An Amendment to Ordinance No. 15-1028-94 to Desi~nate a Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.ll0:) Senior Planner James Holland reported that this ordinance was adopted October 2, 1995 on an emergency basis as a response to the final decision and order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The WWGMHB order stated that Jefferson County had to repeal the ordinance establishing the Interim Urban Growth Area at Port Ludlow within 30 days in order to achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act. No IUGA may be extended beyond municipal boundaries until requisite analysis has been completed. By confirming the adoption of this ordinance the Board continues to say that there are no Interim Urban Growth areas outside the City of Port Townsend. The ordinance also repeals the IUGA for Port Ludlow, rolls back the population allocation for that area, and affirms the rural status of Port Ludlow. Chairman Huntingford asked if, after seeing the Hearings Board Order, it gave any clear direction on what information the Hearings Board would consider adequate to uphold a UGA designation for Port Ludlow. James Holland answered that the Hearings Board order provides guidance to the County in designating UGA's because it says what wasn't done by the County. The County needs to: 1) allocate population properly; 2) prove the existence of urban densities; 3) develop appropriate level of service standards; 4) accurate analysis of capital facilities needs; 5) assess the fiscal impact of urban growth at Port Ludlow from a county wide perspective; 6) provide assurance that the public facilities exist or will be equitably provided and available within the Port Ludlow UGA; and 7) properly review the adequacy of the water supply. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Dick Pryne, 181 North Bay Lane No.1, Port Ludlow, Chairman of the Council of Ludlow Owners Associations (composed of Presidents of 14 owners associations,) stated that he is speaking as directed by that Council. He said the Council would like to request the Commis- sioners and the Planning staff to come and talk to the residents of the area regarding whatever plan is done in the future to accommodate what is actually there. He stated that he doesn't understand how it can be said that the community plans don't count since the basis of the Growth Management Act said that planning should be done from the bottom up. Whatever the County does, it needs to be very responsive to the views ofthe local communities. Those views need to be solicited and not presented to the community after the fact. Stanley Kadesh. 41 Foster Lane, Port Ludlow, Chairman of the Community Development Planning Committee, stated that the Committee, founded at the County's suggestion, worked for two years to come up with a viable plan for Port Ludlow. He noted that he was taken off the County's mailing list for information and asked that they put back on it. Even though the plan has been submitted to the County, the committee is still meeting to discuss what they did, what they would like, and what the County is doing. This committee has been adopted as a sub- committee of CLOA. Jim Branniman, 560 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow, stated that no one he knows in Port Ludlow wants to live in a City. They all moved here to get away from cities and want to live in a rural atmosphere. The community plan says that they want to be in a village, in the woods, by the Bay. They are chagrined that the Board and the Planning Department took it upon themselves to do things without coming and asking and finding out what the consensus of the population of Port Ludlow really was. Everyone in Port Ludlow supports the Planning Committee's work and the community plan. He is delighted to see that Port Ludlow is being made a rural area. They don't want to be a high density city. Page: 8 VOL .21 rAG~ o 123~; Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Pollard Gardner, 130 Resolute Lane, Port Ludlow, asked if the County Commissioners want Port Ludlow to be a UGA and if they will be doing everything they can to see that happen? Chairman Huntingford answered no. The County was trying to meet the community's needs by doing the UGA because the facilities are currently there. The EJS that was done allowed for certain development and the County is trying to fit that into the boundaries. The Board isn't trying to change things on the residents, they are trying to find a way to fit Port Ludlow into the Comprehensive Plan in the best way possible. When everyone came in for the UGA hearing, there seemed to be good support for it. There weren't many people speaking in opposition to what the County was doing. The County is trying to put a name on Port Ludlow that fits with what the community wants, and that fits into the intent of the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Hinton answered that it's the people of the community who need to design their community and the Board has to go within the confines of the Growth Management Act to help those communities get what they are looking for. Today he is hearing that everyone is in agreement with the Community Plan, but yet he has talked to many people who aren't in agreement with it. It is difficult to get a feel for what the people of Port Ludlow want because so few people talk to the Board about their feelings. Mr. Gardner explained that initially there was some support for the JUGA. That's because it came very fast and no one knew anything about it. Everyone was critical of the fact that the County did not come down and talk to the community. The community is being informed of what is going on too late. Commissioner Wojt said that he wants the County to do the best it can to fit Port Ludlow into a designation that will allow the community to do what it wants within the law. Chairman Huntingford stated that as the County moves forward, they will make a real attempt to let the citizens of Port Ludlow know ahead of time what the options might be and to seek input on those options. Dave Harris, 680 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow and Member of the 20 Year Planning Committee, added that he concurs with the statements made today by other Port Ludlow residents. He also pointed out that it appears if the proposed density ordinance is enacted (see previous item in the Minutes) the Commissioners are going to place a moratorium on requests for subdivisions including those that have been established under the JUGA process. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul McIlrath advised that there is a draft ordinance the Commis- sioners are considering today which acknowledges the existing lots of record and the guidance provided by the Hearings Board on development options in rural zones. Urban style density is not allowed in rural zones. The Port Ludlow JUGA issue is currently in the Superior Court for a declaratory action to determine whether the subdivision applications submitted for former JUGA areas should be allowed to go forward or whether they are vested. Dick Pryne asked what is meant by the term "the Port Ludlow Planned Community?" James Holland reported that the term is used to provide a reference point to the Pope Resources proposal in 1987 which formed the basis of the 1993 EJS on the community being designed and built by Pope Resources. Mr. Pryne asked if it would be wiser to refer to the Port Ludlow community as outlined in the 1993 EJS, because it gives boundaries? He noted that the term Resort Planned Community does fit Port Ludlow. The designation of "Fully Contained Commu- nities" may fit Port Ludlow better. Pollard Gardner asked why the reference wasn't made to Pope Resources? James Holland stated that he just referred to the community or a specific area and not to an individual or particular project in ordinances. Jim Branniman stated that to draw boundaries around Port Ludlow is going to be more and more difficult because there isn't a wall between Mats Mats and Port Ludlow. The water supply issues get clouded because the water source covers a very large geographical area including parts of Page: 9 VOL 21 rAC~ o :1238 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Shine, Bywater Bay and other areas. A point of contact for Port Ludlow is the local planning committee which is now a subcommittee of the Council of Ludlow Owners Associations (CLOA.) Susan Miller, 80 Gulf Shadow Lane, Port Townsend, stated that she is concerned about this as a precedent for surrounding areas. She suggested that the County do the things that James Holland identified as needing to be done to establish what is a proper density for Port Ludlow. Chairman Huntingford noted that what they are hearing from the Port Ludlow residents here today is that they don't necessarily want to be an Urban Growth Area. The dilemma for the County is what to call the Port Ludlow area. Penny Herrick. County Planning Commission member, stated that she doesn't think the County has to be limited to hunting for the category in the Growth Management Act which fits Port Ludlow. The Growth Management Act has direction. It doesn't want sprawl and the County can work with the residents of Port Ludlow to come up with a creative definition, that can be submitted to the State and be approved if it is consistent with the basic goals of Growth Management. Dave Harris, stated that the County can utilize the Port Ludlow 20 year plan which spells out each issue. The County has elected to imply that Chapter 12 of that plan is not appropriate. Chairman Huntingford asked what Chapter 12 covers? Mr. Harris answered codes and restric- tions. Stanley Kadesh. pointed out that when the 20 year plan was being developed, Port Ludlow was called an JUGA. The community decided to draw up a plan for Port Ludlow to cover the next 20 years and define what the residents of Port Ludlow desire to see developed in that area. The Plan and the Planning Committee could care less what Port Ludlow is called, but they do want to see their plan for development accepted. Commissioner Hinton asked where the issue of the incorporation of Port Ludlow is right now? Stanley Kadesh reported that the CLOA Governance Committee is looking into various aspects of incorporation and type of local government with or without being a city. Hearing no further comment for or against the ordinance, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to uphold Ordinance No. 17-1002-95 as passed on October 2, 1995, (rescinding the Port Ludlow Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance No. 01-0117-95, to Comply with the Washington State Hearings Board Decision of September 6, 1995.) Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board then interviewed Mickey McKinney and Ray Anibas who are interested in serving on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Discussion re: Water Utility Coordinatin~ Council 1996 Budl:et: Cy Heffernan: Cy Heffernan reported that he and Marc Horton of Economic and Engineering Services have put together a proposed budget to make the WUCC an on-going entity to work on water issues in the County for about $27,000 per year. Since 1990 approximately $198,000 has been spent on the Coordinated Water System Plan. Having the WUCC meet on a regular basis instead of once every 5 years to do the required plan update would be economically reasonable. The PUD supports this proposal. Guy Rudolph asked if this proposal would allow for the development of a water management plan for the County? Cy Heffernan answered that the Board could direct the WUCC to do that work. VOL 21 rAG~ Page: 10 o :1239 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Chairman Huntingford suggested that the Board look at this proposal and then provide an answer to the WUCC at their next meeting. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m. for an Executive Session with the Prosecuting Attorney on potential litigation. Applications (2) for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the applications for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund submitted by American Legion Post #26 both in the amount of$500.00. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Letter of Under stan dine: UFCW Local 1001: Addition of Positions to the Union Contract: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the two letters of Understanding with the UFCW Local 1001 to add two positions to the schedule of Union positions as follows: Custodian Aid in the Facilities Management Department and Electronic Court Reporter/Senior Court Clerk in the Superior Court Clerk's Office Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of November 13, 1995 as submitted. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appointment to Solid Waste Advisory Committee: Commissioner Wojt moved to appoint Dr. Michael Atkins to the position on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. His term will expire November 7, 1997. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Approval of Milea~e Allowance Reimbursement for September Only: Public Works Director: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the request rrom the Public Works Director for mileage allowance for September only.· Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Letter to U.S. Representative Norm Dicks re: Brinnon Senior Center: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and have the Chairman sign the letter to U.S. Representative Norm Dicks regarding the Brinnon Senior Center. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Emer~ency Density Ordinance: (See also second item in these Minutes) A redrafted version of the emergency density ordinance was presented to the Board. Chairman Huntingford stated that the draft ordinance doesn't clearly identifY what regulation or ordinance an application will fall under. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul McIlrath explained that the appropriate word would be "applicable" County Ordinances because there are some ordinances that are in dispute which would not be applicable. Ordinances like the Critical Area Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Flood Ordinance have not been challenged and Page: 11 VOL 21 rAG~ o :1240 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 still apply. Commissioner Hinton stated that basically what the County is working ffom now is the present Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, etc. Paul McIlrath stated that is correct. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that this draft of the ordinance puts a moratorium on existing commercial lots as well as on new subdivision applications. AI Scalf answered that is correct. Senior Planner James Holland reported that the County must rely upon the Zoning Code which was criticized by the Hearings Board last year for not discriminating between rural and urban, industrial and commercial development. The previous draft ordinance provided some guidance to what constitutes industrial and commercial rural development while this draft allows no industrial or commercial development unless it is reconstruction or repair. Gary Rowe pointed out that the previous draft of the ordinance included a definition of rural for commercial and industrial development. James Holland reported that in order to allow commer- cial and industrial development in rural areas it will require that the use tables in the Zoning Code be modified if a definition isn't included in the ordinance. Chairman Huntingford asked about conditional use permits? Gary Rowe answered that in the Zoning Code commercial, industrial, or other activity in a rural zone would be a conditional use and they would be subject to the moratorium if a permit is required. Prosecuting Attorney David Skeen agreed that the definitions of commercial and industrial uses from the previous draft can be put back in this draft. Kent Anderson asked about the work that the Port Townsend Paper Company Mill is doing and if that work would be allowed to continue? The Mill has not yet submitted a permit request for this work but it was anticipated that the permit application would be submitted in December. Gary Rowe stated that the ordinance says no application for a permit for any NEW commercial or industrial development. The Mill is not a new industrial development. It would be up to the Board to make a final determination in this type of situation. Commissioner Hinton asked about already submitted applications that have not received preliminary plat approval. Gary Rowe reported that applications received that haven't been issued preliminary plat approval would be processed up to the point of a determination for preliminary plat approval, but would not proceed any further until this ordinance is repealed. Gene Seton asked if that means those applications would then be approved when the ordinance is repealed? Paul McIlrath reiterated that the Superior Court has been asked for a determination on whether the County has the authority to continue to approve applications based on an ordinance that may not have a legal foundation. The County needs to determine if the application can proceed during the 90 day period of this ordinance. It may be found that there are applications that cannot proceed because they clearly don't meet the legal requirements of GMA or other provisions. Paul McIlrath suggested that the wording be changed to say "become eligible for preliminary plat review." Cy Heffernan asked what density threshold the applications would be reviewed under? This draft ordinance doesn't give any indication of what the densities will be when the emergency ordinance is lifted. Chairman Huntingford noted that if the ordinance indicates a rural density of 1 unit per 5 acres and a pending application is for that density, then it may not have a problem. Paul McIlrath advised that the problem is dealing with urban style densities in rural areas. The case law received in the last month indicates that rural densities of 1 unit per 10 are safe, and 1 unit per 5 acres may be acceptable. Commissioner Hinton reported that his concern is that if, the County allows these applications to continue to be processed, are the applicants being led down a dead end path if the Court finds that these applications can't be allowed? Paul McIlrath answered that there is a risk for these applications. These people need to be advised that there is a question about whether their application will be allowed. VOL 21 rAG~ Page: 12 o :1241 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 20, 1995 Kent Anderson stated that Section 5.30 has the same effect as the previously proposed draft. It basically says that everything in process will be denied. There is no relief Cy Heffernan asked if there is anything coming from a judicial authority that says that the present Comprehensive Plan is invalid? The applications in process are valid under the Comprehensive Plan and its densities for the rural areas. Gary Rowe reported that the County's IUGA ordinance adopted last year was found out of compliance with GMA. The present Comprehensive Plan allows 5 units per acre in some rural areas. The initial IUGA Ordinance set rural densities at one unit per acre and was found out of compliance because the densities allowed in rural areas were not appropriate. Another JUGA Ordinance was passed which had 1 unit per acre density in rural areas and was also found to be out of compliance because of that density. That issue has not been readdressed since that time. Gary Rowe explained that there are three subdivision applications in process from 1994, and in 1995 there is an application for 400 lots in Port Ludlow (Pope Resources), applications for a total of3110ts in various areas, and applications were received last Thursday for 130 lots. Kent Anderson asked about State law requiring that the County approve applications submitted in a certain amount of time and how this ordinance will impact that? AI Scalf reported that the County has 120 days to approve an application, but the clock can stop during that time. Gene Seton asked why the County is considering a density of 1 unit per 10 acres, when in Kitsap and Clark Counties, 1 unit per 5 acres has been accepted as a rural density? Chairman Huntingford asked the other Board members what density they would rather see? Commissioner Hinton stated that he would like to see Section 5.30 re-written to include the words "the applications for subdivision less than 5 acres. II This would allow these applications to proceed to preliminary plat approval. Applications with densities greater than 1 unit per 5 acres would be treated as the applications in the declaratory action. The discussion continued regarding the draft ordinance, what the appropriate density is for rural areas, how to handle applications that are in, but have not received preliminary subdivision approval, and what is meant by expansion and extension of urban services. Commissioner Hinton stated that he doesn't like moratoriums, but if this emergency ordinance would get the County through the next 90 days to get the Comprehensive Plan finished and adopted, he would be willing to go along with adoption of a reasonable ordinance that doesn't hurt too many people. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels this emergency ordinance is the best way to proceed if the County isn't going to look at meeting the Hearings Board requirements. At least this ordinance will put to rest the idea that there will be a lot of new subdivisions created between now and when the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Chairman Huntingford requested that the Board consider approving the emergency ordinance with the addition of the rural commercial and industrial definitions from 'the previous draft and amend the language regarding applications that have been submitted (but have not received preliminary plat approval) will be processed if the application is for 1 unit per 5 acres. Any application for density greater than that (1 + units or more per 5 acres) will be advised of their options which are to proceed to preliminary approval stage and then wait, or they can withdraw the application. David Skeen advised that the County can process the applications with a density of 1 unit per 5 acres or less, but even those may turn out to be in an area that will be a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. Commissioner Hinton stated that under the moratorium its just the processing of the applications. The effect won't be any different because the application won't be approved until the moratorium is lifted. Chairman Huntingford stated that he wants the ordinance to allow the Page: 13 '~{¡)L 21 p.A~r o 1242 . ' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2'0, 1995 processing and approval of the subdivision applications that are currently in the Permit Center that have a density of 1 unit per 5 acres or less. Commissioner Wojt asked if there are any applications for subdivisions with a density greater than 1 unit per 5 acres? . Gary Rowe advised that the information he has today only shows the number of lots, but not the average density of the subdivision. Chairman Huntingford reiterated that he is not talking about any new applications because they are subject to the moratorium. Gary Rowe said that what he is hearing the Board say is that if an application has a density of more than 1 unit per 5 acres, it will continue to be processed, but will not become eligible for preliminary plat approval until the declaratory judgment for the Port Ludlow area is received. Paul McIlrath clarified that the Declaratory Action will only apply to those parties named in it. He added however, that the Declaratory Action could be used to provide guidance for action on these applications. The changes to the draft ordinance that the Board has identified are as follows, Gary Rowe reported: · Replace Section 3.'0 with what was in the previous ordinance including a definition for rural industrial and commercial development. · Section 5.'0 should be re-written to say: "Applications for subdivisions that have yet to receive preliminary plat approval shall continue to be pro- cessed during the effective period of this ordinance, provided that such applications shall not require the extension of urban services, Applica- tions proposing residential densities of greater than 1 unit per 5 acres shall not, however, become eligible for a determination of preliminary plat approval until this ordinance is repealed. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 19-1121-95 an emergency moratorium ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.7'0.79'0 and Chapter 36.70A.39'O RCW, as amended and effective at 5:'0'0 p.m. on November 21, 1995, Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner W ojt abstained from voting on the motion. .~ " '( . .:;~ . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ." n . .- ,.- j ~ ",' , .-.."! .. ". - "- 'f.s 0'\ í,) ) .. )0Y2/)1á¡) Q hU'LUL. Lorna Delaney, CMC (f Clerk of the Board Page: 14 ~0t 21 r~f,c O :1 OA ·3'· . ~.l:i