Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM022492 .,. J C.h~ c;;:? ~ö~ MINUTES WEEK OF FEBRUARY 24, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner B. G. Brown in the absence of Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner Richard E. Wojt was present. The Board met with Treasurer Ila Mikkelsen and Cooperative Extension Agent/Chairman Sally McDole regarding a proposed shared employment agreement and Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward and Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth on an employee disciplinary action. Public Comment Period: Roger Short asked about the Chelan Agreem- ent? Commissioner Brown explained that the Chelan Agreement is a regional level water resource planning program. It is hoped that the process used during two scheduled Chelan Agreement pilot projects can be used to allocate water resources throughout the State in the future. There will be caucuses set up for the various interest groups involved including local government, State agencies, tribes, and individual interest group (environmental, fisheries, business, recreation and agricul- ture) to meet on this. Roger Short then reported that SB 6201 is going before a State House of Represen- tatives sub-committee tomorrow and he asked that the County indicate their support for this bill which addresses the takings issue in regard to Growth Management. Commissioner Brown explained that if the Senate version is amended in any way the bill will have to go to a conference committee before a final document is developed for the House to vote on. He noted that he feels this bill should include clear direction for implementation and if the Counties are expected to do the compensating, it should identify the funding source because the Counties don't have any funds for this. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved for adoption and approval of the Consent Agenda as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a un- animous vote. 1. Sign Corrected Shoreline Permit #SDP91-0006; Repair of a Concrete Boat Ramp; Discovery Bay; Rodney and Nolana Snyder 2. Approve 1992 Dance License; Port Hadlock Inn; Quest Hotel Management 3. AGREEMENT re: Program Funding for 1992; Peninsula Tourism Council 18 r~~Æ 00 291. ,¡, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 2 4. Authorization of Payment; Allocation of the Clallam/Jefferson Housing Rehabilit- ation Trust Fund; City of Port Angeles $66,382.75 5. Approved Jefferson County Annual Certification (For the Calendar Year 1991) to the County Road Administration Board 6. RESOLUTION NO. 14-92 re: In the Matter of Temporary Restriction of Traffic on Teal Lake Road County Road No. 505309 7. Approved State Purchase Requisition for a 3,800 Gallon Water Tank and Street Flusher System to be Installed on a Truck Chassis; For Public Works Depart- ment; Environmental Pollution Control, Inc. 8. Reappointed Shoreline Commission Members; Each to Serve another Three Year Term; Linda Clifton and Reed Gunstone 9. Sponsorship of North Coast Revolving Loan Fund Loan Application; Jefferson County Economic Development Council 10.CONTRACT #92-10-03 re: Consultation and Programming Services for the Jefferson County Human Services Department; Berry Hill Software l1.RESOLUTION NO. 15-92 re: Requesting Legislation Authorizing the United States Forest Service to Offer Salvage Sales of Blown Down Timber in the Pacific Northwest National Forests BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND ,BUILDING Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. 91-0019; Construction of a 20 by 30 Foot Stora2e Buildin2 Adioinin2 the Inner Bay of Port Ludlow; Maydenbauer Bay Yacht Club: Planning Department Permit Technician Michelle Grewell reviewed this proposal to construct a storage building on Lots 3 and 4 of Ludlow Point Tracts. This proposal is categorically exempt from SEP A review. The staff recommends approval of the shoreline permit with two conditions: 1) no plumbing facilities are allowed within the structure and 2) the pump house will be for storage use only. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve SDP#91-0019 with the conditions as recom- mended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Revision of Condition #18 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP88-0016; Exterior Buildin2 Materials to be Used; Inner Harbor, Port Ludlow; Pope Resources: This matter was not discussed by the Board on the advise of the Prosecuting Attorney because it is directly related to matters that are currently in litigation. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application#SDP91-0016; Construct a 35 by 3 foot Pier, a Ramp and a Float for Recreational Use; Southerly Shoreline of Discovery Bay, at the Intersection of Fairmount and Fairmount Hill Roads; Ed and Susan Edwards: Jim Pearson reported that a DNS was issued on September 16, 1991 for the Edwards' project to construct a pier, ramp and float on the southerly shore of Discovery Bay (at Fairmount). This dock is for recreational use. This project is a secondary use in the conservancy and VOL 18 r~~ ,00 29Z ,I " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 3 aquatic shoreline designations. The Shoreline Commission has reviewed the applica- tion and found that the project as conditioned is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Shoreline Management Program and recommends that the Board approve the shoreline permit. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve Shoreline Permit #SDP91-0016 with the conditions as submitted and recommended by the Shoreline Commission. Commis- sioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Preliminary Plat Approval; Convert a Previously Approved Six Unit Sinsde-Family Residential Condominium Into a Six Lot Sinsde Family Residen- tial Subdivision AND Variance Request; Allow the Lots within the Plat to be Serviced by a Private Road; The La200n at Kala Point #LP03-91; La200n Associates: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this project was originally approved for a six unit condominium on Kala Lagoon. The project proponent is requesting that the condominium project be converted to a single family residential lot subdivision. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the request in light of the Subdivision regulations and recommends preliminary plat approval subject to 20 conditions. One of the issues was the Subdivision Ordinance requirement that the road right-of-way be 50 feet in width. The project proponent has requested a variance from this to allow a 24 foot wide right-of-way. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the variance be granted with an easement of eight feet on each side of the right-of-way. Commissioner W ojt stated that the project proponent has submitted a letter that says that they cannot meet the condition of acquiring the eight foot easement on each side of the right-of-way. He asked how this will effect the variance request? Jerry Smith reviewed the Hearing Examiner findings, conclusions and recommendation in which he also recommends that the variance to allow a private road to serve this subdivision be approved. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the access road is paved for a width of 20 feet with two feet on each side for right-of-way. He stated that he doesn't know if granting the variance is wise even if the addition- al utility easement is provided. The issue is the need for sufficient right-of-way in the future. Since this is recommended to be a private road it is necessary to have an adequate amount of right-of-way or an easement. He reminded the Board that if they are going to vary from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, they will need to take more testimony, in order to develop their own findings. Commissioner Brown reiterated that the letter received from the Kala Point De- velopment Company indicates that they cannot meet the condition òf providing the easement on each side of the right-of-way. Jerry Smith pointed out that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation indicates that the Public Works Department may allow the utility easement on the south side of the right-of-way to be reduced in width or eliminated if it is determined that the applicant has made a good faith effort to obtain the required easement. The discussion turned to the easement being required on the north side of the right-of-way. Renate Wheeler, project proponent, reported that they are willing to give the eight foot easement on the north side of the road from the beginning of the road down to Lot 6. Mark Huth reported that Lot 6 is the second lot in on the subdivision, so they cannot provide the right-of-way on the north side all along the road. Renate Wheeler added that they are not changing anything in this project from when it was accepted as a condominium. They have made a good faith effort to obtain the easement on the south side of the property. The property on the south YOl 18r~ 00 293 , ' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 4 side of the road is not recreational property and is not part of the Homeowners Association. It is property owned by the Development Company and used as a reserve area. She questioned why the road isn't adequate to serve the six homes, if it was adequate to serve the six condominiums? There will never be more than six homes. She continued by noting that as a condominium the properties cannot be sold and escrow closed until the buildings are actually built. They have buyers who want to buy the property now, but not build their residences for several years and the condominium restrictions do not allow that. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that condominiums are exempted from the subdivision regulations, because it is assumed that since there is an Association membership, the members will protect themselves for issues like access, etc. The subdivision standards were not applied to the condominium project and the project was allowed to build a less than standard access road. Now that the project proponent is applying for a subdivision of single family residences the subdivision regulations apply. The discussion continued regarding the easements, the covenants on the property, the building setbacks from the road, and the building setback from the shoreline for these lots. Renate Wheeler reported that she can see if the Kala Point Development Company would be willing to grant an easement in a different configuration from that suggested by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Brown stated that the applicant needs to provide documentation that they can obtain the necessary easement to a specific point on the north side of the road before a finding can be developed by the Board to change the condition of approval. The building setbacks recommended by the Hearing Examiner (Page 18, Condition 6) were then reviewed by Jerry Smith. The front yard setback is 20 feet, except if the Planning Department determines on a lot by lot basis that it can be reduced to as little as five (5) feet for garages. Renate Wheeler reported that they have submitted a plat map with the footprint of a house (the same as the existing house built on lot 3) depicted on each lot. She added that the houses on each lot are setback 20 feet from the right-of-way, but the garages are not. The garages could be moved back on some of the lots, but there would not be access to them because of the steep terrain. Commissioner Brown stated that the five foot garage setback is a concern for adequate emergency vehicle access, and traffic circulation. Renate Wheeler stated that the Fire Chief (from Fire District #6) was out on the property last week and will be submitting a letter to the County confirming that the Fire District doesn't feel there is a problem with the five foot setback for the garages. Commissioner Brown clarified that the project proponent needs to provide a letter from the Fire District and the Public Works Department regarding the garage setbacks. They also need to provide documentation on the amount and con- figuration of the easement along the road. Mark Huth again reminded the Board that if they vary from the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, they will have to hold a public hearing on the changes. Commissioner Brown noted that the Hearing Examiner allowed for a re-configura- tion of the utility easement on the south side of the road. After reviewing the Hearing Examiner recommendation on setbacks where he says that (page 18) "The Planning Department may, on a lot by lot basis, allow the front yard setback to be reduced to as little as five (5) feet for garages, . . . ", it was determined that this matter could be resolved by the Board without another public hearing. Commis- sioner Brown again noted that the easement on the north side of the road would not , ~!,0,~ 18 ,CH~ 00 294 " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 5 be a problem if the project proponent can provide it for the full distance of the road. Mark Huth again noted that the Planning Department can, on a case by case basis, allow the building setback to be reduced to five feet if the building footprints are in the same general location, same size, and general shape as the building footprints approved for the condominium. He added that he doesn't know how it would be indicated on the plat map unless a building envelop for each lot was identified. Renate Wheeler stated that they can provide that information on the plat map. Jerry Smith added that a Planning Department determination regarding a setback can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Renate Wheeler asked if the setback is being made five feet from the road? Commissioner Brown explained that it will be considered on a lot by lot basis by the Planning Department. Renate Wheeler stated that she would like the setback made five feet for all of the parcels. Commissioner Brown said this change in the recommendation will require a public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding how this variance must be requested and how that will impact the sale of the properties. Commissioner Brown noted that it is the applicant's choice, if they want to go through a public hearing necessary to allow the Board to make a finding to change the recommended condition of approval for the building setbacks from the road on these lots. Renate Wheeler indicated that she would like the Board to hold a hearing on this. Later in the Day: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the hearing notice for a hearing to review proposed changes in the conditions of approval submitted by the Hearing Examiner on the Lagoon at Kala Point #LP03-91 setting the hearing for March 9, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of List of Growth Manae:ement Act Issues on Resource Lands and Critical Areas: Planning & Building Director Craig Ward presented and reviewed a memo regarding the Planning Department's need for direction on key policy issues to enable the staff to draft the interim ordinances required by the Growth Management Act. These interim ordinances are to provide protection for resource lands and critical areas until the County's Comprehensive Plan is updated. The Board reviewed each item in the letter and gave the following guidance to the staff: RESOURCE LANDS: Forest and Agricultural Lands: 1. Should designations be based on the Optimum Land Use Map or soil types and parcel sizes as recommended by staff? Craig Ward reported that the work groups recommended using the op- timum land use map for the basis to designate resource lands. He noted that he feels there are problems with using this map because it is not parcel specific and the County could lose planning options. Commissioner Brown asked if the soils maps and the Optimum Land Use map would mesh for these areas? Craig Ward reported that the Optimum Land Use Map did not use soil types or the criteria that are available now for resource land designations. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels using the soil types, parcel size, etc. would be better than using the Optimum Land Use maps. VOL 18r~ 00 295 , , , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 6 Roger Short asked what soil types would be used to classify forest and agricultural resource lands? Craig Ward reported that on the east side of the county private forest land grades 1 through 4 would be used and on the west side private forest land grades 1 through 7 would be used. The grade for agricultural lands would be "prime" agriculture soils as defined in the soil survey done by the Soil Conservation Service (with footnotes). 2. Should the State Department of Revenue's classified/designated forest lands be used as designation criteria? Craig Ward reported that there are properties in the County that are in these tax programs now. He reported that just because a parcel is in this tax designation, doesn't mean that the property owner would want it designated as forest resource land forever. Commissioner Brown noted that whether a property has long term commercial significance has not been considered for the parcels that are currently in this property tax classification program. Craig Ward stated the guidelines for the Growth Management Act clearly state that the property tax classification programs be considered in designating forest resource lands. He feels that this can be considered but that just using this designation would be sending the wrong message. 3. Should the forest lands on west side of County be designated differently than those east of the Forest Service boundary? Commissioner Brown stated that he doesn't feel that the properties in the west end should be treated differently. He reiterated that these ordinances are met to protect properties during the time it takes to update the County's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Wojt agreed. Craig Ward clarified that using the same standards on both sides of the County would mean that the private forest land grades 1 through 4 and the prime agricul- tural soil grade would be used in both areas. Commissioner Brown and Commis- sioner Wojt agreed that the same designation criteria (soil types, lot sizes, etc) that are used in the east end, be used in the west end also. 4. Should the Planning Commission's FRL-2 (blocks of 160 acres and over) be included in the ordinance draft? Craig Ward reported that the Planning Com- mission felt that large blocks should be treated differently than smaller parcels? The work group recommended that these larger parcels be treated the same. After discussion of the issue Commissioner Brown agreed that the FRL-2 desig- nation be used. Commissioner Wojt concurred. 5. Should we adopt the standards related to proximity to populated areas and the possibility of more intense uses of the land as proposed by the work groups and the Planning Commission? If not, should the Planning Department staff prepare another classification scheme? This relates, Craig Ward reported, to the use of the Optimal Land Use Map. If this map is not used the Planning Department will have to develop another classification scheme. Commissioner Brown stated that he isn't sure that it makes sense to exclude areas from resource lands which are within 1/4 mile of a UGA or in areas where there is a community plan. Craig Ward amended his request that the areas within a community plan be excluded except for those areas within a Community Plan identified as resource lands. Craig Ward questioned if the Board is saying that the Optimum Land Use maps not be used in the designation of resources lands? Commissioner Brown asked what would be used if the Optimum Land Use map is not used? Craig Ward YOl 18rAÇ}" 00 296 .: " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 7 then explained how performance standards and specific criteria would be used to identify resource lands. He reported that this would be a faster process than trying to interpret the resource area boundaries on the Optimal Land Use Map. The Board concurred that the Planning Department develop performance stan- dards and criteria for classifying forest and agriculture resource lands. Craig Ward clarified that the Community Plans will not exclude properties from the resource designation. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see the items that make sense included in the ordinance and then if they don't make sense they will be pointed out in the public hearing process. Craig Ward asked about excluding area within a quarter of a mile of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) from the resource land designation? The Board concurred that the staff sugges- tion to prepare another classification scheme be taken. 6. Should Transferable Development Rights be treated in the Interim Ordinance? - Craig Ward stated that he feels this type of program is worthwhile, but there is not the time to develop one for the interim ordinances. The Board concurred that this not be dealt with in the interim ordinances. 7. Should we include "clustering" as part of the Interim Ordinances? Staff recommends that the proposal for mandatory clustering be included in the interim ordinances. Commissioner Brown asked the advantage of mandatory clustering instead of voluntary clustering? Craig Ward reported that voluntary clustering would work if the densities are changed and a density bonus is provided. The purpose of the interim ordinances is to protect resource lands. The recommenda- tion of the work group is a density of one unit per five acres with mandatory clustering on parcels over 30 acres in size. The Board concurred that the work group recommendation on clustering be used in the interim ordinances. 8. Buffering - are the setbacks okay? Buffering would be on the property adjacent to the resource lands. The following footage was suggested: 100 feet for wells (without State certification), 75 feet for buildings, and 50 feet for vegetated buffers. Clustering in resource lands would also be required to provide the same buffers. Commissioner Brown suggested that what constitutes a vegetative buffer must be defined. Craig Ward suggested that the work group proposal be amended to remove the requirement for State certification of wells. The State does not certify individual wells. The Board concurred that this item be put in the ordinance as proposed. 9. Opt-in Provision for smaller/rural/suburban/lower soil grade parcels? The Board concurred that language be added to the ordinance to allow property owners to opt-in to the resource land designation for these property, with the flexibility to allow buffers to be waived. Mineral Resource Lands: 1. Should we provide a density bonus? The work groups proposal is that the density for mineral resource lands be double the density allowed in other resource lands, Craig Ward reported. He suggested that this be made consis- tent with the other resource lands density bonus for clustering. The density of mineral lands that have been reclaimed will revert to the density before the classification. Commissioner Brown said that he doesn't have strong feelings of what the density bonus should be, but he feels that something should be included. Commissioner Wojt said that he didn't feel the density bonus made sense on VOl 18U{l 00 297 .: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 8 mineral lands. Craig Ward suggested a consistent approach be applied to all of these lands. The Board did not come to consensus on how this issue should be addressed in the interim ordinances. 2. Should the density of properties surrounding resource land be reduced? Craig Ward suggested that this be made consistent with the other resource land designations and lower density not be allowed as suggested. Commissioner Brown stated that he agrees that having lower density on property surrounding designated mineral lands doesn't make sense. Commissioner Wojt agreed. CRITICAL AREAS: Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 1. Designate ''AR1'' only those areas with very severe susceptibility, with ESA status and low density development requirements" 2. Designate ''AR2'' those areas of moderate (within 500 feet of community wells) susceptibility potential and use standardized policies to mitigate development effects? Craig Ward suggested that a very narrow definition of an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) be adopted. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt agreed with this proposal and that it be included in the interim ordinances. Wetlands 1. Use U.S. Fish and Wildlife definition for wetlands and the 1989 Federal Manual. 2. Default fixed width buffer can be overridden by site specific analysis. Craig Ward reported that potential wetlands would be inventoried using the 1989 Federal Manual. The Board concurred that these recommendations be used in the development of the interim ordinances. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 1. Buffer minimums using Priority Habitat and Species Management Guidelines? 2. Saltwater shoreline protection policy - 200 feet designated as "critical area" with Best Management Practices (BMP's) for habitat conservation. Craig Ward stated that he is recommending that a critical area policy for protecting saltwater shoreline be developed and included in the interim ordinan- ces. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Wojt concurred. Craig Ward reported that fish and wildlife corridors have not been designated, but this can be attempted once the resource lands are classified. Geologicallv Hazardous Areas 1. Designate only severe site (GHA-1) as ESA's with standard BMP~s for less severe critical areas? Craig Ward suggested that a narrow definition of the most severe geologically hazardous areas be identified as ESA's. The Board con- curred that this approach be used in the interim ordinances. FreQuentlv Flooded Areas 1. Existing protection policies or more stringent to restrict subdivision of floodplains? The staff and Planning Commission recommendation is to go with the existing Flood Plain Management Ordinance, Craig Ward reported. 2. "Future Flow Floodplain" is undefined. Policy to develop a model of the FFF and modify the Floodplain Protection Ordinance to incorporate the FFF when defined? YOl 18 rÞ,~ 00 29B " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 9 Craig Ward asked if staff should prepare policies to try to restrict development in floodplains? He stated that he doesn't see that anything can be done for the interim ordinances on the Future Flow Floodplain. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels that the staff recommendation on item one be used for the interim ordinance. Commissioner Wojt agreed. Julie Jaman stated that shellfish has not be designated as a resource in this County. Craig Ward reported that commercial and recreational shellfish areas will be designated as critical areas. Contin2ency Funds for Emer2ency Water Quality Samplin2: Craig Ward reported that the Board had asked that some wells in the Quilcene area be tested for water quality after the last flooding. He reported that there are no funds for this sampling and testing this year, but he is proposing that a contingency fund be established for this work in the future. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the business on the Agenda for Monday. The meeting reconvened on Tuesday February 25, 1992 in Quilcene for a flood workshop. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard Wojt were present. The meeting was reconvened on Wednesday February 26, 1992 with all Board members present for the following business. Alternatives; Determination of Si2nificance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS; Mixed Use Residential~ Commercial and Recreational Deve- lopment (SDP91-0017); Inn at Port Ludlow; Pope Resources (See also Minutes of February 18~ 1992): Associate Planner Jim Pearson presented a memo review- ing the alternatives that Pope Resources has submitted. He then reviewed the site specific alternative proposed which includes: · Reduction of the overall residential density on the site to 56 units from 72 units proposed by the original project. A park area and additional parking for the marina are included in place of these units. · Relocation of the existing access road from the Oak Bay Road to north of the existing marina overflow parking lot. · Consolidation of marina parking and increase total spaces from 116 to 135. · Elimination of multifamily units north of pond which are replaced with town houses. This decreases the density in this area from 21 units to 14. · Reconfigure the parking north of the restaurant and increase spaces from 122 to 152. · There is no reconfiguration of the area where the Inn is located. The pond area will be increased to about 79,000 square feet (which is down from the original project proposal of 99,000 square feet). Tony Puma, Pope Resources Project Manager, reported that the real essence in the alternative is a change in character. Everyone of the dwelling units on the alterna- tive plan is a single family structure (detached or attached). This alternative has a less urban character than the project proposal. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, stated that he submitted a letter dated February 21, 1992 outlining the objectives for both the site specific and programmatic alternatives. Herman Schweizer pointed out that on the second page (third paragraph) of the February 26, 1992 staff memo it is stated that the Port Ludlow Community Council (PLCC) proposed an alternative which would include a smaller Inn. Mr. Schweizer VOL 18 t~~£ 00 299 'i"" Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 10 noted that the PLCC has not suggested this. From the very beginning they have not had any objection to the Inn. He then added that the PLCC has discussed the site specific alternative with Pope Resources and they pretty much agree with what has been proposed. He added that there is one item that they feel should be provided for in this alterantive and that is a boat launching ramp on this site or somewhere else. This ramp would not only be for the boaters, but also for emergency situations (fires, rescue operations, etc.). David Cunningham reported that he feels they can accommodate that request. The boat launch currently serves people who are taking small boats to get to their larger boats in the Bay and that kind of facility is provided in the marine loading zone of this alternative. The emergency launching of boats can be addressed in the emergency services (medical and fire) portion of the EIS. Chairman Dennison reported that the Planning Department has recommended that this site specific alternative be included in the scope of the EIS, because it avoids development on slopes on the westerly portion of the site and achieves lower residential density while still achieving Pope Resources stated design objectives. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the staff recommendation to accept this site specific alternative. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The programmatic alternative was then reviewed by Jim Pearson. The PLCC proposed an alternative which would cluster residential development on approximate- ly half of the overall development plan area and reserve the remainder as open space. They also proposed that only 2/3 of the proposed residences be developed and felt there should be a designation of commercial acreage and a town center at the Oak Bay and Paradise Bay Road intersection. Pope Resources has proposed a programmatic alternative which concentrates residential development on 874 acres of the original 1,200 acre development site. They are proposing the same number of residential units. The areas not to be developed are primarily in the south and southwest portions of the site. These areas were chosen because they contained site limitations (wetlands, steep slopes, unstable soils) and/or they would require construction of additional infrastructure. The proposal is not meant to indicate that these areas will be placed permanently in open space. Infrastructure limitations not only include the capacity of the sewage treatment plant and water system, but also the capacity of the golf course and the community center which are selling points for the development. Commissioner W ojt asked if the Ludlow Creek area would be left as a natural corridor? David Cunningham answered that is correct. He then reviewed the four objectives for the programmatic alternative. It is key to Pope Resources that the infrastructure component be optimize. The sewage treatment plant capacity can accommodate the additional 700 units. Another of Pope Resources objectives is to meet the market demand (predominantly active adults, age 50+, semi retired and retired with a moderate income level). It has always been their objective to respond to the County and State goals and policies on land use and growth. David Cunningham continued by noting that the comments made by the PLCC are appropriate and he feels that this alternative addresses those comments with only one exception. The PLCC has stated that they feel the alternative should try to cluster units in usable areas and leave more open space. There is between 15% to 65% more open space in each of the development sites than is indicated on the overall development plan site map. These are areas that can not be built on and will be folded into the project as additional open space. '¡OL 18 U~~ 00 300 -;-, :i. ~ , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 24, 1992 Page: 11 In regard to developing only two thirds of the units proposed, David Cunningham advised that Pope Resources feels it makes good sense to fully utilize the capacity of the sewage treatment plant. To only use 2/3 of the capacity of that facility isn't sensible. The other matter raised by PLCC regarding the designated commercial acreage and town center is a good point and has been accommodated. Parcel 43 on the overall development plan alternative (and on the preferred alternative plan) is designated for 45,000 square feet of additional retail and office space and it is at the location suggested by the PLCC. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Ruth noted that the summary submitted by Pope Resources of the Overall Plan has blanks across from Site 43. David Cunningham reported that it should say zero for the number of units and commercial for land use. The discussion continued regarding Pope Resources development plans for specific areas noted on the overall development plan. Commissioner Wojt move to approve the programmatic alternative submitted by Pope Resources to be included in the EIS. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Dennison then asked what is left to do in scoping this EIS? Mark Ruth reported that this was the last item that needed to be resolved. Chairman Dennison asked that a document be drafted which outlines all of the items that have been discussed in all of the meetings on this project. David Cunningham reported that the DS issued by the Board on January 14 is referenced in the Agreement between Pope Resources and the County. Re suggested that if a final document is prepared that it be referenced in that Agreement. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL' /-:; . ".. , ' 'j~lY co"'... /'/~,,:" "',' '. ¡ r .~¿'.~ .,.- . J ~¡t'. ,'.,. , (:I ~'f .~:.~. . , , .$ i\ t~ 'I', '":\ \~ -\ ,~ ¡..: . / 't. '* . , .. .'".. ,i '.::. ¡/~ '\-.- ..;;...J ", ,/ ATTEST·~t.. ,~. 'j :"</ ',>,<~~ ,. $ 0" ~ .~~./ "'<;"~'~:~~j-,"'>-;~""""""",;;,~/ rJcY/JY\(J.¿ ~ Lorna L. Delaney, " Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~Ch" ,~ . enmson, aIrman ~ot 18 f~ÇÆ 00 301