The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on August 17, 1998 beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa. Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman, Tom Shaughnessy, Member, and Mike Shelton, Member, were present. Also in attendance: E. Meyer, Acting Clerk of the Board.

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board:

Advanced expenditure approved in the amount of $60,000 for the Island County Fair.

Treasurer: Current & YTD Cash Report; County Investment Report & Status

Maxine Sauter, Island County Treasurer, provided the current Expense Report for the period ending July 31, 1998. He report indicated revenues pretty much on target or a little higher, at 65.2%, and expenditures at 68.6%. The percentage at July [7^th month] is 59.3%. Expenditures are running ahead of budget estimates, and compared to the previous July, by $1,432,085, with revenues ahead of prior year by $576,040. The Treasurer’s Office has almost $56,400,000 invested of which $18,910,000 represents current expense residual.

Auditor Monthly Review of Revenues and Expenditures

Suzanne Sinclair, Island County Auditor, discussed with the Board previously why there was no revenue and expenditure report from the Auditor’s Office, due to focusing on the annual report. Progress is being made and she is hopeful that the report will be done soon. In two weeks a second staff accountant which will help in addressing the matter. Mr. Newman, the manager for this district from the State Auditor’s Office, has spoken with Elaine Marlow of the Auditor’s Office, and is aware of the progress being made.

By unanimous motion, the Board re-appointed Betty Fordham, Coupeville, to serve another three year term as a member of the Northwest Senior Services Board to June 30, 2001.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved two health services contracts, as previously reviewed and discussed at staff session with the Health Services Director:

Liz McKay, Juvenile Court Services Director, presented for approval and signature last week, the Consolidated Juvenile Services. She explained at that time that through this contract the County would receive funding: $70,361 for intensive supervision; Option B included as carry over; SODA [sex offender money] funds provided at $22.93 per day for every child who is an adjudicated sex offender; and added to the contract, impact funds from House Bill 3900 in the amount of $77,732. Based on that, the Contract was approved by the Board with those figures included in the motion. Since that time, Ms. McKay became aware that the House Bill 3900 Impact Funds actually for Island County would be $33,045 and not the $77,732 figure earlier stated [that figure actually for Whatcom County].

The Board, by unanimous motion, corrected the record and contract, approving the Interlocal Agreement with DSHS reflecting the correct amount to show that funds received from HB 3900 Impact Funds will be $33,045 rather than $77,732 as previously stated.

Janet Kearsley, Watershed Project Coordinator, presented for signature, Grant #G9900038 from the State Department of Ecology for the Island County Water Resources and Creek Inventory Management Plan. The grant provides $47,706 to be used for the Coordinated Water Resource Advisory Committee, combining the Stormwater, Groundwater and North Whidbey Watershed committees into the one committee. The new committee will review completed plans to confirm what has been implemented successfully and what remains to be implemented and develop a plan. Part of the work will also be looking at a way to inventory streams for salmon. Grant period ends December 31, 2000.

By unanimous motion the Board approved Grant #G9900038 in the amount of $47,706.

Betty Kemp, Director, GSA, appeared before the Board with a contract for approval/signature between Island County and the Camano Animal Shelter Association, Camano Island. The agreement is proposed to begin 1 September 1998, to operate an animal shelter to provide care and housing for animals that have been impounded by the Contractor, and shelter dogs impounded on Camano Island. Some of the key requirements of the contract include: contractor assumes responsibility/care for dogs delivered to the shelter by Camano Island Animal Control Contractor who will assume responsibility for disposition of dogs 5 days after delivery to the shelter; the shelter not to exceed design capacity of 22 dogs; water usage shall not exceed 450 gallons per day or the water usage dictated by septic design as established in writing by the Island County Maintenance Department. The County will distribute back 100% of the fees collected with a guarantee of $2,000 per month; if fees exceed $24,000/yr. 100% of the fees collected between $24,000 and $28,000 will be distributed to the contractor. Any Fees collected exceeding $28,000 will be divided 70% contractor 30% County, with the County to use the 30% solely for maintenance and/or upgrade of the facility. Contract provides for a termination by written notice 60 days in advance.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed Camano Animal Shelter Association agreement effective September 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999.

Having received favorable reports from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Department, the Board by unanimous motion approved Liquor License Assumption, License #351445-4I, The Cozy Roadhouse, Clinton, assumption from LISNACLOON, Inc., dba Cozy’s Restaurant to LAKA Enterprises, Inc., dba The Cozy Roadhouse.

As recommended by the Public Works Director, Larry Kwarsick, the Board approved the Contract and a Performance Bond with Krieg Construction, the successful bidder awarded the contract for Island County’s 1998 Miscellaneous ACP Overlays on Whidbey Island, under CRP #98-08, Contract in the amount of $479,315.00.

Stacy Tucker, Island County Planning Department, requested the Board’s signature on a Coastal Zone Management Grant from the State Department of Ecology in the total amount of $59,600 [$29,800 county share] for shoreline master program revisions and phase 1 of SAM/GMA integration, to be completed on or before December 31, 1998.

The Board, by unanimous motion, approved and signed Grant #G9800080 as presented.

On July 27, 1998, a public hearing was scheduled for today at 10:45 a.m. to consider proposed Ordinance #C-100-98 [PLG-030-98] in the matter of an Ordinance Concerning Amended Interim Application Procedures Affecting Chapter 17.02 Island County Code. As explained by Keith Dearborn, the changes proposed were based on Superior Court hearing Friday, July 24, 1998, when Judge Hancock ruled based on the Skagit Surveyor’s case and modified his Order deleting the conditional effective date for the comprehensive plan and development regulations. The proposed ordinance modifies the ordinance the Board adopted to match what Judge Hancock’s ruling.

At this time, Mr. Dearborn explained the Ordinance presented today had been reviewed by Elaine Spencer, Bogle Gates, who made a couple of minor changes [page 2] to conform to the Judge’s latest ruling. The first "Now Therefore" on page 2 has been deleted and replaced with the underlined section. This makes it clear that the County is not adopting a new interim ordinance, but continuing the effect of the interim ordinances already adopted and that those would cease to be effective when the County’s GMA Comp Plan and Zoning Code are adopted.

Legal consultants went to the Court as well as the Western Growth Management Hearings Board at the same time asking they make the modifications. The Judge heard the matter first and ruled that it was so clear cut he saw no reason to wait for the Growth Board, rendered his decision. The Growth Board provided an opportunity for the parties to provide comment by Friday of last week. Mr. Dearborn had not to date seen any comments, and expected the Growth Board to rule some time this week. Recommendation of counsel is that the Board hold its action for a week to give the Growth Board the opportunity to rule. If for some reason the Growth Board rules contrary, that will have to be resolved.

By unanimous motion, the Board continued the hearing until Monday, August 24, 1998 at 2:45 p.m.

A Public Hearing was held at 11:00 a.m., having been continued from August 10, 1998. The two subjects, Concurrency and Adequacy, now were contained in separate documents rather than one ordinance, as directed by the Board. On August 10, 1998, public testimony was taken and completed and public input closed with the purpose of today’s hearing for the Board to continue it’s deliberation and take action. Attendance List on file. The Concurrency and Adequacy documents were amended per direction of the Board 8/10/98.

Commissioner Shelton referred to Page 8 item F.1, -- test for concurrency is passed when the demand for category A and B public facilities which includes existing demand plus previously approved developments. The Board on August 10^th talked about the fact that there are previously approved developments that are not built upon; his thought was that because the concurrency pass/fail test is updated or the ability to rule on those on an annual basis why

would the county not want to pick up approved development as it is built out and not as it is approved.

Mr. Kwarsick attempted to modify the ordinance to differentiate between a concurrency management system that would include for programming and planning purposes everything that has been approved, and have a separate concurrency provision for regulatory purposes which effective at the time an application is submitted. He changed that elsewhere in the ordinance and agreed perhaps he overlooked the fact that it needed to be amended in the section referenced. Section 030 on page 3 talks about the test for concurrency being performed on development activities unless exempt, and goes on to say exempted activities and development activities that have been issued certificates of concurrency are considered part of the background capacity for planning and programming efforts and for Category A facilities the county is assuming the concurrency responsibilities for exempt development activity. On page 4, tracking exempt development activity and reserve capacity states that until such time as a building permit is applied for, for an exempt development activity or for a development activity, has been issued a certificate of concurrency for these activities are considered part of the background capacity for county long range planning and programming efforts; upon application for a building permit the responsible agency must take into account the exempted developments and the development that has been issued a certificate of concurrency.

The Chairman suggested correction on Page 8 #F.1 by crossing out the words: "plus previously approved development and exempt development activities". The term "existing demand" includes those once permits are applied for. Same type of thing on page 9, .060, cross out item #2.

Mr. Kwarsick thought it important that the County take the position of assuming responsibility for exempt development activities. With the idea being that the test for level of service at the regulatory level is based on existing demand on the system he believed the Chairman’s suggestion would satisfy that. For failing the test of concurrency under .060 B., it would include the incremental demand of development activities for which a certificate of concurrency has been issued and exempt development activity at the time of building permits are submitted. Intent is that at the time building permits are submitted covers both those projects that have been issued a certificate of concurrency and exempt development activities.

To be clearer, Mr. Dearborn suggested re-writing #2, and Mr. Kwarsick agreed: " and 2 the incremental demand of building permit applications for both development activities that have been issued a certificate of concurrency and exempt development activities".

Chairman McDowell recommended a change in the definition section, 11.04.020.A, for Adequate Public Facilities, instead of " decreasing" use "existing" .

Mr. Kwarsick would not understand how that worked – adequate public facilities is a statutory requirement, if not a WAC definition, or both. As an example, Mr. Kwarsick used Maxwelton Road: that road might be A today, but the standard is C. Using "existing" he feared someone could confuse the operating level of service standard as it exists today versus the standard which exists for the next 20 years.

The next change recommended by the Chair was on Page 2, D., Category "A" - suggesting making this consistent with another change to mean "facilities owned or operated by Island County within county right of way and subject to the requirement for concurrency as follows" and then #3 address "intersections within county right-of-way".

On Page 4, Exempt Development Activity b), the Chair suggested deleting the words "or increase in the number of dwelling units". Mr. Kwarsick thought that probably could be deleted and is satisfied by a). c, d and e are still important to be maintained because permitted uses does not apply universally to all zones.

Action: delete b).

Chairman McDowell noted on Page 5 – .050.A. the last sentence that tied in with the same concept on page 8 item e. While a fee for a concurrency test would seem to be an appropriate cost borne by the builder, he questioned monitoring noted in 8.e borne by the builder in that it would seem to benefit everyone not just the project applicant. His recommendation was to delete "and monitoring concurrency systems" from 8.e.

Mr. Kwarsick explained that the language on page 8 in e talked about the responsible agencies, i.e. Oak Harbor could charge applicable fees to make sure that concurrency was achieved for their systems and in so doing their fee could include the cost of monitoring the concurrency test as a component of the fee.

The Chair on Page 6 recommended in #C.2 adding "with supporting funding documentation". Important to make clear that whatever plan is submitted have funding.

In this case, Mr. Kwarsick clarified this addressed category B facilities which are limited to roads, statutorily the cities and towns are required to develop their transportation plan and six year transportation improvement programs which have funding. [RCW 36.70.520/530].

Action: no change.

Commissioner Shelton asked for clarification on D.2. Mr. Kwarsick commented that just like the first paragraph of the SEPA section, this is a basic warning to people about the fact that passing a test does not necessarily mean that somewhere on down the line that during the application review process that fees will not be sought. Mr. Kwarsick confirmed intention was literally not at any time.

D.5 - Type II - appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Dearborn explained that if someone receives a failing test for concurrency that determination can be appealed. If a positive result is received that could also be appealed before the application is filed – and through that appeal someone could effectively prevent an application from vesting.

Mr. Kwarsick’s understanding was that intention on page 9 [11.04.060 Test for Concurrency – Fail] was the only the applicant has the right of appeal.

Page 8. F.3a – The Chair recommended placing a period after the word " concurrency" ; delete the words "and shall document and maintain a record of the results" and replace with "Public Works shall document and maintain a record of the results". The last sentence also change the Planning and Community Development Department to Public Works. The same also in b, c d & e – change Planning and Community Development to Public Works.

Page 9. 11.04.060

Page 8. F1.

BOARD ACTION: By unanimous motion, the Board approved Ordinance #C-90-98, PLG-023-98 in the matter of adopting a new ordinance, Chapter 11.04 ICC, governing concurrency procedures and requirements in Island County, as amended, effective 10/1/98, and that the Board continue the public hearing to September 28, 1998 at 2:45 p.m. to confirm changes and take final adoption action.

At the Board’s direction, Mr. Kwarsick prepared ICC 11.05, Adequacy Ordinance and in doing so, attempted to make sure it was clear when looking at public facilities reviewed under the adequacy provisions the County’s review was narrowed to those facilities identified in the State subdivision act, and an adequacy test would be performed in association with the processing of a subdivision under RCW 598.17 and also those public facilities necessary to support development activity in the form of building permits [as applicable, to be water, sewer and drainage facilities]. Based upon discussions last week, he modified the standard LOS for schools to only now include a site standard, and he also forwarded a collateral change for the Capital Facilities Plan to delete reference to any classroom size standard. He said that he had also attempted to recognize in the procedures for adequacy test that the submittal of standard service agreements or approval of service availability those documents currently used during development review would fulfill requirements of the ordinance.

The Chairman’s basic question related to Page 1, under Purpose, 11.05.010, the first paragraph, last line "or the issuance of building permits" – does that mean every house must have a check for adequacy for transit, school facilities, parks, etc.?

Mr. Kwarsick explained that adequacy only came into play as outlined in 11.05.030; "A" comes into play for short subdivision and subdivisions with the listed 7 facilities. This is not retroactively applied. Item "B" is for building permits as applicable and the three specific public facilities s are listed: potable water supplies; sanitary wastes; and drainage ways [storm/surface water]. The adequacy test for building a house does not involve community parks, schools, etc. This is "as applicable" [see Page 3 .030.B.].

Commissioner Shelton was aware in his district of a multitude of places right now that have significant issues with storm water. He did not want the County to be placed in a position of denying building permits because the County had been unwilling to address storm water issues. The Chairman’s comment was that one area’s problem ought not to be placed on the backs of the entire County.

Mr. Kwarsick pointed out that conditions of building permits are specified in the drainage ordinance, not here, and he described how a building permit would be reviewed for adequacy. In one version before the Planning Commission the position had been taken that single family residential development – small parcel development – the only burden imposed was the application of erosion and sedimentation control best management practices. If someone comes in for a building permit, they are deemed adequate from the standpoint that they would comply with best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control to make sure there was no impact. Best management practices would be mandatory. The next level would be in an area that had a problem, and reviewed would be sedimentation and erosion control as well as flows and there are suggestions built in the ordinance in terms of what people can do to help mitigate drainage problems. It was Mr. Kwarsick’s opinion that under adequacy for building, potable

water is a matter of code now, as well as sanitary waste. If the Board intends to apply a surface water drainage requirement to any kind of building permits, that should be disclosed here.

Mr. Dearborn reminded that Mr. Kwarsick had provided the Board with a memo for each RAID identifying the stormwater improvements that relate to the proposed RAID and densities in those proposed RAIDs, and at some point in the final review process, the Board will have to go through each one of those and decide whether to condition the new development in the RAID much as it is proposed to be conditioned for Holmes Harbor [see Appendix in the proposed zoning code with special conditions for Holmes Harbor].

Page 5. C.2

Page 5. D.2

The Chairman suggested starting the sentence with "Public Works" and delete the language prior to that "Provide the results of this analysis to the". The sentence to read: Public Works shall verify that appropriate provisions sons have been made for the proposed development activity and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Element update".

Mr. Kwarsick described page 5 and standards for schools. Currently under 58.17, both in the case of short subdivisions and subdivisions, before the approving authority can grant preliminary approval there has to be a finding that there are adequate provisions for schools. Under this ordinance, it is clear that upon receipt of that application, the Planning and Community and Development Department is responsible for the procedures for plats and short plats, would notify the school districts in writing that an application had been submitted and request from them comments regarding adequacy. Failing any response from them, the application would be deemed adequate. Until the districts have a long range comprehensive plan, the school check for adequacy does not occur.

Page 6 - C.2.b), the Chairman suggested the inclusion of the words: "with funding strategy identified and implemented".

Here, corrections are to be consistent with the Comp Plan approved. Mr. Kwarsick commented on the purpose of 2, a, b & c. This is considered adequate unless the regulatory agency notifies the County of these items -- it is a "fail safe" situation where a project cannot be approved which does not have adequacy.

Page 6.F.1. The Chairman question about crossing out "plus previously approved development activities", or the language read: "plus previously approved development activities committed by the public facility…" "or committed service connections" [committed in writing, or committed by agreement].

Mr. Kwarsick explained that it is only those served by the facilities and it is a little different from the transportation issue in that when someone comes in with proof of water availability for a project and the water district commits 20 service connections, those are gone. This speaks to the provider making a commitment and once that commitment made, of records and consumed. With the schools, it is not that kind of a commitment.

Page 7. Under Item #3 the Chair suggested adding item c), to read" "If the responsible agency has not implemented its funding strategy" or item 2 say: "Arrange for the provision (correction of the deficiency on a pro-rated basis ) of the capacity needed".

Mr. Kwarsick reminded this is an appeal process that is part of the process of land use review itself and is not a separate appeal process as with concurrency. It is a very narrow appeal – a technical error or unwarranted delay [by the agency]. The language in the Concurrency Ordinance is that "the agency did not follow process required by this chapter" as one of the causes for appeal and could be added here. Chair concurred.

Mr. Dearborn pointed out that with regard to item 2, the County cannot require an applicant to do more than their pro-rata fair share.

Page 8, A.3

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Ordinance #C-108-98 [PLG-033-98] in the matter of adopting a new ordinance, Chapter 11.05 ICC, governing adequacy procedures and requirements in Island County, as amended today to be effective 10/1/98, and that the Board continue the public hearing to September 28, 1998 at 2:45 p.m. to confirm changes made and to take final adoption action.

Dorothy Bartholomew, 5321 S. Wilkenson Road, Langley, planned to attend the meeting and provide comments during the public input time at 10:00 a.m. but was unable to arrive on time for that due to road construction events. The Chairman allowed Ms. Bartholomew time to make her comments at 1:30 p.m.

A letter as of Friday, August 14, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. has been placed in the GMA record from Horace and Dorothy Bartholomew concerning zoning of the north half of Government . Lot 2 on Wilkenson Road, 11-1/3 acres, now zoned residential @ 3.5 dwelling units per acre which would be 33 dwelling units. It is now their understanding the property under the new Plan will be zoned rural allowing only 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres which would take them from the allowable 33 down to 2 dwelling units, which they do not think fair and view it as spot zoning.

Mr. Dearborn advised Ms. Bartholomew that the Planning Commission would be meeting and would in fact consider her letter next week.

A Public Hearing was held, just after Ms. Bartholomew’s comments at 1:30 p.m., continued from July 27, 1998, to consider Ordinance #C-87-98, adopting amendments to Chapter 16.17 ICC, Planned Residential Development. Attendance List on file. At the last hearing public input and testimony was taken and concluded, and the Board continued the hearing to this date and time so that staff be provided an opportunity to look at some of the suggestions John Graham, Citizens Growth Management Coalition, made to make sure nothing has been missed by not adopting his recommendations, and to give staff an opportunity to propose specific language changes where they feel those language changes are needed to give more clarity and by receiving their specific changes and the Board acting one way or another gain clear sense of legislative intent.

At the last hearing, the Board had a draft dated 7/27/98 Board Hearing Draft, with a number of technical corrections which Mr. Dearborn reviewed. John Graham has gone back and re-stated his recommendations, not substantively changed but re-worded for greater clarity. The EDC recommendation has not changed at this point. Staff last hearing had identified a number of concerns but had not been specific about them and since that time came back with specific proposed changes and recommendations dated 8/14/98.

Chairman McDowell question a correction - Page 7 of the 7/27/98 Board Hearing Draft #5, inasmuch as he believed it was a substantive change to delete the second "proposed", which to

him changed the meaning of the sentence. Mr. Dearborn had not thought of it that way, he assumed #5 would show only those accesses proposing, and suggested a re-write, to which the Board agreed: "Approximate location of Existing and any accesses proposed, to all Lots. Include, if available, Existing access permit numbers.".

The chair commented that he had not been aware this added another layer of approval not previously required on PRDs. If the County was trying to encourage PRDs he did not see how this would accomplish that. Mr. Dearborn agreed that was the way the ordinance was now drafted. That path began in March; staff requested that site plan and PRD be separated from the subdivision process

Stacy Tucker, Planning Department, however, stated that the PRD study was specific in that staff wanted to reduce multiple layers of review and felt the use approval process, an additional layer of review, burdened the process and preferred one application review process, with preliminary final and if applicable, final.

Mr. Dearborn explained that currently the subdivision process and the PRD process are in one ordinance. The subdivision process and the site plan review ordinance in another, both integrated site plan review and PRD. The concern staff expressed in November when the drafting process began was a desire to separate subdivision review and subdivision standards from PRD review and PRD standards, and the same for site plan. No one wanted to put either a site plan or a PRD through more process today. A workshop on this subject was held before the PRD study was completed by staff [early December] and the decision was made to create a subdivision ordinance to cover all land division; a PRD ordinance for PRDs, and a site plan review ordinance for site plans. The drafting of that went forward and led to the necessity [if doing a PRD with lots] of filing concurrent applications . A subdivision and a PRD or a site plan and a subdivision would require filing of concurrent applications. The Planning Commission resolved this by requiring paying only one fee, either the subdivision or the PRD fee, or site plan or subdivision fee. The Board resolved this matter by a single fee. All the way from the time the decision was made to separate the processes, it had to have been known by all there were going to be two applications for a consolidated application with a subdivision and a PRD, or a site plan and a PRD. He did make the point that he would not understand duplication of submittals. Staff also asked that the applicant requirements be repeated in each ordinance just so that there was complete continuity in that ordinance, not so people would submit for example, two plat certificates, title reports, etc.

Mr. Dearborn recalled only about four things that are different for a PRD than Site Plan. He thought the confusion came from the desire to get all the application requirements in each ordinance. The concern for PRD holds equally for Site Plan. There is some lack of clarity in understanding in that the PRD approval is not conceptual approval, it is a final approval. The next step for that applicant, if not creating lots, would be building permits. The goal here was to try to make PRDs more useable.

Ms. Tucker confirmed intent was not an "additive" but inclusive of those areas, with emphasis to establish priorities for designation of open space.

Mr. Graham, at the Chairman’s request, explained the Coalition’s recommendation in regard to #3 on page 2 was written with flexibility given in making the judgment; not concerned about the normal differences in aesthetic opinion, rather the individual who thinks something like eight butler buildings on five acres painted garish red is fine; not everyone has common sense.

Commissioner Shelton suggested language such as: …covenants and restrictions shall be adopted so as not to adversely impact through location and size of proposed structures"

Mr. Dearborn mentioned that existing code requires provision of the location, size, bulk, height and number of stories and gross floor area for all structures and other improvements existing and proposed. The review criteria then included what is referred to as #2 and #3 in the Staff Proposal, and #2 and #3 in the Coalition’s proposal in a one paragraph narrative staff found hard to apply and interpret. Deleted from the application requirements is the requirement that that information be provided so to re-instate the criteria need to re-instate the information

Debra Little, using the example of Brentwood and Cavelareo, pointed out that in review, staff looked not at the houses, but the footprints in terms of square footage, distance from proposed property lines, location on the lot – more bulk and location. Most PRDs such as Brentwood, have very strict covenants. Staff reviews the covenants to make sure nothing contrasts with county code and are not less restrictive than county code. After covenants are in place, they are private and are not enforced by the County.

Mr. Graham thought it would be a good idea to put what Ms. Little said into the code. As far as "prominent physical features" Mr. Graham stated the Coalition’s concern is ridge lines – for example, downtown in Langley you can look back up toward the cemetery and see a wonderful stand of trees across the horizon looking south from downtown Langley. Even 15 houses along that ridge line would totally change the feel of that entire town. Forested ridge lines are an important part of rural character and need to be very careful about doing away with them.

Mr. Dearborn agreed he could try to word it in such a way that provides a little more flexibility and yet provides an identification.

The Chairman observed that the Planning Commission put a lot of work and thought into this and came up with a reasonable well-thought out proposal. And Mr. Dearborn commented that if the Planning Commission was to serve its purpose that had to be the place where this information is presented. Unfortunately, Mr. Graham’s comments came in at the very end of the Planning Commission discussion, and he thought if the Commission had had the Coalition comments and comments of staff they would have spent more time on this subject. The Planning Commission did not reject all of this, did have a discussion on a number of these issues such as the ridge line, and on the forested ridge lines the Planning did not want an absolute that prohibited that. He pointed out that part of the problem with a PRD is that it is hard to do that in absolute terms in criteria in an ordinance; each PRD is different and must deal with different physical features of the property and he would be concerned about absolutes that do not leave a fair amount of discretion in judgment on a case by case basis.

Most of the participants at the hearing seemed to agree there had not been a problem with PRD’s, and Mr. Graham explained the concern now, however, was because PRD’s were now to be a planning tool and considering increasing density bonus to 100%. He’s looking for "preventative medicine".

Mr. Dearborn stated that the record reflects that the PRD study done by staff indicates staff feels more specific and detailed criteria are needed and identified a number of areas they felt that was necessary. The Planning Commission had that study available. Mr. Dearborn went through the staff report with Rich Unterman in detail and both felt the Planning Commission proposal [page 10 of the ordinance] was sufficient. The Board is hearing from staff that they do not agree with that, and the Coalition would like more specific criteria and retention of some of the criteria deleted. Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Unterman concluded they could approve PRDs with the criteria 1 and 2 of the Planning Commission draft and feel comfortable in doing a good job of protecting rural character. The Planning Commission did not address PRD maximum size because of trying to encourage the PRD process; but the fact is with a 50% bonus it did not seem to be an issue.

Commissioner Shaughnessy noted though that perhaps the issue of maximum size was in fact something the County should consider.

Commissioner Shelton liked the Planning Commission recommended language on Page 10, Item B:

"The above criteria shall be in addition to any standards or requirements established by applicable state and county laws or ordinances. They are not intended to be absolute in nature or to discourage creativity or innovation. The approving authority shall have the authority to modify standards contained within the criteria as may be found necessary; however, said modifications shall be made only to ensure that the proposal is adapted to any unique or special site feature and is compatible with surrounding land uses." The criteria then talks about 50% of the required open space to be undisturbed area of native growth or dedicated to agricultural purposes; clusters separated by 200’; locate development to minimize disturbance of natural features – all of those things seem to parallel what Mr. Graham has brought up.

Mr. Dearborn explained the only issue the Planning Commission had of concern which came from staff was what mature timber meant, and struck it because it was not clear enough to be administered.

As far as traffic and circulation within a PRD, Debra Little saw to be more design factors. The Public Works Department does not review internal circulation, only how it affects the outside road unless Planning staff, by memo, ask them to specifically review interior circulation. we would also like to discourage through traffic where the PRD does not become part of an overall system . Staff wants to make sure that houses are not set up such that people are not backing out directly onto adjacent arterials, and she agreed this does not often occur, however.

Commissioner Shaughnessy stated that if the county is going to increase density bonuses he recommended a maximum size PRD be set.

Mr. Dearborn stated that would be something to address in the Zoning Code and did not have to be addressed here. The way the Planning Commission recommendation comes to the Board, the open space requirement is what is established in the Zoning Code.

Should the Board desire to go forward with a bonus density system, he commented about being careful to balance the bonus with the standards. Absent coming back even though the Planning Commission standards are simple and clear cut, with the record now having both the Coalition and Staff calling for more detailed standards, that issue has to be faced directly and come back with more detailed standards even if the bonus is not changed.

Using the Planning Commission recommendation as the basis, Mr. Dearborn agreed to take the Coalition’s recommendations and Staff’s recommendations and blend them into a revised proposal, come back next week with that revised proposal.

BOARD ACTION:

The Board agreed there be one application - the same application for PRD and Subdivision and also make it a site plan application [i.e. site plan for the purpose of Subdivision and PRD for the purpose of Subdivision, one application]

By unanimous motion, the Board continued the public hearing until 5:00 p.m. on August 24, 1998.

Mr. Dearborn agreed he would try to provide the appropriate recommendations based on staff and Coalition’s comments to the Board for the next hearing by the end of the day on Friday, and to staff and Mr. Graham.

Mike Shelton, Member

Attest:

_____________________