Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070909CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, July 9, 2009 EXH 2 Excerpts from City of Port Townsend Ordinance 2825 EXH 3 Excerpts from Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Planning Commission, Year 2002 Comp Plan I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Gee Heckscher, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mick-Hager, and Julian Ray. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Ray moved for acceptance of the agenda; the motion was seconded by Mr. Fry. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor. Mr. LeMaster suggested deferring the election of Vice Chair until the following meeting. Chair Mick-Hager agreed that this item should be deferred until the full Commission is present. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 24, 2009: Commissioner Fry moved and Commissioner Emery seconded for approval, as presented. The minutes of June 24, 2009 were approved, as presented, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT : (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 VII. NEW BUSINESS: Presentation: Glen Cove -from FUGA to LAMIRD (Al Scalf, Director, Department of Community Development, Jefferson County) Mr. Scalf began by introducing his daughter Lindsey, who assisted with the projection of slides; Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, who is the lead planner for the Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA); and Bill Miller, a member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Mr. Scalf walked through a slide presentation entitled "Overview of Glen Cove". He covered the history and planning context of the Glen Cove area from the 1970s to the present. Aerial maps showing changes over the last 20 years were included. He invited questions and discussion during the presentation. Mr. Scalf noted that people see many different uses, possibilities, and issues as they enter or leave the area in the vicinity of Glen Cove: economic opportunity; employment base provider of materials, supplies and services; source of tax revenue; paper mill and plume; OGWS waterline from WRIA 17; public water service by the PUD with reserve drain fields; buffers and screens. He summarized "how we got here", stepping through the 1990 GMA (Growth Management Act), SHB 2929, Codified as 36.70 A, following 36.70 PEA, then 36.70 B Local Project Review Act and 36.70 C, and the Land Use Petition Act. It was required that each City and County shall have a CP (Comprehensive Plan) and DR's (Development Regulations) shall be coordinated with, and consistent with the CP's. Also, in the early 1990s the City and County prepared CWPPs (County Wide Planning Policies) that are now outdated, but were some of the bases for planning principles for various agencies. The planning policies call out the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee, which includes City and County elected officials and one member from the Port. Jefferson County Comp Plan -Originally adopted in 1988, the current version is 2007. Mr. Scalf briefly described the key areas of the zoning map relevant to Glen Cove. In 1994, under the Comp Plan, Glen Cove was 295 acres. Under the GMA, it was reduced to 68.96 acres. 68% of the County was down-zoned to comply with GMA. In 2002, the Glen Cove LAMIRD (Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development) expanded the area to 126 acres. The permissible uses of the Glen Cove Light Industrial and Light Industrial Commercial areas are spelled out in the County development regulations reviewed by Mr. Scal£ He showed maps of the Paper Mill, as well as the LIM, LI and LIC zones of Glen Cove. He discussed the requirement for looking back at what above and below ground infrastructure existed in this area as of July 1, 1990. He next reviewed 2009 Jefferson County Code Title 18, allowable uses table 3-1 and density, dimension and open space standards found on table 6-1, including notes from page 18-172. Mr. Scalf explained how the tables are used in the permitting process. "Back Up the Truck" -Having presented the current zoning and uses, Mr. Scalf showed the 295 acres, both sides of highway, of the Glen Cove area in 1994 prior to the Comp Plan process. In the planning process, three alternatives for Glen Cove were considered. Alternative 1 was a Rural Commercial/Manufacturing Area: UGA boundary remains unchanged; Highway 20 corridor zoning would be changed to rural commercial and light manufacturing; paper mill would be zoned for "resource related" manufacturing; no sewers or City water; limited opportunities for P/arming Commission Page 2 of 8 economic growth and development; would focus on small scale commercial and manufacturing uses that require little water. Alternative 2 was an Expanded UGA with "Community Serving" Uses: UGA expanded to include Hwy 20 commercial/industrial area; Paper mill zoned for "resource related" manufacturing; limited area zoned for "county-wide" retail; emphasis on small scale manufacturing and businesses serving local area; area provided with "urban" utilities and services (sewers and City water); could provide substantial opportunities for economic growth and development; would require costly public improvements. Alternative 3 was a County- wide/Regional Retail and Manufacturing Center: UGA expanded to include the Hwy 20 area, the Paper Mill and the area east to Port Townsend; large areas zoned for large scale county-wide retail development, attracting a broad non-local clientele; extensive "urban" utilities and services; many service sector jobs via franchise retailers; most costly public improvements (e.g. roads); could significantly alter community character. These options and issues were discussed with the community. Consistent with the GMA, the City adopted their Comp Plan in 1996 and the County adopted theirs in 1998. Based on the Comp Plan policies and goals, the County did a Special Study in 1999 of the Tri Area/Glen Cove area, with the study area going all the way to Anderson Lake Road. All land north of this could be designated as UGA or Full Use of SHB 6094, which is codified as a LAMIIZD. The study was done with the help of a consultant at a cost of about $700,000. The study schedule and tasks included: land use inventory; economic analysis and forecast; DSEIS; FSEIS + Addendum; the Decision Document; Capital Facilities; and Implementation Plan. The Special Study was deemed complete by the BOCC in December 2001. There were three scenarios considered: 1 Port Hadlock/Irondale as a UGA, Glen Cove Expanded LAMIRD; 2 Hadlock UGA, Glen Cove LAMIlZD; 3 Port Hadlock UGA, Glen Cove UGA. The addendum said that based upon a 4% employment growth rate, 18 employees per acre, an additiona1280 acres of light industrial was needed throughout the County and City. This led to the decision document in 2001, where the BOCC choose scenario 3, i.e. UGA Hadlock/UGA Glen Cove. Mr. Scalf also showed a summary of County/City legislative participation (Joint Growth Management Steering Committee) from 1998 - 1999. During the 1999 period, the action alternatives under the scenarios and the employment base of the City were analyzed to estimate the acreage that would be needed under each scenario. Mr. Scalf showed maps of the provisional Glen Cove and Tri-Area Urban Growth Areas. Why did Glen Cove become a LAMIRD? Mr. Scalf referred to Task VI. Implementation Plan of the Special Study. It recommended the establishment of a LAMIRD based on a number of conclusions, including: most efficient route to economic development and certainty for land owners; meets vision and goals of the Comp Plan for use of Glen Cove industrial use; rural character; minimizes costs to landowners, etc. Mr. Scalf noted that the planning process had been long and frustrating for the citizens of the County. In response to a question, Mr. Scalf said that the County was driving the process of reassessment based on its need to comply with UGA requirements. Mr. Sepler said that the City Comp Plan was adopted in 1996. The City can propose a UGA anywhere, but the County must approve and adopt it. The City had a placeholder for Glen Cove as a UGA, but it was never adopted by the County. Ms. Surber noted that the LAMIRD did not come into existence under GMA until after the City had adopted its Comp Plan. When both the City and County were in draft stage, the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee directed both entities to include the FUGA. It was noted that the City's own study is mirrored by the County study. The GMA LAMIRD concept/language arose after the City's Comp Plan had been adopted. Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 An Inter-local Agreement regarding the determination of a permanent LAMIlZD boundary was signed between the City and County on Apri12, 2002; it expired after 5 years. The expert hired was a former member of the GMA Hearings Board, William Nielsen. A boundary recommendation was worked out and endorsed. At this point, a citizen group known as People for a Livable Community and others appealed. The final decision and order was commendation to the City and County for working together, and the case was closed. Mr. Scalf noted that there was an additional challenge to the City Comp Plan language by Nancy Dorn, ??? [not resolved]. Mr. Scalf presented a slide entitled "Forward Thinking - 2009". The City and County are facing a 2011 update to their Comp Plans; this is an opportunity for both jurisdictions to relook at this issue and determine if plans should be amended. The major issues are the need for significant capital facilities, internal and external consistency of the Comp Plans, compliance with legislative regulations, and adherence to a "sense of place". "How are we going to balance the local circumstances and cooperate between the jurisdictions?" Mr. Sepler then pointed out some of the issues that face the City. The City is restricted in the extension of its services. It cannot extend beyond the boundaries of its UGA. If the City extended its services to the LAMIRD, it would no longer be a LAMIRD; it would be part of the UGA. He reviewed why the City eliminated the FUGA (Future Urban Growth Area) that included Glen Cove, and precluded any future extension of services. He mentioned the C-N zoning district, that was mentioned in the plan, but never established on the ground. This zoning included regional commercial uses. This was expected to lead to large box stores along the highway, which would compromise the character of the City. He said that, in his own analysis, the unfortunate consequence was the limitation on light manufacturing, which was generally seen as beneficial. As of this time, all reference to that inclusion of Glen Cove has been eliminated from the City's Comp Plan. In order to modify the UGA, a whole set of policy choices, with full public review is required. Earlier documents could be adopted but not without full process. The Joint Management Steering Committee would likely need to be re-formed, the county-wide planning policies freshened, and a new ILA established, while the outcome is not certain. Judy Surber noted that the C-IV zoning was an important factor in the Comp Plan amendment of 2001, promoted by PLC (People for a Livable Community). She said that the amendment was approved by the Planning Commission in 2001, but not adopted by City Council. It was reconsidered in 2002, with slight amendments, and adopted. Mr. Sepler added that City Council met over 200 times in relation to Glen Cove issues. He said that many people considered this a bell weather issue as to the future direction for Port Townsend. He said that the purpose of reviewing the entire history is to show how it maybe difficult to consider light industrial narrowly, without all the other issues coming forward again. Julian Ray mentioned that Alice King, has detailed knowledge of the background of these issues and suggested that she be invited to a future meeting. Mr. Sepler said that he would contact her, if the Planning Commission agrees. Bi11 LeMaster noted that the economic climate was quite different eight years earlier, and that recent town meetings have shown the interest in economic development. He noted the Planning Commission Page 4 of 8 importance of solving water issues, i.e. it is a basic requirement. He said he did not understand the inclusion of C-N if the community is not in favor of it. He asked why the area could not be mixed use, since it is within the authority of the elected bodies to designate the land use. Mr. Sepler said that, within the Comp Plan, the City projected that there was adequate water to serve Glen Cove. There is adequate water to serve that area as part of the UGA. Regarding whether C-IV would be included, he said the charge to the Planning Commission was to look at light industrial, and that C-IV was not in the charter. However, he believes that it would certainly come up. Another issue is the Highway 20 intersection at Mill Road, which is at level of service D and dropping. At certain times, it fails. In addition, Discovery Road and Jacob Miller Road also fail, leading to significant safety issues. Therefore, any expansion of the UGA would require transportation review and remediation by both the City and County. Previous studies by the County have been done and alternative transportation configurations developed. With regard to mixed use, he said the LAMIlZD would not allow for additional residential components, such as multi-family, etc. but a UGA does. Mr. LeMaster asked, regardless of the water rights, how further development of Glen Cove would impact the watershed, and would the process look at the types of uses that would minimize water use. Mr. Sepler said the City water service that previously went to Hadlock was traded and is now under the PUD. He said the PUD water plan states that there is adequate water to serve Glen Cove to buildout. He said the City also has not reallocated its water for that area and could supply it. There was generally acknowledgement that water is a significant issue. Mr. Ray asked if the water use needs would be raised by a change to mixed use rather than light industrial. Mr. Sepler said that light industrial is a heavy water user, and the exact amount depends on the type of use. Mr. LeMaster said he favors looking at finding the appropriate fit in the County, and that Glen Cove has a base of business and land already. Mr. Fry asked if the water projections assumed only light industrial or light industrial and C-IV. Mr. Sepler said that a series of alternatives were assumed. C-IV does not use as much water as light industrial. It is also possible to regulate uses based on water consumption. Mr. Sepler said that the City would need to confirm water capacity etc, but that the first step would be to determine the County's intention to work jointly on planning. He said that revenue sharing had been on the table since the beginning. Obviously, any annexation by the City would represent a loss of revenue for the County, so there must be some accommodation for that. And, if the provision of services brings about more development, an agreement would be need to be worked out for sharing of revenue. This is typically based on the increment of increased development that occurs, regardless of the jurisdictional control of the area. Typically, the agreements will attempt to differentiate on the basis of who bears the infrastructure costs. The City's Comp Plan assumed revenue sharing. In response to a question, Mr. Sepler said that the reaction or support by the community would likely depend on the scope of discussions. That is, if it is narrowly focused on serving the existing light industrial, the chances of prolonged process is lessened. The C-IV zone has never been platted and there is no requirement to include it. Mr. Sepler said it was a "floating zone" in the Comp Plan but has been exhumed - it no longer exists. He said it is possible that some property owners outside of Glen Cove would like to be included in some manner. He said that the scope would arise out of discussions and analysis about the needs and what is most appropriate for the area, and be tempered by the County's interests. Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 Mr. LeMaster asked whether or not a "big box" store would be permitted in the "Hadlock core". Mr. Peterson said that he did not believe that scale would be permitted. The commercial zoning, Hadlock core, includes the QFC and the area down to the Library and Rhody Drive. He said that it is not for that scale and intensity, more based on the land constraint than zoning. The current QFC cannot enlarge itself. Mr. Scalf said that the water, sewer and fire flow requirements constrain rural development. He said that there is a sewer plan for Hadlock approved by Ecology and Department of Health. In order to make changes, the County would need to start over with a Special Study. The economics have changed, a regional forecast would be needed, a land inventory would be needed and citizen involvement is about 50% of any process. Mr. Emery asked what the form of revenue sharing would be, and was told it would be a portion of property tax derived from increased intensity of the land. The expectation is that extension of the utilities would lead to a commensurate increase in intensity of use, and increase in jobs, etc. Mr. Ray asked if the model of the City and County each providing a service, i.e., water or sewer, should be considered. Mr. Sepler said there is a funding mechanism approved by the legislature that allows passing a bond for the infrastructure and deferring property taxes to Olympia for that increment until the bond is paid off. Mr. Scalf said that the ideal situation is that the sewer plant boundary is extended to pick up the UGA, the coordinated water system plan is amended and the City water service area picks up the entire UGA. He said it forces that same discussion at the PUD level between the City and County. There was further discussion about actual water usage. Mr. Scalf said the hearings board has already heard an appeal about the water service area for their UGA, and in their growth management case they have compliance with the water service area through the PUD. But, the PUD also needs some assurance in their plan that they have adequate water. Mr. Ray added that the City has first water rights, and that the whole allocation is not used right now. The mill is the only party that uses its allocation, close to 17 million gallons. The key question is regarding the impact of growth. Mr. Heckscher asked about the capacity of the sewer system. Mr. Sepler said that the southwest portion of the City is not servable now, and that a lift station is planned as part of the capital plan to deal with that area. Since a normal study looks at the area served, the consultant continued the lines outside the City boundary to its potential service area, which was almost all of Glen Cove. If the station location was moved a few hundred yards toward the Mi11, it could serve all of Glen Cove. There is sewer plant capacity to process that additional area. There was further discussion about the transportation issues. Mr. Sepler said the City and County have long sought action by the DOT to address problems on Hwy 20, but there is no budget for this project. A highway study on Rtes 19 & 20 is due out this month. The draft states that at certain places along the corridor, 4 lanes are warranted due to current volumes and growth. One place is at the juncture of 19 & 20 to the City limits. The biggest problem is at Mill Road, regardless of what happens with Glen Cove. He said the County has suggested some really good conceptual alternatives. Mr. Fry noted that once the ferry situation has been fully resolved, the road problems will likely increase. Mr. Sepler added that the ferry transportation consultants had refused to model past the Port/Safeway intersection. Several innovative ideas along the corridor are being considered. Mr. Sepler mentioned that the second round-about to Thomas St. which connects to the mill and provides the back route in will add more capacity. Mr. Fry noted that it will be necessary to deal with all of these issues, and that a coordinated planned approach is preferable than a piecemeal one. Mr. Sepler said that if there is interest in going to the next step, City staff could work with County staff to prepare some materials and schedule a follow up meeting, as the larger schedule permits. P/arming Commission Page 6 of 8 Mr. LeMaster asked if the current BOCC and City Council would be amenable to assigning staff resources to this issue. Mr. Sepler said that City Council had already approved the Planning Commission work plan that includes Glen Cove. Mr. LeMaster sought clarification on whether the County was generally in agreement with regard to servicing Glen Cove, and with his assumption that the County would need less staff time than the City to affect a joint plan. Mr. Scalf said he saw considerable work in amending the County Comp Plan. There was acknowledgement that the City and County were now meeting more frequently and that the political will seemed to be there. Mr. Scalf noted that the Comp Plans for both jurisdictions must be updated by 2011. Chair Mick-Hager asked guest Norm McLeod if he wished to comment. Mr. McLeod asked if the primary sticking point for existing businesses is sewage service. Mr. Sepler said that the City can provide that service but is prevented from doing so by the Plans for both the County and City, each of which have very complex political histories. Mr. Sepler said the City is interested in providing service and that is the reason for this workshop. Mr. Scalf noted that there are 50 boxes of documentation related to the history of these issues. In response to a question about the cost, Mr. Scalf said that over $2 million dollars had been spent by the County for the Special Study, the sewer plan and sewer plant design. Mr. Sepler said the City had not spent nearly that amount. He said that it appears that if this process was tight-lined, focused on serving the existing industrial, and if some of the side issues could be avoided, he believes the City and County could work this out. Mr. Sepler and Mr. Ray mentioned again that asking Alice King to provide additional background would be helpful. Commissioners agreed with the need to keep the focus very narrow. Mr. McLeod said he did not believe that, especially in the present economic climate, big box companies would be interested in Port Townsend, given its end of the line location and small population. Mr. Sepler said that in the process of investigating an expanded QFC, he learned that Walmart would wish to locate here, but no other box store is interested in East Jefferson County. Fred Meyer/Kroger (owns QFC) might only be interested if the entire situation was approved and ready for them to build. It was noted that the restrictions in building size are already in place. Mr. Sepler said the issue is not simply the box stores; there is the fear that rezoning could change the situation in the future. Mr. Sepler suggested that if Commissioners are in agreement, staff would do further investigations, speak with the County, prepare a conceptual scheme and schedule this as an agenda item for the next City/County meeting in November. Mr. Ray suggested that Alice King prepare a brief summary of the major talking points, if she is unable to attend the next discussion. Planning Commissioners thanked Mr. Scalf for his presentation and this portion of the meeting was concluded. Mr. Scalf and associates left the meeting at 8:20 PM. VIII. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Chair Mick-Hager noted that, with Kristen Nelson's appointment to City Council, she as Vice Chair had moved into the Chair position through the end of the December 2009. The Vice Chair position is therefore open. Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 Commissioner LeMaster nominated Steve Emery for Vice Chair. Mr. Emery said he would be willing to serve. Commissioner Fry said he would be willing to accept the Vice Chair seat, given the upcoming agenda and his experience with dealing with large public meetings. Mr. Emery said he would defer, and nominated Mr. Fry. The motion was seconded by Mr. LeMaster. Mr. Fry was unanimously approved as Vice Chair. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS July 23, 2009 - Teardowns, Bulk and Scale Ordinance Mr. Sepler said that an updated draft would be distributed shortly. Mr. LeMaster asked if a recommendation on maximum house size had ever been developed; others confirmed that the Planning Commission had declined to do so. IX. COMMUNICATIONS: (None) X. ADJOURNMENT: Julian Ray moved to adjourn and Bill LeMaster seconded. Chair Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM. Monica Mick-Hager, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 8 of 8