Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10211993 Ag Min . . , City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Special Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A.· Interim Urban Growth Boundary 1. Staff report (Robison) 2.· Public testimony - 3. Commission discussion and conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 28. 1993 (Regular Meeting) East Jefferson County EMS Council, Conditional Use Permit #9307-01 VII. ADJOURN October 21, 1993 -.1 ."?' . .- . . -iiï City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 21, 1993 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Karen Erickson. Other members present were Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer and Bob Rickard. Members absent were Ernie Baird, Lois Sherwood and Mark Welch. Staff members present were Dave Robison, Michael Hildt and Sheila Spears. Jim Engle, Water Superintendent was also in attendance. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None III. COMMUNICATIDN'S: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS - A~- Interim Urban Growth Boundary 1. Staff Report (Dave Robison) City Councìl will be holding a joint hearing Monday 10/25/93 with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) with the recommendation from the Planning Commission on the location of an Interim Urban- Growth Area (UGA) for the City of Port Townsend. The BOCC at minimum has to justify in writing if they don't agree with the City's UGA recommendation, if that is the caæ. A UGA can be amended only once a year. The Interim UGA will affect people for the next year and one:.halfuntil the Comprehensive Plan is adopted (1/1/95). The City has to be designated_a UGA and needs to determine by 1/1/95 whether its boundaries need to be moved out to support the 20 year plan. Robison described that whatever is outside of the area which defines the urban growth area is considered rural, and said that it is clear that there are areas outside of the city limits that characterize urban growth. There has to be development regulations that distinguish between rural and urban densities. Places like Cape George could build up but could not build out of those lines. You can do in fill in those already platted areas. The County is currently suggesting one parcel per acre for rural density. Some of those decisions by the County will affect Port Townsend - densities and the type and level of urban services. The County is saying that it doesn't need to follow the county-wide policies for designating the interim UGA. Rickard asked what reason does the City have for saying the County isn't doing what it should be doing in other areas in the County. Robison said that the Growth Management Act (GMA) states that counties and cities should plan together_so there is a balance between jurisdictions so you don't have cities of industry and bedroom communities, and people driving , · · · ..-:¡ Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1993 Page Two 40 miles between. If you allow sprawl without planning then you will have communities all over the place that need services, and traffic problems can be horrendous. Hildt said we are all part of the County and services are going to be regional, and unless the County can provide better services it is going to cost all of us more. The City is a regional water supplier. If the County does not work within a reasonable way, the City could be put in a tough position in the future. Jim Engle, City Water Superintendent, said we have a service area and the City is in the process of trying to shrink that down to what we hope we can serve with the amount of water we have. The City will probably transfer a certain amount of that area over to the Public Utility District (PUD) and it is going to come up with a water supply. Thayer asked what would happen if the City cannot serve its own residents with water in 20 years. Robison said that is why we are trying to shrink the water service area now. Robison said that the population report indicates the same amount of growth will occur in the rural areas that we currently have. He said that he questions the distribution of growth. The numbers over the last 10 years suggest we should anticipate higher levels of growth. Robison talked about where sewers and water would be allowed and said the proposed level of service matrix is going to be hard to implement. You cannot extend urban services unless you make an urban growth area. The County's plan appears to be in direct conflict with the GMA. There must be a capital facilities plan for how service is going to be provided to those areas in the next 20 years. The GMA states that the County should not be in the business in the future of providing urban services. 2. Public Testimony: None 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Enarson asked what happens since the interim UGA was not established by October 1. Robison said the State doesn't do anything for 60 days before it sends out a cursory letter. It could be a real problem for the County because they are the lead agency. The County is two years behind in its critical areas work. The County will probably get UGAs adopted in the next month or so, so this will probably not be a problem. The City is still requesting information so it can do some analysis in its GMA planning activities. Erickson asked if the right of the City to petition the County's designations before the Growth Hearings Board as mentioned in number 4 of staff's recommendation means the hearing would be immediately after the County adopts an Interim UGA or would it take maybe a year and a half. Robison said the City should petition within 60 days after adoption by the County. ... ¡- · · · . Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1993 Page Three Erickson stated she doesn't know what is wanted from the Planning Commission except to talk about what the problems and concerns are. Robison said staff felt it was our duty to point out the inconsistencies in the ordinance and the problems in it. Rickard said the Planning Commission is recommending to City Council that these are the things that Council should be aware of and should be looking at. The Interim UGA workshop led to the following conclusions listed in the staff recommendation: 1. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council propose to Jefferson County to designate the City's interim urban growth area along the City's existing boundaries as required by RCW 36. 70A.IlO(I)(2)., with certain attached findings (to be added). 2. That the City requests that the County and City work cooperatively on preparing a residential land capacity analysis to determine if UGA's are sufficiently sized to accommodate the jointly adopted twenty-year growth projection. Similarly, cooperative planning and analysis of capacity for commercial and industrial lands should be accomplished prior to adoption of UGAs. 3. That the City recommends that the areas characterized by urban growth which are adjacent to the city limits be shown on any and all maps showing interim urban growth areas as an area under further study for possible inclusion. 4. That the City of Port Townsend does not concur with the County's proposal for IUGA's outside the City of Port Townsend's city limits and that it reserves the right to petition such designations before the Growth Hearings Board. Enarson said that in her interpretation of the County ordinance she understood that if one had a zoned commercial area in the County and was satisfied with providing their own services, and if it was zoned property, they could still do it if they would be happy with that level of service. Erickson said she understood it just the opposite. It is vague and not clearly understood what the real meaning is. Robison said they are both right until reading #65 and that the County's ordinance lacked development regulations as required by the procedural criteria. Enarson asked if the Port District has been involved in any of these discussions. Robison said that Ports were not required to plan under the GMA. They lobbied not to be in it and they don't have to be consistent with the act. Robison said that county wide planning policies are a required part of the GMA process. He said all the other planners in the State are taking this seriously, with the possible exception of Jefferson County. Enarson said it is unfortunate that the City and County haven't worked more closely on this. It is important to us as citizens of our county to wield what power we do have by participating . . . .. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1993 Page Four as fully as we can on the Comprehensive Plan. It is important that City Council knows that we have some strong opposition to the ordinance that the County has written. Motion was by Thayer that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the staff recommendations with the following changes: at the end of number 3, add "in the Port Townsend urban growth area"; and change IUGA to Interim UGA. Seconded by Rickard. All were in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS Hildt asked for concerns that the Planning Commission had about the recent School District Rezone application. Thayer said that after going through volumes of information on Forest Park and Rosewind, she felt after the school rezone hearing that if it had been a private party coming before the Commission it might not have passed because there wasn't anything for the Commission to do. Rickard said that with a private proposal this would have been the forum. The school project was a fairly visible community project. The Planning Commission wasn't the focal point and it was not a big involved process for the Commission. Enarson said that had there been a roomful of people with concerns, they would have been addressed. Since Planning Commission has the right to impose its own conditions that might have been done had the public brought up concerns. The Planning Commission can recommend that City Council make changes in the SEP A and can also make a condition that changes a SEP A condition. Rickard suggested that the staff report reference the SEP A document but not restate it in the body of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Enarson stated for the record that the Planning Commission agrees that it can make recommendations to City Council to change a SEPA condition. Hildt gave an outline of the 1994 budget proposal for the Planning & Building Department which included: 1) base budget = 1993 operating budget + cola per mayor; 2) revenues = fees and grants; 3) departmental overview; 4) incremental budget; 5) reducing expectations or service cuts; and 6) summary. Motion to adjourn was made by Thayer. Seconded by Enarson. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM. ~~ Sheila Spears Planning & Building Assistant