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