Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09291999 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Business Meeting September 29, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: V. Unfinished Business A. Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation (open-record public hearing) 1. Staff presentation (Bob Leedy) 2. Public testimony 3. Commission discussion and conclusions VI. New Business VII. September 30, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open-record public hearing) Proposed.SEPA Threshold Amendments (open-record public hearing) October 14, 1999 Finalize Comp Plan Amendments findings & conclusions Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district) October 28, 1999 Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open-record public hearing) VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment . . · · · . ,+ CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting September 29, 1999 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. II. Roll Call Members in attendance were Chair Cindy Thayer, Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Len Mandelbaum. Christine Ota arrived at 8:00 p.m., Staff member present was BCD Director Bob Leedy. City Council representatives were Joe Finnie, Sydney Lipton and Geoff Masci. ID. Acceptance of Agenda Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. IV. Approval of Minutes - There were none V. Unfinished Business A. PropGsed Glen Cove UOA Designation (public hearing) Chair Thayer explained this is a public hearing to formulate a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for their October 4th Council Meeting. 1. Staff Presentation Mr.. Leedy pointed out this has been out for several m()nths with the special study and the draft: EIS. He indicated the purpose for this meeting is for the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation with regard to the portion of the Glen Covetrri Area study. He referred to his summary Staff Report of September 29th and the Staff three-fold recommendation of a UGA: 1) Strongly endorse the Resolution previously adopted by City Council~ 2) Endorse UGA designation for that part of Glen Cove identified on the map previously distributed~ 3) Endorse Logical Boundary designation for that part of Glen Cove shown as the City's Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) in the City's Comprehensive Plan. . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 2 Overheads included: ~ Map of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan designation (generally all of the Glen Cove area, extending south along SR 20 to Old Fort Townsend Road and extending on west). ~ Map of Jefferson County area to be considered for the Glen Cove planning area during the supplemental EIS and separation of the Glen Cove/Tri Areas, broken down into seven subareas, (Some analysis of each of those subareas took place during the study.) Mr. Leedy noted the area recommended by Staff at this time for part of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area. He stated that the mill property is something of special consideration and is eliminated as any part of this discussion in terms of the City's interest in that property. He said it is not included in terms of acreage in the Urban Growth Area because it is an already developed industry and such industries do not count against allowable acreage for an Urban Growth Area. Commission qllestions of Staff: Ms. Erickson: Asked how many acres are in that area (the pink area). Mr. Leedy: Replied their calculation is 150 gross acreage. A considerable part of that is developed mill property that does not contribute against an Urban Growth Area designation. It would be the net area of undeveloped property that would contribute toward an Urban Growth Area designation. Mr. Worden: There are several residential properties which apparently the county included in commercial zoning. Mr. Leedy: Pointed out the general location on the overhead map and indicated it is outside the current Urban Growth Area for the City. Mr. Mandelbaum: In Section 2 of the City Council Resolution the Commission is asked to endorse, City Council directs the City Manager to coordinate with the City's Planning Commission work: on a Glen Cove UGA boundary that would be consistent with plans. policies and service commitments. He referred to Paragraph 2 of Staff's September 29th recommendation. to the Planning Commission, "Endorse UGA designation for that part of Glen Cove identified on the map previously distributed:' and asked if it is correct that this is an answer to Section 2 of the Resolution and he is seeking to wrap that up tonight? Mr. Leedy: Replied that was correct. 2. Public Testimony At 7: 15 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony. Napcy Dor&aTl, 2137 Washington Street Ms. Dorgan read her "Glen Cove Open Record Public Hearing - Comments for the Record" . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 3 of September 29, 1999 which was entered into the record as Exhibit 1: "Commissioners: '1 attended the July 7 interest group briefing that the study consultant and county staff gave to the City Council and staff. At that meeting the Chair of this Commission inquired about the potential role of our Planning Commission in the City's recommendation to the BOCC. That meeting was almost three months ago. No role was given to you then because your input wasn't wanted. Given all the claims of increased citizen participation in our new government, I was quite intrigued by this. I asked the City Manager to inquire of Council if they intended to conduct aay public process on their recommendation, and Mayor Rambo's answer was that it was Council's prerogative. 'Council has finally yielded to public pressure and common sense to do some kind of open process. This hearing is the result, but it's a strange process from the public's point of view given the fact that Council has already made its decision and given its recommendation to the BOCC, or rather a series of them. This hearing is only a gesture to get the Commission to echo decisions that have already been formally adopted in a Council resolution. If I hadn't been one of the people asking Council for some kind of city discussion, I wouldn't have even bothered to come tonight. 'Since I am here, however, I will say that I'm not supporting a Glen Cove UGA because I don't think the city would actually zone subarea 1 for light manufacturing. I believe it would inevitably become the location of a big box retailer and thereby waste precious potential acreage that could be better used elsewhere in the county to create real jobs, living wage jobs. I'm simply not willing to support the use of my tax dollars to build hundred-mìllion dollar plus infrastructure for a retaìlland use that benefits so few people and puts such a drain on our local businesses, not to mention clogging our city limits with traffic. I refer you specifically to the FSEIS Appendix A, table 1, p.6 which assigns the highest trip generation factor per employee for the retail sector: 18.77 vs. 3.23 per employee for light industrial. 'At your last meeting, the Director of Planning said the City needed a Glen Cove UGA because it had nowhere to go. We're not at build out -- far from it, as the "No-action Alternative" of the study pointed out, and which the City Council and the Planning Commission were supporting just a short time ago. That makes it very difficult for me to now accept the seriousness of the current Glen Cove manifest destiny policy." JeffKelety, 419 Benton Street Said he echoed Nancy Dorgan's sentiments, and took great comfort in the fact that a Resolution was passed and here we are aft:er the fact, taking commentary on such a significant issue for what reasons he was not sure. He said it is very disconcerting, and secondly he found the extent ofland presented completely antithetical to the spirit of Port Townsend's size and character the majority of citizens are interested in maintaining.. . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 4 Joe Pipia, 1540 22nd Street Said what has made Wm outraged is where is the mandate. Where are the stacks of letters coming into the City Council saying that this is what they want - dozens of letters in The Leader every week saying they want this desígnatio~ he hasn't seen those. He thought it was clear the City Council mis-stepped when they went forward with the mill property, and that it is clear they are mis-stepping again without consulting the people oftWs town and what they want. He said that is where it is supposed to be; we are supposed to come together and make decisions about these things, and asked, "Where is the mandate'?" He pointed out comments made by Mr. Timmons in The Leader 3 weeks ago that he thought were pretty clear, addressing why the mill property was included, that without that mill property, it looks like a strip development. Mr. Pipia said he didn't think he could have said it better~ it is going to end up looking up like a strip development; that he would leave it with Mr. Timmons' words and recommend against this. Frieda feIU}, 1510 Jefferson Street Said she echoed what Nancy Dorgan said in greater detail. She thanked the Planning Commission~ she believes in their role, all the hours they devote to reading stacks of material. She indicated their volunteering to put all this energy into taking public input and making recommendation is an absolute joke, that· City Council has cut the terms of the democratic process, and she is offended at the process. She again expressed thanks and asked that they keep batting for the citizens in town. She wished the room was full of people, but there is another meeting out in the County~ this was poor planning -- she wanted to make comment there also. She also made the point that winter and early spring a number of people in the Right is Wrong organization as individuals and representatives of the group went to City Council members individually and in public City Council meetings, and asked for a series oftown meetings on Economic Development. She said the town was ripe for it~ a new citizens economic development grou.p in town hosted a out-of"'town speaker on the issue of economic development -- there was standing room only. She believed, given the opportunity, the town would really turn out and participate in discussions and town meetings on this issue. She feels like a done deal is being handed here instead of encouragement of public process and the "open, accessible" phrase she heard during the election. She said she is very distressed and heartily opposes Option m. She thought the designation in pink on the map would lead to absolute strip development along Highway 20~ it is going to be a horrible entry into Port Townsend, and have a negative impact on the downtown corridor and the other business sections on Sims Way, etc. marching in the direction of sprawl. She said she believes there are some people who are talking about a 20-acre retail designation at the comer of Mill Road, and she believes they want it redesignated~ she said there has been so little about that in the paper and in public conversation, that she feels it is a snowjob. She would like Option n, at the most. She thinks everythíng·should be ground to a halt, public process honestly and openly invited, and the discussion carried on in old-fashioned democratic tradition. '. · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 5 John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street Said he is confused about a lot of issues - what he wants for Port Townsend, what he wants for himself, what kind of neighborhood he wants to live in~ he grew up in the suburbs of St. Louis, and does not want to live in the . suburbs. He said he was attracted to rural areas and small towns that had a functioning business district, a functioning community center and community activity. Many places with relatively large and active business districts are in fairly remote parts of the state, e.g. Colville, WA with a business district three times the size of Port Townsend and half the number of people; it is not near Silverdale, not near Seattle - t 50 miles from Spokane. Port Townsend is fairly close to Silverdale and Seattle. He thinks we do not need the infrastructure Colville does; they are actually a regional shopping center for a large area. He is not opposed to business, since he is a business man, employs 9 people and has had a business rapidly growing over the past 8 eight years here in Port Townsend; he is also not sure he wants to live in a town of 55,000, 150,000, or a town of 350,000 people and is unsure what the City Council is actually trying to do by rapidly expanding the commercial business zone in the area. He said he has talked to several Councilmembers privately, and they indicate urban growth, for living.wage jobs; one said. he is all for his daughter being able to work in Port Townsend when she grows up. He questioned if they double the size of pQpulation in Port Townsend and double the size of the business area, would she be any better able to than now? He indicated the big thing that happened after the 2020 survey and in lots of public meetings in the last several years~ citizens said over and over again, they want to preserve the small town nature, that they are not interested in living in a rapidly expanding business area. He stated his own feeling is that if we move into a state of rapid growth, a few people who own real estate in the area will benefIt, thatthere win be some service and retail industries who may grow;. our property values will go up, and the open space we have available now will diminish. He said he hadn't thought all of this through and hadn't seen a public discussion. He referred to the September 29th Staff Report and quoted from paragraph 2, "As was indicated earlier, there is no GMA·mandated reason that any Urban Growth Area. action by the Board of County Commissioners needs to take place at this time. The County's adopted plan and the City's adopted plan both acknowledge that adequate development property exists in the current Port Townsend UGA to accommodate Jefferson County's growth needs during the foreseeable planning future. In the unlikely event the existing UGA cannot handle growth a number of tools are available for the County to put in motion to accommodate development in pockets outside the UGA. Notwithstanding that fact, the County appears determined to move ahead with the Glen Cove/Tri·area consideration. . . ." He said as a citizen he takes this at face value, but has no idea what it means, what the County desires for urban growth in the Port Townsend area and what they also would like to' see. He expressed his need to' reiterate that he thinks they should take the City Council at their face value; many of them ran on the platform of open, accountable, affordable government. He said this certainly is not, and they are certainly not making themselves accountable to their constituency, the rest of the Port Townsend. The City · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 6 Planning Staffover years has gone though a couple of major efforts to try to articulate to the citizenry how much infrastructure costs to develop for both residential housing and commercial development. They have basically said it costs a lot of money in sewage and infrastructure for each new home, and he questioned the results if that infrastructure is not equal to the tax revenues generated by the new houses over the years, and even more so for commercial development. He declared the City Council may have received some sort the mandate from the citizens of Port Townsend for open, accountable and affordable government and that they have not run on the platform of rapid urban growth, nor received a mandate for what they are proposing. He said he does not have what he needS to particípate in this. At 7:40 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony and opened Commission Discussion. 3. COmmission Discussion Chair Thayer suggested that since she and Commissioner Erickson were the only two Commissioners involved in the original Comprehensive Plan, a process of approximately 1-1/2 years with lots of public testimony, they give an overview of their experiences regarding the Glen Cove issues relating to the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Thayer recalled that it was their feeling at that time not to take Glen Cove in the context ofa strip development, but that the city would need some area for light industrial; that came out ofthe Comp Pran. Ms. Erickson concurred and said they looked at what they needed within the first 5 years of doing the Comp Plan as far as commercial and light industrial zoning~ they had no heavy industrial except for the boat haven which had its own zoning. They left that acreage ·at 00 knowing they would come back and look at Glen Cove as a UGA, or FUGA, where they would put in a zone and regulate that part of Highway 20. Ms. Thayer noted she is saying this knowing many are new to Port Townsend since the Comp Plan. She reiterated that there was a public process at that time - whether it is relevant now is for all to decide, but there was a public process. She said she wanted them to know they spent long hours on it. Ms. Erickson said it was not somethìng they just pulled up within the last 6 or 9 months since the County has been doing the Tri Area/Glen Cove study~ this was the result of everyone trying to figure out where they were going to go with the land the City needs. As the City was rezoning properties in town, they kept in mind there was always Glen Cove out there they could use, possibly for the next 20 years when they could decide what the population growth was going to be. Instead of zoning more residential land as commercial and industrial, they put zoning where it would follow either Highway 20 out or come back around Discovery ROOd. That is where a lot changes came in. In the meantime people came back indicating it was not going to · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 7 work for their property and wanting rezoned residential. She indicated the Comp Plan rezone changes are more and more commercial. She reminded where the commercial land is -. it is in the Historic District; it is the. waterfront; if you want to preserve the Historic District and the waterfront for whatever you want to preserve it, you have to have a place to put new business. If you are not going to want it (and light manufacturing, light industrial or a lot of other uses the town is going to need for commercial/retail/light industrial) crammed in on the waterfront, you have to zone it somewhere so you know where it is going to go. so you can plan for it. She continued saying that planning the Glen Cove area is going to prevent having all the trees cut down; it has been happening over the last 15 years, because private property owners can do anything they want on that property without a plan. The County put up the Highway 20 Corridor Plan and supposedly stopped cutting down the trees. She said they are not enforcing their own Highway 20 Corridor Plan. With this it will be controlled more than it is now. There is an advantage to putting a plan out there that is going to be in force. Mr. Worden: Read what he termed a "significant part" from the Comprehensive Plan, Section IV. page regarding the FUGA: ".... An expansion of Port Townsend Future Urban Growth Area is being considered for a nuttlber of reasons: 1) despite the in-city upzones directed by this Plan, shortage of land available in the commerciaI and manufacturing deveI.opment still exísts within the city limits' [referred to Mr. Leedy's statement in paragtaph 2. but said it does not mean the need for that extra space is urgent, so he is correçt in saying there is no mandate to do that now]; 2) many of the parcels in town which are available for commercial and manufacturing· development tend to be too small and . . . to support the economic development needed in the community; 3) parcels in the city which are large enough to support commercial and manufacturing development are mainly unsuitable because they encompass environmentally seflSÌtiVe areæ that constrain the developm.ent. or they tend to be located in areas which are removed from existing regional transportation corridors; 4) a significant portion of the Glen Cove area is currently zoned for light manufacturing and commercial uses under the County zoning code. Ifurban commercial and manufacturing grows in Glen Cove, it should be within the City's Final Urban Growth Area; 5) expansion of Port Townsend's Final Urban Growth Area to Glen Cove will assist in stemming the flow of retail sales leakage, mainly to areas like SilverdaIe and Sequim, and help promote a more balanced and vital economy in eastern Jefferson County." He said not to jump to conclusions, but in quoting that he just wanted to know that an annexation of that actually was foreseen in the planning, that one issue he had. if the County now declares an Urban Growth Area, it is not going to be under our control. He projected that it is going to be under the County's control and we don't really know until it is annexed how it will be controlled, and we don't know whether it can be annexed or not, or when~ we certainly don't have the money to provide the infrastructure that would be required. Ms. Thayer: Noted that this is not the best case scenario in terms of timing for any of us. Mr. Leedy: Clarified that paragraph Mr. Worden referred to is really not at odds with anything that is going on, that all it is saying is that the Growth Management Act mandates a minimum review of the Comprehensive Plan every 6 years. He was attempting to say in the Staff Report that certainly they were not going to exceed anything in our Comprehensive Plan or anything mandated by GMA for Urban Growth Areas before the period comes upon us that mandates a 6-year review. He said the City is forecast by the year 2016, the 20-year · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 8 Plan, to achieve a population growth of an approximately 5,500 residents bringing the population up to somewhere around 14,000 people; those 14,000 people can easily be accommodated on areas current1:yset aside. Mr. Mandelbaum: Still wanted to know where they are, that his sense of this document and the request Staff and Mr. Leedy is making is that they focus on Glen Cove, which infers that they make no comment or give no thought to the rest of the EIS the County is addressing tonight. He said he foundhim.self very uncomfortable with that. He realìzes the tensions - what Mr. Leedy is doing, and the City Council is doing, trying to be relevant in this process, mainly dealing with what attaches to Port Townsend, which is Glen Cove in our Plan. Thus, if they just addressed that question, are they inferentially saying they don't care what happens about the Tri Area, they don't care about the relationship of that UGA and the proposed UGA here. He said he is very bothered by how they deal with that. He didn't know who, given the County's game, and thai they are addressing the EIS en toto, how they just say they are going to ignore that and just address Glen Cove, and how they do as suggested here to come to a vote in one night. Having said that, he said he is sensitive to where they are coming from, that you are trying to play in the playing field and be relevant~ but he thought they had to face the questions he is raising. Mr. Worden: Was also concerned at not addressing the Tri Area UGA. especially concerned because the way the City proposal has been presented in the County's presentations. The one right now is that we are recommending a UOA in Glen Cove and one in the Tri Area. He hoped if they talked about those they could separate them, talk about them as separate items, and not lump that all together. He said the Council resolution doesn't say anything about that, and he was not sure how that got to be on the map. Ms. Erickson: Asked if the County Planning COmmission is making recommendation tonight to the County Commissioners, what good is their recommendation with what the City Council has already done. She was unsure what good their input is with the little information they have. Mr. Leedy: Said he thinks they have a whole lot ofinfonnation; the opportunity to assimilate that information is another issue. Ms. Erickson: Indicated she thinks her problem is, one week we have included the mill, the next week the line is changed~ one week they have included an of Glen Cove through old Fort Townsend, now the line as of last week has been shortened. She said she did not understand the justification of all of this. Mr. Leedy: Explained that the mill property was, and the larger Glen Cove UGA was, a Growth Management Steering Committee reaction to the BOCC's determination that Scenario 1 was the scenario they wanted to follow. The City's representatives to that Steering Committee, in order to protect all of the City's interest, indicated that consideration ought to be given to all of the Glen Cove area as an Urban Growth Area, including the already developed mill property. Having said that, and having gotten the acknowledgment of the County that these . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 9 things did in fact exist, it gave the City an opportunity to step back and assess exactly if they want to proceed with on the basis of an Urban Growth Area or a Logical Boundary procedure Growth Area consideration. They are not at the point of planning; this is still addressing the County's supplemental EIS and their draft: decision flowing from that draft. Ms. Thayer: Pointed.out that they asked to be included, asked to have some input. She said, granted, they could spend a lot more time on this; they don't have that time. Mr. Leedy: Regarding the lack of public process that supposedly has been missing, there actually was no planning process the City could go through until the point where we are now. He said the only thing the City could do was respond technically to the Draft EIS~ the City did that, and the City's comments, along with individuals and other agencies comments formed the basis for drafting of the Final EIS and for development of the draft decision document. Mr. Worden: Said he is troubled, that whatever we do tonight it isn't going to affect the Council's resolution, that is already done, and even if it did affect it, it couldn't get into the County process because that will be over by the time it would get there. Mr. Leedy: Said the BOCC win be considering this on October 5th, and they expect some Council action October 4th. Ms. Thayer: Indicated if they make a recommendation different from their resolution, and it goes before the City Council, it win be up to City Council to decide how they want to proceed based upon their recommendation. Mr. Worden: Stated his desire to have the opportunity to raise several issues to talk about, not just "yes" or "no." Ms. Thayer: Did not like the pink scenario on the overhead. She said having worked through the Comp Plan and all, it was their idea to have that go all the way to Old Fort Townsend Road; obviously, that runs the risk of doing strip development, but it is a way to better control it. She felt if they were going to include anything, they ought to include all the green being shown on the overhead. Mr. Leedy: Stated that the line at the south end is the existing City water service area; the rest is PUD, Mr. Mandelbaum indicated they are now engaged in the definition of boundaries. He asked if the City would be prepared to discuss the substance of what they came up with at this meeting. Ms. Erickson pointed out that Comp Plan Policies 16.1 and 16.2. etc. have been goals of the Comp Plan since the Planning Commission originally worked on it. She said this is not new, that it is the City's FUGA. She was not sure how the Port Townsend mill was included, and said she has no opinion. She spoke about supporting the people in Glen Cove and suggested it would be cutting out two-thirds of them. that it is not a good employment base; in order to support what · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 10 is out there, you havè to include all that is out there. She stated there would only be a lot of infiU until annexing. Mr. Leedy said this should not be confused with the Logical Boundary (prior to 1990). Ms. Erickson indicated it does not look a lot different than in 1990. She said there is a lot of land that win be stifled. Mr. Leedy answered her question that acreage with the new 280 gross figure would be little over 300 -- the area in green with pink, 280 gross developable acres. ~estioBS frOQ) ~ ~u~ Q Asked regarding the Comp Plan -,. are we mandated to grow? A Ms. Thayer pointed out that when they went through the Comp Plan, they went through it with a lot community input. Q Asked if everybody has done that for that anticipated growth. A Mr. Leedy explained they were mandated by the State of Washington. He said the City had a choice which was made at the time the Comp Plan was formed. He indicated they were informed it did not matter what the City was planning, the State was anticipating the growth rate. No matter how differently the City planned, the State would respond by saying they would cut off all financial assistance. He said the State set the growth figures historically based on commercial and industrial areas, growth rate, population, resident head count, etc. Based on population, Port Townsend agreed they would be a certain percentage and that the remainder would be rural. The City has adequate resources at least through this 6-year mandated planning period. He noted that neighborhoods are coming back and asking for reconsideration of their zoning, and that the City is somewhat short 70 to 80 industrial acres, shorter than when they went through the exercise. Mr. Worden: Said the County is going to do something~ we are trying to input to that. He said he didn't think the County would do a "no action.'" He stated that Port Townsend's Comp Plan has already anticipated growth, and there are not a lot of choices where that would go. He indicated there was no consideration given to ourComp Plan, and that the resolution was intended to make corrections. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked Mr. Leedy, if they recommend to the City Council some form of Glen Cove UGA, assuming they would agree, would they still be with their Scenario ill recommendation to the County. Mr. Leedy: Replied -- a new Scenario Ill. Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he could see this in terms of the State, could see that it might be rational for the City through the position with Glen Cove. What he couldn't see, whether actively or . by acquiescence, was the whole GMA process to identify a UGA. He could vote for the Commission to recommend Glen Cove, but no other UGA. He said he thought John was talking a different paradigm, protecting open space, that it is not automatic, and he thinks · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 11 they have to look at that, that they have to be relevant He said if the rest are comfortable, if you say Glen Cove, he would go along with a sensible Glen Cove area, and nothing else be done. Mr. Worden: Considered inclusion of the mm as a completely separate issue; it has nothing to do with the designation of a UGA~ it doesn't impact the area available for commercial development The amount of acreage we are talking about, if you look at the scale, the difference between 212 and 280 acres is not very earth shaking. He said he is not terribly worried, but is more concerned about including things that belong in that zone. MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum 1) On the basis ofthe data read, and County Planning hearings attended and summaries read, particularly August 16th, The Port Townsend Planning Commission is not comfortable with the designation of two UGAs in the area, for reasons of too high a cost of public infrastructure, taxes and expenditures at no proven need; 2) on the basis of the prior planning that has been conducted in this city, we may recommend to the City Council the adoption of the following lines for the UGA in the Glen Cove area to incorporate the needed commercialllight industrial growth over the next several years. SECOND Ms. Erickson Discussion: Mr. Worden said he liked the first. part, but wished he had not put the two together. Aft:er hearing the substantial outcry oflast week's County Planning Commission meeting it was clear to him that much of the population does not want the cost. Because the map was drawn on the basis of the City resolution and seems to indicate approval of that, it is very appropriate that we disclaím that approval and ask Council to convey that to the County. He proposed truncating the motion with a semi-colon and approving the first section. Friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison Discussion: Ms. Thayer said her only concern is if they talk to the County about the Tri Area, it may have some reflection on what we are trying to do with Glen Cove. Mr. Worden said the city has already talked to them, that they should put a UGA in the Tri Area. AMENDE)) MOTION: ZoRing implicatioDS; fiscal implications; public opinion evidence, on the basis of the record, including the Planning Commission report of August 16th and the · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 12 VOTE earlier City Couneil resolaûon in July, do not carry the burden of establishing need for a Tri Area UGA, and the City's Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they at least drop that out of any of the scenarios being discussed at the County. Unanimous - 6 in favor Mr. Worden: Concurred with the earlier City Council resolution there is no urgency to designate any UGAs, and that designation of a UGA in the Glen Cove area right now would be dangerous in that it would allow. more or less uncontrolled development until such time as annexation could be accomplished, and we have no idea when that could be. Ms. Thayer. Said she thinks one has to come before the other. Mr. Worden: Replied that it does, but could conceive of a situation where the City was prepared to annex it and there was some information that the property owners would support that. He said from what he understands at this point there is no such thing; the City would have to do something to promote that kind of enthusiasm. He said there has been a lot· of talk in the City of wanting to promote growth, of having living wage jobs, etc., and it is very good to remove the barriers, but the new City Manager so aptly stated quoting for his previous experience in another city that the other piece of it is you have to go out there and financially support the growth of the kind of industries you want. He said he has not seen any willingness in this town to do that, or the ability. Knocking down the barriers before you are willing to go out and build something that will make businesses come that you want to have there, is pretty dangerous. Mr. Harbison: Interjected to be careful what you ask for. Mr. Worden: Concurred and said the other thing he is struggling with is they are going to do something, so let's tell them if they are going to anything, we want the UGA to be part of Port Townsend, and not out there as an island by itself, somewhere. He indicated eventually it is going to be a UGA~ the question is the timing, is this the right time. Ms. Erickson: If it is not a UGA, it can't develop except for infill. She indicated if you want to keep it stagnant until the 6-year renewal to the Comp Plan in 2002~ we will definitely have more information and a lot more time to figure it out. If we don't recommend Glen Cove as a UGA. it will basically stay the way it is. Mr. Leedy: Said the County can do whatever they want in terms of designation in Glen Cove. They can't delete the original logical boundaries, but they can expand the logical boundaries from the existing 1990'5. The County can on its own declare Glen Cove as an urban growth area, or they can leave it the way it is, and anything in between. What doesn't make sense, the logical boundary areas the County had proposed is the action alternative for Scenario II where the logical boundary was completely disconnected from the City of Port Townsend, yet at some time in the future that logical boundary was proposed to be an urban growth . · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 13 ar~ it would not have been contiguous, could not have been annexed to the City of Port Townsend and would have had to develop as a county island. Ms. Thayer: Said this the Commission's opportunity for input and she felt strongly that they need to make a recommendation for the Glen Cove area. Mr. Leedy: Spoke regarding the comments about a strip development, that is a very deep strip development. He said he sees the property on the east side of SR 20 as an opportunity for the City to control development and avoid strip development. You have internal streets in the Glen Cove area, that can serve reasonable land development very well and can avoid the strip development. Staff does recommend that this is a desired area and to look at it with the urban growth area designation at this point in time. The considerations for zoning, for annexation flow from designations of urban growth areas. Ms. Thayer: Pointed out it hasn't developed as strip development so far. Mr. Worden: Noted there are some controls, the fact that this is a limited access highway impacting driveways through there. Since Mr. Masci had left, he asked Mr. Finnie to comment if he feltthTOugh that process the City win have any influence on the zoning if that stays outside of the City as a UGA for the time being. Mr. Finnie: Replied he was unsure whether or not it was appropriate for him to comment, but said with the County scenario with the city limits and the Glen Cove area, the city would have very little influence on what would go on in the fonn of developing if that new Glen Cove UGA were established. Mr. Worden: Asked if as pictured on the overhead map, does he think they would more. Mr. Finnie: He asked Chair Thayer to indicate to him if as a City Councilmember he is saying anything that would tie up their deliberations. He referred to Mr. Leedy's Staff Report of September 29, 1999 which answered that, "Scenario 1 will commit the County and the City to future planning and development which is of absolutely no benefit to the City and of questionable viability for the County." He said you could carry that further and said the City would not be a position to exercise any land use control. Ms. Thayer: Said to Mr. Finnie she agreed, it probably would be better if he didn't comment. Mr. Worden: Suggested they indicate their preference is to not designate any UGAs, and in the event they should decide to do so anyway, they would hope they would abide by the City's wishes to have it connect to the Port Townsend city limits. He said he feels it is going to be a UGA, and they should make it incorporate all of the existing businesses, that there shouldn't by any logical boundary, or anything else, stuck outside the UGA~ it should be complete. Ms. Thayer. Asked if they make a recommendation there be no UGA at this time, where are they if the County does? Mr. Mandelbaum: Said we are addressing the City Council. MOTION Mr. Worden The Port Townsend Planning Commission recommends to the City Council they continue to further put forward · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 14 SECOND Discussion: VOTE the idea witll the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee that the designation of a UGA is not urgent and eould be postponed to a time when the City could prepare for it, and that the City Council officially go on record as preferring, of the options presented, the designation of a UGA in Glen Cove that extends to the City Limits of Port Townsend, ineluding all existing businesses south to Old Fort Townsend, and that such UGA be constrained to tile east side of Route 20, ineluding area 6 of the areas designated in the EIS. Ms. Ota Mr. Mandelbaum asked if it would be useful to incorporate by reference the analysis of Mr. Leedy's September 29th Staff Report, not every sentence, but in effect appreciating and acting on the logical consequences of this analysis other than adopting some of the recommendations~ what we have craft:ed here flows from the City Council's first resolution on the accuracy of the EIS, we already adopted, and secondly on analysis here before us tonight. Ms. Thayer suggested acting on this motion, then adding that information for support. Mr. Mandelbaum said he is not trying for a second motion, just saying that the Port Townsend Planning Commission's actions, both resolution 1 and 11 flow naturally from previous City Council findings and from the report here tonight, so City Council knows our reasoning. Ms. Thayer asked Mr. Worden why he is eliminating all of the area west of Highway 20 which is already commercial. He replied that commercial area can obviously stay there and continue doing the business as it is doing under anything that can happen here. He thinks very quickly you run into a situation if you start expanding on the left: side~ you need a buffer between the commercial zone and residential zones beyond. There was no way he knew of now to provide that, so what you have is commercial that win gradually encroach on the residential areas, not by actually taking them over, but by putting activities there that aren't compatible to residential. Ms. Erickson asked for clarification if they are recommending to do nothing right now. Mr. Mandelbaum said they are recommending that Council continue to express the opinion that there is no urgency in designating a UGA; Ms. Thayer added, if they did designate, that it be that area, from the city limits to Old Fort Townsend. Mr. Leedy asked, so Staff would have a clear understanding, everything east down to Old Fort Townsend? Ms. Thayer affirmed, and added, with the same boundary on either side. Unanimous - 6 in favor Chair Thayer thanked participants for their attendance. · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 29, 1999 Page 15 VI. New Business Mr. Worden noted he would be sending some information from Whidbey Island for low cost housing and their city zoning. Vll. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings: September 30. 1999 Joint Training Session Public Hearing (open record) Public Hearing (open record October 14. 1999 Comp Plan Amendments Zoning Code Text Amendment O«tober 28. 1999 Public Hearing (open-record) VIll. Communications -- Current Mail IX. Adjournment 9:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (with City Council) Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed SEPA Threshold Amendments Finalize findings & conclusions Workshop (Proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-IIl(A) zoning district) Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-12) Zoning. Code Text Amendment - height limit Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ~~JLt&þt~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker ~ ~J . ,.~./ t#~ C~ThaNf' Chair . Guest List q 11 q he¡ A 1 ;0(//# a (faN ÆI/5'5/0 AJ "me (please Print) Address , / IV 4 '^ c'- 0..,.&<:. "" '" ~' '~~t·- k'rJ¡ ~ .11 ~ ;j T - I....". c- Î n· II¡- \J J-rr:> ì~CÁ -e V\t"\... 's / tit" Á.,ç; ê1cw U?J l \1 M G-)~'" ~()ì '^""""'o;4.·......¡.,... ¿Ifq ¡fLJ ~ {ç-y 0 t 1/"1' 'y) I '51 V ~fFQ.rßa-n S+, / Pí I ôlD \~ ffcr.crJl1 crt I í Ç)..6.~~D5 - .:r >" - ! . . ,~ . . ..-. - - ,. Do you wish to testify?(Mark box) Yes No ~ ~ V V'" V' - If yes, indieat~ topic ú(~.... Co v.c.. ç~ (~ lÞ-A- ¡huc;; I Pf< ue-A ~-h-.- ¡ UßA ·4/ . ...... ,