Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09231999 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Workshop Meeting September 23, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: 9/2/99 and 9/9/99 and 9/16/99 V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business A. Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation 1. Staff presentation (Bob Leedy) 2. Commission Discussion VII. September 29 t 1999 Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation (open-record public hearing) September 30 r 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open-record public hearing) Proposed SEPA Threshold Amendments (open-record public hearing) ~ber 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 Workshop Meeting September 23, 1999 I. 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 Christine Ota. Len Mandelbaum arrived at 7:02 p.m. Staff members present were BCD Director Bob Leedy and City Attorney Tim McMahan. City Council representatives were GeoffMasci and Alan Frank. m. Acceptance of Agenda Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes of September 2, 1999 as written was made by Ms. Thayer and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. Motion to approve the minutes of September 9, 1999 as written and corrected was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. Record of postponement of the September 16, 1999 meeting due to lack of a quorum was noted. V. Unfinished Business -- There was none VI. New Business A. Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation I. Staff Presentation . , · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Leedy explained the meeting was scheduled to answer questions from materials already provided and to give a sense of direction for the September 29th public hearing. Using a map he pointed out what members of the City Growth Management Steering Committee are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners and to the County Planning Commission in terms of Port Townsend's interest in an Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary as a result of this exercise and in a future logical boundary area. Outlined on the map, Scenario III as submitted to the County and to the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee included the mill property and Subareas I and II of the county logical boundary area. Since that submittal, discussion has centered on excluding the mill property at this time and proposing a UGA boundary consistent with the city water service area as adopted by City Council. He outlined the area the City felt to be adequate to cover any foreseeable City needs in terms of urban growth. He pointed out that they do see need, as also shown in some of the material distributed, for flexibility on the part of the City with regard to the City's current Comprehensive Plan and a possible need to back off from increases in some of the density and land use intensity that resulted from Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan adoption. They have heard from neighborhoods, for example, that are concerned about the fact that they were carte blanche upzoned from residential to light manufacturing/commercial. In order to look at bringing all of these things in sync with regard to the City's ability to meet the 2016 growth projections, within the coming year the City is going to be looking back, and in the very near future meeting with some of those neighborhoods to explain to them how their properties, primarily Thomas and Logan Streets along Sims Way, transitioned without their knowledge from residential to commercialllight manufacturing. Mr. Leedy said they are hearing from different areas regarding this kind of situation. It is not a critical thing to remedy, but if they are going to maintain some kind of balance, and transition another area into light manufacturing/commercial, the only place to do that without impacting some other neighborhood in the city is to look at some area that could be incorporated into the city's UGA. He said they feel a UGA contiguous to but outside the city is appropriate; a UGA that makes sense; inside our water service area; one that qualifies as a UGA -- contiguous to a municipality, the kind of entity that ought to be providing service. It doesn't involve creation of a new city -- incorporation into a full service city. He said at the same time they are asking for a logical boundary area that coincides with the water service area, and he pointed it out on the map. 2. Commission Discussion Ms. Erickson: How did they come up with Subarea I in Glen Cove without including Subarea II? Mr. Leedy: Responded that they brought it down to the south boundary of the city's water service area -- officially adopted by the City, but not the only area the city provides water. . . · · · .~ ~ Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Worden: We are considering right now what is going to be designated a UGA, not what is going to be annexed to the City. He said he did not see how the balance of commercial space in the City Comp Plan is affected by this; this is going to be in the county until we effect an annexation, if ever. Mr. Leedy: In order to have an option to effect annexation, you have to have that Mr. Worden: Concurred, but said the fact that there may be more commercial space there than the city needs, should riOt influence us. Ms. Thayer asked if it shouldn't ail be in an urban growth area. Mr. Worden continued by asking why we are not including all of the area that has already been developed more or less commercial. Mr. Leedy: Members of the Urban Growth Management Committee didn't go further south, because this is the south border of the City Water Servíce Area and in their minds a logical area to stop, given the fact there is more than adequate acreage there to meet the City's needs in the foreseeable future. Ms. Thayer: Understood Mr. Worden's reasoning; asked what this win be designated if it is not an urban growth area? Mr. Leedy: They are only asking that the logical boundary incorporate that remaining area. The existing commercial and industrial activities can be maintained, can be legal uses~ even areas can be accommodated to fill in between. Mr. Worden: Thought there.is something illogical about designating a logical boundary with a UGA. A UGA should obviate the need of logical boundary for existing uses. Mr. Leedy: Replied that by State law a logical boundary gives some flexibility to developments that exist inside the logical boundary, but outside the UGA. Mr. Worden: Thought the only reason to make the UGA smaller than the existing commercially developed area would be if you really thought there was way too much commercial space. Mr. Leedy: Thought there was more than adequate space in the areas outlined to take care of the City's UGA needs over the planning period. Mr. Worden: Concurred, but noted that the County has UGA needs also. Mr. Leedy: Said he was not arguing that, but the statute says urban growth should occur in Urban Growth Areas. According to the definition, UOAs are typicaUy cities that provide a full range of services. He said Port Townsend is a city, so they are proposing the UGA contiguous to the city so that at the appropriate point in time annexation can take place, and the City can get on to zoning, planning and development of property. Mr. Mandelbaum: This whole exercise is the County's EIS, and presumably the objective is to meet the defined need of212 industrial/commercial acres, more or less. Taking it from there, how much of that need, the 212 more or less acres, is met within the UOA as outlined? Mr. Leedy: Thought within the green outline approximately 80 acres, and if extended to the logical boundary, it would exceed the 212 acres. He explained it does not count any existing developed property in the area~ therefore, if the mill were within the UGA it would not count against the acreage that is needed. · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 4 Ms. Thayer: Asked if City Council has already made a resolution incorporating that area? Mr. Masci: Replied, it was not incorporating; proposing as a modification to Scenario ill, since the mill property has been withdraWIL Ms. Thayer: Said the Planning Commission win be having a hearing next and asked if basically they were wanting them to ratifY their decision. Mr. Leedy: Replied he thought Council was looking for a recommendation from the Commission as to whether this makes sense for the Council to act on at their October 4th meeting. Mr. Masci: Explained that they made a resolution because they had to change the original proposal. so they redefined the proposal to what this is now. Ms. Erickson: Was at a loss how it could change so much, so early, so fast from one way to another. Mr. Leedy: Indicated that when Scenario ill was developed and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners and Joint Growth Management Committee, the city representatives and staff were responding to the County's Scenarios I and n. In the best interest of the City, it was felt that rather than come in with a limited area for purpose of consulting, digesting and commenting on a Scenario ill, that the preferred submittal was to cover everything that might make sense to the City. After further assessment, carefully looking at it and reading the three scenarios transmitted by the consultant, staff and the committee members agreed that the area as outlined made more sense than the one for the entire Future Urban Growth Area (FUGA). They had introduced that notion so everybody had a clear understanding that, 1) what the City's original FUGA consisted of: and 2) to make known the fact that the mill property is in reality a piece of Port Townsend, at some point in time. Ms. Thayer: Asked what the area to the south would be designated. Mr. Leedy: Replied they are suggesting the logical boundary to cover that area. That allows the development that is there to continue to be in place, and allows people to know that the laws will be pressing on in the infill aspect within the logical boundary. Mr. Worden: Referred to last night's meeting, and said it is pretty clear that you can infiU. Ms. Thayer: You are proposing to do the UGA; she pointed out an area and asked if that area would continue to be the way it is. basically non..confonning? Mr. Leedy: Affirmed -- within the logical boundary of the City's FUGA. Ms. Erickson: Controlled by the County? Mr. Leedy affirmed. Ms. Thayer: Why not designate it all the UGA? Mr. Leedy said that was a good question and suggested it is something they could bring up at the public hearing. Mr. Worden: Thinks they have to; he said he thinks they are thinking here for the City, but nonetheless, this is the County's problem, and you bave to address it terms of what makes sense to them. Thought logical boundary is to take care of existing businesses that happen to be in place prior to a certain date in 1990. Sooner or later they are going to get incorporated in the Urban Growth Area, so what are we waiting for? Weare already there. He noted an error in the report; it was verified today the target for the County is 280 acres not 212. There - · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 5 is not really an issue about designating too much land. He spoke of Mr. Eric Frederickson continuing to say his property was sold to him by the County as commercial property -- he paid commercial property prices for it, has a resolution from the County Commission designating it as commercially zoned property, and on this map it keeps showing up as split down the middle. He said he thinks they might just as wen recognize that; he knows the County is going to respond to that and eventually include it in the boundary, so he doesn't know why we shouldn,~ too. Ms. Erickson: Seems only fair. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if they can start rrom the beginning and see what the goal is here - 280 acres, 212 acres or less as suggested, and set down by the City earlier? Mr. Masci: Replied net versus gross (and the modification of 280 acres today); at 212 net acres, the actual acres would be approximately 440 acres. Mr. Worden: Understood 212 was gross; what they learned today was that number was the result of applying the reduction factors inappropriately. You have to have 280 acres to produce the net number needed for the employment figures that were used in the ElS; 280 is gross. Mr. Masci: So, 280 acres is the new official gross number for 4% employment growth rate. He asked Mr. Mandelbaum if he was questioning the purpose, or what the City hoped to gain. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked what it would be if in the scenario they add the green area outlined on the map to the new configuration, 280 acres~ in Glen Cove and add the Tri Area. Mr. Masci: Referred to Subareas I, and II, and replied that on his map the Tri Area UGA is proposed. Mr. Mandelbaum: With IA, does that mean the County's option I, II or ill are obsolete? Mr. Masci: They have more flex room. They can declare a logical boundary somewhere else, or expand the Tri Area. Mr. Mandelbaum: Or expand within the UOA. He asked if one problem raised by the County Commission wasn't the idea of development down both sides of Route 20, sprawl? Mr. Worden: Affirmed it has been discussed. Mr. Masci: There are some property owners on the west side of Highway 20 who would prefer to be included in the UGA for commercial and light industrial purposes, because they are already existing. Mr. Leedy: Said from a planning standpoint, cutting it off along the corridor and assigning urban growth areas on only one side makes no sense. It is the major highway that feeds Port Townsend and provides opportunity for access; that was not a land use decision. Planning logic would tell you, if you are going to change the lines, pull the lines in the north and extend to the west to bring in development property that is even closer to the City of Port Townsend. It was not based on a planning standpoint. Mr. Worden: Differed with that opinion. One of the principles was that we don't want a strip city on the highway leading into town. If we were to draw this boundary around what is - · · · : Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 6 already developed, there would be no reason to extend that boundary any further. Mr. Leedy: That is a point for consideration. Mr. Masci: Part of the issue is, on your land use map the little inset on it is the original proposed FUGA for Port Townsend coming out of 1996 Comp Plan. Scenario ill is suspiciously resembling that original proposal. The Growth Management group tried beginning to digest the county information as it was coming in deluges one hour or two before each meeting; everything kept changing, and that previously proposed and somewhat handshook agreement of that picture kept changing radically. All of a sudden it mysteriously detached itself from the City border. He said the group was hopelessly confused about the County's intention, and the County Commissioners and County planning staff that were at all those public meetings never answered it. We requested that the 3.2 option be looked at as one of the ideas of the original agreement, bookend theory. We also asked why they changed all the areas in the Glen Cove region; both staff and Commissioners, indicating they had taken us into consideration., kept imputing volition on our part when we never had conversations about what our goals, or whatever, beyond the Comp Plan, which was that particular scenario as on the wall, and has always been. He said they had to do a quick educational process with City Attorney McMahan's assistance. Highway 20 came up when we made the Scenario m proposal; the Commissioners were nervous about the number of acreage aspects of this proposal, and the group suggested using Highway 20 and give everything west of that back for Hadlock. He said the group questioned the 212 number, but were not aware it would be formally proposed to be 280; this is today's new vehicle. We are not ones who are changing the rules, but are trying to respond to rule changes and keep up with a coherent, logical plan that reflects 10 years of planning that culminated in our Comp Plan. Ms. Erickson: When we did the Comp Plan, we vaguely went over Glen Cove for a UGA. Because they had so much to do within the city, they decided not to deal with that until later on., and also couldn't because they had to wait for the county. Our intentions at that time, at least thinking about and looking at as a UGA, was going from the city limits along Highway 20 out to old Fort Townsend. Mr. Leedy: That coincides with the FUGA. Mr. Masci: So that is consistent with what I said. The trimming of this proposal has a lot to do with how they defined all the subareas. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked to hear some of the planning policy rationale for the proposed City policy. Why do you prefer Scenario ill to the County's I and IT? Mr. Leedy: From a Staff perspective, the City needs to have options open to fine tune the Comprehensive Plan we have in place. Having no place to go in the event we do need to modify the existing Comprehensive Plan; we have nowhere to go. Mr. Mandelbaum: Why would their Scenarios I and IT deny a place to go? Mr. Leedy: There would be no urban growth area established contiguous to the city of Port · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 7 Townsend. As a practical and legal matter, there is no need for the county to do anything right now. There is no need to establish an additional urban growth area anywhere, no need to modify logical boundaries anywhere. He referred to the mandatory 6-year review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Masci: We as a City of Port Townsend, not as a Council, have proposed a no change, no action proposaL That has historically been the City's position. Mr. Leedy: We know we have capacity under the statutes to meet the urban growth needs for at least the next 10 years. Nothing would need to be modified, and that still gives us the latitude to make some of the change adjustments inside the corporate limits and stìH have adequate acreage to meet all of the growth management requirements. Mr. Mandelbaum: Would that equally be washing out Scenario II, no UGA there? Mr. Leedy: Yes, no UGA anywhere. Mr. Worden: Asked, with Scenario ill as originally proposed, part of that scenario was a UGA in the Port Hadlock area, and you chose the same one they bad chosen? Mr. Leedy: We developed Scenario ill at the request of their consultants, as they indicated to the City they were going to put that on paper as Scenario III. It didn't come back as Scenario III the City submitted; it came back making of the UGA at Glen Cove and the surrounding area. It didn't include the logic, the parameters, the Comp Plan references for the City of Port Townsend within their Scenario III. Mr. Worden: By your incorporating it in Scenario III, which was the City's proposal, are we going to try to defend that there should be a UGA in the Tri Area? Mr. Leedy: He did not think the City of Port Townsend is that interested one way or the other, so long as it's not such a terribly ambitious UGA in Tri Area. There are provisions in the Growth Management Act for all kinds of rural urban things -- rural centers, major industrial districts (MIDs), a lot of opportunities for places like Port Hadlock to prosper and flourish without the UGA designation. That is the county's business, not the city's. Ms. Thayer: So the purpose of our workshop tonight is to let you know if there is anything more we need from Staff before the hearing. Ms. Erickson: A definition of logical boundaries. Our material says the boundary would be frozen in time and extent and should not look any different than today (assuming also tomorrow) than it did in 1990 and shouldn't exhibit UGA characteristics, indicating to her the rest of the Glen Cove area will be frozen. Mr. McMahan: Referred to the handouts, GMA excerpts regardingUGAs and Logical boundaries outlined in Title 36 RCW: Title 36.70A.070(5)(d)(I),(iv)and (v)(A). He indicated it says if you draw a logical boundary, you can obviously put parcels within the logical boundary to infill through a boundary that is logical; logical meaning around geographical features, roadways, etc., does not imply gerrymandering around every potentially developable property. It implies logically designating where your boundaries are ., . , · · · " Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 8 -- don't allow sprawl outside of them; allow some infill within them. Ms. Erickson: The fact that it should not have the characteristics of a UGA, doesn't sound as if that is accurate. Within the logical boundary, if you can grow, infill, have uses, redevelop, you will probably look like a little UGA. Mr. McMahan: But it also says you shouldn't develop in a way that requires an extension of urban services, and implies it should maintain its rural character for the most part. Ms. Erickson: But what if it isn't rural at the time? Mr. McMahan: That's the problem. The Growth Management Act tends to make assumptions that don't always exist. Historically, meaning when Jefferson County just completed its Comprehensive Plan, the City went along with Jefferson County in taking a reasonable view of what a logical boundary meant, and in Jefferson County we have certain uses that have. been allowed to develop over time that are more than rural in character. We certainly never argued those needed to vanish or be rendered non-conforming uses. The point the last Council made and in responding to draft Comp Plan amendments was, if you are going to draw boundaries around those areas, your starting reference point is what existed in 1990- that is what the law says; roadways or whatever, parcels the law allows for infilL What isn't allowed, and the position the City took, was going beyond further to the north, adding parcels east or west, adding parcels that aren't developed and calling that the logical boundary. He said that is illogical, referred to the definitions in the statute and said that was the key point. In responding to the proposals that are mapped out in Options A or B, what the City representatives, the Growth Management Steering Committee have been stating is that they have been talking about additional areas beyond the logical boundaries that don't meet the statutory definition. He said he had conversations with Mr. Shockey about this, and Mr. Shockey essentially acknowledged this is pushing it beyond the definition of the statute. Mr. Mandelbaum: We are not doing that here? Mr. McMahan: Replied, "No." When they began formulating this proposal the point was, in terms of accommodating growth, in terms of having a starting place for the City to accommodate its own future needs, and in terms of trying to serve the needs of the property owners to allow the maximum flexibility of the property, it could all be put into an urban growth area meeting all those needs, fully meeting the requirements of the statute and not pushing around what is allowed in the logical boundary; trying to draw lines that accommodated those property owner needs, accommodated planning and being consistent with the past. Mr. Masci: Definition of logical boundary based on historic presence was one of our points. Mr. McMahan: Meaning we had water service through there? Mr. Masci: Mr. Leedy explained that this line goes to the City's water service area. There was discussion years ago about where would the boundary go, and at that time the City position was where the urban services end - water lines, roads were considered some of the components of urban services; there were no sewers, but we have areas in the City also that . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 9 are on septic systems. There was a preponderance of urban services in that area; that was another support of why that boundary is valid, why other boundaries are not so valid. Mr. Worden: Asked Mr. Leedy if the resolution including the UGA recommended maintaining logical boundaries. Mr. Leedy: Said he meant the logical boundary would extend to the south end of the subarea. There was discussion surrounding the map, and what had previously existed in the area. Mr. Masci: This is an exercise of recommendations to come back to CounciL Council is responding to boundaries and designations that the County has essentially imposed for purposes of discussions. You may think the UGA boundary should run down to old Fort Townsend -~ that may be a recommendation you bring to us. He said they are looking for advice from the Commission as they see it from their planning perspective. Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he would like to take it from where they are now, the City's position which follows the position taken earlier, questioning the County's analytic base. Said he would take it that they are no longer in a position to question in terms of the EIS, the analytic base, as set up earlier. Mr. Worden: The EIS has been adopted; it is final. Mr. Mandelbaum: But it was adopted after the City sent a letter, saying you are going along without an adequate analytic base -- be on notice City Council said that, and the Planning Commission said that, prior to adoption of the EIS. That is on record, but now we come along and say we are shooting for Scenario III. He said given the fact they are on record earlier, queStioning in a sense the adequacy of the EIS, had not been responded to in a substantive way. They have no way of satisfying the City's earlier set of questions about the growth rate. Given the fact now we are coming with a substantive additional scenario, which is obviously predicated on the growth rate of 4%, does that preclude a future challenge to the EIS? Mr. McMahan: If we were proposing something that would require the City stand along with the 4% figure, we could still legally challenge the concept of 4%, but it might look a little strange. Mr. Mandelbaum: Replied, he is not sure it would, because the City files an objection, a set of questions; they don't respond. The City is in a position where, in order to be relevant, we have to.... Mr~ McMahan: The concern of City representatives in the Growth Management Steering Committee was this "island" out in the County having the potential of being expanded-- potentially every year, 5 years, or whatever. In the City's opinion, without compliance with the statute, having that out there would significantly undermine future opportunities to have an out-of-city Urban Growth Area. There was a sense this could really handicap the City's . . . ." Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 10 opportunity to have reasonable control and reasonable planning over the entry to town we care about. It makes sense for esthetic reasons, for infrastructure reasons, and it makes sense for development reasons of meeting planning under the Growth Management Act, and doing it the correct way. He thought that in a sense the City was put in the place of needing to bring a proposal to accommodate the long term planning goals. Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he could see that, but thought you could also say that in order to be consistent with our first position, one of the ways to do that would have been to come in with a Glen Cove proposal only. Mr. McMahan: He was not sure how the Tri Area UGA got into that. Mr. Masci: Explained that it was because they felt a UGA contiguous to our borders would be appropriate; it was a question they raised. According to our Comp Plan approximately 40% of the UGA growth comes to the city and approximately 60% goes to the County. The numbers were reversed, and the County said the City was supposed to take 70% and 30% would go to the rest of the county area. The only way those numbers can match is that there is another UGA; we felt we were not opposed to a Tri Area UGA. That is why we included it, to give some assurances that we were not trying to take all of the 212 acres, now 280, that was available. Mr. Mandelbaum: How would they be concerned about that, if the UGA we are proposing in Glen Cove only takes 80 of those acres of land? Mr. Masci: They like that. That is why we got into swapping when presented this, and we pulled away only to the west of Highway 20. He said when they got the maps back, they were different from what the City submitted, and they were a little bit surprised - there was a lot of discussion going on, magic markers working on maps. What came back, and what was in the newspapers, was not quite the boundaries the City originally proposed. He said this more accurately reflects, minus the mill, what the City is proposing, and the original plan. Mr. Mandelbaum: The County Planning Commission report of August 16th generally raises the theme, that it is one thing to talk about this the way we are in terms of acreage, and another thing to do a basic policy analysis raising questions about fiscal impacts on Port Townsend, about an MID, affordable housing, -- a host of policy questions. He asked if they spent any time reflecting on this, that it seems to him when they as policymakers make decisions, and we as advisors make recommendations, those are the things we should be looking at. Mr. McMahan: One reason they pulled together all the excerpts from Port Townsend's Com Plan is there is a lot in there already, background kinds of positions with information that distills into growth policies they are developing in several major sections of our 95196 Plan and is ultimately part our Plan. He encouraged looking to the Plan for a lot of that background. He added that, no, the City did not go through a specific analysis of a particular impact of these proposals; it is not the City's planning project. For policy background he thinks the Comp Plan gives a pretty good summary of the City's history and shows some real consistency. · · · ,. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Mandelbaum: You are saying, from a land use point of view, the City can control growth totally in the Glen Cove area. He said his sense is that the City is not concerned about any of the fiscal interests. Mr. Leedy: He thinks they should be; that is where concurrency comes in, the phasing in of the UGA area in terms of annexation and provision of services. Concurrency stipulates that jurisdictions with UGA designations have to develop a capital facilities plan that shows ability to serve developing portions of the UGA over a 6-year period. We have to be able to show that we are fiscally responsible in extending utilities and services to the UGA. Mr. Worden: Said that, however, for this action that is being taken now, it is the County that has to demonstrate that, not the City. The County is in a spot here, because in \>oth this case and the Tri Area case, they are looking at a UGA that other people are asking for and suggesting that the Tri Area is going to be an incorporated city. In this situation it will be an annexation to Port Townsend, There is no guarantee that will happen. For the interim, the County has to swallow the pill and agree to do the infrastructure. He thought there is a good chance they won't do it. Ms, Erickson: If they don't, no matter where the lines are, when and if this is designated a UGA, the County has control over it until the City or property owner annexes. Is that going to be in the next 5 or 10 years, or do we know that yet? Mr. Leedy: We do not know that. Ms. Erickson: You look at where the development is, where there are streets, and water, say the City doesn't annex it for 5 to 10 years or even ifthey did, most of the growth is going to go where most of the development and infrastructure is already, which means it is going to be right here in the Glen Cove area already developed, more infill right there than in the wooded area, where you don't have roads, or anything. She said that unless the City annexed it and started the utilities coming from the City, from what she has seen in the last 8 years out there, she does not see the part developing where there is nothing right now. Mr. Leedy: Said that is not necessarily the case. He said he understands the logic, but there is some attractive land Mr. Mandelbaum: From the County viewpoint, they might be happy to see this UGA, to see annexation and the City taking responsibility of all the infrastructure there; likewise, they could wait years for the UGA or logical boundaries until they pass an annexation in the Tri Area. Could they dodge putting in infrastructure in the Tri Area? Mr. Leedy: Not if designated a UGA. Mr. Masci: "They" is "we." It makes no difference if they declare this a UGA or the Tri Area a UGA , or both; they may be hoping that the property owners in this Glen Cove region propose annexation to the City, because that will get them off the hook and the City of Port Townsend would be on the hook. Ms. Erickson: We need to include all the property owne.TS. There are a lot of property owners there you have excluded. · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Leedy: That is a point for public hearing. Mr. Masci: That can be a part of your recommendation to Council. Mr. Worden: A point of information, the County Planning Commission held their last public. hearing on this last night; it was a pretty impressive and well conducted meeting. Public comment was of very high quality and was overwhelming that residents of Hadlock in particular, and the Tri Area in general, do not want a UGA. It was well reasoned and beautifully presented and certainly had an impact on the Planning Commission. Mr. Mandelbaum: Said the Planning Commissioners he had been hearing had been leaning to the logical boundary option anyway. Mr. Worden: Concurred and said they had even put that out, that it is their preferred alternative. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if they wanted to comment on that, if that is appropriate in terms of the Growth Management Act, as a matter of policy. He responded to Mr. Leedy's question ifhe meant the expanded logical boundary, what if the vote goes through the County Commissioners scenario also. What are the planning policy implications of that? Mr. Leedy: Mr. McMahan indicated what was said on reasonable infill. From a planning standpoint, if you are going to expand the logical boundary beyond what was logical in 1990, you are going to have urban sprawl. Mr. Worden: Sprawl, but rural sprawl. Mr. Leedy: Then it becomes a legal issue of whether or not they can expand the logical boundaries in the Tri Area. Mr. Worden: Effectively, that is as close to no action as we are likely to get. Probably not a lot will change in the near term under that scenario. There is still a lot of area within the existing logical boundaries of Glen Cove that can be infiU. Until that is mostly used, there isn't a huge demand for more. Commission discussion concluded. VII. Other Business Chair Thayer announced the hearings scheduled for next week and the schedule for October. Ms. Thayer discussed with the Commission the proposal by the Port of Port Townsend to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district and the upcoming public hearing, that last week it came to her attention that one Port Commissioner was going to ask her to recuse herself from this hearing. She explained to him that it would not affect the value of her property, and she felt she could continue to act on the amendment. She said it definitely would · · · t Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 13 affect properties in her neighborhood, but that this is legislative and not quasi~judicial. She said she then had discussion with Mr. McMahan, and he questioned her as to where she stood in the whole process. She explained that this is legislative, that they are aU here representing their community. She felt that even though it wasn't going to affect her property, it would affect many properties in the neighborhood, and that she felt it was justified for her to continue. She said she saw it no different from Planning Commissioner Erickson being a commercial property owner and discussing Glen Cove or C-II. She said she also discussed the matter with Planning Commissioner Mandelbaum, and he felt comfortable with her participation; she asked if the other Planning Commission members had any concerns. She noted that they will have differing opinions on this, as they do on many issues. Mr. Worden said that given it is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, that there is no problem with appearance of fairness, he is comfortable with her participation. CONSENSUS: Ms. Thayer be allowed to participate in the matter of the Port of Port Townsend request to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district Mr. Mandelbaum expressed appreciation to City Attorney McMahan for his labor which was also a consensus of all the Planning Commission. Mr. McMahan replied that he had appreciated working with the Planning Commissions and that Port Townsend had been a great place to do what he has done. Ms. Erickson asked if there would be new maps for next week's public hearing. Mr. Leedy indicated they would be included with Commission materials at the meeting next week. Next Scheduled Meetings September 29. 1999 Public Hearing (open record) Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation September 30. 1999 Joint Training Session 9:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (with City Council) Public Hearing (open record) Public Hearing (open record Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed SEP A Threshold Amendments October 14, 1999 Comp Plan Amendments Finalize findings & conclusions ., · · · ,- . Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 14 Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (Proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-III(A) zoning district) October 28. 1999 Public Hearing (open-record) Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit VIII. Communications -- Current Mail Letter of Resignation from the Port Townsend Planning Commission from Ms. Lois Sherwood. Chair Thayer noted the letter of resignation received by Ms. Sherwood. It was indicated the City Manager would be making an appointment to fill the vacancy. IX. Adjournment Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ßdL~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . . . Gllest List Meeting of; (l,i/ViV/ÆQ CONAI/.5.5ìCiV Purpose: /-120fd'SélJ QéA/ Cr7r)E-l!a4- ))£5it/t/.4í/tJ/¥ .- IL/DKlé51(!)jJ Date: I N a m e Iplene p'"'' I Address I T~~mÎn~~ I ;V(7(..." Dðn .. Â / '.t., \.1..r"" '> J.. 'Lo. j OL <:;; ~ "/ v- I ... . i - ~ .; I I I I I