Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05092002 Min Ag · · · I. n. In. IV. v. VI. vn. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm Call to Order RoB Call Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes - Aprilll, 2002 General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) Unfinished Business New Business A. Workshop - Update on Glen Cove a. Jeff Randall - City of Port Townsend BCD b. Randy Kline - Jefferson County DCD VIII. Upcoming Meetings May 9, 2002 May 15, 1002 - Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop; Review Comp Plan Preliminary Docket May 23, 1002 ..... Continued Planning Commission Workshop on Preliminary Docket (¡f needed) May 30, 2002 - Planning Commission Public Hearing on Docket VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 09, 2002 ~ TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members aøswering roll weR Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Nancy Dorgan, James Irvin, Alice King, and Michael Hyland. Bernie Arthur arrived at 7: 10 p.m. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall, Senior Planner Judy Surber, and Randy Kline, Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Michelle Sandoval represented the City Council. I. m. ACCEPTANCE Of AGENDA Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda; Ms. Hersey seconded. All weR in favor. IV. AfPROV AL Qf MINUTES Ms. Hersey made a motion to accept the minutes as amended; Ms. Dorgan seconded. All were in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. John Lockwood asked to hold his comment until after the presentations on the Update of Glen Cove. Mr. Randall concurred. VI. UNFlNIS~ BUSINESS - There was none. VII. NEWBUSINESS-UPDATEm!~~ Mr. Jeff Randall. Port Townsend BCD Director, discussed the City's involvement with the Glen Cove process. He encouraged Commissioners to ask questions ßOÛßg there is a Glen Cove FUGA amendment on the docket, that in the future they JDaY be involved in Glen Cove planning. He explained the meeting was informational, there was no action for the Commission to take tonight and that they should limit themselves to questions, not dialog. Referencing the Jefferson County Task VI document from Fall of 200 1, Mr. Randall dealt only with the Glen Cove portion stating it bad come out of the County's planning wodc as well as an appeal before the Growth Management Hearings Board. Case Jaw was coming down from the Hearings Board about what LAMIRDs could be. In other jurisdicûons the Hearings Board was saying such things as roads, water lines, de could define the logical outer boundaries of these LAMlRDS. Late winter County Commissioners asked County Planners to look at LAMIRDs in relation to the Camp Plan policy that says the Glen Cove LAMIRD is an interim boundary and charged County Staff to look at the feasibility of expaJ1ding that LAMIRD' County Staffreported to the Commissioners the reasons they thought it could be done. A public hearing was scheduled to adopt the LAMIRD boundary that included an additional 59 acres. The City expressed to the County that they felt expaosion of the Glen CoveLAMIRD should occur through the County's Comprehensive PIø pmcess. The BOCC agreed to hold off and have negotiations with the City which resulted in a memorandum ofunderstandiRg and getting Mr. Nielson from the Growth Management Hearings Board to offer an opiøion. Mr. Nielson's report was basically supportive of the boundaries County Staff wrote, recommending exclusions as shown on the map. He also reconunended carefully looking at things to be allowed, e.g. uses, lot coverage, bulk and dimensional, etç. The City letter of response to the Nielson Report is also quite supportive of the boundary proposed by Mr. Nielson and highlights the items he referred to. Mr. Randall felt it indicative that the City and County are closer to a Glen Cove solution for the short term. They are also working on an interlocal agreement, perhaps more for long-term solutions. Mt. BimdI Kline. Jefferson County DCD, showed maps, air photographs from 1990, 2000 and one from 2000 showing a larger area (city limits in relation to the Glen Cove area). Mr. Kline referred to the GMA _ some oftheprobleInS for Jefferson County. He pointed out that UGAs were designed for COIßØle1'ÇÍ8l, light industrial and higher density resideøtial. The GMA made land divisions: I) UGAs - primarily incorporated areas; 2) mrallands and resource lands - preserved primarily for timber, mining or agriculture. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2002/ Page I · · · In 1997 the Legislature allowed the establishment of specific criteria that could occur in rural lands in terms of commercial and industrial growth. Jefferson and Island Counties were the first in the State to begin to implement those provisions of the GMA. tJying to figure out what they meant During the last 4-5 years, that legislation has been refined Mr. Kline discussed the make up of the Washington State Hearings Boards for the GMA and stated that case law before the Hearings Boards tried to clarify what the intent was with the LAMIRD provisioDS, specifically around built environment State law reads that you need to establish and define an area based predominantly on the pre-July 1, 199O-built environment when the GMA became effective, and is what you need to use to define commercial areas. Jefferson County determined several industrial and commercial areas throughout the county and established one light industrial area ia Glen Cove. 'They drew a coøservative boundary based on their information which appeared to be a good solution and was not appealed to the Hearings Board. One way for the County to achieve adoption of their Camp Plan was to make interim boundaries to be reviewed after later analysis. Specific direction was contained in the Comp Plan for the County to go back and reanalyze that boundaIy which at the time was very controversial. There has been some clarification with case law and some perspective on what has been occurring with land use within Jefferson County within the last 3-4 years since adoption ofboth Comp Plans in Jefferson County and Port Townsend. Based on recent Hearings Boards decisions, County StatT was directed by the BOCC to look at revising the Glen Cove boundary with something that was defensible and that would also work for community property owners at Glen Cove. 'They first looked at the built environment, above ground and sub-grade built environment, e.g. electrical lines, etc., trying to put Glen Cove into that cont~ and land use that has occurred there. DiSCUSSÌOu with the County Planning Commission first began in 1985-86 involving the Highway Corridor policies. Glen Cove has I'eStJ'içœd access, only two entry points and a fronted road. It had deliberate thought, which point Staff tried to make to Mr. Nielson, member of the GMA Hearings Board. Mr. Nielson, at the direction ofBOCC and Port Townsend's City Council, looked at the area, and made an analysis. Largely Mr. Nielsoa agreed with the County in terms of that boundary. The City and the County are now involved in discussion and moving forward. Q: Ms. Hersey - Did Mr. Nielson look at the Task VI report in biB deliberations? A: Mr. Kline - In 1993 reprding GMA compIiaDœ. the County proposed UGAs at the Tri Area and at Port Ludlow. That was appealed by Port Townsend, aJ.nong others, and was successfully upheld resulting in the Tri ArealGlen Cove Special Study. The Hearings Board detennined there bad not been enough research. Q: Ms. Surber - Questioned UGAs at Port Ludlowrrri Area VI. Tri AreaJGlen Cove. A: Mr. Kline - The County addressed Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort allowing higher residential densities in rural areas. Port Townsend proposed Glen Cove as a FUGA, wanting to preserve that area for possible annexation, extension of the City Limits or a UGA. In 1999 the BOCC established the Tri Area and Glen Cove as two "provisional UGAs" (which has no statutory meaning but provides for looking at UGAplanning). The BOCC is moving forward with that in the Tri Area; and in Glen Cove, an expanded and revised LAMIRD boundaIy, which is cheaper regarding capital facilities. Ms. Hersey asked for clarificaÛOß of the map. Q: Mr. R.andall - Asked regarding the County Camp Plan amendment that relates to an expanded Glen Cove UGA, submitted for the doclœt this year. A: Mr. Kline - Avery genem.l amendment - specifically, adoption of the revised LAMIRD boundary. Based on the Nielson lù:port, it aJsolooks in that zone at GMA compliance of uses, size of buildings, and impervious suñaces. Not entirely certain a LAMIRD boundary is the right long term solution in Glen Cove, the BOCC to some degree is continuing to consider a Glen Cove UGA - urban services (primarily sewers) to that area; allowing for smaller lots (smallest, 12,500 sq. ft. lots); fewer restrictions on building caps. A Comp Plan amendment application has been drafted to determine what is best for the area (revised LAM1RD boundaIy, or a potential UGA designaÛOß), making sure this is done in conjunction with the City. Q: Ms. Hersey - The Task IV Report talks as if there was a third alternative for the City to expand into Glen Cove. A: Mr. Kline - You can have a stand alone UGA - the Port Townsend UGA and directly south of it something like the Glen Cove UGA, which the Hearings Board may or may not find to be compliant with the GMA. If the decision is a Glen Cove UGA, it makes more sense to expand the Port Townsend UGA to include the Glen Cove UGA, composed of City of Port Townsend incorporated area and an unincorporated area in Jefferson County. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 I Page 2 · · · Q: Ms. Hersey - Are you saying tbat Glen Cove could be a Final UGA for Port Townsend? A: Mr. Kline - Concurred. but there is a difference between being a part of the UGA and being annexed by the City OtPort Townsend. Jurisdiction, tax revenue would remain with the County, though oftentimes when UGAs are established and involve incorporated/unincorporated areas there are provisions for revenue sharing, etc. Glen Cove is right here, and it makes sense to have them together. Q: Ms. Dorgan - Not clear to her regarding a potenûal Glen Cove UGA in the proposed amendment. Is it the intention in this cycle for the board to say they have changed their minds; they think it's going to be a UGA instead of a LAMIRD; or is it the intent to actually designate a UGA by December? A: Mr. Kline - Did not know. Ms. Dorgan - Going into public hearings, the public is not going to know what the amendment means. Mr. Kline - Before any public meeting, Staff would prepare a report indicating the direction Jefferson County is going, for individuals to respond. Two important things have to happea before establishing a UGA in Glen Cove: 1) interaction with the City of Port Townsead, and 2) a capital facilities plan. Prior to December 2002 other things must be done if they weR to do something like that, such as statutory requirements of population allocation. Mr. Randall- Tbereis a lot ofworlc to be done, and it is probably not possible for this to happen by that time. Mr. Kline concurred citing economic constraints. Q: Mr. Hyland - Asked why Mr. Nielson recommended eliminating two sections in his report - one extreme north, one extreme west. A: Mr. Kline - Revision of the entire boundary - the area in yellow shown outside the red involves 59 acres excluding water and platted road rights-of-way; only privately owned developable land. Mr. Nielson excluded the two areas: 1) 4-acre portion on the east side, 2) approximately 6cre portion to the north, because of a pre-1990 water line. He felt it was safe pulling it back to the water line. Mr. Randall- Mr. Nielson basically said just the denuded area by itself is not enough to show intent, to show development. Mr. Kline - Mr. Nielson pointed out the two steps to establishing a LAMIRD: 1) establishing a logical boundary through reference toa pre-1990 built enviroament; 2) establishment of an outer boundary taking into account things since 1990, though still based on the 1990 built environment. Mr. Nielson cited A1 Rentals and Mobil Logic to the north as being beyond the intent of the legislation. Mr. Randall -- Mr. Nielson recognized it was sensible to include the structures on Glen Cove Road added since 1990, though by themselves not a basis for establishing aLAMIRD. Also there was intent and some significant steps taken for industrial development in that area, some water lines and buildings on the ground. Mr. Kline -It is all about context It is the fact that there was a combination of factors in Glen Cove that made it work there. Q: Ms. King - The amendß1ent would propose a revised LAMIRD boundary? (Mr. Kline - at the very least.) Ms. King - then the LAMIRD boundary would no longer be Îßteri1n? A: Mr. Kline - This would be a final boundary; it would indicate the County has exhausted its abilities to designate an industrial area there. Barring a change in legislation to allow something different, this is final. The County is changing language in their Camp Plan to indicate this is no longer an interim boundary, but a final boundary, as will be the case in three other rural commercial areas they will be revisiûng during this cycle. Q: Ms. Dorgan - Did Mr. Nielson know when those water lines were put in for those developments? A: Mr. Kline - Yes, all post--1990. Mr. Randall - The County did a nice job documenting. Mr. Nielson knew everything that went in. When he did agree with an extension of a LAMIRD BOrth, he understood when water lines, roads and the buildings went in, and it was his opinion it met statutory intent. Q: Ms. Hersey - Asked for history on the Trottier Report completed in January 1999, referenced in the Task VI report. A: Mr. Kline - One component of the Trottier Report was economic analysis. the appropriate amount of commercial land for Jefferson County. Using assumptions the report tried to tie an acreage amount to each person living in Jefferson County (that each person needs an identified square feet of commercial land). Disagreement with the asswnptions renders the Trottier Report worthless. It looked at employment growth rates (not population growth rates) for Jefferson County that ranged between 3.2% and 4.00". Depending on 3.2% the County did not need any more commercia1land; at 4.()%·it came out 28Ø acres colßIllCl'eÎa1Iiadustrialland, the majority being commercial- 58 acres industrial, the remainder commercial, needed over a 20 year planning period. It was from an urban study and the results were highly debated, indicating it did not take into consideraûonthe characteristics of Jefferson Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2002/ Pa¡e 3 · · · County well enough to be accurate. There is no hard and fast fonnula to determine appropriate acreage for commercial land for an individual. Q: Ms. Dorgan - Did the City ever agree to a 4% emp10yIDent growth? A: Mr. Kline - No, but probably agreed to a range between 3.2 and 4.oø/.. Q: Ms. Dorgan - Where in stade is there even a requirement that an analysis be done in sizing a UGA? What does the Hearings Board look at to determine if the right work was done? A: Mr. Kline - There are specüic WACs, regulations that tell us how to implement the State law, that identify what you need to do in terms of establishing a UGA. The language is vague, saying something like coming to some manner of agreement as to what constitutes appropriate industrial/commercial for your community. Q: Mr. Arthur -If you include that as part of the Port Townsend UGA, have to provide City service in that area. and have to run utilities through some lød that is not included (assuming the sewer line would run into that area and would øothrough some of that land), was cwious as to why the City would annex property that is not conûguous totbat boundary, and run services tbrough land you did not have jurisdiction over. Is it logical to include land that is continuous,eveA tIlough it is aa arm sticking out; you would be adding service for land used for something else. A: Mr. Kline - Any aøøexatioo done by the City would isvolve land located contiguously from its borders, to extend from its borders down· to Glen Cove. If Jefferson County weR to establish that as a UGA, their responsibility would be to indiœtehow services would be provided there. It would make sense in providing service there for the City of Port Townsend to provide their sewer services which would involve an interlocal agreement having specific requirements and regulations related to hookup and when required. Q: Ms. Hersey - About 1994, the City Counål had briet1y started to discuss what would happen when they maximized the sewage treatmcBt plaDt, where would the next one be. They bad talked about Glen Cove. A: Mr. K.liae - The County bass't done a great amount of analysis in providing sewer service. It would probably be done through some IØUAeI' of agrœmeDt with the City as a provider. Mr. ·RaDda1I-11Usis·reany pretimi.,; there have been no studies. Q: Ms. Dorgaa - Refeænced an oft'icial County COIDBlCBt letter June 1996 to City Council regarding the draft Comp Plan about to be adopted œvering various daiBgs which stated a posiûon that the City's Camp Plan did not include enough land for zoniagfor regional retail commercial development, that at theûme being the only UGA the City should do much II10Ie regional commercial in Gles Cove beyond the 20 acres that are proposed potential C-IV. That seems to have clJanged according to the materials from the County. With the Trottier Report, is there a lingering concept regarding regional commercial? A: Mr. Randall - You don'lneed the Trottier Report to determine this. Mr. Kline - After much thought over the past few years, he did not put much stock in that Trottier Report analysis. Assumptions of light industrial landfor Jefferson County need to be done in the context of doing economic developmeBt; are we tryinc to attract light indusuy; do we have a targeted plan for the type of industries we believe are appI'Opriate? He believes for the futurè of Jefferson County, Glen Cove, which is spoken of much in the County Comp Plaa, is appropriately scaled in·size for indust1y and is in relatively good shape with a such pedestriaa 8$peCt as the I..atIy Scott Memorial Trail. TIaere is a lot that can be done well in Glen Cove depending on development standards, and that is the approach the County is taking.. Mr. Randall- Concurred that economics is not a science; opinions are assumptions. Thought the Economic Developlnent chapter in the City's Camp Plan impacted the Trottier Report regarding the need for regional commercial, so lleavy on commercial and light on industrial Mr. Kline - If we want retail commercial, it is best provided for eastern Jefferson County in the Tri Area. Glen Cove is not a retail area and is not the inteat of what the County is doing. They want to make sure that someone who wants to do a good project can do it. WSU was a good project. Q: Ms. Dorgaa - Ate buffers ami setback:s .mentioøedin the Highway Corridor Plan di1ferent? A: Mr. Kline - They are typic¡aI1y di1feroøt; se&badt refers to stnIC&ureS, bWfers typically vegetative. Concurred with Ms. Dorgan that the Couøty aUows parking in setbacks, but no parking in a buffer. Ms. Dorgan - The Sholdpropelty looksüke theIe was no buffer. Mr. Kline - That was beyond the Highway 20 Corridor that eBded at the Old Port Townsend Road. He suggested if people waat to.J*ICI'Ve a OOI'ridotalosg that area, the public come forward and acquire some of the development rights or timber rights of that area, or proactive things like volunteer groups replanting the DOT road right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 20021 Page 4 · · · Q: Ms. Hersey - The study indicates that within the original interim boundaIy there was approximately two- thirds of the tight lined light industrial area already developed with limited potential for new industrial uses to locate in the area due to its limited size. With the expansion, what would it be? A: Mr. Kline - Just because there is vacant land there, doesn't mean it is available. There are many issues to consider in appropriately trying sizing a boundaIy there, thinking in terms of market factors. He spoke regarding the amount of developable land. Mr. Randall - Regarding the market, there is a supply problem. They have been trying to help the supply problem on the City side, tlying to get infrastructure to the City's light industrial lands. Q: Mr. Irvin: This latest memo seems to imply that at least the City is moving on the assumption of being an expanded LAMIRD, permanent and final, and that is the only option. Do I hear that there are other options? A: Mr. Kline - Asked if they had copies of the interlocal agreement. Mr. Randall- The Commission does not have those copies. His thinking is, the LAMIRD expansion is the short term way of dealing with Glen Cove. You can have a LAMIRD and also a provisional UGA. The City's FUGA is a little bigger and a little differeDt area - you can have these different planning areas around a LAMIRD. Once a UGA is adopted it is then considered light industrial zoning inside a UGA. A lot of different things can be going on at the sameûme. Q: Mr. Irvin - Then. bow does this affect the Camp Plan amendment and what should we expect to see? A: Mr. K1ine - Was just thinking about the interlocal agreement signed by the City and COUl1ty and reference to a discussion of the future of this area. Ms. Sandoval- The long range discussion would take place after an agreement on a LAMIRD. The City would enter discussion with the County in terms of all the concerns and questions the City would have about the future of.that area. It does not say anything specifically about the outcome. Mr. Kline - EsscntiaDy, we are going to look at a revisedLAMIRD and are going to talk about what might be the best long term SOIuÛOD for this area. The intent of the County's amendment is to do the revised LAMIRD boundary during this ameødmcDt cyde. The BOCC did not want an application that limited their ability to look at other things and hinder what might be agreed upon through discussion during the Camp Plan amendment cycle. Q: Ms. Dorgaa -Page 6, paragraph 3 of Mr. Nielson'sæþOrt']xovisional UGA" -thought he might have been confused. There is nothing ÍII the County Camp Plan about a provisional UGA, do you think he was referring to a potential FUGA? A: Mr. Kliue - No. He is referring to the blue boundaIy on the map. Mr. RandalI- In his reference to the Camp Plan and mapping proposals he was trying to get across the importance, if you do a UGA the areas outside the more intense zoning like the Glen Cove industrial zoning need to be raised from the S acre minimum. You Deed to understand and use the UIban Reserve concept. CO~ fROMDm AUDIENCE: Mr. John Lockwood Said be came to talk about the FUGA amendment. He then said Mr. Kline stated the County was trying to include an amendment, which does DOt limit their options, and to find the best way to deal with Glen Cove. He discussed short term LAMIRDs and their expansions. He spoke of population growth and land use inventory within the S-year Comp Plan study, also current attitudes. He said the appropriate time to decide whether or not the Port Townsend UGA should expand is in that process, that the decision is supposed to come after the population studies and land itwentories. He felt the process taking place between the County and City is inappropriate and is notGMA C()JIlpliant. Mr. Lockwoodthougbt quesûons regarding the LAMIRD would be settled through legal means and would not involve the Commission. The question of whether or not the UGA is expanded is vety much going to involve this committee. He thought the FUGA amendment leads in that direction. Ms. Sandoval spoke regarding the Trotûcr Report and her understanding going through that process. Some of the factors were about the employment population and not about conunereial needs of an average person, but rather employees per IteR needed for the jobs reJatedto the 3.2% populaûon growth Light manufacturing created fewer jobs per acre than conunereial and tke two combined created 280 acres, an CI11ployee per acre. She explained the PUGA resulted after discussions of the alternatives of Glen Cove and City testimony to annex the Mill. The County Planning Commission then chose one of four choices, one of which was a no altefß3Ûve for expansioa,and after the maps werctaJam away suddenly there was a PUGA, instead of what the County Planning CommissioD bad provided. She agreed they got the PUGA because the City made demands then reversed themselves regardinc annexing the Min. They bad long discussions regarding the interim boundary never Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2002/ Page S . . . thinking it would be interim, and discussions regarding a UGA and larger acreage above. Mr. Kline concurred with Ms. Sandoval regarding the analysis in the Trottier Report that it tried to tie projected employment and draw an acreage number between type of employment and the number of acres that would work. He said he finds it a little disturbing that threat of an appeal on what happens in Glen Cove comes forward before the county even has a chance to make their proposals. That is one thing they have found to be frustrating with the process. They are ttying to work for a solution that will work for everyone in the County, and it is difficult before they even get something out the door that it is made clear it is going to be appealed, no matter what. Chair Thayer complimented Staff on the good packets and good information. Mr. Randall urged everyone to keep the materials for the duration of the process. Mr. Benskin questioned proposed amendments. Mr. Randall explained that both formal and suggested amendments would come back to the Planning Commission for the final docket. There was furtherdiscussjon regarding upconùng meetings and how they would be held. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS May IS, 2002* Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop, Review Comp Plan Prelinùnary Docket May 23,2002* Continued Planning Commission Workshop on PreliminaIy Docket (jfneeded) May 30, 2002* Planning Commission Public Hearing on Docket *Meetinl! !! B ~ It 7:00 n.m. During discussion it was suggested changing meeting times to 6:30 p.m. It was determined that after the docket has been set, if the Planning Commission wishes, BCD can accommodate changing meeûng times durin¡ the Comp. Plan process. IX. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Mayor Kolff X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to ac:ljourn the meeting was made by Ms. Hersey and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:50p.m. ~ .~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2002/ Page 6