HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-122-1Resolution 93-122
A RESOLUTION of the Port Townsend City Council making
recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners on proposed Interim Urban Growth Area boundaries
and associated regulations pursuant to the Washington State Growth
Management Act.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1761, Jefferson County is required
to adopt interim growth areas by October 1, 1993; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County has requested a proposal from the City of Port Townsend on
designating the interim urban growth area for the City; and
WHEREAS, public meetings and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council
were held to determine the urban growth area proposed by the City of Port Townsend; and
WHEREAS, the City has a lack of adequate information and resources to determine if its
proposal should include lands outside the existing City limits which are characterized by
urban growth; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee
recommended that the proposed Jefferson County Interim Urban Growth Area ordinance be
amended to reduce the allowable rural residential density from one residential unit per acre to
one residential unit per five acres; and
WHEREAS, the following concerns have been raised concerning Jefferson County's Draft #3,
Interim Urban Growth Area Ordinance, dated October 1, 1993, the City Council of the City of
Port Townsend finds that:
Jefferson County's decision on interim UGAs in November 1993 will result in an
interim, not a final UGA for the City of Port Townsend. There is a need that
additional studies and assessments be completed by Jefferson County before the
County designates final urban growth areas.
The County has yet to provide an analysis of the carrying capacity of the proposed
UGAs. Furthermore, the County has not provided the City with the information and
Resolution 93-122 1 November 1, 1993
data Michael Hildt, Planning Director, requested (letter of August 6, 1993) necessary
to develop a City interim UGA proposal. Of specific concern, are those areas located
adjacent to City limits which are "characterized by urban growth" but which are not
proposed by the County to be included within an interim UGA.
Findings of Fact 16, 17, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48,
51, 52, 53, 54, 64, and 65 which are contained within Jefferson County's Draft #3,
Interim UGA Ordinance, dated 10/1/93 lack sufficient foundation, are not in
conformity with the adopted County-wide Planning Policies, or are in error. Findings
# 21, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 51 and 54 are inconsistent with the adopted County-wide
Planning Policies. Those County-wide Planning Policies which pertain to UGAs must
be employed and followed in delineating UGAs--both interim and final.
The establishment of interim urban growth areas by Jefferson County is not based on
the following list of considerations, as set forth by the County in the findings of the
draft ordinance: 1) County-wide Planning Policies; (2) statutory requirements of the
Growth Management Act, including the Procedural Criteria; (3) designation of critical
areas, rural and resource lands; (4) environmental constraints; (5) man-made and
natural features; (6) open space corridors and greenbelts; (7) the draft joint 20 year
population forecast; (8) service areas and/or district boundaries; (9) land capacity
analysis; and (10) other related factors. No documented analysis on the above
considerations was conducted by the County to determine if the interim UGAs are
appropriately sized and delineated. In addition, the apparent insufficiency of available
domestic water resources was not considered in determining the size of Interim Urban
Growth Areas.
The Population Forecast Report prepared by County staff has not taken into account
the County-wide Planning Policy or any change in growth patterns as a result of
actions taken in implementation of the GMA, but instead projects growth based solely
on historical trends. Independent expert review (Watterson memorandum, dated
October 4, 1993) of the Population Forecast Report recommends that the County and
City jointly revise the report to be more accurate and useful for growth management
planning efforts. Due to the need for revisions to the report, the City cannot approve
the Population Forecast Report, dated August, 1993.
Findings 47 and 48 indicate that the draft ordinance requires that new development
meet adopted level of service standards as a condition of approval. Yet, the level of
service matrix is vague and lacks a clear definition of development. As the proposed
regulations do not specifically pertain to individual building permits or commercial or
industrial developments, continued development adjacent to the City will likely be
characterized as urban growth, but not contained within a designated UGA.
According to data collected by Jefferson County Planning Department during its
Critical Areas planning process, there is approximately an eight-year-supply of vacant,
Resolution 93-122 2 November 1, 1993
existing platted lots of record in Jefferson County. In addition, the City of Port
Townsend has a surplus of land to meet projected growth for the projected 20 year
period. It appears that the existing capacity for growth within incorporated Port
Townsend and the unincorporated areas in the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow which are
characterized by urban growth have more than sufficient capacity to accommodate the
total projected growth of Jefferson County for the 20 year planning period. Over
1,700 acres of land north of Chimacum, primarily along SR 20, is zoned commercial
or industrial lands. By contrast, the City of Port Townsend consists of a total of 4,652
acres. The proposed interim Tri-Area would consist of a total of 2,856 acres.
Consequently, additional lands need not be included in the interim urban growth areas
beyond those areas already characterized by urban growth. Therefore, Finding #31
lacks supporting documentation and is in error.
Finding 65 appears to be a significant exemption to the ordinance which is in direct
conflict with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. Much of the commercial
and industrial zones designated within the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are
located outside any of the proposed interim urban growth areas. For example, the
following areas are zoned commercial or industrial: (figures are in acres)
Chimacum Commercial Area 69
Hadlock 298
Tri-Area 121
Hwy 19/20 intersection 64
Hwy 20 corridor 443
PT Mill North Industrial 196
" "South" " " 229
Eastview Industrial 9
Discovery Rd/SR20 7
Fred Hill 71
Airport 152
Irondale Comm'l/Industrial 32
Four Comers Commercial 43
Leavitt 3
TOTAL 1,737
The above figures indicate that it is likely that there are sufficient commercial and
industrial lands existing to serve the projected 20 year growth within the total county.
Moreover, any future commercial or industrial areas, unless resource or rural based,
should be supported by the development of urban services. The GMA mandates that
existing cities like Port Townsend, and potential future cities, such as the Tri-Area,
would be the primary providers of urban governmental services. To allow such
development to occur outside of designated urban growth areas is not in compliance
with the GMA because it thwarts the legislative directive that urban growth requiring
Resolution 93-122 3 November 1, 1993
urban governmental services occur within UGAs. Any new commercial or industrial
designations would also not be in compliance with the legislative directive for
designating interim UGAs and would be inconsistent with the County-wide Planning
Policies.
The City is a supplier of domestic water to much of the area proposed as the Tri-Area
Interim Urban Growth Area. The City has documented that there are insufficient
water resources to meet the future growth forecast by the County. The cost and
availability of domestic water services may also be affected unless urban growth
boundaries within the City water service area are based on adequate proven, water
resources.
10.
11.
The County's proposed Level of Service Standards matrix has no provision or specific
numerical standards for providing fire or water services such as fire hydrants, water
supply and storage facilities, etc. In addition, the proposed matrix (adopted by
reference in the ordinance) allows for both individual (wells) and public water system
in the Tri-Area Interim UGA. Without greater specificity, there is no requirement that
individual systems be developed within UGAs which will allow for conversion to a
public water system (such as size of lines, valve spacing, etc.) at a later date.
The proposed ordinance regulating interim UGAs would allow a density of one
residential unit per acre outside of UGA boundaries. The density of one unit per acre
in the rural areas will continue past patterns of development resulting in continued
unplanned sprawl between the City of Port Townsend and the proposed Tri-Area
Interim Urban Development Area; unchecked loss of rural character and resource
lands; threatened ground-water supplies and potability; and unnecessarily inefficient
and costly provision of public services. There are no provisions within the proposed
ordinance which encourage growth within an interim UGA rather than in the rural
areas. In addition, it appears that the ordinance does not contain any more controls on
rural development than those which already exist under current water, septic and
health codes.
12.
In general, the limited application of the ordinance fails to comply with the intent and
provisions of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). The proposed
interim UGA's are sized substantially larger than required to accommodate the OFM
forecasted population and will lead to sprawl, inefficiencies in infrastructure, higher
utility and tax rates, commercial and industrial development at inappropriate locations,
and unnecessary consumption of resource and rural lands. The proposed interim UGA
for the Tri-Area is likely to lead to future vesting problems and create demands for
urban services and utilities at densities which are insufficient to support their
maintenance or extension and at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Resolution 93-122 4 November 1, 1993
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND that
the City of Port Townsend recommends that the existing city limits be used as the interim
urban growth area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City requests that the County and City work
cooperatively to prepare a residential land capacity analysis to determine if UGAs are
sufficiently sized to accommodate twenty-year growth projections as provided by the
Countywide Planning Policies. Similarly, cooperative planning and analysis of capacity for
commercial and industrial lands should also be accomplished prior to adoption of UGAs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City recommends that areas characterized as urban
growth which are adjacent to the Port Townsend city limits be shown on any and all maps
showing interim urban growth areas as "special study areas" for further environmental
analysis during the growth management planning process, and that the County evaluate their
suitability for inclusion within the final urban growth areas.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Port Townsend does not concur with the
County's proposed boundaries for Interim Urban Growth Areas outside the City of Port
Townsend's city limits and recommends that these be reduced to include only those areas
clearly characterized by urban growth.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Port Townsend does not concur in the
recommended regulations and recommends that rural densities be reduced to a density of no
greater than one residential unit per ten acres and that the exemptions proposed for
administrative permitting decisions and commercial and industrial lands be removed.
~d by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend and approved by the Mayor this
,~-~. /'~ day of November, 1993.
J.j~ ] : ~se, Mayor
/Attest: ,I Approved as to form:
David A. Grove, City Clerk Dennis McLerran, City Attorney
d:\council\iuga.res
Resolution 93-122 5 November 1, 1993