Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080204 ~~~ ~o~. /i'¡;ONà~.~ /~~ °6\ &~~ \~ ~\ II-) ~ eo ~i . ... District No.1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of August 2, 2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of June 28, July 6, and July 12, 2004 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Advisory Board Appointment; Substance Abuse Advisory Board; Beth Wilmart: Commissioner Titterness moved to appoint Beth Wilmart to a three year term on the Substance Abuse Advisory Board. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Her term will expire on August 2, 2007. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING: County Administrator John Fischbach reported on the following: · The draft capital facilities plan is ready for the Board to review. · The owner of a sign in Port Ludlow was asked to remove it and has refused. The Department of Community Development will issue an order to remove the sign. · DCD staff confirmed that all the necessary permits are in order and the correct procedures were followed regarding the final long plat approval for Ludlow Cove Division 1- Phase 2. There are several issues regarding this project that are very controversial including two variances. This is Phase 2 of a vested application. · DCD staff explained that condition #3 of Resolution No. 54-03 regarding the vacation ofE. Moore Street requires public pedestrian access on the Chimacum Creek Restoration property. The Board noted their concern about the latest proposal for access and concurred that they want the access built to ADA standards. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 £~1s ~ 'I'fll'~~'~'~ PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: a property owner sold a lot in 1999 that the County said was unbuildable and now a water/sewer line is going in and the value of the lot has increased by $15,000; the Ace Paving operation in Shine operates all night and they were making exceptionally loud noise at 4:45 a.m. on a Sunday morning; there is a dust storm coming off the gravel pit; how many buildings connected with a business can be constructed on designated forestland property?; does the County get any revenue from the money that Fred Hill Materials gets for stumps hauled from other counties that are being used to reclaim the hillside?; how often does the County monitor the FHM operation to make sure that they are following the mining operation rules?; who checks to make sure that the sludge put on the forestlands in the County is treated?; the water table in the Shine area has dropped since 1990 and who monitors the FHM well to make sure they aren't using more water than they are allowed? APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. I. RESOLUTION NO. 40-04 re: Cancellation of Unclaimed Warrants 2. RESOLUTION NO. 41-04 re: Inter-fund Loan from the Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund to the E911 Fund 3. AGREEMENT NO. 0000JCS04 re: Sheriffs Office Telephone System Hardware and Software Support; Jefferson County Central Services; Stargate Technologies 4. AGREEMENT NO. 0000JCC04 re: Courthouse Telephone System Hardware and Software Support; Jefferson County Central Services; Stargate Technologies 5. AGREEMENT NO. 0000JCH04 re: Castle Hill Telephone System Hardware and Software Support; Jefferson County Central Services; Stargate Technologies 6. AGREEMENT re: Evaluation Training and Moderator for Grantmaker Forum; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Michelle Maike 7. AGREEMENT re: Flood Damage Mitigation for the Emergency Placement of Rip Rap in the Dosewallips River Along Appaloosa Drive, Project No. X01661; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington Trout 8. AGREEMENT Amendment No.1 re: Employment as County Administrator; John F. Fischbach 9. Final Long Plat Approval; Ludlow Cove Division 1 - Phase 2 #SUB95-0003; Ten Lots Located Off of Ebb Tide Court and Adjacent to Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow; Port Ludlow Associates, Applicant PROCLAMA TION re: Recognizing and Acknowledging Jim Halvorson's Outstanding Contributions and Dedication to Jefferson County: Chairman Huntingford read a proclamation into the record recognizing and acknowledging Jim Halvorson's outstanding contributions and dedication to Jefferson County. Jim Halvorson was a lifelong County resident who retired from the US Forest Service after a long and successful career. He returned to public service as a temporary employee in the Public Works Road Department in 1995 and was promoted to a full time position in 2001. He was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather, and was instrumental in establishing the Quilcene Bible Church Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 ;...,~-"\" Christian School. Jim Halvorson passed away on July 23 from injuries sustained from a vehicle accident while he was working. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the proclamation honoring Jim Halvorson. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Resolution for Chimacum Creek Estuary Restoration Relating to the Standard Vacation of E. Moore Street in the Plat of Iron dale: Kevin Russell, Associate Planner, explained that the proposed resolution addresses shoreline permitting requirements for the Chimacum Creek Restoration project proposed by the State Department ofFish & Wildlife. Last year they applied for a standard road vacation ofE. Moore Street and the Board approved the road vacation subject to several conditions as outlined in Resolution No. 54-03. These conditions include application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and public pedestrian access on the property. WDFW has requested that the shoreline permit be changed to a shoreline exemption because the project meets the criteria for an exemption as defined in the Jefferson County Master Shoreline Program. They have already obtained several permit approvals from other agencies and have gone through SEP A review. A commitment was received from WDFW regarding the County's concerns about parking, signage, future sanitation, and stormwater management. WDFW recommended three options to address the condition regarding pedestrian access to the mouth of Chimacum Creek. Staff concurs with Option 2 which suggests that two years after the adoption of this resolution, an Advisory Committee be appointed by the Commissioners to evaluate an appropriate design and location for the trail. Al Scalf introduced Randy Johnson, WDFW, who did most of the conceptual work on the restoration project. Commissioner Titterness stated that when WDFW purchased the property for the project, some of the blocks were larger than necessary for the actual corridor. He suggested that WDFW surplus the properties that aren't necessary for the corridor. This would get the parcels back on the Jefferson County tax roles and WDFW could use the proceeds from the property sales to construct the path. Randy Johnson replied that he is not familiar with the properties, but conceptually it is a possibility. He noted that the funding for the trail construction is an issue. Another option is to construct a gravel trail on top ofthe sediment recruitment bench. They can't predict with certainty what the beach will look like two years after it is restored, but there is a possibility that it might be a superior walking surface. WDFW prefers to allow three years of natural processes to stabilize the beach. During that time, an Advisory Board can monitor the site to see the patterns of public use and make a recommendation on trail options. Chairman Huntingford explained that the reason the full shoreline review was a condition of the road vacation was to allow the County to have some control to address the concerns ofthe community. Since that time WDFW held a community meeting to review the project and address resident's concerns. Commissioner Rodgers stressed that he thinks access is fundamental and that the access needs to be available to all citizens. If an Advisory Board is established to review the trail, a member of the Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board needs to be included. Chairman Huntingford pointed out that Option 2 mentioned the make up of the Advisory Board. Commissioner Titterness noted that, in the Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 IJ"'" "" ;' < ~ ~'~IIJ~¡'.~..,- proposed resolution, the County Commissioners appoint the Advisory Board and they choose the make up of that Board. They concurred that they want citizens-at-Iarge and a DD representative on the Board, as well as representatives from several agencies that were suggested by WDFW. Chairman Titterness asked that a condition be added to the proposed resolution that WDFW do an inventory of the parcels that they purchased, and if there are parcels that are not pertinent to the corridor restoration, that they agree to surplus them so that the property can be returned to the tax roles. Commissioner Rodgers added that he wants to see a definite trail completion date noted in the resolution. The Board directed that the conditions in the proposed resolution be revised to reflect their discussion. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 42-04 as amended. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION from 10:45 - 11: 15 a.m. with the County Administrator, the Prosecuting Attorney, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. The meeting was recessed at the close of business and reconvened at the Tri Area Community Center at 7 p.m. Monday evening for a public hearing. HEARING re: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Proposals MLA 04-29 and MLA 04-30: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendation for MLA 04-29 and MLA 04-30, Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. On June 30, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the proposed amendments addressing development regulations and Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Area Element and capital facilities planning including stormwater management, sanitary sewers and transportation. The Planning Commission's recommendation was developed using the framework from the UGA Citizen Task Force's recommendation. Several members of the Task Force are present, as well as several Planning Commission members. When the Planning Commission's recommendation came to the County Commissioners, they had the choice to accept the recommendation or hold an additional public hearing. The Board chose to schedule a hearing to give citizens another chance to comment about the UGA. Kyle AIm, Assistant Planner, explained that a UGA is characterized by urban growth, has adequate developable land designated residential, has commercial lands to accommodate growth for the 20-year planning period, has sufficient area for the designation of open space, and has urban levels of service. The boundary of the lrondale/Port Hadlock UGA was adopted by the Board in December, 2002. It was appealed to the W esternW ashington Growth Management Hearings Board who ordered that the County do more analysis on the capital facilities plans and development regulations. The Board appointed the UGA ~itizen Task Force to work on the development regulations. The Task Force addressed development regulatIOns including signs, landscaping, stormwater management, transportation, and sewer planning. Their recommendation was forwarded to the Planning Commission on April 27, 2004 after an open house and several public meetings. Every PUD customer received information on the open house with their invoice. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Sewer Plan on May 19, 2004. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 IJ·'·"··'·'·"·" ;'-~ ~f'\lll"~'~'~ A revised zoning map was reviewed. During the process, the rural commercial area was expanded to include Irondale Crossroads, Nesses Corner, and the Hadlock Rural Village Center. In addition, there are three residential densities: · Low density - 4 to 6 units per acre · Moderate density - 7 to 13 units per acre · High density - 14-24 units per acre In some of the commercial zone, there will be retail on the ground levels and residential units above. The densities are noted on the map. The other densities won't be changing. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments consist of a revised Chapter 2: The Urban Growth Area Element. The original Chapter 2 will be kept as an appendix to the document. There are also revisions addressing the General Sewer Plan, the Stormwater Plan, and the Transportation Plan. The Unified Development Code amendments are being done to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The sewer service area was pointed out on the map. Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that, in 1994, Jefferson County designated a Tri Area Interim Urban Growth Area. The designation was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board, the UGA was invalidated, and the Hearings Board directed that the County provide additional analysis to substantiate a UGA. In 1998, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted with a component for the future urban growth area. Special studies and environmental review were done to meet the requirements of the GMA and the Growth Management Hearings Board. This has been a long term process which began with community planning groups in 1990. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, submitted and read her comments. (See permanent record.) Heidi Eisenhour, Port Hadlock, stated that she is a former Planning Commissioner and has some knowledge about the GMA. She has a problem with the conversion ofthe entire built-out residential neighborhood to a blanket mixed commercial zone. She lives in one of those neighborhoods. She attended a workshop in late 2003 and received a map; and at meeting this summer, she received another map that showed that her entire neighborhood was rezoned to commercial. There have been a lot of workshops and opportunities for public input. She encouraged the Board not to do a blanket rezone of residential neighborhoods in Hadlock. Marilyn Lewis, Port Townsend, stated that she doesn't live in the UGA and didn't receive some of the notifications of the public meetings. She is concerned about the transportation aspect of the plan. She moved here from Whatcom County where the main arterial to the Canadian border was turned into a congested business district with no alternate routes. She asked the Board. to rethink the implications of putting a bottleneck of congestion on SR 19 which is the main transportatIOn artery to the Hood Canal Area. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 £~s i~ ~/Jn"l'~ Vickie Young, stated that she came this evening with questions about the sewer plan and doesn't really have any testimony. She lives in the neighborhood where the proposed sewer treatment plant would be located. Chairman Huntingford replied that a final decision has not been made about the location of the treatment plant. The next phase in the process is siting. David Sullivan, submitted and read his comments. (See permanent record.) Eileen Rogers, Port Townsend, stated that she is a Jefferson County Planning Commission member and was also a member of the UGA Citizen Task Force. This process has been a point of discussion for about 25 years and thousands of tax dollars have been spent. The County has worked very hard to encourage the public to attend all ofthe meetings during the past year and she is happy to see so many people at this hearing. Unfortunately they weren't at the Task Force meetings which were also open public meetings. Mike Ragan attended those meetings for some time and they appreciated his input. There is nothing wrong with economic development, having jobs out in the County, living wages, and being able to go to Port Hadlock instead of having to go to Silverdale to buy necessities. Existing businesses in Port Hadlock should be able to expand. Instead of dwelling on the negatives, everyone needs to come together as a community and make this work. The County needs this. Stephanie Reith, explained that she is the Executive Director of Jefferson Land Trust and is representing that organization. She is also representing Sunfield Farms. The Land Trust commends Jefferson County for investing in the permanent preservation of more than 50 acres of prime agricultural land through the commitment of$124,OOO in Conservation Future Funds. Part of the Sunfield Farms vision is a food share program for area families. The current commercial boundary of the UGA is adjacent to the farm and it is important that the County fully monitor and enforce the stormwater management provisions in the Stormwater Plan so that this farmland and the aquifer are not contaminated by stormwater runoff from commercial properties or County roads. Helen Curry, stated that she has been a resident of Nordland for 22 years. She is representing Sunfield Farms. This 83 acres is going to be placed in conservation in perpetuity and will be a local food service for the community and an educational center for many years. She is concerned about stormwater runoff which could affect these prime and unique agricultural soils. She asked that protecting these farmlands be considered in the planning process. BJ. Cornett, Port Hadlock, stated that the map at the first meeting she attended has been revised and Curtiss and Randolph Streets have been rezoned commercial. These are residential neighborhoods. She asked why the map changed? Phi] Johnson, Port Townsend, stated that there are still questions about this UGA designation that he feels haven't been answered for the Hadlock and Irondale communities. In his opinion, the proposal extending commercial zoning down both sides of Rhody Drive from A & G Auto to the Four Corners Cut-off, with no maximum lot coverage and a 70 foot height level, meets the GMA's definition of "sprawl." It will create serious safety and congestion problems. If the Board makes a decision by August 9, are they giving constituents sufficient time to respond to cost issues? Do the residents have enough information to make an Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 £~s ~ . ·\III....~.. informed decision on the sewer proposal? What about the cost to supply the water? He believes that the Board should present the community with a sewer plan and costs related to that plan. The goal of the UGA is to bring businesses into the core area and the extension of the UGA to Rhody Drive has the potential of undermining that goal by having development focus on the highway instead of the HadlocklIrondale area. James Hanson, stated that he thought this hearing was to take comments on the proposed sewer treatment plant in Hadlock. He lives in Port Hadlock Heights which is above the proposed site for the plant near the County jail. He is concerned about odors from the plant that would be around the jail, the Little League fields, and the growing residential neighborhood. He thinks that there will be plenty of opposition to this location. Sandy Mackie, Olympia, stated that he is representing the owners of the Inn at Port Hadlock who are in favor of the UGA boundary, the development regulations, and the zoning. He helped the Whatcom County Commissioners develop their Comprehensive Plan and defended it through Hearings Board and Court challenges and the County was fully upheld. He feels that Jefferson County is taking responsibility for the proposed UGA boundaries and dealing with it as a whole rather than making additions in the future. A UGA is characterized by urban growth, including lot size. He would like the Inn at Port Hadlock and the existing marina identified as characterized by urban growth densities in the County's findings because these densities already exist. The PUD has the necessary water rights but the physical facility that draws the water needs to be expanded. This expansion is part of the overall planning process as new development occurs and helps pay for the infrastructure. In his experience with sewer planning for the City of Sequim and the City of Yelm, nonwater discharge pilot projects were done which created reuse, recycling Class A waters. The parks in Yelm are the discharge locations and are considered community assets. People need to get over the notion that today's sewage treatments plants look or smell like they did in the 1950's. The County has identified a range of alternatives in the sewer planning and this is appropriate at the GMA level. The engineering reports and site evaluations are the next phase in the project. The water can also be used to serve agricultural purposes such as farms. He supports the UGA designation and asked the Board to approve it. Peggy Johnson, Port Hadlock, stated that her main concern is the sewage treatment plant. The treatment plants at North Beach and in Kitsap County produce odors and she thinks a better location needs to be identified for the treatment plant in Port Hadlock. She has heard that in order to treat the water and reuse it on the Little League fields and parks, the cost of the proposed sewage treatment plant would have to be doubled. Kees Kolff, Port Townsend, stated that he is a member of the Port Townsned City Council but he is at this hearing speaking as a citizen of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. He concurs with many ofthe people who have spoken that there isn't adequate protection of the aquifers in the plan or adequate planning for appropriate water. There isn't adequate planning that deals with the potential traffic complications. There is no adequate justification for the amount of commercial rezoning. There isn't adequate control of the potential consequences of sprawl on both sides of the highway. In his opinion, there is no adequate justification for the cost of all the infrastructure which is planned for such a massive project. He believes that the proposal is too large and too soon. He asked that the Board reconsider the scope and the timing. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 IJ··'''·'····'··'·'' ;,...............~ ~1.ll ·¡ ""~.~,~.. Paula Mackrow, Port Townsend, stated that she is representing the North Olympic Salmon Coalition. People have worked fifteen years and $7 million has been spent in the Chimacum area to provide buffers to protect the creek for endangered species. There hasn't been time to review very sketchy plans that are not included in the SEP A analysis of the original UGA proposa1. There isn't adequate information to say that the endangered species habitat in the Chimacum area through Irondale will be protected. They have concerns about the County's lack of support for instream flow proposals. Future aquifer withdrawals or protection of municipal water rights could affect the endangered species in the summer. Her familiarity was the water service area and the water service plan shows that in Irondale the lines don't meet fire flow capacity. The rural nature of the existing water service doesn't qualify as an urban characteristic. Arne Hanson, Port Townsend, stated that the UGA will have a huge impact on the residents including the expensive burden on the taxpayers. They need to know how much it is going to increase their taxes to balance the overall cost. He is concerned about where the water will come from since drought conditions already exist and there will be an additional strain on the water supply if Marrowstone Island taps into the existing water system. Careful planning is important, as opposed to pushing this decision through. Mike Ragan, stated that he represents, ICAN, Irondale Community Action Neighbors. There is a need for additional planning regarding an adequate water supply, the traffic, and the expansion of commercial zones. A large commercial operation could create dust and air pollution from the highway if it was allowed to locate adjacent to Sunfield Farm. ICAN doesn't agree with expanding the commercial area around Curtiss Street. If the commercial zones are taxed at a higher rate it would have an impact on the rent at the mobile home park which is designated as a future commercial zone. There is already enough designated commercial area to cover future development. Norman MacLeod, stated that he moved to Jefferson County six years ago because it was larger than the state he left and had fewer people than the town where he lived. A lot of people are looking for the same kind of place. He has a 20 year old son and there is nothing for him here. Sustainable development means concentrating commercial and residential areas so that open space is preserved. This is a move in that direction. Community responsibilities need to be funded and several programs, such as Mental Health are going through budget cuts. An expanded tax base from commercial activity that is located somewhere in the County would help. This process has been going on for years. There is a good turnout tonight, but where was everyone before this? It isn't sufficient to come out at the "eleventh hour" and oppose a process that people have been involved with for years. Ifpeople want to have the County a certain way, they need to get involved at the beginning of the process and make it happen. Bill Biery, Port Townsend, stated that most of his comments echo testimony that has already been provided. He feels that the current proposal is not the one that should go forward because there are enough people with alternate points of view that haven't participated in the process and haven't had a chance to voice their concerns about water, ingress, and environmentally sensitive areas. If the Board proceeds with the current proposal, everyone will be penalized by rejection. He thinks that the Board is rushing to expedite the closeout of this process. One public hearing and a final decision a week later seems like a short period of time. He asked that the Board consider some additional time for more public meetings. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 'IJ·."··'·'····."" ;:·......·..····s ft'¡'f¡'t...~,~~,.. Ted Rogers, Port Townsend, stated that he didn't realize that this was a political forum. Neither Phil Johnson nor Bill Biery participated in any of the UGA planning. He reminded people that the subject of this hearing is the urban growth area. Ruth Gordon, Port Townsend, acknowledged everyone who has been working on this issue for longer than she has been paying attention. She agrees with Eileen Rogers that its time to do something, but it is important that everyone benefits from the process. As a newcomer to the process, she is not sure who is going to pay for this or benefit. Will taxes for Port Townsend residents be affected by the infrastructure? She commutes to Seattle and doesn't want to see SR19 become more congested. If this process has been going on for fifteen years, maybe it should wait a while longer until specifics are available about the sewer and the water. There is concern about the aquifer and water source. Does the County need to rezone a residential neighborhood into a commercial zone? Will their taxes go up? Margaret Matheson, stated that she was a member of the UGA Citizen Task Force. She is not a Democrat or a Republican and she doesn't own a business. She is retired on a limited income and she lives behind QFC in Port Hadlock and loves it there. Living near a commercial zone means being able to walk to the store or the bank. Most of the people here tonight didn't come to any of the previous meetings even though they were advertised in the newspaper and notices were sent in the PUD bills. There has been plenty of time in the public process for their input. The County could work on the UGA process for another ten years and that still wouldn't be enough time for them. There is no reason to wait because soon there won't be anyone left because there won't be a tax base. The County needs to move forward and designate the UGA. Carol Fletcher, stated that she owns a couple of businesses in Hadlock. She was a member of the UGA Citizen Task Force, and she has been a member on previous committees. This process has been going on for twenty years. Most of the commercial area zoned on Rhody Drive is already in commercial use. There is already a dentist office, a book store, and a Bed and Breakfast on Curtiss Street. There are areas where other businesses are currently located that should have been zoned commercial. The UGA will help contribute to the tax base. Russell Lopeman, stated that he came into this process a little late, but every time he asked the Planning Commission a question, they always found the answer. In earlier testimony, it was stated that Class A water can be used on ball fields, but Class A water is considered a health hazard. He would like to know the additional cost for treatment that would allow it to be used on those fields. Dave Eisenhower, stated that the book store is closed, the Bed and Breakfast is for sale, and the dental office is in a Victorian house. All the other homes in the area are residential and a lot of families with kids live in the neighborhood. Chuck Russell, stated that this all hasn't happened in one week. Over the past twenty years he has been to at least 100 public meetings on this subject. This isn't something that is just happening now and being pushed through. The County has been talking about a fiscal trainwreck and that is what the designation ofthis UGA is trying to avoid. It's very likely that the people at this meeting didn't buy their clothes in Jefferson County. All the tax money from retail leakage would really make a difference to the County's economy. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 " -,- Tom McNerney, Brinnon, stated that he is a Planning Commission member. The documents included with the Planning Commission's recommendation address all the concerns that people have mentioned tonight. The list of the meetings that have been held on this subject is endless and the meetings were advertised in the newspaper. The Planning Commission members listened to people and did site visits of existing sewer treatment plants. There weren't any odors at the facilities in Port Ludlow and Sequim. Any future development in lrondale will have adequate fire flow. People mentioned sprawl. A UGA is designated to prevent sprawl by compacting growth. These amendments assure that urban character will be in the appropriate areas and the rural character will remain in the other areas. Doug Campbell, thanked the Planning Commission for all the work they did in this process and asked if there will be answers to the questions brought up tonight? Mark Rose, Brinnon, stated that one thing that was left out in the history of the process is that twenty people from the Tri Area came together a few years ago to plan the future ofthe community; but they realized that the County had already decided what would occur and the ,group was just being used as a "sounding board." It was a six week process for the group to come to one of two results. The group got disgusted and felt they had been railroaded and they took a vote not to recommend designating a UGA until they had all the facts before them. They wanted to understand the impacts of transportation, the environment, stormwater, and who would pay for it and consider it altogether in one process. This is the logical way to do it. Its true that this has been going on for years and most of his information came from Guy Rudolph who was involved in the process for many years. Dave Woodruff, Port Ludlow, stated that he came to Jefferson County in 1952. He has seen the County change over the years. He is a retired Superintendent of Schools. He has heard the Director of Community Development mention that the Hearings Board wanted the County to do more "homework," and he thinks that more homework is necessary. There are still many unanswered questions. Why was the zoning in a residential area recently changed to commercial? Is this development being recommended by a Planning Commission made up of members who are biased? Is the fiscal "trainwreck" for County services caused by millions of dollars that have been spent to resolve issues like this? This needs to be revisited and more time needs to be taken. The questions of all the people in this room need to be answered. Who's going to pay for the development? Margaret Matheson, stated that the Bed and Breakfast is for sale as a Bed and Breakfast. She has lived in the County for 56 years and she wanted to be part ofthe Task Force. The Task force did their best to review everything and the Planning Commission agreed with the recommendation. Paula Mackrow, stated that the reason people are here tonight is because of the recent changes in the plan. A lot of people have waited for the numbers the Hearings Board asked the County to produce. The documents aren't clear regarding the actual costs. A lot of people didn't have the time to sit through the meetings. Low impact development processes were mentioned and have been recognized and implemented in sma]] rural communities in Puget Sound, but they are not reflected in the UDe. Low impact development processes need to be a requirement for 100% impervious buildout and huge building sizes. How is this series of proposals going to lead to low impact development? There are opportunities to build small, sustainable, local-based businesses in the County, but this will encourage out-of-town, big box, chain stores. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 £i)s ~ i,~ I, ;,~~,"~.. David Sullivan, stated that he thinks there is a strong consensus in the community for doing something in the Port Hadlock core. The sewer is going to be the key for the UGA. People have stated their concerns about traffic, Chimacum Creek, and the affect on residences and farmland. How are the public entities going to involved? There is the school, the PUD, the library, and County property. The information on the assessment is not clear. The sewer is being done in phases, and that same philosophy should be used to look at traffic and stormwater in the UGA. The community needs to be involved. Carol Fletcher, stated that she recently opened the Hadlock Hotel and they had to put in a septic system that cost $50,000. She would be glad to hook up to a sewer. She also got an estimate from the PUD regarding water hook up for the hotel and it was $27,000. If a person wants to stay in business, they have these expenses. Wes Reed, Port Hadlock, stated that he has lived in the County since 1966 and had a business in Port Hadlock for many years. He had to put in a couple $50,000 drainfields and he would have hooked up to a sewer if the opportunity was available because of liability and health reasons. He lives in a commercial area. He attended his first planning meeting for Port Hadlock in the early 1970's and he has gone to a lot of meetings. He thinks that there should be services available in the community to meet the needs of the residents. Mark Rose, stated that he agrees development needs to be concentrated and that the Tri Area should be a UGA. The County needs jobs to increase the tax base. People aren't saying that they don't want development or a UGA, but that they need to understand the impacts and how much it is going to cost. Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. The Board agreed to accept written public testimony until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, August 4. Chairman Huntingford stated that several years ago the Board set a boundary for the UGA in order to have a planning area and this boundary hasn't changed much. The County told the Hearings Board that the current development regulations wouldn't be revised until after the capital facilities elements had been reviewed. This review was recently completed by the Planning Commission. The UGA Citizen Task Force actually recommended additional commercial boundary changes, but the Board wanted to stay as close to the original planning boundary as possible. The County isn't planning to change the current densities in the north end of Port Hadlock and Irondale and, if the density stays the same, a sewer system won't be required for about 20 years because of the types of soils found there. Residents in those areas don't want to pay for sewers. Some of the areas that are being rezoned to commercial were commercial at one time and were downzoned. The school area would be a good place to have a higher density for housing for people with young families. The proposed zoning on Rhody drive is the same zoning that was there 15 years ago and was downzoned under GMA to only include the existing businesses. There are 270 acres zoned commercial and currently 2/3 of that property is already in commercial. The proposed ordinance indicates the costs to the residents. It wasn't a rushed process. Two years ago the Board directed that certain parts of the planning be done on certain time frames. The Planning Commission worked very hard to make this happen and answered all the questions that came up. He doesn't see the UGA affecting the buffers along the Chimacum Creek corridor. In fact, he feels that there may be more protections for farmland and the creek buffer because of the added Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2, 2004 IJ"""'" t,'·....'-"~ ~I,i/f;~~'\".. stormwater regulations. He doesn't anticipate any General Fund money, or property taxes, paying for this project. The business district will probably pay for much of it and the County may have some funds to contribute as a match for grants. He doesn't see residential homes having to pay for sewer unless they choose to hook up. The County has listened to people who are on limited incomes and tried to address their concerns. The siting of the sewer treatment facility is a concern to many people. The Board has toured Indian Island to see if the County may have the option of hooking up to their treatment facility. Several people have toured the Sequim facility and the Port Ludlow facility. The Board and the Planning Commission are going to schedule a sewer planning workshop in order for residents to see some of the examples in the area and get their questions answered. The findings of fact and the information summary review the details ofUGA planning process over the past two years. The County is trying very hard to comply with the GMA. People commented about the change in the map. Staff answered that the last changes suggested by the UGA Task Force were made in February or March and, in April, the Inn at Port Hadlock was added. The commercial property west of Rhody Drive has been proposed as commercial for about a year and a half. All the maps have been on display at the County library from January to July and 5 or 6 newspaper articles were written to let people know they were on display there. Commissioner Titterness stated that one concern mentioned by several people is that some residential areas have been proposed as commercial and this may need to be revisited. The purpose of this hearing is to make the Board aware of these concerns and they will be discussed during deliberations. Another concern was about the process. He thinks that if the record is examined thoroughly, the process will be found to be credible. Several people who have been involved in the process for many years actually said that they would not participate again if it meant that all the work would be done without a final product because that was their past experience. The Board will consider everything they have heard and will be ready to move forward next week. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he began reviewing the UGA process as a Planning Commission member. He thanked the UGA Task Force and the Planning Commission for their hard work and their dedication to completing this project. The meeting was recessed at the close of the public hearing on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday. All three Commissioners were present. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION from 10:25 - 10:45 a.m. with the County Administrator, the Prosecuting Attorney, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of August 2,2004 Direction to File a Declaratory Judgement Lawsuit; Ludlow Bay Village: Commissioner Titterness moved to direct the Prosecuting Attorney's Office to file a declaratory judgement lawsuit related to the "over water" issues arising at Ludlow Bay Village in Port Ludlow. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNFP \;':' , .),. .,,,,; t . " ," . .... ,.~ ../ < ,_,: . ','~ D \ , " ., ~.¡ . $. ' . , .... ' I . " , " JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSI SEAL: . . - t·' . . , \ .. ,".. ). ~ -' ATTEST: Q/tlK. /?It-l-/JvI¿;)1 / (YJ1C ,~lie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Dan Titterness, Member ~ --. Page 13 TO: Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader [legals@ptleader.com] LEGAL NOTICE - Please publish in 7-point font Please publish one (1) time: Wednesday July 21, 2004 BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend W A 98368 (Kyle Aim; 360-379-4482) DATE: Monday July 19,2004 [Deadline: Monday 3 :00 PM] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE: AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO IRONDALE/HADLOCK URBAN GROWTH AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for Jefferson County will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 2, 2004 to take testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments for the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA). The hearing will occur at 7:00 PM at the Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd, Chimacum. Brief descriptions of the proposals follow: 1. MLA04-29 Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding the Irondale/Hadlock UGA including: Line- In/Line-Out amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 Urban Growth Area Element, General Sewer Plan, Transportation Plan, and Stormwater Management Plan. 2. MLA04-30 Unified Development Code Amendments for the Irondale/Hadlock UGA including: urban development standards for the UGA to be adopted as UDC Appendix D and Line-In/Line-Out Amendments to the UDC. Public Comment Period: The BOCC will accept oral comment on each proposal at the public hearing and written comment until the close of the public hearing. Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to the Dept. of Community Development (DCD) at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368, via email toplanning@co.jefferson.wa.us. or delivered to the BOCC at the public hearing. Availability of Information: Amendment applications, Staff Reports, and Planning Commission Recommendations for the UGA proposals are available at the County Library in Hadlock, DCD (address above), and on the DCD web pages: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment. Contact Assistant Planner Kyle AIm for more information: (360) 379-4482 or kalm@co.jefferson.wa.us. Legislative Decision: The BOCC is expected to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny each of these proposed amend ents during the Regular Agenda on Monday, August 2 or Monday, August 9, 2004. 7 . /1 . tJ'-/ Date STATE OF WASHINGTON Jefferson County An Ordinance Approving Comprehensive } Plan Amendments MLA04-29 and Unified } ORDINANCE NO. Development Code Amendments MLA04-30 } Regarding the Irondale/Port Hadlock } Urban Growth Area } WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.OI0 et seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and. comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan ("the Plan") originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998; WHEREAS, the Plan and its attached Land Use Map were subsequently amended by this Board's Ordinance #19-1213-02 on December 13, 2002 to include an urban growth area ("UGA") of approximately 1,245 acres in the lrondale/Port Hadlock region of the unincorporated County; WHEREAS, Ordinance #19-1213-02 was timely challenged before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (or "WWGMHB") by an unincorporated association of citizens, that association alleging the UGA created by that Ordinance was not GMA-compliant; WHEREAS, the WWGMHB found the Irondale/Hadlock UGA boundary appropriate, but also directed the County to create development regulations for the UGA, complete the Capital Facilities planning to provide urban levels of service for the UGA and estimate the cost to residents of the urban levels of services that might be provided; WHEREAS, the WWGMHB has determined that the County has until December 2004 to generate, publicize, discuss and adopt the documents that provide the necessary missing elements, i.e., development regulations and documents outlining the scope and type of urban services that will be provided inside the UGA; WHEREAS, the County's staff has, upon express direction from the Board, focused its efforts on completing the UGA 'homework' well before that December 2004 deadline and has, through nearly-Herculean effort by staff and the County's Planning Commission, completed the necessary 'homework' months in advance; DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version WHEREAS, the Board completes the process by the adoption of this Ordinance and now makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Jefferson County County Wide Planning Policy Policies 1, 2, and 3 and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies LNG 9.0, 9.1, and LNP 9.5 call for an Urban Growth Area ("UGA") for the Tri-Area. 2. The Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study conducted on behalf of the Board in 1999 determined that the future demand for commercial and industrial lands would outstrip the land so zoned and available in rural designations. 3. The Special Study also determined that it would be appropriate to designate a UGA for Irondale/Hadlock. 4. The Irondale/Hadlock UGA meets the following requirements specified in RCW 36.70A.II0 for a non-municipal UGA · Characterized by urban growth · Adequate developable land has been designated for residential, commercial, and industrial uses to accommodate the growth for the 20-year planning period · Sufficient area for the designation of open space and greenbelts · Urban services such as roads, water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage are provided or are planned for. 5. The Board adopted the UGA boundary on December 13, 2002 through Ordinance No. 19-1213-02. 6. lrondale Community Action Neighbors (lCAN) filed a petition for review on February 24, 2003 concerning the UGA boundary to the WWGMHB. 7. The WWGMHB found that the County needed to establish urban levels of service, capital facilities planning, and urban development regulations. The WWGMHB gave the County until February 27, 2004 to submit a compliance report on the actions taken to bring the UGA into compliance with the Growth Management Act. 8. The County submitted a compliance report on February 25, 2004 to the WWGMHB, which granted an additional 180 days until December 7 for the County to complete the planning or request another extension. The next compliance report is due on December 22, 2004 followed by a compliance hearing on February 17,2005. DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version 9. An Open House was held November 18, 2003 to receive public comment on the UGA planning process. 10. A Citizen Task Force consisting of the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, the Chair of the Planning Commission, three Planning Commissioners, and six citizen representatives was fonned in January 2004 to create development standards for the UGA and to review Capital Facilities planning for the UGA. 11. The Planning Commission discussed the components of the UGA at its meetings on the following dates: June 18, July 16, July 30, September 3, October 15, November 5, and December 3,2003; January 21, February 18, April 21, May 5, and June 30, 2004. Public comments were taken at all of these meetings. 12. The Planning Commission UGA Committee met on the following dates to discuss the issues relating to the UGA: June 11, June 25, July 2, July 9, July 16, July 23, July 30, August 6, August 13, August 20, October 8, October 14, October 28, November 5, November 19, November 25, and December 9,2003; January 6, January 27, May 25, June 1, June, 8, June 15, June 22, June 25, and June 29, 2004. These meetings were publicly noted and public comments were welcomed. 13. The PUD allowed the County to insert flyers into their customers' water bills on separate occasions to advertise the UGA planning process and Open House. 14. An Open House was held on April 14, 2004 to receive public comment on the UGA planning. 15. The Citizen Task Force made its final recommendation to the Planning Commission on April 27, 2004. 16. The Irondale/Hadlock UGA and associated UDC amendments referenced herein have been subject to environmental review in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A"), RCW 43.12C and WAC 197- 11. On May 19,2004, the County's SEPA responsible official, Director of Community Development Al Scalf, issued an Integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum, including a Notice of Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents. 17. The following environmental documents have been adopted pursuant to SEP A administrative rules: DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version · Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. · Draft and Final Supplemental EIS (DSEIS/FSEIS) and addenda for the Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments, also known as Tasks III and IV of the Tn-Area / Glen Cove Special Study. The DSEIS and FSEIS are dated June 30, 1999 and August 18, 1999, respectively, and examined the potential environmental impacts of adopting one of the identified planning alternatives for the Tn-Area of Chimacum-Port Hadlock-Irondale and the Glen Cove mixed use area. · DCD Integrated Staff Report and DSEIS/FSEIS for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The DEIS and FSEIS are dated August 21,2002 and November 25, 2002 respectively. Amidst other information, the adopted documents provide background and analysis on the designation of a UGA in the Irondale & Port Hadlock area. 18. The SEPA Addendum and related documents (for example, the UGA element of the Comprehensive Plan, the stormwater management and transportation plans and the proposed UGA development regulations) were made available to the public on May 19,2004. 19. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Sewer Plan on May 19, 2004. 20. The General Sewer Plan had been available to the general public since it was published in draft form in December 2003. 21. There were several comments provided against the then-preferred alternative in the draft General Sewer Plan. 22. The Planning Commission held public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Unified Development Code on June 2 and June 16, 2004. 23. The Planning Commission deliberated its recommendation on June 30, 2004. DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version 24. The Comprehensive Plan will be amended as follows: · The Urban Growth Area Element will become Chapter 2 in the Comprehensive Plan and contains: The Future Land Use Map, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map, and Sewer Service Area Map. · The current Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Plan Implementation and Monitoring," will become Appendix H to the Plan. · The General Sewer Plan will be adopted as Appendix I to the Plan. · The UGA Transportation Plan will be adopted as Appendix J to the Plan · The UGA Stormwater Plan will be adopted as Appendix K to the Plan · For consistency, wherever required. 25. The Unified Development Code will be amended as follows: · Development Regulations applicable within the UGA will be adopted as Appendix D. · The zoning map for the UGA will be included as a part of Appendix D. · For consistency, wherever required. 26. The public comments were primarily positive and optimistic for establishing a UGA. Many comments spoke to the need for some commercial growth, the cost of housing, and creating pride in the community. There were several comments against the proximity of the proposed sewer system to an existing neighborhood. All written and oral comments were taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and DCD staff when in formulating recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. 27. The Planning Commission made the following findings: · The Planning Commission has held three duly noticed public hearings on the various components of the UGA package. Public comments were taken into consideration. · All of the alternatives in the General Sewer Plan need more investigation and fieldwork to determine the most practical alternative. The Port of Port Townsend has offered land near the airport for a sewer treatment facility. Although the Planning Commission did not have time to evaluate the site for a sewer treatment facility, they recommend further study for that location. DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version · The Planning Commission recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Unified Development Code for the UGA, as refined and transmitted by the Planning Commission. 28. The Planning Commission recommendations came to this Board on July 19, 2004 at which time the Board established a hearing date of 7 PM on Monday, August 2, 2004. 29. The public hearing held on August 2,2004 was well-attended and most persons who spoke that evening supported the Board's decision to implement the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA with the documents this Ordinance makes part of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's development regulations. 30. Because the WWGMHBwas so explicit in the June 2004 Compliance Order in listing the limited ways in which this County was not GMA-compliant, this Board has determined that it must make additional specific findings responsive to that June 2004 Compliance Order. 31. In response to the determination by the WWGMHB that the County has not yet adopted urban levels of service for this unincorporated UGA, this Board informs the reader that the new Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "UGA Element," at pages 2-24 and 2-25 establishes urban levels of service for this UGA. 32. Furthermore, other levels of service have been and remain established by the County's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998. Examples of levels of service established in the Comprehensive Plan include levels of service for solid waste, parks and recreation, county maintenance shops and animal control facilities. In this regard the reader is directed to a more detailed description of these previously-established levels of service at page 2-13 of the "UGA Element" that is made part of the Comprehensive Plan by enactment of this Ordinance. The relevant pages of the County's Comprehensive Plan that adopt levels of service are incorporated herein by reference. 33. In response to the determination by the WWGMHB that the County has not yet completed a sufficiently adequate capital facilities planning, the reader is referred to the General Sewer Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan and the Transportation Plan, all of which were generated specifically for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version 34. Adoption of this Ordinance makes the General Sewer Plan, the Stonnwater Management Plan and the Transportation Plan part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 35. The WWGMHB also expressed concern in the June 2004 Compliance Order that the County had not yet completed a fiscal analysis of how affordable such urban services would be to a resident of the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. 36. With respect to the eventual installation of sanitary sewers (in phases) within that UGA, the reader is referred to Section 5 of the General Sewer Plan, which describes different methods for collecting the funds to pay for the installation of such sewers, i.e., by way of example only, a local improvement district (or "LID"), a system development charge (also known as a "SDC") or entirely through monthly charges to those persons and businesses using the sanitary sewer. 37. Section 5 of the General Sewer Plan contemplates at least six different scenarios as ways to pay for sanitary sewers depending on what portion of the UGA obtains sanitary sewers and how they are paid for, that is to say whether a LID or SDC is utilized. 38. If an SDC is chosen, then growth in the fonn of residential or commercial development will, in general, pay for sanitary sewers as it occurs. According to the General Sewer Plan if an SDC is used to pay for the sanitary sewers the estimated one-time installation costs will range between $1,365 and $4,637 per "Equivalent Residential Unit," or ERU. 39. Note that an ERU equates approximately to a residence, but is more precisely a 'tenn of art' that attributes to any residence a fixed amount of flow that a residence will place into a sanitary sewer system, makes that amount of flow "one unit" and then measures the flow attributed to any other user of a sanitary sewer system, be it a multi-family dwelling, a restaurant or a laundry, against that standard "one unit." The ERU methodology is the standard method of measuring consumption of the service (capacity) that any sanitary sewer can provide. 40. The General Sewer Plan, at page 5-6, also includes an estimate of how much a LID payment method would cost per acre ofland inside the UGA. Per acre the annual cost for a 20-year LID would fall between $965 and $1,365. 41. The General Sewer Plan, at page 5-7, estimates that if the capital costs (in reality, repayment of debt for expenses incurred to install the system) and DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version operating costs were paid for by monthly charges to the users of the system, then the costs to the users of the system would be between $18 and $55 per ERU. 42. The Stormwater Plan for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA, at page 8-2, also provides estimates with respect to the costs of implementing and installing the stormwater management improvements described in that Plan. 43. Specifically, the Stormwater Plan discusses two options and would impose a financial burden on a certain class of properties no matter which option was chosen. 44. The first option is to have all developed parcels, residential or not, contribute to the costs of stormwater management because they all create stormwater runoff. The Plan estimates each ERU would pay $2.86 annually under this option. 45. The second option is that only those parcels that are designated for commercial, industrial and multi-family development will significantly benefit from the stormwater management improvements and thus only they should pay for those improvements. If this option is chosen, those affected ERU's will pay $10.50 per year. 46. Additionally, regardless of which option was chosen, those parcels designated for commercial, industrial and multi-family uses would, according to the Stormwater Managemt Plan, also pay an annual inspection fee of $7.00 per ERU. 47. The Stormwater Management Plan being made part of the County's Comprehensive Plan by adoption of this Ordinance also includes a Chapter 9 devoted entirely to a "Financing Analysis." 48. Finally, the WWGMHB found the County to be non-compliant because it had not yet adopted development regulations that would be applicable within the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. 49. This Ordinance cures that deficiency by adopting Appendix D to the County's Unified Development Code or "UDC." Appendix D is a "use table" for the numerous zones that are established within the boundary of the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. DRAFT-July 28,2004 version 50. This Ordinance also cures that deficiency by adopting other changes to the UDC to make other portions of the UDC consistent with the existence of this UGA. 51. Having a) satisfied the deficiencies listed in the June 2004 Compliance Order of the WWGMHB, b) provided early and continuous public participation in the preparation of the documents that are made part of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC by adoption of this Ordinance and c) created an unincorporated Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA that complies with the requirements of RCW 36. 70A.II 0, this Board concludes that this UGA is GMA-compliant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: The County's Comprehensive Plan be and hereby is amended to include the following documents: · A document entitled "Urban Growth Area Element" will become Chapter 2 in the Comprehensive Plan and contains: The Future Land Use Map, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map, and Sewer Service Area Map. · A document entitled "General Sewer Plan ... Revised Final Draft, May 2004" is made Appendix I to the Plan. · A document entitled "Transportation" on its first page is made Appendix J to the Plan · A document entitled "Irondale and Port Hadlock .... Stormwater Management Plan, May 2004" is made Appendix K to the Plan · For consistency, wherever required, pursuant to a 32-page untitled document that has as its first page a page shown as page 1-8. Section Two: The County's Comprehensive Plan be and hereby is amended so that the current Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Plan Implementation and Monitoring," is made Appendix H to the Plan. Section Three: The County's development regulations, known as the Unified Development Code, be and hereby are amended to include the following documents DRAFT-July 28, 2004 version · A document entitled "Jefferson County, lrondale & Port Hadlock UGA Implementing Development Regulations, Unified Development Code Appendix D." · Azoning map for the UGA will be included as a part of the above- described Appendix D. · For consistency, wherever required, pursuant to an untitled document of 15 pages that has at the top of its first page the phrase "3.1 Land-Use Districts." Section Four: A declaration that any part of this Ordinance is unlawful or illegal shall not cause any other portion of this Ordinance to also be void or invalid. Approved and adopted this day of , 2004 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: ATTEST: Glen Huntingford, Chairman Dan Titterness, Member Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Patrick M. Rodgers, Member DRAFT-July 28,2004 version ,., ~'li;b-æj.",ç',b ~VU (L'ii ,pO + ~ ~~t¡fÇ/,b - IJOQçtqo01 q,iz': {' [ì ¡o;¿oç:b l£:;t¡b~ ô:"((1?\) £ -, CD /, , !j./Ofl <JJK.. -7 IQjCÆ;/YJo:œ:b ~. hÇ -, .. MtJ g;~-'ð,'!'7,IC¡Z- 7þ:<JC.'b -cW:X::¿ <WJ~~ 2- '\ 1/ I'" rI ~ . v 1!1 Z--~.tI~ c, '8': 20 ;0'1 - ~:? : 2 ~ I~011li OW '!] ii j)1f1~: ~~<j ;¡}/; 61 - 'Z;'}Lj:,5~ ~ .k1} c\ If\~..,' n ), -- \)- I :J) ~ '6 (,A~~ 37 - 'ð;Z7, 37~ ~ \ ~ ~~ c;¡~RðJ~ 2;W ;01 - u:~a;ol ,-~~ ~~ 7) ~\~ R1tk g:3;).,:1f -g;3fii1-~~4J;.~'&-~. 3j f!~ r~3tf; 3{ - £ :37:;3/ ~ ,â ~ ¿ cr) £,3. CcYl f~35¿31 8:33:31 ~ ~ 6. ~ jÒ) p!vJ;;r~ Õ;%"3'!-Æ;z/I:3r,~ '£ ~ ~ II) d ~ 'µ(µ\1)ò1tL 'It' 3Z: t¡y 7' Jf: Ifl: 51- ~ 1;;2) ~ M g ;L[j ~;}{) g : 11-:;;)(k t-.. - ~ /1) ~ d/Ko-W g:!fIP :/;}. -: g:llf;!~ ~ ~ :.. s- 15) f?aµÝcc ~ðlÙ ?f:Lj7:t/I- -S-;!Sð:'H t-. % 2:: /IY) ~.J!~ Z~50,'67 - ~,~;J:01f? ~ ~ ~ 1'1) . 7Jl~ tML ~~~/~l'Î- g:,b1:(2C¡~ ~ Ö' ~ f1 .<,' 'j;57:6c¡-f/1{X)~r:/f . ~ ~ ~D ~ ()'1~ro;11 -r,(03~ql- ~,~ -..... ~ " ~ Í/1Wf t!!!I'd / 'f1ð'l dJ. 'i ¿J.i. .,.". éYlfJIú·v 7 fð¡ ~ I{ -, ,I I ",. ~ ëJd) YJ1M'ß~ 7/). ~ q ,¡ot.{;6;J. - q'jo'7tS:< ~ N"a... ~ ;L~) Œ~--4-~. .~'a6:I'ð -~-. ~-\s)r:øç:~ ~ ~J¡ j¡:Q ruJ ~-4. "ior6 ~ ~ - - ~ lX.J(. 5 fVlKJ . JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST ~ NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS <" ¿;-I h· ß'ht'~- Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~f{"f fi HAJ / ðL\c... 14 Î.s " ;&TDD ~DD D ~D D D~ OCJD DDG!- DDD DDD D B-D D BD I \ e..l rJ D 0D ~DD DDB DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST ~o) (bvJ( J ( /1 Testimony? YES NO MAYBE . Q ~Nó D D~· DŒJD &DD D ßD ßJDD )( .0/D D K1 D D gDD DDD ,c~DD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DD~ DDIE' DD~ Pov\ ~ löd D D rg CX1J\~ D D K / D D~ D ~D DErÓ DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST u c .. u I(' Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY f Testimony? YES NO MAYBE OD~ DDIJl DD~ D~D [Y"DD DD )<~DD DDD DDD ~DD DD~ DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD cc: f:oc. c? 'gld-Ic~ DcDJ HEARING RECORD August 2, 2004 r---'\ -;:, Tri Area UGA Public Hearing before Jefferson County Board of County Cotbh1Ì~lioners [\\ 1:-' ¡-\i.)U o 2 2004 Public Comment Todd McGuire RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA04-29 TriArea UGA and Unified ~&þÇffeMCèN~~:;.s:()hc:n~: Amendment MLA04-30 These comments have been developed after review of the following documents: · July 21, 2004 Staff Report on Planning Commission Recommendations · Western W A Growth Management Hearings Board decision 03-2-0010 on Irondale Community Action's challenge ofUGA designation · Corrected Compliance order for this case issued June 10, 2004 · Comprehensive Plan proposed line-in line-out edits · TriArea UGA General Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater Plans · Build-out Analysis March 4, 2004 Mark Personius . Proposed CP Chapter 2 UGA Element Background: I was a member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission from 1999 thru May 2003 when my requested reappointment was denied by a 2 to 1 vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Ostensibly the denial was to honor the wishes of Commissioner Dan Titterness, who was narrowly elected to represent my district. While it was Mr. Titterness' prerogative to not reappoint me, I was disappointed by his reasons for such, he indicating that there was a "hole" or lack of understanding on my part relative to the role and responsibilities of members of the Planning Commission or the wishes of the community. My response was that not only was lone of two remaining members who had been through the Comp Plan Special Study and UDC development and adoption process, but am also of a professional background grounded in development and capital facilities analysis. In fact, I was coauthor of a number of Minority Reports which challenged recommendations which, when adopted by the Board, were later successfully appealed. I feel it important to provide this background not only so that the public and Hearings Board understand my relevant experienèe and understanding of the materials, but also to reiterate the central premise of my involvement: Not enough input has been provided or acknowledged by the Planning Commission in the development of their recommendations and that many pertinent and, in some cases, required aspects have not been adequately considered by the PC or County staff. I have provided unofficial comment to staff over the last year and a half relevant to these issues but have not attempted to influence the Planning Commission as the Chair of that board, Tom McNerney, is a vehement supporter of the pro-development agenda of the three current County Commissioners and prone to dismiss any opinion with which he is not in accord. This current information has only become available in the last few weeks and differs substantially with the information available to the public in the public workshops held months ago. The decision by the BOCC could happen as soon as today, Aug 2, and is an inadeqautely short time for review and comment by the public on this far - reaching issue that will affect all residents of Jefferson County. 1 1. UGA development history: The original public process included a citizen's committee that made regular reports to the Planning Commission. Input from several of the TriArea residents on the committee indicated a lack of adequate involvement and address of their positions, while those of legal representatives for land holders have resulted in the incorporation of their desires for the subject properties in the new zoning map and development regulations. The Hearings Board has determined that the UGA will stand. The questions left to answer are many. Foremost among them: How will the TriArea residents be represented and communicated with? The history of this process is clearly flawed. 2. UGA boundary: Per hearings board decision, the proposed boundary can be considered for reduction dependent on conclusions of capital facilities analysis. Boundary designation should be based on 6-year and 20-year planning window cost / benefit assessments. The Hearings Board indicates that boundary can shrink based on demonstration of fiscal ability to finance capital facilities. This should work in concert with an analytical review of commercial land capacity requirements. 3. Commercial zoning designations: There has been no commercial / industrial land capacity analysis done to justify the additional acreage currently included in the amendment. Ironically, in the Hearings Board case, the County cited the Trottier report as the logic behind C/I land use needs (including comment that analysis result was that the County had excess capacity). In the 2002 CP amendments, the County enlarged the undeveloped CII lands outside UGAs by adding about 90 industrial acres to Glen Cove, Eastview, and Brinnon. The County also added 75 commercial acres at other locations. These new realities have not been addressed nor a revised total of needed acreage determined. From the Hearings Board discussion "However, the southern half ofthe UGA (now revised to include Rhody Drive) is designated for urban commercial and industrial development. This premature designation is bound to set up a false expectation of urban commercial/industrial development which will be totally inappropriate if urban infrastructure is later found to be fiscally or politically infeasible." italics added This is a disservice to the constituency. 4. Capital Facilities Plan: While sewer, transportation and stormwater are being addressed in preliminary fashion, the documents available to the public as recently as the end of Jun did not address cost. The method of payment of the costs presented now should logically be included before a decision is reached. The general categories of "Loans/Grants/General Fund/User Fees" included in Table 2-3 of the amended Chapter 2 are inadequate to tell the public how they will be impacted or where the money will come from. Reduction in infrastructure area should be considered a prudent alternative. From the Hearings Board discussion: "The final step in designating the UGA is capital facilities planning. If the capital facilities planning shows that the area can be provided with urban levels of services, this area will become a UGA. The reality of capital facilities planning, due to the considerable expense of providing urban services, is that this area is not likely to be enlarged, but it could be decreased." Also "Although capital facilities can be expanded, you will need to consider the cost-effectiveness of doing so and the appropriateness relative to community goals. If it will not be feasible to expand or extend a facility and finance the necessary improvements, the land use plan will need to be adjusted accordingly. For this reason, you must work back and forth between your land use analysis and your analysis of capital facility and transportation needs. This is the step that needs to be completed before Jefferson County designates the Tri-Area as a UGA." 2 This is clearly NOT the process currently at work. Aside from cost, the mitigation of traffic impacts caused by, in particular, the Rhody Drive commercial rezones on both safety and congestion under even partial build out of the proposed commercial land increase are not described or addressed. Other capital Level Of Service considerations that are not discussed include law enforcement, trash / recycle or street maintenance. 5. UDC Amendment: The recommended use table includes no limits on building footprint or permeable surface coverage and a 70 foot height cap. These would be applicable across ALL currently and newly designated commercial property including at least one nearly built-out neighborhood. The implications would be laughable if so many families were not potentially affected by them. From the Hearings Board discussion: "The County has also responsibly put in a proviso that until work to determine how urban service will be provided is completed, the rural development regulations will apply. Thus, the County is not encouraging urban development until urban services are available." Also "The GMA requires that cities and counties show how they will be able to serve their UGAs with urban services over the life of their 20-year land use plan, and RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires "at least a six-year funding plan that will finance within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." Again, these sources have not been adequately identified or presented to the public. The UDC amendment should be tabled until the funding sources for these services are identified and a diverse representation of community members can be informed and involved. This amendment coupled with the extensive rezoning constitute huge change and should be approached cautiously. 6. Intergovernmental Considerations: From page 2-12 of the proposed Chapter 2: "Capital facility planning for Urban Growth Areas should be coordinated among the City, County, and special purpose districts or other service providers who may be affected by the advent of new urban growth and the need to plan for the provision of new urban levels of service for public facilities such as sanitary sewer, potable water and public safety. For affected non-County agencies-who may provide these services-to meet their own capital facility plan goals, the County needs to ensure that it does not permit activity which would be inconsistent with their future plans." This process has not occured. 7. Comprehensive Language Considerations: From the Comprehensive Plan: Pg. 5-8 Not addressed or updated: Cost Burden Based upon the defmition recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jefferson County defines cost burden as the extent to which gross housing costs, including utilities, exceed thirty percent (30%) of gross household income. This is the threshold at which the cost of shelter typically becomes a financial hardship, reducing the amount of income available for other necessary expenses such as food, medical care, and clothing. Based upon the information from the 1990 Census, over twelve percent (12.5%) of owner-occupied housing units in Jefferson County spent in excess of 30% on their monthly housing costs in 1989. For renter-occupied housing units, this figure was over thirty seven percent (37.4%). If a significant number of households spend more than thirty percent of their incomes on housing, it can 3 have negative effects on other sectors of the economy. That is, if limited resources are over-allocated to housing, it comes at the expense of other economic sectors and a diversified economy. This relationship between affordable housing and a healthy economy is fundamental to the quality of life in Jefferson County. This has not been addressed as part of the Capital Facilities planning process. Pg. 10-3: Intergovernmental Coordination The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans, including the Transportation Element, be prepared through a process which includes not only public participation but also intergovernmental coordination. In the case of the development of the Jefferson County Transportation Element, this has included coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), City of Port Townsend, Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson Transit, and Community Planning Groups. The City has not been actively engaged in this development process. Pg. 3-93 CP not addressed in amendment: TRANSPORTATION GOAL: LNG 17.0 Ensure that transportation is safe, efficient, multi-modal, and based on levels of service that correspond to the land use densities in the Comprehensive Plan. POLICIES: LNP 17.3 Include provisions to reduce access from main arterials. LNP 17.5 Establish criteria to identify roadways and areas with significant rural quality and character, and protect these areas from incompatible road construction and traffic impacts. 7. Summary and Recommendations: A. Update the Special Study commercial land capacity needs to include those revisions since adoption of Comp Plan now completed and determine how much (if any) commercial land is needed in this first tier. Include the results of this revision in Chapter 2 and zoning map. B. Revise Rhody Drive commercial land designation to include only those parcels currently designated. This is to address traffic and sprawl concerns as well as capacity issues and consistency with other requirements sited above. C. Investigate future commercial zoning potential along Chimacum Rd between Rt 19 and Hadlock Core. D. Delay UDC amendment language adoption until adequate standards to protect against sprawl and neighborhood impacts can be included. E. Sewer should still be considered to serve those residential parcel near Sparling well to address concerns in the event of failing septic systems there. 4 F. Circulate Chapter 2 of the amended language to other citizen and governmental groups for review and comment. Sections such as the following from pg. 2-10 are subjective and opinion based rather than fact based and deserve wide involvement and approval: During the Special Study many existing businesses in Irondale & Port Hadlock expressed frustration with the inability to expand existing operations due to building size limitations and lot size constraints. Some businesses have left the area to relocate to UGAs elsewhere where the land supply and urban capital facilities and services are more readily available. Even with designation of additional vacant lands for commercial purposes, the majority of the commercial lands designated in the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA comprise lands already characterized by urban growth or are surrounded by such lands. 5 ç¿'~ 'BocC '3/3/0t./ Page 10f2 Leslie Locke From: Josh Peters Sent: Tuesday, August 03,20048:15 AM To: Leslie Locke Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: UGA Comments HEARING RECORD Comments for the SOCC re: UGA planning. Per a Board decision last night, written comments will be accepted until close of business Wednesday. From: Jeff & Janet Miller [mailto:jjmiller@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, August 02,20048:56 PM To: #Planning Department Subject: UGA Comments August2,2004 Comments on UGA Planning I have several complaints about the proposed zoning and land use districts in the UGA. Two are specific and one is general. Specifically, the proposed zoning for the Curtiss St. area and the land use designation for the B&R mobile home park are problematic. Generally, there is too much commercial land being designated and it is too widely dispersed for efficient provision of utilities or to spur economic development. The Curtiss St. neighborhood is a residential area that is almost completely built out. There are only a few unused lots in that area. Zoning it commercial really makes no sense especially when you consider that the Planning Commission has only provided one type of commercial designation for the UGA. Wal-Mart is not likely to cite there but an auto mechanic or metal plating business certainly could. We are all aware of the conflicts that occur when businesses locate in residential areas. Ron Gregory himself has called it poor planning. You would think that we would learn from our previous mistakes but instead we seem to be all too willing to make the same ones over and over again. The residents of this neighborhood are going to be subjected to increasing nuisances and see their taxes rise as their land is rezoned. It should remain residential or be restricted to low intensity business uses. All these same comments apply to the B&R mobile home park as well. While the zoning is not being changed, the land use map shows it as commercial which means that future development there must be commercial. The taxes of the landowner are presumably going to rise which will in turn raise the rental rates of the tenants. The result is that people are going to be forced out of this area. Perhaps that is the goal. More commercial land is not the answer to increased economic activity. We already have a huge glut of underused commercial land in this county. According to the county website, in October of 1992 almost 60% of the existing commercial land was in timber, houses, mobile homes, or just vacant. Another 6% was used for storage units. Only a very small percentage of our commercial land is actually used for commercial purposes. Clearly, there is no shortage of available land. Rather than stimulating economic growth, designating more commercial land actually inhibits growth. Economic activity is most lively when it is concentrated. When enough businesses are in the same place people start to use each other's services and opportunities are created for supporting businesses such as delis and copy shops. By designating hundreds of acres of commercial land all around the county we are decreasing the likelihood of any areas really catching on. If we want economic activity we need to limit the amount of commercial land to a few key areas and work to make it desirable by improving infrastructure and marketing. I thought that was the purpose of the UGA but apparently that idea has been lost. Huge disconnected swaths of the UGA are being proposed for commercial use including strips along SR19. This sends the infrastructure costs through the roof and makes it less likely that anything will happen. I think it would be much smarter to concentrate on the Hadlock core area, get the sewer going there, and improve access routes 8/3/2004 Page 20f2 ~ from SR 19 to the core. The long strip commercial development along SR 19 is just going to prove to be a transportation headache. I also want to register my opinion that it is time for the people of the UGA to step up to the plate and start carrying the water on this planning effort. I live in the city and am already paying for a sewer here. People out in the county have already paid for their septic systems. How come we are getting tapped to pay for this level of planning in the UGA? I know we've spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this effort and probably over a million. Are we going to get our money back when all this land gets zoned commercial and the tax rates go up? Will they go up? I recognize the county role in subarea planning but I think we've gone too far in this case and need to step back and let the citizens in the area take over or at least foot the bill. I've heard a couple of terrifying comments from members of the soce that the county may actually help pay for the sewer system. If the citizens of Hadlock want a sewer system than they need to pay for it on their own. Jeff Miller Port Townsend 8/3/2004 · .- æ:~~ '1;/3/01 PO Box 1610 1033 Lawrence Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Phùne/FAX (360) 379-9501 E-mail: jlt@saveland.org Web: www. saveland.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mark Dembro, President Ellen Crockett Don Dybeck Heidi Eisenhour Owen Fairbank Steven Habersetzer Pat Hood Kees Kolff ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie 1. Reith ed@savdand.org PROJECT MANAGER Sarah Spaeth programs@saveland.org OPERATIONS MANAGERS Nancy Newman admin@saveland.org Kristin Axtman jlt@saveland.org STEWARDSHIP COORDINATOR Sonia Frojen programs@saveland.org JEFFEKSON LAND TKUST Helping the communít.Y preserve op CELE5KATING OUK 15th YEAR!! f i)j í~: r;' ¡-. .'! . ,\. :: ¡d:. August 3, 2004 d U .-. '-' ;':--1 L) P,.UG 0 3 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 JEFFEr{.fjOio,j t'.:iJU~~!·T'{ f3()/\F~D O~- COi·k10}¡S~;:()r,,~:~(\:~· Subject: Formal Comment on UGA Zoning Districts/Sunfield Farm Dear Commissioners Huntingford, Rodgers, and Titterness: Thank you for taking oral comments last night related to the proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries. Jefferson Land Trust is taking this opportunity to submit our comments in writing, and to elaborate on several further points related to Sunfield Farm. First, as mentioned last night, Jefferson Land Trust heartily commends Jefferson County for investing in the permanent preservation of Sunfield Farm's more than 50 acres of prime agricultural lands through your commitment of$124,000 in Conservation Futures Funds. As you know, part of Sunfield Farm's vision is to be both a community food source for low- income families in Jefferson County and a learning farm dedicated to sustainable, biodynamic farming practices. The current commercial zoning boundary ofthe UGA directly abuts significant expanses of Sun field Farm (see attached map). Because of this, we strongly encourage the County to fully monitor and enforce all the stormwater management provisions in the proposed plan. This is critical so that the prime agricultural lands at Sunfield Farm and the underlying Sparling Aquifer are not contaminated by stormwater runoff from either commercial properties or County roadways because of failures in the permit or design process or inadequate enforcement. Related to that, we would request consideration of adding "prime agricultural lands" as sensitive receptors related to storm water runoff, equal in importance to Port Townsend Bay and Chimacum Creek. We realize that the NPDESregulations focus primarily on receiving water bodies in terms of stormwater pollution, but in Jefferson County, we believe prime agricultural lands, especially those dedicated to organic and biodynamic farming, can be adversely affected by stormwater pollutants. Jefferson Land Trust is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization. Our federal tax 1D number is 91-1465078. Your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Page 2 Board of County Commissioners In response to several audience comments last night, we also wanted to point out some prohibitions that will be part of the final Sunfield Farm easement. The easement will prohibit: · The use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and other chemical treatment of vegetation, soil, water and animals, except when deemed necessary, by mutual agreement of the parties. · Any use or activity that causes or is likely to cause significant pollution of surface or Eubsurface waters, including disposal of wastewater in manners inconsistent with the terms of the easement. · Spreading of off-site sludge and wastewater on agricultural land. As you can see, part of the preservation of Sunfield Farm is its protection from contaminants, both those generated on-site and those originating off- site. This is why we are so strongly stressing the diligent enforcement of stormwater regulations, whatever the eventual UGA boundaries. By comprehensively enforcing these regulations, as stipulated in your draft UGA plan, you will protect both the County's management reputation and its financial investment in Sunfield Farm. For the remaining open spaces, JEFFERSON LAND TRUST C/#~- Stephanie J. Reith / Executive Director ~ ATTACHMENT: UGA zoning District map ! I (I 11 c:~¡~ i~t(,~~ f ~ '11= ~'U ~ ~ I~[ ~ L (í ¿f<'P itfiiÎ~~~~~ c ~tBµt . .~..!' ( ---~r~lkHIIIIf1Pf7! ~il~1FfiF Œ1 ' R\ \ ,,__.__,~~Jlô?@I..A~~-li)-Jt ~-j~1 ¡~J d;~=4~U) ~,!, I~~~Y ~~~~~ f-' I ~1Œ:!HJ 1 ' i ~ -~-~"--'X~ ~ ! II!I ! ~ull~~ ~ ~~- J è'-:~J¡:(^~~ ~?~ II I rµJ""1 ~ I'>u'\ \. ~ \ .J.. __~ li'l I [~tL ~ 1 hll\Y' '\\ ~ ' ---- ~ - ~J~ ~'\ ,W- I II ~irl~ \ \. --, 1~ L I}l, l~ tID~) /. \ '\ " ,~TIr'tt IT" CTIZ ~ \. :L H, I '2fffl r ~ .,;, _H7Á t- _" - ±: ~TT ~ if ~~ =-1=1 Y J!d ~ ~ ~ -¡ --.L j/fZ: r+- J ----, Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA- Proposed Zoning Districts April 2, 2004 o I!OO 1,000 2,000 3.000 Fee' N A D Urban Gr~ Area (UGA) PropOHd Zoning Dlatrlcts D Public _ Commercial D Visitor OrIantad Commercial _ Ugh! Industrial D Low Density Residential (4-6) D Moderate Density Residential (7-14) _ High Density Residential (14-24) I '.n 1t ~"'!o... . IF ~~~ . ~ '" ~ f+ ~ ~ ~~ ~ l} -1 ~\¡-! m " lLTl = ¡i ITTJ __ ~ [=1" -u - tt-- I L¥-I]Sj f- i =~-~_. ;LJJ ! IJ i . i;~i$ ,. ! F~M L_ -_" -1-- - , I ~ .~ y ~~J \ / (\\~ -~t-T ~~~" ~ r\lrr _\ ( , ~>ljJl ~: M'f/ =, II S -- ¡~ ~ 1\ ~..- ~ :='==-"'''=:::''-:~2002 [JilT I·~[I: IItIItllClltnI. urtwI CIpIIIIt___pIMnIng II ~ ! I I ~~:,_~C.= I r HI hi In L --- - - -- -It \ I TI, lr-lr-'--;r~::::;1 I II n r' ~ il_.~~ ~ r ,-I' __,--- 1 1 Z- #01 I» I '\./ ~ ~Y' Hì --==-~=--~j I L_ ~ I ¡l ~} iT 1 ~~.ß-K ~fti!- , IL -" . (\1 - II=] I\. B '~- ,r\_ r- JJ I_~~\'.O -- I I .. -"-'--'- I-~- ..-'>~...1 . -~-~~~ I~- _I ;¿grJ 1\ /, ,,__ rr- /r: ~~ -...: ....., ~-- - -~ ~ ,~~~ ~DCC <:¡;/3/CL{ Page 10f2 Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11 :41 AM To: Leslie Locke; Glen Huntingford Subject: FW: Proposed Tri-Area UGA neighborhoods Importance: High HEARING RECORD .ßvtna ~elanet¡, e1eJt& oj, tire 9Joaul :Jef,I,eMo.n ßuud.t¡ ßmuniððÍOlWtð <mailto: Idelaneycæco. jefferson. wa. us> -----Original Message----- From: David & Heidi Eisenhour [mailto:eisenhour@olympus.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11 :40 AM To: Lorna Delaney; Josh Peters; Kyle Aim Subject: Proposed Tri-Area UGA neighborhoods Importance: High August 3rd, 2003 Glen Huntingford Jefferson County Commissioner, District 2 Via email Glen, As discussed at the hearing last night we disagree and are confused by the wholesale re-zone, from single family residential to multi-use commercial, of our largely built-out residential (Curtiss and Randolph Street area) neighborhood in Port Hadlock which is proposed in your Tri-Area Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We are also concerned with the type of commercial you are proposing with this amendment for this residential area. As we understand all types of commercials uses are allowed in the proposed commercial areas with minimal limitations on building size and lot coverage. As we testified, we did attend a few of your public workshops & hearing over the past two years. We did participate in the November 18th, 2003 workshop and we were handed a proposed zoning map (dated August 20,2003) for the tri-area where our neighborhoods zoning remained residential - which made sense. Drive down Curtiss Street any day. It IS residential. On a more recent map dated May 19th, 2004 (reviewed on the county website) our neighborhood has been entirely included in the 'urban commercial' zone. We are aware that if we had attended EVERY meeting of the Planning Commission and associated subcommittees we may have been able to express our concern earlier - but we weren't able to and had to wait until your August 2nd hearing. 8/3/2004 Page 2 of2 Please consider removing the Curtiss and Randolph Street neighborhood from you 'urban commercial' zone that you and the planning commission are proposing for a large part of the Tri-Area. There are some businesses that are appropriate and active (Dr. Barrett's dental office for example) in our neighborhood. We think if any commercial zoning is applied to these neighborhood areas in Port Hadlock it should by a zoning that recognizes the residential nature of the area and the historic qualities of this part of the community not a wholesale zoning applied to area like Hadlock Building Supply, QFC, etc as well. Respectfully, David and Heidi Eisenhour, residents Donna Pollock, owner 220 Curtiss Street Port Hadlock, WA 98339 (Mailing address is: PO Box 338, 98339) CC: Kyle Aim, Planner Josh Peters, Senior Planner 8/3/2004 ~ . Dc ì) - r· S-(ol/ August 2, 2004 ~ (! f /v(J ¿{ .) / , . Æ7 01.£« ¡'/ 'Lj f..1.. c:( HEARING RECORD . 1 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Hadlock/lrondale UGA amendments Commissioners, Water: Despite the fact that Jefferson County has been designated by the State as a Critical Water Supply Service Area, the County hasn't been planning with an eye to limited water resources. Instead, the seeds of a very troubled future are being sown by unsustainable, over- development in the proposed Hadlock!Irondale UGA. There is just not enough water for the growth it allows. The available water comes from wells that are all in hydraulic continuity with Chimacum Creek, which is a salmon-listed stream, as documented by WRIA 17 materials before the BOCC for adoption. The Board is well aware that the creek basin could be closed for further groundwater withdrawals, leaving an over-committed water system for this ambitious UGA. Both the City and the PUD have obsolete water plans and are in the process of revising them. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan is also obsolete and being revised. It is unfortunate that this UGA would be approved before these plans have been updated and received State approval. I recently attended a Water Resources workshop of the Port Townsend City Council, during which a City Public Works staff member stated that on a good day I the PUD water system in the Tri-Area barely has the capacity to meet demand. He referred to an out-of-date water capacity study done in 1996 by CH2M Hill, when the groundwater system was being subsidized by out-of-basin water from the Big Qullcene River. This staff member had managed and operated the Tri- Area water system for years before it was sold to the PUD in 2001 and is fully informed about the inadequate capacity of the PUD's groundwater system to meet future needs. It is unfortunate that the City has been officially mute on the regional impacts of this new UGA. Scale: Given the limited available water supply, this water-hungry UGA is planning of the worst sort, but there are other reasons why the . HEARING RECORD UGA boundary should be scaled back and the regulations scaled down. The amount of new commercial zoning is excessive for the county's growth projections matched with the current commercial inventory and zoning. I refer the BOCC and the Hearings Board to the thorough analysis of this issue done by counsel for the 2002 ICAN and PLC appeals. The excessively scaled development regulationsl allowing unlimited building size and lot coveragel are certainly urban In scale but completely fail to recognize and protect the character of this community. A UGA doesn't have to destroy a place while providing urban services and zoning. It just needs to be done rightl and this isn't it. Sewer Planning: Although detailed engineering studies are allowed to come later in capital facilities planning, at this critical decision point the list of alternatives should have been narrowed to a firm concept with related location, cost, and affordability documentation. This homework hasn't been turned in yeti and the Hearings Board should issue another remand order until it is. The County convinced the Hearings Board that a basically unneeded UGA was nevertheless necessary in order to prevent aquifer contamination from septic systems on numerous small lots in the area. But there are!lQ plans for such sewer system in Irondale and never will be because this UGA isn't really about protecting the aquifer. It's about maximizing commercial development. As a City taxpayer, my taxes are used to build or replace infrastructure in the Port Townsend UGAI so naturally I I am very upset that I will now have to subsidize another UGA with my City taxes (16%) that go into the County's General Fund. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend /fad; E~ ~ -- ~Ai?íNGRECÔ~ r· ~è{ (} . D.~l)· r· §"·ct.{ ¡0 &.. 1- ~"'I"~ ~ ~ ~ W7~ ~ ~ o¡ 1)". fJM/1 ..l ~ ¿.. VII1\v fk ~V'<.?"""" ~ -e.,..:f.~ ~'lJ-óc4- VU7-JM~ ~ Iø c,-__ ~ ~¡) CH< tAWU'f~tJC ~~. t II'Ø ~.~~ i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~i- 'J1l' ~ . ~ ~ Þ- LMrVTc.fi"y, Ì'- lit. ~ v-aJ.- ~'~ ~ ~ { ¡;J. o ~ ~'J twf ~~ ,A.&..,.t-t'v-c..J ~~. 1k J.,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~"I-'- ~~ w..o -to ~ë:..J~ (! ,ú.c· D. 'ff S-l'« ~tc i Vf rf tt:f ff eú:-r í I/L}- f· -2 ·(jY HEARING RECORD To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Subject: MLA04-29 and MKA04-30: Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments Date: August 2, 2004 Honorable Commissioners, There are reasons to be conservative in considering MLA04-29 and MKA04-30: Comprehensive Plan amendments and Unified Development Code amendments related to the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. The planning process has been long and frustrating. Through a process of attrition, we have lost the participation of many citizens who deeply care about their community and worked to create a vision of it's future. This year's increased public relations effort has given people more opportunities to be involved, but failed to engage many who experienced past efforts as futile. Faith in citizens' abilities to plan their own community and determine their own future would have resulted in a vision where vacant land was used for expanding local businesses, increasing opportunities for young people, creating entry and living wage jobs, providing affordable housing options, affordable utilities, and competitive shopping choices, while protecting the shoreline, wetlands, Chimacum Creek, farmlands, and rural character. It is doubtful that aggressive proposals for 5 story buildings, encroachment into existing neighborhoods, and increased traffic congestion would have been included. It is in the best interests of everyone for the BOCC to adopt proposals that will avoid appeal, or survive appeals that are without merit; proposals that will be accepted willingly by the community. Traffic is both a local and regional concern. SR 19, Rhody Drive, serves as a principal arterial for which bypass options do not exist. Increased use of Irondale Road through residential areas is undesirable. To the east are family homes and Chimacum Creek and to the west farmland and the aquifer recharge area for the Sparling well, TriArea's primary water source. The wellhead protection area needs to be a consideration for all plans. Increasing commercial zoning that makes this I-mile stretch of SRI9 a destination for commerce, without a comprehensive transportation mitigation plan that limits access to SRI9, will exacerbate congestion problems that already exist. As mentioned in the Transportation Plan, due to close proximity of Irondale and Ness's Corner Road, signals at both could restrict mobility on SRI9. The plan itself recommends further study to reduce financial costs. Already, the SRI9/SR1l6 intersection qualifies for signalization but is well down on the priority list to receive funding. Local funding for this one item at $334,484 is recommended in the plan. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over these roads offering the opportunity for outside funding, but at the expense of local control. Most people in TriArea want to see some progress in planning that leads to results. Given the work that is still unfinished, I encourage the BOCC to realistically consider what can be accomplished and done well this year. Some property owners may be disappointed that the work is not yet done. Your task is to look at the cumulative impact in light of anticipated growth. Phasing in commercial development, directing it first to the Port Hadlock business core, would also direct traffic away from Rhody Drive until those traffic and cost concerns could be resolved. This phasing corresponds with the phasing of the sewer project being directed first to the core as well. Starting with this area is more likely to be accepted and allow progress to be made with the consensus of the community. Having a UGA designation will do little for the community without a sewer. The sewer project itself has many unknowns. Estimates used in the plan do not reflect costs based on actual methods of assessment to be used and do not consider seniors, low-income residents, or public entities (PUD, Library, School, or County buildings) that are included. Participants in any local improvement district to pay for costs will have difficulty guessing what their expenses will likely be from the information available. Neighborhood acceptance will also be enhanced if encroachment into existing residential areas is avoided and buildings are on a scale that compliments the neighborhood. Increasing the building height greater than 35' should only be done to allow "residential-over-commercial" development, and until the community has had a discussion on this issue, 3 story buildings should be the limit. There is much work to do. Focusing on areas of consensus and making progress can have an energizing effect on the community and lead to ¡enewed involvement in community planning. Accomplish what you can for now and set the stage for tomorrow's work. We need to let the citizens in this community make this plan their own. They will be the ones living with it and paying for it. Rest:/~ DaVId Sullivan 51 Fir Place Cape George Port Townsend, W A 98368 Take Advan~e of Compact Building Design Resources C . be 'j) 'l, 6-,01 /.IEARl Page J of I ~e~<i;;.~~ 'if CORD Take Advantage of Compact Building Design {¿J.r} 11 J7.~ -()tf Smart growth provides a means for communities to Incorporate more compact building design as an alternative to conventional, land consumptive development. Compact building design suggests that communities be designed In a way which permits more open spáce to preserved, and that buildings can be constructed which make more efficient use of land and resources. BV encouraging buildings to grow vertically rather than horizontally, and by Incorporating structured rather than surface parking, for example, communities can reduce the footprint of new construction, and preserve more greenspace. Not only Is this approach more effldent by requiring less land for construction. It also provides and protects more open, undeveloped land that would exist otherwise to absorb and filter rain water, reduce flooding and stormwater drainage needs, and lower the amount of pollution washing Into Ol.lr streams, rivers and lakes. Compact building design Is necessary to support wider transportation choices, and provides cost savings for localities. Communities seeking to encourage transit use to reduce air pollution and congestion recognlte that minimum levels of density are required to make public transit networks viable. local governments find that on a per-unit basis, It IS cheaper to provide and maintain services like water, sewer, electridty, phone service and other utilities In more compact neighborhoods than In dispersed communities. Research based on these developments has shown, for example, that well-de~lgned, compact New Urbanist communities that Include a variety of house sizes and types command a higher market value on a per square foot basis than do those In adjacent conventional suburban developments. Perhaps this is why Increasing numbers of the development Industry have been able to successfully Integrate compact design Into community building efforts. This despite current zoning practices - such as those that require minimum lot sizes, or prohibit multi-family or attached housing - and other barriers - community perceptions of "higher density'" development, often preclude compact design. Resources . I . hAJ I )1/{ ~ f/J!J;nRA/ SILh/V! ;'-ml 7 ot)ll 0 http://www.smartgrowth.orgllibnuylbyprinciple.asp?prin=2 81212004 ¡.f .aw, t· Lj,[ttl ;. Erin Lundgren Page 1 of 1 From: Ann Starrett Mansion (starrettmansion@cablespeed.com) Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:41 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Tri-Area Comments Please include the attached comments as part of the record for the hearing held August 2, 2004. www.starrettmansion.com info@starrettmansion.com 744 Clay St Port Townsend WA 98368 HEARING RECORD 8/4/2004 HEARING RECORD Jefferson County Commissioners Jefferson County Court House Port Townsend, WA 98368 August 3, 2004 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the progress made in the Port Hadlock and lrondale Urban Growth Area (UGA). I have followed the process as an individual, Port Townsend (PT) City Council member and a Port of Port Townsend commissioner since 1992 or 1993. To say that the UGA discussion has been rushed through is an exaggeration of huge proportions. The area was designated as a UGA in the early 90s which was appealed by PT and the hearings board sent it back for more study. This was not a win for either the city or county because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars is cost our small county. The Jefferson County Comp Plan was enacted in 1998 with two gaping holes. No decision was made on the Glen Cove area and no decision was made on the Tri-Area UGA. In fact, the planning commission did not have the opportunity to review the entire comp plan prior to the County Commissioners adoption. The discussion of those two areas has continued since then until now in 2004 specific plausible recommendations have been at last been presented. The hundreds of meetings and thousands of hours with public comment throughout the process have finally resulted in a plan which went to the citizens for comment on August 2, 2004. These efforts should be lauded and not derided as not being enough. When is enough, enough? In the private and public arenas, decisions must be made based on available information because total information will not be available until this process is looked back at as a historical study. The UGA is an existing functioning area which needs refinements and some urban levels of service. The plan, as forwarded by the planning commission, contains those refinements and a forward look to develop urban services such as a sewer system. Public comments have been heeded by the planning commission and incorporated into the plan. The development of inftastructure will not happen over night which is evident when one realizes that 150 year old PT still has septic tanks. Your decision will be more difficult as you are bombarded with the nit picks from selfish people who will use a shotgun approach in hopes that one of the pellets might kill any potential for the residents of the UGA to get along with their lives. You need to remember that the legislature has allowed you to make changes to the Comp Plan and that you can change the UDC as new information and issues arise. · . HEARING RECORD As with all plans and regulations, this is the starting point, and I hope you take that necessary first step by approving the Tn-Area UGA plan and UDC. ~, W~ Robert H. Sokol 1005 Quincy St Port Townsend, W A 98368 385-9002 c.. .V L' Þ y. tj. ry Page 1 of2 -~ ,- Erin Lundgren From: wbjmail [wbjmail@olypen.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:42 PM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Kyle Aim Subject: Tri Area UGA HEARING RECORD August 3,2004 Glen Huntingford Jefferson County Commissioners Mr. Huntingford etal, We are very concerned and confused about the rezone of our neighborhood from residential to commercial. We are referring to the Curtiss and Randolph St. area, which we understood as per the map given to us at the November 18,2003 workshop at Shold Business Park did not include this area in the commercial zone. That zoning we approved. Our confusion and question is why the change? We wonder if there may have been an oversight due to the fact that Curtiss St. makes a right angle turn at the bluff and someone meant to make the East-West portion,on which the Wooden Boat School owns a large parcel,commercial and not the North-South portion which is already built out except one small lot and is only family dwellings. There are only two active businesses in this neighborhood, a B&B in an old church that is for sale, and a dentist office in an old Victorian house. These are both historic buildings that set the style of this residential area. Why designate this a commercial zone for two businesses at the expense of all? If the commercial zone came as for off of Irondale road as Alley St., could the dental office and the multiple family unit the Broders might want to build on their property at Randolph and Matheson streets hook up to the sewer on Alley St and still be residential? Please consider us, the many families in this neighborhood, and try to come up with a more amicable solution to accommodate the few. We would very much appreciate and admire you for it. Respectfully, Wayne and B.J. Cornett 183 Randolph St. Hadlock, Wa. 8/4/2004 - '. Page 2 of2 / wbjmail@olypen.com 8/4/2004 {I D~.I? t',Lj'l't/ Page 1 of 1 Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:02 AM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: August 9 vote on commercial corridor HEARING RECORD .ßvtna 9>elaney, eleJt of, tI're 9Jo.œul ~o.n. &unb¡ ßmuniððÚJ.neltð <mailto:ldelaney@co.iefferson.wa.us> -----Original Message----- From: len zweig [mailto:leonardz@olympus.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:52 PM To: Lorna Delaney SUbject: August 9 vote on commercial corridor Gentlemen: I appreciate the diligent work and patience required to create a plan for commercial development along Route 19. As you prepare to make your decision, I want to call your attention to a unique opportunity you have, and a special responsibility that goes with it. Population growth in Jefferson County is slow. This means we have time to try out development ideas in phases, rather than make a commitment to large scale commercial growth that residents of Jefferson County - including residents in the immediate vicinity of the development corridor - may regret in the future. Why not scale back the 70-foot height allowance and start a first phase with a lower limit, perhaps 35 feet? This would allow ample opportunity for local businesses to expand and for energetic entrepreneurs to build new businesses. If, over time, there is a desire by established businesses to build higher - or to accommodate entry for a larger business that pays family support wages - then Jefferson County residents can decide whether to amend the plan after weighing the costs and benefits at that time. So please consider phased development along the Route 19 corridor, just as you are considering phased development of the sewer system. Respectfully, Leonard Zweig 1059 Quincy Street Port Townsend 8/4/2004 B,DCP ¡ '/.CH-/ I'.-¡·::::--.~' î·--· ."., '..'-. .".' . ~. I [~~ :' r-t.i ¡ f····j '. \ // ¡;....J '.' I, , ..~ , \' , ': i!-·· I, :: r-. L.., , '__ , ' , ¡ ~ ,.....__...i ¡. ; i' IJ f ~n... n' " t..I. !-\UG 04 2004 ¡ : ; ~ U: HEARING RECORD ,JEFFERSON COUNT 7' P""RD 0,... COH"~""'··'·("N""·· 0\..11-\ \ ,-. !V¡I~!ìlù(j¡UI t:~..~~) HENRY A. SUKERT 82 ELIZABETH ST PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISIONERS JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 DEAR COMMISSIONERS, MY SON & I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY. IT IS CURRENTLY BEING DECIDED WHETHER THE PROPERTY SHOULD GO BACK INTO COMMERCIAL ZONING OR STAY RESIDENTIAL. THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL WHEN MY SON & I BOUGHT IT BACK IN 1992. AT THAT TIME, THE SURROUNDING AREA WAS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. SINCE THAT TIME DIFFERENT PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN BUILT ACROSS THE STREET WHICH IS NOW ZONED COMMERCIAL. I FELT THAT AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE IN THAT IT ACTUALLY CREATED A SPOT ZONE. I FEEL THAT AT THIS TIME THE COUNTY HAS A CHANCE TO RIGHT A WRONG BY RETURNING THIS PROPERTY BACK TO A COMMERCIAL ZONE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SHOLD BUSINESS PARK. ~HANK ~OU \)j c1\ ~'-'\ ~/ \ HENRY A. SUKERT (!. I) (' LJ t· 5' ell ÏJ r· 6 '5+ ~l,.Lo....{r/L(.cR ð . Lf . t) '-I ;---........., ~ i [ ! .,,.../ / ¡ ',\ r"UG 0 5 2004 Perkins I Coie ~ ~ '-. .;~ ~ ~ 111 Market Street N.E., Suite 200 Olympia, WA 98501-1008 PHONE, 360.956.3300 FAX, 360.956.1208 www.perkinscoie.com August 4,2004 VIA EMAIL TO:jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us HEARING RECORD Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: An Ordinance Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendments MLA04- 29 and Unified Development Code Amendments MLA04-30 Regarding the IrondalelHadlock Urban Growth Area Dear County Commissioners: As noted at your hearing, I support both the UGA comprehensive plan resolution and the associated development regulation amendments. Speakers at the County Commissioner's public hearing spoke of the "critical water supply" area and concerns about the PUD ability to deliver water to support the planning area. The PUD has a water supply general plan and water rights that are adopted and approved and demonstrate a capability for serving the area. The local issue is the sizing of facilities to meet growing demand, and that cost is primarily funded by developer extensions as new projects are brought on line. The County should incorporate the PUD documents and the PUD approved water service area maps into the County record, since they were referenced and considered as part of the overall planning process for the area. With respect to the Sewer Capital Facilities Plan and General Plan, both GMA and SEP A permit a logical, sequential process. Final design and individual costs are not available until a number of choices are made on the precise manner of service delivery, which can only be incorporated into an engineering report once your current planning is complete. Your Capital Facility Plan provides a realistic budget for a range of choices reviewed in the General Plan materials considered by the review committee over the past year, including the option recommended by the Planning Commission. Once the service area is approved and the capacity loads anticipated-a [/SL042170.062] ANCHORAGE· BEIJING· BELLE VUE· BOISE· CHICAGO· DENVER· HONG KONG· LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK· OLYMPIA· PORTLAND· SAN FRANCISCO· SEATTLE· SPOKANE· WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins (Die LlP (Perkins (oie llC in Illinois) August 4, 2004 Page 2 product of the plan the County is now reviewing-the County can begin to take project-specific looks at plant siting and discharge locations and techniques. I would encourage you to retain the General Plan options as part of your SEP A review, as cost, location, and cost-effective techniques for treatment and disposal will all enter into your fmal decision on the sewer design and operation. As I mentioned in my testimony, the concern about water supply ties closely to the planned waste water treatment system. The ability to focus discharges from an advanced secondary or tertiary treatment system with Class A recycled water, provide opportunities to identify the potential for additional water rights to be available for beneficial use in the region as part of an overall waste water/recycled water pennit approval process. Enhanced wetlands can provide meaningful and timely seasonal recharge to headwater areas for local streams. In addition, contrary to the comments of one speaker at your hearing, the availability of Class "A" recycled water does in fact enable the community to use the processed water for public facilities, including parks and recreation areas. (Check with the public works officials at the City of Yelm about the treatment and utilization of the water from its wastewater treatment plant.) I encourage you to adopt the comprehensive plan amendment, including the fmal UGA boundary and the related development regulations, including stormwater and zoning. The Northwest Center for Wooden Boats, Ajax restaurant, and cabins are clearly urban, and urban waterfront dependent and oriented, and should have urban services available. A similar justification for including the property at The Inn at Port Hadlock is also present. The Inn has existed on the shoreline for many years and currently has a commercial inn, restaurant, and conference facilities already constructed or underway in the two existing buildings, and vested plats and septic facilities for the Inn, the restaurant, and vested home sites that would be much better served by PUD water and municipal sew~r. The Inn also has the largest approved modem marina in the south bay area, providing essential moorage and public access to the water. The area is characterized by urban growth and properly included within both the UGA and the sewer and water planning areas. The visitor-oriented commercial zoning is consistent with the existing and planned uses and provides a good resort recreation anchor for economic development in the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. [/SL042170.062] 08/04/04 August 4, 2004 Page 3 We urge your support. A WM:kr c·c: Kyle AJrn Paul Christensen [/SL042 170.062] 08/04/04 ð. D(' o. f, 4 ct.! Erin Lundgren From: Sent: To: Subject: Lorna Delaney Wednesday, August 04,200412:42 PM Erin Lundgren FW: Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA . Inn at Port Hadlock Comment.pd... Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board Jefferson County Commissioners < mailto: Idelaney @ co.jefferson. wa. US> HEARING RECORD > -----Original Message----- > From: Rentz, Karen-OL Y [mailto:KRentz@perkinscoie.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:40 PM > To: Lorna Delaney > Cc: Kyle Aim; Paul Christensen (E-mail) > Subject: Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA > > > > > Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: > > The attached letter is submitted for the record in the > matters MLA04-29 and > MLA04-30, scheduled for action on Monday. > > > Sandy Mackie, sent via his secretary, Karen Rentz > Perkins Coie LLP > 111 Market Street N E, Suite 200 > Olympia, WA 98501 > Phone: (360) 956-3300 > Fax: (360) 956-1208 > krentz@perkinscoie.com > amackie@perkinscoie.com 1 > > > > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other > confidential > information. If you have received it in error, please advise > the sender by > reply email and immediately delete the message and any > attachments without > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. > HEARING RECORD 2 HEARING RECORD Perkins I Coie August 4, 2004 111 Market Street N.E., Suite 200 Olympia, WA 98501-1008 PHONE: 360.956.3300 FAX, 360.956.1208 www.perkinscoie.com VIA EMAIL TO:jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: An Ordinance Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendments MLA04- 29 and Unified Development Code Amendments MLA04-30 Regarding the IrondalelHadlock Urban Growth Area Dear County Commissioners: As noted at your hearing, I support both the UGA comprehensive plan resolution and the associated development regulation amendments. Speakers at the County Commissioner's public hearing spoke of the "critical water supply" area and concerns about the PUD ability to deliver water to support the planning area. The PUD has a water supply general plan and water rights that are adopted and approved and demonstrate a capability for serving the area. The local issue is the sizing of facilities to meet growing demand, and that cost is primarily funded by developer extensions as new projects are brought on line. The County should incorporate the PUD documents and the PUD approved water service area maps into the County record, since they were referenced and considered as part of the overall planning process for the area. With respect to the Sewer Capital Facilities Plan and General Plan, both GMA and SEP A pennit a logical, sequential process. Final design and individual costs are not available until a number of choices are made on the precise manner of service delivery, which can only be incorporated into an engineering report once your CUITent planning is complete. Your Capital Facility Plan provides a realistic budget for a range of choices reviewed in the General Plan materials considered by the review committee over the past year, including the option recommended by the Planning Commission. Once the service area is approved and the capacity loads anticipated-a (/81..042170.062) ANCHORAGE· BEIJING· BEllEVUE . BOISE· CHICAGO· DENVER· HONG KONG· LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK· OLYMPIA· PORTLAND· SAN FRANCISCO· SEATTLE· SPOKANE· WASHINGTON. D.C. Perkins Coie llP (Perkins Coie LLC in Illinois) · ' August 4, 2004 Page 2 HEARING RECORD product of the plan the County is now reviewing-the County can begin to take project-specific looks at plant siting and discharge locations and techniques. I would encourage you to retain the General Plan options as part of your SEPA review, as cost, location, and cost-effective techniques for treatment and disposal will all enter into your fmal decision on the sewer design and operation. As I mentioned in my testimony, the concern about water supply ties closely to the planned waste water treatment system. The ability to focus discharges from an advanced secondary or tertiary treatment system with Class A recycled water, provide opportunities to identify the potential for additional water rights to be available for beneficial use in the region as part of an overall waste water/recycled water pennit approval process. Enhanced wetlands can provide meaningful and timely seasonal recharge to headwater areas for local streams. In addition, contrary to the comments of one speaker at your hearing, the availability of Class "A" recycled water does in fact enable the community to use the processed water for public facilities, including parks and recreation areas. (Check with the public works officials at the City ofYehn about the treatment and utilization of the water from its wastewater treatment plant.) I encourage you to adopt the comprehensive plan amendment, including the final UGA boundary and the related development regulations, including stormwater and zoning. The Northwest Center for Wooden Boats, Ajax restaurant, and cabins are clearly urban, and urban waterfront dependent and oriented, and should have urban services available. A similar justification for including the property at The Inn at Port Hadlock is also present. The Inn has existed on the shoreline for many years and currently has a commercial inn, restaurant, and conference facilities already constructed or underway in the two existing buildings, and vested plats and septic facilities for the Inn, the restaurant, and vested home sites that would be much better served by PUD water and municipal sewer. The Inn also has the largest approved modern marina in the south bay area, providing essential moorage and public access to the water. The area is characterized by urban growth and properly included within both the UGA and the sewer and water planning areas. The visitor-oriented commercial zoning is consistent with the existing and planned uses and provides a good resort recreation anchor for economic development in the IrondalelPort Hadlock UGA. [/SL042170.062] 08104104 ~ . . ~ August 4, 2004 Page 3 HEARING RECORD We urge your support. A WM:kr cc: Kyle AIm Paul Christensen [/SL042170.062] 08/04/04 c p. C ,¡y., F' I./otf Page 1 of3 HEARING RECORD Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:26 PM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area .&tna :ïJelmwJ, e1øtft oJ tfu fiJo.wtd :Jef/,e4ðo.n &unJ.y, ~ðÚJneltð <ma i Ito: Idelan ey(éD.co. iefferson. wa. us> -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rose [mailto:mark@markrose.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 04,20043:12 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area August 11, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 RE: Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), MLA04-29, MLA04-30 Public Comment Commissioners: Approximately two years ago a group of 20 citizens convened to plan for the future of the communities of Irondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum. When it became apparent that they were not to be included in comprehensive planning but were merely a "sounding board" for a pre-determined outcome fashioned by a consultant, their ranks whittled down to about eight. The remaining group members voted not to designate a UGA until they could consider transportation, water, sewer, economic and other impacts. The BOCC ignored their recommendation and designated a UGA anyway. I cannot find a record of this group ever existing in any county documents submitted on the UGA. The BOCC ruling was appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) and they determined that in fact the county must plan in an integrated, comprehensive fashion as mandated by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Once again we find the county disrespecting and marginalizing the wishes of its constituents and intentionally attempting to circumvent state regulations. This wasteful and polarizing practice has 8/412004 HEARING RECORD Page 2 of3 been going on for years and has cost taxpayers millions in consultants fees, legal costs, mismanagement of Department of Community Development, the Prosecutors office and other county resources. The Commissioners can blame a "small group" of "process terrorists" or they can take responsibility and implement planning processes that assure that we do it once, do it right, and make a serious attempt to be inclusive rather than conrrontational. It is cynical and non-productive to say that appeals will be part ofthe process. It need not be so. Unfortunately, the county has become adept at showing the appearance of community involvement while fulfilling its pre-determined ideological agenda. I look forward to the time when the BOCC, the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development can work in concert to involve citizens in comprehensive, integrated planning and we can create and implement successful roadmaps for the future of our communities. I incorporate the comments of Nancy Dorgan (below) into my testimony. Thank you. Mark Rose Brinnon, W A 98320 August 2, 2004 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Hadlock/lrondale UGA amendments Commissioners, Water: Despite the fact that Jefferson County has been designated by the State as a Critical Water Supply Service Area, the County hasn't been planning with an eye to limited water resources. Instead, the seeds of a very troubled future are being sown by unsustainable, over- development in the proposed Hadlock/Irondale UGA. There is just not enough water for the growth it allows. The available water comes from wells that are all in hydraulic continuity with Chimacum Creek, which is a salmon-listed stream, as documented by WRIA 17 materials before the BOCC for adoption. The Board is well aware that the creek basin could be closed for further groundwater withdrawals, leaving an over-committed water system for this ambitious UGA. Both the City and the PUD have obsolete water plans and are in the process of revising them. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan is also obsolete and being revised. It is unfortunate that this UGA would be approved before these plans have been updated and received State approval. I recently attended a Water Resources workshop of the Port Townsend City Council, during which a City Public Works staff member stated that on a good day, the PUD water system in the Tri- Area barely has the capacity to meet demand. He referred to an out-of-date water capacity study done in 1996 by CH2M Hill, when the groundwater system was being subsidized by out-of-basin water from the Big Quilcene River. This staff member had managed and operated the Tri-Area water system for years before it was sold to the PUD in 2001 and is fully informed about the inadequate capacity of the PUD's groundwater system to meet future needs. It is unfortunate that the City has been officially mute on the regional impacts of this new UGA. Scale: Given the limited available water supply, this water-hungry UGA is planning of the worst sort, but there are other reasons why the UGA boundary should be scaled back and the 8/4/2004 HEARING RECORD Page 3 of3 regulations scaled down. The amount of new commercial zoning is excessive for the county's growth projections matched with the current commercial inventory and zoning. I refer the BOCC and the Hearings Board to the thorough analysis of this issue done by counsel for the 2002 ICAN and PLC appeals. The excessively scaled development regulations, allowing unlimited building size and lot coverage, are certainly urban in scale but completely fail to recognize and protect the character of this community. A UGA doesn't have to destroy a place while providing urban services and zoning. It just needs to be done right, and this isn't it. Sewer Planning: Although detailed engineering studies are allowed to come later in capital facilities planning, at this critical decision point the list of alternatives should have been narrowed to a firm concept with related location, cost, and affordability documentation. This homework hasn't been turned in yet, and the Hearings Board should issue another remand order until it is. The County convinced the Hearings Board that a basically unneeded UGA was nevertheless necessary in order to prevent aquifer contamination from septic systems on numerous small lots in the area. But there are no plans for such sewer system in Irondale and never will be because this UGA isn't really about protecting the aquifer. It's about maximizing commercial development. As a City taxpayer, my taxes are used to build or replace infrastructure in the Port Townsend UGA, so naturally, I am very upset that I will now have to subsidize another UGA with my City taxes (16%) that go into the County's General Fund. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend 8/4/2004 Page 1 of 1 Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Thursday, August 05,20047:42 AM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area Importance: High .ßvtna ~eiatw,¡, e&t& of, tfre 9Jo.wtd ~on fo.unú¡ fo.nuni.ððÚJ.ne1tð <mailto: Idelaney@co.iefferson.wa.us> HEARING RECORD -----Original Message----- From: Bill Biery [mailto:bbiery@cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04,20044:46 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area August 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), MLA04-29, MLA04-30 Public Comment I do not favor proceeding with the proposal as it stands. Obviously, much contribution has been made from the community and the planning commission to get to this point. Many questions remain, however. Adequate answers are not available, not adequate or not understood by the public and those impacted. I strongly urge you to delay the approval for the plan as it is now. I recommend further public comment, examination and explanation of the issues such as natural ecosystem impacts, stream impacts, salmon and habitat, transportation, availability and quality of water, sewage treatment, cost to property owners, cost to county tax payers and a full report on this somewhat complex matter before you submit the plan for another rejection and appeal. This plan may be too aggressive and too large a scale. So much has been invested to get the concept and plan detailed up to this point, it would be a shame to have the proposal rejected and go through expensive reworking. You need to do additional homework to achieve a workable plan before it leaves your hands. Do it right the first time! Thank you for your consideration. Bill Biery 406 T Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-385-3118 8/512004 (}, Ì)(I D g', S-;o~ Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:02 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Testimony re: pt. Hadlock Irondale UGA HEARING RECORD ---------- From: Terri Jeffreys[SMTP:TERRI.JEFFREYS@WAREALTOR.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 20048:00:06 AM To: Dan Titterness; Pat Rodgers; Glen Huntingford; Josh Peters; Kyle Aim; AI Scalf Cc: Ron Helmonds; Bill Perka; Catherine Hendy (email); Judy Johnson; Karen Best; Kevin Tuuri; Laura Halady; Nancy Stelow (email) Subject: Testimony re: pt. Hadlock Irondale UGA Auto forwarded by a Rule To the Jefferson County Commissioners and Dept of Community Development Personnel: Attached, please find testimony to be entered into the record for consideration of the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area. This testimony represents the views and opinions of the Jefferson County Association of REAL TORS. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Terri Jeffreys Olympic Peninsula Region Government Affairs Director Washington Association of REAL TORS® terri. ieffreys@warealtor.com Phone: 360-427-5403 Cell: 360-481-0544 Fax: 360-427-2329 8/5/2004 219 W. Patison Street Suite 1 Port Hadlock, W A 98339 Phone: (360) 385-6041 Fax: (360) 385-6043 Email-ieffrlty@olypen.com August 2, 2004 TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jefferson County Association ofREALTORS® RE: Proposed Port HadlocklIrondale Urban Growth Area Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed zoning designations and implementing development regulations for the Port HadlocklIrondale Urban Growth Area. Our members applaud the Board for taking the steps necessary to ensure Jefferson County will provide the infrastructure, proper zoning and land inventory needed to accommodate commercial and industrial growth and to provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of our population. Growth is vital to our community. Over the years much has been said about the cost of growth and little attention has been paid to research showing the negative impact little or no economic and population growth has on communities. Analysis of data contained in the Places Rated Almanac, and studies by the United Nations and Urban Land Institute reveals that low growth communities generally have a lower overall quality of life as compared to communities with more rapid rates of growth. The long term effects of low or no growth also are shown to reduce the quality of life even further. 1 Importantly, lack of growth affects the poor and working class the most, depriving the poor of job opportunities and the working class of housing opportunities, affecting their ability to share in the "American Dream" of owning their own home. For these reasons, the Jefferson County Association ofREALTORS® are vitally interested in ensuring the Board of County Commissioners make proper assumptions for determining the appropriate size and zoning designations of this much needed UGA. 1 Petree, Jack. How Lack of Growth Harms Communities: The Dark Side of Low or No Growth Planning Policies. White Paper prepared for the Washington Association ofREALTORS®, 2004. After careful study of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, UDC amendments and supporting documentation and studies related to the Port Had10ck/Ironda1e UGA, we offer the following comments and concerns. . UGA size does not provide maximum residential holding capacity affecting inventory of moderate priced housing. Designated residential lands within the UGA provide only 18% holding capacity (pg 2-11, proposed Urban Growth Area Element amendment) while Growth Management Hearing Board decisions have allowed up to 25%. It is unclear why the Planning Commission would not seek to provide the maximum allowable residential holding capacity. Failure to provide maximum holding capacity threatens our County's ability to provide a much needed balance between the supply and demand of housing. Research by the Reason Public Policy Institute has shown that GMA is responsible for 26% ofthe increase in housing costs in Washington,z Artificial restrictions on the buildable land supply (urban growth boundaries) are the primary reason for the added inflation. Other counties sought to correct this market failure by building in the 25% market factor. Jefferson County should learn from other counties and take advantage of the legal maximum holding capacity. · Build-out analysis assumes 40% of the people in the Urban Growth Area will live in multi-family housing. Current market analysis of King County residential housing shows 45% of the county's housing demand is met through multi-family housing.3 King County is a decidedly urban environment whose demographic make-up and residential preferences should not be considered comparable to Jefferson County. We believe assigning 40% of population growth to multi-family housing is overstating our region's consumer preference and can only serve to further restrict affordable home ownership for working class citizens. Homeownership accounts for 40% of the average American's wealth, helping moderate income citizens to achie~e a level of wealth not otherwise possible. Homeownership also increases civic involvement and concern for a healthy, thriving community. REAL TORS® recommend the Board of Commissioners reconsider the attempt to accommodate such a high percentage of population growth in multi-family housing. . Total commercial land designations do not realistically reflect the actual amount of land available for sale. Our members actively seeking commercia11and for clients cannot support the Comprehensive Plan's assumption that the 93 acres of supposed vacant land designated commercial, is available 2 Staley, S. & Gilroy, L. Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Statewide Planning Policies. Reason Public Policy Institute, Los Angeles. Policy Study no. 287. 3 The Housing Partnership. Issues Influencing Housing Supply. A compilation of articles reprinted from Housing Stock, a newsletter of the Housing Partnership, Winter 200t-Spring 2003. - '- .. for purchase and development. County officials should "ground-truth" the plan's assumptions and correct this number. If the additional research shows less available commercial land, additional land, located in appropriate areas should be designated. Any additional lands should not come as a result of reducing residential acreage. . Household size assumptions do not reflect County and state-wide downward trends. The Build-out Analysis (on which much of the UGA sizing depends) assumes a linear projection average of2.5 persons per household (PPH) for the duration ofthe 20 year planning period. This assumption does not agree with the state Office of Financial Management's county-wide forecast for Jefferson County of2.123 PPH by the year 2010. Failure to accurately forecast household size can result in an undersized UGA and will further increase pressures to grow outside ofthe UGA, decrease supply of residential land within the UGA and raise the cost of housing. REAL TORS® recommend the build-out analysis be re-examined using a trended household headship rate to more realistically determine the UGA's residential needs for the entire 20 year planning period. The Jefferson County Association ofREALTORS® (JCAR) would be happy to provide additional research materials and policy recommendations to assist the County in this difficult and important task of sizing and zoning the Port HadlocklIrondale UGA. Thank you for your consideration of our comments and please do not hesitate to contact JCAR if you have questions or would like additional comment on the proposed plan.