Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121509S ~~ tOMMk... ~/~~~ S74'9 00.' iii~ ;.;,,~' I.... "11-<1 , , \~ ~J ~~/ District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Special Meeting Week of December 15,2009 Chairman David Sullivan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner John Austin. Continued Deliberations and Possible Decision re: Port of Port Townsend Rezone; MLA 09-00077 (Hearing held on Monday, December 7, 2009 and continued on Monday, December 14, 2009): Department of Community Development (DCD) Director AI Scalf reviewed the concerns brought up during testimony given at the hearings. Associate Planner David W. Johnson reviewed the following ten questions and DCD staff responses: 1) Can any interim steps be taken to satisfY concerns of the Port and the City? David Johnson noted that the Port adopted a resolution on November 23, 2009 showing good faith in collaborating with the City of Port Townsend, THE County, and Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 over the next two years to address the City's concerns with economic development issues. In addition, the County has agreed to process and determine feasibility on the Glen Cove Urban Growth Area (UGA). Al Scalf stated that the City's concern and future aspirations may include partnering with the County to make Glen Cove a UGA. The proposal at the airport is for rural scale development. Neither the County or City comprehensive plans identifY Glen Cove as a UGA or as a potential/provisional UGA. Changing designations takes a lot of planning however, there can a commitment to partner in feasibility planning to examine whether or the not we can meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). 2) What are the development standards for a proposal at the permitting stage if this comprehensive plan amendment were approved? Al Scalf explained that not only does this proposal suggest line-inlline-out text changes to the development standards in the Jefferson County Code (lCC), but there are also other JCC requirements. David Johnson reviewed his staff report referencing the proposed JCC text amendments to chapter 18.15.453, Airport Overlay III, section 4 where it defines the development standards that are going to apply to this site. Subsection (a)(i)(ii) and (iii) which outline impervious surface coverage and building dimension and height restrictions, state that total impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 25%. No structure shall exceed 10,000 square feet in size. Notwithstanding JCC 18.15.1130, in no instance may structures exceed 35' in height. Current bulk and dimensional standards for light industrial property in Glen Cove is 55% Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Special Meeting of December 15, 2009 (CIJ."'."'" ;~ .....~: ~ .., ." .'''J~';~'' maximum for total impervious surface coverage. That is a big difference compared to 25% in the proposal which is actually the impervious surface limitation standard for property designated as rural residential. This proposal also includes standards for vegetation retention, perimeter buffering and low impact development by requiring rain gardens and landscaping plans. A 50' wide buffer is being proposed around the outer perimeter of each ownership parcel. The development standards for light industrial development at Glen Cove only require a 10' rear setback. Currently, there are development standards in the JCC under chapter 18.30 that require adequate water supply, sewage disposal, grading and excavation, storm water drainage, roads, pedestrian circulation and parking. The proposal has to meet all these standards which limits the size and scope of the development. Al Scalf noted that chapter 18.10.130 of the JCC defines manufacturing and light industrial. The Port is not proposing commercial type structures such as professional offices or retail sales. David Johnson explained that the performance standards outlined in chapter 18.20.220 of the JCC must also be met. Standards for critical areas are outlined in chapter 18.22 of the JCC. The proposed site is designated as a special aquifer recharge protection area. There are certain restrictions on the types of development that can occur in that area which are outlined in subsection 120. Prohibited uses include chemical manufacturing and reprocessing, creosote/asphalt manufacturing, electroplating and metal coating activities, hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities, and petroleum product refinement. Al Scalf added that approval of a binding site plan will be required as part of the permitting process pursuant to chapter 18.35.490. Specifically, the Port will have to apply for a type III permit that requires review through a public process and includes public notice and a hearing and decision by the Hearing Examiner. Final approval of a binding site plan will lead to the potential approval of a building permit. A great deal of regulation and project level review will come at a later stage. 3) How was the settlement agreement mentioned in Ordinance No. 16-1213-04 implemented? David Johnson explained that the Port of Port Townsend appealed the County's adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC) in 2000 which lead to entering into two settlement agreements between the County and the Port. Civil Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez handed out copies of the settlement agreements and stated that one agreement is dated July 24, 2002 and the other is dated December 10,2003. Both agreements essentially state the County's intention to revisit the issue of whether or not non-aviation light industrial uses were appropriate and should be made part of the list of what is allowed within the airport Essential Public Facility (EPF). The issue was resolved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 16-1213-04 that laid the foundation to allow for this proposed comprehensive plan amendment. In 2005 the Port filed a voluntary order dismissing their appeal petition. 4) Is the fire hall proposal being reconsidered at this location? David Johnson said that proposal is on hold, but the Port is hopeful that it will be constructed at this site. It is important to note that the fire hall is not required to be located at this site and is not a rationale or condition for approval of the proposal. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Special Meeting of December 15,2009 (CIJ"'.".'O, t' ........'S "" '.~ ~+ "HJ~'" 5) What is the impervious surface coverage (asphalt) allowed at this site? David Johnson stated that there is the possibility that the Port could use low impact development that includes pervious pavement that allows water to infiltrate into the soil. That would allow them to increase the surface area oftheir parking and roadways. 6) How will "green" building standards be implemented at this site? David Johnson said the Port's letter dated October 5, 2009 discusses this issue. The County does not require "green" building standards to be met. The term "green" can include low impact development. All development must conform to the environmental protection standards. The Port would give special consideration to those businesses that meet what they consider "green" development, but they also have to meet the County's protection standards. 7) Does this establish precedence for future airport EPF's rezone requests? Al Scalf replied no. This is not a new request. The County is now implementing the Comprehensive Plan. David Johnson reviewed a map of the airport and explained that any future airport rezone requests would require the Port to change their Airport Master Plan which would have to comply with the County's Comprehensive Plan, Washington State Department of Transportation standards and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. 8) What is the relationship between the public and private sector for economic development? David Johnson stated that RCW Title 53 governs Port facilities. Title 53.8.245 states "It shall be the public purpose for all Port districts to engage in economic development programs." It is mandated by State law that they engage in economic activities. DCD staff believe that the law is meant to enable and benefit the private sector through economic development. The Port can purchase land, install and provide infrastructure at lower costs through bonds and amortize the debt for infrastructure better than the private sector. Legislators grant powers to Ports that the private sector doesn't have in order to benefit the general public. Al Scalf added that Ports are Special Purpose Districts that have an economic development statute supporting their activities. 9) What is the status of the Hovee study? Al Scalf explained that the initial goal of the Hovee study was to obtain economic information for the County, City, Port and Economic Development Council (EDC). The EDC was a functioning Board at that time. The study included an analysis to create an industrial land bank according to a GMA statute which allows jurisdictions to identifY two locations within a County where a "Major Industrial Development" (MID) can be sited. There is currently a MID component in the JCC and anyone in the County can apply for a MID. The County was considering designating two locations as an industrial land bank and seeking the economic analysis through a Comprehensive Plan amendment process. At the beginning of the process the County contracted with Eric Hovee and obtained funding through the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) for the purpose of preparing a County-wide industrial and commercial land inventory and infrastructure asset and economic development analysis. In examining the tasks outlined in the grant, CTED felt that the County was not meeting the deliverables. Specifically, they did not like the searchable database that was being generated to work with the local Realtors. CTED was also concerned about the partnership between the local agencies and were uncertain of the economic scenarios. Subsequently, CTED deobligated the grant funding and the Hovee Study was not Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Special Meeting of December 15,2009 (C:!]'"'' .'\ ".~... ~'Jft~~~~ completed and the industrial land bank was not docketed as a Comprehensive Plan amendment due to the lack of funding for a consultant and staff work. The County is willing to partner with the City in conducting future planning and analysis of potential UGA designations as a fresh start with new economic data and refined scenarios. David Alvarez asked about an agreement with the City to study MID's. Al Scalf replied that the work outlined in that agreement was performed and incorporated into the JCc. An application for an MID would require going through a deductive process regarding where it could be sited. David Johnson added that the airport was one of the sites initially proposed for designation as a MID. 10) What analysis was done, if any, to determine how much this proposal would reduce the airport's operations deficit? David Johnson stated that the Port is using the boat haven as a model to determine potential revenue generation. At maximum build out, revenue is project to be $60,000 to $100,000 per year. A breakdown of their deficit between the years 1994 - 2010 shows a total net operating loss, before depreciation,of$372,903. Chairman Sullivan brought up the fairness issue discussed during the public testimony that was based on the down zoning of property when the Comprehensive Plan was done in 1999. He stated that it is not a simple matter of applying for a change to the zoning of property. Property must be designated as a UGA, LAMIRD (Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development), or EPF in order to justifY a zoning change through the GMA. Al Scalf added that the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan down zoned 62% of property in the County in order to comply with the GMA. Many people lost their commercial zoning because it did not meet the GMA requirements. He understands the fairness question, but it is not as simple as "just give me my zoning back." It has to meet the GMA requirements and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Sullivan asked about the concern about the Port competing with private land owners and if staff forsees any competition with City, Glen Cove or the proposed UGA? Al Scalf replied some believe it is the government's job is to implement the regulations and put zoning in place and then get out of the way to let the free market compete. Competition is good for the economy. As a special purpose district the Port is allowed to compete as an economic development engine. Within that limitation the Port can be in that market, but the private market is where we want to find our competition. We want competition to drive economic development. Chairman Sullivan said this proposal may potentially provide opportunities for individuals that may not be able to afford to buy property to start up a business or expand an existing business. Commissioner Johnson asked about the maximum 25% impervious surface for this 24 acre property and whether there will be 6 acres of development and if the parking areas are planned to be a pervious surface? Port of Port Townsend Manager Larry Crockett answered that it could be a 6 acre development. It is still being planned to locate the fire station on a portion ofthis property which will be approximately 3 acres in size. A community septic system and drainfield will also need to be installed with required buffers. A PUD well has already been drilled that requires a 100' radius buffer. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Special Meeting of December 15,2009 !J'"'''' t..............~ ~. "'. .,~~ S"J~'" Commissioner Austin asked if a drainfield would be considered pervious or impervious? David Johnson replied that it is pervious and would not be considered part of the calculation. Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins added that the 25% limitation applies to the entire development. It does not mean that 18 acres will be untouched. Additionally, credit is given for using "green" development. If the Port chose to construct a "green" roofthey would get a credit of 50%. The credit figures came from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and are considered policy until codified. Commissioner Johnson said that if the Fire District constructs a building at this location then it doesn't leave much space for the Port to develop. He asked if it the County, City and Port should discuss the future of Glen Cove before the Board makes a decision? Chairman Sullivan replied that those discussions should occur regardless of what the Board decides on this proposal. County Administrator Philip Morley asked for clarification on the expansion issue and if there is opportunity of development occurring beyond this 24 acre development based on the restrictions of the FAA and current Airport Master Plan? Commissioner Johnson asked about the potential of the Port purchasing other parcels in the area for future development? Larry Crockett explained that the parcels in question were purchased with local money and not with money from the FAA. This property in not included in the EPF and they are not asking that it be included in the EPF. Geographically, the 24 acres subject to this proposal will never be connected to the operational part ofthe airport. The potential does exist for the Port to acquire additional land as parcels become available, after the Port has analyzed such purchases. Philip Morley asked ifthe potential exists for the Port to ask for an expansion of the EPF that would include this parcel or other parcels owned by the Port? Theoretically, yes replied Larry Crockett, but there has never been any mention of that occurring. Philip Morley asked if the Port were to acquire additional properties or seek to expand the EPF designation, would it require any amendment to the Airport Master Plan and subsequent approval by the FAA? Larry Crockett replied yes. The FAA funds the updates to the Airport Master Plan which is done through a public process and must be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Johnson stated that potentially this proposal could triple in size. Larry Crockett said that while that could theoretically happen, any expansion would have to undergo many regulatory processes with various agencies to get approval. Chairman Sullivan said item #34 on page 5 ofthe draft ordinance presented by staff states "The Board made a motion to change the Planning Commission recommendation on November 16, 2009 and hold a public hearing to hear testimony before deliberating and making a decision to either approve, approve with conditions or deny MLA09-00077." He doesn't recall the Board making a motion to change the Planning Commission recommendation at that point in time. The Board decided to hold its own hearing and consider possible changes. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Special Meeting of December 15,2009 !J""'" t........::~ t.,;,,;;,<~ David Johnson explained that additions to the ordinance have been made which changed the numbers of each section. That specific language is now under item #43. The Board agreed to change the word "change" in item #43 to the word "consider." Commissioner Austin moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 11-1215-09 approving the Port of Port Townsend's airport rezone request #MLA09-00077 and amend the Comprehensive Plan and UDC. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion for discussion. David Johnson reviewed the findings with the Board and stated that items 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,38, and 39 are additional items. The Board agreed to add a new finding #46 to reflect the Board's deliberations on December 15, 2009 and to reflect that all oral and written testimony received through December 14, 2009 was considered by the Board and the audio recording of the deliberations is also incorporated by reference. Item 53 was changed to reflect text from the Airport Master Plan. Under "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED ..." Section Three was changed to identifY the parcel number that shall be the location ofthe Airport Overlay III. The Board also agreed to add the words "... as supplemented herein." to the end ofthe paragraph of item #61. Chairman Sullivan called for a vote on the motion which carried unanimously. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn at 6:32 p.m. until the next regular Monday meeting at 9:00 a.m. or special meeting as properly noticed pursuant to RCW 42.30.080. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , ,,1; CD"'" SE~f{\ ~ . .1:.:....::C;> ,~ .,..J, ~ # ,;,. ~: '~/;" ';. .. . (/J .... '. \ ,"" -'~ .'.I-<>i .. ,'"'~r; './ \ 1'-""". ~' ..' ',:t"; IJI' .. . ;- .! . ~ :~.,~ . ,) . "~_ ;.~ ~~IJ"'" ..~ --.....: ~'" ,.~ c . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~' '1 /. / '/, . . ~.....--..--t- Da ~liair ATTEST: [U'- ~~ Erin Lundgren..'} O. Deputy Clerk of the Board CCMt PhilJOhnsof Member - ~n~ Page 6