Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/02/1991 1941 CITY COUNCIL Port Angeles, Wa~hin~on CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Coundl to SPECIAL MEETING: order at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmen Cornell, Lemon, Nicholson, Ostrowski and Wight. Members Absent: Councilman Hallett Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Attorney Knutson, Clerk Upton, S. Brodhun, B. Collins, L. Glenn, K. Godbey, J. Pittis, B. Titus, B. Myers, D. Sawyer, G. Kenworthy, Y. Ziomkowski, S. Skaggs and B. Coons. Public Present: E. Johnson, C. Alexander, W. L. Hamilton, V. Hamilton, J. & E. Kriesel, D. Cloud, B. Knight, D. Pettett Judge, J. Laugallies, H. Laugallies, H. Offermann, B. Offermann, R. S. Coates, P. Coates, J. Dobrowsky, J. Peterson, F. Freeman, R. Hallenbeck, R. Cochran, J. Thompson, S. Rice, V. Leagler, M. Crawford, L. Schueler, D. Van Scoyk, E. Veltkamp, C. May, K. Danielson, A. Adkins, D. Dalman, C. Kelly, L. Galica, M. C. Dreehom, M. Humfleet, C. Souders, B. Haselton, F. Butch, Z. Anderson, V. & S. Lopresti, M. Piotrowski, L. Adkins, C. Alexander, C. Shurland, D. Addison, D. & M. Biebe, K. Koehler, C. Wood, C. Compton, and S. Compton. CONTINUATION OF Mayor Sargent indicated this special meeting is being conducted for the purpose PUBLIC HEARING: of continuing the public hearing on the proposed urban growth area boundaries and principles. Under the State mandated Growth Management Act, the City Urban Growth Area and County are required to designate boundaries within which urban growth will Principles & occur in the next twenty years. A committee of ten citizens, five appointed by the Boundaries County and five by the City, has made a recommendation which has been approved by the Port Angeles Planning Commission after holding a public hearing. So that everyone is familiar with the recommended boundaries and for the benefit of those not in attendance at the first portion of the public hearing, Mayor Sargent requested that Planning Director Collins again review the map. Director Collins reviewed the boundaries in detail, in much the same fashion as outlined at the previous hearing. Ms. Cindy Souders, Chairperson of the Citizens Committee which proposed the boundaries, explained the process involved in the recommendation, the factors adopted and the urban growth principles utilized. She requested that, if changes are made to the boundaries, they be accomplished in accordance with the principles set forth. Mayor Sargent expressed appreciation to the committee members for their efforts in this regard. Mayor Sargent continued the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. Kenneth W. Tachell, 1775 W. North Evergreen Drive Comment: Expressed his wish to retire on the five acres he presently owns, but he indicated he may have to sell the property if the boundaries are approved. He stated he does not wish to see the UGAline extend past where it is presently located at the Elwha. Question: For purposes of clarification, Councilman Cornell asked staff if Mr. Tachell would be required to subdivide the property if the boundaries are approved. -1- 1942 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 CONTII~JATIONOF PUBLIC HEARING: Urban Growth Area Response: Director Collins stated there is no such requirement. Principles & Regulations, both in the City and County, would remain as they Boundaries (Cont'd) are today. If the property were to fall outside the boundaries, it may be downzoned, which would limit the number of subdivisions, and it would not be eligible for annexation into the City. Comment: Mr. Tachell further commented he does not wish to pay the taxes which would be associated with this action. Question: Councilman Lemon questioned if the property were to become part of the urban growth area and eventually annexed into the City, would the property owner be required to comply with City ordinances particularly relating to farm animals? Response: Director Collins indicated the property owner would have to comply with City ordinances in that regard. He proceeded to review pertinent portions of ordinances which would apply in this case. Barbara Offermann, 145 Benson Road Comment: Submitted a petition to the City Council requesting a change in the proposed boundaries. The petition is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes. She reviewed the feelings of the petitioners and submitted a request on behalf of the petitioners that the area west of Tumwater Creek through to Laird's Corner and south of Highway 101 to the Forest Line be excluded from the proposed urban growth area. Ms. Offermann read from the petition, outlining reasons for this request. Bruce Knight, 1890 Reddick Road Comment: Indicated the proposal, if passed, should be viewed as enabling legislation because it allows annexation at some future time if so voted by the majority. The assessed valuations of the properties already reflect the fact of close proximity to the City and he does not see the valuations increasing because of being included in an urban growth area. Zoe Anderson, 1128 W. lIth Street Comment: Currently owns property at Dry Creek & Edgewood Drive and feels the urban growth area is too large. Airport Road might be a better western boundary. The south boundary could be Highway 101. She indicated the property has been in their family for many years, and it is hoped they can retain the property in its present form to pass on to future generations. Ms. Anderson expressed concern about Douglas fir trees, increased taxes, and the future of the stream, trout and other sensitive areas. She urged Council to help the property owners maintain the area in which they live. Question: Councilman Ostrowski inquired as to the anticipated status of forest lands in the urban growth area. Response: Director Collins indicated the land would retain a forestry designation with the County and open space taxation would still be in existence as well. Director Collins also addressed comments as to differences in property taxes for County versus City properties. Ed Williarnson, 431 Power Plant Road Comment: Is retired and presently involved with the Dry Creek Water Association. He felt that living on the ridge and on the rim of the canyon has posed a scenario of living in his little corner of the world. Mr. Williamson expressed concern about the possible loss of the water district and also the possible increase in property taxes. He urged Council to retain the current boundaries. -2- 1943 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 CONTINUATIONOF John Pope, 725 E. 6th Street PUBLIC HEARING: Comment: Is Superintendent of the school district which serves the proposed urban growth area and some properties beyond that. Urban Growth Area He ~xpressed concern about the future of this community and Principles & addressed comments specifically relating to the Dry Creek area. Boundaries (Cont'd) As a member of the committee submitting the proposal, he felt a majority of the committee would be comfortable with changing the western boundary to accommodate the wishes of many people in that the urban growth area is too large. Mr. Pope reviewed the planning processes of the school district and discussions underway for a new school in the Dry Creek area. In meeting with the Dry Creek community, it has been determined that an even larger school will be required. All -'- meetings held in this regard were extremely well attended and in discussions held on the matter of the urban growth area, it was evident there is an absolute commitment to maintaining a strong, rural-based community. As a member of the committee, he indicated he would be comfortable with the City Council reducing the urban growth area from the west side. JoAnn Laugallies, 1868 Dry Creek Road Comment: Had submitted a petition at the previous hearing and, at this time, submitted additional signatures to be appended to the petition, a copy of which is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes. She expressed her support of the comments submitted by Barbara Offermann and Zoe Anderson. Ms. Laugallies indicated her wish to see a continuation of the family tradition of being able to maintain a home for future generations. She expressed concerns about expansion of the urban growth area and the possibility of their land being used for corridors for utilities, sewage lines, and water lines. If the value of the land should increase, it would be difficult to afford ownership. Duane Williamson, 1866 Dry Creek Road Comment: Referenced the many families who have pioneered the area with the hope of leaving property to future generations. He inquired as to the advantage to property owners to be included in the urban growth area, noting the result would be increased property taxes. Mr. Williamson indicated his property is currently zoned industrial; if annexed into the City, he inquired as to whether he would be allowed to continue living in his home. Response: Director Collins responded that land which is in the City does not have residential as a permitted use in the industrial zone. There are residences in industrially zoned land which are considered non-conforming uses. There are restrictions on new residential; existing residential would be treated as non- conforming. Question: Councilman Cornell asked if property annexed into the City would be zoned residential unless pre-annexation zoning exists. Response: Planning Director Collins agreed the property in question would ._ be annexed as residential instead of industrial. Comment: Mr. Williamson continued by questioning the reasoning behind the boundaries in the Deer Park area and the considerations of the creeks in that area; however, similar consideration was not given to the creeks in the area of his property. Response: Councilman Wight reviewed the goal of trying to establish rational boundaries in which the City makes an obligation to the property owners within those boundaries, present and future, to provide services concurrent with development. If the properties are outside the boundaries, then the City has no obligation to provide any type of developmental services, i.e., water, sewer, electricity, roads, parks, etc. This effort is intended to agree on a best estimate of how large the City might try to develop itself through economic pressures over a span of twenty years. The City, in recommending specific boundaries, '3- 1944 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 CONTINUATIONOF accepts the responsibility of providing developmental urban PIJBLIC HEARING: infrastructures. Urban Growth Area Councilman Nicholson further addressed the possibility of Principles & advantages to property owners to be included in the urban Boundaries (Cont'd) growth area by explaining the annexation process and the fact that, once annexed, City services would be made available. A certain amount of protection might be available by being a part of the City with residential zoning as compared to the present industrial zoning which results in unwanted pollution and the like. Mayor Sargent indicated Council had heard the concerns about the Dry Creek area and asked that representatives of other areas be given an opportunity to speak. Melanie Humfleet, 147 Benson Road Comment: Reiterated that the area is distinctly rural, with a cohesive wildlife ecosystem, with wetlands, open space and forest areas, and extensive wildlife. She complained about the lack of notification by postings of the pendency of these hearings. Response: Mayor Sargent agreed the Council had been concerned about the lack of notification to the public. Question: Ms. Humfleet asked about existing livestock ownership. If annexed to the City can the livestock remain. Response: Director Collins said farms annexed would be grandfathered. Any new use would be limited by the zoning. RS-9 allows private stables with 1 acre per horse or cow, and LI zones allow agricultural uses as a CUP. Response: Councilman Nicholson stressed that inclusion within the boundaries does not mean automatic annexation. Question: Ms. Humfleet asked if annexation was determined by the number of people or the amount of acreage owned. Response: Councilman Nicholson said the annexation policy would not change. Renee Cochran, 978 West Scribner Road Comment: The major concern appears to be a possible change of lifestyle. It appears that Scribner Road will become a by-pass, thereby putting a highway in her front yard. Response: Councilman Nicholson said Scribner Road had been suggested as a possible route. It has nothing to do with the Urban Growth Area. Response: Mayor Sargent said boundaries and by-passes have not been discussed yet, but understood Ms. Cochran's concerns. Hank Offermann, 145 Benson Road Comment: The area south of Highway 101 to the west does not fall into the urban tendency category. It is a very rural area and does not belong within the Urban Growth Area. Real estate taxes will definitely increase. Janis Bock, Brown Road up Monroe Road Comment: Was concerned about the apparent lack of information to the public. She asked about the location of the line near her home. Response: Director Collins indicated the approximate location of the line near her home. Comment: Real estate taxes will definitely go up, as existing farm land will not be allowed to remain. Question: Councilman Ostrowski asked Director Collins if the people included in the Urban Growth Area would be allowed to clear their land and burn the debris. -4- 1945 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 CONTINUATIONOF Response: The State Lands Commissioner has power over burning PUBLIC HEARING: practices. This is not a City or County ruling. With the newest Growth Management Act legislation, there will probably be Urban Growth Area additional changes forthcoming. Principles & Boundaries (Cont'd) Herman Laugallies, 1868 Dry Creek Road Comment: He has kept up with what has transpired thus far, and asked what happens after the County receives the proposal. Also, if there is no agreement by the County, the House Bill calls for a mediator. Will the public have an opportunity to comment before the mediator? Response: Mayor Sargent explained the status of the matter before the County, and asked Director Collins if there would be public - hearings at that time. Response: Director Collins said there would be public hearings at the County level. When the County adopts its Comprehensive Plan, it will adopt an Urban Growth Area for not only Port Angeles, but Sequim, Forks, and a number of other areas. Those would again go through a planning process, including the public, and through a public hearing process before adoption by the County. The newlegislation apparently sets aside the mediation process and establishes hearings boards. This hearing is only the preliminary process. Question: How can the affected property owners be included in the citizen panels to work on the decisions? Response: Councilman Cornell understood the Committee decided to come up with an initial boundary to be taken to the public. Comment: Director Collins said there will be citizen committees for the County and City Comprehensive Plans in which concerned individuals can become involved. Question: Mayor Sargent asked Director Collins if a specific date has been set by which we can change the proposed boundaries. Response: Director Collins responded the City has the option to change its proposal at any time prior to adoption by the County. The new legislation requires the County to establish a County-wide policy plan and initiate discussion with the affected cities by October 1, 1991, in order to come up with finalization of the County-wide policy plan by July 1, 1992. Mayor Sargent voiced her concern over the amount of time already consumed, with a full agenda still to be handled, and agreed to take the comments of five additional members of the public. Stan Compton, 1733 Elwha Bluffs Road Comment: The Dry Creek community is definitely rural. If included in the UGA, that community will be destroyed. Annexation does not appear to be favorable in maintaining the existing rural community. He is in favor of UGA,but considers the proposed area much too large. Robert Hollenbeck, 331 Cameron Road Comment: This is a rural area, which does not require City utilities, does not want development, and does not want higher real estate taxes. They would like to be left alone. Question: Mayor Sargent asked for the location of Cameron Road. Response: The area is located between Benson Road and Laird's Corner to the south. Toni Brown Wade, 356 Cameron Road Comment: A tree farm has been in the family since the 1940's and she would like to maintain the tree farm, which has been kept outside the industrial zoning. Much of the land zoned industrial is wetland and drainage. -5- 1946 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 CONTINUATIONOF Response: Mayor Sargent pointed out the wetlands will be protected. PUBLIC HEARING: Comment: She stressed the important of selective logging of the tree farm Urban Growth Area over clear-cutting. She considers Highway 101 as a natural Principles & boundary. Boundaries (Cont'd) Jennifer Paulson, City Resident who works in the County at Four Winds Stables Comment: Represents a number of people who live in the area of Arnett Road who own livestock. She asked what will happen to the livestock owners should the property be annexed. Response: Director Collins said the stable would be a non-conforming use if the property were annexed. However, it would probably be 20 years before it became part of the City. Councilman Lemon, representing his parents, residents of the east side, who could not be present tonight, said the Bonneville power line would be an excellent buffer for the southern boundary, due to restrictions on building under the power line. Mayor Sargent asked for direction from the Council. There was discussion as to possible dates for a special meeting to continue the hearing in order to hear from other affected areas. Discussion ensued concerning the possibility of whether the City is restricted from formulating a 10-year interim boundary, a possibility which was discussed by the committee as well as the Planning Commission. Ray Gruver, Planning Commission Member Comment: The possibility of a ten-year term for the proposed UGAwas discussed, and it was agreed that the ideal interim UGA area would be for those areas which were showing urban growth, primarily to the east. The interim line could be reviewed periodically prior to being expanded. The proposed map was exhibited to the Council, delineating an area on the western boundary of the City limits to the southwesterly corner, directly south to intersect with the County's M2 zone, at which it jogs to the west and follows that zone around to Highway 101, then east on 101 to the log scaling and the M2 zone. It does not include the area next to the referenced tree farm. The line next runs to Tumwater Creek and follows the proposed UGA line as it existed in the committee's recommendation. There was also consideration of using the powerline as a natural boundary on the southeast; however, the Planning Commission did not come to agreement on that particular issue. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted the Urban Growth Area as submitted by the CURB committee. In the discussion that followed, Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether Council had reached consensus as to whether it also wishes to consider the interim option. It was agreed a consensus had been reached. Councilman Ostrowsid moved to continue the public hearing to Monday, July 8, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon and carried unanimously. CAIJ.TO ORDER- Mayor Sargent called the regular meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to REGRESSION: order at 8:12 p.m. PLEDGEOF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Sargent. ALLEGIANCE: APPROVALOF Councilman Ostrowski moved to approve the minutes of the special and regular MINUTES: meeting of June 18, 1991, as written. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell and carded unanimously. FINANCE: 1. Consideration of Bid Award for Flusher Truck for Street Division Street Division Mayor Sargent reviewed information submitted concerning bids for the flusher Flusher Truck truck which were opened on June 11, 1991. Bid specifications were designed separating the unit into two components: the cab/chassis component and the flusher tank component. Four bids were received for the cab/chassis component -6- 1947 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 FINANCE: (Cont'd) and two bids were received for the tank component. After limited discussion, Councilman Cornell moved to award the bid for the Street Division mb/chassis component to the lowbidder, Morgan Bros., Inc., of Everett, in the Flusher Truck (Cont'd) mount of $38,628.63, indudlng tax; to reject the lowbid of Smith Equipment & Welding for unacceptable exceptions to the flnsher tank component specifications; and to award the bid to the second low bidder, Smith Tractor and Equipment Company of Tacoma, in the amount of $34,481.99, including tax. The morion was seconded by Councilman Ostrowski and carried nnanimously. CONSENT Councilman W'~,ht moved to accept the items listed on the Consent Agenda, as AGENDA: follows: (1) Travel request over $500.00 to attend City Attorney's Conference in Spokane; (2) Set public hearing to consider appeal of Conditional Use Permit, CUP 91(06)10 - Peninsula Mental Health; (3) Set public hearing for July 16, 1991, to consider electric rates; (4) Correspondence from Washington State - Liquor Control Board; (5) Payroll period ending 6/9/91, $290,162.13; and (6) Vouchers of $1,676,191.21. The morion was seconded by Councilman Lemon. Discussion followed and a vote was taken on the morion which carried unanimously. ITEMS FROM THE Nancy Martin, 2340 Samara Place, asked to speak to Item No. 10, Legislation. COUNCIL/AUDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED/ PLACED ON THE AGENDA: LEGISLATION: Yard of the 1. Yard of the Month Awards for July, 1991 Month Awards Mayor Sargent presented the Yard of the Month Awards for July, 1991, to: Steve & Lori Jo Allison, 1623 West 14th; Richard Stockard, 1630 West 14th; Harry & Jean Saunders, 318 Hillcrest; Robert & Edna Burford, 217 West 5th; Charla & Greg Smith, 103 West 13th; and Burger King, 110 Alder. The Neighborhood Yard of the Month Award for July was awarded to the 300 Block of Vashon. Recipients were: Dan & Pat Vautier, 320 Vashon; Vance & Rosalee Bingham, 323 Vashon; and Elvin & Esther Mennie, 325 Vashon. Proclamation - 2. Proclamation Recognizing Daishowa and Priest Logging for Contn'butions Daishowa & to the Construction of Volunteer Field Priest Logging Mayor Sargent read a proclamation expressing congratulations, thanks and appreciation on the part of the City of Port Angeles to Daishowa America and Priest Logging for their joint efforts in the construction of Volunteer Field. Accepting the proclamation on behalf of Priest Logging was Mr. Howard Priest. Mr. Stan Hicks of Daishowa was unable to attend due to illness, and the Council wished him well in his recovery. Abatement of 3. Consideration of Resolution of Abatement of Public Nuisances (Public Public Nuisances - Comment) Resolution No. 25-91 Staff provided Council with a revised Exhibit "A" list of public nuisances which included five (5) properties. Mayor Sargent inquired as to whether there was any _ public comment pertinent to these properties. There being no public comment, Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled RESOLUTION NO. 25-91 A RESOLUTIONof the City Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, declaring the existence of a public nuisance and requiring the elimination of such nuisance. Councilman Ostrowski moved to pass the Resolution as read by rifle. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight and carried unanimously. -7- 1948 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) Public Hearings Sewer Rate 4. Public Hearings Adjustments - Ordinance A. Consideration of a Sewer Rate Adjustment and Adoption of No. 2643 and Ordinances Amending Sewer Rates and Sewer Assessment Ordinance No. 2644 Mayor Sargent indicated that, over the past few years, wastewater rates have been increased on an incremental basis in order to avoid a dramatic increase at the time of construction. The rate increases generate revenue that accumulates in the form of cash reserves which are designated solely for the construction of the secondary treatment plant. These resources, in addition to grants and loans, will help reduce the amount of f'mancing needed by the City. In this regard, the Mayor noted the City is expecting to receive between $8 1/2 and $9 million in grants and $5 million in loans from various sources in order to reduce the amount of fmancing. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was dosed at 8:33 p.m. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance revising sewer service rates by title, entitled ORDINANCENO. 2643 AN ORDINANCEof the City of Port Angeles, Washington, revising sewer service rates and amending Chapter VI of Ordinance No. 2394 and Chapter 13.65 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Public Works Director Pittis reviewed the rate increase of $3.00 per month for residences, charged on a volume base with peak during the summer months. Similar increases will be initiated in the commercial and industrial categories as well. The latecomer fee increases from $350 per month to $386. It is hoped future increases will be stabilized after 1993 because of grants and loans. Councilman W'~ht moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by rifle. The morion was seconded by Councilman CorneR. Discussion followed concerning the fact the latecomer fee is not as high as was anticipated, and all revenue generated from the rate increases is set aside in a separate fund specifically relating to secondary. Avote was taken on the morion which carried ,nanimously. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance revising the secondary sewer assessment for new connections by title, entitled ORDINANCENO. 2644 AN ORDINANCEof the City of Port Angeles, revising the secondary sewer assessment for new connections to the City's sewer system and amending Ordinance 2572 and Chapter 13.66 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. Councilman Lemon moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by title. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wight and carried unanimously. Environmental A. (1) Consideration of Resolution Authorizing City of Port Protection Angeles to Receive Environmental Protection Agency Agency Grant Grant Added as a late item was the consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City to receive an Environmental Protection Agency Grant in conjunction with the Sewage Treatment Plant Secondary facilities. The grant is applicable up to 55% of the total eligible construction costs, which equates to a grant of $8,334.675. The adoption of the Resolution is a requirement of the EPA Grant Program. Mayor Sargent read the Resolution by title, entitled -8- 1949 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 LEGISLATION (Cont'd) RESOLUTIONNO. 26-91 Environmental A RESOLUTIONof the City Council of the Protection City of Port Angeles, Washington, Agency Grant (Cont'd) authorizing the City of Port Angeles to receive an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant. Coundlman Lemon moved to pass the Resolution as read by title. The motion was seconded by Cotmcilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. Rezone Request - B. Rezone Request- REZ 91(06)02 - McClaskey, 140 DelGuezi Drive: McClaskey: Request to Rezone from RMF to ~lCD Ordinance No. 2645 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 1991, for consideration of the request to rezone property from RMF, Residential Multi- Family to ACD, Arterial Commercial District. Mayor Sargent opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Kirk Koehler, 1103 South Peabody, advised Council he was present as the representative of the applicant, that he supports the rezone request, and that he would be available to answer questions. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:48 p.m. Mayor Sargent read the Ordinance by title, entitled ORDINANCENO. 2645 AN ORDINANCEof the City of Port Angeles rezoning property located on the south side of DelGuzzi Drive from RMF to ACD. Councilman Cornell moved to adopt the Ordinance as read by rifle, citing the following F'mdln~ and Conclusions: FINDINGS: (1) The property has a history of ACD Zoning. At one point, it was rezoncd from ACD to RMF to allow development of a convalescent center. It was then rezoned back to ACD, as approved by the City Council in February, 1990. There is pending litigation challenging the validity of the property's zoning; (2) The site is in a commercial corridor identified by the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan; (3) The general character of the immediate vicinity is non-residential, with a golf course to the south, Safeway Plaza west, and Super 8 Motel north. The Ennis Creek Estates residential project has been approved for development to the east, with the nearest residential structure to be approximately 500 feet away; (4) The general street circulation plan for the area provides direct access to the site from Highway 101, and travel through residentially zoned property is not required; CONCLUSIONS: (A) The rezone request is in the public use and interesta nd will not cause adverse impacts to the characteristics of the adjacent property; (B) Thc rezone is consistent with thc Policies and Goals of thc Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan; (C) The rezone reaffirms that ACDis a proper designation for the site. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemon. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Wight, Attorney Knutson indicated this property had been rczoned as part of a larger parcel of land which was rezoned to RMF and has been involved in litigation for over a year. This would be separated from the previous action by the adoption of this Ordinance which would clarify the situation from a legal perspective. Attorney Knutson indicated the reference in the legal notice to this rezone being contingent on litigation can be updated to the extent the plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration which is the first step in appealing the judge's ruling which was in the City's favor upholding thc rezone. This rezone would go into effect five (5) days after publication. A vote was taken on thc motion which carried unanimously. Planning 5. Planning Commission Minutes of .lune 26, 1991 Commission Minutes Councilman Ostrowski moved to accept and place on file the Planning Commission minutes of June 26, 1991. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cornell. -9- 1950 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 LEGISLATION(Cont'd) Councilman Lemon inquired as to the Conditional Use Permit for the Thunderbird Boathouse and the issue of RV'sparking overnight and boat trailers Planning creating a parking problem for those wishing to use the picnic area. Attorney Commission Knutson indicated such issues could not be addressed by the City Council Minutes (Cont'd) through the CUP process unless an appeal has been filed. Further, Attorney Knutson advised Council the Ordinance can be enforced by rescinding the Conditional Use Permit or by taking legal action based on a violation of the Zoning Code. A vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Consultant 6. Cons/derat/on of Consultant Contract with Lindberg Architects to Perform Contract - I/'BMCC Improvements VBMCC Improvements Mayor Sargent reviewed the City Council's priority goal of enhancing the Vern Burton Memorial Community Center and the authorization for an RFP for consultant services necessary to perform the proposed enhancements. Council previously accepted the consultant selection committee's recommendation to negotiate a contract with Lindberg Architects. The final contract is being presented at this time. After limited discussion, Councilman Wight moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with l~indberg Architects to perform VBMCCenhancements with the source of funds being the Hotel/Motel tax fund. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. It was noted that Page 8 of the contract should be corrected to indicate there would be no initial payment made by the City. A vote was taken on the motion which carried 11nanlmou.sly. BRFAK: Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Councilman Cornell suggested that Item No. 10 be moved to become Item No. 7 on the agenda. State Residential 7. Consideration of State Residential and Child Care Model Ordinances and Child Care Model Ordinances Nancy Martin, Director of Parent Line which is a non-profit organization serving as a resource and referral mechanism for parents and day care providers, addressed Council about the model ordinances on day care. Ms. Martin offered information on the Governor's Task Force on Day Care which recommended the elimination of barriers to child day care, citing local zoning ordinances in Washington. Legislation was passed in 1989 dealing with this issue, and Ms. Martin indicated present zoning restrictions and conditional use processes reduce the availability of child care and also create a situation where providers are forced to violate the law by virtue of being unlicensed. Ms. Martin discussed the differences between family day care homes and day care centers and noted that over two hundred communities in the State have exempted home providers from conditional use processes. She reviewed the need for child care in the Port Angeles area and noted the prohibitive costs associated with permits. She urged Council to refer the model ordinances to the Planning Commission for review. Councilman Nicholson moved to initiate review of the State's model ordinances for residential and child care facilities by sending them to the Planning Commkdon for deliberation along with the child care providers' express use request. The motion was seconded by Councilman CorneR. Councilman Wight noted that, during his term on the Planning Commission, he didn't recall any child care home occupancy permits being denied. In addition, he suggested a concurrent moratorium during the review process. Councilman Nicholson noted an advantage to the permitting process in that it allows the City, more specifically the Fire Department, to be aware of facility locations for safety reasons. Avote was taken on the motion which carded unanimously. Planning Director Collins indicated the matter would be addressed by the Planning Commission in August. He indicated there would be no enforcement actions taken during the review of the model ordinances. Public Works 8. Consideration of Public Works Trust Fund ~4pplications for Proposed Trust Fund Projects Applications Mayor Sargent reviewed Council's goal of seeking other revenue sources and the successful application for a $2.5 million loan from the State Public Works Trust Fund to help fund mandatory improvements to the City's primary portions of sewer treatment. At this time, Council gave consideration to the pursuit of loan -10- 1951 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 LEGISLATION(Cont'd) applications for eligible public Works projects in the 1991 PWTF loan competition. It has been recommended that loan applications be submitted for Public Works the following:: (!): Francis Street Storm Water Modifications - $822,000 with a Trust Fund local match of 10% or $82,200; (2) Eighth & Peabody Culvert Reconstruction - Applications (Cont'd) $96,000 with a local match of 10% or $9,600; and (3) Marine Drive Reconstruction - $780,000 with a local match of 10% or $78,000. Councilman Ostrowsld moved to authorize the Public Works Director to submit PWTFloan applications by July 13, 1991, for the projects presented. The motion was seconded by Councilman lqicholson. Discussion followed and Public Works Director Pittis indicated he would be working with the Finance Department in determining the appropriate mix of loan funds versus local funds. Further, Director Pittis reviewed the goals of - prioritizing the Capital Improvement Program along with a financial review. City Manager Pomeranz advised Council that the above list of projects was formulated based on input received from the public during the budget process. A vote was taken on the motion which carried ,nanlmonsly. Agent of Record - 9. Select~'on of Agent of Record for Liability/Propeay Insurance Liability & Property Insurance City Manager Pomeranz requested that, due to the absence of the Risk Manager, consideration of the Agent of Record for Liability/Property Insurance be deferred to the next meeting of the City Council. Councilmembers were in agreement. Investment Policy 10. Consideration of a Resolution Incorponm'ng Investment Policy Revisions Revisions Councilman Corner requested that consideration of investment policy revisions be deferred due to the absence of Councilman Hallett and also because he wished to have more time to review a 1985 survey conducted by the League of Women Voters determining common elements in investment policies. It was agreed the matter would be deferred to the August 6, 1991 Council meeting. The Finance Department is to distribute copies of the survey to Councilmembers for review prior to that meeting. Discussion ensued concerning the content of the proposed policy revisions. Water Cost of 11. Consideration of Contract for Water Cost of Service Analysis Service Analysis Mayor Sargent reviewed information pertinent to the 1991 goal to conduct a cost of service study for water rates. A rate study for the utility last occurred in 1984 and since that time, inflation rates, additional regulatory requirements, and capital needs have changed to the point where another rate study is necessary. The firm of Economic and Engineer!ng Services is being recommended to provide the necessary assistance. After limited discussion, Councilman Corner moved to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with EES to provide services for a Water Cost of Service Study in an mount not to exceed $6,00o. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nicholson and carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL Councilman Wight reported on his attendance at the Spring Planning Conference COMMYITEE in Wenatchee. He referenced a report he submitted to Councilmembers and REPORTS/LATE stressed the importance of gaining a full understanding of service standards, ITEMS: concurrency of service, impact fees and funding of CIP's. Because of the complex nature of these matters in conjunction with the Growth Management Act and the importance of being in compliance, Councilman Wight indicated it would be helpful to obtain outside assistance. He requested that Planning Director Collins prepare an information packet for Councilmembers with an action plan as to how to proceed in educating Council on these matters. Councilman Ostrowski referenced a status report he submitted on the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Councilman Lemon reported the Innovative Housing Committee is in the stage of finalizing its recommendations; a report will be forthcoming to the City Council. -11- 1952 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1991 CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sargent reported on her attendance at the Association of Washington COMMITTEE Cities Convention, along with Councilman Ostrowski. She indicated she has REPORTSfLATE information on low cost housing and financing options for such housing. ITEMS (Cont'd): ADJOURNTO Mayor Sargent adjourned the City Council meeting to Executive Session at 10:05 EXECUT1VESESSION: p.m., for approximately 15 - 30 minutes to discuss matters of litigation and real estate. RETURNTO The City Council meeting returned to open session at approximately 10:29 p.m. OPEN SESSION: ADJOtJRNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. CC .220 -12- Submitted to the City Counci~ July 2, 1991 Public Hearing Urban Growth Area Principles & Boundaries 1953 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) A REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PROPOSED BOUNDARIES We earnestly ask that the area west of Tumwater Creek through to Laird's Corner and south of Hwy 101 to the Forest Line be excluded from the proposed Urban Growth Area. As residents of the area described above, henceforth to be referred to as: "Southwestern Area", we currently enjoy a rural setting and the rural lifestyle which we prefer. Houses are generally on land areas from 2 to 20 acres or more and the entire atmosphere (and population density) is clearly rural, even primeval. Within the area are permanent wetlands which attract several species of marsh-dwelling birds, as well as the Tumwater with its feeder streams and the same species of wildlife which make Olympic Nation Park their home including the more commonplace creatures native to the wild in this region. The pileated woodpecker also nests in this area. Many residents raise livestock - pigs, horses, cows, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, peacocks, do limited farming and/or work large vegetable gardens and orchards. The area continues the same characteristics as those of the Black Diamond area except that the area is more heavily treed. Trails for hiking and exercising horses criss-cross the woods. Homes have been owner-built, deliberately tucked out of sight among the trees. Some residents have even wrested pioneer-style homesteads from personally hand-hewn and stripped logs. Our roads are likely to be little more than dirt and gravel lanes. We have chosed this environment and wish to continue to live in this manner. The proposed inclusion of our area in the UGA threatens the quality of our life. We feel that the boundaries selected by the CCURB Committee were thrust upon us without consideration of our preferences and without effective notification of what was in the offing. While we understand that there is a legislative mandate to establish a UGA, we feel that HB 2929 was followed neither in spirit nor in letter. In specific, we cite: HB 2929, Sec 2 (1) and Sec. 11 (3). "Urban Growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facilities ..... " Response: The "Southwestern Area" has neither any City Services, nor can its character be described as urban by any stretch of the imagination. Further, the Planning Commission listed under Factor 2 in their recommendations that there may be an insufficient capacity to provide sewerage to such a large area. In order to supply the requisite urban services, costs would be so high that we, the traditional residents, would not be able to afford to maintain our residences under the severe burden of such utility levies. Page 1 lib 2929, Sec 2 (2) "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development ..... Response: Inclusion of the "Southwestern Area" into the UGA actually works at cross purposes to the section of HB 2929 cited here. The encouragement of 1-unit-per-acre development creates a leap-frogging suburban sprawl to which it is ultimately very costly to provide essential utilities and services. HB 2929, Sec 2 (4) " and encourage preservation of existing housing stock". Response: An area in excess of anticipated requirements does little or nothing to encourage utilization of Inner City housing. There are many lots within the city limits which are unused and plenty of derelict buildings which could be put to better use to satidfy this portion of HB 2929. HB 2929, Sec 2 (11) "Citizen participation and coordination." Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process..." Response: Most of us were caught unaware of the proposed changes to be brought about by this plan. Timely local media information concerning City/County Planning Committee activity has been lacking, nor was there a clear call for participation to the residents of the proposed UGA areas. HB 2929, Sec 3 (14) "Urban Growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures .... Response: This definition is not met by existing development in the "Southwestern Area", nor can intensive utilization be expected in this unique area. HB 2929, Sec. 14 "Comprehensive Plans - Ensure public participation. Each County and City shall establish procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and develop regulations ..... The precedures shall provide for broad dessimination of proposals and alternatives, opportunities for written com~nents, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public conm~ents ..... " Response: While the HB was passed in March of 1990, we find little or no call for early public participation. Certainly there was no broad dessimination of proposals nor effective notice nor information services. We hope that consideration and response will be given on this and future comments. Page 2 " 1955 In a Memorandttm dated May 16, 1991, from the Port Angeles Planning Dept. addressing the CCURB Committee, various points were raised which should Give cause for alarm unless the UGA is reduced in size. - Factor 2: Cites the limitation of sewerage facility. - Factor 4: Political jurisdiction will Go to the City, with Tax revenues assigned to the City and consequent service responsibilities which would represent a Great expense to taxpayers. - Factor 5: Need for expanded services - can population density justify inclusion of the "Southwestern Area", or would a service extension be cost prohibitive? - Factor 7: Consequences of inclusion within the UGA point toward a higher assessed property value with consequent higher taxes. Many more apprehensions and considerations make us call for exclusion of our area, the "Southwestern Area". Not the least of which is the feeling that decisions are being made in which we have no voice. We believe that there should be an Urban Area with a~amenities that can be provided to a densely inhabited area, and a Rural Area enabling a more ruGGed terrain and an independent lifestyle. The proposed size of the UGA would create few changes in our population density while saddling us with restrictive regulations and increased taxation all the while straining urban services and utilities to the breaking point. Finally, the rural character of our area would still make a clear delineation of City Boundaries more a matter of a line on the map or a sign at the roadside than a homogenous entity call the City of Port AnGeles. SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURES Page 3 " 1956 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signed: ...~. '~~...'..~...~ ,~~~., ....... Date: .~.~..~.Q :.~.! ..... Address: .~. [. ~,~: f. Af..f~~.~. ~ :~. ~ ......... ~.~:~'.~ ......... Signed: ~<~.O~&.. Dato:..~~/¢~... Signed: ~. C *. -m*~~: ................ **~***: ~;.** ~.~~,~..~ ....................................... Si~ned: - . ~ ........... Date:. .. Address: ~-~ ~. ~~<c:~¥'..~..- ..................................... ,,~**,~ z~~ .... ~~.~-. .................................... ,~**,,,/¢¢.¢...~~..~ ....................................... 1957 - PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGEr_ES /CCURB Committee Repor'~) olgr~ed: .......... Date: ¢i ed 1958 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signed: ~X~,~-~'''~ ............................... ~~ ~ : ................ Address: ........ · ........... ~.. ~ ................................... ....................................... ........................... ~ ~ _ ~ ................. Signed: ~~ ~.~ .................. Date: ~Z~re/. ..... ~ .~ ~-~,~~__ ~ ............................... Signed: ~,~,,,,.-~..~~..~... ........................ Signed: Address: 1959 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Cc~mmittee Report) Signed: .~~-. - -~..~ ........... Date: .~- :- -~-~. - -?:- . - :_ ==-= ....... ======== ...... == ....... ~":'-'~~ Address: ..................... j ........................................... J ~ ~ ~ ~~~m~~~ ................. ~:.~ ~..<:..~..~ ..... ~oo~ .7.0 ...... ~~ ~¢ ~ 1960 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) l~ ' Address: ....... ' ....................................... ~,,~..~, .~.~.~...~.~..~ ~,. ~.~. ....... . ......................... ~,~.,, ~~...,~;....7~ ............................... ~ddre~ ~,,,~, ~~. ~..~~ ...................... ~.~.~ .C:.~ .: ~' ~" "~ '~ 'i Z'q .................... , : ~ i ~ z~]. ~ ......................... Addre.s ..... ='======~~~ ................................. Date Signed: · -'; .......... ~- ............ , :':' ''~ Signed: .~--~-- [-' ..................... ' ' ..... .............. .... ....... 1961 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Sign ................ Signed: ~.., ~ m .~~ . ~ ~ ~~~.. ................ : .... .............. Sioned:~ p~ ............... - ........................... a .e ............... 1962 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signed: ............... ~re~., . i~. ~~. . ~ ...................................... ~.~, ~~ . ~,. ~~ ............... ~.~.., . z:n:.:~ ..... ~,,~..., /~.~~.~ ........................ · ........ ~~. Signed: . ~ ................ Date: .................. Signed: . ' ~ ....................... Date:..~. ~ ........ ~,,~.,., .~~...~.~.~, ...................................... 1963 ~,~.. X~. l...-Z~,~ ~._~.-,.:... ~--~,~ .................................. Signed: . ~' . ............................. Date..~. ............ . . .. ~. ~1-~/ Sign~d~ ................ Data ........... .................. ....... ~,~.,,, . .~. .~~x~z.~+ .......................................... S~a~.d~ 'r,~T~'~''' ~ ~ ~ W'; .................................... ~,,,, ~..~..~., ........................................ ~,~,,,,~~.~..~ .................... ,,~.,.~.)..~.~ ...... ~,,~.,,, ~ ~ ~. .~.~. ,~. .~ .................... ~,,~,,,, ..I..~..9....~~..(~...~.~~..A~ ............ .~.~,-..~....~~~~~~,.~...~ ~..., ...~..~.~.~ ................................................. - 1964 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signed: ........................................... Date: ................ Signed: .......................................... Date: ............... Address: ........... Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address: ................................................................ Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address: Signed: .......................................... Date: ................ Address: Signed: ........................................... Date: ................ Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address: ............................................................... Si gned: .......................................... Date: ................ Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address: 1965 PROF'OSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR F'~)~T ANGELES (CCURB Committee_Report) Signed: .......................................... Date: ............... Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address · Signed: .......................................... Date: ................ Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ............... Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ................ Address: ................................................................... Signed: .......................................... Date: ................ Address: ............................................................... Signed: ........................................... Date: ................ Address: ................................................................... Submitted to the City Council July 2, 1991 Public Hearing Urban Growth Area Principles & Additional signatures to be appended to pe%ltlon submitted 6/18/91 1966 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREAFOR PORT ANGELES (CClrRBCommitte Report) - A REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PROPOSED BOUNDARIES - We earnestly ask that the western boundary of the UGA be formed by the Airport Road. As residents of the Dry Creek area we currently enjoy a rural setting. We have chosen this environment because we prefer a rural life style. - Houses are generally on land areas from 2 to 25 plus acres and the entire atmosphere (and population density) is clearly rural. Many residents of this area raise lifestock or do limited farming. The proposed inclusion of our are~ in the UGA threatens the quality of our life. We feel that the boundaries selected by the CCURB Committee were thrust upon us without consideration of our preferences and without effective notification of what was in the offing. While we understand that there is a legislative mandate to establish an UGA, we feel that HB 2929 was neither followed in spirit nor in letter. In specific, we cite: HB 2929, Sec 2 (1) and Sec. 11 (3). "Urban Gro~hh should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facilities ...... " Response: Dry Creek Area has neither any City Services, nor can its character be described as urban by any stretch'of the imagination. Further, the Planning Commi~§ion listed under Factor 2 in their recommendations that there may be an insufficient capacity to provide sewerage to such a large area. HB 2929, Sec 2 (2) "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development..." Response: The Boundaries as proposed cover such a large area that it exceeds the requirements of any anticipated population growth. A sparsely settled area of~-unit-per_acre.~reates a sprawling Suburbia with costs of urban services so high that we, the traditional residents, would not be able to afford te maintain our residences without undue financial strain. 1967 Further, the proposed 150%-of-need area for commercial consideration is not part of the HB mandate. HB 2929,. Sec 2 (4) ". and encourage preservation of existing housing stock" Response: An area in excess of anticipated requirements does little or nothing to encourage utilization of Inner City Housing. HB 2929, Sec 2 (11) "Citizen participation and coordination." Encourage _ the involvement of citizens in the planning process ..." ResponSe: Most of us were caught unawares of the proposed changes brought about by this bill. The timely'editorial information through our media has been lacking in most matters that concern City/County ~overnmental planning, nor was there a clear call for participation of citizens in the process at hand. HB 2929, Sec 3 (14). "Urban Growth" refera to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures " Response: This definition is not met by existing development in the Dry Creek area, nor can intensive utilization be expected in an area so large as proposed. HB 2929, Sec. 14. prenenslve Plans - Ensure public participation. Each County and City ~- shall establish procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and develop regulations . · The procedures shall provide for broad dessimination of proposals and alternatives, opportunities for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments .... " Response: While the HB was passed in March of 1990, we find little or no call for early public participation. Certainly there was no broad dessfmination of proposals nor effective notice or information services. We hope that consideration and response will be given on this and future comments. - 2- · ~' ' 1968 In a Memorandum dated May 16, 1.991.. from the Port Angeles Planning Dept. addressing the CCURB Committee, ~arious points are raised which should give cause for alarm un]ess the UGA is reduced in size. -Factor 2: Cites the limitation of sewerage facility - Factor 4: Political jurisdiction will go to the City, with Tax revenues assigned to the City and consequent service responsibilities which would represent a great expense to taxpayers. - Factor 5: Need for expanded services - can population density justify inclusion of Dry Creek area or would a service extension be cost prohibitive? - Factor 7: Consequences of inclusion within the UGA point towards a higher assessed property value with consequent higher taxes. Many more apprehensions and consideratioms make us call for exclusion of the Dry Creek Area. Not the least is the feeling that decisions are being made in whiq,h we have no voice. We believe that there should be an Urban Area with ammenitles that can be provided to a densily inhabited area, and a Rural Area with a more rugged and independent life style. The proposed size of the UGA would-create few changes in our population density while saddling us with restrictive regulations and increased taxation while straining urban services and utilities to the breaking point. Finally, the rural character of o~r area would still make a clear delineation of City Boundaries more a matter of a line on the map or a sign at the roadside than a homogenous entity called the City of Port Angeles. Address: ~ '~b~ ~2~ ~A ~-Signed:.~~-~ ,~ _~--~. /7~ Date: ~-~~ ] Address: ~ ~-Signed:~ ~ Date: ~' ~  .. Signed: ~f'~' Date: ~--~*/ 1969 Date: ~/ '%7 r/ .... 1970 .... ~ROF'OSED URBAtJ GROWTM nRE~, FOB,:.F4OR~L nNGEb~.~.(ECtJ!:;:r.~,,Committee. Re%r-t:)' '' 1971 · PROF'OSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT, ANGELES (CCURB Committee Reoort) .... .... ~Z - Slot',ed: ~ ...... ~ .................................... Date: .............................. ~ ..... 1972 Address: q {{. Signed: q~_ Signed ,~~ ~-~ ~s~ne~ ~ ~~ Address: ~ ~, Signed: ~~ /~~A~ , ' Date: ~.~ne~ · J.Signed,(. 2,~.'~ ~ . Date, e'Signed: ~~,~ ~ ~ " . . Signed:_ ~~: ~?<)~ Date: Signed' < ~ ~:~, _-:~ :, · , 1974 PROPOSED URBAN GR£1WTH AREA FOR F~'ORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report~ 1975 ~ ~ ' PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT AWGELES (CCURB Committee Report) . . ................ '..~.~. ............... ~..~_.- , g~ .Signed: ~~ -~~. Date: ~ /~-~] ( q[-Signed:~~_~ X~/j/~'- ' Date: Address:/~[D ~g~~ ~ ~b -- ~ -- Add tess: Signed: Date: Address: ,o~0r, ed: Date: Acid tess: S:i oned: Da I:e: Ad d tess: S i g n ed: D ~,~ ~: ,'~ :; A d d r ~:.~ s s: 1976 1977 · 1979 In a Memorandum dated May 16, 1991, from the Port Angeles Planning Dept. addressing the CCURB Committee, Various points are raised wbich should give cause for alarm unless the UGA is reduced in size. - Factor 2: Cites the limitation of sewerage facility - Factor 4: Political jurisdiction will go to the City, with Tax revenues assigned to the City and consequent service responsibilities which would represent a great expense to taxpayers. - Factor 5: Need for expanded services - can population density justify - inclusion of Dry Creek area or would a service extension be cost prohibitive? - Factor 7: Consequences of inclusion within the UGA point towards a higher assessed property value with consequent higher taxes. Many more apprehensions and consideratioms make us call for exclusion of the Dry Creek Area. Not the least is the feeling that decisions are being made in which we have no voice. We believe that there should be an Urban Area with ammenities that can be provided to a densily inhabited area, and a Rural Area with a more rugged and independent life style. The proposed size of the UGA would create few changes in our population density while saddling us with restrictive regulations and increased taxation while straining urban services and utilities to the breaking point. Finally, the rural character of our area would still make a clear delineation of City Boundaries more a matter of a line on the map or a sign at the roadside than a homogenous entity called the City of Port Angeles· ,'gned>// ~ 'y .' y DATE, __ - Address- / t! / Signed: ~.-~£',~.,..',.'~"'"'~-"'--~ Date: Address: S ig n ed ~__~~ ~/,~~q ~ Date: Address: -- .~ -- PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee 1980 ? --...= ..... ~, ~ _ _ __ - j ,, ,,, , - '.? ,--: :.~'_.. '~, ,.. i g n ~, ~ .............. ; ....................... : ............ ~: ...... ~:~_~._, ..... ~ a ~. e ~ .....E:....I._.~__.'......I__ / / ~ - ~ ~ ~ . ' / -, ,~ ............................................... / =-=--== ========================== ............... ~ ....... :ZZ~ .......................................... ...~ ............................................ Sianed · . ..... -:~.': ,. ............ ~ ........................................................................... ~ ~ ~....~.......~,~:_.~.. ~:,.~,~o, ...... _~.-~ ~ ~,~,......Z:.....::L: ..... i Si~ned: Dat~: Acid tess: 1981 I~ROF'OSED URBAN GROWTH AREA F'OR PORT ANGELES (C[;URB Commi'tf.~.~, "' ""~ ....................... ~ ........ ~~ .............. ~ ,, t ~ ~ ...~_.~....~.~....~._~ t  ....................... ,.,. .............. ~ ................... ~ ........ Signed: ............................................................................................... 4 ....... .D a t e: ~dd~ess: S. ..................................................................................................... -- .................... I)ate~ Add tess: , Si gned: .......................................................................................................... Da Add~'es~ Sianed: ...................................................................... Da t~: Add tess: 1982 In a Memorandum dated May 16, 1991, from the Port Angeles Planning Dept. addressing the CCURB Committee, x*arious points are raised which should give cause for alarm unless the UGA is reduced in size. - Factor 2: Cites the limitation of sewerage facility - Factor 4: Political jurisdiction will go to the City, with Tax revenues assigned to the City and consequent service responsibilities which would represent a great expense to taxpayers. - Factor 5: Need for expanded services - can population density justify inclusion of Dry Creek area or would a service extension be cost prohibitive? - Factor 7: Consequences of inclusion within the UGA point towards a higher assessed property value with consequent higher taxes. Many more apprehensions and consideratioms make us call for exclusion of the Dry Creek Area. Not the least is the feeling that decisions are being made in which we have no voice. We believe that there should be an Urban Area with ammenities that can be provided to a densily inhabited area, and a Rural Area with a more rugged and independent life style. The proposed size of the UGA would create few changes in our population density while saddling us with restrictive regulations and increased taxation while straining urban services and utilities to the breaking point. Finally, the rural character of our area would still make a clear delineation of City Boundaries more a matter of a line on the map or a sign at the roadside than a homogenous entity called the City of Port Angeles. Signed: DATE: ~ ~ /~I Address: /~ ~~ ~~ ~ Address: m5 ~ m ~= ~O ~ ~~ ~ Signed: ~ ~. ¢~{ ~ Date: Signed: ~~ ~ ¢~ ~ ~ Date, Address: ~ 2~ Signed: ~~. ~ Date: , SSgned: Date: Address: - 3 - We earnestly ask that the western boundary of the UGA be formed by the Airport Road. As residents of the Dry Creek area we currently enjoy a rural setting. We have chosen this environment because we prefer a rural life style. Houses are generally on land areas from 2 to 25 plus acres and ~he entire atmosphere (and population density) is clearly rural. Many residents of this area raise ]ifestock or do limited farming. The proposed inclusion of our area in the UGA threatens the quality of our life. We feel that the boundaries selected by the CCURB Committee were thrust upon us without consJ, deration of our preferences and without effective notification of what was in the offing. While we understand that there is a-legislative mandate to establish an UGA, we feel that HB 2929 was neither followed in spirit nor in letter. In specific, we cite: HB 2929, Sec 2 (1) and Sec. 11 (3). "Urban Growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facilities ...... " Response: Dry Creek Area has neither any City Services, nor can its character be described as urban by any stretch of the imagination. Further, the Planning Commission listed under Factor 2 in their recommendations that there may be an insufficient capacity to provide sewerage to such a large area. HB 2929, Sec 2 (2) "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, iow density development..." Response: The Boundaries as proposed cover such a large area that it exceeds the requirements of any anticipated population growth. A sparcily settled area of 1-unit-per-acre creates a sprawling Suburbia with costs of urban services so high that we, the traditional residents, would not be able to afford to maintain our residences without undue financial strain. 1984 Further, the proposed 150%-of-need area for commercial consideration is not part of the HB mandate. HB 2929, Sec 2 (4) ". and encourage preservation of existing housing stock" Response: An area in excess of anticipated requirements does little or nothing to encourage utilization of Inner City Housing. HB 2929, Sec 2 (11) "Citizen participation and coordination." Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process ..." ~ Response: Most of us were caught unawares of the proposed changes brought about by this bill. The timely editorial information through our media has been lacking in most matters that concern City/County ~overnmental planning, nor was there a clear call for participation of citizens in the process at hand. HB 2929, Sec 3.(14). "Urban Growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures " Response: This definition is not met by existing development in the Dry Creek area, nor can intensive utilization be expected in an area so large as proposed. HB 2929, Sec. 14. "Comprehensive Plans - Ensure public participation. Each County and City --- shall establish procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and develop regulations . . The procedures shall provide for broad dessimination of proposals and alternatives, opportunities for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments .... " Response: While the HB was passed in March of 1990, we find little or no call for early public participation. Certainly there was no broad dessimination of proposals nor effective notice or information services. We hope that consideration and response will be given on this and future comments. -- 2 -- . 1985 In a Memorandum dated May 16, 1991, from the Port Angeles Planning Dept. addressing the CCURB Committee, Various points are raised which should give cause for alarm unless the UGA is reduced in size. - Factor 2: Cites the limitation of sewerage facility - Factor 4: Political jurisdiction will go to the City, with Tax revenues assigned to the City and consequent service responsibilities which would represent a great expense to taxpayers. - Factor 5: Need for expanded services - can population density justify inclusion of Dry Creek area or would a service extension be cost prohibitive? - Factor 7: Consequences of inclusion within the UGA point towards a higher assessed property value with consequent higher taxes. Many more apprehensions and considerations make us call for exclusion of the Dry Creek Area. Not the least is the feeling that decisions are being made in which we have no voice. We believe that there should be an Urban Area with ammenities that can be provided to a densily inhabited area, and a Rural Area with a more rugged and independent life style. The proposed size of the UGA would create few changes in our population density while saddling us with restrictive regulations and increased taxation while straining urban services and utilities to the breaking point. ~ Finally, the rural character of our area would still make a clear delineation of City Boundaries more a matter of a line on the map or a sign at the roadside than a homogenous entity called the City of Port Angeles. Signed: ~ ~~ Date: Z--~ --~ / Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ S~gned:~~~ Date: ~-~/ Address:~~ ~ ~~~ Signed: ~~ Date: 7/~/~ Address:bX~ ~~ ~,~, Signed: ' Date: Address: Signed: Date: - Address: -- ~ --