Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/08/1991 1986 Port Angeles, Wo.qhin~on 8, CALL TO ORDER- Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to SPECIAL MEETING: order at 7:07 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, B. Collins, D. Sawyer. Public Present: H. & J. Laugallies, Mr. & Mrs. F. Eyl, J. Eklund, D. & M. Humfleet, L. Ligon, D. Paulson, B. & H. Offermann, R. Cochran, F. & J. Bach, P. & R. Coates, H. Hren, J. Taylor, M. Daugherty, H. Cameron, J. & T. Thompson, A. Brown, D. & S. Bulleck, G. Cook, J. & C. Hagen, D. Chalmers, F. & O. Christian, D. Reaume, F. Freeman, D. Dahman, C. & K. Marshall, L. & A. Adkins, D. & A. Dawley, C. May, D. & J. Catract, B. Hasekon, R. Cockrill, C. Kelly, D. Judge, D. Reidel, L. Black, E. Deal, S. LoPrenti, F. Allen, E. Veltkamp, M. Gray, Z. Anderson, E. & L. Simpson, M. & B. Fahy, D. & W. Shay, A. & C. Osterberg, F. Burch, K. & R. Money. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Urban Growth Area Mayor Sargent announced this is a special meeting to continue the public Principles & hearing on the proposed Urban Growth Area principles and boundaries. Under Boundaries the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City and County are required to designate boundaries within which urban growth could occur within the next twenty years. A ten-member committee has made a recommendation, which has been approved by the Planning Commission, after public hearing. Mayor Sargent requested Planning Director Collins to review both the 20- and 10-year proposals. Director Collins reviewed the proposed boundaries on the 20-year map. The interim or 10-year map indicated the existing residential and manufacturing/industrial areas outside the existing City limits. The 10-year proposal would allow for phasing of development and improvement until the Urban Growth Area line must be reviewed. Mayor Sargent repeated that inclusion of any specific area on either map does not mean annexation will take place; only that urban growth can occur in that area. Mayor Sargent re-opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. ~ Bock, 701 Brown Road Comment: His address was on behalf of two groups representing people in the south boundary and east boundary areas. He read into the record a petition signed by approximately 100 individuals, a copy of which is attached to and becomes a part of these minutes. Question: Councilman Cornell asked how the property would be negatively impacted if it should become a part of the City. ~ Response: ~ 100 acres, which is improved with a planned unit development covered by both County zoning and the -1- 1987 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF County Comprehensive Plan. If the residents of his PUBLIC HEARING: development want City services, they can outvote smaller property owners. Urban Growth Area Principles & Question: Councilman Cornell stressed that the UGAboundaries are not Boundaries (Cont'd) drawn to expand the existing City limits. This is a planning tool which will be important to know the size of the needed secondary sewage treatment plant. James Henshaw, Box 975 Scribner Road Comment: Agreed with Mr. Bach that he does not want to be within the City. He suggested that within the spotted owl area, it was his understanding nothing could be done with the land anyway. He does not want to be in the City. Rita Addison, 16 Key Road Comment: What we are trying to do here is to let the Council know that the affected people do not care about ever being part of the City. It is the desire of the residents within the UGA to be separate from the City, to enjoy the wild animals which share their property. Valerie Dutrow, 720 Brown Road Comment: Agreed with Mr. Bach's proposal. Wants to retain her present or increased acreage and enjoy it throughout her life, and believes her children will retain it in its present form. Doug Gilliland, 1086 Pearce Road Comment: Someone had mentioned that the proposed area could not be reduced. Response: Mayor Sargent said none of the boundaries are set in concrete. The proposal can always be reviewed. Comment: How will the affected residents find out when, if ever, the next stage will take place. This was his first notice of the pendency of the matter. Response: Mayor Sargent reiterated no vote has been taken on the proposal. The present action is for the purpose of hearing the concerns of the public. Response: Director Collins said since this is a planning issue, there will be no citizen votes cast. The elected representatives will set the Urban Growth Areas for the County. Linda Jones, living on Washington Street in the City Comment: Ms. Jones owns property on Tiller Road, off Scribner Road. This property is their dream of moving into the country in the future to have a small farm with chickens and animals. If the City limits go beyond that area, the property would have to be subdivided, as they could not afford to retain it in one piece. She suggested the line remain at the power line. Judy Eklund, P. O. Box 1163 Comment: Ms. Eklund owns property at Highway 101 and Monroe Road and does not wish to see any more intense uses than already exist there. Felicia Allen, 959 East Scriwier Road Comment: Owns 2.3 acres, has three small children who she would like to see grow up in the country, and therefore would like to see her area remain country. Let the boundaries remain where they are. Min Foley, Key Road Comment: Her family chose a rural lifestyle, and has donated her pasture land to the 4-H where animals graze. In the area bounded by Key Road, Mount Angeles Road and Scrivner Road, there are five families who have livestock who would like to see the area maintained as it is. -2- 1988 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF Ann Adldns, 767 West Arnette PUBLIC HEARING: Comment: She does not even want to think about becoming a part of the .~ City. Urban Growth Area Principles & Gordon Cook, 27 Key Road Boundaries (Cont'd) Comment: He has lived there for 13 years and raises livestock. He enjoys the area. One major concern of his is urban sprawl, and he understands one of the goals of this project is to reduce urban sprawl. If the boundaries are set too far out, it will increase, rather than decrease urban sprawl. The boundaries should be set closer in, to encourage more intensive development of the inner City, and as necessary, then gradually move the boundaries out. He agreed with the other speakers. Cheryl Osterbergv 1096 Pearce Road Comment: Totally agrees with Mr. Cook. Looking at the abandoned Lincoln School, she considers it more advisable to retain the present City limits. This proposal can be reviewed annually, at ten years, or at twenty years. She does not want to hear neighbors complaining about the smell of her livestock. Take care of what we have now. June Taylor, 778 East Amette Road Comment: She understands Arnette Road is the boundary, and is very much against the boundary being moved that far south. She has horses, all her neighbors have animals, all of which would be prohibited within the City limits. They moved to that area 25 years ago in order to be in the country and would like to see it remain that way. Hank Offermann, 145 Benson Road Comment: Reiterated some of his comments made at the most recent meeting. Essentially, many of the people agree that inclusion within the UGAis not an automatic annexation; that there is a process to be followed. However, development of the U6A boundary does establish a target and does establish a vision for the future, which may not agree with his vision of the future. He sees the possibility of non-residents of the Port Angeles area making money off the growth situation and leaving the residents to pay the costs. His area has asked to be excluded from the UGA area. The few new homes which have been erected in the Benson Road area have been sited on large lots - this is not a development. Highway 101 is a natural boundary. The already urbanized or industrialized areas should be allowed to remain within the UGAarea, but the rural residential areas should be excluded. Bob Mobray, 48 Doyle Road Comment: Supported Mr. Offermann's observations and boundaries 100%. All the people in the area met and came up with the consensus presented by Mr. Offermann. Renee Cochran, 978 West Scrivner Road Comment: There are several reasons people to move to Port Angeles. Some like to live in a small city, and others like to live near a small city. Inquired if any members of the CCURB Committee lived a rural lifestyle. If they do not, they cannot understand how the residents of the rural areas feel about being included in a city. She has lived in the City, but chose to live in the country and raise her children in that environment. She considers the proposed UGAboundaries too large. Develop the existing vacant land within the City limits before looking beyond. JoAnne Laugallies, 1868 Dry Creek Road Comment: Asked Planning Director Collins to define "semi-rural". Response: Director Collins replied semi-rural is defined by certain density limits. The semi-rural in the Comprehensive Plan referred to lots of 14,000 square feet or larger. -3- 1989 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF Question: Therefore, semi-rural would be the next density beyond PUBLIC HEARING: suburban? Urban Growth Area Response: It would be between rural and suburban. Principles & Boundaries (Cont'd) Ouestion: Once the UGAboundaries are established and adopted, they cannot be reduced? They can only be increased? Response: Director Collins was not aware of any limitation of that kind. If the boundaries were established and in ten years little or no development had occurred. If the same situation existed at that time, in the year 2000, the boundaries could be reduced. Comment: The Dry Creek area residents have suggested the existing City limits on the west side and would like to see the UGAboundary - no farther west than the Airport Road. Charlotte Hagen, 837 Mount Angeles Road Comment: After twenty-eight years of living in cities, she and her husband sold everything and moved to the rural Port Angeles area. The house is not yet completed, and they do not want to be faced with the prospect of again selling everything to find another rural area. Keep the City limits where they are. Melanie Hun,fleet, 147 Benson Road Comment: When she moved to the country, she did not know there was a potential that the City would include her property. She suggested utilizing as much land as possible already inside the City limits. If the City expands to the west, on both sides of Highway 101, a by-pass will be required, sooner or later. Bill Marsh, 2598 Masters Road Comment: Does not wish to be included in the City. From past experience, being in a city results in additional costs without receiving the services promised. Let the boundaries remain as they are now. Robert Coates, 1852 Edgewood Drive Comment: He purchased approximately ten acres within the past two years in order to live in the country. The UGAboundaries appear to be a limit that fear is causing the affected residents to fight against. Using the same rationale to eliminate Dry Creek from the UGAas was used for Black Diamond; i.e., their own water supply. Question: Councilman Ostrowski asked Mr. Coates if he was east or west of Dry Creek. Response: West of Dry Creek. In the old Hallberg house, at the far end of Edgewood Drive - on the cliff overlooking the Elwha. Speedy Freehill, lives at the end of the Brown Road Comment: Back in the '70's he operated an asphalt paving company in Port Angeles and did a lot of work for the City. He paved about a quarter of a mile of County road, he grades it in the winter, and keeps it open for the residents. He feels the City would not put up with such actions on the part of a City resident. Debbie Petter Judge, 1867 Dry Creek Road Comment: Her children are the fifth generation to grow up on the land where they live, and the fifth generation to go through Dry Creek School. With the area being included in the UGA, some residents have a desire to become part of the City. She has concerns about the possible population increase. She considers her existing water and emergency services adequate. Comment: Councilman Cornell said he had understood two types of people would come out of the woodwork in the course of the public hearings. One type was those who are "in" and do not want to be, and those who are "out" and want to be in. So far, only the "ins" who want to be out are the only ones heard from. Are there any of the "outs" who want to come in? There was no response. -4- 1990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Rosemary Cockzill, I162 Marsden Road Urban Growth Area Comment: To her knowledge, no one on her road would be upset to be Principles & down-zoned, if that were the alternative to being included in the Boundaries (Cont'd) UGA. Many older people live in the area. If the area is included in the UGA, property values would increase to the point that the elderly would have no choice but to relinquish their property. The Urban Growth Area should extend beyond the existing City limits, but not as far as has been proposed. The proposed UGAarea will develop in a leap-frog pattern. Dan Shay, 23-A Tamarack Lane Comment: After living in the City for fourteen years, which were not unpleasant, they moved to a rural area out of choice. Port Angeles is not a dragon, but those who choose to live in a rural area should be allowed to maintain that lifestyle. Les Adkins, 767 West Amette Road Comment: He and his wife bought their property so they wouldn't have to put up with neighbors, and for their own enjoyment. He does not want to be included in the City. The emergency response they receive is sufficient and he would like to see it remain. Hank Offermann, 145 Benson Road Comment: Looking at the proposal, land appears to be one of the tremendous resources we have, and yet the things that make Port Angeles successful and desirable are also the things that cause a problem. The Olympic National Park is to the south. This area cannot be developed. The area between Sequim and Port Angeles is being quickly developed, particularly from 101 down to the water area and some to the south. To the west, Lake Crescent, in the National Park, cannot be developed. Although it may appear there are a great deal of land resources, it is confined. At this time, the population is low enough that this confinement does not create a problem. However, to move the boundaries south, the existing residents of that area will not be able to maintain their rural lifestyle. Judy Eklund, P. O. Box 1163 Comment: They own property on both sides of the City. She compared the natural constraints surrounding the City of Port Angeles with those of Berkeley, California, and what has become of Berkeley in the last quarter-century. All the small businesses are gone, the rents are out-of-sight, and building is now going up. During a recent conversation with a 93-year-old resident, he compared Port Angeles today with Seattle of 50 years ago, and suggested that within a few years, Port Angeles could become another Seattle. Make good use of the vacant land within the existing boundaries. Port Angeles is the last frontier. Mayor Sargent closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Sargent recessed the meeting for a break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. Councilman Nicholson moved that, in light of the testimony we have heard in the public hearingg and in light of what seems to be a consensus that the proposed boundaries are probably too extensive, the City Council ask the Committee to review thc boundaries again and ask thc Planning Commi.qsion to rcviewit in thc light of information received; and to have that report by August 6th, which is four weeks from tomorrow. Councilman Ostrowski seconded the motion. Councilman Nicholson, speaking to his motion, said after hearing the testimony given here, perhaps both the CCURB Committee and the Planning Commission would like to consider some changes. Councilman Cornell asked for clarification if the Planning Commission was to be included in the review process. Councilman Nicholson said he would like it to be, since the Committee made a proposal, which was accepted by the Planning Commission, so both bodies should conduct the review. -5- T ~ 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CO~ATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Sargent asked Director Collins if the request could be accommodated Urban Growth Area within the available time. Director Collins said there was a possibility this could Principles & be completed as requested. Boundaries (Cont'd) Councilman Lemon asked why this has to be done by the first meeting in August. It was his understanding that Ms. Souders suggested taking the proposal to the County Fair to have the citizens draw the boundary lines. Director Collins said there will be continued opportunity to revise the proposal for the Urban Growth Area. It will not be formalized until the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the work at the County Fair could still go on. The only imperative of dealing with the County's deadline of August 7th if we are going to reduce the size of the Urban Growth Area, would be not to exclude some designations of agriculture or forest lands which could occur before September 1st, if the County had that information ahead of time. Councilman Nicholson considers that the proposal made is conceptual only and preliminary, with the final decision to be based on additional information to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Sargent pointed out if the Council intends to reduce the area, the County needs to have that information in order to identify the agricultural lands, etc. Councilman Wight suggested to go ahead and aim for the August 6th date. The CCURBCommittee and the Planning Commission will be doing some work based on the input received by the Council during the last three public hearings. If they then hand us a revised conceptual Urban Growth boundary for consideration, the Council can decide whether or not to hold a public hearing. It may be best to have another public hearing, it would probably be advisable to schedule it for 6 P.M. on August 6th. Before the vote is taken on this motion, he would like to send a message back to the CCURB Committee. He would like to see the City establish a recommended Urban Growth boundary to be sent to the County for its consideration, which is as conservative as can reasonably be made at this point, based on the lack of testimony from anyone who has asked for an expansion of either the ten- or twenty-year lines presented. The public testimony has been to establish a modest and rational growth boundary, in the view of the affected individuals. In the future, if the pressure is to expand the boundary, it can be done during one of the reviews. Councilman Ostrowski supported Councilman Wight's suggestion. It appears the City should be more conservative on the boundaries, based on the testimony received. Perhaps we should look at a ten-year plan, due to the difficulty of looking at twenty years from now. Councilman Cornell agreed on the conservative nature and perhaps reducing the size. We also have to look at long-range planning, as well, and we have to look at building sewage treatment plants or new reservoirs. We will have to be realistic about what to plan for. One of his concerns is the statistics given to the Committee in terms of the amount of growth which has taken place in the last twenty years. To his conception, the majority of new housing and construction took place on outlying 2.5 and 5-acre areas. The minority took place within the City limits, or in areas actually covered by this proposed boundary. Should we use the larger number to plan for the next twenty years? If only 10% of the increase took place within the City limits, that is the only number to be looked at in terms of additional territory to be reserved for growth. Alot of people told us very dearly that they planned to live in rural areas, 2.5 or 5-acre or more parcels. Our growth will probably continue to be in that area. Councilman Wight said it was difficult to plan for the future in terms of environmental concerns in the future, but the County Health Advisory Board has done a modest groundwater study on the Dungeness Flat and the initial look at the figures out there indicates there are some growing problems with water quality in that area. That is basically the kind of area Councilman Cornell referred to; the relatively lightly developed property. The wave of the future is that environmental concerns will absolutely require that housing density be reduced beyond some of the development in the semi-rural areas at this time, unless there is a means found to connect them to both water and sewer. We have to decide how far we will extend our offer of services to allow more intense development than now exists out there. -6- 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Councilman Cornell suggested that the future scenario might be if someone Urban Growth Area intends to move into the Port Angeles area, they be told there is no water and no Principles & available land which percs for septic tanks. In order to build in that area is to Boundaries (Cont'd) become a part of the City. Councilman Wight reiterated that whether we like it or not, there will be people wanting to come here and as a responsible part of the local government, it is up to the Council to try to decide how to accommodate that in some sort of rational form. We are not trying to annex Dry Creek and Scrivner Road. We're trying to figure out where the boundary of responsibility is for the next twenty years. While the affected public saw the proposed boundaries as a veiled threat, the Council was wondering how to provide services to that area. One large problem - is to come up with a funding plan to construct the necessary infrastructure required within the urban boundary. Councilman Lemon agreed with Councilman Cornell. His major concern is to look at what realistically could occur in the next twenty years. In his opinion, the proposed area will not develop within the next one hundred years, especially when we will have to supply the infrastructure and protection. He considered the proposed boundaries should be very much closer to the present City limits because of the figures given to the Council. The people who have elected to build outside the City on larger parcels did so because that was what they wanted. There is a threat to these people in the proposed boundaries, because they will be ones who end up losing their quality of life. The City and infrastructure will defeat them. By law we have to do something and development will take place, but any proposal for the future should be realistic. Councilman Ostrowski asked Attorney Knutson if it was acceptable to discuss this type of subject with people outside the Council Chambers. Attorney Knutson responded the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply here, as it is a legislative item. Councilman Cornell asked for clarification of the principles delivered to the CCURB Committee, after amendment by the Planning Department. Are these something which can be amended, and do those amendments then become recommendations to the County? Director Collins said the CCURB Committee amended the principles, the Planning Commission amended them, and the County will take them under advisement. The principles were initially formulated by a County consultant and given to the Committee from the County. We have made some modifications to the principles at various stages of the proceedings, and the City Council may also wish to make some modifications. Mayor Sargent reminded the Council there is a motion on the floor to refer the proposal back to the CCURB Committee and the Planning Commission for additional review, with a report to be returned to the Council hopefully before the August 6th meeting. She asked if the Council was prepared to vote. On taking the vote, the motion carded unanlmously. Mayor Sargent asked for some consensus on the type of message being sent to the CCURB Committee. Several Councilmembers have urged conservative boundaries and consideration of the numbers on the rate of growth. Council agreed this was the thrust of their discussions. Councilman Wight mentioned that Councilman Lemon brought up growth to the east, rather than to the west. One of the items discussed rarely is the effect of what happens when these lines and words are cast in concrete in the Comprehensive Plan. What appears to be a rational interpretation of law is that once the region - the cities and the county - agree on where the Urban Growth boundaries are, the kind of growth that can occur outside of those boundaries is almost exclusively confined to rural residential. Nothing else can happen. No commercial, no industrial. We have had no input from any commercial or industrial interests in any of our public hearings. Perhaps they do not believe this action will have an effect on them. Had the lines been drawn ten years ago, with an eastern boundary about where the present City limits are, all of the property east of that would have been rezoned rural residential by the County. This would have precluded the development of the K-Mart and the motion picture theater now under construction. If the Urban Growth boundary stopped at Sequim Valley, nothing new could occur from there to where our boundary is. Under today's scenario, where we put that eastern boundary is quite significant. -7- 1993 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: The CCURB Committee suggested the western edge of Morse Creek. He was not comfortable with that. Urban Growth Area Principles & Mayor Sargent pointed out the vote on that boundary was 6 - 2, not unanimous. Boundaries (Cont'd) Councilman Wight suggested discussion would be beneficial to determine if the Council had concerns about that boundary line. Councilman Cornell asked if the line were to be drawn at Mount Pleasant Road as an eastern boundary, would that preclude the filling in of the presently vacant commercial property in the K-Mart area? Director Collins responded the expectation is no further urban development of a commercial nature serving non- rural type activities, would be permitted, because services would not be forthcoming to that area. One requirement for the County to allow urban development is that it be within an Urban Growth Area and there needs to be separation betweenUrban Growth Areas. We would view there to be insufficient separation between K-Mart and the Mount Pleasant Road area as an urban growth area. Director Collins said he understood the County would be faced with trying to down-zone most of that property to either rural residential or agricultural land or forest production land. Councilman Wight agreed with that presumption. There appears to be rationale to revisit that part of the Highway 101 corridor a little to the south and somewhat to the north which is already developed beyond rural standards. We should ask the CCURB Committee to look at that again. The Committee's concerns were about the ravine and the creek, and those concerns should be addressed in the Critical Lands part of the Comprehensive Plan, rather than in the Urban Growth boundaries. Councilman Lemon asked about the future of commercial establishments outside the urban growth boundaries. Can these establishments be sold, added to, or what happens to them. Director Collins responded those areas would become non-conforming use areas. The existing development would be allowed to continue, but there would be limitations on it changing from one use to another or expanding to a greater use than presently exists, unless is was for a rural activity center. Councilman Lemon considered if the Council sent out a message of what impacts could take place in the outside areas becoming rural, especially along Highway 101, it might awaken the owners of those properties to what could occur. Councilman Nicholson pointed out that the main thrust of HB 2929 was to stop the rampant growth in the highway corridor which tends to make two cities become one. As far as Port Angeles is concerned, the intent would be to stop the corridor growth before we meet Sequim coming this way. The impact will be far greater on the property owners outside the boundary than on those inside. When the lines are finalized, commercial/industrial development will be precluded on everything outside. Mayor Sargent asked if the Council wanted the CCURB Committee to take another look at the eastern boundary. Council agreed the Committee should look at all the boundaries. Councilman Cornell returned to the principles. The Dry Creek area clearly meets one of the principles. It is designated for industrial development, and such areas should be within the UGA. However, it does not meet several other principles. A large part of the area is not currently developed in such a way that -' it ought to be part of the UGA. What happens when only some of the principles apply to a specific area? If it meets one principle, does it have to be included? Director Collins suggested that the intent of the Committee and the Commission had been that if an area met a principle for inclusion, it was included. If it met a principle for exclusion, it was excluded. There are some exceptions to that. One of the exclusion areas was forest designation. There is an area behind Laird's Corner, designated for forest land, which was included within the Urban Growth Area. The reason for its inclusion was to clarify the boundary line. Instead of gerrymandering around the zoning line, it was better to use a physical boundary to define the area for the next twenty years. This could possibly be considered a conflict of the principles. With respect to the industrial areas west of town, it was presumed the properties had been purchased for such purposes, if those areas are excluded, those areas would no longer be zoned for industrial -8- 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 8, 1991 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: activities adjacent to our urban growth areas because they would not be getting industrial services froTM the City. We are not allowed to extend our services Urban Growth Area beyond that Urban Growth Area line. Principles & Boundaries (Cont'd) Councilman Cornell asked if the intent should be to look at the amount of industrial as well as residential land needed in order to see what we currently have, look at the needs for industrial, and look at the Dry Creek area in terms of whether or not it is needed as industrial. Director Collins answered in the affirmative. Councilman Cornell said even though Dry Creek is zoned industrial, we may find we don't need that much industrial property and thereby exclude it. Director Collins answered in the affirmative. Councilman Wight suggested the exclusion could be for a different purpose; perhaps because the present owners intend to remain rural residential. By excluding the Dry Creek area, it would amount to the County having to down- zone the property to residential. However, the County could choose to not accept that recommendation. Councilman Cornell suggested if the area is reduced far enough, the Council may then hear from the commercial/industrial group which has so far been silent. Mayor Sargent said if nothing futher was pertinent, she would entertain a motion to adourn. Director Collins asked for a point of clarification. There was discussion of setting a public hearing for August 6th. Mayor Sargent said it had not been determined. Councilman W"~ht moved to set a public hearing for August 6th to review thc CCLlRBCommittee and Planning Commission recommendation, if it ia available. Cotlneilman Corncll seconded, because he considered it important that when the line is made small enough the people who want their property to be included be allowed to speak. On call for the question to set a public hearing on August 6th Cottncil meeting at 6:00 P.M., the motion carried nnanimou.sly. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. CC.221 -9- 1995 0 ~.~, 1996 1997 1998 o ~] =~ 1999 Submitted to the City Council July 8, 1991 Public Hearing Urban Growth Area Principles & Boundaries 2001 PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE UGA BOUNDARIES To Port Angeles City Council on 8 July 1991 Representatives of residents who would be within the proposed UGA boundaries have met in order to develop an urban growth area plan which meets the mandate of HB 2929 while at the same time addressing desires and concerns of all citizens affected. By overwhelming consensus we propose an UGA with boundaries as follows: West: From the Straight, follow existing city limits to Airport Road. Follow Airport Road south to Highway 101 West. South: No expansion southward of the existing City Limits. East: From the existing east city limits to Deer Park Road all area north of highway 101 and South of 101 to the section line in the area of Monroe Elementary School. We suggest that these boundaries truly represent citizens preferences, while at the same time following HB 2929 both in spirit and to the letter. We ask that our proposal be given a fair hearing, and be accepted as something lacking to this date -- a citizens generated plan for a realistic :and acceptable UGA. 2002 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) ~ REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PROPOSED BOUNDARIES We the residents of Scrivner Road, both east and west, Monroe Road and Mt. Pleasant Road ask that you reconsider the proposed boundaries for the Urban Growth Area. As residents of the area described above, henceforth to be referred to as= "South and East Areas", we intend to continue to enjoy the lifestyle and setting we have chosen. Many of us have chosen this rural setting after fleeing city life. Houses are generally on land areas from 2 to 20 acres or more. The area is clearly rural and is not consistent with with the Urban Growth Area Principles of the City of Port Angeles/Clallam County. Environmentally the area supports an abundance of wildlife, has a low density population, consists of grasslands, wetlands, both permanent and seasonal, and many heavily treed areas and is plentiful with flora and fauna. Not infrequently seen are deer, coyotes, bear, owls, quail and many water fowl including Canadian Geese, ducks, etc. Located in the "South and East Areas" are White Creek, Ennis Creek, and Lees Creek with their feed streams and the same species of wildlife which make Olympic National Park their home. Many residents raise livestock, do limited farming and/or work large vegetable gardens and orchards. The area continues the same characteristics as those of Black Diamond area except that the area is more heavily treed. Many homes have been owner-built, some deliberately tucked out of sight to ensure privacy. The proposed inclusion of our area in the UGA threatens the quality of life. We are making the choice of quality of life versus being able to subdivide for profit. 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 the 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 .... " Responsez The "Southeastern Area" has neither any City Services, nor can it's 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 sewage to such a large area. In order the 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. HB 2929, Sec 2 (2) "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development .... " Response~ Inclusion of the Southeastern 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. Page 1 2003 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 satisfy 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 "Southeastern 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 procedures shall provide for broad dissemination 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 HB was passed in March of 1990, we find little or no call for early public participation. Certainly there was no broad dissemination of proposals nor effective notice nor information services. We hope that consideration and response will be give on this and future comments. In a Memorandum dated May 16, 1991, from the Port Angeles Planning Department 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 sewage 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 "Southeastern 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. Page 2 2004 Many more apprehensions and considerations make us call for exclusion of our area, the "Southeastern 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 an Urban Area with 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 called the City of Port Angeles. SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURES Page 3 .~'~,~.~:.~ ~"' .. . .· . . /'" ., ,,...'/ . .. "/ .,~-~i-HL~T.~ M,'~ // .~ ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~ ~' . . .,' , ,- / / .. .. ~-,:=/~ '.- ~-~-, / .. ~. . . , / ~ , ~ . , . ~. . ,. ,., . ~ , , . ~ . ~ , . , ," ~; '/ ,' ~- /,,',. ,. -.,., ... ,.- .'/ ,.',, ,;, '.'',,..,,. ,. ~ ,..,,,' , .-....... ..,,..,' ,, ~ ~'",'.":-~ : ~4,7o ,~ ,'/. ',":~." ' ' ~ ~ ~ .,.... ,.<.~,. ..,,~,,,," ., ~ ~ -' , 69570 . .,...._~ _ ~ '" RA~ 3~G40 . ~ ' -' ~ )~ ~ j ~ 0 .... ~1~' ' , : ~ , ~, -- ' ..... '~' ' ~ ~' ~ ~'K :~ ~ l-. ~ ~, ~o,~-. .-'"'~ ~ ....... F , ~ ~ . ~..,' ~ ~ ., .... / ' ' ,,,, .-..=.=Z .:':'.,. u I ~ .'~ I~' L. ~ ,~:,~ ,,,~ __ ~ ~ x' , 2006 Signature, /~~/ ~WWc-~'- Date ~-~ Print Name ,~~ ? '~~F~~ Phone:~~ Address, ~~ Signature~ ~k.~ ~k~. Date: Print Name ~ ~ ~ ~E~ Phone: Address: / 0 /:~ 7 ~' - Signature~ ~ ~ .~~x/L Date~ 7-'~- Print Name ~.~ .~, ~o~.~,hl.~* Phone: ~.5~ ~?'~ Print Name m~L?~ ~ ~Jt~7~~ Phone, Address~ ~ ~ ~7~ ~-~ Signature ~ ~C~ ~~~ Date~ Print Name L_ 'i~ d.~ ~%~Q~ ¢~ Phone, Address: ~.~ i~~~ a~ Print Name ~__ ¢ ~~ ~ Phone~--~-- Address: 23 ~~r~} ~-~ ~ 2007 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature: /~/~~~ ~~ Date: Print Name I~ ~\0L~ -.3.. '~3L~ Phone, Address, ~ ................................' Print Name ~~ ~~ Phone ~ ~ ~:~~ ~/~/w Signature: Date, Signature: ~~J~~~. Date: Print Name ~~_~ ~":"~ Phone~ Address: ~ /~ ~ ignature: Date: Print Name Phone~ ~ddress~ 2008 PROPOSED UR. BA_~N_ GROWTH ~REA FOR PORT ANGELES CCURB Com~tee Report) S ignatur~/~~/~ ( D a t ~~/~-' ~' P r i n t N am e~ ~-~--~--M// ~~?~ ; ;';';';:7' ................... ;;;::';7 ........... Print Name ~1 ~ ~ ~! ~ Phone, Address: F~ ~A -~/ /~~~--~ ~~ ~ ................... Print Name ~ Phone :~~%~ Address ~.~~ ~,/L ~~ff~. s~ Print Name ~~~ ~e'~)ff~ Phone~ ; ........................ : ..... ;;7:7;%;,;;7' A d d r e s s: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~/ . ~ Address~ ~l ~ ~ _ . · Signature: Date ~ Print Name Phone~ Addresst Signature.- Date.- '- Print Name Phone, Address: I I 2009 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature...~~ a ~_F~_~ Date:~ Print Name ~f~~ ~~~~&+ Phone.. Address: ~O C~'O[~ ~ ~ ~~~~ S Address~ //~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ sx~nat~re, ~~ .~ Print Name -- Phone: Address, ~ ~%~ ~.~, , Date . Print Name ~~ CO~~ Phone: ~' Address~ ~'~ ~. ~~ ..... ............. ;2;:7 ~ ,. _ _ Print Name ,~J~ ~z~~ ~on., Address, /~ ~ ~¢ ~O~ Signature: Date: Print Name Phone~ Address: 2010 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, ~~~/~y~ Date T-7-- f/ Print Name ~c~K[.~'~ ~!C~Y''~ Phone: ~5~O5 / Print Namer. S,! ]~ ~ (~ Phone, Address, . . _~ ~ ~ ~ Print Name ~~P/e~ Phone, Address, ¢ '/~ep ./FO~ ................... ;:;::-77;--: .... S Print Name ~ ~.~~/~ Phone:~ Address, ~ Signature, ~ -~-.u, ~ OJtr)._ Date , Print Name ...... ~.~:::~ .... ' Date: Print Name... P~ ', ft~ v~C~ ]~.~ //~o ~ Phone, Address, _~ ~ ~ 2011 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, ~ . Date: ~- ~v ~/ Print Name 0/o,~ ~ L~ ~;~3 Phone.~S~-~D Print Name ~~.~ Phone, ~-~~ Address, ~ ~~ ~~ Print Name ~~ %,~ ~. ~~ Phone, Address: ~ ~~(~ Print Name ~~¢/ ~ d~ a ~ Phone: ~r~n~ ~a=e ~,¢'~ L ~ ~on~, Address, ~ ~ ~-6[ ................... Si Print Name Phone, A d d r e s s, 11~ D~ ~, ~ Address, CXO ': ......... '~':":" ; ' ':" ' ::::7" Signature, ~j~ /~, d~~ ~1 ' Print Name Q44~ ~ Phone, 2012 pRoPOSED~G~R~OW?_~.EA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signatur~~/Md~-< ~~ Date~ ~-- Print Name ~C~/d ~ ~~ Phone,~ Print Name ~/~'1~ ~/. ~//~ Phone ~ ~rin~ Name 3A~-¢¢-~ ~ ~¢,~~ ~hone, Address, ¢~ ~- .:3~_~ F~ ~¢/ Print Name ~r~,'Cl't ~ l?~VI}r Phone, Address~ Print Name I4~ m~ --%~ Phone, Address, 73~ ~~ *r*nt .ame Fi~K~ ~ .ra~ ~hone, Address, ~q9 ~~ ............. ;;;:7";U ......... -f/ Print Name ~OF ~ ~' ~= ~ Phone, Address: ~'~ ~ ~~-~~ ~~ /~/~. ~ Print Name ~Yy L ~c~3~/,'~ Phone, 2013 P~OPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, .'J~/~ ~C~Ld-~ Date, ~7-- ~'-- ~ Signature, ~~,~~ Date, ~-Z'-~/ Signature, ~M- ~ '/4~.~ Date, ~- 7~ I Print Name ~?/ ~ /L.L~ Phone: ~j-~-- ~~ Signature, ~~m . ~. ~/~ /' Date, ~--Z- ~/ Print Name . Phone,~_~Z-- ~~ Signature,.~. Date, ~-- ~-- ~/ Print Name ~A~{~ ~- ~0/~ Phone~ ~/-~ ~3 F Print Name ~,d /" ~4/ Phone. ~--~,,~ Si,nature. ~~ .~~ Date. ~-7-~/ Signature. ~- ~ Date. '~- ~ , ~, 2014 PR'OPOSED URBAN~.GROWTH~A~FOR PORT ANGEL~.S (CCURB Committe. Report) Signature, Date, Print Name ~//~ ~ ~~ ~ Phone, Signature, ~~_ ~. ~ Date, Print Name I)~~ e ~Tf~c~ Signature, Date, Print Name ~.~'CK'~ ~' '~' " '~. A Address, , ::, , .......................... Print Name ~ ~.- ~. _ ~ ~~Phone:. ~ ~ '~YJ S lgnatur Print Name Phone t 2015 P~OPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PO,R: ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, ,/~/~, ~/-~~~ x~__-~ Date, ............ ...... .................... 2217'77'77'" Print Name WI%~i ~ ~ U ~~N ~ Phone, Address, 2S9~ ~&T~-~ ~, ~ ~L~ ~l Print Nam;,' ~A~.¢~ ~¢~~ . Phone. / Pr~n~ Name ~~ ~a~ Phone, ~ Address, ~Of ~¢~/ Print '--~~~L~ '~ Address, ~0 / Signature ~ Date, Print Name Phone, Address, 2016 P~OPOSED URBAN~GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature,//' , //z., Print Name //~Z .~. 5'/-..~c,,'1¢ C, ~1/~ Phone, ............................. ~ ............ %,~ ..... Signature ~ Signature..'?~ .~~=, ~, ~¢~~~ Date. Print Name~~, </~2 ~~~J~~ A ddress~ ~ /~~ ~, ~~~~~/ Print Name ~~- ~{ ~]LF~ Phone, Address, ~.~ ~. ~¢~ ~;(. ~ ~. ¢~¢~ "Print Name ~'* b/~O~ Phone, 2017 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature: /~z~f~ ./'~~ .- Date: Print Name ,/~. ~. ~P/?~- , Phone: ~--~ - ;;;22'2;2-, ......................................... , ~: ~/~:~~ / Signature: Date: Print Name Phone~ Address: Signature, Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: 2018 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, ¢~., ~1~ /.7 </_( _/ ~-~' Date, '~~" ~,/ Print Name ~'~l~ E ~ E t ~ ~t~ ~ ? ~ Phone, ~ff~' 7~ ~F ~ / I - ~ ~ ' Signature, Date, Print Name Phone, Address, Signature, Date, Print Name Phone, Address, Signature~ Dates Print Name Phone, Address: Signature, Date, Print Name Phone, Address, Signature, Date, Print Name phone, Address, 2019 PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, (~ ~ t (~k~ ~_~O~/(Lt~j Dates Print Name ~{i ~, ~ 6 C ~. ~ ~ ~(, Phone, 7 .............. ' :;;:; ............... Signature, ~'~~'( ..~ ~~ Date, / -- / .................................. Print Name C / 4~ ~ TM ~ /~ ~. Phone: - Address~ 9~ ~,'~L ~.~ ~ ~ ............... ::::: ............... ~r~n~ ~am~ ~¢~W J ,:~~¢ ~one,~--?~3¢ hddress~~ u Date,. Prtn~ Name ~e.~,~ %~am¢.n~ ~hone, Address: %00 ~e.~ ~ ~Oa~, I ~rin~ Name.. ~~- ~ ~/~~ ~hone, ~7~ 771 2020 PROPOSED URBA~ ~ROWTH AREA FOR~~CCURB Committee Report) Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: Signature: Date: Print Name Phone: Address: 2021 PROPOSED UR~N GROWTH AR~R PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature,AVJ/~-~_ .//~F~~.F _~"~~ ~ Date, ~ ~- ' ............ ;1;1 ............... ..... Print Name ~:- /', /~ ~ (i // Print Name ~_ 0 C-{ tq ~'~ ~ ~ C/'<~ ,,~ Phone, .......... r .... :':r:":': ................... 2Z~'7;:7 ..... S ~na~ure ~.~~~ Signature~ ~t. l~ ~{ r~" //) < ~" "' Address, itt~ ~ t,.~'~' t,~([,~¢1 Signatu Name~ Phone~ Print Address ~ Date, Print Name ~ ~~~ ~~ Phone, Address, /~ 209.9. PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR PORT ANGELES (CCURB Committee Report) Signature, ~~ ~ Date, Print Na.~~~ ~'~.~ Phone, Signature, ~' ~ ~~ Date, 7/ ~/~/ Print Name ~t~ ~ , ~ ~S~A~ Phone~ .......... .... ::::: ............... Signature, Print Name ~ ~,~~ ~/L~/~f Phone~--~ Signature, ~~~ ~e~ Date, Print Name L~U~ ~L_~C~ Pho.e,,~3'7-02/7 Signature ~ Date, Print Name Phone, Address,