HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/08/1994 2823
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Port Angeles, Washington
August 8, 1994
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Sargent called the special meeting of the Port Angeles City Council to order
SPECIAL MEETING: at 1:04 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss various growth management
issues with the Clallam County Commissioners.
ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mayor Sargent, Councilmembers Braun [arrived at 1:06
p.m.], Doyle, Hulett, MeKeown, Ostrowski and Schueler
[arrived at 1: 05 p.m. ],
Members Absent: None.
Commissioners Present: Commissioners Duncan, Gaydeski, and' Cameron.
Staff Present: Manager Pomeranz, Clerk Upton, B. Collins, B. Titus,
K. Ridout, and D. Sawyer.
County Staff Present: J. Rumpeltes, W. Clark, B. White, and R. James.
Public Present: R. Amundson, D. & P. Childs, B. Tiffany, and I.
McKeown.
Growth Management Growth Management: Mayor Sargent opened the meeting by introducing Ted Gage,
State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, who was
present to serve as moderator of this meeting. Mr. Gage indicated this meeting was
intended to be of an educational nature; no discussions would be considered binding.
He then invited the County staff to proceed with presentations.
Wendy Clark, County Transportation Planning Engineer, explained the Port Angeles
Gateway Concept Plan, which was formulated in order to provide an attractive
entrance and improved mobility to the Port Angeles Urban Area on the eastern
hillside above Morse Creek. It is intended that this will be accomplished through
unified landscaping on private property, provision of a boulevard within the Highway
101 corridor, enhancement to the State scenic overlook area, provision of multi-
modal connections such as transit and non-motorized trails, and safety improvements
for pedestrians and motorized vehicles. County staff has been working on this plan
with five different property owners who have agreed to participate in financing the
costs of landscaping improvements along their property. Ms. Clark reviewed the
three phases of the plan and displayed landscape architectural renditions of the plan.
Mayor Sargent inquired as to who would be responsible for maintenance of the
landscaping, and Ms. Clark responded the County will have an agreement with the
private properties owners in this regard. The State has also committed to participate
in maintenance.
Ms. Clark reviewed funding options available and noted the County will be seeking
grant funding whenever possible. The private property owners will be responsible
for financing landscape improvements adjacent to their property. She provided a
favorable status report on an application for ISTEA funding. Based on an inquiry
from Councilman Hulett, discussion followed as to how the Gateway plan ties into
plans for the coastal corridor, and Ms. Clark responded the two projects are very
closely aligned in view of the fact much of the Gateway project involves Highway
101. Councilman Doyle asked for clarification on the involvement of the private
property owners, and Ms. Clark indicated the property owners have committed to
working jointly in a partnership on this project; written agreements will be instituted
in this regard.
Rich James, County Senior Planner for Growth Management, used overheads to
display the adopted Urban Growth Area. In explaining the reasoning for the eastern
boundary, Mr. James indicated the original boundary line was just to the west of
Morse Creek. However, there are many commercial businesses beyond that point
in the area of Deer Park, as well as industrial uses along the highway and intense
residential developments in the area of Four Seasons Ranch and Four Seasons Park.
There was concern at the County level as to the development rights of the property
owners, and it was suggested, therefore, that the boundary line be moved to Deer
Park. Mr. James felt the area lacks the ability to provide for larger developments
in spite of the fact there are large pieces of property available for such development
282,4
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 8, 1994
Growth Management outside the City. In moving the boundary line, the County was aware the City might
(Cont'd) have a problem with including the expanded area in the UGA, so some policies were
included of which the Gateway plan was a part. Property owners must agree to the
design concept if they wish to proceed with development. The property owners do,
in fact, plan t6 proceed with this project, but they need to be assured by the City
Council that this particular area will be included in the Urban Growth Area.
Mayor Sargent asked Mr. James to clarify, the fact that his original position was to
place the eastern boundary line of the UGA on the west side of Morse Creek, a
position which was also adopted by the County Planning Commission.
Commissioner Cameron responded that the Commissioners had directed the change
due to their concern with the fights of the private property owners. There was a
need to not degrade the property owners' fights and to provide for additional
commercial development. Another consideration was with relation to water quality
problems in the area.
Bill White, Director of Community Development, addressed some of the
infrastructure issues. He distributed a document on development options in the urban
growth area, which included a listing of services required, a delineation of who could
provide the services, an itemization of what is lacking, and examples of development
patterns, with and without sewer services. In focusing on sewer and stormwater,
Mr. White cited the City's present policy of not extending services outside the City
until the time annexation has been accomplished. He noted there is no law requiring
such a policy, and he indicated the purpose of growth management was to move
beyond traditional thinking into a realm where more options might be workable. Mr.
White proceeded to explain different development scenarios with particular attention
being given to ways of resolving the infrastructure problems. He suggested the
possibility of a sewer collection system to be owned by an improvement district or
the P.U.D. to be tied into the City system. Once the area is annexed, the
infrastructure could be turned over to the City, with appropriate cost reimbursement
of funding parties. Mr. White noted that the County would seek City input on how
development should occur outside the City, as eventually the property would be
annexed to the City. Mr. White stressed the importance of City input on
development standards for the UGA so that City services will not be burdened at the
time of annexation. Councilman Schueler inquired of Mr. White as to whether he
foresees an agreement being entered into to address these issues. Mr. White
responded that providers are required to work out sPeCific details on these issues, to
include financing.
Mayor Sargent indicated there is an intent with the Growth Management Act to
concentrate development in the UGA. How is the City to in-fill if services are being
offered to a remote development outside the City? Mr. White was of the opinion
that much of this would be resolved by planned development as opposed to
reactionary development. The County needs to be in a position to be able to advise
property owners on development issues, requirements, and the like. He would prefer
not to advise property owners that development cannot occur until annexation takes
place. Manager Pomeranz queried as to the incentive for these developments to
annex if they are already receiving City services. Mr. White felt the incentive would
probably be based on economics, in view of the fact these developments would more
than likely be paying higher rates to receive the services. Manager Pomeranz
indicated the City would like to realize an expanded tax base, and it is imperative
that an incentive be put in place for annexation.
Mayor Sargent advised the group that the biggest problem is sewer, a problem that
exists even to the Morse Creek boundary. At Councilman Braun's request, Deputy
Public Works Director Ridout explained the sewer system is projected to ~ reach
maximum capacity in the year, 2010, or 25,000 people. Discussion followed
concerning the possibility of a P.U.D. sewer line feeding into the City system, the
possible need for sewer districts, the need for pre-treatment before sewage could be
allowed in the City's system, and the legal issue of charging higher rates outside the
City. Expansion of the sewage treatment plant is possible, but Deputy Director
Ridout informed the group that the same process would have to be followed as was
followed during initial construction.
Commissioner Cameron indicated the County is also concerned with the area
included in the UGA, and he posed the question as to how the County is 'supP°sed
to deal with those areas ready to be developed. Mayor Sargent noted there is an
appearance that the County is focusing more on developing the Deer Park area as
opposed to the area in between. Commissioner Cameron disagreed, as the County
is just as concerned with the area closer in. Commissioner Duncan said the County
has limited choices as to how development is to occur, and it is extremely imPortant
for the City to establish what will best suit its needs. Conmfissioner Cameron
indicated that, in establishing the UGA's, the County received a great deal of input
from property owners asking to be included in the designation for the reason of high
density development. Mayor Sargent noted, however, that the City received more
-2-
2825
~ C~CIL MEn-'lING
August 8, 1994
Growth Management requests from residents asking not to be included in the UGA, particularly on the
(Cont'd) west side.
Discussion was ~held Concerning how downtown businesses feel about the prospect
of conunercial development in the UGA, and Councilmembers Schueler and
McKeown shared that many business owners feel the City is encouraging business
growth in the UGA as opposed to the downtown area.
Break Mr. Gage recessed the meeting for a break at 2:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened
at 2:20 p.m.
In that the focus of the meeting thus far has been on the Deer Park Gateway, the
Urban Growth area, and urban services and facilities policies, Planning Director
Collins chose to address those issues at this time. He indicated the County has
approached this somewhat on a project planning basis; the City has approached this
with the idea of providing for increased urban development within the UGA.
Whatever the policies, every effort should be to ultimately facilitate more
development in the Port Angeles UGA, which is the intent of the Growth
Management Act, i.e., to get cities and counties to work together with property
owners to focus on orderly and efficient development patterns. As a practical matter,
if certain infrastructure costs are prohibitive, it will be difficult to accomplish.
Representing the City's perspective, Director Collins then addressed those issues
discussed by County staff. With regard to the proposed Deer Park Gateway project,
the City generally favors any roadway and aesthetic improvements along Highway
101. However, the City feels the County should put forth similar efforts and
improvements in areas closer to the City, such as in the area of Gales Addition.
There is a preference for such a project to be brought much closer to the City.
Pertinent to the matter of infrastructure, it would be to the City's advantage to have
development accomplished contiguous to the City in order to accomplish growth and
development in an efficient and orderly fashion. It is difficult to see how delivery
of services to the far eastern edge of the UGA would enhance orderly development.
The City has a very limited financial capacity for existing projects already within the
City, and it is difficult to determine how the City could meet the wants and needs of
those outside the City. He also posed the question as to how the Deer Park Gateway
project would relate to the Heart of the Hills project.
The size of the UGA is one'point in the planning process where there is a real
distinct difference between the City and the County, and Director Collins was not
sure as to how it could be resolved. There are some points which suggest a smaller
UGA would be appropriate. He felt that, ultimately, capital facilities cost would
determine the size.
Citing the County-wide Comprehensive Plan, Director Collins read a paragraph:
"Use of physical features, such as rivers or ravines to separate urban areas from
rural areas, helps to control growth from going outward and serves as a clear line
for changes in land uses. When artificial lines are used to distinguish rural areas-
from urban areas, it is more difficult to control the spread of urban growth. Also,
the landowner living on either side of a urban/rural line might be subjected to
competing land uses. An urban dweller might complain about the animals of the
rural dweller. The rural dweller might be impacted by increased traffic, lights and
glare from the urban area. When a major physical feature is used to separate these
areas, there is less likelihood for conflicts and greater likelihood that growth could
be controlled from 'sprawling' outward." Director Collins felt a physical barrier is
a factor that lends itself well in determining how and if development can proceed.
Director Collins reviewed in summary the City's proposed Capital Facilities Plan and
the City's ability to fund those projects identified as a priority. There are a number
of funding options to be considered, and it must be clarified that these projects
identified are all within the existing City limits. Ultimate service providers must
coordinate with the present service provider, and a critical consideration is the
associated cost of service delivery. He noted it is difficult to see how a landscaping
project, such as the Deer Park Gateway, can drive an issue with such potential for
far-reaching impact as the provision of urban services.
Director Collins agreed that individual property rights must be protected. He noted
that there are instances where urban development has been approved, and within a
short time, it was discovered there was water quality failure in those areas.
Approving urban densities without services may not precipitate any change in that
future. Some of the problems in Gale's Addition and consideration of the UGA to
Deer Park are related issues. Director Collins expressed concern that decisions made
regarding the UGA and extension of services may provide great certainty to Deer
Park folks at the expense of all the people who have the same kind of development
-3-
2826
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 8, 1994
Growth Management rights within the City or closer to the existing services. Somewhere there will be a
(Cont'd) property owner whose zoning rights may not be met. The City is reluctant to make
promises it will not be able to satisfy, and the cost inherent in capital facilities is a
difficult hurdle to overcome.
Director Collins felt some important distinctions must be made as to what kind of
traditional planning decisions the Growth Management Act brings into question. He
indicated a main change is that zoning will no longer be as important a vested fight;
capacity of urban services must be considered before zoning issues can be decided.
The fight to develop will be less vested in what the land is zoned and more vested
in whether there is adequate water, sewer and road capacity. Development will need
to be orderly and efficient, and if this is not possible, the City has an obligation to
say no to urban densities. He agr~d with the County that one solution to the
problem of transition to urban densities before services are made available is the
concept of cluster development. GMA has not abandoned the traditional annexation
before services approach. His interpretation of the GMA is that procedures will not
be changed in regard to annexation and land use powers. Annexation allows the City
to make better plans for the extension of services. It may be more advantageous for
the City and the County to change the traditional development approval process
rather than the annexation policy. Director Collins discouraged urban development
throughout the UGA without due consideration to the potential for services. There
must be a rational way to say no to property owners.
Director Collins continued that Port Angeles has been the central economic
community on the Peninsula for many years. If areas are developed with city
services provided without the city being there, the community will be divided into
two cities. Because of its isolation, the City of Port Angeles is a full service city,
even more so than many cities in the Puget Sound area. The City must look more
to the orderly and efficient cost of extending services. A great deal of the future
growth will take place outside the City in the UGA, and ultimately, the City of Port
Angeles will be the service provider. We should plan for one city here, not two.
Senior Planner Sawyer stressed the importance of today's meeting by stating that
most of these issues are negotiable. An important issue for the City is the impact of
the development in the urban growth area, when it occurs, and the impact on existing
and potential commercial development within the City. These issues are real
problems for both sides; the solutions should be mutual.
Commissioner Cameron agreed that some traditional ideas will have to be changed
regarding how to plan for growth from the zoning aspect to the financial aspect for
the provision of services, and this will be a very difficult transition period. He
requested clarification of whether the City's long range sewage plan included the area
east of Port Angeles to the west bank of Morse Creek, which it does. Commissioner
Cameron referenced the Deer Park Gateway project and reminded everyone that one
of the reasons for the project was due to an agreement between the County and the
City whereby the City would not protest the commercial area there, and the County
would enhance the area as the gateway to Port Angeles. The concern on the part of
the County is the protection of the commercial property interests in that area. If the
City is still concerned over this, the County can revisit the urban growth area
boundaries to the west bank, yet maintain the commercial property interests of the
Deer Park area. He agreed that without a boundary line at Deer Park, there are
probably some GMA compatibility problems, but he felt it should be tested in an
effort to preserve the commercial interests. He requested that the City submit
proposals on what it expects from the County to assist the County in deciding what
to do in terms of development patterns. -Commissioner Duncan added that she would
like to see position papers as to the "why's" and "why not's" before the next meeting
in an effort to arrive at a conclusion acceptable to all concerned.
Planner Sawyer asked how the County Commissioners and City Council deliberations
should take into consideration the citizen committee's work going on the Port
Angeles Sub-Area Plan. Discussion followed as to how to proceed, and by
consensus it was agreed position papers would be written for presentation at another
meeting the week of September 5. -The County Administrator and the City Manager
will arrange the next meeting, which is to be hosted by the County.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Clerk
-4-