|
|
||||
|
|
        
|
|||
|
Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008...
(Publisher's
Note:
These minutes
were sent to ENN March 17,
hours before the scheduled planning commission meeting
at 7 p.m. ENN has not edited for punctuation, or corrected
typographical errors. ENN has added emphasis in a couple of places.
The content of the minutes are not changed. The yellow highlighted
text is part of an exchange between the mayor and citizen reporter
Steve Lind. To hear the audio of this important meeting please go to
http://www.s-lind.com/index_files/packetspage.html
).
Town of Eatonville DRAFT Commissioner Co-Chair Harris called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. (Meeting called to order by Commission Chair Bob Schaub, not Harris.) Commissioners Present: Phil Beach, Larry Frink, Betsy Harris, Paul Treyz, Bob Schaub and Chris Lambert, Bill Fitzer. Commissioners Frink - excused. Town Staff Present: Kerri Murphy, Planning Secretary, Nick Bond, Planner and Mayor Tom Smallwood. Harris led the pledge of allegiance. Approval of agenda: Beach / Lambert Approval of minutes: February 4, 2008 – Minutes were not included in the packet for this meeting. They were emailed to the Planning Commissioners on March 4 for their review and will be enclosed in hard copy in the packet for the March 17 meeting. Communications and Announcements: From the Public: None From Commissioners, Town Officials and other government bodies:
Nick explained that Dan Cardwell spoke at the last meeting regarding Buildable Lands Report which jurisdictions are being asked to consider. There will be two workshops coming up where additional information will be provided. The Planning Commission and Council is being asked to take action on this. Anyone who would like more information or who would like to make a more informed decision are encouraged to attend. There will be a meeting on March 18 in Sumner or the meeting on the 20 in Tacoma.
Nick explained that there will be some guest speakers who will come and explain your roll as Planning Commissioners and the planning process. This would be especially informative to the new members of the Planning Commission and Council and he encouraged attendance. Beach asked Nick if he knew exactly what was going to be covered on the Buildable Lands Decisions? Mr. Cardwell spent about a half hour with the Planning Commission on Eatonville specifically, what will be learned in addition to that? Nick said that there has been an update with the population forecast, which is something that was brought up by the Master Builders Association. He is adding some footnotes to the report and all the adopting ordinances taking into consideration all the new numbers and new projections. The report to the commissioners was rather brief and the meeting will be a more comprehensive look at the study, participants and how it came about. This will give everyone a chance to interaction with people from other jurisdictions and hear their concerns and questions. Nick added that he would be attending one of these meetings. Beach said that said he has attended the “Short Course on Planning” twice and urged all new commissioners to attend. Chairman Schaub asked if there was a way that commissioners’ interested in attending the workshop for Buildable Lands could car pool? Nick said that interested commissioners could contact him and he would be more than happy to carpool on the night he would be attending. They were also encouraged to contact each other to carpool if they were unable to attend the same evening. Chairman Schaub closed the regular portion of the Planning Commission meeting and opened the public hearing for the Eatonville Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Public Hearing: Eatonville Comprehensive Plan Amendments Steve Lind, 108 Rainier Ave S., stated that he makes “points of order” on the public hearing. in regards to the Urban Growth Area. First point being that the Council has spoken and made policy twice on this and instructed the administration and executive branch how to proceed. First by adopting the original growth area and secondly when it came back the Mayor asked that he be able to separate out the gravel pit. He received action, policy and law out of the council who establishes such, and it is improper for the administration to now try to violate those without going back to the council. The second point of order being that we established as a Planning Commission in 2007, that all the amendments that were put in 2006 would take place prior to any new amendments and so for any action to be taken of the administration to do something differently here on the urban growth area is putting it equal to or above what has happened. Third point being is he was not sure they were even put in properly to be on the agenda in 2007 by a letter to the clerk. These points of order are such that any reference to changes of urban growth area etc. is improper and needs to be removed from the material. Beach asked Mr. Lind to give him a specific example of what he is talking about. Steve Lind said that he gave two specific examples. Beach said “no he didn’t”. Mr. Beach wanted to know which pieces of urban growth boundary he was talking about. Steve Lind said that he was speaking of the Ohop Valley and the Barney’s Corner. Both of those have been acted on twice by the council prior. Once by the original adoption and that original adoption took the action that first of all the administration should have moved at that time to do a capital facilities plan for all areas that were in there. If you will remember in 2007 the administration came to the Planning Commission and said that they needed to move quickly on gravel pit and that they later could take up the other two which turned out to be untrue. One item that you, Mr. Beach were most interested in was the essential public utilities and others got trumped by improper procedure at that time by the administration. Beach said that he still did not know exactly what he is alleging occurred. In 2006 the Planning Commission did add the Barney’s Corner to the urban growth boundary and now what has subsequently happened regarding the Barney’s Corner that you believe is in violation of something. Steve Lind said that in 2006 not only did the Planning Commission adopt it, but also the Town Council adopted the Urban Growth Area additions which included the gravel pit, the valley and Barney’s Corner. That was one thing and they also moved on adopting the Comprehensive Plan which included those. Later by separate action because the Mayor asked to take them as a tiered type of situation, the council allowed the Mayor to move forward first with the gravel pit, next the valley and this Barney’s Corner. That was established in policy at that point in time of doing that. Beach asked in what way this was a violation of anything. Steve Lind said that they established it by resolution and oral ordinance what the policy and the law of the Town of Eatonville was and the instructions to the administration about how to proceed. They did not instruct the administration to go and change the Urban Growth Areas they instructed that those would go forward to Pierce County for adoption in a tiered situation which is an acceptance of all three of them. And that acceptance of them also includes that the Capital Facilities Plan etc. needed to be done. For the administration to come forward and say now we want to get rid of them, they should not be coming to this body they need to go to the Town Council because the council has made policy on it, not this body, this body nor the administration can trump the actions of town council. Beach said that, as he understands what Steve Lind is saying is that the council whether this was recommended by the administration or not, to him is irrelevant, decided to make a priority among these particular areas and decided that the gravel pit should come first to Pierce County for adoption. That does not take these matters out of the Urban Growth Boundary, their still in there. Barney’s Corner for example, …... Steve Lind interrupted and said, precisely, they presume that they are in the UGA. Beach said he is trying to understand why Mr. Lind said it needs to go to the Council rather than to the Planning Commission. They haven’t taken it out. If it is to be taken out, the normal procedure would be for the Planning Commission to make some recommendation in this regard and then the council can decide whether they want to follow that recommendation or not. Steve Lind said that the Council has already made their determination to accept it. Beach asked to accept what? Steve Lind said to accept the Urban Growth Areas, all of them. Beach said that they can change their mind can’t they? Steve Lind said that the council can change their mind, but it is not proper for the administration to now come here first without going to the council. They need to go to the council, the council established the law in this matter. Steve Pruitt, 41525 Mountain Hwy E – said that he was at the county council hearing where the Urban Growth Boundary request from everywhere in the county were made, and all of the areas that the Eatonville Council passed and requested to be included in the Urban Growth Area were requested of the county as designated by the council. The County subcommittee was recommending that none of them be approved. The council took it’s appropriate action and sent it on to the county, and the county subcommittee indicated that they were recommending to the council that none of these be in effect. All the way through, all the other jurisdictions that were asking for new area in the urban growth boundary were being rejected on the recommendation of the Planning and Land Services (PALS), headed by Chip Vincent. Mr. Pruitt had a conversation with Chip Vincent, a conversation with Tom Smallwood, and the upshot of that conversation is that Chip Vincent said “ we could allow, encourage or recommend to the council that some portion of that urban growth area be allowed for Eatonville under certain conditions, but there are no conditions under which we’re going to give it all, and we are not going to recommend Barney’s Corner or the Ohop Valley. They came back to Mayor Smallwood and asked him if the town would be willing to take out a portion of the area that way already designated below the triangle area at SR 161 at the southern most point. At some point Roger Bush and the others got behind the idea to approve one small portion of Eatonville’s request but is wasn’t as a result of the council or the administration making any effort whatsoever to do anything other than what they were directed to do, which was to put it all before the county for approval. As it turns out, Eatonville was either the only one or only one of two that got any urban growth addition, so it is a process that the county is involved in as well. Mr. Pruitt said that he is not saying that there may or may not have been a procedure for the administration to go through to come back to the council and say here’s the situation we’re in, but I am saying that it is not accurate to represent it as a situation where the administration on their own went over the head of a council vote and attempted to promote a property over another because it did not happen that way. Steve Lind said that while what Mr. Pruitt said may or may not be true, is really irrelevant to what goes on here. Because what Pierce County does is separate from what’s here. To the extent that he may say that the administration broke something out, Mr. Lind specifically said that the administration went in front of the council and asked to tier it. That indeed is what happened and that decision is relevant to this going on here, it established the policy, it established the law for the administration to get on. It told the administration to get on and do their Capital Facilities Plan and do what is needed to bring to Pierce County. Pierce County can do what they want to do and that is say no, but if we don’t try, we will never get a yes on it. Chairman Schaub asked if there were any questions of Mr. Lind at this time regarding this “Point of Order.” There were none. Nick Bond (Town Planner) wanted to say that he agreed with Mr. Beach’s position on this. The amendments were filed properly with the Town Clerk prior to the end of the year, if you look at the amendments (Nick’s) which were followed in the amendments which were filled out in 2006 by Mr. Lind, they are of the same format and he did talk about amending the UGA for the Town of Eatonville. He also feels that it is proper for the Planning Commission to recommend changes to their UGA as conditions have changed and the situation at Pierce County has changed significantly in their ability to grant UGA expansions and that is a result of hearings board cases which Pierce County has been involved with. The one amendment which Eatonville did get through the county, we were the only town or city in the county that got any UGA expansion, it was only because we considered a reduction of the UGA as recognized by Pierce County in order to trade it for another area. We did not get a net gain in our UGA and anticipates this to be the case for several years. Nick did ask if Mr. Paul Treyz (Planning Commissioner) had an opinion on this with his legal background. Mayor Smallwood said that as far as he understands, Mr. Pruitt is almost exactly right. The only other thing that took place in addition to what he said was Congressman Bush and Chip Vincent called him, they worked probably 3 or 4 days, he contacted all the council members, the majority said for him (Mayor Smallwood) to do what he thought was best and basically “get what you can.” Eatonville was the only one that got a UGA amendment this year and the only reason that we got it is because we basically traded 84 acres for 85, or 85 acres for 84. There were other municipalities that deserved it more. If the Town had not done this, they would not have gotten anything for the UGA. Mayor Smallwood explained that there was no way they could just take away the UGA that this was the Town’s livelihood and it depends on this area for the industrial area. This all stems from the Graham Community Plan. And the County is under a sanction and if they don’t have it fixed by sometime in March, they will lose all their grants and everything else because they didn’t follow it. The only reason that Eatonville got anything is because they spent weeks down there attending. Pierce County also ok’d Shady Acres Park airways land. Mayor Smallwood said that he had verbal correspondence with the council during this time. Steve Lind said that with the Mayor Smallwood conceded by what he said, that all the Town Council members said that they did not want to give up any UGA and it confirms what he had said for procedure and law and they are sticking strong with that. All the rest about Pierce County is irrelevant because what is going on here is an internal thing for the Town of Eatonville. We need to follow our laws, regulations or policies established by council or we would have absolute cause. All of this needs to back to council not come here first, because council by their actions has told the administration and the planning commission what go on. Mr. Chair, as you think and rule on this, keep those in mind and he hoped that the planning commission would understand. Treyz addressed Nick Bond's request for his opinion. As for his legal opinion he could not give a legal opinion because he is not the Town Attorney. He also was not at the meeting that Mr. Pruitt referred to. He asked Mr. Lind if his objection was acknowledging that this is a planned amendments that the Planning Commission is being asked to review. Steve Lind said that his position is that the UGA has already been established. Complete. The only thing that needs to be done at this point is for a Capital Facilities Plan be done to support that, because for it to move on properly and correctly. Otherwise it will be picked out as a matter of course at Pierce County. Lind maintains by the two actions of council and the additional ones that Mr. Smallwood talked about. The administration has received it’s marching orders to get that done and not oppose it. Any opposition to come from the administration at this point is an opposition with established policy, resolutions, ordinances and ultimately our code and out law. Treyz said that he felt that his rational was somewhat faulty, because you are saying that the Planning Commission doesn’t have the jurisdiction here to make the recommendation to the Town Council. This being proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and it is going back now, subsequent to the meeting that Mr. Pruitt referred to, it's going back for the Planning Commissions recommendations not for a vote or binding decision. This is only for a recommendation and he believes that is the purpose of the Planning Commission. Make the recommendation at this point and let the Council decide on whether it is going to take the recommendation of the Planning Commission. As a citizen he felt that the town was acting properly at having the Planning Commission make the recommendation. Steve Lind asked Mr. Treyz to listen to his response. This matter shouldn’t even be in front of the Planning Commission because the administration has received its marching orders. For them to have even brought it here was improper and incorrect. It violates our code and our law, policies and so on. Second, for the Planning Commission to even consider it would be improper and incorrect knowing that there has been at least two actions by Town Council to adopt it. To do something different requires for somebody, probably the administration to first take this to the Town Council and get them to release their previous actions on it. He understands that the Planning Commission to make recommendations, but under certain provisions. In this case, to do it differently, would be breaking those provisions. Treyz said that unless he had some legal citation from the RCW or the Town’s EMC to have the Planning Commission review, he did not see any way that the Planning Commission could avoid hearing this question at the Planning Commission level and let the Council decide. Steve Lind said that he gave two citations, the two actions by the Town Council. Treyz asked if there was anything from the EMC or RCW that he can provide that states that they are violating or that the town is violating. Steve Lind said that the Planning Commission is violating those two actions. If you folks want to go and get those actions and review them, he thought that would be appropriate. Beach stated that he did not know whether to laugh or cry, because the Comprehensive Plan is very clear, that anyone can propose an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chip Vincent from Pierce County could come here and say I am proposing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that you take this all out. That Comprehensive Plan also says that we are to take up all of the amendments, proposed amendments that have been filed by a particular date. This is not qualified in any way by what the Council does or does not do, we have an obligation to take up any amendment properly filed by whom ever. There is no restriction in the Comprehensive Plan as to who can suggest an amendment. So if the Town Planner, the Mayor or whoever wants to make an amendments, have us consider it, then we have an obligation to in fact consider it, so, he felt that all of this was irrelevant. Steve Pruitt said that he an answer to his dilemma and felt that he could laugh be he was sitting on the Planning Commission and the record will show, when Mr. Lind argued the opposite side of this same argument. He argued that a piece that was taken out of the Ohop Valley could be restored and it wasn’t reversing or challenging any action by the council because Pierce County had not yet acted on it, it was in the two year period when they weren’t acting on it. Seems that what Pierce County does or doesn’t do may or may not be relevant in the relation to the council depending on which side of the argument you want to make. Nick wanted to add that if that was the case, that Council had to take action before the Planning Commission could reconsider the policies that were previously set, Mr. Nybo and Mr. Christain would have to go before the Planning Commission to have them rescind that section of the zoning map which applies to their zone or the land use map from the previous Comprehensive Plan as well. Every amendment that came forward would have to go the council before it could be sent back to the planning commission for a new recommendation or be reconsidered. We followed that Comprehensive Plan instruction very clearly that the roster had to be adopted in January of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments which were to be considered. The notices went out for these amendments and we have received not comments until this point. Beach move to go ahead with the hearing. Harris seconded. Chair Schaub said that there is a motion to at this time stop with the point of order and go ahead with the meeting. Asked for questions, there were none. He then called for a vote. Unanimously approved. So carried. Steve Lind said that as a point of order, he appealed that decision. Beach said that he had no right to appeal the decision; he is not a member of the Commission. There was clarification that the Public Hearing was open. Nick explained that the amendments would be called and discussed one by one. The first amendment to be discussed would be the amendment to add Barney’s Corner to the Capital Facilities Plan. Nick prepared a proposal, there were a number of letters received and in 2006 Mr. Lind filed them as well to add this area to the Capital Facilities Plan. This proposal did not have a specific amendment proposed but he did draft an amendment which would be based on rough estimates of what it would cost to get specific improvements installed for bringing both sewer and water to the area of Barney’s Corner located at the intersection of SR 161 and the Eatonville Cut-off Road. The total estimated project cost for the sewer improvements to be taken to Barney’s Corner would be 2.3 million dollars. The total estimate to bring water service to that area is 2.75 million dollars and that is also noted in the tables numbered 16.6 and 16.5 showing the total on the Capital Facilities cost as well as the phasing of those projects. The arguments that are favoring this proposal were the letters that were submitted from those five individuals and a number of them are in the audience tonight and would probably want to testify. The other point is that if Barney’s Corner is to be in the UGA, which was previously mentioned in the point of order that I proposed removing it from the UGA on the figure, in order to serve that area at urban levels of service we have to extend services to that area. So this is also in fact a question of whether this area is going to be our UGA because he does believe that the Town needs to have a provision to serve this area with those services. The arguments opposing the proposal as Nick included in his report, first of all he is proposing that this area be removed from the UGA for a number of reasons, including that it is a 200 foot buffer on either side of the highway that splits parcels, it does not even include full tax parcels along that roadway. He feels that the intent was to claim jurisdiction over that area without actually seeing it develop at urban densities, although I think that Mr. Lind would disagree with that one, because he was the Chair of the Planning Commission when that was discussed. Additionally, the extension of urban services to that area, along with including it in the UGA would be inconsistent with the intent of the Growth Management Act which is to direct urban growth to urban areas. If you look at how boundary line review boards look at annexations, they look for creating regular boundaries, not irregular boundaries such as a long arm that follows the highway out of town. Also, if you at what came forward on the Buildable Lands Report which is not a finalized or adopted document I think it clearly shows that we have sufficient commercial and residential properties within the town limits and the current UGA as it’s shown on the proposed map. Also attached is a letter from the Town Administrator which expresses his opposition to this amendment simply because we don’t have sufficient water rights at this time to serve this area with water service if it is going to be developed at urban densities. The town would also need significant upgrades to the capacity of the sewer treatment plant in order to provide sewer service for this area or it would require a separate sewer treatment plant in the Ohop Valley which could handle that sewage and would be at a substantially higher cost that is not reflected in the amendment proposal. Nick recommended that this amendment be denied at this time and he does not feel there is any need for Capital Facilities at this time given the current availability of urban land in the town and in our existing UGA as recognized by Pierce County. Nick asked if there were any questions. Beach stated that the way Nick phrased it; he wondered why he had taken this one up before you take the one up about taking the Barney’s Corner out of the Urban Growth Boundary, seems like we are doing this backward. Nick said it is, but as Mr. Lind mentioned it was also the intent to consider the 2006 amendments which did not get heard last year first and he also felt that the individuals that were here to testify, there are a number of them and this is probably the issue that most of them came to speak about tonight and he wanted to have it first. Beach felt that they should not be combining the two arguments. He said if you are going to take this one up, take this one up. He had no objection to that, but don’t combine it with the question of the growth boundary. Either that or we should be taking them both up simultaneously or we should take the growth boundary one up first. Nick said he did not have a problem with moving to the Urban Growth Boundary if that is what the Planning Commission wishes to do at this point in time. Beach said he had no wish. He just wanted to have this clarified as to what we are talking about. He asked if we are going to talk about facilities. Nick said that we are talking about the facilities at this point, and if this were to be approved he thought that it would be safe to say that the amendment to Figure 10-1 as he has proposed would require an amendment at that time from what it is that I have proposed. He felt that it could be taken up at this time. Beach had no problem, as long as the two issues were kept separate. Nick – Correct. He again asked if there were any questions from the Planning Commissioners on this particular amendment. Treyz asked about the amounts on the sewer and water that were prospoed, who would actually make the payments? Would this come out of the general sewer fund for everybody to pay or would it be paid more proportionately by landowners along the sewer line or by developers of Barney’s Corner. Nick said that there are a number of ways it can be done. It can be done by developer extension and they can request a “Late Comer Agreement” so that anybody along that line who would tap into the line would have to pay their frontage share, it could be done through a local improvement district (LID) which is a collective agreement between the residents who live along that stretch, where 50% for them would have to vote in favor to create an LID to build this sewer line. Another option would be for it to be financed through the town, but he did not feel that it was in anyway feasible at this time. If the town were to do this, the amount of money that they would borrow to do this along with the rate increase and connection fee increase would be astronomical. It would almost have to be developer financed. Treyz said that one of his concerns would be just that, if pipe was laid and put into operation then the costs were made by the builders or developers bore the substantial burden of the cost, then later on if somebody would perhaps be forced to tap in if they didn’t want to when they weren’t actually a part of the system. Nick explained that there is a requirement in our code that once a property is within 100 feet of the sewer line; they are required by the code to connect to the sewer. If that sewer line was extended by a developer out the highway, ever person who is in the town limits would be forced to connect to the sewer at that time. That would be a lot of expense for the individuals who would be along the way. The other thing that needs to be pointed out is this is just the main line that would follow the road, this doesn’t go into anyone’s property to serve their development. So not only is this the cost of getting service out there, but you have to bare the cost of getting sewer service on any of the properties that would be developed to serve whatever gets constructed whether it be residential housing subdivision or a commercial development, so there is going to be a substantial additional cost to the developer. Nick asked that testimony be taken on each amendment as the Planning Commission goes through them. If anyone wants to give testimony as to whether Barney’s Corner should be included in the Capital Facilities Plan for water and sewer, he felt that now is the time to take that testimony and then the Planning Commission can take action on this particular amendment and then reopen the hearing to discuss the next one. Chair Schaub called on Mel Cox for any comments. Mel Cox chose to not give any testimony at this time. Chair Schaub called on Rowland Litzenberger. Rowland Litzenberger chose to not give any testimony. Chair Schaub asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? Dan Bewley- 39817 Meridan: - said he lives approximately ˝ mile north of barney’s Corner. At the meeting last year, the definition was given that this boundary would be extended approximately ˝ north from Barney’s Corner which is a rather nebulous definition when you consider there is a substantial distance between their north boundary and the south boundary of Barney’s Corner property. If you include all of it, we are included within that ˝ mile. His request, # 1 is that the proposed new boundary be changed to a more precise definition, change the words “1/2 mile north of Barney’s Corner” to the following: “ north on Meridian to the center line of 400th Street and north on the Eatonville Cutoff Road to the center line of Stringtown Road. This way this leaves no question about where the line is. He stated that his 1st request should be that extending the boundary along the highway, all the way to Barney’s Corner is something they are against, precisely what’s been raised here before, the cost of having to attach to the sewer line and water line for individual property owners would be astronomical. We don’t want any part of it. We’ve already paid for our water and sewer and we don’t want to have to pay again for something that we already have. Beach said that this was the point he was trying to make before. By the way the Planner has organized this; we’re dealing with the facilities right now and not the definition of where the UGA boundary is. You have a concern about that and it is an appropriate concern. You also have a concern about the facilities, and it is the facilities we’re talking about at this moment and later we will get to where these boundaries ought to be going. He felt that Mr. Bewley had a good argument about that. Mike Williams-312 Antonie Ave N: He asked if the Urban Growth Boundary was a prerequisite to annexation. In other words, don’t you have to be in the UGA before you can annex? We’ve got to be 20 years away from bring services out to Barney’s Corner, but don’t you want to work towards this plan? Sooner or later you are probably going to want to have that in, but he didn’t think it would be for another 20 years. Nobody wants to pay for a lot of services and there is nothing out there to support it at this time. The question is whether or not you want to keep working with the county to try and gain more and more on this urban growth area. Mayor Smallwood added that he believed that someday the town limits would be out to Barney’s Corner, maybe not within his lifetime but someday. He felt that Mr. Williams was correct. The town should look at doing some planning, but the way the county is going right now with their land use and with the growth management hearings board and all the meetings he go to, he felt getting that growth management through the county is 5 to 10 years off. He does not see anything being added within the next 2 or 3 years by the county. It may not have anything to with Eatonville, but it may have something to do with what could happen in Eatonville. To spend a lot of time with the county on urban growth areas is almost a waste of time and I think Mr. Pruitt can agree from attending those meetings. Until we get our buildable lands, until we get filled up, until we get to a population of about 4,000 people we are not going to be able to grow much past our current urban growth area. The second thing, and it has nothing to do with Eatonville, but we are one of the fortunate peoples to have urban growth area even as we speak now. South Prairie has 2-3 acres left, Bonney Lake is growing so fast that they can’t keep up, Orting has zero urban growth area that they can go into. So you either agree with growth management or you don’t but he felt that we are stuck with it. He did not feel that the county would allow the town to grow within any urban growth area within the next 3-4 years. He feels that we were very fortunate to get that, the only reason we did was because of persistence and the Council backing. Nobody wanted to give up any area, but if we had given up, we would not have gotten anything. The counties all have the same concerns. We can plan, should plan and if a developer came to the town and said we really want to do something at Barney’s Corner, we want to move it, and he felt it could be done that way, but going out and trying to get it, he didn’t feel that the county would even give it to us. In fact until they change the current planning and land use people he didn’t feel that the town would get anything in there. The direction that they are getting is “no more growth in urban growth area”. Nick commented on a statement from Mr. Williams which was that the felt it was 20 – 25 years out before anything would happen out there. This Capital Facilities Plan goes through 2022 which may sound like a long time off but it is only 14 years from now. This Comprehensive Plan gets a comprehensive overhaul regularly and the time to consider this type of expansion if going to be in one of those big years where we actually do an amendment to the EIS for the Comprehensive Plan. He does not feel that now is the time to be considering an amendment of that magnitude, especially given the likelihood of growth out there will occur or the feasibility of that type of project in the time frame that we’re dealing with. Steve Lind – said he noted that the Mayor said that after four years this may be let in and that he feels that it’s good long range planning for the town to start moving now. In regards to the Capital Facilities Plan and the cost, development pays for development. If the developer wants to come in, he is going to have to pay for those facilities; it is not something that is going to come out of the Town of Eatonville. They are not prohibitive; capitalism will determine which it is. He also felt that the Town Administrator was not qualified to write the letter addressing the facilities to Barney’s Corner. He doesn’t have a P.E. behind his name and he doesn’t have a stamp on it. He is not qualified to make these determinations and he would like to see a professional engineer make some determinations and speak as a qualified professional, and he does not think that Mr. Armstrong is a qualified professional so he thinks it would be good if the Planning Commission would disregard that letter because he does not think he has the professional credentials to deal with that situation. Since the Mayor talked about UGA’s and when and so on, he will address that because he feels that we often get criticized for not planning out far enough, not putting stuff out far enough, and he thinks that by starting now and making sure that this stays in and that we get our Capital Facilities Plan in, whether it’s three, four, five or ten years, we are there, we’ve put it out and all they have to say is no, but it will come back and one of these days we are there. The other side of it is, is if we’re not doing that, the potential is for the county to go and issue a building permit for one of these large facilities once that happens and once that happens he does not believe that the town will ever be in a position to do anything and that is going to be to the detriment of the Town of Eatonville, that is one of the big areas, this is probably the only place that meets the requirement of location, location, location for the kinds of development that we are looking at. The last piece of property in the corporate boundaries of the Town of Eatonville got moved out of the potential of having commercial zoning in it, when it was put through in an irregular an improper fashion for annexation here recently on it so we are down to an area like this. Ultimately this is going to be one of those areas that’s going develop on it and its best that is comes under ours than the other. Thank you. Chairman Shaub asked for Nick’s recommendation at this time. Nick recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed amendment and leave Barney’s Corner out of the Capital Facilities Plan. Chairman Scahub confirmed that Nick had earlier asked to address each issue separately. Nick said that he thought that they could close this portion of the hearing and make a motion to on this particular amendment and then reopen the hearing to discuss next amendment. Beach asked if this was A through E? Nick said yes. Chairman Schaub asked for a motion from the Planning Commission. Treyz moved to to accept Mr. Bond’s recommendation. Fitzer seconded the motion. Unanimous. Steve Lind asked what the recommendation was specifically. Which recommendation? Chairman Schaub asked that the motion be read word for word. Trez stated that his motion was to accept Mr. Bond’s recommendation. At this point I believe Mr. Bond’s recommendation is to deny the adoption of the proposed Capital Facilities Plan amendments as requested by citizens Cox, Litzenberger, Williams, Pierce and Pierce. Treyz reintegrated that his motion is to accept Mr. William’s recommendation and deny those amendments. Steve Lind stated that he had a point of order at this point. The point of order is that he thought it was announced previously you were going to take public testimony on each one of these and then we were going to close down the public testimony, leaving it open for comments, come back at another meeting, then go through and vote on it. Lind asked if the rule changed or if he had misunderstood what was said. Chairman Schaub said that they were conducting this at this time and then as it is finished and they come out of the hearing, then we’ll discuss at the regular meeting. Beach said that it is being made before the regular Planning Commission and he did not recall any such agreement that he has described. Chairman Schaub confirmed that there was a second by Commissioner Harris and he asked the recording secretary to read the motion back. Kerri Murphy read the following motion: Commissoner Treyz made the motion to deny the adoption of the proposed Captial Facilties Plan amendments as requested by citizens Cox, Litzenberger, Williams, Pieirce and Pierce. Second by Fitzer. Unanimous.. Amend Chapter 17.5.2 Essential Public Facilities Chairman Schaub reopened the public hearing. Nick introduced the second Comprehensive Plan amendment that will be considered has to do with Chapter 17.5.2, Essential Public Facilites. A proposal made by Commissioner Beach was in policy 4 of sections 17.5.2 to delete the word “essential” from recognize Swanson Field as an Essential Public Facility and discourage land uses or activities that may impact the operation of the airport. Again, it is to strike the word “essential” and the “an” becomes “a.” The arguments in favor of the proposal we be left primarily to Commissioner Beach. There were a number of exhibits that were included with the report including an email that Beach had sent to Nick, and a memo dated December 7th, 2006 from Mart Kask. In the memo from Mart Kask, he does conclude that in his opinion the town is not required to identify Swanson Field as an “essential public facility.” Nick believed that the Town Attorney agrees with this opinion that it’s not required to be listed as an “essential public facility” but as you will see in his argument opposing the proposal he is encouraging the Planning Commission to leave the Swanson Airport as an “Essential Public Facility” and not approve this change. There are a number of reasons, first and foremost is that the Town Comprehensive Plan and the Developments Regulations regarding the airport have both been upheld before the Growth Management Hearings Board. There is also a letter which was provided to Nick by Hal Burlingame which is from Kerri Woehler which is not word for word of what the RCW says, but it is WSDOT’s interpretation of what the RCW requires. Also attaché to that was a letter from the Mt. Rainier National Park talking about Swanson Field’s importance as a medi-vac facility for victims of car accidents or for skiers down out of the mountain. The other reason that he opposes this amendment, in terms of going after funding for the airport, the Town has to fund the airport entirely from the general fund, we don’t get federal funds. Sometimes the town can get grants from the WSDOT. He thinks it was WSDOT’s recommendation that the town list the airport as an essential public facility. To an extent, the town’s ability to get future funds may be dependent on the airport being listed as an essential public facility and therefore he feels it should not be changed. There is also a legal opinion from the Town’s attorney, Mr. Hudson that was provided to the Planning Commission which was opposed to this amendment. He then asked if Commissioner Beach would like to speak on this issue. Beach said that first he would like to clarify something. We are not talking about the airport; we are talking about a word. If the sentence that he wished to amend said that the airport was important or needed, I wouldn’t be here making any argument about the sentence. It’s the word essential that is the problem. Reviewing this, when the Planning Commission sent up the Comprehensive Plan to the Council it did not contain this sentence or the word essential in it. Kask at the time who was the Planning Consultant who oversaw the Comprehensive Plan at that time, recommended against the adoption of this word “essential.” It seems pretty clear given the fact that he knows of at least four airports under the jurisdiction of Pierce County and only one of them, the Narrows Airport is listed as essential. Not even Thun Field is designated as essential. Hudson appears to imply from his letter that while he thinks we ought to retain this, maybe he right about that, Beach didn’t know, but he does seem to imply that the Council should never have adopted this “Essential.” His argument seems to be totally based on the fact that they did it, now they’ve done it and we ought to leave it alone. In other words, he agrees with Kask who recommended against this word being in there. Now, how did this word get in there? Well, it got in there because WSDOT aviation division came and did their little song and dance to the Town Council and they bit on it, that is how it got there. Now, Kerri Woehler, the aviation planner of these people provided us with RCW’s that supposedly have something to do with this and actually, of the many that they cite, there are only two that have anything to do with this at all. He gave copies of the RCW’s to the recording secretary for the record. In the third paragraph of her memo she says RCW 36.70A.200 “Airports’ are also recognized as essential public facilities, all counties and cities planning under the GMA RCW 36.70A.040 are required to protect use airports as essential public facilities. Jurisdictions are required to develop a siting process for locating essential public facilities and should not prohibit the siting expansion or continuation of essential public facilities within their Comprehensive Plan or development regulations. These RCW’s don’t say that at all, that is their interpretation of these RCW’s. The really guiding one, which is the 36.70.040 does not contain the word “essential” in the whole RCW nor airport for that matter. RCW 36.70A.200 does contain both airport and essential in it, but what does it say? It says “the comprehensive plan of each county, city planning that is under this …other RCW .. which does include this ..”shall include a process” … notice the word “process”….for identifying and sitings essential public facilites”. It does say anything about identifying the public facility as essential, it says we have to have a process. Now this is not the first time that the DOT aviation division, he hates to throw the whole DOT into this, aviation division has come to the Town of Eatonville and confused process with substance. If anyone wants to go into the other horeus example, he would give it to them but for the matter of time he will not go into that. Notice what was quoted from Kerri Woehler, she says jurisdictions are required to develop a siting process for locating essential public utilities and should not prohibit the siting, we’ve got the site, that has been fulfilled. Expansion or continuation of essential public facility. When they were down here telling us about we were violating everything in the, which we weren’t actually, they pointed out that the schools were in the wrong place relative to the airport and the school district should put a doorway in every classroom to the outside. This is the kind of nonsense that the Planning Commission gets. The word essential has nothing to do with what the airport does. Kask says that the word essential means …absolutely necessary. It’s important and we should have it, but is it absolutely necessary? Indispensable. If you look in the thesaurus essential and important are not synonyms of each other nor is desirable a synonym of essential. Need and essential are found in necessity as a requirement, which makes some sense, but that the only synonym. So Bond and Hudson make the argument that since it was put into the Comprehensive Plan it is more prudent to leave it in than to take it out. Neither makes the argument that it is required. What is more prudent? Leaving it in and let these people play games with this word essential, which we don’t have to have or take it out. Mr. Hudson has convinced me of something that is that I would make my amendment, rather to substitute the word important for essential. In other words this is an important public facility rather than essential. Chairman Schaub asked if Beach was making that a motion at this time? Beach answered he would when they were ready to make a motion. Steve Pruitt said he was listening very carefully and he heard a long argument for why or how Eatonville has or should have the authority to make this change, I didn’t hear any argument or anything at all from Mr. Beach as to why he thought this change should be made. What are the benefits that would come to Eatonville and the people if we change this from essential to important? Beach said it comes down to the question of what is most prudent. Bond and Hudson say that it’s prudent now that it’s in there, just leave it alone. Their benefits are all speculative too. The benefits of taking it out, it seems to him, that a word in not left in the Comprehensive Plan that is not required that is an absolute word. It’s way out here in the extreme, therefore can be used for almost any purpose that one wants to make, including saying that we are jeopardizing the airport safety because we don’t have a doorway in every elementary and secondary school classroom that leads outside. It ‘s the mischief that can be done with this kind of word. Beach moved to substitute the word “important” for the word “essential” in the sentence in which it was found. Lambert second the motion. Chairman Schaub asked for any discussion from the audience. Rowland Litzenberger, 43707-18th Ave E – said he has great respect for Mr. Beach, he was curious as to whether it’s appropriate for a town member to argue a point rather than take it as a citizen versus a member of the Planning Commission. When the issues of Barney’s Corner came up and Mr. Williams was on the Planning Commission and the issues of Barney’s Corner came up, he respectfully recused himself. He said he wasn’t aware if Mr. Beach owns property on the airport or not, but it seems like with his argument, since he proposing this amendment it would be better that he step aside to bring his proposal as a citizen rather than a member of the Planning Commission. He finds it confusing that a member of the Planning Commission can make an argument; it doesn’t seem to be a real clear way of doing business. Beach said that this is not a Board of Adjustment hearing. It is a hearing dealing with policy or we can actually call it a hearing dealing with politics, and we are all equal in that basis. The Comprehensive Plan says that any person can propose an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and speak to that and this is simply what he is doing. He has made a motion, made a proposal and the members of the commission can do as they so want to do. Rowland Litzenberger said that his point was that Mr. beach has proposed a amendment, a change and the verbiage that you have brought up is neither for or against, but all for. You are very one sided about it. It is just an observation, that being a strong proponent of it, it would be better since you proposed it, it would be better doing it as a citizen rather than a town board member. This is only his opinion, that Mr. Beach has the right to recuse himself or not. He said that he would expect that sitting on the Planning Commission that you’d have an open mind about something. Bringing forward a proposal of this nature and arguing it from the bench seems to be rather dubious. It seems it would be better that you would do it from the outside. Beach said a little history here. You have proposed, or did propose an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the facility justified on the basis that the urban growth boundary went out to Barney’s Corner. Where did that proposal come from, that it went out to Barney’s Corner? It came from me (Beach) sitting here making the same argument. If this were a Board of Adjustment hearing, you’re absolutely right, but there is no restriction on the political or policy views that Planning Commissioners have or don’t have. Rowland Litzenberger said that he understands that, but all he was suggesting to Mr. Beach is that a person perception is their reality and you are coming across as a very bias person toward this proposal. Rowland was only suggesting that being a firm proponent as he has so eloquently expressed that it would be better from the citizens position rather than on the Planning Commission. He did not care how Mr. Beach voted, he only wanted to tell him how the perception is. Simple as that. His second point being that were he lives, he has a lot of cow manure, a lot of cow crap, cow dung, however you want to call it, but it’s all the same thing. He felt that Mr. Beach was making quite a statement based on the verbiage of “essential” versus “non-essential”. The word essential is important and this airport is essential to this community and to remove the word essential, while it may seem minor to you, does have a long standing effect on the people who live on the airport. Possible funding in the future. Just be aware that the perception is the reality of the people in the body that are sitting here. How you handle it is your business and he has no problem with that. Cliff Murphy, 133 Washington Ave N. – We pay a town attorney, Mr. Bond is our Planner, both gentleman have advised the Town to just leave the word alone. He does not feel that anyone in the room is any better qualified to change that decision. He feels that Beach should listen to what has been said and feels that the airport is very essential, maybe not to everyone but at least to that gentleman and many others in the community. It is essential by his determination and many others that are not here this evening that cannot speak to the subject. Steve Pruitt – Earlier he asked for the information about the presentations pro and against. Now he wanted to speak to the motion. He would love for someone that has been involved with those from the beginning to standup and say “I’m in favor of this motion because it will mean that if we want, we can shut down the airport and use the land the way we want to. That would be an honest, straightforward statement that we could talk about and discuss as citizens, planning commissioners, council members, town employees. We could say what is in the best interest of Eatonville? Would it be better to not have an airport and have land to develop or for other purposes, restore property rights to owners that were essentially taken from them if that’s the take you want. The best Mr. beach can come up with is why he is in favor of this is to say it eliminates some mischief such as having to hear someone from the State of Washington come and tell us we need doors to the outside in our classrooms. We didn’t put doors to the outside in our classrooms, whether we need them or not, whether that guy was right or not, we didn’t do it. We didn’t create too much mischief. Maybe the question we should be asking is what kind of mischief will be made if we make the change? What is more important for the use of that land than the airport? If you can come up with something that is more important for the use of that land than the airport, then we should make the change, and we should eliminate the airport. We should do it conscientiously, intentionally and we should do it above board. From the beginning, there has been one person that has been on record as to why they didn’t want the airport to be an “essential” facility, it’s been Mart Kask. If he were here, he would like to talk publicly about this. It is a matter of written record, to when this conversation started and Mart Kask said that he was recommending to the Town of Eatonville that we eliminate the airport as an aerospace district. Because the land owners found the regulations too burdensome and it was making it too hard for individuals to realize the property values on their land. That was honest statement. Unfortunately, six months to a year after that statement, nobody including Mart Kask would touch that statement again. Everybody argued we want the airport and the regulations are too restrictive. We now have regulations in the airport that allow an individual to build homes at the same density as homes built anywhere in the Town of Eatonville against the advise of State of Washington, Federal Aviation Administration and others. There are some restrictions on those lands, to make them different from the average piece of property. Mr. Nybo is here tonight and he knows what those differences are, they are costing him a lot of money. It’s a fair argument for him and anyone else to say this is costing me money and I want to see a change. Can anybody stand up and be honest about it? The process that Mr. Beach talks about has proven time and time again that if you want to close an airport you should do exactly what the Town of Eatonville, the Planning Commission, the Council, has done with its airport every step of the way. That is the way to make sure an airport will be closed. It’s not some yahoo from out of town that has an agenda to put something over on you. It's time Eatonville stops thinking of themselves as some independent spot in the middle of the free world where they have to defend themselves against every bureaucrat and everybody out there that’s is out to get them. They really don’t care that much about us. The FAA in essence said as much. We weren’t important enough for them to come out and look at our airport and help us figure out what was right and what was wrong. They were going to rubber stamp what ever we did. The hearing board said as much. The Town of Eatonville violated their own laws, but as long as they correct them, it’s ok. They corrected them on the advice of town attorneys by changing the law to make sure that the large majority of the Growth Management Act didn’t apply to Eatonville and the airport, that’s what they did. He was there when they did it. If that’s what Eatonville wants to do, God Bless you, do it, but stand up and say this is what we want to do and this is why. Talk straight to your people and tell them the truth. Chairman Schaub asked for any further comments from the audience. Beach said he rather resented the notion that he is not saying what he means. Mr. Pruitt said he was not talking about him. He was not talking about his proposal or your motivation for your proposal. He was talking about what his proposal will change in this town and what it means to the Town of Eatonville, to every individual citizen, and it means something different to each person. It deserves to be discussed openly. He did not mean to imply that you had any ulterior motive. All he said was that the best description was why we should do this, was that it would avoid mischief from those that are going to use the word essential to cause mischief. He apologized if Mr. Beach felt that he was attacking him. He was not intending to in anyway imply you had any ulterior motive. I just don’t know what your motive is other than having sat on the Planning Commission and watching the frustration that we all felt as this political football get thrown back and forth without a lot of clarity. I could be wrong, but he feels that clarity could come if someone would stand up and say I would rather see this, this or this than an airport. Then we would find out how essential it was, because we could talk about it openly. Chairman Schaub confirmed that there is a motion on the table with a second. There were no further questions from the commissioner. Kerri Murphy read the motion by Commissioner Beach who moved that the Planning Commission adopt a change to Section 17.5.2, policy 4 to substitute the word “important” for “essential” and to recommend that change to the Town Council. Planner, Nick Bond want to make sure that the record reflects that he did not recommend approval of either of these proposals. (The original recommendation or the change from Commissioner Beach) Beach in favor. Lambert, Treyz, Fitzer and Harris opposed. Motion did not pass. Beach said it was a question of what was most prudent. Nick said that he felt that the proper action would be to have an alternative motion which would recommend the recommendation that was in his report. This will still need to go to council to be officially denied. Nick asked for a motion to adopt the Town Planner’s recommendation. To deny the adoption of the proposed amendment, as it stated on page four of his report. 8: 40: Cannot hear the motion being made – something that Nick wanted to go back too. Alternative to recomend…… Harris made the motion. Harris, Fitzer, Treyz and Lambert voted for it. Beach abstained. Nybo Amendment Nick introduced the Nybo amendment to change the land use designation of two parcels from single family to commercial or multi-family. He said he was recommending it go multifamily at this time. There is a subsequent amendment this evening, figure 10.2 which will deal with this further. The parcels are located north of the Hamner Springs development adjacent to Eatonville Hwy W. This will be a positive change for a number of reasons. Multifamily if developed properly can create a positive gateway to a community; the town has an obligation to achieve 4 units per net acre for the Town of Eatonville under the Growth Management Act. When somebody is interested in developing multifamily housing it helps us achieve and surpass that goal. There is also a strong need for affordable housing in the Town of Eatonville and if someone is trying to provide multifamily housing we should certainly encourage that and it will make housing available to all segments of the population. Beach questioned Nick as to why there no argument opposing. Nick said that the primary proposal that somebody would use is that multifamily housing has the potential to lower property values. Beach asked why this point was not made? Nick explained that he feels multifamily housing can be done in such a way that it doesn’t cause a decrease in housing values. Beach explained that Nick is a part of Town Staff and he should be presenting all sides of the argument to help commissioners understand. Nick stated that he feels there is a perception that multifamily housing can lower property values. Currently there is someone who is ready to develop something and this development under the town’s regulations could be done is such a way that will not occur. Jerry Nybo, 7420-320th St E- The project would include not low income housing but more of a senior housing project. Proposed 800 square foot units, built in clusters, as a cottage and he does not feel he would build anything to devalue property. Focus will be on seniors. Treyz asked if this area encompasses any existing home right now? Nick explained that both parcels are vacant parcels. He added that the parcels do not lend themselves to single family housing. Mulitfamily housing, you could do some creative and innovative site designs using the existing topography. There are issues on the site that are being worked out with the Corps of Engineers as far as drainage. The town drainage system goes around that site and the multifamily zone allows for an innovative type of housing which could be really compatible with the land. When we get into the other amendment later this evening, he will be requesting that several other properties be changed to multifamily zones and this would be consistent with that other amendment. Treyz asked if there was any environmental impact statement required or any drainage issues that would effect any neighboring properties. Nick explained that at the time there is an application received for the property, review under SEPA would be required. Mr. Nybo is already working with the Corps of Engineers and they have contacted the Town on several occasions to do some mitigation for some loss of habitat. Fitzer asked if there was any consideration because this is on the Eatonville Hwy. of changing this to mixed use rather than multifamily. Nick said yes, and one of the other amendments that we will be discussing this evening deals with that and will open that door for an alternative type of development which combines multifamily housing with neighborhood commercial uses. But because we do not have the regulations in place for that yet, he has held off going to any type of mixed use or commercial zone at this time. There will be more discussion with the other amendments. Chairman Schaub asked if any information has been sent out to the people living near the parcels. Nick explained that the only notification that was required to be sent out was to those individuals whose properties were being changed to a less intense use. The Comp. Plan amendments, you are not required to provide notice for the annual comp plan amendment except in the paper and as it is posted around town. Nick noted that the property is located on the Hamner Springs side of Eatonville Hwy and the road into Hamner Springs goes between the two parcels. Jerry Nybo stated that they have engaged with the Army Corps of Engineers, have hired wetlands biologists out of Seattle and have spent in excess of $ 75,000.00 already with the plan to enhance all the stream bed and wetlands properties. SEPA has been done on this property. Chairman Schaub asked for a motion to accept or reject. Beach moved to make the recommendation at the bottom of page 5. (Unable to hear) Kerri Murphy read the recommendation into the record. Unanimously approved. Christain [Sic] Property Amendment Nick stated that the property is located at 495 Center St E. There are a number of documents including the 2000 Vision Plan which the town put together and parts of it are included in Comprehensive Plan. It was additionally referred w\to in the Downtown Vision Plan, the vision was to take the entire old mill site and develop a master plan community. That was looked at with the Mashell Meadows project this past summer and that was the residential section of the development. The existing regulations, the mixed use code that is in place today, combined with the Comprehensive Plan designations, not just the map that existing but also the items included in the report show that area being developed commercially for retail type uses. The mixed use regulations which we have in place now, secondary uses can include neighborhood scale commercial and office uses consistent with the commercial uses permitted in EMC 18.040.140 The mixed use zone, as it is written today would allow for most of the things that Mr. Christain [sic] would like to do. He’s mentioned that he would like to put a new grocery store in town and under our existing regulations this could happen there and could be accommodated without a rezone. The reason that this should not go to a commercial zone, is that the master plan community which was approved, Mashell Meadows, is adjacent to this site. It shares similar topography, actually this hill where the existing house is located slopes down towards that planned unit development which was approved. It’s looking like that development is on hold or has been dropped for now, although there have been other conversations with other people about resurrecting it. What ever use happens on Mr. Christain's property, it should be compatible with whatever future master plan community is in place on the rear half of this property. The mixed use zone allows this. The batch plant was put in under the C-2 zone which allows for concrete services. If this were to be rezoned to C-2 you could see any use that was permitted in this C-2 zone occur on this property, and the mixed use zone protects the town and the future residents of that master plan community from those less compatible uses. He reaffirmed that he does not support this amendment. If Mr. Christain came forward with a proposal for a grocery store or any other type of retail commercial use he felt that the town could accommodate it. It may require some innovative design techniques as far as really making the development compatible with the adjacent use. He felt you could do any commercial use there provided that it wasn’t a batch plant or amusement park which have both been proposed or done in the last year. Fitzer asked hypothetically, if a large corporation or organization was to looked at the old mill property, would the town then consider changing it to commercial? Nick said if the entire site was to be considered as commercial, yes the town would consider that sort of thing, but he felt if it were for a large commercial use or something that a industrial-commercial use, he thinks that the town could take in a different direction if they chose too. Fitzer said you could end up with mixed use next to commercial, but if that was commercial, you would have two commercials there. Not sure how the town is planning in Eatonville. It is possible that the old mill property could go back to commercial. Nick said yes, that is possible. It would have to go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation and then would have to be rezoned. All the previous work that has been done in the town, it has been identified that whatever occurs here, it should be a mix of uses that includes residential and commercial. We have implemented a regulation specifically for this property. Fitzer asked if the old mill property turned into commercial, then you would still want mixed use on the property we are talking about. Nick said that that is what is in the Comprehensive Plan, is that you would want commercial on the highway, but he does not feel that the Comprehensive Plan suggests that you only want only commercial on the southern part of this property. Harrison Christain- it has been mentioned outside grocery chains coming to Eatonville, but it has been his experience that change happens when you work and make it happen. For him it has been like this all of his life or he is broke. He has discussed this concept with our local grocery store people, and his choice would be to have them be able to compete better through a new facility and that is where his infuses and interest in this lies. ("I've discussed this with our local grocery store people and my choice would be to have them be able to compete better through a new facility, and that's where my emphasis and interest lies.") His arguments to support this changing of the land use designation is it enables him to build a major grocery store at the site. The mixed use it has to be 60% residential ???? he thinks. He has to deal with reality, to think about something happening out at Barney’s Corner or in Ohop Valley, it seems to him it’s a long ways away. He has 10 acres of previously zoned commercial land In the Town of Eatonville, with sewer and water and everything right there by it. He has to be a realist and that is what would serve Eatonville the best in his opinion. There is no other parcel of land zoned commercial other than in Ohop Valley. There are no utility services in the Ohop Valley and most likely will not be for a long time to come. To locate a major store in Eatonville with adequate parking even LeMay’s property would not be adequate. A major grocery store would create more jobs, more revenue and stop a flow of money going to Graham or Tacoma now. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan shows his land as being zoned commercial. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan, Figure 10-3, page 10-21 shows his land as being in new retail use. The consequences of doing nothing or leaving my property a mixed use zoning, there will not be a major grocery store in Eatonville for a long time to come unless the town rezones land west of Eatonville or commercially extend services to Ohop Valley. Its easy for him to see the right size grocery store that would serve Eatonville correctly, but its highly unlikely that the person that does this is going to want to put an apartment house on top of it, or even be able to afford that for the time being. |
