Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052815CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF MAY 28, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The Port Townsend Planning Commission met in regular session on May 28, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Vice Chair Range called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Kirit Bhansali, Nan Evans, Douglas Frick, Rick Jahnke, and Jack Range with Monica Mick -Hager excused and Dwight Nicholson absent. Staff members present were Planning Manager/Senior Planner Judy Surber, and Deputy Clerk Amber Long. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion: Kirit Bhansali moved to approve acceptance of agenda. Rick Jahnke seconded. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 14, 2015 Dwight Nicholson joined the meeting at 6:34. Motion: Kirit Bhansali moved to approve the minutes of May 14, 2015, with the addition of City Clerk Joanna Sanders to the list of attendees. Nan Evans seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT The Commission encouraged City Council candidates in attendance to introduce themselves. Paul Rice is a candidate for position 6. He has lived in Port Townsend for four years, owns the soon -to -close Pinbar, and is excited to listen, learn, and be part of the process. David Faber is a candidate for position 7. He grew up in Port Townsend, runs a law firm here, and is focused on procedure and what is going to work for people who live here year-round. NEW BUSINESS - NONE Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 1 of 4 OLD BUSINESS Review of "2016 Comprehensive Plan Update - Preliminary Assessment & Work Plan Recommendations" (memo by Eric Toews) Senior Planner/Planning Manager Judy Surber requested that the Planning Commission discuss the assessment memorandum prepared by Eric Toews of Cascadia Community Planning Services in September 2014. The Commission is to put the assessment memorandum into their owns words based on what they know as members of the community and the information provided to date. Commissioner Evans will serve as "scribe" on behalf of the Commission to write up their assessment. In response to a question regarding timeline, Ms. Surber stated the preference would be to have a draft on June 11th. The assessment will not be approved until after the Town Meeting. Ms. Surber provided staffs view of the seven evaluation criteria outlined in the memo: #1 - Staff will check with the County to make sure the tables in the memo show the working numbers. Ms. Surber suggested that the Commission add a statement about whether the information has been finalized by the Board of County Commissioners through the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee process or whether it is still pending. #2 - The Commission could change the introductory language, but staff does not envision many changes to the bullet points. #3 - Staff does not expect many changes. #4 - This section might need some work. On 9/18/14, the Planning Commission reviewed the assumptions and felt they were still valid, except for issues such as second homes, climate change, and potential for climate refugees. #5 - The Commission might want to make additions based on public comment to date, survey results, and input from the Town Meetings and from the workgroup sessions. #6 - The Commissioners need to decide if they agree with the conclusion in the memo. #7 - After the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meets, staff will have updated information for the Commission. In response to a questions: Ms. Surber stated that GMA-mandated updates are met for mixed-use centers; revisiting them would be optional. She stated that the Town Meeting and the joint meeting in July will be the opportunities for Planning Commission and City Council to exchange information. She discussed pros and cons of changing the tentative date for the Town Meeting. Discussion of the Planning Commission Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan (per PTMC 20.04.050) Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 2 of 4 The Commission discussed the evaluation criteria in the September 2014 memo: Evaluation Criteria #1: Commissioners generally agreed that there are large areas of uncertainties and any unforeseen trends are not apparent at this point. Population projections do not address age distribution. The issue is not just the number of people; the mean age in Port Townsend is very high. Staff suggested that the Office of Financial Management's projections be used, but the Commission could note that the figures raise a concern and should be closely monitored. The Comprehensive Plan wanted to keep Port Townsend as a real city with a working waterfront, and there are concerns about the trend toward being a retirement community. Staff answered a question about the City's allocated share of countywide growth. The division has been the same since the 1996 plan. It will be determined when the Joint Committee meets and ultimately adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Evaluation Criteria #2: There was a question about the City's financial capacity now --has it been changing since economic downturn? Staff will obtain information for June 11th meeting. Planning staff will ask Public Works to update the "Parks" section to include Mountain View and Parkside Park. A statement such as "except for street maintenance" could be added to the "Preliminary Conclusions" paragraph. Evaluation Criteria #3: The Commissioners generally agreed that there was no need for further discussion. Evaluation Criteria #4: Staff referred Commissioners to minutes of the 9/18/14 meeting, when the Commission basically agreed with the assumptions of pages II -9 and II -10 of the Comprehensive Plan, but wanted to see some assumptions about climate refugees and second homes. Not all Commissioners agreed with statements in criteria #4 about the 2008 economic downturn and "a societal 'reset' in the coming decades." It was suggested that language ("scholars differ") be built into the section to allow room for debate. Staff suggested that this section is the foundation for the key issue of community resilience. It could be modified to discuss climate change, economic crisis, and reports that foresee fossil fuel shortages. All of these things have not been previously addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, raise concerns, and should spark a dialogue. We cannot predict drastic future changes. The assessment could focus on known climate change challenges, such as water, resiliency, and keeping the Mill open. Evaluation Criteria #5: Staff suggested that this section be discussed further after the Town Meeting and after survey results are available. The statement that there are "no obvious changes" may need to be changed; for example, more people now want non -motorized transportation options. Evaluation Criteria #6: This section might be a place to discuss affordable housing and changing demographics in community. Resiliency issues were not something people thought about 20 years ago. Staff suggested that a lack of change may prompt the Commission to revisit issues such as the mixed - Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 3 of 4 use centers that never came to fruition. The Commission will need to decide whether this is the voice it wants for this particular section. It was suggested that the Commission focus on issues, such as zoning, that it can affect. The issues that the Commission cannot affect should be noted as things to be aware of and watched over the next 20 years. The Commission can craft a narrative about the community, but a narrative about the world is a big order. Some issues that could be considered in this section are: ADUs not being used as anticipated, more second homes being built, high property values of second homes affecting school funding. This section may be the place to talk about the growing economic gap. Staff suggested including language that, although Port Townsend can accommodate its projected population growth, local issues of concern (such as affordable housing, second homes, etc.) deserve attention. It is not a GMA update, but instead a local issue of concern to be addressed and prioritized in the work plan. Evaluation Criteria #7: For June 11th, staff will bring some language to insert in this section. Like population projections, it is up to the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. The Commission could include a caveat that it is still pending. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE UPCOMING MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting is June 11, 2015. COMMUNICATIONS - NONE ADJOURNMENT Motion: Douglas Frick moved to approve adjournment Kirit Bhansali seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m. Attest: City Clerk's Office Planning CqTffiission Chair Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2015 Page 4 of 4