Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082715 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION OF AUGUST 27, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The Port Townsend Planning Commission met in regular session on August 27, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 540 Water Street. Chair Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Kirit Bhansali, Nan Evans, Douglas Frick, Rick Jahnke, Monica Mick-Hager, and Jack Range with Dwight Nicholson excused. Staff members present were Planning Director Lance Bailey, Planning Manager/Senior Planner Judy Surber, and Deputy Clerk Amber Long. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion: Douglas Frick moved to approve acceptance of the agenda. Rick Jahnke seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 22, 2015 AND AUGUST 10, 2015 Motion: Kirit Bhansali moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 2015 and August 10, 2015. Jack Range seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Gray spoke about high-density zoning and the concentration of multi-family zoning in Port Townsend. In response, staff discussed the low rental supply and need to retain high-density zoning; there may be ways to increase density in other areas of the city. The Commission discussed the importance of affordable housing as an issue in the community. NEW BUSINESS - NONE OLD BUSINESS Discussion of the Planning Commission Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan (per PTMC 20.04.050) A question was raised about Evaluation Criteria 1 (p. 11), whether the Planning Commission must address why the growth and development envisioned in the Plan is (or Planning Commission Meeting August 27, 2015 Page 1 of 3 is not) "failing to materialize." In response, staff clarified that a discussion of why is optional. Evaluation Criteria come from the City's municipal code, not from the GMA. The Commission reviewed the preliminary findings and recommendations for each evaluation criteria and had the following comments: Evaluation Criteria 1 (p. 15) - The Commission generally agreed that#1 and #2 are accurate. Regarding #3, it is important to look at the Office of Financial Management's population projections every year, because a lot of people moving here and the statistics may not be up to date. There was general agreement that#4 & #5 do a good job of expressing the Commission's view. Evaluation Criteria 2 (p. 18) - The next draft will incorporate some additions regarding capital development. It was suggested that the first paragraph under Findings and Recommendations be turned into finding #1. It was generally agreed that this section reflects the Commission's understanding of the need to look at resiliency issues. Staff suggested clarifying the term "policy" in #2 (which will become #3 in the next draft). It was suggested that the sentence be changed to: "The Commission does suggest modifications to budgetary and financial policies. . ." Preliminary Findings and Recommendations will be divided into two sections: (1) Findings, and (2) Preliminary Recommendations. Evaluation Criteria 3 (p. 20) - Staff suggested adding a generalized statement to this section that discusses approaching housing diversity from a zoning perspective, allowing flexibility to mix up zoning types. Evaluation Criteria 4 (p. 24) - In response to a question, staff recommended adding a reference to the Cascadia memo in #2. It was suggested that a reference to the continuing validity of the Comprehensive Plan's mission statement be added here (it is also mentioned in Evaluation Criteria 5). Discussion ensued about the "basic assumptions" on page 22. It was generally agreed to leave the 1996 assumptions as they are and clearly labeled as such, but with a paragraph at the end describing modifications for 2016. There was also a discussion of the change in tax structure since 1996. Evaluation Criteria 5 (p. 27-28) - It was suggested that "environmentally diverse community" in #1 be changed to "a community that values its environmental diversity." There was a lengthy discussion about#3 and whether a statement should be added to reflect that the housing affordability goal from 1996 plan has failed (or has not been achieved). There was some disagreement about the terminology. It was generally agreed that affordable housing was recognized as problem in 1996 and is now even more of a problem. Staff discussed funding difficulties for affordable housing--the City has to compete for grants and, due to its population size, does not qualify for entitlement funding. The Commission discussed the interconnectedness of the issues (housing, jobs, schools, transportation, etc.). Evaluation Criteria 6 (p. 29) - Suggestions included: adding a reference to the Cascadia memorandum, which will become an attachment to the assessment; changing the word "aging" in the last sentence under Discussion to "older;" and changing "energy constrained future" to "resource constrained future" in #1 of the findings and recommendations. Planning Commission Meeting August 27, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Evaluation Criteria 7 - The Commission is relying on staff to complete this section regarding inconsistencies between the Plan and GMA or Countywide Planning Policy. The Commission discussed the Executive Summary on pages 2-5. Suggestions included: - add recommendation to encourage funding of planning efforts - remove the first "is" from the second sentence of page 4 - add a reference to the discussion about "barriers" that occurred during the workgroups - add a statement about the need to work on all elements and how all are interconnected - describe the numbered items on page 5 as key issues that have been identified through the Planning Commission assessment of Comprehensive Plan and input received to date and which warrant Comprehensive Plan/development regulation changes - add resiliency as a fourth key issue on page 5 There was a discussion about bookmarking for future work and whether to include specific dates in the last sentence of page 4. Staff suggested adding a statement to indicate that this document is intended to inform not only the 2016 update process, but also to inform priorities for future Comprehensive Plan annual amendments. There was a discussion about mentioning Glen Cove in the Comprehensive Plan. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE UPCOMING MEETINGS The Commission reviewed the upcoming meetings schedule. The public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 8th, and the Commission would like to finalized its assessment at the September 10th meeting. COMMUNICATIONS There was no discussion of the public comment report included in the packet. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Motion: Kirit Bhansali moved to adjourn the meeting. Douglas Frick seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. Attest: _ •-'` t v. -c. Planning Commission Ch it a City Clerk's Office Planning Commission Meeting August 27, 2015 Page 3 of 3