HomeMy WebLinkAbout032708CITY OF PORT'FOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2008 7:00 PM
CITY HALL ANNEX -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
Meeting Materials:
EXH 1 Planting Commission Meeting Agenda -March 27, 2008
EXH 2 R. Sepler, Staff memo, Draft Sign Code Materials, March 21, 2008
EXH 3 Drag revisions to Chapter 17.76 PTMC (Sign Code), March 20, 2008
EXH 4 Comparison matrix -Small Community Sign Codes, March 27, 2008
EXH 5 Drafr Kiosk Program Standards, March 19, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jeny Fry, Bill
LeMaster, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray, George Un[erseher
Excused: Harriet Capron
Staff: Rick Sepler, Platning Director
Guests: Owen Fairbanks and Sarah Spaeth, Jefferson Land Trust
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Following a suggestion from the Chair, Kristen Nelson moved to change the order of topics to
allow New Business, Quimper Wildlife Corridor, to be placed at the top of the agenda. 1'he
motion was seconded and approved, all in favor.
IV. APPROVAL OF M1NU"1'ES
Approval of Minutes: February 28, 2008
Bill LeMasder moved to approve the minutes, as written; Jerry h'ry seconded- The Planning
Commission minutes ofFebruarv 28, 2008 were approved, as written, a71 in favor.
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None
P/arming Commission Page 1 of 10 March Z7, 2008
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Discussion: Quimper Wildlife Corridor Habitat Plan
Kick Sepler introduced Owen Fairbanks, representing the Jefferson Land Trust. (Sarah Spaeth, also
representing the Land Trust, joined the meeting at 7:07 PM.)
Mr. Sepler, referring to maps of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor, provided background on this project. The
Land Trust, in conjunction with the City and County, has been looking to establish protections over an
area characterized by wetlands, flood plain and undeveloped areas that mn, roughly, south of Bell Street
and out past City limits to eventually join, to some degree, with Fort Worden and Chinese Gardens. The
program has been of mutual support and fairly successful. The City and County have protected properties
over time with grants and funds raised, through either outright ownership or conservation easements.
The City's interest is that this is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as containing numerous sensitive
areas as well as platted lots. It is often in the City's interest to extinguish development rights rather than
face "reasonable use" exception for those lands. This proactive approach allows preservation of open
space and habitat values.
He said that although the City has been long supportive, no official designation of the area occurs other
than on the Comp Plan land use map, which shows it as an Open Space Comdor. In the past, the band
Trust has worked with the Council to prepare grant applications to purchase lands, with subsequent
establishment of conservation and transfer of ownership.
Mr. Sepler said there is somewhat a sense of urgency which is related to a funding source, RCO
(Recreation Conservation Office). This was formerly known as IAC (hrterageney Committee for Outdoor
Recreation). Locally. H. J. Carroll Yark was a recipient of an ]AC grant, and such grants have been
received for trail development and playgrounds, etc. However, in order to receive funding, there must be
compliance with their adoptive planning requirements: a park plan that is current and supported by other
plans.
The application date for this two year cycle is May 1. Unfortunately, the City's park plan is deficient and
therefore the City will not be able to apply for RCO funding. This was not realized until about 45 to 60
days ago. Therefore, funds could not be used for active recreation, trail enhancement or the like.
However, a Habitat Plan could qualify for a separate funding mechanism from RCO, for urban habitat
enhancement Consistent with its long standing interest to preserve this corridor, the City intends to work
with the Land "Trust to acquire these ]ands. The Land Trust would prepare the grant on behalf of the City;
the City would submit it. ]f awarded, the Land Trust would fund raise to develop the match and purchase
the land. He noted the long standing partnership between the City and the Land Trust in these types of
activities.
Rick Sepler discussed the management plan that had been developed by the Land Trust two or three years
ago. If the management plan were adopted, it would qualify as a Habitai Plan and would allow
application for RCO funding. He said, however, that it is very specific and its adoption only pertains to
lands that are owned by the City within the corridor, or by the Land Trust, or that are subject to a Land
Trust conservation easement.
In essence, the plan would not apply to land otherwise owned within the corridor It is narrowly construed
to apply to things the City or Land "frust controls, and indicates how they should be managed over time.
Should there be a large subdivision developed, it could be used as a reference, but it would not prevent
development of privately owned parcels. The hope is to move forward quickly for adoption by City
Council, followed by application to RCO to fully implement. He noted that the environmental review on
Planning Commission Page Z of 10 March Z7, 2008
the draft plan had been done. After some fine tuning on the draft plan, it will be brought before the
Planning Commission and public hearing.
[Sarah Spaeth, Jefferson Land'frust, joined the meeting at this point.]
Mr. Sepler then invited the Commissioners to ask questions of himself, Sarah Spaeth or Owen Fairbanks.
Chair Emery requested an explanation of the map color coding, which was provided in detail by Sarah
Spaeth. She explained that the overall goal of the project was to connect seven major habitat areas, which
included public and private lands that were protected through private covenants or conservation easements
with the Land Trust On the map light green represents public ownership (State DNR, City of Port
Townsend, County Fairgrounds, and Chinese Gardens State Park). A color coded tiering structure, in
blue, was developed by the Land Trust to indicate most critical properties to acquire (dark blue), second
tier (medium blue), and education to landowners (light blue). Light green with hatching indicates
privately owned property that is protected either through covenants or conservation easements. Hatching
indicates perrnanent protection; the City s Levinsky property shows a hatched area; the long term
disposition of [he remainder of the property has not been determined.
George Unterseher asked if the ] 0 foot wildlife tract along the western boundary of Tree House is part of
this Quimper Wildlife Corridor Sarah Spaeth said it was not.
There was a brief discussion about the history of this Land Trust project and the partnership of the City
and the land Trust over the last li years. There have been several grants from this granting agency for
purchase of storm water properties. Rick Sepler noted that this is the only area where the Comp Plan open
space goals have been actualized to any degree. He said There has been a conscious effort over time to
mosaic properties together to achieve it.
In response to a question, Mr. Sepler clarified the process for the Planning Commission. He said copies of
a master Habitat Plan would be provided, a hearing would be scheduled within two weeks, and then the
Planning Commission would consider recommending adoption of the Plan by the City.
Jerry Fry noted that about 15 to 20% of the platted land in the corridor is streets; he asked about the status
of the streets in khe plan. Rick Sepler said that a street cannot be extinguished as a street until there is
certainty that this is no need for access.
Bill LeMaster requested an explanation of any issues that might be raised by a private property owner, i.e.
what could be seen as the other side of this issue? Mr. Sepler said that the question would be raised as to
whether the City would prevent private land owners from developing parcels in the corridor; however, he
said it would not prevent development. It also does not require that a landowner must sell to the City.
The management plan does not call for eminent domain to take designated properties. There is also no
action of City Council regarding land condemnation. There may also be concerns about extinguishing
streets, but that may not be done.
Rick Sepler asked Sarah Spaeth to name any other concerns she has encountered from property owners,
She confirmed that fears about prohibiting development were primary. She said that the reason the
acquisition tact is being taken here is because the lots are so small and there is a desire to create a green
belt. There is no space for both development and protection to happen on the same property. Owen
Fairbanks added that this plan would not change the legal opportunities or restrictions on any piece of
property; it is voluntary and suggested only. Mr. Sepler said that people would be told the constraints of
development: located in a flood plain; likely in a critical area and subject to the CAO; reasonable use
provisions in many cases. Mr. Ray added that property values actually increase for properties within this
area. Mr. LeMaster noted that some tax dollars are lost. Mr Sepler agreed but indicated the amount lost
was not significant and is likely to be offset by the cumulative increase to surrounding properties.
Planning Commrssion Page 3 of 10 March Z7, Z008
Mr. Emery asked about coordination with the County, if any. Mr. Sepler showed on the map where the
monies could be used. Sarah Spaeth said the grant would allow the funds [o be applied outside the City,
but said the intention was to apply them within the City limits. The urban wildlife habitat grant through
the RCO is available for cities and counties; the projects need to be within a 5 mile radius of an Urban
Growth Area. Mr. Emery clarified his question: do the County maps match the City maps. The answer
was affirmative.
Sarah Spaeth explained that at the outset, the plan and boundaries had been broad brush, of necessity, but
had been re&ned along the way. It was noted that the boundaries generally follow the drainage basin
contours. Owen Fairbanks added that under the terms of the grant, any property purchased would be a[ a
value determined by a certified appraisal.
Bill LeMaster asked about the amount of funding sought. Sarah Spaeth said that the sum of $500.000
would be a reasonable request. Normally, the amount would be based on the value of a specific property.
In this case, the intention is to acquire more than one property, preferably both Tier 1 and Tier 2. The
amount depends on what is realistic in being able to acquire the top tier and what is realistic in being able
to raise the match money. The Land Tmst had raised close to $1,000,000 for this project. not including
donations of property, from community fund-raising, US DFW funding, North American Wildlife
Conservation federal funding, and Conservation Futures funding. That is not including the funds that
have come directly to the City for the city acquisitions.
The Commissioners confirmed their agreement with the plan and process. Rick Sepler said he would
schedule the hearing for two weeks hence.
[Owen Fairbanks and Sarah Spaeth left the meeting at this point.]
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
lliseussion: Proposed Sign Code Revisions
Recalling earlier work on the Sign Code in December 2007, Rick Sepler recalled the request from [he
Planning Commission for a survey of other similar communities regarding signage.
Mr. LeMaster asked what characteristics were common to these communities: Port Townsend, Ojai,
Solvang, and Carmel Mr. Sepler listed "tourist oriented destination'; `'older populations"; and possibly
"national historic district'. Mr. LeMaster asked if the affordability indices, incomes, and property values
were comparable. Several commissioners said they believed all would be higher than here, i.e. less
affordable. Mr. LeMaster asked for a show of hands as to which commissioners had visited am• or all of
these cities. Most of the commissioners had visited two or three of these cities (in addition to Port
"Townsend).
Mr. Sepler recalled that Commissioners had requested infonna[ion about how signage is handled in other
communities. What is standardized? What is allowed? Secondly, are the current regulations out of step
with other communities that have more fully perfected their signage regulations?
Bill LeMaster said he would first like [o discuss the relevancy of the three connnunities as models for Port
Townsend, considering our vision and goals. He said he would give a "down'' to Carmel and Solvang,
and an "up" to Ojai in terms of relevancy. Kristen Nelson noted that Ojai is the most restrictive of the
tluee. George Unterseher said that that possibly some Fast Coast cities should be added for comparison.
He noted Marblehead, for example, and said that i[ was far more restrictive.
P/arming Commission Page 4 of 10 March 27, 2008
Julian Ray said that he could also think of other cities as well, but in general all good examples seem to
more restrictive; Port Townsend is more easy going. For example, in some cities, font type and size are
regulated and there is generally more standardization.
Jerry Fry said that the intent was not to say this town is like these examples. He said there are other west
coast cities that have developed sign restrictions and we should see if there are any ideas or language we
can borrow. It was confirmed that these are all cities in their own right (with downtowns), not suburbs or
bedroom communities of larger cities. It was agreed that the comparison matrix was helpful and
commissioners thanked staff for providing i[. Suzanne Wassmer added that every two years the city of
Solvang reviews permitted signs to see if signage is still in keeping with intended direction.
Rick Sepler discussed the Kiosk program and handout, Informational Kiosk Program, dated March 19. In
terms of process, the code should include something in the code to allow kiosks to be done before Council
directs particular bodies to develop standards and program. The handout is an updated draft operational
plan to provide the Commission with the current state of the program, as reviewed by the HPC and Main
Street. Should it be enabled the next step is to build a mock up of wood, demonstrating size and scale.
He said Council would not act on recommendations for the program unless they have something that is
going to be adoptive, coneurrently_
Chair Emery asked what remained for the Planning Commission to address. Mr. Sepler said he would be
happy to convey Commissioners- input, but the design palette would be between Main Street and HPC.
The question before the Planning Commission is whether or not it is a good idea to have kiosks. If so,
there is provision in the sign code specifically referring to it. He said that since this was a workshop, all
that is needed is agreement to proceed.
Kristen Nelson said she was abstaining. George Unterseher noted that he was in favor of the concepts but
may have questions about details. Rick Sepler suggested attendance at the joint meeting and would make
certain he was invited. Bill LeMaster asked if the approval of the kiosk program concept is independent
of the major content of the sign ordinance itself He was referred to page 14, item K, Kiosks. Mr. Sepler
said that this, basically, gives the go ahead to City Council if they wish to act on it.
Julian Ray asked why Ms. Nelson was abstaining. She said that while she likes the idea, the challenge is
the design. She said every example she had seen looks cheap, tacky and intrusive. Drawings or models
typically do not show exactly how a sign for a particular business will appear. She said it is necessary to
sce exactly where it would be placed, how large it is and what purpose it will actually serve. She noted
the sketch of the wrought iron design kiosk, asking if there would be arrows or some effective indicator of
how to find the particular businesses listed. Would this allow a business to eliminate its sandwich board
sign? How is this approach better than the sandwich board signs?
Mr. Emery said the difference is that people happen upon a sandwich board sign, but can be directed via a
kiosk. He pointed out [hat the kiosk will have a map and index of the downtown (or uptown) area.
There was further discussion about the difficulty of approving the concept independently of the design and
implementation which arc not the purview of the Plamting Commission. Commissioner LeMaster
suggested that the specificities of the Kiosk Program be deferred until after review of the list of proposed
line in Ilne out sign code changes. Mr. Ray asked for clarification on the level of the decision the
Commissioners were being asked to make. Mr. Sepler said that at this point, kiosks seem to be a good
idea and that there is a place for them downtown. It seems a program can be developed with objectives
that can be defined and agreed to by all concerned. Therefore, this is a placeholder in the sign code,
assuming details can be worked out. The program would need to go through significantly more
development before it is ready for City Council.
Planning Commission Page S of 10 March 27, 2008
He added that Main Street is going [o administer it; their design committee is working on it. "Ihe HPC
will ensure that the final location, font, sizes, colors, materials, etc. are appropriate.
George Unterseher added his plea that the functionality is key, above all else; it is essential to define the
purposes, i.e. what these kiosks are intended to do. If it is functional, it will be good looking and it will
benefit everyone: citizens, visitors and businesses. He said clarity is needed on whether [hey are intended
to direct, inform, or restrict. Another Corrunissioner suggested said the intention was to induce
establishments with legal sandwich board signs to replace them.
Rick Sepler again stated that Main Street and HPC have not yet developed the ideas to that level of
granularity, but would do so before the issue is heard by City Council.
Kristen Nelson offered an example of Signage implementation confusion. Citing her experience as a
Washington Street business owner, she noted the long standing problem of directing/attracting people to
that street. She said Main Street had done an amazing j ob of designing and steering a sign through
permitting and all committees. However, it was erected behind the stairs on Tyler Street, not a highly
visible place.
Mr. Sepler walked Commissioners through the line in/line out changes, providing rationale and linkages [o
other sections of the code.
Pages 1 - 3; no comments or changes
Page 5: Comrrilssioner Nelson questioned the use of the term "Consolidated Signage". She said that
term means to her a multiplex of signs all put together in one location. However, the definition given
indicates this is a structure with temporary changeable copy/inserts. "Changeable Insert Signage" was
offered by staff as an alternative and accepted.
Page 6, line 15: Commissioner Emery suggested that color changing signs be mentioned. GU suggested
the use of the term "kinetic sign`. Mr. Emery said there could be confusion between illumination LEDs
versus text or array LEDS, so each should be specified where applicable.
There was further discussion about whether wattage should be replaced with ]omen equivalents at the sign
face. Mr. Emery said it may be well to see what the lumen equivalent of an LED light is. Mr. Sepler said
he did not think the technology was available to measure the effect, rather than the source. Mr. Ray said
that rather inexpensive meters are available, such as photographic meters. Mr. Sepler said staff would
research the best measurement techniques and come back with a suggestion for a standazd.
Line 31: GU questioned the channel lighting reference. He said a channel ]it sign is an individual
letter that has a hollow back and edges on it that has neon inside. It reflects back against a wall to give a
halo effect, unless it has a transparent face, in which case it is both. Suzanne Wassmer cited "1, 2, 3 7 hai"
as a possible example. Mr. Sepler noted that this was just intended to be a clarification to the old code that
these are considered to be illuminated signs and must conform to the regulations for them.
Line 44-46: Mr_ LeMaster questioned why the Kiosk Program should not be allowed in the
Howard Street M/U area or city-wide? Jerry Fry pointed out kiosks are pedestrian oriented; other
pedestrian areas are not yet implemented. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that when the Howard
Street M/U overlay is brought back to for consideration, sign code modifications will also be considered.
The Boat Maven area was also considered. Mr. Sepler then suggested that the test. be modified to say "...
Uptown and llowntown Historic Districts and other areas as identified by City Council", which was
agreed by all.
Page 7, line 41: Kristen Nelson questioned the readability of this definition; Mr. Sepler said staff would
determine if there is a need for the definition and modify if necessary. It was noted that this is related to
`'Snipe sign", which is also in the definitions list.
P/arming Commission Page 6 of 10 March 17, 2008
Page 8, line 1: Typographical error: "mailing" should be "nailing"
Page 9, line 19-22: Add "Snipe signs are prohibited: ' on line 22.
Line 32: Bill LeMaster asked a general question about which is considered the primary street
when a building such as Provisions is located on a corner of two streets. Mr. Sepler said there is a choice,
and would likely be the side with largest frontage.
Yage 1 I : There was a brief discussion about the Rose Theatre sign; no changes to the text.
Line 9: GU asked to clarify externally illuminated projecting signs. He said that if a sign has a
translucent base and the external illumination is behind i[, does this constitute an external or internal
illumination?
Line 32: Kristen Nelson noted the lack of distinction between portable signs and sandwich board
signs. She asked for an example of a portable sign that is not a sandwich board sign. Real estate and
construction signs are covered elsewhere in the document. Portable signs were described as °` not
permanently installed". There was no change to the text.
Line 38: Kristen Nelson reiterated the decision from the previous meeting in the case of multiple
businesses on an upper floor: For each floor, all businesses must share one sandwich board sign" An
additional change was to specify "not on street level" instead of"above the first floor", to accommodate
sub-street levels. There was also verification that there would be one sign for multiple businesses not on
street level in the same building. Mr. Sepler said he would amend accordingly, per the minutes from the
earlier meeting.
There was further discussion to clarify all the differences between the new and old code. Mr. Sepler
suggested that the purpose and intent of sandwich board signs: to help identify those businesses not at
street level or on perpendicular or parallel streets within the historic district. The intent is not to provide
another form of advertising for businesses on Water or Lawrence Streets.
Page 13, lines I 1-28 (box): There was a brief discussion about how many sandwich boards should be
allowed per building. Commissioners decided that there should be one sign per entrance, and any issues
should be resolved by the building owner. h was pointed out that a permit would be required for amulti-
tenant occupancy. Rick Sepler said that the sign permit form could identify buildings with multi-tenant
occupancy.
Page 1 S, tines S-7: Suzanne Wassmer asked if this should apply to home occupations. It was agreed that
some clarification should be added. [Most of the three simultaneous conversations were inaudible.] Rick
Sepler said that a section would be added indicating that [his item does not pertain to Home Occupations.
The relationship of lines I to 4 to Home Occupation was also discussed. Julian Ray summarized the issue,
noting that commercial enterprises were quite different than home occupations and it is appropriate to
apply different signage regulations to each. Tourist homes, which are also technically home occupations,
were also discussed briefly, but signage rules were not changed.
Bill LeMaster argued for more flexibility for home occupations. After further discussion, Rick Sepler
noted that there would be a hearing on home occupations in the near tuture, and Cotnmissioner could
revisit signage, if desired, at that time.
Page I6, lines 17-21: Jerry Fry asked for clarification regarding the total signage allowed, i.e. 32 square
feet for each of two signs or 32 square feet total?' (See also line 24-27) Mr. Sepler said he would see that
the language was clarified: "two signs not to exceed a total of 32 square feet'°.
Planning Commission Page 7 of 10 March 27, 2008
Page 17, line I-6: There was confusion about the meaning of vehicle canopy. Kristen Nelson explained
that this is a covered drive through or overhead canopy such as found in gas stations.
Page 19, line 22: Kristen Nelson requested that the language be simplified in consideration of the rules for
maximum sign height. Mr. Sepler said he would modify the text accordingly.
Page 19, lines 27-30: George Unterseher asked for clarification on internally illuminated versus externally
illuminated signs: Would the new hospital signs would be not be approved. Mr. Sepler said that
externally illuminated signs are encouraged; they are not prohibited Mr. Unterseher said that internally
illuminated signs were more readable, but not necessarily brighter. Mr. Sepler explained the rationale for
encouragement of externally illuminated signs in the code. There were no additional changes in this
section.
Commissioner Nelson said she had never found the section dealing with such events as Shakespeare in the
Park. She said that nothing in the temporary sign regulations makes sense. Several commissioners
recalled drat that certain protocols had been worked out in previous meetings for these situations.
Page 22, lines 1-2: There was a discussion about what can should be regulated. Mr. Sepler said that
temporary signs advertising upcoming events are permitted provided they are removed within 30 days or
within one week of the end of the event.
Page 22, lines 6-7: Kristen Nelson suggestion of calendar year was accepted
Page 22, lines 8-12: Several Commissioners noted that pizza delivery vehicles would be in violation of
this existing regulation. However, there were no changes approved.
Page 23, line 13: Rick Sepler said that vehicle signage where the intent is to park in front of the business
is prohibited.
Page 25, lines S-9: Kristen Nelson suggested that the wording should be "sign structure or design". This
was accepted.
Page 26, lines 7-16: Change to line 14 - 16: "The absence of such label affixed or produced by the
applicant shall be evidence...... "'
154:43
George Unterseher asked if the large signs erected by developers on site prior to or during development
were covered in the sign code. Commissioners discussed Construction Signage, page 21 and considered
how to determine if such a sign is commercial, real estate, or construction. It was noted that there seemed
to be trend toward bigger and bigger signs. One question raised was whether a lot in a commercial zone
must have an associated business on site in order to be permitted for a sign.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler suggested that such signs be called project signs; they would need to
have permits. They are for projects yet to be constructed.
Commissioners discussed several current examples: San Juan and F Streets; waterfront behind the Liquor
Store; and Discovery Bay. "fhey also questioned whether there was a distinction needed behveen
commnercial and project signs. Or should these be considered real estate signs? Julian Ray suggested that
staff do some research on the occurrences and options for handling them.
Rick Sepler reviewed the issues: Are such signs appropriate? When are they appropriate? What are the
size parameters? How long may they be displayed?
Planning Commission Page 8 of 10 March 27, 2008
Kristen Nelson said that perhaps they could fit into the category of an outdoor business, without a
building. She said that would limit the square feet; otherwise they would have one square foot for every
lineal foot of primary street frontage of the principal building.
Mr. Emery asked if they should be regulated in accordance with the zoning district in which they are
located -smaller signs in residential than in commercial, for example.
Rick Sepler said staff would prepare some additional materials for the hearing.
Page 25-31: No further changes.
Mr. Sepler said he would make changes to [he draft and have it ready for the next meeting. The hearing
will be scheduled for April 24. If additional meetings and/or hearings are needed, they can be arranged.
The SEPA will be initiated; the hearing can be conducted while SEPA is pending.
Discussion: Mid-Cycle Assessment Process and Town Meetings
Town Meeting 1I will beheld on April 17 at the balloon hanger. The draft agenda begins with questions
to determine people's preconceived notions are on services. David Timmons will then walk through the
financial facts and aspects, explaining allocations and restrictions on various funds. Por example, 66% of
the budget is fixed by law, and only 33% is discretionary. The large body will then break into groups for
facilitated discussion, followed by polling. It is not yet clear whether additional polling devices will be
available.
There will be one more meeting in the series to discuss jobs, housing and economic issues. Afrer that, the
results of the Town Meetings will be considered and appropriate revisions will be crafted for the Comp
Plan and development regulations. The intent was no[ [o change the whole plan, but rather to fine tune the
strategies.
Steve Emery said he had attended the most recent HAI'N meeting, and believed there may be a proposal to
have an emergency housing declaration finalized by both City Council and the Jefferson BOCC soon. He
said that HAPN had decided not to request a levy at this time. The majority of the IIAPN group seemed
in favor of making a strong call for action at this time.
In summary, the City must balance an extraordinary number of competing demands and insufficient funds.
Bill 1.eMaster asked if staffcould gather better demographics for the community at large versus the
percentage of participants. Rick Sepler said he had mined out the data for Port Townsend and would send
it out the following day.
Additional Updates:
1. Howard Street: A request from the RTPO conveyed that the US Congress is envisioning a stimulus
package for this summer, if the economy does not rebound quickly. There may be a series of public works
type projects, one per county. The RTPO met and selected Upper Sims Way/Howard Street for Jefferson
County. In addition, on April 14, there will be a presentation on an LID formation for Upper Sims Way.
This will countenance a district to provide the funds to construct Howard Street to Discovery, but not an
LID construct Sims Way. There is adequate funding in that district to actually fund the project. Therefore,
this provides significant drive to reopen the rezoning. The SEPA on the realignment will be opened
P/arming Commission Page 9 of 10 March Z7, Z008
shortly. There will also be requests to the County for Transportation Futures funds for the engineering
work in anticipation of receiving the economic stimulus.
2, Ferries: The bids for a new vessel were quite high and seemingly unacceptable. The City now faces a
bad position. The orily reason for the City to have considered the small boat was to save time; if this is
going to cost time, then the City wants the right vessels and insists that the some interim solution.
Alternative solutions such as re-hulling the old vessels have been ruled out.
VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS
April 10, 2008: Public Hearing, Quimper Wildlife Corridor Habitat Plan
and Sign Code Revisions, as possible.
April 17, 2008: Town Meeting lI, Providing Facilities and Services within the City's Financial Resources
Apri] 24, 2008: Public Hearing- Sign Code Revisions
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
In response to a question, Rick Sepler said that the R-III minimum density ordinance had been passed by
City Council.
There was a brief discussion about moving forward with a joint meeting with the county Planning
Cormnission. Rick Sepler said he explore possible dates and agendas.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Julian Ray moved for adjourmnent, Jerry Fry seconded and all were in favor. Chair Emery adjourned the
Pla~ming Commission meeting at 9:18 PM.
~ ~~~
Gail Bernhard, Recorder
Planning Commission Page 10 of 10 March 27, 2008