Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010809CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Thursday, January 8, 2009 Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, January 8, 2008 (revised) EXH 2 R. Sepler, Staff Memo: Recommendations on Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan/Development Regulations, December 16, 2009 EXH 3 Draft Mid-Cycle Assessment of Work, Topic Area Worksheets, revised November 18, 2008 EXH A Map showing San Juan and F Streets EXH B Map showing proposed Howard Street Overlay I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. IL ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mick-Hager, Kristen Nelson; Julian Ray Ill. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Emery noted the revised agenda, with Election of Officers added to the end of the agenda. Commissioner LeMaster stated his preference that the election be postponed to allow time for discussion. Mx Ray and Mr. Fry moved for acceptance of the agenda. Mr. Sepler advised that a request can be made to continue, data specific, the agenda item at that point in the meeting. The agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. 1V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of November 13, 2008 - %risten Nelson moved to approve, as written, and Julian Ray seconded The minutes of November 13, 2008 were approved, as written, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mid-Cycle Assessment -Public Hearing (Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Ms. Surber noted that the City is required by the State to do a seven year update on the Comprehensive Plan. The City also does a mid cycle assessment; this hearing is part of that process. She noted the process had been delayed due to the ferry situation and staffing. She referred to the procedures that are set forth in chapter 20.04 of the Municipal Cade that direct the Planning Commission to conduct a mid cycle assessment. It starts by looking at seven criteria P/arming Commission Page 1 of 9 January 8, 2009 on whether circumstances have changed; it is a time to step back and see whether or not the community's attitudes and values have changed and whether conditions have changed. For example, if we had a major new business come to town or close down, that would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission did conduct that mid cycle assessment in December and prepared a report that was given to the City Council outlining the situation. By and large, the plan is consistent with the GMA. There are a few things we would like to refine about the Comprehensive Plan regarding new issues, such as affordable housing and climate change. The Planning Commission had determined that light industrial and mixed use centers are not seeing as much development as desired. What are the barriers to that? For light industrial it is a lack of land that is not encumbered by critical areas. For the mixed use centers we had the issues of readiness and of funding sources being available. That possible list was sent to the City Council which directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and to forward their recommendations to City Council, which will help coordinate the work plan for this 2009 calendar year. Of the list that was developed, many of them were generated by the Planning Commission, some were generated at the town meeting and some were generated through the work of the Housing Action Planning Network committee. The Planning Director has made a recommendation which was distributed earlier. His determination was based on the highest priority items, as well as resource availability. That is, what can be realistically accomplished with available staffing? Afrer determining the time commitment to get these things done, the director's recommendation included a combination of one high priority, two that are medium priority, and several that are low priority, which should be doable in 2009. She noted that there are other items listed as high priority that would be wonderful to bring forward should there be time or additional staff available. The items recommended by the director for docketing in 2009 include a rezone and creation of an overlay district for the Howard Street Corridor. She said that Planning Commissioners may recall that this was an issue back in 2007, but it wasn't ready to go forward. Ms. Surber referred to Exh. B, the color graphic showing Howard Street behveen Discovery and Sims Way. This is an area, in conjunction with Sims Way improvements, that is ripe for development. If the City were to focus on this area and infrastructure be provided, guidelines would be developed to encourage appropriate future development, i.e. more commercial and mixed use development and more family development, providing economic stimulus as well as higher densities/affordable housing. The contingency plan for mill closure is item two. The paper mill, like many other industries, is suffering from the economic downturn. Although none of us would like to think the mill will close, and the community is behind them and supporting them, it is prudent to plan in case the mill should close, as is done for earthquakes and other possible emergencies Ms. Surber noted that there is no proposal at this point in time of a land use scenario or an annexation scenario or anything of that nature. This is simply having a procedure in place that would allow immediate action and movement toward a resolution should that occur. Ms. Surber referred to the color graphic, Exh. A She noted that in the last comprehensive plan update, there had been focus on the intersection of F and San Juan Streets. Two properties along this intersection were zoned for mixed use: one acre on the Nomura property and the block across the street owned by Carol Wise. In that process, the residential properties owned by Nomura were also considered for rezone. However, during Planning Commission and City Council considerations, concerns were raised about having mixed use at the intersection surrounded by R- II and then R-III, a higher density and then back down to R-II. This seemed to be a concern for the residents already living in R-II, who don't want to see that higher density right up against their back yards. A suggestion. to reconfigure the zoning will be considered. This has been Planning Commission Page 2 of 9 January 8, 1009 conveyed to Terry Nomura, who is aware that this will be discussed this evening and is supportive. Item 4 deals with ensuring adequate policy base for reduction of green house gas emissions. Ms. Surber noted this is a lower level effort. Both the City and the County have adopted a resolution targeting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. reduction to 80% of 1990 levels by the year 2050; a joint committee is working on an action plan. However, there is no real reference to green house gas emissions in the Comprehensive Plan. The idea is to put a placeholder in now to recognize the effort and commitment; once the entire process is completed, it is likely that more policy and development regulation amendments would be proposed. Item 5, Housing action plan and HAPN Policy. The Comprehensive Plan currently refers to the need for a housing assessment, which was done in 2006. The Housing Action Plan was jointly adopted by the BOCC and the City Council. A joint committee, the Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN), has been formed to implement the ideas set forth in the plan. The intention here is to update the Comprehensive Plan, recognizing what has been completed, update the data, and in a few areas refine some of the policies. Item 6, Public private partnerships and public development authorities. This is a tool ofren discussed as a way to help with affordable housing, the Mountain View property strategy and the Post Office property. Although it is listed as a potential strategy in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not listed in the policy. This would clarify that that this is a tool that the City is likely to use in the future. Phase II encompasses those items that would be added to the work plan as resources become available. Item 7, Evaluate the applicability of alternative housing Types. One such housing type is single room occupancy, which could be quite helpful in our housing goals. At present, the Comprehensive Plan encourages a variety of housing types. Although there are sections of the development regulations that address multi family development and associated parking standards, if you're doing single room occupancy you probably can't affordably meet those standards. We would be looking at ways to see if that is an appropriate type of housing for the community and developing associated code. Item 8, Bonus density/work force housing. Stemming from the Action Plan, there are policies that should be clarified. Although bonus densities are mentioned as a strategy in the comprehensive plan, per the development regulations, bonus densities are allowed only for a PUD. Item 9, Economic Development (original items 1,2, and 4 combined). This is to evaluate the need for additional light industrial, and looking towards Glen Cove as a possible area of annexation. If we were to make such an effort, we would also suggest looking at the recently acquired 8 acre DNR property that lays on the city limits. This would be a very high level of effort, hence its placement in phase two instead of phase one. Questions from the Planning Commission Commissioner LeMaster thanked staff for their effort in determining their recommendations. He inquired as to the process of selecting items to be included on the list and in estimating the resources required. Mr. Sepler explained that this list would likely require all available resources and did not actually allow reserve capacity for any unanticipated issues that may arise. Ms. Mick-Hager inquired as to how such a situation would be dealt with. Mr. Sepler said that in that event City Council would prioritize. Mr. LeMaster noted that any sense of likely "payback" on Planning Commission Page 3 of 9 January 8, 2009 these items for the community was missing from the analysis. Mr. Sepler said that the list of recommendations represented staff's best professional opinion, that long and short term benefits to the community had been considered, tempered by the reality of resources required. He explained the rationale for differentiating between Phase 1 and Phase 2 for projects. Mr. LeMaster indicated that he was looking forward to discussion with other Planning Commission members about the list. Ms. Nelson suggested. an item by item discussion. Mr. Sepler reviewed the public hearing process. After any clarifying questions from the Planning Commission, any public comments should be heard, followed by discussion of the Planning Commission. Public Comments David Goldman, Port Townsend, observed that the list is policy driven, not planning driven. He suggested, with regard to item 4, that "anti-pollution" efforts be incorporated with an equal weight to green house gas emissions. He said that the scientific support for green house gas being a cause for global warming has basically disappeared, but anti-polluton will always be beneficial. He also referred to the bonus density issue in Phase 2. He said that for an applicant to qualify far a PUD and get bonus density they have to demonstrate that not only is their PUD superior to what you would get with conventional development, they would have to prove that the community would benefit more than with conventional development. One of the criteria for bonus density is affordable housing, and the definition of affordable housing includes the notion of a diversity of housing. Planning Commission Deliberation Commissioner Nelson asked for clarification on the status of funding and timing for the Howard Street corridor. Mr. Sepler said the Howard Street area between Sims Way and Discovery has never been developed because it is not served by sewer and the additional water needed. The scheme for an LID (local improvement district) had been accelerated two years ago with the prospect of a proponent who then withdrew, and the LID concept was placed on hold. The City is now planning to use utility funds to construct the utilities and is proceeding with the design of water and sewer facilities. Utilities will be paid back by future connections. This is consistent with allowable State law regazding the use of utility funds. He said that the project would be going to bid during the summer of 2009. He also discussed. expectations regarding availability of federal stimulus funding that will be made available to Washington State, with transportation monies disbursed to the RTPOs (Regional Transportation Planning Organizations). The number one project as prioritized by the RTPO for the Olympic region is Upper Sims Way. If this stimulus money is made available, the transportation improvement board dollars would be returned to the State. The resources freed, the balance of the contribution money, would be applied to the construction of Howard Street. The worst case scenario would be that the underground structure would be in place, and the option of incremental extensions at much less cost. He added that the City has been trying to get upper Sims Way done since 1988, and this is as close as the City has come to actually receiving funding on this project and moving it forward. Mr. LeMaster asked for confirmation that the approximately $3,000,000 utility funds could not be used for Howard Street road construction. Mc Sepler confirmed that is the case. There was a brief discussion about process and when the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to discuss this project in depth, should this project be prioritized as the top project by City Council. Ms. Nelson noted that the projects selected by the Planning Commission had been placed in Phase 2. She said she would like to understand why the Howard Street Overlay had replaced items that were voted more important by the Planning Commissioners. Planning Commission Page 4 of 9 January 8, 2009 Ms. Surber mentioned that the straw vote taken at the earlier meeting had shown that there was not a clear consensus on any one project. Mr. Fry asked for clarification on any benefits that may derive from the utilities installation if none of the other funding comes through for streets. He asked if, far example, there would be water pressure improvements in other parts of town or other gains. Mr. Sepler said the worst case scenario, with the water/sewer in place, the area will be developed block by block. He noted that there is virtually no commercial area in Port Townsend that is ready to develop. Ms. Mick-Hager recalled that although the Planning Commissioners had been all over the map on their priorities, they had all been on the same map. She also asked for an explanation of Overlay District. Mr. Sepler said that this is a designation of an area where specific rules apply in addition to the normal rules for that zone. In this case, the additional rules will deal with the intensity of development. For example, it would preclude strip development, which could never be undone. Where you could not disallow strip development in all C-II, in this azea it may be appropriate to set a minimum of two-story building as a requirement. Ms. Mick-Hager asked if the City owns any land in the area under discussion. Mr. Sepler pointed out the intended location of the round-about (blue on the map). Ms. Mick-Hager noted the desirability of designing in locations for parks and other amenities, and considering all possible future uses and aspects. Mr. LeMaster referred back to the minutes of November 13, page 7, noting that the highest score was three votes for addressing the work force housing. He noted that locally grown agriculture had also received two votes, but was not represented in the staff recommendation. He said he would like to refer back to the minutes and notes regarding previous discussions in regards to mixed use, affordable housing, economic development, light manufacturing, etc. He said he was not opposed to Howard Street as an arterial feeder, relief of Upper Sims Way, commercial development. He noted there is very little development in the Business Park currently. He called attention to Glen Cove as an existing industrial base for east Jefferson County. He spoke in favor of annexing that area, citing the possibility of an organic growth model to allow a mixed use environment where there are already existing businesses; he recalled earlier discussions about the Lake Union area in Seattle as an example. He said that if the City and County can overcome obstacles, this would offer a more opportunity fora "mixed use" success than the Howard Street Overlay or San Juan and F Streets. Mr. LeMaster said that the number one priority for the City and County far addressing housing, economic development and actualization of mixed use. Ms. Mick-Hager asked Mc LeMaster if he believed that mixed use implementation at Howard St. or San Juan and F Streets would preclude other such centers; that is, is there opportunity or feasibility for multiple mixed use areas? Mr. LeMaster said he believes Howard Street is an arterial, and that based on his understanding of growth projections, it would be fifreen or twenty years before significant development occurs there, unless the City partners with a developer. Julian Ray sought clarification from Chair Emery on the process for continuing with the list and whether or not there would be indefinite time for discussion, and/or an opportunity for the Planning Commission to make a decision with regard to the list. Chair Emery noted that he personally would defer to staff recommendations, but appreciated Mc LeMaster's comments on Glen Cove and would seek to accommodate that position, if possible. Mr. Sepler noted the Planning Commission needs to make its own priorities, either choosing to adopt the staff recommendation as is, or with additions, deletions or modifications. He advised that the focus of discussion should be identification of items that should be on all lists, and. staff would draft any revisions. Planning Commission Page 5 of 9 January 8, 2009 Mr. Ray said he supported Mr. LeMaster's tenacity with regard to consideration of partnering with the County on Glen Cove. He said he also appreciated the approach of "being at the right place at the right time" to capitalize on likely funding for Howard Street. He suggested that Howard Street could be a model for success or stepping stone for Glen Cove development. Mr. LeMaster cited the existing base of business at Glen Cove. He said he could see Howard Street as a spin off of a different nature of Glen Cove, but not the other way around. He said that the arterial development needs to occur, but the Howard Street Overlay does not really foster the larger goats ofjobs, economic development, affordable housing. That discussion needs to happen among the City, County and greater community. Kristen Nelson said that there were two different things under discussion. She said Howard Street is about C-R and C-II mixed use, while Glen Cove is about light industrial, i.e. people don't want to live in light industrial. She also said she doesn't want to see the model of Howard Street carried out onto Sims Way and beyond. With regard to sewer infrastructure, she said she would like to see one project leading to the next. Mr. Fry said that the national economic situation must be acknowledged, as well as the need to act quickly to obtain funding before it is spent elsewhere in the County. He proposed that the staff recommendation be modified to retain Howard Street as number one, and Glen Cove as number 2. He pointed out that Glen Cove would not be finished in a year, but requires some initial focus. And the opportunity for bringing in outside funding, for Howard Street, should not be lost. Mr. Emery asked staff if their counterparts on County planning staff had shown interest in working with the City on Glen Cove. Mr. Sepler responded that the City would not be able to move forward on Glen Cove without County agreement. He said that a complete set of policies for expansion there, a future Urban Growth Area, had been removed from the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to a staff proposal for $3,000,000 to install sewer which would double the capacity of the light industrial area there. Ms. Mick-Hager stated that she was in favor of Mr. Fry's idea to designate Glen Cove as number 2 on the list of priorities. She said that, despite the fact that the City does not own that land or control the situation, it is important to initiate discussion and to pass on a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Ray spoke in favor of Mr. Fry's suggestion. He said it is important to capitalize on the Howard Street project now, and to be ready to use federal money if it is available. It is also important to lay the ground work for businesses here. He said there would be large issues to deal with, but the Planning Commission should inform City Council of its priorities and recommendations to begin a dialog with the County. Mr. LeMaster stated that based upon his conversations with County Commissioners and various members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, there is no opposition on the County side to beginning a dialog and moving the process forward. Ms. Nelson asked staff to comment on what items may need to be dropped. from the list if Glen Cove is given a higher priority. Mr. Sepler first noted that staff is not unsupportive of exploring the Glen Cove options. He said that if this item were given full focus, it could displace other items, but it could also be done more gradually as a background endeavor over a period of years. He surmised that there would likely be support for having light industrial in that area, and that property owners would be interested in enhancement of sewer and water capacity there. He said that exploration of possibilities and "what if issues" beyond that, however, are unpredictable and P/arming Commission Page 6 of 9 January 8, 2009 may be very time consuming. He also noted that since it is a legislative issue, containing the scope would be very difficult. Mc Fry stated that he believes both the City and County are attempting to ignore/postpone a subject that is too significant and too important to ignore. He repeated that landowners are strongly in favor of starting discussions and that delaying action will likely mean the loss of opportunity for funding. Chair Emery asked staff if Glen Cove property owners could initiate an annexation process on their own. Mr. Sepler said that unless it is consistent with the Growth Management Act, it must be within a designated City Urban Growth Area. The City can propose an Urban Growth Area, and the County must approve it. He said that a mutually beneficial and affordable arrangement would need to be developed that was viable and equitable for all parties. It was noted that annexation is not the only option that could be considered. Ms. Mick-Hager suggested that the remaining meeting time be focused on prioritizing the list and that further in depth discussion be limited. Chair Emery said he would like to propose that the paper mill contingency planning and Glen Cave infrastructure items be combined, with a joint task force to address that planning, if appropriate. Ms. Nelson noted, that considering scope and workload, combining those two items may be unrealistic. There was further discussion regarding a possible advisory body and/or simply arranging initial fact finding and dialog. There was mention that the County has recently laid. off two planners and that committees require staff support time. There was a suggestion that, with regional cooperation, money may be available for planning. Mr. Fry said he anticipates that federal monies may become available to plan projects of this nature and that it would be well to apply for it. Mr. LeMaster inquired about approximate timelines for extending the sewer lines. Mr. Sepler said that locating and planning a new lift station would be required; he estimated about three months before construction could begin. Mr. LeMaster also pointed out the importance of determining a demographic profile of mill employees, particularly places of residence. Mr. Sepler noted that great sensitivity and care is required in gathering and sharing information related to this matter, but that it is prudent to develop a contingency plan He pointed out that the major issues are impact on the employees and local economy, and disposition of the site. Mr. Ray said that according to available data, few of the mill employees actually live in this county. He agreed with Mr. Sepler that it is very important to develop a contingency plan for a mill closure, just as would be done in planning for other eventualities that could have a serious impact on the community. Ms. Mick-Hager asked how often the Planning Commission reviews the Comprehensive Plan.. She was informed that this occurs every seven years, and mid-cycle assessments occur every 2-3 years. Mr. Sepler noted that there are other work plan projects and tasks such as upcoming design guidelines, critical areas, etc. Policy/and legislative based issues are about 60% of the work. There was discussion about the major elements to be addressed by a mill closure contingency plan: land use, economic impact and social ramifications. After consideration of how to combine or retain the discreteness of items in the list of recommendations, Mr. Fry moved to re- order the list such that item 1 remain as item f; item 4 should be second; and all other items be shifted down one slot, i.e. in the order 1, 9, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Ms. Nelson seconded. P/arming Commission Page 7 of 9 January 8, 2009 After additional discussion, Ms. Nelson proposed a friendly amendment for ordering the list as follows: item 1, 9, 2, 5, 4, 3, 6, 7, 8. Mr. Ray proposed an additional friendly amendment to add the anti-pollution language suggested by David Goldman to the item on green house gases (original item 4), while retaining the order of items in the previous friendly amendment by Ms. Nelson. Ms. Nelson then made a final friendly amendment to adjust the order as follows: 1- Howard St.; 9-Economic Development; 2 -Mill Closure; 4 -Green House Gases, with anti- pollution language; 5- Housing; 6-Public private partnerships; 3- Nomura rezone; 7-SROs; 8- Bonus density. The Planning Commission approved the motion unanimously. Mr. LeMaster asked staff about the timing of next steps for this recommendation. Mr. Sepler said that the document would be ready for signatures the following week and would be on the City Council agenda for January 24. Mr. Ray suggested that members of the public may wish to make a comment. There was a question regarding the language change to the item on Green House gases. Mr. Ray explained that the term anti-pollution was in addition to the original language. VII. NEW BUSINESS--None VIIT. UPCOMING MEETINGS January 22, 2009, 7:00 PM -Uptown Commercial (C-TII) Design Guidelines Workshop. This is a joint meeting with the Historical Preservation Committee (HPC). Mr. Sepler recalled that these guidelines are the result of the previous Uptown Charette and task force. The guidelines will be implemented by the HPC, but are adopted by the Planning Commission. IX. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Emery reminded everyone to sign the card for outgoing Commissioner George Unterseher. X. ELECTIONS Commissioner LeMaster proposed that the election of officers be postponed until the January 22 meeting. (There was not a second.) He said he would like to have a discussion regarding the role of the Planning Commission within the community, and the means to best fulfill that role. There was a brief review of Planning Commission rules and the fact that the January 22 meeting had been scheduled as ajoint meeting with the HPC. A suggestion by Mc LeMaster to begin the January 22 at 6:30 was briefly considered and determined to be unfeasible because of posting requirements. Mr. Ray suggested that any discussion about the Planning Commission role should be done jointly with the City Council, and that the selection of Chair should proceed during this meeting. Mr. Sepler suggested that the role discussion could be scheduled for the first meeting in February. Mr. LeMaster moved that the role discussion and elections be moved to the first meeting of February. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mick-Hager. She noted that, as a new member, P/arming Commission Page 8 of 9 January 8, 2009 she would prefer more time to think about selection of officers. The motion failed by a vote of 2 in favor to 4 opposed. Chair Emery called for nomination of the Chair position. Mr. Ray nominated Kristen Nelson for the position of Chair. Ms. Nelson was elected Chair by unanimous vote. Mr. Ray nominated Ms. Mick-Hager for the position of Vice Chair. Ms. Nelson nominated Mr. Ray for the position of Vice Chair. Mr. Emery nominated Mr. LeMaster, who declined the nomination. Mr. Ray asked if Mr. Fry would consider the Vice Chair position; Mr. Fry said that he would not. Ms. Mick-Hager requested a review of the responsibilities of the Vice Chair position. Mr. Ray and Mr. Sepler provided a brief summary. Ms. Mick-Hager accepted the nomination. Mr. Ray declined his nomination. Mr. LeMaster seconded the nomination far Ms. Mick-Hager. Monica Mick-Hager was elected Vice Chair by unanimous vote. XI. ADJOURNMENT Julian Ray movedfor adjournment and Kristen Nelson seconded. Chair Emery adjourned the meeting at 8:58 PM. r n Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 9 of 9 Jaauary 8, 2009