Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121307CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -December 13, 2007 EXH 2 J. Surber, Supplemental Staff Report and Recommendation - 2007 Comprehensive Plan Docket, December 3, 2007 EXH 3 J. Surber, Second Supplemental Staff Report and Recommendation - 2007 Comprehensive Plan Docket, December 12, 2007 " EXH B Final Mitigated Determination of Non-significance, Year 200 % Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (Application No. LUP07-110) EXH B/a R. Hawn et al, Untitled letter to Whom it May Concern regarding the Shapiro/Woods Rezone, October 21, 2007; signed by six neighbors of the Shapiro/Woods property EXH B/b Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Shapiro/Woods Rezone, Analysis of Impact of Rezone, GTC Project #07-334, December 3, 2007 EXH 3A (originally exhibited 11/08/2007) T. Nomura, Rezone on Parcel #001-034-002.... From R-II to C-UMU, October 20, 2007 EXH 3B Nomura Soils Map, from Soil Survey of Jefferson County, 1975 EXH 3C (B3c) A. Latham, Memo to J. Surber, Prime and Other Important Soils, December 3, 2007 EXH 3D Nomura POS(A) Overlay EXH 3E T. Nomura, e-mail to J. Surber re: Nomura Rezone, December 6, 2007 EXH 3F T. Perkins, e-mail to J. Surber re: Reschedule of Dec 13 Nomura rezoning hearing, December • 11, 2007 EXH 3G C. Coder, letter to PT Planning Dept. et all regarding the Nomura Rezone, December 12, 2007 EXH 3H J. Tyler, letter to Planning Commissioners and staff regarding Rezoning of land at San Juan and F Streets (Nomura), December 12, 2007 EXH 4 R. Sepler to Planning Commission, Approaches to Address Signage above 17 feet in Height for Larger Buildings, December 3, 2007 EXH 5 R. Sepler to Planning Commission, Off Premise Signage, December 3, 2007 EXH 6 Planning Commission Meeting Guest List, December 13, 2007 EXH C L. Slabaugh, DRAFT -Findings and Conclusions & Recommendation for the year 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, to Port Townsend City Council, December 13, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Liesl Slabaugh called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Kristen Nelson, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster and Julian Ray were excused. • III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Steve Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda and Kristen Nelson seconded. The agenda was approved as written, all in favor. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 1 of 13 December 13, 2007 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 25, 2007: correct spelling of Wise, not Weiss, throughout document. Ms. Capron moved and Mr. Unterseher seconded for approval of the minutes, as amended. The minutes of October 25, 2007 were approved as amended, all in favor. The minutes of November 8, 2007 were deferred until the next meeting. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None VL NEW BUSINESS -None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Continued Public Hearing (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Chair Slabaugh stated that this was to be a legislative public hearing; she explained that the hearing would proceed according to the Rules of Order. She opened the public hearing and read • the Rules of Order in their entirety. She asked those who wished to speak to sign in and to speak at the rostrum, if possible, so that their testimony could be captured on the audio record, and offered to arrange for special accommodations for any person speaking, as necessary. She asked everyone to limit comments to five minutes, but said that more time would be granted, if needed. She asked all those who planned to speak to stand and take part in the swearing in process. During reading of the rules, she asked of the Planning Commissioners, "Do any Commissioners here tonight have any interest in any of the properties or issues being discussed, or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing, or have any disclosures to make?" Kristen Nelson said she had received a phone call at home from someone who planned to testify at this hearing; she said she directed the person to Rick Sepler. There was no further conversation and she did not feel unable to be fair. In addition, she said she had a part interest in a house on McNeil Street across from the Nomura property, but did not feel this would affect her ability to be fair. Liesl Slabaugh noted again (as at the initial hearing) that she had had a conversation with Teri Nomura several weeks prior about the postponement of the hearing, but did not think this would affect her ability to be fair and impartial. Chair Slabaugh asked if there were any objections to participation by any Commissioner in this hearing; there were none. • She described the order of proceedings. The order would be: staff presentation; applicant comments, public testimony, applicant response; staff response; Planning Commission questions. Chair Slabaugh then introduced Judy Surber, Senior Planner, who made the staff presentation. P/arming Commission Meeting Page Z of 13 December i3, 2007 Ms. Surber said that this hearing would deal with the remainder of the docket begun on October 25; the Shapiro/Woods and Nomura Rezone had been continued until this evening. She noted new exhibits, which had been included in the previously mailed packets. She noted the Exhibit 3E, a letter from Teri Nomura. Based on that letter and a meeting held between Teri Nomura and city staff on December 6, the staff recommendation had changed. A written copy of that recommendation called the Second Supplemental Staff Report, dated December 12, 2007, and had been distributed at the start of the meeting (EXH 3) . She pointed out three additional new exhibits: 3F -Comment letter from Taymere Perkins; 3G -Comment letter from Candice Cosier; and 3H -Comment letter from Joanne Tyler; all three were in regard the Nomura Rezone. Shapiro/Woods Rezone (LUP 07-024) Staff Presentation: Ms. Surber said that the two issues to be worked out for this proposed amendment are traffic and height. The Shapiro property is behind Safeway; the Port Townsend School of Massage and a single family home are on this site. She said a letter (EXH B/a) about traffic and height issues, signed by six neighbors, had been received by the City; otherwise they were not opposed to the rezoning of the property. In researching the height issue, staff had checked the building permit application for the Port Townsend Massage School. The building height was determined to be 28 feet. The current zoning allows for a maximum height of 30 feet; the proposed zoning would allow 35 feet. The applicant had suggested that the rezone be conditioned at 30 feet. The recommendation from staff was that the rezoning go forward with a limitation of 30 feet. • The other issue, traffic, required a traffic study by a qualified consulting firm, Gibson; a copy is included in the packets (EXH B/b). Analysis was done on four different intersections, with various scenarios including existing and possible future conditions, with and without the proposed rezone. They considered a retail scale scenario and found the proposed rezone would not result in a level of service "D" or less at any of the intersections; therefore it was acceptable. The report was also reviewed by the Public Works staff. Findings were included in the final SEPA analysis. Proponent TestimonX: Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, said he was appearing on behalf of Matthew Shapiro and Sharon Woods. He said they agreed with the staff recommendation and the conclusion that the rezone is consistent with the rezone criteria set forth in PTMC 2004 080. The applicants have voluntarily suggested that the (building) height of the two subject parcels be limited to 30 feet to address concerns of those living up slope, on the west side of Hill Street. He said they also concur with the findings of Gibson Consulting that there are no significant traffic impacts or any that would cause a reduction in the level of service to adjoining roadways or intersections below LOS (level of service) D. He added for the record that there will be further SEPA review required in the event of any project specific development applications, at which time the issue of traffic impacts could be dealt with again. He also noted for the record that the traffic analysis assessed the theoretical impacts of the maximum permissible development under the bulk and dimensional requirements of the zoning code. In closing, he said the applicants support the staff recommendation and would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or respond to any concerns. • Kathleen Hawn, 1111 Hill Street, Port Townsend, WA. Ms. Hawn said her home was on the west end of the street that is directly above the property in question. She said she had drafted the letter with signatures from neighbors (EXH B/a) that had been submitted to the City. With P/arming Commission Meeting Page 3 of 13 December i3, 2007 regard to the height issue, she asked on behalf of the neighbor group that the height be fixed at the current building height, rather than thirty feet, to reduce the impact. Regarding the street issue, she acknowledged the extensive traffic study. However, she said the parking is of major concern. Ms. Hawn referred to the map in the packet, and stated that it is "a bit incorrect". "The parcel itself does not extend all the way to Hill Street. Hill Street is an awkward situation. There is Hill Street and there is a pseudo Hill Street that causes a great deal of confusion." [Chair Slabaugh asked for clarification on the exhibit referenced, and confirmed it was part of the traffic study.] Ms. Hawn said the site is an awkward split. "The Shapiro property has an address of Hill Street, but it is next door to the massage school, which is Landis Court. They occupy the same block area, but they are on different streets. Access to the massage school is apparently through Landis Court. Landis Court doesn't really exist other than to go to the Quimper Credit Union, and there is a gate that doesn't allow you to access the massage school through Landis Court. So, it exists on paper only; it is not a means of access. In talking with the manager at Safeway, he has acknowledged that the majority of parking allowed for the School of Massage is taken in the Safeway parking lot. There is very limited space above, whether it is Landis Court or whatever it is on that strange little strip next to the Shapiro property. We are also concerned about parking. If there is a retail establishment or a business establishment, people are going to need to park. There is no parking in that area that is off the street. On the illustration, it looks like it goes all the way up to Hill Street, but that is actually a right of way. We paved the street, Hill Street, in there and that is on the 80 foot right of way, and it is a slope so there is no real parking available. That means access to a parking area for a building that would be proposed would have to come through the Safeway parking lot, and it would have to be an underground parking situation, if they would even grant the ability. If you look at that piece of property from Sims (Way) or from 10`h (Street), you'll notice that it dips down like a sinkhole. It would require a great deal of fill or construction of some kind of underground parking, or to be built up. Is the total height of the • building going to be figured from where the Safeway parking lot is right now, which would be access for parking, or would it be from further up? And, it would have an impact on people's views.'' She asked that consideration be given to parking "because there is no room to park on Hill Street". Proponent Response: Eric Toews said that, put simply, there is an acknowledgement that future development would have to comply with the parking requirements of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. "So, there is no question that any future change in use or future redevelopment of the property with the establishment of new uses would require compliance with the off street parking requirements. So, the notion, obviously, under City code is that in order for those new uses or changed uses to be approved, the off street parking would have to be provided. I think the applicants are well aware that, at least theoretically, the implications of that depend upon the type of redevelopment, and uses proposed could result in the need to provide structured parking. But, that is really an issue to be dealt with at the time of development application and review, rather than at the programmatic level, which is where we are now. With regard to access, I believe legal access to the Shapiro property is via an open portion of the Hill Street right of way. I think that Ms. Hawn is correct in saying that Hill Street is a really strange situation, with essentially two roadways within the right of way, as I understand it. I think I would need to look at a plat map to know with certainty that all of the constructive road surface serving the Shapiro property falls within the right of way and outside the limits of the Shapiro property, but I believe that to be the case. In sum, it's a strange situation where the right of way is sloped. There is a constructed right of way up slope that is serving the residences to the west side of Hill Street. Then there is an intervening partially vegetated area, and below that another access way via which entrance may • be gained to both the massage school and the Shapiro property. I believe under the terms of the conditional use permit authorizing the massage school, access was provided to that property through Landis Court across the Credit Union property. That is what I know, and I would be happy to respond further, if I can. Thank you." Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 13 December 13, 2007 • Staff Response: Judy Surber said that it is absolutely correct that the property does have some challenges, and that slope is part of that challenge. "But, you cannot fill a site and then measure from the filled grade; you must be measuring from the existing grade. So, it is likely that structured parking would be necessary for future development. And, as Mr. Toews stated, we have off street parking requirements specified in our code, and future projects would have to comply with that. Also, as Mr. Toews stated, at the project level the City has authority to review a project for environmental impacts and compliance with our adopted codes. So, if it turned out that the situation had changed, if traffic had gotten worse, we could always require another traffic report and require mitigation for any adverse impacts at that time." Chair Slabaugh asked if any Commissioners had questions for speakers or staff. l here were none. She then asked if any member of the audience had any clarifying comment to add. Since there was no further testimony, Chair Slabaugh closed the public testimony portion of the Shapiro/Woods part of the hearing. Planning Commission Deliberation/Action Harriet Capron complimented applicants Shapiro and Woods for suggesting the thirty foot height limit. Steve Emery complimented the staff on the thorough report. Alice King moved to approve L UP 07-024, Shapiro/Woods, with the height limit amendment, as recommended by staff. George Unterseher seconded the motion, which was approved, all in favor. • Nomura Rezone (LUP 07-014) Chair Slabaugh said that the Nomura Rezone was next on the agenda, and would proceed in the same fashion as the previous item. Staff Presentation Judy Surber referred Commissioners to the October 25 packet materials, EXH 3, which shows the zoning of the Nomura property. She said she would review the original proposal and explain how staff had arrived at the revised recommendation. "The property owned by the Nomuras at the corner of San Juan and F Street is in an area that has mixed use development on the two northerly intersection corners. Across the way, the C-I district was proposed for C-UMU and was recommended for approval at the October 25 Planning Commission Meeting. Good planning practice looks at what all four corners should be. C-UMU on all four corners really increases the viability and likelihood of seeing mixed use at the intersection. One of the key premises of the Comprehensive Plan is to create walkable communities. Various areas of mixed use zoning throughout the City are aimed at emulating what we have in the uptown area. However, these types of mixed use development rely on some minimum density in these areas." "With higher densities, we hope to create a variety of housing types within the City." She noted that for previously platted lots and zoning, it is primarily single family zoning, 5,000 and 10,000 square foot lots. "With an aging population, we need to provide for a variety of housing. Higher density creates that new niche, which will help reduce dependency on vehicles. Another hope is that addition of these new housing types will have a ripple effect, opening up single family homes for younger families with energy for the . maintenance required by older, larger homes. This was the original reasoning for proposing an acre of mixed use to match the other corners at this intersection." P/arming Commission Meeting Page 5 of 13 December 13, 2007 • Additionally, looking at the fact that a portion of the Nomura property had been zoned R-III in 1996-7, staff questioned the C-UMU 5,000 square foot lot size and suggested going back to a higher density. Public comment related most heavily to the fact that this had been agricultural area at one time and is a beautiful piece of open space. As an urban growth area, the City does not designate mineral, agricultural or forest resource lands. It may not designate Open Space on private property without providing just compensation to the owners. This was addressed in the Comp Plan and in the zoning by allowing a variety of agricultural uses in R-I and R-II that you would not normally see in cities with 5,000 and 10,000 square foot densities. For example, farm stands are allowed in R-II, such as Collingwood Farms. The City can encourage and promote these aspects of the vision, but cannot require it. The Land Use map shows an ideal designation and use of properties within the City. That overlay shows properties with environmental, scenic or cultural significance to the community. She noted that the Nomura property and the lands to the north of Collingwood Farms were so designated. Ms. Surber said she had followed up on earlier comments that cited a Land Trust survey listing this as prime agricultural property. She spoke with the Executive Director of the Land Trust who also referred her to Al Latham, Resource Conservation District. She also obtained copies of the maps and provided that in the packet. She said the Nomura property is not designated prime agricultural land. She said that those lands included on the maps range from about 4.5 to 9 productivity levels, while the Nomura property has about a 3 rating. Per Al Latham, there are two soil types on this property; one of those soil types is associated with farmland of State significance. Property farther to the north of Collingwood Farms does have very good soil. That map was created to identify agricultural lands that might be protected in the future, which is one of the functions of the Land Trust. . The Nomuras, who had read the testimony, supported the C-UMU zoning at the corner. However, at this time, they wished to keep the remainder of the property at R-II. Staff has amended the recommendation to mirror the wishes of the property owner. The Second Supplemental Report provides findings and conclusions, and a revised recommendation for mixed use, approximately one acre in size, at the corner of San Juan and F Streets. Proponent Testimony Mike Bowen, 380 E. Moore Street, Port Hadlock Mr. Bowen said that in a conversation with his wife, Teri Nomura, he had addressed the idea of rezoning one acre to C-UMU. He said that given the topography of that area, which forms a natural amphitheatre and considering the ideas for using the natural configuration of the land, versus considerable excavation, he would rather see a larger portion rezoned to C-UMU. He said that some of the visions involve a more circular configuration of mixed use buildings that would tend to form a square, and possibly leave parking at the corner. He would prefer to rezone a larger area with a boundary to be determined at a later date, with the remainder as R-II. Teri Nomura, 380 E. Moore Street, Port Hadlock Ms. Nomura mentioned that she had submitted two letters. She wished to reiterate for the general public that the owners do not have any physical plans. She said there is a rumor mill in Port Townsend, but that she has not seen any plans for the whole neighborhood. At this point, they are open to the suggestions of the community, not bound by them, but open to them. She said they are looking at the various ideas, including the Farmer's Market. She said, however, that did not seem viable because of the limited parking. Ms. Nomura said that the proposed change to the corner does make sense to her, since it would be similar to the other corners. The people from • the neighborhood would gravitate towards this mixed use area to get their "work" done. She noted that when something is developed there, it would likely be in the form of a PUD, planned unit development, because the property is less than 14 acres and a piece of about 1.5 acres around his house would be retained by Carl Nomura for his residence and use. Because of Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 13 December 13, 2007 • the size and shape, this property would not be developed with streets in a grid configuration. There would be water and storm water challenges that would impact the street design. She said the rationale behind keeping the R-II zoning has several layers. Currently, the zoning is R-II with a plan to change the corner to mixed use. Next door is a piece of property that is R-III. "We are probably going to make a proposal that includes all of it; we are not just going to piecemeal that whole plan together; we are going to figure out something as a whole. That is my goal, anyhow, and I've been working on my siblings to get them on the same page." "There is this neighborhood on the side, for example, where Candice Cosler lives, that is R-II I believe. And those neighbors are concerned with dense housing being right next to them. So, if you were to leave this property that is R-II that is on the corner, then I could take the portion of housing that is R-II, (build) houses on 5,000 square feet that is slightly less dense than R-III, and put it closer to those neighbors that might be more affected by the dense housing, and construct the neighborhood in a way that would buffer them a little bit from denser housing, i.e., apartment buildings and that kind of thing. Even though, as a realtor, I am very aware of the need for affordable housing, that would probably work out. I could take the portion of land that's left and the proportion of land that is R-III now, and make it so there are similar proportions within this planned unit development (PUD). That's my concept of it. I don't know, I'm not a developer so I don't know exactly what goes into making a PUD. I'm going to rely on a lot of other people for help on that." "And, finally, I would hope that whatever plan we come up with is something that really suits this town, and the community, and its people. I wouldn't want to create something, personally, that people would be totally offended by -that is just counter to the way I think about things. I would hope it would be beautiful, I would hope we could create some affordable housing -that is really desperately needed. I would hope it could be a mixture of ages. I really don't like the idea • of only older people being here -although they do seem to be the only ones who can afford to live here - we do need to create a way for young people to be invited into this community and part of that picture is affordable housing. Part of it is education and jobs; so, it's a mix. So, with the commercial mixed use, part of that is also jobs; there are neighborhood businesses that hire people or individuals that have a place for their own businesses. I do think there is a need for that in this community. Thank you" Correspondence to be written into the record Chair Slabaugh stated there was correspondence that was specifically requested to be read aloud and written into the record. Since the authors were present, they were asked to read their letters after the speakers who had signed in. (Mr. Sepler wished to clarify that written comments need not be read into the record because they have been provided to all Commissioners and will be considered prior to councilmatic decision. If it has been requested and the person is absent, it is permissible, but not necessary.) Public Testimony Janet Dallett, 490 29"' Street, Port Townsend Ms. Dallett said she had intended to make a strong argument for retaining the R-II designation, but apparently that had been addressed by the change in staff recommendation. (Chair Slabaugh clarified that the Commission would deliberate and make a decision; she said the Commission is not bound by the recommendation of staff, although they frequently agree with it.) Ms. Dallett said that, in addition, she does not object to a commercial designation at San Juan and Discovery, but had not been satisfied with the discussion of traffic at the first hearing. She thinks that something must be done about the traffic fairly soon because continued development on that • corner will almost certainly bring about heavy traffic at all hours, not just at peak times. She added that her home is situated across the street from the Nomura property, and she would like to be assured that she will be able to turn left from 29"' Street onto Discovery and get through the intersection without waiting in long lines of idling vehicles, which are filling the air with Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 13 December 13, 2007 pollution. She said it seems to her that now is the time to think about this before it becomes a bad problem. Candice Cosler, 2607 Haines Street, Port Townsend Ms. Cosler said she appreciated the work of staff and the change in recommendation to leave the zoning designation at R-II. She said she is grateful that the Nomuras are taking the community's interest into consideration. She said the family has always been easy to work with and knows the concerns of the community are a big concern to them. Ms. Cosler said we need to realize that when zoning issues arise, we need to allow the landowner to be a proponent and not have the City alone move forward to change zoning. She recalled that the Nomuras had been through a similar situation when plans for a City police and fire station on that property began without the Nomuras knowledge. It was a lengthy, painful process, with $30,000 in consulting fees to plan for this, including a plan to punch through to Hastings to allow fire trucks through. She said, "We are pretty sensitive about people's property, especially considering the history of the family. Also, regarding the agricultural issue with Happy Valley, there is a soils map in the information I provided. It shows that San Juan Gravelly Loam is the main soil type running through Happy Valley." She read two excerpts from articles by Pam Clise, Jefferson County Historical Society, about the farming history of Happy Valley. [The full text can be found in the letter submitted by Candice Cosler dated December 12, 2007, EXH 3g.] She said there is a lot of history in the Happy Valley and she is also concerned with the high density housing that would go along with the C- UMU zoning. Across the way, Collingwood Farms is directly adjacent to the property that Vern Gamson had planned to develop. "I would just stress that we be sensitive to the areas we are developing and not lose the valuable resources we have. The last storm is a real wake up call for all of us. The Hood Canal Bridge was closed due to weather, the ferry was down, Highway 101 was closed in two places and I-5 was closed down. We may start looking like an island and become an island community. There are various people in the community working on food security, and Happy Valley is the best that we have in Port Townsend. I am totally aware that we cannot require property owners to set aside agricultural land, but if there is a way to work in our zoning and development to encourage open space and community gardens, and work for solutions.... Because we've got a pretty uncertain world out there, and I think the more that we can work together to be more self-reliant, I think it's going to serve us all. Thank you very much." Judith Alexander, 1442 30`h Street, Port Townsend Ms. Alexander said that Candice Cosler had already said much of what she wanted to share. She said she appreciated the work that goes into this kind of hearing and decision making process. She appreciates the staff time for researching the concerns, the traffic and soil content. She said it is great to see how the community can work together on issues of this nature. Ms. Alexander said, "I am on the front end of my own learning curve about local food, which is my main concern." She said that concern became attached to the Nomura rezone, because she thought the property had better agricultural land than it apparently has, which she learned at the last hearing. She noted that the whole Kent Valley area, south of Seattle, was prime agricultural area and is now paved over. She said she really wants to encourage the Planning Commission, as well as the staff, to take into consideration the need for preserving land for growing local food. "We currently eat - i.e. only 1-2 % of our food supply is local food; the rest is not." "My work with Loca12020 has me involved with an emergency preparedness action group as well as the local food action group. Today, Dennis Crawford, Department of Emergency Management, said in a . meeting that he wanted us to be working more intensely in encouraging community gardens because we have a three day or less supply of food in the county, if we get cut off like we just did. It was brief, but if there is an earthquake, instead of a flood, it could be a lot longer than a day or three days." She said she personally is going to be putting a lot of time and energy in the P/arming Commission Meeting Page 8 of 13 December 13, 7007 • next couple of years into working with City staff and others around what lands can be designated for community gardens. "It is probably not appropriate to look at the Nomura land in that way, so this does not pertain to this hearing explicitly, but it did bring me here, and motivated, to see how this works. I just wanted to share my passion for making sure that our community has what it needs locally, and to get as much staff and community support in working towards educating people about that, as much as I can. Thank you." Taymere Perkins, 373 Discovery Road, Port Townsend Mr. Perkins said he had just bought the 373 Discovery Road property. He said he shared a lot of the same interests as the Nomuras, such as fruits, vegetables, chickens, etc. "The area has a very rural feel and all along the road it has more of an R-I feel than anything else. I was initially very concerned when I heard about the rezoning, but after finding out more of the scope, I start to agree that that particular corner would be a good candidate for a higher density area. One of the main reasons is because the soil has been scraped right there. If you go up the hill, more toward the Nomura residence and beyond the fence to my residence, along Discovery Road toward Candice's (Cosler) house, all that is great soil. I appreciate the sensitivity that Teri Nomura is showing with regard to creative options; that is good to hear. One suggestion I have is regarding the mention that Carl Nomura will survey and set aside a portion of land for his use. I am not certain what the area of the remaining portion will be compared to the parcel next door, which is already zoned as R-III, but it might make sense to flip flop those two areas. That might provide a large area with minimal impacts on the neighbors who now have a more rural area, good soils, and nice views." He said he would like to keep the area around there as it is; although he does not own it and has no control over it, that is his preference. Proponent Response: Teri Nomura said she would like to bring up what Judy Surber had mentioned to her during a meeting. "If we do a PUD and if the zoning is unchanged, i.e. if we keep the corner as R-II and we flip flop it with the R-III property, such as Taymere is suggesting, then we have a much longer PUD process." [Ms. Nomura asked the staff to confirm that that was correct. Chair Slabaugh suggested she continue her comments, and staff could respond after that.] Ms. Nomura said that was her question; she said she does not know enough about the PUD process to understand all the reasons, but that, for one, the other property is not up for rezone at this time. Staff Response: Rick Sepler introduced himself, for the record. "If you do a PUD, you can then change the zoning; it would not be longer or less time to change the locations of R-III. It depends on the application. A PUD, by its nature, is subject to a higher degree of review. It is not allowed without conditional approval and approval by the hearings examiner, if I am not mistaken. It does have a rigorous review process. Another alternative available to you is to do another rezone application to put it on the map. That could be placed on the docket for after the first of the year (2008)." Judy Surber referred to the traffic concern. She pointed out that in the final SEPA document there is a reference to the travel demand model documentation that was prepared for the City in April 2007. In that modeling it was determined that projected growth under the current zoning would still have a level of service C, and there was still capacity for additional density at that intersection. (Page 8, final SEPA documentation). "Also, as Judith Alexander pointed out, at a future time there may be a lot of discussion about . growing food locally, community gardens, things of that nature. Obviously, this application was not addressing local food supply as the primary issue." P/arming Commission Meeting Page 9 of 13 December 13, 2007 • "Mr. Perkins mentioned flip flopping the zoning. As Rick Sepler pointed out, a rezone would be necessary to actually flip flop those properties. R-III was not part this application, and therefore is not something we can do in this process." Planning Commission Questions: Steve Emery noted that San Juan Avenue is the primary north/south traffic comdor. He asked how long it would be until an additional north south corridor would be in place to service the growing community in the North Beach area and beyond. Rick Sepler responded that it is within the Comprehensive Plan, but it is not in the 5 year capital improvement plan. "The current transportation plan has constructed a model of circulation throughout the town. In looking at that, we see that in about a 15 year horizon, we will need to correct the corridor, if development continues on the northwestern portion of the City. San Juan Avenue will be able to handle the load, but it will be an issue eventually." Mr. Emery asked if a traffic circle would work at that intersection. Mr. Sepler said that he thought a traffic circle would work exceptionally well there. However, the four-way stop is functioning well within established parameters, and it would likely require acquisition of some of the corners. Chair Slabaugh asked if a PUD would be permitted in C-UMU. After checking the code, Mr. Sepler said PUDs are allowed in R-III, R-IV, C-U1~1U and C-IUMU. There is no size requirement in C-UMU or C-IUMU. For R-III or R-lV districts, there is a minimum size of 20,000 or 40,000 square feet respectively. The code is very generous to PUDs to encourage them. It is considered better than traditional development because it allows for clustering and greater open space retention. He said that, as the applicants had mentioned, a PUD might be the most appropriate way to develop the site with a minimum footprint and maximum open space. There is leeway to weigh minimum lot size and make bulk and dimension allowances, i.e. tailoring to the . topography of the site. Chair Slabaugh also asked if a PUD would be allowed in R-III. Judy Surber said that it would be allowed. She said the Nomuras were also concerned about the minimum density (for R-III, 10 units per acre; for R-II, 8 units per acre). Ms. Slabaugh asked if the original rationale from a planning perspective for the recommendation to make this R-III was related to the density required to support a commercial district. She asked, "If that is to be changed, is there a potential that a PUD could achieve that density if they so chose it?" Mr. Sepler said yes, even higher densities can be achieved in a PUD than in the underlying R-III. There is a bonus density available for such factors such as innovative design, use of environmentally sensitive features, preservation of open space, creation of affordable housing, and others. These are granted on a case by case basis. If someone submitted a PUD, it would be subject to public notice, views, and hearing before the hearings examiner. Mr. Emery asked if a PUD could also allow for enlargement of the commercial mixed use and allow for it to be relocated slightly or altered. "In essence, there is great freedom, but we look with great scrutiny at the application." Ms. Slabaugh asked about the open space designation that exists in the overlay for this property. She said, "Was that because of the scenic quality or do we know what criteria it met to be designated that way?" Mr. Sepler said that during the preparation of the documentation of the Comprehensive Plan, areas that were undeveloped and/or had visual quality, i.e. specific areas that would not typically be protected by environmentally sensitive standards, CAO, etc. -the theme was to try and create a network of open space. For this one, even though it was used for agriculture previously, there was a desire to keep as much as much open space as possible. For a single individual lot of 5,000 square feet, there is very little opportunity there. While the . designation is useful as a guide and there is a desire to retain as much open space as possible, s±aff has no leverage for development.. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 10 of 13 December 13, 2007 . Chair Slabaugh asked lair. Bowen to elaborate on his earlier suggestion that the one acre C-I/MU at the corner should perhaps be larger. He said he understood the rationale, which was to minimize the impact on the property owners. However, he said the general goals might be better served if it were larger, unless it was "not cast in concrete". Rick Sepler said that ultimately the zoning map would be redrawn. He suggested that there were several ways to proceed: 1. assume the one acre area and at the hearing with City Council, some modification might be entertained; 2. enlarge it at this point, although staff would not recommend any significant increase; 3. allow the one acre, and a PUD could modify or extend that at a future date. Or, this portion of the hearing could be continued, allowing for meetings with the applicants to determine if a more specific designation. Chair Slabaugh determined that there were no further comments from the public and closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. Kristen Nelson said that she had read the traffic study and noted that there is considerable capacity remaining at the intersection of San Juan and Discovery Road. She said there are only two hours in the day, one hour each in the morning and evening, that there is any problem at all. She said that she would hate to see lots more concrete put in to address such a minor problem. She believes the traffic study had been quite adequate and shows that there is plenty of room for mixed use in that area. In addition, Ms. Nelson said she loves the concept of PUDs; with a mixed use commercial space and R-II and R-III, a wonderful model is possible. She added that the non-linear shape and contours of the site are not well suited for a traditional grid. She spoke in favor of a creative blending of R-II and R-III with the C-UMU, if the space is going to be developed at all. She was not in favor of enlarging the one acre corner, cautioning that while the current owner may well come up with a wonderful and creative PUD design for the entire space, it is also conceivable that the R-II portion maybe sold to a developer with different plans. Steve Emery said he thinks that the current configuration of R-II and R-III property does seem backwards. Amore desirable configuration would have the densest area at the crossroads, followed by a less dense area, followed by a regular neighborhood. However, he noted that altering that was not in the purview of the Planning Commission at this time. Regarding the traffic issue, he said that, in his opinion, we will not be driving gas guzzling, smog producing vehicles in 20 years, but will be relying on hydrogen electric technology. He also said he was firmly in favor of Victory Gardens, and that tradition of our grandparents should be continued for food security locally. He also noted that, according to fishermen, we in Port Townsend are not at the end of the road; when you come by water, we are at the start of the road. George Unterseher said he had a general question. "In doing planning, it is wonderful have the Nomuras own all this property and to hear their intentions, but what if they decide to move away (to Massachusetts} tomorrow?" He said we cannot know what tomorrow holds, and has a concern that we do not make decisions based on all the good feeling right now that may leave open opportunities for bad developers to do bad things there. Chair Slabaugh added that if one just looked at a map, and did not consider history, topography, concern about local food, etc., it would make sense to have dense housing around a commercial area. She said that she liked the original R-III recommendation because she believes in affordable housing, sensible development, and a walkable, bikeable community. However, considering what has been heard from the property owners, it is encouraging as to how a vision for the future may come about that is • pleasing to the whole community. This seems to be an opportune option -that is, to support this new recommendation. However, that would be done with the faith that the property won't be sold off tomorrow and/or that we lose the chance to see some creative housing come about that can meet some of the same goals as might have come about with an R-II designation there. Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of i3 December 13, 2007 • Steve Emery moved to accept the LPU 07-014 Nomura Rezone application supplemental recommendation, keeping the R II designation and including a one acre C-UMU district on the corner. The motion was seconded by Harriet Capron and approved, all in favor. Chair Slabaugh added a clarificatio:z that staff had prepared the draft Findings and Conclusions. She noted that staff was directed to fill in a unanimous vote on both the Shapiro/Woods and Nomura properties, as recommended by staff, and as just voted by the Plannins Commission. Chair Slabaugh closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting and called for a short break at 8:32 PM. b. Ad-Hoc Sign Code Committee: Process, Recommendations and Issues (continued from October 25, 2007) Chair Slabaugh called the meeting back to order at 8:36 PM. Rick Sepler, Planning Director, reviewed the status of the draft ordinance dealing with the sign code. He said there were two outstanding issues: 1. direction for signs above 17 feet that would deal with the bulk and scale of the building, allowing a way to be flexible; and 2. addressing the off site signage. Regarding the former, Mr. Sepler said he had found that a prior Commission had placed a • provision in the code to allow for signs above 17 feet. The Commercial Design Standards provides for a process to deal with buildings, on a proportionate scale, on a case by case basis. An applicant can apply for a commercial design review for a sign higher than 17 feet, to determine if it is appropriately scaled for the building. He noted that approval would be granted only if the decision by the design review committee is unanimous. Alice King noted the QFC application had been denied. Mr. Sepler said that this provision had been adopted after that. Therefore, the process requested by this Planning Commission does already exist. He said that findings would be presented on the existing signs and circumstances but that this process would serve for future instances. It is a discretionary review and requires a consensus of the review committee. He said he believes there is adequate protection so that it will not be abused, and yet is still an option for an applicant to pursue. George Unterseher asked if this provision would allow those who were seen as outside the law to seek a new determination under this process. Mr. Sepler recalled that the Planning Commission had directed that the three prior instances who were missed in the inventory by staff would be waived because of the original error in the inventory; this had been agreed at the earlier meeting on this topic. Regarding item 2. off site signage, Mr. Sepler apologized that the prepared material had been inadvertently omitted from the packets due to clerical error; he distributed copies. He also pointed out that two of the three Planning Commission members (Bill LeMaster and Julian Ray) who had requested this off site signage discussion were not present at this meeting. After brief consideration, it was agreed to postpone that discussion until a future meeting date. Mr. Sepler said that he would also provide copies of a draft ordinance and all materials needed to complete the sign code discussion. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 1Z of 13 December 13, 2007 • VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Chair Slabaugh reviewed the tentative meeting schedule: December 27, 2007 -Cancelled for winter break. January 10, 2008 -Election of Officers, Sign Code Ordinance -Tentative Workshop January 24, 2008 - PTMC Amendments 1. Follow up to 11/08/2007 hearing: Child Care, Omnibus, Variance, Optional DNS Revision, Findings and Conclusions 2. Home Occupation Workshop In response to a question from Mr. Unterseher about the remaining sign code process, Mr. Sepler confirmed that there would be an opportunity at the January 10 meeting to discuss the draft ordinance in preparation for doing SEPA and scheduling a public hearing. Kristen Nelson mentioned that .she had not been present for any of the discussions on Child Care and requested a special briefing with staff. Rick Sepler agreed to make some arrangement with staff for her. Noting that this would be Liesl Slabaugh's last Planning Commission meeting, on behalf of the City Rick Sepler thanked her for her fine work as Planning Commission member and Chair. Other Commission members voiced their support and similar sentiments. IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Steve Emery moved that the meeting be adjourned. All were in favor. Chair Slabaugh adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM. <a` ___~.f~' Liesl Slabaugh, Chair ~/~~~1~~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder • P/arming Commission Meeting Page 13 of 13 December i3, 2007