Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102507CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -October 25, 2007 EXH 2. J. Surber, Summary Memo - 2007 Comprehensive Plan Docket, October 19, 2007 EXH 3 R. Sepler & J. Surber, Staff Report and Recommendation - 2007 Comprehensive Plan Docket, October 18, 2007 (19 pages and Map exhibits 1-4) EXH 4 R. Hawn et al (6 Hill Street Neighbors), Letter regarding the Shapiro/Woods Rezone, October 21, 2007 EXH 5 JCFMA (Jefferson County Farmer's Market Association) Board of Directors, Untitled letter regarding Nomura Property and preserving farmland, October 25, 2007 EXH 6 C. Cosler, Letter to Planning Department and Planning Commission regarding Wise and Nomura rezones, October 25, 2007 EXH 7 D. Vohs, Letter regarding Nomura Rezone, October 25, 2007 EXH 8 H. Kays, Letter regarding Nomura Rezone, October 25, 2007 EXH 9 R. D'Arcy, Letter regarding Nomura Rezone, October 25, 2007 EXH 10 T. Nomura, Letter regarding (Nomura) Rezone on Parcel #001-034-002, October 20, 2007 EXH 11 Re-existing Signage Issue Packet with Matrix and letters/memoranda from archives, October 25, 2007 EXH 12 Guest List, October 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Liesl Slabaugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Bill LeMaster, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Excused: Jerry Fry, Alice King Guests: City Councilor George Randels was also in attendance. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Slabaugh noted that the Unfinished Business portion of the meeting would be dependent on the duration of the Public Hearing. Steve Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda, and Julian Ray seconded, with all in favor. The agenda was approved, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 27, 2007: Julian Ray moved for acceptance of the minutes as posted and Bill LeMaster seconded. The minutes of September 27, 2007 were approved, as written, all in favor. Planning Commission Page i of 14 October 25, 2007 • V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None VI. NEW BUSINESS a. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Public Hearing Chair Slabaugh stated that since this was to be a public hearing and quasi judicial process. 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 three minutes; she said that applicants would be given five minutes to speak. She asked all those who planned to speak to stand and take part in the swearing in process. During the reading the rules, she asked of the Planning Commissioners, "Do any Councilors/ 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?" Chair Slabaugh said she had one disclosure: she said she was contacted by Terri Nomura about postponing the date of this hearing; she said that she did not feel the conversation influences her ability to hear the issue or to be fair. She asked if there were any objections to her participation or any of the Commissioners present. There were no • objections. She described the order of proceedings, noting it was somewhat atypical because of the number of Comp Plan amendments to be covered. The order was: staff presentations; staff response to Planning Commission questions; public testimony, if any, for each application separately (applicant speaking first followed by those who had signed in and indicated they wished to speak); Planning Commission discussion and questions). Regarding items LUP 07-024, Shapiro Woods, and LUP 07-014, Nomura Rezone, there have been requests from the applicants to continue the public hearing to December 13 in order for those two applicants to be present. In the interest of fairness, the requests will be honored. She said that if anyone present wished to speak regarding either of these issues, they would be allowed to testify, but the Commission would not discuss or deliberate on those issues until December 13. Chair Slabaugh said that the public would be able to speak at both of these hearing dates. Chair Slabaugh asked if there were any questions regarding the process. Hearing none, she asked staff to begin their presentation. Staff Presentation: Judy Surber, Senior Planner, recalled that she had presented the 2007 preliminary Comp Plan docket earlier in the year. At that time, there had been several other suggested amendments. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff presented the list of suggested • amendments to City Council; some of them were not docketed for this year. She said that there are six amendments before the Commission, one formal (Shapiro Woods) and five suggested. P/arming Commission Page 2 of i4 October 25, 2007 . She referred to the Staff report dated October i 8 (EXH. 3) that shows the four proposed rezones. The report also includes staff recommendation, analysis, findings and conclusions for Planning Commission consideration. Item 1, Shapiro Woods -This site is located generally off 10'x' and Hill Streets, behind Safeway; it is the home of the Port Townsend School of Massage. There are six lots that are proposed for rezone from R-II single family designation to a C-II, general commercial zoning. The lots are relatively small; the overall area is 15,000 square feet. There are other use of the lots is a single family residential dwelling. The property is sloped. Since height has been of concern to some neighbors; using the standard method of averaging the grade and averaging the gables etc., staff has determined that the massage school is 28 feet in height. She noted that the peak of the roof maybe higher than that, since the height calculation is an average. Surrounding uses include the Quimper Credit Union, Safeway and Macadoo's, which are all commercial. Sims Way is a heavily traveled arterial and 10'h Street is developed. Hill Street is under developed; there is a drive way to the single family residence on this property and there is access, mainly for the handicapped, to the PT Massage School. Access to the school is also via Landis Court, which is a private access easement through the Quimper Credit Union property behind Safeway. Currently the conditional use permit for the school also allows joint use of the Safeway parking lot. Subsequent to forwarding the staff report, staff received initial information (EXH. 1 A), which is a petition from several property owners living above the site on Hill Street. Ms. Surber said staff would like to withdraw their recommendation at this point and return with their recommendation on December 13 after they have investigated this initial information. • Item 2, Wise Rezone (shown in EXH. 2) -The location is an approximately one acre parcel at San Juan and F Streets. Current uses include a health spa and veterinary clinic. She said it is one of very few areas in town zoned C-I, neighborhood commercial. (The other is the Provisions site at 19"' and Kearney Streets.) She said the previous property owner had wanted C-I neighborhood commercial, rather than a mixed use designation at this corner. However, the current owners wish to have the mixed use designation. She noted that, per the Comprehensive Plan, one of the key components of the vision for Port Townsend was to develop mixed use centers to increase the walkability of the town, and to provide a variety of housing types. Surrounding uses include: single family to the north, but this area is zoned for C-I, M/IJ; the golf course to the south, and the Nomura property across the street (next on the list of proposed amendments). The staff recommendation is to approve the rezone as requested. Findings and conclusions are found on page 5 of the staff report. Item 3, Nomura Rezone -This property is located across the street from the Weiss property at the southwest corner of San Juan and F Streets. It is currently zoned R-II, single family residential, and is the site of a single family home with several outbuildings. To the south there is R-III property, also owned by the Nomuras, that is currently undeveloped and undistinguishable in the field from the R-II parcel. The area proposed for rezoning is roughly 6.7 acres in size. The recommendation is that one acre of the property at the intersection be rezoned to C-I, M/U, which would increase the feasibility of a mixed use district at this intersection. The balance of the property, roughly 5.7 acres, is recommended for R-III zoning. This would allow for multi-family development and the higher density would better support commercial uses at the intersection. Ms. Surber noted the addition of a new exhibit (EXH. 3A), a letter from Terri Nomura, owner of the property. Findings and conclusions are found on page 9 of the staff report. • Item 4, Port Townsend Library Rezone -The Library is hoping to expand to accommodate increased demand and new collections. However, the property currently lies in the three different zoning districts: R-II, PI, and C-III. The proposal is to unify the zoning of the Port Townsend Planning Commission Page 3 of 14 October 25, 2007 Library site to P/I, public infrastructure; it applies to an area of about 9,500 square feet. Findings and conclusions are found on page 13 of the staff recommendations. Ms. Surber said that the last item is legislative and not site specific. She noted that the Howard Street Overlay, the other docketed item, is not ready to be put forward at this time. Item 5, Establish R-III Minimum Density Requirements -Currently, the R-III zoning is a maximum of 16 units per 40,000 square feet, but there is no set minimum. In practice, this land is being developed at single family densities. It was intended by the Comprehensive Plan that the new R-III and R-IV multifamily designations would provide for a variety of housing types and increase the viability for developers to provide affordable housing. The proposal is set a minimum often units and maximum of 16 units per 40,000 square feet in R-III zoning districts. For reference, R-II is 8 units per 40,000 square feet and R-IV has a minimum of 15 and maximum of 24 units per 40,000 square feet. The staff recommendation is to approve the minimum density of 10 units per 40,000 square feet for parcels of 10,000 square feet or larger within single ownership in the R-III zoning designation. The findings and conclusion for this item are found on page 18 of the staff report. Ms. Surber noted that the SEPA comment period ends on November 15, completing that portion of the process before the hearing on December 13, 2007. Planning Commission Questions: Traffic Load at Intersection of San Juan and FStreets - Mr. LeMaster, referring to the area of San Juan and F Streets, said he was concerned about traffic density and flow, particularly at peak • hours, and asked if there had been traffic studies done. Ms. Surber said that during the environmental review, the City had reviewed a traffic model done for that intersection. It showed that there was a level of service C, with the projected build out as the zoning currently exists. Per the Comprehensive Plan, D is the lowest level allowed, so C shows there is still capacity at the intersection as currently zoned. Mr. Sepler added that queuing has been observed at AM peak hours. He noted, however, that the Comp Plan directs them not to design for AM or PM peak use. To build for peak capacity would necessitate afour-lane configuration at the intersection. In lieu of that, the City Council and Comp Plan, as adopted, allows a degraded level of service for short periods of time, such as in the AM peak, provided that the average level of service does not degrade below level B, based on a 24 hour day. Nomura Rezone -Kristen Nelson asked if, based on the letter from Tern Nomura, staff was reconsidering their recommendation, i.e. would they include some R-II? Judy Surber responded that a possible new recommendation would await the return of the Nomuras from Japan, since the specifics of their request were unknown, and more discussion was needed. Chair Slabaugh asked how the one acre proposed for C-II, M/U looked in size and outline. Ms. Surber said it was roughly the size of the Wise property. George Unterseher followed up on the traffic issue, and asked for clarification as to whether potential traffic problems would be ignored or addressed. Mr. Sepler explained the directions from City Council not to design for peak, but offered to provide documentation in detail before the next hearing if needed. He noted that even in peak times, the Level of service does not fall below D, which is acceptable. He noted that the City is mandated to ensure that development does not adversely affect existing service without some remedy. In assessing an application, staff • must look very carefully at possible adverse impacts on traffic flow. He added that when they first considered this issue, City Council naturally preferred level of service A, but when informed of the costs decided upon level of service D, as a baseline. P/arming Commission Page 4 of 14 October 25, 2007 • Bill LeMaster asked for clarification as to whether the City was actually one of the proponents for the Nomura Rezone. Ms. Surber said the Nomuras have inquired about allowed uses under the current zoning on several occasions. In addition, the City was looking to make the mixed use districts more viable, and presented the idea of mixed use to them, which would accommodate some of the ideas the Nomuras had in mind. So, they agreed to the City seeking mixed use zoning of their property. Mr. LeMaster asked if the City was the actual proponent in this case, and Ms. Surber agreed that was correct. Library Rezone -There were no questions. R-III Minimum Density Requirements -There were no questions. Chair Slabaugh asked if any person had written materials to submit. A series of letters regarding the Nomura rezone, delivered on behalf of parties not able to attend, was submitted to the Chair. The recorder was instructed to provide exhibit numbers before copies are made. Copies will be provided at the hearing on December 13. Public Testimony: Shapiro/ Woods Rezone -Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, introduced himself, noting that he was speaking on behalf of Matthew Shapiro and Karen Woods, the rezone proponents/applicants in the matter of LUP 07- 024. He said that the applicants were in agreement with the staff report, in general, and its characterization of how the proposal satisfies the rezone criteria set forth in PTMC 20.04.080. He said that they believe the parcels to be physically and functionally separated from the residential areas that lie to the west of Hill Street. • The properties are essentially bounded on the north, east and south by C-II development. It should also be pointed out that because a conditional use permit was approved two years ago for the massage school, that the use of that property has gone from residential to an institutional use. There is only one residentially zoned property (east of Hill Street), that is currently used as such, i.e. the Shapiro Property. He said they have been apprised of concerns raised by neighbors, and the applicants wish to be responsive and to meaningfully and substantially address those concerns; also to ensure that any significant environmental impacts that are posed by the proposal are effectively eliminated or reduced to non-significance. To that end, the applicants propose that a 30 foot height limitation, which is the limit in effect withirY R-II zoning, be applied to the rezone area through whatever means the City deems most appropriate. He said they were also sensitive to the potential traffic congestion. He said that potential is quite remote at this time, and would be dependent on redevelopment, but understands the City code requires environmental review be conducted considering the ultimate theoretical carrying capacity of the C-II zone. To that end, the applicants are willing to provide whatever information is necessary for a decision to be made on projected traffic impacts and to ensure that they are effectively mitigated. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the proposed rezone with conditions of approval that are deemed appropriate and necessary to identify/address environmental impacts. Chair Slabaugh asked if there were any others present to testify regarding this item; there were none. She invited questions from the Planning Commission about this item, noting that there would be no deliberation because the hearing was being continued. Height -Julian Ray asked for clarification on the 30 foot height mentioned. Mr. Toews said that the proposal was for the 30 foot height limitation that now applies to R-II would continue to apply to these properties, not withstanding an approval to the C-II zoning, using the means of measurement authorized under City code. Planning Commission Page 5 of 14 October Z5, 2007 Item 2, Weiss Rezone -There was no one present speaking on behalf of the applicants and no other testimony regarding this item. Item 3, Nomura Rezone -Chair Slabaugh restated that it had been predetermined that the applicants would not be present to speak. Mike Bowen, 380 E.Moore Street, Port Hadlock Mr_ Bowen stated that he was Tem Nomura's husband. He said, "When we acquired the land, it was with a vision in mind, that would address in part the Japanese side of our family, those who had been displaced forcefully years ago; the native American side of our family were also displaced people. So, we've had family discussions ad infinitum about how we could develop this property so that it (sort of) showcases for a community that drags itself kicking and screaming into the future. The future involves things like permaculture, neighborhoods that work, not devoting 60% of the property to cars, which is an average across the nation. The issue at hand, change of zoning to commercial, is to complement the other three commercial corners, so that whatever happens (at that intersection) in the future works. It is the final piece of a puzzle, and none of us has any control over what the other people are going to do on their corners." He mentioned the veterinary clinic on one corner and said he did not know what would happen on the other corners. He said if we consider a town that will continue to develop, then "we can focus on that area down there". He said "None of us has any intent to stuff a million little boxes on the place and stuff people into it. There is good agricultural land there, there are good view properties there, and a potential for amulti-use of one of the final pieces of Port Townsend that is still in one piece. And we purchased the extra block next to it just to put the old farm back together. The place next door was the old Ruth Short short platt." He said they stuck • it back together to make the puzzle fit. The only thing that was done was to put lavender in to see how it would grow, with big rocks to prevent unintentional mowing. He said he hoped that would shed some light on the proposal, pending the continued hearing, and could try to answer any questions, but stated his wife knew much more about the whole issue. Bill LeMaster asked, "Why not just rezone the one acre on the corner and not try to rezone the entire property at this time?" Mr. Bowen said he could not answer that question, stating that his wife could address that at a later time. Kristen Nelson noted that the answer was partially covered in Tern Nomura's letter. Chair Slabaugh also referred to the rationale in the staff recommendation, but noted that since the hearing would continue, there would be opportunity to address that directly with Terri Nomura. Candice Cosler, 2607 Haines Street Ms. Cosler said she was concerned with the requests for rezoning of the Wise and Nomura properties. She said she was fully supportive of the mixed use zoning, but opposed to the recommendation from the City that the remaining Nomura property be turned into R-III, which is 24 bedrooms in multifamily dwelling or 16 units per 40, o00 lot area. She said the rationale for having high density near C-II, M/LJ makes a lot of sense in theory, but she believes that the quality of the land/soil and other types of development that could enhance the area in ways that R-III will not allow. She spoke of years of effort in Port Townsend to preserve the farmland and open space that is so dear to many residents; she mentioned the rich soils. She cited the importance of retaining the important resource of rich land for market gardens, community gardens and farms. She said that it appears that no consideration had been given in the GMA to soil quality and farmable land within PT. She suggested that in seeking much needed affordable housing, that care be taken so as not to "bury our most precious and potentially productive land in the process". Jennie Pell, 295 Woodland Street, PT P/arming Commission Page 6 of 14 October 25, 2007 • Ms. Pell said she was glad to see that the hearing had been rescheduled (continued) so that the Nomuras would have a chance to speak. She recalled conversations with the Nomuras years previously about adding on to the property a permaculture learning center. She said there are grass roots organizations in town working on food security issues that include a discussion of a food corridor that stretches from the Coop down to the San Juan Street valley all the way toward North Beach. She said that many are concerned with local food supply; less that 2% of our food comes from the local area. She mentioned pursuit of local food production in collaboration with local 20/20, WSL' extension, etc. She said when Tem (Nomura) talked about it, she (Ms. Pell) was very excited about the vision of the f rmer's market, a small cafe, possibly a bread company and cheese company, with possibly a few new homes, but also edible landscaping as a demonstration center. She said that the Nomura vision does not include high density housing, and that there should not be a requirement to provide that in order to fulfill other creative/visionary ideas. She said it would be short sighted and does not allow for the creativity of the owners of the property. Judith Alexander, 1442 38``' Street, PT Ms. Alexander said she is an active member of local 20/20. She said she wished to reiterate what Jennie Pell had said. She spoke of discussions within Local 20/20 about how to take into account future needs for food security locally. She said she was very concerned about being at or very close to peak oil when the oil supply continues to diminish internationally while the need for it continues to grow. She said it appears that the US population does not understand what that will mean in terms of the price and access to food, and that acquiring the basic commodities will be challenged. She said it was extremely important to pay attention to what available land can be used to grow food and not to build houses on it. She mentioned that she was in the process of starting a community with the purpose of teaching her neighbors how to grow their own food. . She said this piece of land is ideal for growing food, especially if there is to be a permaculture center there. She said she is glad the Nomuras will be present for the discussion in December, but that she is looking long range and wanted to add that to the considerations. Lynn Nadeau, 3221 Haines Street, PT (Rosewind Cohousing) She lives a few blocks from the Nomura property and applauds the creative ideas mentioned such as the Farmer's Markets, cheeseries and bakeries, etc. She said that she is concerned about the idea of requiring high density housing there. While she understands the general concept of having residents to support the businesses, but she is cited the fact of the intersection being a major crossroads for coming into and out of town, and for traveling to North Beach, etc. She said it was really the geographic center of Port Townsend. Therefore, she noted, there is no problem of having people to support those businesses, and that she, for one, would make use of a Coop, stores, and services there. She recalled that when the San Juan apartments were being built, many truckloads of rich, black soil was hauled away and truck operators were selling it for cash. She cited the fertility of the land there and stressed that she did not want to see another San Juan Commons built there, adding that it was unnecessary. Janet Dallett, 490 29`i' Street, PT Ms. Dallett said she would like to support what the last few people had said. She said she lived very near to the Nomura property. The said that the property owned by her husband and her is earmarked for future open space in one form or another. She said she would also support not using any of the Nomura land for high density housing, in order to preserve that open corridor. Mike Bowen (speaker, above) said he would like to respond to a few items. He said he did not believe the proposal was actually asking to turn the remainder of the R-II zone into R-III. He said his impression is that R-II will remain R-II, with the exclusion of the corner, which would go to commercial. The area that is already R-III would remain as R-III. He also wished to address the fertility of the soil. He noted that he had his own profitable farm in Minnesota on some of the P/arming Commission Page 7 of 14 October 25, 2007 • worst soil called glacial till. He said he had explored most of the soil on the (Nomura) property, and found that most of the topsoil in the R-II zone now sits over at Fort Worden. He said that the property doesn't support almost any crop except lavender, because of the high boron content. He said it would take extraordinary work and major soil reconstruction for it to grow successful food crops, adding that it would likely take more than it would produce to break even. He spoke of his experience with Liberty Gardens and the use of yards for gardens to support whole families. Mr. Bov. en said that there is plenty of land for growing food, if people will use it that way. Chair Slabaugh asked Mr. Sepler to respond tc Mr. Bowen's statement about the proposed zoning and to clarify what the changes would be. He said that the Nomuras have focused more on the one acre, but consistent with the Comp Plan, it is important to assess whether that adjacent zoning should be adjusted for a change of use. That is the purpose of a public hearing. While the City strongly supports the corner for the uses discussed in testimony, the other is more perfunctory regarding the quantity for the other portions of the site. He said that the revised staff report will address some of the concerns that were raised by the public, and provide opportunities for choice by the Planning Commission. He said that the City had suggested the zoning changes but without specifying amounts for R-II and R-III, as a basis for discussion. Ile said that with due consideration of all public testimony, the Planning Commission would recommend and City Council would determine what portion, if any, of that land would be rezoned from R-II to R-III. Ms. Costler then asked when the zoning had been changed on the south part of the property had been changed to R-III. Mr. Sepler responded that the year was 1994. Mr. Sepler noted that if additional comments or questions are allowed, the applicant should have the opportunity to respond. Mr. Bowen said he had no idea when the zoning was changed, that it may have been in conjunction with the Ruth Short short plat arrangement, but that the family had not made zoning . requests/changes since they purchased it. Item 4, Port Townsend Library Rezone -There was no public testimony. Item 5, Establish R-III Minimum Density Requirement -There was no public testimony Chair Slabaugh closed the public testimony portion of the hearing on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, except for the Shapiro/Woods and Nomura Rezones, which are continued to December 13. Planning Commission Deliberation and Action: Wise Rezone -Julian Ray commented that the staff had done an excellent job in preparing materials, recommendations and presentations for all the meetings dealing with the Comp Plan amendments. All the Commissioners indicated their agreement. Mr. Ray moved to approve the Wise Rezone, L UP 06-149, as requested. Ms. Capron seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor, 7/0/0. Library Site Rezone -Kristen Nelson asked if it was true that the underlying issue was that the Library wishes to expand and cannot do that with the existing zoning, i.e. with the site carved into three zones. Ms. Surber noted that the one of the first considerations in planning for building on a property is to look at bulk, height and dimension requirements of the zoning; this is particularly challenging when you have three zones to deal with. She said the height restriction in the R-II district is 30 feet, in C-III it is 50 feet, and in P/I it is also 50 feet. This would make . the height 50 feet on the entire site. It would also unify the density requirements. Mr. Ray asked if it would be correct to say that by unifying the zoning, it would allow the maximization of the use of the space. Mr. Sepler said that as a matter of course it would. However, the core issue here is that, because of the way the property is situated, staff believes there was an inadvertent P/arming Commission Page 8 of 14 October 25, 2007 error when the zone was created. Typically, there would be only one zone per parcel. He pointed out that the current library sits squarely on one parcel. The other parcels are under public ownership and should all be zoned P/I. Mr. Unterseher asked about the dotted outline on EXH. 4. Mr. Sepler explained the connection to the right of way. He noted that although it is not relevant to the rezone, the library has been thoughtful about the proposed expansion of R-II to adjacent properties. Mr. Ray moved to approve the Library Rezone, L UP 07-036, as recommended. Mr. Unterseher seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor, 7/0/0. Establish R-III Minimum Density Requirement, LUP 07-025 -Kristen Nelson asked for confirmation that all "number of bedrooms" requirements had been deleted, and only `number of units per area' now pertain. Mr. Sepler confirmed that fact. Mr. Ray asked if there had been any informal comments to the Planning Department about this. Mr. Sepler said that there was an inquiry whether lots recently created in the R-III zoning district would be subject to these provisions, i.e. a recent plat amendment. He said these would not be subject since they were less than 10,000 square feet. That was the sole inquiry. Mr. Emery, who is the Planning Commission representative on HAPN, Housing Plan Action Network, stated that he and others have seen the under use ofmulti-family housing, and this amendment will really help stem the sprawl and expansion of that in the future. He expressed hope that it would have a positive effect on the pool of affordable housing as well. Chair Slabaugh asked about the density of housing at the Tree House development. Mr. Unterseher said that the Tree House PUD had 30 houses on a little over 5 acres. Mr. Ray commented that Tree House goals were not as concerned with density as with maximizing access, look/feel, development within the PUD. He said his question for Mr. Emery is if the housing group feels that this measure regarding R-III Density is helping to maximize land use of normal size parcels. Ms. Surber spoke about the housing group desire to loosen up the market for a variety of housing types. She cited the example of a senior living alone in a single family dwelling and who can no longer handle the maintenance. If the person has the opportunity to move to a more suitable location for her in the same community, that housing stock opens up for, perhaps, a family who has the energy to deal with fixing up that property. She said that is one of the notions that are espoused by the Housing Action Plan. She added that with higher densities, the likelihood of more affordable housing is increased, unless the design, size and materials are so high end as to offset that. Steve Emery moved that the Establishment of R III Minimum Density Requirements proposed amendment be approved, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Bill LeMaster, and the motion was approved, all in favor, 7/0/0. Julian Ray moved to close the public hearing on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendments and the motion was seconded by Steve Emery, with all in favor. Chair Slabaugh closed the public hearing with the exception of the Shapiro/Woods and Nomura Rezones which will be continued to December l3, 2007. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Slabaugh turned to the next agenda item, Sign Code, for which staff had prepared additional information. She asked if there were any objections to continuing the meeting; there • were none. Mr. Sepler stated that there was one issue that was not dealt with in the recommendation, i.e. pre- existing signage in Port Townsend, each of four instances with unique history. He said staff had P/arming Commission Page 9 of 14 October 25, 2007 . prepared a matrix summarizing the issues, which he would walk through with the Commissioners. Harbor Side Inn -The sign complies with the size requirements but not the height requirements. The sign is 30 feet up, while the maximum height allowed is 17 feet. Staff inadvertently overlooked this sign while performing the inventory for the 1999 sign code. This property would have been subject because any property with anon-conforming sign would have had six years to be removed. Since it was cmitted from the inventory, the business was never put on notice to remove the sign, which should have been done withir, 90 days of adoption of the sign code. Procedurally, while the sign is non-conforming, the City may have some exposure because of the omission and failure to notify on a timely basis. Aladdin -The sign conforms with regard to size, but it also is located at 30 feet, while the maximum height allowed by code is 17 feet. The situation is similar to the above, in that the sign was not included in the inventory, and there was no notification within the prescribed time period. QFC -The situation here is different. The sign conforms with regard to size and not to height (24 feet). However, the business was informed at the outset that the sign was non-conforming and not permitted. QFC chose to erect the sign and sought an exception from the Planning Director and City Council, which were denied. This is an illegal non-conforming sign and is subject to order and action for removal, per the existing code. Safeway -This sign conforms in size but is 28 feet above the ground. A sign permit was issued in error. He said this does not make the sign legal but contributes to the exposure for the City. • Mr. Sepler referred to the packet of letters and photos that had been provided to exemplify this issue. The sign code committee's best recommendations were as follows: Harbor Side Inn and Aladdin -Make the signs `pre-existing non-forming'. QFC -Since the sign is illegal, it should be removed. Safeway -The sign committee said the sign might be subject to conditional use. George Unterseher asked how the sign code could have been written with a height limit that had no regard to the size of the building; he said that made no sense whatsoever to him. Mr. Sepler said, although he was on staff at the time the sign code was written, he did not know exactly how the 17 feet was determined. Mr. Unterseher said that, according to his research, the height was for a pylon, and that it made no sense to use that number for a sign on a building. He said that the signs in question were "highly appropriate" for where they are located on the buildings. He noted that the Kelly Building sign would need to be removed as well, since it is a sign and it is over 17 feet. Mr. Sepler said that the Planning Commission was free to make its own recommendations to the City Council Harriet Capron said she had inspected the Safeway Building earlier that day and agreed with Mr. Unterseher. She thought the Commission should endeavor to agree on a more appropriate height limit requirement. . Julian Ray asked whether the Commission was going to address all the pre-existing signs, based on the work of the sign committee, or to tackle the entire set of issues anew. Mr. Sepler said that the City Manager suspended enforcement on several issues pending the outcome of this work, with the understanding that the Commission may find it desirable to modify the code. P/arming Commission Page 10 of 14 October 25, 2007 • Liesl Slabaugh said she also concerned about fair and even treatment for businesses especially competitors such as QFC and Safeway. She noted that it was a matter of luck that Safeway had been issued a permit in error, while QFC had been denied. They were both in non-conforming; should one be allowed to keep their sign and the other forced to remove theirs? Mr. Sepler said he was seeking direction. He noted that there are enough unique qualities that separate these buildings from other similar buildings in town. He said that staff could find or craft regulations that provided requirements based on the size and characteristics of a building. He said they could be made conditional, based on standards. Chair Slabaugh recalled that Goodwill and ReMax were mentioned in the recommendations from the ad hoc sign committee as examples of large buildings that had followed the sign code successfully. She said that it was important to know if it has been demonstrated that the code works as it is. Mr. Unterseher said there should be something in the code that allows some flexibility for signage to be site appropriate rather than an absolute height/size limit regardless of everything else. Ms. Capron said she agreed. Mr. Ray said that "site-appropriate" might be so flexible and non-specific that it would lead to confusion and possibly legal ugly signs for ugly buildings that were, indeed, site appropriate. There was a brief discussion about the pros and cons of allowing the City staff some discretion. Mr. Ray suggested resolving these problems first and then addressing certain code adjustments as a group. Mr. Emery added that whatever is done should be designed so as to stand up to new conditions should QFC (or any business) relocate within the City. For example, a conditional use permit could be issued provided a business fulfilled all the requirements deemed pertinent by the City. Ms. Slabaugh said she was curious about the key issues that led to the height limit in 1992. Mr. Sepler said the key issue under consideration was pole signs and roof top signs, including silhouette letters. The objective was to eliminate this type of signs. The state of the art at the time was to move toward monument signage to the extent that, in the Gateway area, monument signs were permitted in the right of way as an incentive to remove other signs. There was also provision to allow an additional 10 per cent sign area for each year of the amortization period reduced by a new code compliant sign. The intent was to eliminate the pole and roof top signs as quickly as possible. With regard to building signs, he said that it is likely that the scale of a building was not considered. Mr. Ray suggested dealing with the four non-compliant signs immediately, and "tasking ourselves with looking at this again more thoroughly and comprehensively". Chair Slabaugh asked if Mr. Ray was suggesting that Council consider all of these signs as pre-existing, non- conforming signs, and he affirmed that. Harriet Capron stated that of the four, three were."total innocents". She noted that since one had flagrantly ignored the City regulation, there were some who felt they should be penalized. However, she said, that since this happened sixteen years ago, she recommended that all four be granted amnesty so that effort could be focused on the future, at some time in the future. She said that, as Ms. Slabaugh had pointed out, it seemed ill advised to "punish QFC, when its direct competitor had slid under the radar". Mr. Unterseher added that according to his research, the error was the fault of the sign manufacturer, and set a precedent then followed for subsequent • businesses. Mr. LeMaster said he could not support ignoring "inappropriate behavior by corporations". He said he could support excusing the three where City error was involved, but not the one where the business showed blatant disregard for the regulations. Mr. Emery said that, P/anninq Commission Page 11 of 14 October 25, 2007 • at this point, he would suggest following the ad hoc sign committee's recommendation. He said it was important to ensure that QFC is held to the standards when they move to a new location. Ms. Nelson clarified that the ad hoc committee recommended that the three businesses (Harbor Side, Aladdin and Safeway) be directed to apply for conditional use permits, and QFC "shall not exceed the 17 foot height limit". Ms. Capron asked how Mr. LeMaster would address the QFC violation, and if he would force them to remove or reposition the sign. He said that he realizes that a relocation is expected. He would be in favor of the City Attorney putting them on notice that their behavior is not conducive to the community standards. He said it may also be possible to impose an amortization period of about three years to replace the sign. Mr. Ray questioned the suggestion of a letter or written reprimand for an action that occurred sixteen years ago. He referred to George Randels oft spoken emphasis on enforcement and said that whatever is done, it is essential that this not be allowed to happen again. Mr. Unterseher asked if flags, banners, whiny-gigs etc. were covered in the code, and Mr. Sepler assured him that they are. He noted that despite the code restrictions, examples of all of them could be seen all along Sims Way. Ms. Nelson returned to conditional use permits; she asked if all four of the non-compliant sign owners could be directed to apply for such permits. Mr. Sepler said that that approach typically involves a variance, but in these cases, there is no "hardship". He said special criteria could be developed for this, but the criteria would never be used again. He suggested that perhaps it would be best to address whether each sign should remain or not and there could be findings that deal with QFC issues and their behavior. The message would be that the Planning Commission, by their recommendation, does not condoned or support violation of the code, but because of the passage of time and the circumstances, it is necessary to move on. He said the four could be treated as a class for which standards could be developed that would apply to them and similar buildings in the future. Chair Slabaugh also noted the lesson for the City regarding deliberate relaxation or elimination of enforcement as a policy. There was agreement that Mr. Sepler should follow through on drafting the documents noted above, and return to the Planning Commission to present them. Ms. Nelson suggested that the letter to QFC make clear that for that the 17 foot standard would apply for any future building and signs. Mr. Sepler said that he had suggested findings, not a letter, that describe the situation and makes it clear that they have not. been granted amnesty, but will be subject to the same consideration and process as the other three. A revised standard for buildings within a given range of parameters will be developed and will apply to them, as it would to any member of that class. Ms. Nelson pointed out that items 11 and 12 had not been discussed at the previous meeting. Item 11, Special sign standards for sub-districts? - Ms. Nelson pointed out that the written narrative of the recommendation was more thorough than the summary matrix version. She said she agreed with the ad hoc committee recommendation of "no change". Mr. Sepler reiterated that the ad hoc committee had considered the need for larger signs on Sims Way and found the standards to be adequate; the Fountain and other districts had also been discussed. It was found that special standards for multiple small districts were unwarranted, especially considering how cumbersome enforcement would become. Planning Commission Page 12 of 14 October 25, 2007 . Item 12, Port of Port Townsend Seafood Signage -- Chair Slabaugh asked Ms. Nelson to read the description and recommendation aloud. She then asked if the Port of Port Townsend had been asked for their opinions about the erection of a monument sign. Mr. Sepler said that the Port was represented on the sign committee. They thought it was a good idea, as long as the City did not tell them what to do. Mr. Unterseher said he recognized the serious problem with the fish sale signs, but believes it should be applied to all temporary usages. There was a brief discussion about item 1, which only applies to non-profit organizations. Commissioners again discussed the need to review the signage strategy from a higher level view, rather than continue with the piecemeal approach. Mr. LeMaster recommended that the ad hoc sign committee consider the possibility of the use of sign boards and recommend what, when and where they could be placed. The idea to possibly re-task the sign committee was rejected because that group has already disbanded, having completed its original charge. Mr. LeMaster described the general problem of businesses outside the main shopping district. There was further discussion of effective signage and an overall strategy that meets general needs/goals for the whole community, as well as visitors. Chair Slabaugh asked for more specific recommendations, rather than generalizations, such as having item 1 apply to both for profit and non-profit organizations. Mr. Ray suggested that the Planning Commission move the sign committee recommendations forward, as well as put it on a docket to revisit, whenever possible. Chair Slabaugh stressed that it is necessary to define more clearly what should be revisited, that the entire sign code is too much to grapple with. Mr. Ray and Mr. Unterseher repeated that the more work and discussion is needed on the whole issue because the sign code is not working. . Mr. Sepler recapped what he had gleaned about the problem from Commissioners. He said it seemed to stem largely with the signage allowable off premises and that it seemed concerned with way finding to business places. He noted that the sign code does not allow signage in the public right of way, other than the signage boards downtown and monument signs on Gateway; that rule must be affirmed or modified. He said the. issues were: how much, where and how often. He said that could be pursued, but would take a focused workshop. He offered to structure a script or series of questions that would allow Commissioners to explore this further. After brief consideration, the Commissioners indicated interest in such a workshop and it was tentatively scheduled for December 13. Mr. Sepler also reminded everyone of the tradition to adjourn early for a small holiday celebration and suggested December 13 as the date. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS November 8 - PTMC Code Revisions; this will cover the list of simpler, straight forward revision, and not the Home Occupation item. November 22 -Meeting cancelled due to the Thanksgiving Holiday December 13 -Continuation of the Rezones public hearing and Signage Workshop Commissioner Nelson cannot attend the November 8 meeting. P/arming Commission Page 13 of 14 October 25, 2007 . IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved to adjourn and Mr. LeMaster seconded, which was approved, all in favor. Chair Slabaugh adjourned the meeting at 9:06 PM. r' Liesl'~kabaugh, Chair ~~ ~~~~. Gail Bernhard, Recorder • • P/anning Commission Page 14 of 14 October 25, 2007