Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout053107. City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting .May 31, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall -City Council Chambers Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Revised Agenda for May 31, 2007 EXH 2. Upper Sims Howard/Ranier Overlay District Ordinance, revised May 10, 2007 EXH 3. Color-coded map of Upper Sims Proposed Rezone area (C-II to C-II M/LJ) EXH 4. Howard/Rainier Street Corridor: A New North/ South Arterial and Neighborhood (Question and Answer format information sheet for public use) EXH 5. B. Arthur, (Untitled Packet) Comments to the Planning Commission regarding "proposed downzone from C-II to C-ILMU with attachments A - H, May 31, 2007 SA. Copy of LUP07-057, Notice of Pending SEPA Threshold Determination and Planning SB. Copy of EXH. 3 above SC. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2007 SD. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2007 SE. Achieving a better balance between Jobs and Housing, undated, anonymous; contains excerpts from GMA and Port Townsend MC (?working document from HAPN?) SF. Copy of City of Port Townsend Ordinance 2896 (adding Chapter 17.05, Formula Retail) SG. Selected excerpts: WACs 365-195-335, 345, 400, 520, 600 and others EXH 6. Guest List for May 31, 2007 U CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Lizut called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. He welcomed guests and explained that the meeting/hearing was being held in Council Chambers, rather than in the City Hall Third floor conference room, in order to accommodate more attendees. II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capon, Steve Emery, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Roger Lizut, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Julian Ray was excused. III. AGENDA Chair Lizut noted that revised agendas were available along with other meeting materials. He asked if there were any suggested changes to the agenda. There were none. The agenda was approved, as written. Chair Lizut said that before proceeding with the next item, he would like to comment on the • agenda. He said that in order to have an efficient and effective meeting, he wished to make certain that the scope and purpose of the hearing was very clear. "The agenda, under new business, is for the Rezone and Draft of the Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 1 of 10 Ordinance. The purpose of this meeting is to have said presentation, and then to have • opportunity for the public to present their views on this." He said that he was aware of the energy about traffic controls that may or may not be installed on Upper Sims Way. "This Commission will not consider that issue at all at any time. It is not part of our work plan that has come from the City Council to us. Therefore, we have no input on that. (The City Council will conduct a public workshop on June 4 in these Chambers, and then will hold a meeting on June 18 for purposes of the public to give their input to the Council, who will make decisions on that issue.) We (Planning Commission) want to concentrate solely on the issues about the Howard Street rezoning issues. So, I beg the public, when speaking, to limit comments to these issues only." Chair Lizut thanked the public for their anticipated cooperation. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lizut asked if there were any corrections or comments on the minutes of April 26 or May 10, 2007. There were no corrections to the minutes of April 26, 2007. Ms. Slabaugh said that she had not attended the meeting of May 10 and asked for clarification on one sentence. Mr. Sepler confirmed that the sentence (page 5, paragraph 3) should be augmented to read: "Mr. Sepler said the consultant estimated that perhaps about 10 units of affordable housing would be gained by the bonus provision." Ms. Slabaugh moved and Mr. Lizut seconded for approval of both sets of minutes. The minutes of Apri126, 2007 and May 10, 2007 were unanimously approved, as amended. • V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Vl. NEW BUSINESS: a. Rezoning Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Chair Lizut read the Planning Commission Public Hearing rules of order script in its entirety. However, he noted that the prescribed 3-minute time limit for initial testimony would not be in effect and that speakers would not be timed for this meeting. He asked if any Commissioners had any interest, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this matter. There were none. Staff Presentation: Rick Sepler, Planning Director, reviewed the list of materials for the meeting: EXH. 1 Revised Agenda; EXH 3. copy of the land use map; and EXH.4 a question and answer sheet for the public about the proposed revisions to be considered. He noted that the purpose of the public hearing is to be able to consider comments from the community and crafting appropriate policy for the City itself. He said that staff, in consultation with the Chair, respectfully requested that at the conclusion of the discussion this evening, this hearing be continued to June 28, 2007. Staff, working in conjunction with property owners and potential applicants, would then have an opportunity to add refinements to the draft ordinance that will reflect new information that has come to light regarding both the road alignment of Howard Street and access .... [inaudible]. He • said additional time is needed to address the general alignment strategy and to be as accurate as possible before moving forward. Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 2 of 10 He stepped to the wall map to walk through the background for the benefit of members of the • public who were present. He noted that in a series of meetings about Upper Sims Way, discussions arose about providing enhanced opportunities for pedestrian-based development, i.e., development that would support commercial, residential and other uses in a mixed use environment. Because it was a central theme in all early Sims Way workshops, City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop a mixed use development strategy, which is now reflected in this draft ordinance. Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Howard Street has been identified as a potential north-south arterial which would alleviate the burden on Sims Way as the only major route in and out of Port Townsend. (Sims Way currently carries about 18,000 trips per day and will never reach design capacity because of intersection bottlenecks, regardless of traffic circles or other control alternatives.) Howard Street roadway construction was not funded or covered by the Transportation Improvement Plan. However, this City Council has prioritized the Sims Way and Howard Street locale, i.e., to provide an overall stipulation for the area. The land uses under consideration are predicated on not only supporting the transportation uses but perhaps enhancing them. The City is proposing improvements to SR-20 as well as construction of Howard Street to join Discovery Bay Road as the first step in that north-south arterial. The community has identified mixed use as being preferable for the area. Mixed use is a type of development that incorporates multiple uses. Typically normal zoning tries to separate uses to avoid conflicts. Over the past decade, it has been found that appropriate uses, when balanced and guided by appropriate provisions, can not only coexist, but result in more beneficial outcomes.. For example, residents within walking distance of shops become built in constituencies for businesses and, by their presence, provide a greater measure of safety during off hours. The • purpose of the ordinance itself is to find the most appropriate way of encouraging mixed use development along the Howard Street corridor. He pointed out key features on the map. The blue line represents the boundaries of the study area defined by the Planning Commission. He pointed out the existing zone, and the proposed zone shown in the handout. Currently, the intersection of the unopened Shasta right of way and Discovery Bay Road have been zoned for mixed use, C-II MU. He described the contents of the area shown in red, showing Sims Way, Howard Street, the ReMax building that has been zoned C-II, general commercial. In developing the draft ordinance, two driving forces are prevalent. First, to encourage mixed use development, there is a requirement for two stories along the Howard Street Corridor. As an incentive for elimination of single story uses, an additional story or up to fifty feet in height is allowed within 100 feet of the corridor. In addition, there is an incentive scheme to encourage amenities: child care, open space, public plazas, and low income housing. The proposal would extend the C-II zoning down to Sims Way and properties adjacent to Howard Street, and would establish those uses in the Overlay District, with emphasis on what occurs within 100 feet of the center line of the Howard Street Corridor. Mr. Sepler noted that although there could be some additional revisions to the ordinance itself, he would be happy to answer questions during this meeting or participate in general discussion about the ordinance. Chair Lizut restated that because of the request of staff to continue the hearing to June 28, there would be opportunity for public input beyond this meeting. After this evening, there will be a second opportunity for comment on June 28, or by written comment up to and including that date. • Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 3 of 10 Public Testimony: • Chair Lizut asked if there were any written materials that had been submitted or that anyone wished to submit, without speaking. There were none. Chair Lizut invited those who had signed the Guest Sheet to speak in the order signed in. Bernie Arthur, 423 Adelma Beach Road, Port Townsend, WA [Mr. Arthur's introductory remarks about his hair style and upcoming high school reunion were unrelated to the rezoning topic.] Mr. Arthur said that he owns a lot in the Wolcott Addition behind the ReMax building. He read from written text, a copy of which was submitted within a packet of materials (EXH. 5) after the meeting. He said has an interest and is concerned about the proposed downzone from C-II to C-II M/LJ, of which he was informed by mail on or about May 20. He said that based on the limited information he received he cannot understand why this change is necessary. He said he could see the need to add uses to accommodate the Care Facility and is in favor of that request. The further reduction of C-II General Commercial within the City is counterproductive to the agreed Urban Growth Plans that require areas to be available for economic and commercial development. The City of Port Townsend is the only Urban Growth Center within all of Jefferson County. He quoted ordinance 2896. He said that the past few years have seen a reduction in the C-II properties in Port Townsend. "Such examples are Park N Ride lot, Jefferson Transit main terminal, half of Castle Hill Shopping Center purchased by the County, and all the docks along Water Street, to name a few. This is not all of them. This reduction in commercial properties has driven the cost of rentals and land out of the local business budget. The addition of expensive city regulations and fees has further reduced the opportunity for local small businesses to expand and grow in any profitable way. How is this rezone going to help? My property is C-II. I was required to pay for City required utility improvements and commit to future Howard Street improvements such as traffic signals. I have invested time and money in the property as it is zoned and do not consider this rezone a benefit to me or my neighbors who have expectations to use their properties as zoned. Please review the C- II description ordnance 2716 (December 6, 1999)." Mr. Arthur added that since he had more time, he would read the Ordinance: "C-II General Commercial -This designation has been applied to commercial areas outside neighborhood and mixed use areas." Now if you review the maps of the City, you will see that the mixed use areas are not being utilized. There is a reason for that, and I'm not going to spend my time telling you all about it, but I can assure you that it's very expensive and hard to get financing. The designated commercial area accommodates a wide range of general commercial uses which serve the local and city wide market area. Uses located within this designation include retail businesses, professional offices, hotels, restaurants, and personal service shops. Upper story residential units are permitted outright. This designation has been applied to more areas of the city than any other commercial designation and occurs in various locations along Sims Way and Water Street, and in the triangular area bounded by SR-20 on the south, Howard Street on the east and Discovery Road on the northwest. He said that this is just one of many things that have been discussed over the years. He said that he had been here for over 40 years, noting that "this was not like he had just fallen off the turnip truck". Mr. Arthur said, in conclusion, that this rezone has great environmental impact. He said he thought "it had great impact because if you look at the .C-Il zoned properties, what's available for new business to develop or expand, you'll find that there isn't any." "And if there is you'll find that the competition is the City, county, hospital or somebody else wanting to buy it with our tax dollars. Therefore, you should require a full environmental review. Do not allow this seemingly "minor change", based on your minutes (I've read your minutes and could not find any Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 4 of 10 discussion worth a damn about what effect this would have on the community), to slide through. A review of the minutes does not show any discussion taking place about this change. This need of the care center requires you only to add their need to the C-II zoning matrix (uses) allowed in C-II. Not all business owners or local residents are aware or able to attend this meeting and certainly do not understand the long-range impact of them. You are everyone's representative and we expect you to do the reputable thing and stop this charade." "This and several documents are being submitted by me to be added as part of the record. So, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them." Todd Fletcher, 37712 188'x' Avenue SE, Auburn, WA (Port Townsend Medical Investors) "We operate the Kah Tail Care Center. We would like to build a replacement facility, up in the area that is in discussion, between Howard Street and Discovery Road." He said he and his company were in favor of continuing this discussion until the end of the June, to give them a chance to consider their site plan and how what the Planning Commission is doing will affect what they would be constructing in that area. Charlie Arthur, 1024 Center Street, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Arthur (pointing to the map) said that he had been trying to sell two parcels for some time, and that he has sold several parcels in the Business Park. He noted that, based on that, he had some knowledge and experience with what consumers and builders are looking for in that part of town; he said he also knew what his needs were when he moved his business to the corner of Howard and Sims Way. He said he had no objection to the Care Center at all, and would • reiterate what has already been said. He added that use is fine, but other "down-zoning" is not appropriate. He said his main concern as a young person trying to raise a family in this community is the loss of uses that would have potentially decent paying employment opportunities, as well as the incredibly high cost to develop mixed use. Additionally, in this plan the increase of minimum lot size from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet is a bad thing because it may prevent the sole proprietor from putting up their own spot to do business. C-II is the only place in the City to have certain types of businesses. Many types of manufacturing are low impact yet require City infrastructure. The County has opportunities for some types of manufacturing zoning, but has no sewer. He said he was concerned with having less space for those types of operations within the City limits. He said, based on his experience with buying, selling, building and leasing out space in a building, that mixed use is too expensive to be made a requirement throughout the overlay area. He said the current zoning is restrictive enough, that he supported adding but not taking away; the Care Center use should be added to C-II. Brent Shirley, 5 Lincoln Beach Road, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Shirley stated that about 27 years ago he had been involved in getting the Business Park area rezoned from residential to commercial. He said that the concern, then and now, is that once you get this far out within the City Limits, there is no more commercial space available. He said his comment is directly related to the area that borders Sims Way, which is auto related. He said he would like to see the Overlay zone moved up so that it does not prevent normal commercial highway-side or Sims Way-side types of operations. He said it does not seem appropriate to take property next to a gas station and, via the Overlay, start something new. He said that as a person who is still learning and who has lots of questions, he appreciates this process and the opportunity to collect and understand additional information. He mentioned questions such as storm drainage, the alignment of Howard Street itself, and how much of that road a potential applicant would have to complete. He said he would encourage the Planning Commission to Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 5 of 10 think about moving the Overlay zone away from Sims Way to allow "us" to continue to develop . Sims Way as normally would be done under commercial zoning. Ford Kessler, 374 Hwy 20, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Kessler said that he owned a piece of property "up there" (proposed rezone/overlay area). He stated that he had purchased the property because of its zoning and had had intentions to build in that area, but his plans have changed. The property is now for sale under C-II zoning; he said the zoning changes would hinder the sale of that property and affect him financially. He said he disagreed with the proposed changes to the zoning. He noted that he had not done a lot of research as yet and appreciated the extension of time to do that. He mentioned that the nature of his business does not allow him much time, but he planned to return to the next meeting. Paul Lytle, 4919 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA (Mr. Lytle declined to speak at this point, but wished to reserve his right to speak a later time.} Jeff Randall, 1142 Adams Street, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Randall began by estimating that the area involved in the rezone was about 20 to 30 acres. He said that it was probably the biggest rezone undertaken in the City since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and that it was a very significant piece of legislation and rezoning. He said that having read through the document, he believed it was quite complex in what it was trying to achieve, not only affecting uses but also building in design standards. Mr. Randall stated that it was hard to know what would result, i.e. how the area would develop with or without this legislation. In comparing the proposed ordinance to the current regulations, he identified a major difference, i.e., the increase of the maximum ground floor area standard from 40,000 square feet (or 60,000 square feet for multi-story) to no maximum. He said he sees some elements of this • proposal that he likes, including more urban density, more neighborhood uses, more pedestrian oriented, etc. However, he believes that eliminating the maximum or allowing buildings that are larger than a city block would be a mistake. He said that currently one or multiple attached buildings may not exceed 40,000 square feet. And the area between buildings should look and feel like streets in the densest parts of town. He also addressed the issue of the gateway buffer, giving credit to David Goldman for pointing it out. He spoke about the original intention to preserve a forest corridor as a significant part of the look and feel of the town. However, he said the ordinance does not address the gateway buffer specifically, although it deals with buffering and open space as part of the bonus scheme. He referred to what remains of the trees along the corridor, and the text that says that the forest corridor in C-II should be preserved to the extent feasible. Mr. Randall recommended that the Commissioners consider a more proscriptive standard in the Overlay ordinance. He also said that where bonus densities are considered, there should be more measurable public benefits defined and specified. Regarding the nursing, rest and convalescent home use, he said that he believed it was a good thing, and that was based on what he had seen as he traveled around the country. He referred to the comments from Bernie and Charlie Arthur: Why isn't this area developed? Because it will take a major developer to come in and put in some of the major infrastructure and create the critical mass to get things moving. The City can't do much except for planning for it. He likes that the City has taken this on. There was consensus that something had to be done. If the City, collectively, does not come through with a vision, it will get one developer's vision. Mr. Randall said that he took a $25,000 cut to work in the private sector. He encourages reviewing of the C-II tables; he said maybe some of these can provide living wage jobs. He said . that in general, although he believes there is more work ahead on this ordinance, that he likes the direction and thinks the issues can be worked through. Planning Commission May 39, 2007 Page 6 of 10 David Hero, 933 Tyler Street, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Hero said he was not prepared to speak because he had not yet read much of the material. Therefore, he supports the extension of time that will allow everyone to study this further. From what he has heard during this meeting and what he has been able to read quickly, he agrees with Brent Shirley about the Sims Way corridor. He said that he was not into strip development at aIl, but since there is one already established, forcing housing along the highway maybe counterproductive. He said that trying to have residential in such a busy highway area and developing a different neighborhood concept there seems like it is out of line. He said that he agrees strongly with everything Jeff Randall had said. We should probably codify some kind of green belt corridor into town. He said that one thing that may not be realized by the Commission is that, for mixed use development, the code requires the entire building to have sprinkling systems. The developer is required to pay the entire cost, as well as a tap fee for any sprinkling system as an ongoing expense. He said that at ]east the question of fire safety and the associated code issues should be addressed. He noted that he had installed a sprinkler system in his business although it was not required. Tap fees over a 12 year period amounted to more than $3,000. Mr. Hero said that he also agreed with others who had spoken that the permitted and restricted uses should be reexamined and made more inclusive, if there are no compelling reasons why they should not be permitted in a residential neighborhood. He believes that the urban neighborhood concept seems to be that the desired end should allow a more interesting mix of some manufacturing and commercial uses. He said the chart that he had just reviewed proposes a significantly more gentrified Port Townsend than he would like to see it becoming. David Goldman, 2514 Thomas Street, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Goldman said that he supports many of the comments that had been made during the • meeting, particularly from the business people. He said the non-development, or lack of development, in that area is striking, and alluded to the "dog that didn't bark" in an Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes story. Mr. Goldman stated that before the City takes on something this complicated, the goals and strategy should be re-examined. He read from the notes for the meeting: "The purpose of the overlay district is to support the creation of a neighborhood center and commercial destination through mixed use development, and to ensure that zoning allows for appropriate uses that support this objective." He said that what jumps out to him is that if it will be a commercial destination, and already is, how will we handle the cars on arterials that are already failing? How will the traffic and parking be handled and supported? He said that it is clear that the back road capacity problems must be resolved, and referred to the Discovery Road project at the top of the capital projects list. He said there were no funds and the Commission should be emphasizing the need to find funds for that and to tackle the traffic circulation issues, i.e. concurrency issues under the GMA, before deciding that this district should be both a destination and a neighborhood, but with fewer uses. "Are we supporting the district as it is; if not and its going to fail in the future as it is, why is it going to do better if we put these restrictions on and think of it as a destination? Unless the thinking is that this will be a self- contained village, and there isn't going to be more circulation required because residents will not use their cars; that does not seem practical to me." He recommended some serious engineering studies to project traffic volumes over and above what is happening on Sims Way and Mill/Discovery Roads before putting the Overlay District into place. Brent Shirley (Additional comments) Mr. Shirley said he wanted to add his support of the convalescent/assisted living center. He said it was a real need for the community and also an opportunity for the City to receive help with the • Howard Street extension. Regarding the issue of jobs, he described a scenario where he or any developer would come in and build a mixed use facility, "condo-izing" a portion where multiple small businesses could buy in. He noted that has not happened yet, and may not because of the Planning Commission May 3?, 2007 Page 7 of 70 expense of being first. However, that might be possible if there were to be a significant pioneer such as the care facility. He asked if it is possible under either zone to come up with a mixed use development under a binding site plan or some way to sit down with staff and work out a unique plan that is ultimately approvable by the Planning Commission and City Council. He said that maybe some of the mixed uses identified under the Howard/Ranier overlay versus C-II M/LJ could be conditional. Then, a developer with the intention of supporting the mixed use concept with and through a number of small businesses could work with a wider range of possible uses. He said that he would submit his idea in writing at a later date, after hearing more and refining the concept further. Bernie Arthur (Additional comments) Mr. Arthur said that it was his understanding that if the rezoning were adopted, some of the existing businesses (uses) would no longer be permitted, unless they were grandfathered. He asked if the existing gas station or tavern, for example, would be permitted to rebuild if destroyed, and/or if they would be restricted from expanding or diversifying. He cautioned against being so restrictive as to discourage the small business or entrepreneur, or changing the regulations in ways not anticipated by property and business owners who have already invested there. He stated that changing that area is taking jobs away. He said that he would be willing to share his thoughts on how to create and foster living wage jobs at some point, but that in the meantime this (the proposal) is not the way to do it. Chair Lizut thanked all those who had spoken and expressed his appreciation to everyone for focusing on the topic at hand. He encouraged everyone to "stick with us" on this process, and to consider it further. He voiced his personal opinion that this is likely to be one of the most significant sets of zoning decisions that will be made for quite some time. Chair Lizut asked if staff wished to respond to any subjects raised by any speaker or make any additional statement. Staff Response: Mr. Sepler said that since this hearing would be continued, and since he anticipated development of a revised draft to incorporate certain changes, he had no further comments at that time. However, he said he would provide a revised staff recommendation/ report at least one week prior to the June 28 hearing. Ile said that, with Planning Commission's agreement, although the hearing is not until June 28, this topic could be discussed at the June 7 meeting. Chair Lizut reminded that addresses of all those present should be collected via the Sign-In sheets so that follow up materials could be mailed. Planning Commission Questions: Chair Lizut invited Commissioners to ask questions of speakers and staff. George Unterseher asked how the traffic would affect future zoning, either C-II or C-II M/U. Mr. Sepler said that modeling of traffic had been done. C-II has a higher generation of traffic/trips than C-II M/U. Rezoning to C-II M{U would reduce the number of trips. The City, as part of the Upper Sims plan, is proposing to construct both Howard Street and improvements on Sims Way. Although developer financing may be a portion of it, the City may well be the entity that constructs all of the improvements; he mentioned the LID and the transportation improvement bond. The modeling estimated that when Howard Street is opened through to Discovery, it will take 1800 trips/day off of Sims Way. Sims Way will provide more efficient passage of traffic either through traffic circles or controlled intersections. The strategy the City has adopted includes certain possibly difficult `bookends' or premises: 1. the configuration of Sims Way will not be • changed beyond its current capacity (3 lanes); the Comprehensive Plan did not allow Sims Way to be designed for peak capacity; they did not want to change the character of the community for efficiency. 2. Access must be provided to businesses on both sides of the street. This means that Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 8 of 10 turning motions must be accommodated by intersections and controls. That means there are two competing precepts. The strategy is to provide relief via the alternate roads of Jacob Miller Road, Hastings, Howard and Discovery; selective improvements are planned for these, as well. He said that Sims Way will always be a busy road, and the question is whether the intersections will ultimately fail due to the load. Fundamental to the plan is to reduce the overall trips, period. If you can reduce trips by having alternative modes and balance, the transportation system can be significantly improved. In summary, he said that the overall transportation issue has been considered with respect to zoning, and that C-II M/LT is expected to reduce total trips. Alice King asked for clarification on whether residences and/or offices above commercial are required only adjacent to Howard Street alignment, not throughout the overlay district. Mr. Sepler said that was correct. He added that the hearing extension is partly to provide time to firm up the exact alignment. Ms. Slabaugh followed up to ask if the residential/office requirement applies to the area where Howard Street meets Sims Way, within 100 feet of the intersection (on Sims Way as well as Howard St. ?). Mr. Sepler's replied that there had been testimony during the meeting questioning the boundary of the Overlay and that could be considered. Ms. Slabaugh also asked for Mr. Sepler's comments on the issue of grandfathering clause for existing business uses that had been raised in the testimony period. Mr. Sepler said that if property is rezoned, those businesses become "pre-existing non-conforming uses". There is a section in Chapter 17 that deals with that. They are allowed to continue, they are allowed to do repairs, and to make changes. But any expansion that increases the degree of non-conformity is prohibited. Ms. King asked if rebuilding, if destroyed by fire; would be permitted. He said that most codes say no, if they are 100% destroyed. If it is 50% or less, rebuilding would be permitted. Bill LeMaster followed up on an earlier comment regarding "downzoning" (i.e. C-II to C-II M/U) and its expected negative impact on property value and/or ability to sell a parcel. He said he was confused that the consultant study had indicated that the actual values of properties would have increased as a result of mixed usage. Mr. Sepler responded that the greatest increase in the value for any property would be the presence of infrastructure: roads and services. The question of whether mixed use or commercial is more valuable in general is debatable - he said there are unique instances for both. Mr. Charlie Arthur said that most of the mixed use properties have been on the market for many, many years. He pointed out four or five properties on the map in the C-II area that have sold or are under contract, and showed instances of mixed use that are still for sale. He said, in his experience, there is more activity for commercial properties. There was a brief discussion about the lack of infrastructure factor for either zoning area. Chair Lizut asked if anyone in the audience had comments solely to clarify any item raised by a Commissioner for staff. David Hero had an additional comment with regard to the property value issue. He said he was not disagreeing with anyone, but he agreed with Roger Lizut that this is one of the most significant land rezone considerations in the recent history of Port Townsend. He said that, therefore, the fact that something is more saleable today under its current situation that it might be if it is done differently is an important consideration. He reminded, however, that this body is a Planning Commission, and not a real estate commission as well. He said it is important for the Commissioners to look at the future of the development of an area and to keep its priorities straight, i.e. "You are planning the future of Port Townsend, not the present of Port Townsend." Chair Lizut adjourned the public hearing portion of the meeting, continuing it until June 28. Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 9 of 10 • VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS: June 7; 2007 -Special Meeting, Public Hearing on Barbed Wire Ordinance and Residential Setback Adjustment Ordinance June 14, 2007 -CANCELLED June. 28, 2007 -Continued Public Hearing: Rezone and Draft Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Ordinance; Code Amendments Update IX. COMMUNICATIONS: None X. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Emery moved for adjournment. Chair Lizut adjourned the meeting at 8:22 PM. • .C7 '~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder Roger Lizut, hair Planning Commission May 31, 2007 Page 10 of 10