HomeMy WebLinkAbout041207CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2007 7:OOpm
CITY HALL - THIIZD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
Meeting Materials:
EXH. 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda (revised) for April 12, 2007
EXH. 2. J. Surber, Staff Report to Planning Commission: Director's Recommendation on the 2007
Comprehensive Plan Docket, Apri15, 2007; with maps (EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, E1, F & G).
EXH. E2 Rigby Comprehensive Plan Application (LUP 07-026)
EXH E3 D. Rigby, Letter to Planning Commission, re: Rigby rezone, dated February 15, 2007
EXH H1 J. Randall, Letter to Planning Commission, re: Suggested Code Amendment, Small Wind
Energy Systems, dated March 1, 2007
EXH H2 AWEA Model Zoning Ordinance: Permitted Use Ordinance for Small Wind Turbines
(J. Randall supporting materials, LUP 07-028)
EXH H3 Proposed PTMC additions/revisions (J. Randall supporting materials, LUP 07-028)
EXH H4 Handbook Cover: Permitting Small Wind Turbines (J. Randall, supporting LUP 07-028)
EXH I1 J. Randall, Letter to Planning Commission, re: Suggested Code Amendment, Residential
Setback Adjustments, dated March 1, 2007
EXH I2 Proposed PTMC additions/revisions (J. Randall supporting materials, LUP 07-029)
EXH. 3 Guest Sign In Sheet, Planning Commission Hearing, April 12, 2007
• I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice
King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Julian Ray, and Liesl Slabaugh.
George Unterseher was excused.
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Chair Randels moved that the approval of minutes and election of new vice chair be deferred
until after the public hearing. Mr. Ray seconded. All were in favor, and the agenda was
approved, as amended.
TV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (See below)
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None)
•
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 1 of 11 April 12, 2007
VI.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Public Hearing - 2007 Comprehensive Plan Preliminary Docket
(Judy Surber, Senior Planner)
Chair Randels opened the public hearing and asked those in attendance to sign the guest sheet.
He read the public hearing rules of order in full. Chair Randels asked, "Do any Planning
Commissioners have an interest in the properties or issues that are the subject of this hearing, or
stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing, or have any
disclosures to make?" Hearing none, he asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected
to the participation of any Planning Commissioner in the hearing. There were none.
Chair Randels then reviewed the order of topics and speakers within the hearing. He next
introduced Judy Surber and Rick Sepler and asked them to begin the presentation.
Judy Surber offered copies of the hearing packet to those in the audience. She began by
explaining that formal applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments aze accepted annually;
the deadline is March 31 of each yeaz. All applications aze collected and processed concurrently
as a docket.. Every few years, suggested amendments aze accepted, at no chazge to the applicant.
The Planning Commission and City Council decide whether or not these suggested changes
warrant staff time and resources to be given consideration in that yeaz. She explained that the
purpose of the hearing is to review the need, the urgencyand the timeliness of each one of the
suggested amendments to determine whether or not it should be investigated further.
She said that it is typical that a formal amendment is site specific and therefore quasi judicial.
She explained that there was one such formal amendment on the agenda. The owner had
requested a rezone of their own personal property. There were also several suggested
amendments that are also site-specific relating to individual property owners and therefore
treated as quasi judicial.
Ms. Surber reviewed each of the proposed amendments in the order presented in the staff memo,
(EXH. 2)
1. Shapiro/Woods Rezone (LUP 07-024) - Ms. Surber explained that as a formal amendment,
this is automatically placed on the docket. The proposal is to rezone six lots from R-II, Medium
Density Single Family to C-II, General Commercial zoning.
Chair Randels asked for clarification as to whether or not the task of the Planning Commission
was to also make recommendations. Ms. Surber explained that there would be a full additional
process for those items that are docketed in this hearing, including public notice and
environmental review.
2. Q4 Development Rezone (LUP 07-015) -This item originally came in as a formal
amendment, after which the proponent changed it to a suggested amendment with the assumption
that, if necessary, it would be submitted as a formal amendment in the following year. In this
case, the location is at 30`~ and Gibbs Streets; the proponent owns other blocks in the azea.
The request is to rezone one city block from the current R-I single-family residential (10,000
squaze feet minimum lot size) to R-II single family residential (5,000 square feet minimum lot
size). Ms. Surber said that Basin 4a and 4b was kept as 10,000 square foot lot size in
consideration of storm water issues. This property at 30`~ and Gibbs is in Basin 4a, but as
demonstrated by the zoning map, there is a neazby area of R-I sandwiched between R-II and R-III
Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 11 Ap~i/ 12, 2007
that cannot be explained by the Basin 4 boundaries. Staff recommends that this request be
investigated further, with the possibility of including blocks 3, 8, 21, and 22 in addition to block
23, to see if an area of higher density could be supported.
In response to a question from Chair Randels about other blocks in the vicinity, Rick Sepler said
that it is likely that the area to the east can be served by infrastructure; there are alternatives
under consideration for sewer (lift station) that may allow support of higher densities. There was
a brief discussion regarding the relationship of infrastructure to zoning. Mr. Sepler said that there
is a proponent who is now evaluating the feasibility of opening the area easterly of Howard St.
and northerly of Hastings St.
3. Wise Rezone (LUP 06-149) -The proposal is to rezone the property at the corner of F Street
and San Juan Avenue (EXH. C) from C-I (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-UMU
(Neighborhood serving Mixed Use Center). This would be consistent with the development of
the adjacent properties. Multi-family housing would be allowed as part of future development.
Rick Sepler pointed out that this property is the only instance of C-I in the vicinity. The
Director's recommendation is to docket this item. Ms. Surber noted that if the Planning
Commission ultimately concurs with the recommendation, staff changes the document to indicate
"Planning Commission recommendation" and includes any special changes desired.
Liesl Slabaugh requested clarification on whether or not a change to C-I/MU would require
multi-family housing to be included with new construction, or just allow it. Ms. Surber
confirmed that it would be required.
4. Nomura Rezone (LUP 07-014) -The proposal is to rezone all or part of the large property at
• the corner of F Street and San Juan Avenue from R-II to C-I/MU and R-III. This appears
consistent with the City's vision of walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods that offer a variety
of housing types. Ms. Surber said that in conversations with Teri Nomura, she had been in favor
of investigating this further, and noted that the Nomuras would likely be present at future
hearings, if the item is docketed. Ms. Slabaugh said she had noticed a Swale at the low side of
the property, and asked if there was a wetland there. Ms. Surber said that the F Street drainage
was on the other side of F Street. Mr. Ray asked if there was additional information from
informal conversations regarding which parts of the property the owner may wish to rezone. Ms.
Surber indicated that the portion near the corner (F and San Juan Streets) would likely be C-II
M/U, bounded by concentric rings of residential, R-III.
5. Rigby Rezone (LUP 07-026) -The proposal is to rezone four lots at Sheridan Street and 11 `~'
Street from C-II(H) (Hospital Commercial) to residential use (R-II to R-III residential). The
rationale stated in the Rigby letter is that the medical model has changed since the zoning was
done, and that this particular property is not needed by the hospital. Ms. Surber said that she and
Mr. Sepler had met with Mr. Vic Dirksen, CEO of the Jefferson Health Care, and had learned
that the hospital is about to embark on a long range planning process. He spoke of two different
models that are possible for the future. One is having associated clinics and services in the near
vicinity of the hospital, which is consistent with the current zoning. Another is to somewhat
disperse the service locations. According to Mr. Dirksen, the property in question would, under
certain circumstances, appear to be a logical clinical facility expansion area. Therefore, in the
absence of a hospital master plan, staff is not recommending that this item be docketed at this
time. Ms. Surber said that she had received an e-mail from Mr. Rigby following the meeting
with the hospital, and she read his comments aloud: "I have chosen not to write or to attend
• Thursday night's meeting. From the sound of our conversation, the staff will present a wait and
see approach, based on Vic Dirksen's comments. The problem is that the hospital's master plan
has been talked about for years. This is also one of the few properties zoned C-II(H) that has
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 3 of 11 April 12, 2007
three sides facing an already built residential neighborhood - a neighborhood that has expressed
a desire to keep the area residential in use. As I mentioned in my letter, there aze seventeen acres
of C-II(I-~ in that vicinity and this must be on the low end of desirability for this use. So, this is
Vic Dirksen's opinion versus me and the neighborhood's opinion. Oh well, maybe you could at
least express that notion if you can. I will try again next yeaz if this doesn't go through."
6. Rezone City of Port Townsend Library Site (LUP 07-036) -The majority of the Port
Townsend Librazy site is zoned P-I (Public/Infrastructure), with a small easterly portion of about
2850 square feet zoned C-III (Historic Commercial); see EXH. F. The proposal is to unify the
zoning of the site to P-I. The staff recommends docketing this item to eliminate the mixed
zoning for a single site.
Correction to the Staff Report: The report erroneously identifies the current zoning of the strip in
question as C-II (and refers to the height limit of 35 feet). The actual C-III (Historic
Commercial) has a SO foot height limit..
7. Rezone and Create an Overlay District for the Howazd Street Corridor (LUP 07-030) - Ms.
Surber reviewed the status of the Howazd Street Corridor planning, as outlined in the staff report.
She said that if the ordinance is approved, it will require rezoning, and has been reflected in the
docket. She said it could go on a separate track because it is actually sub-azea planning, but staff
chose to include it here. The new color map which corresponds to EXH. G (black and white
version in the packet) shows the changes more clearly. Staff recommends docketing this item.
8. Establish R-III Minimum Density Requirement (LUP 07-025) -This proposed item would
establish a minimum density requirement in the R-III multi-family zoning district. Ms. Surber
said that it stemmed from the Housing Action Plan. One of the forty-two recommended actions •
was to revisit R-III because the actual pattern of development has been single family homes.
Staffls recommendation is to docket this item (and to establish a minimum density.)
9. Establish Development Standards for Small Wind Energy Systems (LUP 07-028) - Ms.
Surber said that Jeff Randall would be making a presentation on this suggested amendment. She
noted that, as stated under Director's Recommendation, this is not a Comp Plan amendment; it is
an amendment to the Municipal Code, and need not be tied to the annual update process. She
said that staff sees the merit in the proposal, but does not wish to include it in the docket and its
timeline. It is believed that it should be coordinated with and folded into the work of the citizen's
committee chazged with review and recommendations on alternate energy management for the
City.
10. Establish a Residential Setback Adjustment Process (LUP 07-029) - Ms. Surber noted that
this item is also from Jeff Randall, who would be making a presentation on it. She noted that, as
stated under Director's Recommendation, this is not a Comp Plan amendment; it is an
amendment to the Municipal Code, and need not be tied to the annual update process. Staff
believes that the proposal has merit and warrants further consideration as the City's workload
permits.
Presentations/Testimony of Applicants:
Chair Randels reviewed the Guest Sign In Sheet and determined that there were two people who
wished to speak regarding item number 3, Wise Rezone. He asked the required question, " Do
you promise to tell the truth?" of Anne McLaughlin and Carol Wise. They each responded
affirmatively.
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 4 of 11 Apri/ 12, 2007
Carol Wise identified herself as owner of the property at F and San Juan, as described in item 3,
Wise Rezone. She said that it had been suggested that the property be rezoned from
Neighborhood Commercial to C-I/MU (Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use Center) to coincide
with the work that would be going on in the McCairn property across the street. She said she was
very much in favor of the rezoning proposal. She said that they had already done a lot of work
on the property under discussion, and that the current zoning was not conducive to the best use of
her property. Ms. McLaughlin said she had nothing further to add.
Jeff Randall was welcomed as the next speaker, for items 9 (Development Standards for Small
Wind Energy Systems) and 10 (Residential Setback Adjustment Process). Mr. Randall said that
item 9 arose from observations made during his travels and was related to his current
employment. He said that he had been thinking about item 10 during and since his tenure with
the City of Port Townsend. He then walked through a slide presentation on item 9.
He noted that he works for Power Trip Energy, an electrical contracting firm in Port Townsend,
specializing in the installation of solar and grid tied electrical systems. The firm is also qualified
to install wind power systems. Chair Randels noted that Mr. Randall was not subject to
"appearance of fairness" restrictions. Mr. Randall said that his focus and motivation is the
benefit of the community.
Mr. Randall showed a photo of a rear-drive wind power system called a Sky Stream (3.7 KW) to
illustrate the fit into a city neighborhood of one quarter to one half acre lots. He described the
blade size range of 3 -18 feet, on towers as low as 35 feet. He said that he had seen the
potential for home owners and even small businesses to make use of these small wind power
systems.
• Why should Port Townsend residents explore this type of energy generation? Mr. Randall said
that Puget Sound Energy derives most of its power from fossil fuel sources: coal (36% +) and
natural gas (18% +). Solar and wind are the two most viable renewable energies -they are
proven, reliable and do not require significant technological breakthroughs. Both are limited by
natural conditions, but can complement one another to provide a more continuous energy flow.
Why can't wind energy be used in Port Townsend now? Currently, there is no definition for
small wind energy systems, and Mr. Randall has proposed a definition that is used in a number of
model codes. As an unlisted use, it would now require a major conditional use permit, with a
public hearing. The height limits for residential districts are 30 to 35 feet, which is marginal for
wind to be effective. He noted that to increase the height above 35 feet, to improve effectiveness,
a variance is needed. The variance process is not designed to handle this type of issue since wind
power is not defined in the code. He said that the people in town who are interested in this face a
difficult permitting process, unless the code is changed. Therefore, he is taking a proactive
approach in defming the issues and proposing these code changes.
Why do we need taller towers? Wind generators are intended to operate in "clean",
smooth,steady wind conditions. Buildings and trees cause wind turbulence or stress, which
reduces the efficiency of the system. One rule of thumb indicates that the wind tower needs to be
twice as high as a neighboring structure or object. Otherwise, the tower must be a considerable
distance from the high building or tree. He displayed a diagram showing the difference in
effectiveness of 90, 60 and 30 foot towers in a 12 mile an hour wind.
• The poles are now commercially available; Sky Stream offers its own pre-engineered poles. The
code, as drafted, acknowledges the pre-engineered poles and would not require a "wet stamp" for
Planning Commission Meeting Page S of 11 April 12, 2007
every application. He noted that considerable space is needed to erect the tilt up towers, i.e. more
than the typica15,000 square foot lot.
Mr. Randall stated that the proposed solution is a complete ordinance, as submitted. It amends
the PTMC code chapters, creates definitions, and defines wind power systems as a permitted use
in all zones, as an accessory use. It is intended for use in residential, farm and commercial use,
not for a commercial wind farm. A small system would be defined as producing output below a
defined kilowatt capacity (100 KW). The permitting process would be simple, Type 1 as drafted,
with height, noise and setback standards, and with public notice after staff has determined that
the permit requirements have been met. The ordinance would set a minimum lot size and
setbacks with requirements proportional to the height of the tower.
With regard to the typical objections, he said that the staff has been given a handbook from
California that offers guidance based on experience from implementations in that state. He
mentioned, in particular, that bird casualties were mainly limited to one poorly sited project.
Chair Randels asked, at this point, whether Mr. Randall had told the truth, and prospectively
promised to tell the truth for the next presentation. Mr. Randall responded that yes,
retrospectively and prospectively, he promised to tell the truth.
For item 10, Mr. Randall stated that he had struggled with this issue as Planning Director, but
never had the time to address it. He explained that the intention is to address the width of the
streets platted back in the 1890s, i.e. all the Uptown streets are 73 feet wide. He described the
problem of homes being located only one or two feet from the right of way. The setback
standards in the zoning code are for 10 foot yard setbacks from the streets and 5 foot yard
setbacks from the neighbors. Homes built before the street setback standards and many later
homes do not comply with the standards; those homes are non-conforming. However, these are
the homes that people are often drawn to. The fact that the homes are close to the street seems to
slow or discourage vehicle traffic and encourage foot traffic. He showed photos of example
homes and their placements on the lot. He showed how enforcement of the 10 foot setback
created useless yard configurations, sometimes on three or four sides of the house. He said that
because of the setback requirements, it is not possible to site houses in the ways that many people
find pleasing and attractive, without "wrestling over the standards". He said that this kind of
development provides room for the street, room for the cars (including head in parking), and
room for the sidewalk. Overhead power lines are still a good 10 feet away.
Mr. Randall said that the idea of this ordinance would recognize that reducing the 10 foot street
setback is in the public interest in certain situations. He said that he had defined the criteria as:
when dealing with local access streets, when the street is over 60 feet wide, and the parts of the
home in the reduced setback have street friendly features such as front doors, porches, stairways
to upper floors, windows at eye level. He said that it would create a simple permitting process,
i.e. Type I. [Mr. Randall said that his reference in the proposal to Type II permitting was intended
to be Type I.] This would eliminate the need to obtain a full variance, and would encourage full
build out on 50 and 100 foot lots. Reducing the setback would allow people to get full use of the
small lots; it would also encourage front porches and neighborliness by encouraging homes close
to the street.
With regard to the issue of Comp Plan amendments, he said that the code says that even if a
Comp Plan amendment is not required, if the suggestion is from a member of the public, it needs
to be considered at this time. He said that was the reason for submittal at this time. He said that •
he had tried to draft the proposals so as to require minimum staff resources to process. He
P/anning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 11 Apri/ 12, 2007
expressed his hope that the wind energy proposal would not be lost in the larger energy research
process. He thanked the Planning Commission for their attention to the presentations.
Chair Randels asked if there were other proponents or opponents to any of these items, or other
comments from the public. Carol Wise asked if the setback proposal would apply to any street or
only to those which are 73 feet wide. Mr. Randall said that the intention was to apply this to
local access streets. He noted that the City classifies streets in various ways. Lawrence Street for
example is not local access, but "the streets where you like to walk" are mainly local access. If
the right of way is 60 feet or wider, you could request that adjustment.
Staff Response: Chair Randels requested response from staff on any of these three items: 3, 9
and 10, before taking questions from Planning Commission members. Staff had no additional
comment.
Planning Commission Questions:
Liesl Slabaugh questioned Mr. Randall on the feasibility of the Wind Power proposal in R-II,
given the space requirements. "Why would you even permit this in R-II?" Mr. Randall said that
R-II is the most prevalent zoning. He listed the "best candidate" areas: Happy Valley, the valley
between the two bluffs where there is much wind, especially at North Beach. He said there are
good size parcels in Happy Valley, where one quarter to one half an acre will provide plenty of
land. He said that his draft was based on a model ordinance from the American Wind Industry
Association and some other model ordinances. He said that he has been asked why a 10,000
square foot property cannot have a wind tower. He said that the draft does not cover very small
properties or the instance of the Belmont roof, for example, and can be modified. He said he was
• thinking of the larger parcels in R-I or R-II, and did not want to write off possibilities.
George Randels added that he could envision something like this being incorporated as part of a
new PUD plan, or in a project such as Hamilton Heights, if it were included at the outset. Mr.
Randall added the example of "eco-village" type developments. Mr. Randall also referred to
"our roots as Americans"; he said he had seen wind power examples in his travels through rural
America. Ms. Slabaugh mentioned the power loss when transferring power over large distances.
Mr. Randall spoke briefly ofmicro-grids. He stressed that he had not wished to leave anything
out and that the draft could be modified in various ways.
Steve Emery asked about current standards. Mr. Randall said that there are noise standards in
Washington, and that he had used the 60 decibel standard, which is equivalent to the sound of a
car driving by at 25-30 MPH at a distance of 50 feet. He said that wind itself has a noticeable
sound; it is not quiet. From a 50 foot distance, the sound of the device would hardly be
noticeable over the sound of the wind. Mr. Emery stated that the proposal establishes standards
where none currently exist.
Ms. Capron asked if it would be feasible to install a larger capacity tower that could serve the
needs of multiple households. Mr. Randall said more research is needed to quantify the power
generation that is possible in this location. Mr. Sepler mentioned the 1988 Comp Plan
information on this subject. Mr. Randall said that a 3.7 KW system at an average wind speed of
12 MPH can power a home. This assumes connection to a grid system that can bank excess
power.
• Mr. Sepler reminded that this was a docketing agenda and questions should be pertinent to that.
Mr. Emery asked if there is currently a height limit for flag poles in Port Townsend; there was no
certain information on that question.
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 7 of 11 Apri/ Y2, 2007
Chair Randels followed up on the issue of docketing and timing. He mentioned the committee
that is being formed, the interest in broader energy issues and the good track record of Port
Townsend in dealing with issues broadly. He asked Mr. Randall why the wind energy issue
should be split off from the broader topic. Mr. Randall said that he was concerned that the
franchise issue has been discussed (without resolution) for many yeazs, and that he hoped the
Planning Commission would encourage the relatively straight forward action soon, if they
believe the proposal has merit. Ms. Slabaugh asked if the likely objections might not bog down
the entire process, despite its merits. Mr. Sepler noted that there would need to be SEPA review
and that the aesthetic challenge is very likely to be significant. He said that staff is very
supportive of it, but believes there are challenges and concerns to address. He suggested that Mr.
Randall could request that it be scheduled as a work product and also refer a portion of it to the
citizen committee.
Ms. King reminded that a Comp Plan amendment is not required. There was a brief discussion
acknowledging that this process is the only certain way for a member of the public to have an
idea heazd. Mr. Ray noted that, in his opinion, the unintended consequences could be huge, and
that there are many factors to consider. He said that, as a good idea, it should not be rushed
through without due research and consideration. Mr. Sepler said that staff could work with the
proponent and determine if there aze lot sizes and other parameters with which all are
comfortable. He said that the issue could come back to this Commission on a separate track.
Wise Rezone -Chair Randels noted that the owners had recently made use of the property in
ways not done previously.. He asked why the rezone was needed now, after having made those
changes. Ms. Wise responded that they were unable, under existing zoning, to make further
changes that suit the community. She said that they cannot have the kind of businesses there or
make certain changes to the property that are allowed across the street. She mentioned that the
Wellness Clinic would like to have changes to the building, and the veterinary clinic is operating
under a variance. The history of C-I zoning was reviewed briefly in response to a question from
Ms. McLaughlin.
Setbacks - Mr. Emery asked Mr. Randall to state the reason why this item should be treated
expeditiously, rather than as the schedule permits. Mr. Randall said that he did not necessarily
disagree with staff, but did not have a sense of the timing if the item is not docketed. Mr. Sepler
said that staff had other proj ects that need to be accomplished in the next few months, but there
would be gaps throughout the year where this or similaz projects could be slotted. Mr. Randels
noted that the setbacks issue, in particular, could be dealt with on an as time permits basis.
Mr. Emery pointed out the parking issue in the up town area, and suggested that setback changes
could possibly help to alleviate certain pazking issues. He also noted possible synergy between
the setback proposal and the recent City Council ruling on ADUs/off street parking.
Planning Commission Deliberation
Hearing no further public/staff comments or questions, Chair Randels asked the Commissioners
to consider the items 3, 9 and 10 before the remainder of the list, for the convenience of
proponents present.
Item 3, Wise Rezone -Chair Randels moved that the Director's recommendation for docketing
the use Rezone be accepted, and Liesl Slabaugh seconded; all were in favor. Motion passed
Item 9, Small Wind Energy System - Mr. Emery asked for clarification on the option of .
including this issue in the work plan. Mr. Sepler responded that he would like to work with the
Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 11 April 12, 2007
proponent on certain controversial details and bring the issue back to the Planning Commission
• in June. Chair Randels said that he would like to add to the recommendation the suggestion that
Mr. Randall and associates be invited to join the citizen energy committee, if possible. After a
brief discussion, Mr. Randels then moved that the item not be docketed; that staff work with the
proponent, Mr. Randall, on a reduced scope proposal in preparation for Planning Commission
consideration, as soon as the work plan permits; and to recommend that Mr. Randall and
associates be invited to participate in the citizen's energy advisory committee to address the
broader wind energy issues; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor; motion passed.
Item 10, Setback Process - Mr. Lizut suggested that this item be docketed. There was a brief
discussion comparing the docketing schedule to fitting it in as time permits. Mr. Lizut said that,
if not docketed, he would prefer to give this item priority over the Wind Energy item, which he
sees as multi-faceted and complicated in comparison. Mr. Ray moved that item 10, Setback
Process, not be docketed, and that staff and Planning Commission incorporate it into the 2007
work plan, as soon as feasible. Mr. Emery seconded All were in favor; motion passed In
addition, after brief consideration, Chair Randels noted that he perceived consensus on Mr.
Lizut's suggestion to place item 10 ahead of item 9 in the evolving Planning Commission work
plan schedule.
Item 1, Shapiro/Woods Rezone -Chair Randels noted that this item is automatically docketed;
no further action is required at this time.
Item 2, Q4 Development -Chair Randels asked if docketing this item should be contingent on
also docketing item 8, Establishing Minimum Density for R-III? After a brief discussion,
Commissioners agreed that both items would proceed in parallel and ultimately the Planning
• Commission could make a recommendation to City Council reflecting the relationship between
the two proposals. Mr. Emery moved to accept staff recommendation to docket Q4
Development; Ms Slabaugh seconded. All were in favor; motion passed
Item 4, Nomura Rezone -Chair Randels moved to accept staff recommendation to docket the
Nomura Rezone; Mr. Lizut seconded All were in favor; motion passed.
Item 5, Rigby Rezone -Commissioners discussed the probable timing of the hospital master
plan, and reviewed the key issues of this proposal. Mr. Ray moved to accept staff
recommendation not to docket this item at this time; Mr. Lizut seconded. All were in favor;
motion passed.
Item 6, Rezone Port Townsend Library -Chair Randels noted the apparent typographical error in
paragraph 5 regarding circulation (90, 067 to 22,152); staff will correct as necessary. Mr. Ray
moved to accept staff recommendation to docket the Library Rezone; Mr. Lizut seconded. All
were in favor; motion passed
Item 7, Rezone and Create an Overlay District for the Howard Street Corridor -Chair Randels
noted the error, Discovery Bay Road, in paragraph c. He suggested adding the phrase "and
beyond" after Discovery Road, and changed accommodate to accommodates in bullet item 6,
under paragraph c. Mr. Randels moved to accept staff recommendation to docket the Howard
Street item; Mr. Ray seconded. All were in favor; motion passed.
Item 8, Minimum Density in R-III -Chair Randels moved to accept staff recommendation to
• docket the Minimum Density item; Mr. Ray seconded All were in favor; motion passed
Chair Randels closed the public hearing on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Preliminary Docket.
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 9 of 11 Apri/ 12, 2007
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (See Agenda changes above)
March 8, 2007:
Page 5 -change "...relief from the formula store restrictions" to "..relief from some formula .."
Page 6 -change "PUD" to "PUD Ordinance"
March 22, 2007:
Page 7 -delete extraneous to within the text of the motion.
Page 8 -delete extraneous comma after long...
Chair Randels moved that the minutes of March 8 and March 22, 2007 be approved, as
amended Mr. Ray seconded All were in favor; motion passed 7/0/0.
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Election of New Vice Chair
Liesl Slabaugh, outgoing lice Chair, nominated Roger Lizut for the position of Planning
Commission Vice Chair. There were no other nominations Chair Randels moved for the
election of Roger Lizut by acclamation. Ms Capron suggested that Mr. Lizut be consulted as
to his willingness to serve. Mr. Lizut confirmed that, if elected, he would serves Mr. Emery
seconded All were in favor; Mr. Lizut was unanimously elected to the position of Tice Chair. •
b. Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Update (Rick Sepler /Judy Surber)
Mr. Sepler reviewed that the City Council process had been placed on hold pending the
appointment of a new Councilor. He said that he anticipates the appointment may occur at the
Apri130 meeting, with the seating of the new Councilor on May 7. With that assumption, a
public workshop on the intersections would be scheduled in May, with a second follow up
meeting to address any concerns raised by the public. While this may not be essential to
Planning Commission action on the Overlay District, it was felt best to wait until Council
decisions were made on Sims Way. He noted that there may have been public confusion
regarding the SEPA hearings, alignments and the overall configuration, if done prior to the
intersection's fmalization. There had been concern raised regarding the Life Care Center, and the
possible need to separate that out to move it forward independently. However, there is now more
confidence that the overall process will resume an appropriate pace. Therefore, having received
the deliverables from the economist, the advance materials and meeting of April 26 can be
arranged to consider the draft Overlay District Ordinance. He said staff anticipates completion of
SEPA and readiness for a public hearing in June. He said he would keep the Planning
Commission posted regarding the Council process.
Mr. Sepler noted that there would be a round-about test with the fire apparatus prior to the
Council meeting so that video can be prepared.
Mr. Emery mentioned the oppositional letter about the traffic circles in the paper. He asked if
there were plans to test school bus access and maneuverability, in addition to the fire trucks. Mr. •
Sepler noted that the round abouts are designed by WA DOT to accommodate WB-50 trucks,
which are significantly larger/longer than school buses. Mr. Emery noted the long portion of the
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 10 of 11 Apri/ 12, 2007
bus which extends behind the rear axle. Mr. Sepler said that his point was well taken, and he
• would follow up on that.
VI. NEW BUSINESS (continued from above)
b. Barbed wire ordinance -Introduction (Rick Sepler, Planning Director)
Mr. Sepler explained the background of this issue. When it was brought to City Council by Scott
Walker, the matter carried by majority, but there was insufficient majority to adopt it as an
interim ordinance. A secondary motion then moved the issue to Planning Commission. There
will be a SEPA review of the modifications of the zoning code, which can possibly be combined
with other revisions. The issue will then be scheduled for consideration at the earliest
opportunity. The Council minutes will be provided.
VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS
Apri126, 2007 -Howard/Rapier Street Corridor Overlay District -Ordinance
(Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Judy Surber, Senior Planner)
IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None)
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Emery moved that the meeting be adjourned. All were in favor, with no objections. Chair
Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:49 PM.
Roger Lizut, Chair
Gail Bernhard, Recorder
•
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 11 of 11 Apri/ 12, 2007
•
•