Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021507• CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting Materials: EXH. 1 A J. Surber, Staff Report: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update, February 15, 2006 EXH. 1 B J. Surber, Item Table: Staff Recommendation on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket EXH. 2 Map showing possible rezone of R-II to C-II and P-I, B/W copy EXH. 3 Map showing McFarlane property, drainage basins, shoreline, bluffs (B/W copy) EXH. 4 Map showing revisit of M-II (A) Overwater, (B/W copy} EXH. 5 Year 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, SEPA Determination ofnon-Significance...., SMP Update (Application No. LUP LUPOS-074) EXH. 6 E. Toews, Letter to J_ Surber, Re: McFarlane Comment, July 12, 2006 EXH. 7 Table 17.22.020, PTMC, (Revised 11/OS) EXH. 8 C. Torres, Letter to J. Surber, Re: Proposed 2006 Comp Plan Update Related to Port Townsend Ferry Terminal, March 23, 2006 EXH. 9 Recommended Edits to Table 17.22.020, undated (February 15, 2047) EXH. 10 K. Fordjour, Letter to J. Surber, Re: Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan related to Port Townsend Ferry Terminal, February 14, 2007 , EXH. 11 Agenda, Planning Commission Meeting, February 15, 2007 EXH. 12 Guest List, -February 15, 2007 • I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 George Unterseher. Liesl Slabaugh was excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels moved that the agenda be accepted, as written. Mr. Ray seconded, and the agenda was approved, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Randels suggested that the approval of minutes be deferred to the end of the meeting. However, due to oversight, the minutes for January 11 and January 25, 2007 were deferred until a future meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 1 February I5, 2007 V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT There was na public comment at this time. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Upper Sims Way /Howard Street Zoning -Formula Store Ordinance Revisions (as directed by Council) applicability to Upper Sims study area. (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Chair Randels noted that it had been considered appropriate to have authors of the formula store ordinance testify at this meeting. He invited David Goldman and Ian Hinkle to share their thoughts on this legislation: what it is; what it is not, and how it has or is intended to work. He asked if Mr. Sepler wished to comment first. Mr. Sepler said it is useful to consider the applicability of this regulation with the goals that have been stated by the City Council of furthering economic development along the Howard Street corridor. He asked everyone to think about the specificity - is it appropriate to consider modifications in a limited area, if it eouId achieve an intended end? David Goldman thanked the Commission for the opportunity to join this discussion. He said that the overwhelming experience with this ordinance is that almost no one understands it; his belief is based on statements from people such as "Oh, that's a ban.", or "Formula stores are banned in Port Townsend." He said these issues are difficult for most people to understand.. Mr. Goldman pointed out that he had just learned that the ordinance is numbered 17.54, but that it had started out as 17.50 of the Municipal Code. He stated that there is not a ban; there are restrictions on where formula stores can locate, as formulas. One of the reasons for promoting this ordinance was that proponents did not want Port Townsend to look like every other city or town. Iri the compromise agreement, it was decided that we would restrict formulas, as they present themselves as formulas, to the C-II districts only, not in the historic districts, not in C-I, not in mixed use districts. Lately, what has been suggested, in considering plans for Sims Corridor and Howard St. areas is that possibly some "big stuff' could be there, e.g. a bigger QFC or a large Kah Tai. In fact, the way the ordinance is written, grocery stores are exempt. Grocery stores can locate anywhere. The same is true for Kah Tai - it is exempt. He said that he and Mr. Hinkle understand that the City Council and the Planning Commission will consider possibly changing the C-II designation on Howard St. to C-II M/U to facilitate a better residential mix on the street. "As we look at the way it is written, we cannot identify any adverse impact that would flow from allowing formulas to locate in C-II M/tJ. Generally speaking, we don't see that as a problem. We don't see the formula store ordinance as an issue in the development of the Upper Sims and Howard St. corridor. Mr. Hinkle added "If you were to treat C-II M/U as the rest of C- II". The other issue that was raised earlier was the charge that this ordinance is anti-corporate, and anti-business. He said he would point out that since it was adopted, a Countrywide (Home Loans) has. come in at PT Retail; Countrywide is exempt. Next door is going to be an antique furniture store, which is not a formula. There is also anon-formula Thai food place. Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2 February 15, 2007 i Ian Hinkle said that for QFC or other grocery stores, the regulation is by lot size; one formula per 20,000 square feet is allowed. If a large grocery store is located there as an anchor tenant, with a series of other shops, with 80,000 square feet, that would allow for one formula "on top", i.e. in addition to the grocery store. However, in looking at the possibility of an overlay in that area, (inaudible)...., beyond just the non-formulas, there is room for development of some formulas as well. Chair Randels asked if someone could step through how the formula store ordinance works right now; to what does it apply and what are the parameters? Mr. Sepler said that Port Townsend has not had much experience in applying this. Apre-application for a Quiznos store went through discussions on altering the color scheme, logo, signage, general design, but the process was not finalized. David Goldman described meetings some time ago with a representative of WaIgreens. He was told of their interest in locating in Port Townsend, and of the. need for a minimum of 12,000 square feet. He pointed out that these businesses come with a notion of minimum size and a set of conditions that will work for them. When this particular agent could not meet those criteria for Walgreens, he then found a different business such as Hollywood Video that would fit. He said he did not know of other stores. He listed the other exemptions: auto sales; tire sales and service; banks; gas stations; convenience stores selling gas/fuel; services such as real estate; copy centers; insurance, and mail services. How does deformula-izing work? Mr. Hinkle said it allows any business to operate in the Historic district if they are not a formula. An example of Quiznos would need to alter color scheme, appearance, Iook and feel. He said the Subway here changed their sign somewhat, even though it is still called Subway. There was discussion as to whether there was a need to change all but one of the distinctive characteristics -this was not clarified. David Goldman cited the example of Bainbridge and some problems that arose in the implementation of their formula ordinance. Steve Emery added that, due to intertwined legislation, one type of formula store is allowed in the Historic district and that is an adult entertainment store. Mr. Sepler said that, with the Planning Commission's agreement, he would include some material about general applicability for the next discussion. Chair Randels asked if there was any further discussion on this issue. Bill LeMaster of Lehani's noted that for any proposed changes to buildings or land, applicants are asked for environmental impact statements. He suggested that, likewise, the City should ask for economic impact statements, and an understanding of the multiplier effect on the local currency, and determine how the finite population base is "sliced up". To make changes to the ordinance, or to grant variances, we should know the economic implications of those decisions. Is there value added to the community. Mr. Randels noted that typically an environmental impact statement is project oriented. If a project oriented economic impact statement is required, it may present a cost burden that is not as readily affordable to potential local business start ups. Mr. Le Master clarified that his suggestion would apply to those who wished to go beyond the limits of Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3 February I5, 2007 the code, for example in building size. Mr. Randels said he could understand it as a means of justifying a variance. A member of the audience, Bob Sherry,. Salt Lake City, identified himself as a representative of a national development firm, which is interested in this community. He said they were trying to determine if they are welcome here; the formula retail ordinance is a concern in that they do not quite understand it. He said he represents several national tenants; have over 4,000 tenants, and own more than 140 shopping centers. He said that they represent Walgreens and several others. He wished to know if a 12,000 to 18,000 square foot national retailer was welcome, and under what terms. Mr. Emery stated that the ordinance was directed toward concentration. That is, it is not acceptable, for example, to have five or six formula stores in a row; if present, they should be dispersed throughout the commercial district. He said there is not exclusion, but there are conditions and constraints. Chair Randels added that there are also maximum square footage limitations. Mr. Unterseher said it has a lot to do with scale. Mr. Goldman said that he does not speak for the community, but that this issue arose partly in reaction to the Hollywood Video plans to locate next to an existing video rental business. There was a brief discussion about the cause of the local business going out of business. Mr. Goldman added that there was a significant segment of the community who were/are concerned about maintaining the unique character and appearance of this historic town, and do not wish to see it become like every other place in the country. This ordinance was one of many steps to help preserve that character and appeal. Mr. Sepler said that the question is whether or not a national retailer can meet the conditions of deformula-ization. Mr. Sepler said that it would depend on the specifics and timing of the proposal. Chair Randels suggested that since it is not possible to give a precise answer to the general question, Mr. Sherry should meet with Mr. Sepler and planning staff to explore possible options for his clients. He stated that it is certainly not the intention to discourage development. Mr. Sherry said that he understood the design and look/feel issues, which his company deals with routinely. He said he was more concerned with the size/scale constraints, and whether the larger retailers could be accommodated. VII. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing - Year 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Implementing Regulations (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Chair Randels opened the hearing and read the rules for Public Hearings in their entirety before proceeding. He requested that any person wishing to testify sign the Guest Sign- In Sheet. He asked if any Planning Commission member had any interests, financial or property to disclose in connection with this matter. There were none. Chair Randels introduced Judy Surber to make the staff presentation. (The Chair also congratulated her on the final approval of the Shoreline Master program by the State, which was met with a round of applause from the Commission and audience.) P/arming Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4 February I5, 2007 • Ms. Surber began by noting that the packet materials for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update involved some graphics that were in black and white. She pointed out a color version of the official zoning map for reference. She said that this process had begun in April 2006, when the Planning Commission docketed 41 items. All of these items are associated with ensuring consistency between the SMP Update and the Comprehensive Plan/ Municipal Code. City Council had added one more item, item 42, which extends beyond shorelines jurisdiction and involves both Point Hudson and Boat Haven marine trades districts. She said that Point Hudson is almost entirely within shorelines jurisdiction. However, a large portion of the Boat Haven zoning district goes beyond the 200 foot jurisdiction. What should be considered in item 42 is whether or not drinking establishments and microbreweries should be considered a permitted use in those districts. Ms. Surber said the reason for delay in bringing this forward was the intention to confirm DOE adoption for the SMP Update before making changes to the local regulations. She thanked the members of the audience for their patience in this process. EXH. 1 A (Table -Staff recommendation on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket) represents a regrouping of the docket items, for ease of review. The original docket number is shown for reference in the second column. Ms. Surber said she would call attention to certain items, but would not mention the items that are obvious and straight forward. Item 1 -Rezone existing Ferry Terminal. In addition to the Torres letter from March 6, 2006 (EXH. 8), a letter from Kojo Fordjour, Washington State Ferries, dated February 14, 2007 (EXH. 10), was received. He is in favor of the staff recommendation, but also states that he is not in favor of the alternative, C-IIl, Historic Commercial District designation of the Rotary Park. Item 2 -Rezone existing commercial development generally located at the base of Water Street bluff between the ferry terminal and Bay Vista Condominiums.... The Bay Vista restaurant is in this area. The owner, Mrs. L. Blake, was contacted by telephone and supports the rezone from R-II to C-II. Item 3 -Rezone shoreline parcels generally lying between Hendricks Street and the City. Limits along the Strait of Juan de Fuca from R-II to R-I (Attachment 3) except for Elmira Park where zoning may be changed to P/OS. Upon continued investigation and based on E. Toews letter of July 12, 2006 (EXH. 6, McFarlane Comment), staff had altered the recommendation as stated in EXH. 1. See also EXH. 3 (graphic of the shorelinelbluff area). Item 42 -Revise Table 17.22.020 re: Microbreweries Ms. Surber noted that the owners of the Port Townsend Brewery were present to testify, as this change would affect their business. Both Point Hudson and the Boat Haven are the primary areas for water dependent uses, specifically marine trades. Ms. Surber reviewed the SMP policies/regulations, history, rationale, and definitions relevant to this issue. She explained the staff recommendation, which is to be cautious in allowing drinking establishments and microbreweries in Point Hudson. They would be allowed, subject to their limitations on size. The zoning code should reflect this permitted use, but subject to the same square footage as restaurants. See also page 5 of the staff report and Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 5 February I5, 2007 EXH. 9 which shows the bill format of the zoning table. Staff recommends that microbreweries not be allowed at Point Hudson, which is a limited area of 12 acres; this is because microbreweries typically require an area for manufacturing as well as the actual water-enjoyment use, i.e. restaurant or tasting room. For the Boat Haven, it extends beyond the shorelines, approximately 44 acres, zoning code has limits on the number and size of restaurants;. small restaurants are considered support for the marine trades. A larger restaurant with regional draw would use additional square footage not in direct support of the. marine trades. In the zoning code, food and beverage processing is prohibited in the Boat Haven district. The Shoreline Master Program, within the narrow 200 foot jurisdiction, does allow drinking establishments, if you consider that a water enjoyment use, in the Northeast Boat Basin. It is recommended that drinking establishments be allowed in the Northeast Boat Basin, in the zoning table, subject to the total square footage allowances that are established for restaurants. For microbreweries, the Boat Haven is more industrial than Point Hudson; it does have more acreage and it has a microbrewery that is now a legal non-conforming use. It could not be expanded under the current zoning. It is wholly and completely outside of the shorelines jurisdiction. Staff s recommendation is that the microbrewery be allowed with a limitation of 15,000 square feet. This would accommodate the existing business and allow for limited expansion. The 15,000 square feet was based on several factors: average size of a limited sample of small microbreweries (6,000 square feet); and a larger one at 20,040 square feet. A local trades establishment at the Port, Townsend Bay Marine, has 36,000 square feet under cover. 'The Goodwill Store, as a comparison, is 15,000 square feet. The square footage restriction would be cumulative across the district. Ms. Surber said she would answer questions about these or any other items on the docket. Public Testimony Guy and Kim Sands, 285 Box Field Drive, Port Townsend. Mr. Sands said that he would like to add a brief history in hopes of putting issues in context with regard to the microbrewery item on the docket. He said that in 1997, he and his partner were granted a conditional use permit to operate a microbrewery. He said that he has learned in the intervening years that there is considerable ambiguity with regard to the definition of "microbrewery". He said the City granted the permit, although they had no official definition at that time. They were given a conditional use permit to operate a brewery in the Port. At that time, they were asked to put in 6 inch sewer lines, as well as other improvements, and complied. He said that one year later, apparently, the business became a prohibited use in the Port; Mr. Sands said that his business was, in effect, "condemned". He said he was not informed of this, and did not learn of it until about six months ago. However, they have continued to successfully operate their business for the past nine years. They serve the local community, employ several people, and draw visitors here. He said he is seeking "a higher level of legitimacy" here. Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, 375 Hudson Street, Port Townsend, appeared on behalf of Ms. Susan McFarland (also present), owner of block 50 and lot I of block 39 of Fowler's Park addition. Mr. Toews pointed out the property on the map and noted that it is described in Ms. Surber's staff report, item 3. He said that he had submitted a letter in July (EXH. 6) about the original proposed rezoning in this area, and that the letter speaks for itself. He added that the rationale for all of the R-I down zoning was a storm water rationale, and was limited exclusively to drainage basins 4A and 4B. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 6 of 6 February Is, 2007 • A lengthy study was done at the time to justify the rezoning; the areas to the north outside of the R-I were sheet flow areas to the bluff face that were outside drainage basin 4A and 4B. He said he supports the proposal, as now revised by staff. There were no others who wished to testify, and staff had no further comment. Questions from Planning Commission: Mr. Unterseher asked for the current size of the brewery, and Mr. Sands indicated that is about 8,000 square feet. When asked how much space he would expect to need in the future, Mr. Sands said it was not quite an answerable question. He said he is thrilled with how the business has grown to date, and is currently expanding production and sales. He said that he understands the Port's needs and plans, and the intention to reserve space for direct Port related needs. However, if pressed to give a figure, he said he would say 25,000 square feet, beyond which a new location would be advisable. He referred to his long term lease (expires 2020), and the assumption that they are welcome in the Port for the duration of the lease. He said that ideally there would be no limit on expansion space in that location. He is not able to project space needs five years out. However, he said growth in space had been 20-25% over the starting size. (Kim Sands added that they have donated $10,000 in product to community events such as the Wooden Boat Festival, Centrum, Rhody Run, etc.) Mr. Unterseher asked if this change would meet their needs. Mr. Sepler said that what is proposed would make this a legal conforming use, with the possibility of expanding to 15,000 square feet total for the district. Chair Randels asked if Mr. Sepler could explain the history and the apparent problem that happened in the late 1990s. Mr. Sepler said that there were wholesale changes made in the zoning and zoning tables at that time; inadvertently, the use was changed from conditional to prohibited. When discovered, City Council gave clear direction that the Planning Commission should deliberate the appropriate resolution. Mr. Ray asked if there were any other microbreweries expressing interest here. Mr. Sepler said he did not know of any. He said it is a tough business, with considerable risk and lots of failures. He stated that there appears to be room to grow, and that there is always the option, if needs change, of making a case for expansion before the Planning Commission and Council. Chair Randels said that if this particular business can absorb the entire 15,000 square feet, that would preclude another business from starting up. He suggested that perhaps it could be changed from a prohibited use to a conditional use, with a cap of, say, 10,000 square feet, and the understanding that it will be possible to apply for increments of additional space, as needed. This would give the City some control and the potential for some competition. Mr. Ray added that this approach fosters a dialog, as opposed to merely adopting blanket regulations which must be challenged. Mr. Sepler noted that the challenge would be formulating the use criteria. He offered the alternative of saying that up to a certain size is `permitted'; beyond that is `conditional'. Mr. Randels agreed. Mr. Sands asked if that meant there would be an open field for the remaining space, and Mr. Randels indicated that he did not view that as a problem. A discussion ensued about the general space constraints at the Port, even for the marine trades. At this point, Mr. Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 February 15, 2007 Randels noted that the flow of the meeting had taken discussion beyond questions to deliberation. Ms. Capron asked for specific information on the recently completed expansion of Port Townsend Brewing Company. Kim Sands said that they had had the entire building available for the last four years, but had not remodeled for retail. About 800 square feet were recently added for retail. Mr. Randels asked Mr. Toews about the number of McFarland lots in R-II. Ms. McFarland responded that there were 181ots, at 5,000 square feet per lot. He asked about topography, and if all were suitable for building, and was told that the topography was relatively flat, and all were able to be built on. Chair Randels closed the Planning Commission Testimony segment of the Hearing. Planning Commission Deliberation: Mr. Ray suggested starting at the last item, number 42. Chair Randels agreed to start with item 42, and then item 3, before resuming the normal order from 1 to 41, thereby allowing the guests to leave when their business was concluded. Item 42: Chair Randels asked for clarification on what this item meant for Hudson Point. Ms. Surber replied that City Council had included this in their directive. As to what this means for Hudson Point, she said that drinking establishments within shoreline jurisdiction in this district would be subject to the same size limitations of the SMP (i.e., treated as restaurants). The total cumulative maximum square footage allowed would be I 1,000 square feet. Microbreweries would not be allowed at Point Hudson. Mr. Randels said that item b, on page 5 of the staff report was inconsistent with the prior discussion. Limitation on the number of establishments and space was discussed. It was also noted that tasting rooms alone are not permitted separate from the brewery location, under Liquor Control Board regulations. Definitions of restaurants and drinking establishments were reviewed. Ms. Surber pointed out that for establishments outside of the shorelines jurisdiction, a 1,500 square foot limitation is recommended, consistent with the food service limitation that comes from the zoning code. This is not introducing a new use. Microbreweries are not listed within the SMP; a tasting room with a water view associated with a brewery could be considered a water enjoyment use, but the brewery could not. Chair Randels suggested that the discussion move to the possibility of a sub-limit of the 15,000 square feet that would be permitted, above which would be conditional. He suggested 12,000 square feet, but questioned whether the remaining 3,000 square feet is enough for any business to begin with, or to reserve as an expansion buffer. Ms. Sands said that the PT Brewing Company had started at with 600 square feet. Mr. Ray asked about the capacity of Water Street Brewing Company. Ms Surber responded that the. area was 6,000 square feet including the basement of 1,000 square feet. Mr. Sands stated that 2,000 square. feet had been adequate for his business for several years, and that production alone did not require a great deal of space. Ms. Surber called attention to the definition of microbrewery: a combination retail, wholesale and manufacturing business that brews and serves beer and/or food on the Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 February I5, 1007 • premises. She said she believes that just brewing beer and not serving anything would fall under food and beverage processing, which is prohibited in this zoning. Ms. King asked for clarification on the applicability of the sub-limit. Chair Randels explained that it only applied to microbreweries, specifically. Ms. Surber noted that adding another square footage threshold was getting quite complex. She recalled that in the shorelines jurisdiction, there was a limit on square footage within the Northeast Boat Basin, with a maximum square footage for the boat haven shoreline district overall, and this amendment would now add another threshold for a CUP (conditional use permit) within the MII(A) district. Ms. King pointed out that microbreweries are permitted in other locations and that these regulations are not restricting them from operating. Mr. Sands stated that his business located in the Port, because he was not allowed to locate downtown. After his business was established, Maxwell's (Water Street Brewing} was allowed to locate both retail and manufacturing downtown. Chair Randels said that his interest was to accommodate the existing brewery as well as possible, while leaving something open for competition. Regarding item 42, he moved for asub-limit of 12,000 square feet, above which a conditional use permit would be required. Mr. Ray seeo~aded. Mr. Emery asked whether a conditional use permit or a Comp Plan amendment would be least cumbersome. Ms. Surber said this was a text amendment to the zoning code, and did not require a Comp Plan amendment. A conditional use permit has specific criteria that has to be met, and will be decided by a Hearings Examiner. She and Mr. Sepler agreed that a conditional use process would be more expeditious. Mr. Sepler asked whether the 12,000 square feet was intended to be aggregate, and Mr. Randels confirmed that was so. Mr. Sepler noted the consideration of whether or not this use would get so large as to displace other uses, which would be dealt with in the conditional use permit process. The discussion was concluded, and the motion passed, all in favor. Chair Randels noted that for each item, the staff recommendation would be accepted, if there was no objection. Item 3: There was no objection to item 3. Item 1: The Commission confirmed agreement with the primary recommendation. Item 2: Mr. Emery asked if C-II M/U zoning had been considered. Ms. Surber said that Mrs. Blake had expressed possible interest in building condominiums in the future. She said she would check the SMP documentation. Item was temporarily deferred. Items 4 through 5 - No objections. Item 6 -Chair Randels questioned the presence of "Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan" in the midst of Policy 17.2; this was determined to be an inadvertent cut/paste error and will be deleted. Regarding Policy 17.4, Ms. Surber explained that this substitution had been made in other documents, but missed in this particular instance. Item 7 through 13 - No objections. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9 February 15, 2007 Item 14 - Ms. Surber explained that at the time of the creation of the docket item, this had not been completed; it is now. complete. No objections. Item 15 -Typographical error: "improved: not "unproved". Item 16 -Chair Randels questioned the "as discussed above" phrasing, which refers to text not present in the table. He asked whether the City's UGA identifies Glen Cove to be included in it. Ms. Surber clarified that it is included in the planning area, but the "FUGA" language (Future Urban Growth Area) had been removed. Item 17 -Aside from improperly formatted bullets, there were no objections. Item l 8 - Ms. Surber explained that these are excerpts from a table that has been retired; it is a housekeeping item. Item 19 - No objections. Item 20 -Chair Randels asked whether the Gateway Plan would be reviewed and revised, in light of the Sims Way process. Mr. Sepler indicated that it was likely to be wholly retired, and replaced. No objections. Item 21 -Except for another cut/paste artifact, there were no objections. Items 22 - 30: No objections. Item 31 -Chair Randels questioned the meaning of this item. Ms. Surber explained that in discussions with Rick Sepler and John Watts, they had determined that DOE has purview over future changes only in those circumstances where the change is in order to meet the SMA and the guidelines under the WACS, for example in Critical Areas. In the case of the Historic Overlay District, unless it was a consistency fix, DOE would not have automatic purview. It was clarified that this applies, likewise, if the CAO is amended in a way that does not affect the shorelines jurisdiction. Items 32 - 34: No objections. Item 35 - Ms. Surber clarified the representation of the line in/line out language; there were no objections. Items 36 - 41: No objections. Item 41 -Chair Randels suggested a change of order (SMP first, then CAO) and a modification of the language to clarify that the City preserves its sovereignty to the degree allowed by the SMA. Staff will finalize language in consultation with John Watts. Ms. Surber restated as follows: "....Shoreline Master Program (subject to Ecology approvaI), critical areas ordinances ([exact language To Be Determined])... Item 2 (continued) -Returning to Item 2, which had been deferred, Chair Randels cautioned that if the Bay View site is rezoned (to C-II M/U) there may be a higher assessment, and perhaps the owner has not considered that. He also asked what FAR applies. Mr. Sepler said that there is not a FAR established in C-II; there is a maximum floor area of 60,000 square feet. Ms. Surber discussed relevant sections of the SMP Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10 February 15, 2007 . regulations. Ms. Surber said, "In Urban designation under the SMP, which includes from the State ferry dock over to Indian Point (to the boundary with Boat Haven), you are permitted to have multi-family residential or transient accommodations, with some limitations, as a conditional use. C-II allows upper story residential. In the SMP it allows it to be either horizontal or vertical arrangement. There should be a docket item that specifically says that in C-II, you can have either vertical or horizontal arrangement, if you are in shorelines jurisdiction. She referred to Item 39, which is an amendment to the Land Use tables concerning C-II Residential. She pointed out the new text added after "Residences allowed above the ground floor"; she said that is how Indian Point was addressed. Bay View could be addressed similarly, or could be done through zoning. There was agreement that the former method is preferable. Therefore, item 2 was unchanged. Chair Randels and the committee agreed to vote on the entire set of changes. He moved that the Planning Commission accept the entirety of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Docket, as prepared by staff, with the changes indicated during this meeting; .for Item 41, final language is to be edited/approved by staff (John Watts, Rick Sepler and Judy Surber). The motion was seconded by Roger Lizut. Commissioners in favor of the motion: Capron, Emery, King, Lizut, Randels, Ray, Unterseher. Commissioners opposed: None. Motion passed: 7/0/0. [Ms. Surber left the meeting at the conclusion of this agenda item.] VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS - February 22 Draft Ordinance Review Draft Overlay Ordmance for Howard Street Comdor -Uses, Bulk and Dimensional; Bonus scheme- Bonus areas identified March 8 Draft Ordinance Review (tentative) Mr. Sepler said that the Draft Ordinance for the Howard Street Corridor should be ready for review at the next meeting, February 22. He said that a contract with a consultant to assist with determining the bonus quantities is in progress. One of the issues for the next meeting agenda is to identify which specific attributes should be "bonusable". He reported that the consultant was confident that he could quantify the value for different businesses and can provide a formula for use in future development/permitting planning. The consultant has suggested establishment of a tipping point - a special bonus for the first few developers. There is also aconsultant/ contract employee who will assist in preparing zoning code amendments. The process has been started with City planning staff, and will be processed through the Planning Commission as the schedule permits. Chair Randels asked if Mr. Sepler would report on the alignment issue. Mr. Sepler said that he was looking at alternative alignments for Ranier/Howard. They may be a chance to "bring the road over" and create frontage on both sides. He is hoping to meet with the three property owners to explore their interest. The key advantage for the City is preservation of the trail corridor along the Howard St. alignment where a dedicated off- road trail would be located, separate from traffic. An update will be provided at the February 22 meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 11 February I5, 2007 IX. COMMUNICATIONS Port Townsend APA Membership Rick Sepler reported that the APA has agreed to pay for membership for the Chair of the Planning Commission. This gift is encumbered with the responsibility to receive and review the APA magazine and distribute materials from it as appropriate. Port Townsend to Host APA Section Meeting -July 20, 2007 Chair Randels suggested that a presentation on the SMP be included. X. ADJOURNMENT Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:18 PM. ~~~~~~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder • P/arming Commission Meeting Page 12 of 12 February I5, 2007