Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102209CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Couucil Chambers Thursday, October 22, 2009 Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, October 22, 2009 EXH 2 2009 Ordinance draft -Height Overlay, 09232009 EXH 3 Notice of Determination of Non significance and Planning Commission Hearing on Amendments to Height Overlay, 09302009 EXH 4 LUP 09-070, SEPA Deternnation of Non-significance, 09302009 EXH 5 SEPA Checklist - Amendments to Height Overlay - PTMC Amendment and Correction of a Mapping Error, September 24, 2009 EXH 6 Mick-Hager, M., Recommendations to City Council -Height Limitations in the Overlay District in PTMC Chapter 17.26 and the Special Height Overlay District in Chapter 17.28, October 22, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:36 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quomm of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jeny Fry, Gee. Heckscher, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mick-Hager, and Julian Ray. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Commissioner Ray moved for acceptance of the agenda, as presented; Commissioner Heckscher seconded. The agenda was approved unanimously. N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 8, 2009: Commissioner Fry moved to approve the minutes of October 8, 2009, as written, and Commissioner Emery seconded. The minutes of October 8, 2009 were approved, as written, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) P/annrng Commission Page 1 of 8 VII. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing on height for block located between Monroe and Jackson Street including vacated Franklin Street (LUP09-070). Judy Surber, Planning Manager, provided backgound on the proposed amendment that is intended to correct an inconsistency found in the ordinance. She said there had been an interim ordinance that was continued several times regazding the Special Height Overlay District (SHOD). The Special Height Overlay District was adopted in the eazly 1990s; the zoning has changed for some of these properties over time. The idea was to restrict the height to create a tiered effect in some downtown areas, following the bluff line. The height was greatest around Taylor Street and stepping down in two directions toward Point Hudson and the Washington State Ferries. In the section of the code holding the table of height restrictions, at that time, most of the restrictions were more restrictive than the underlying buildings. In processing the application for the Fleet Marine (now Sea Marine) property on block 93, it became apparent to the staff that there was an inconsistency between two sections of the code. The General Overlay District sections say that, in the case of a conflict, the Overlay District prevails. In the Special Height Overlay District, which contains the table with specific height limitations for each block, it states that where there is a conflict, whichever is more restrictive prevails. There was a conflict regarding two blocks of privately owned property: block 93, Sea Marine, zoned C-II (previously it had been zoned the same as the Point Hudson District); and block 100, zoned R-II, residential zone. Staff was directed to resolve the inconsistency for these two blocks/properties. She pointed out changes in the draft ordinance, at the very end, and an addition for reference, i.e. the official Overlay Map. When reading the zoning code, the Table must be read in conjunction with the Special Height Overlay Map, which was on record with the City Clerk, but had not previously been included in [he code. She pointed out that if one looked at the Table for blocks 36 and 37, one would conclude that the height limitation applied to the whole block. However, the Map shows that only a portion of each block lies within the Special Height Overlay District. The revised draft ordinance now directs staff to read the two sections together, to avoid errors in the future. In reviewing block 100, staff believed if it would be more appropriate to follow the underlying R- II specification. One property owner, Mr. Edwazds, contacted the staff with a concern about that plan because he had a tower that may be deemed non-conforming. A height calculation and site survey was done, andYevealed that the tower would comply with the 30 foot height Ms. Surber explained that, for block 93, the site of Sea Marine, the original SHOD Map changed the existing height of 50 feet to 43 feet. Since then, the zoning has changed to C-II, which has a height limit of 40 feet. She said that, given the topography of this particular site, staff is recommending a height limit of 43 feet, even though the underlying limit is 40 feet. She pointed out the footnote in the draft ordinance that clarifies that special allowance for this property. In reviewing this infom~ation, staff also noticed an error on the zoning map. When streets aze vacated, typically the street is divided down the center line, and whatever zoning is in effect on either side of the sweet comes to the center line. hz this case, there was a street vacation, and the C-II zoning for Sea Marine should have come to the center line, but did not. That is being corrected on the zoning map to reflect the appropriate zoning up to the center line on Franklin Street P/arming Commission Page 2 of 8 Ms. Surber noted that the packet shows that here has been appropriate notice, a SEPA review. Staff has prepared the draft Findings and Conclusions; the draft ordinance reflects the wishes of the Planning Commission. estions and Discussion from the Planning Commission Commissioner Emery asked if the additional 10 feet for a tower is allowed in R-II, as well as C- II. Ms. Surber said that was allowed only in certain districts; otherwise an application for a variance is required. She also noted that, at Mr. Edwards' request, the Ordinance recital recognizes that his property was used for industrial uses in the early 1900s. However, it is no longer industrial use and is caned and currently used as residential; therefore the 30 foot height limit is the recommendation from staff. Mr. Emery stated that he finds the height limit reasonable, given the topogaphy, and that a structure up to 43 feet would not stand out disproportionately. Mr. Ray stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Emery moved that the draft ordinance and staff recommendations on height for blocks 93 and 100 be recommended for approval by City Council; Mr. Fry seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. Mayor Michelle Sandoval joined the meeting at 6:55 PM. Chair Mick-Hager called for brief break in order to reseat those in attendance for the next agenda item. The meeting resumed at 6:57 PM. Background Presentation on Citv's original Future Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and Glen Cove Industrial Area by Mavor Sandoval Commissioner LeMaster commented that he had been reviewing the records and minutes of previous meetings. He expressed hope that the City and County could successfully work together towazd a mutually advantageous resolution with regard to Glen Cove. Mr. Sepler reviewed the previous Planning Commission meetings that had been arranged to review relevant history: a presentation by AI Scalf to provide the County's perspective and presentations by Dave Robison and Eric Toews, who had discussed the development of both the City and County Comprehensive Plans, including the rationale behind the FUGA including Glen Cove. The Comp Plan, as adopted, had policies specific to a scheme where the City over time would evaluate long term needs of the area, develop revenue sharing, and use Glen Cove for light industrial and for some as yet undefined C-N regional commercial, potentially. He noted that inclusion in the Comp Plan does not guarantee its outcome. For a variety of reasons, the anticipated course of events has changed. Mr. Sepler then requested Mayor Sandoval to provide her recollections and perspective, noting that she had served on the County Planning Commission when their Camp Plan was adopted and had also, as a member of City Council, served on the Glen Cove team that negotiated a settlement with the County with regazd to the Appeal Planning Commission Page 3 oP8 Mayor Sandoval noted that she had recently reviewed working documents from the Glen Cove negotiations. Prior to that period, she had served on the County Planning Commission during the development of the County Comp Plan. She said that for many years the County had been unwilling to undertake the Comp Plan planning process. The County Planning Commission was then dissolved and reappointed for the purposes of putting forwazd a Comprehensive Plan. It was a lengthy and contentious process, initially cast in 1998. Mayor Sandoval said she had continued to serve on the County Planning Commission through 2000. Mayor Sandoval recalled that there was a Comp Pian amendment directed toward establishing a stand alone UGA in the Glen Cove area, which was not well supported by the public. She said that although the GMA is a living document, the basic tenets continue to apply, and that the boundaries of that stand alone UGA were not logical in that regard, considering what was pre- existing in 1990. The negotiating team included Ms. Sandoval, Kees Kolff, Frieda Fenn, Richard Vogt and Dan Tittemess, who developed the plan that was approved in 2002. The main issues prompting public protestations included plans fora 41ane Highway 19, and other infrastructure upgrades. One of the major agreements resolved during the negotiation was that the Been buffers for the Hwy 20 corridor would be maintained. Another issue for the City associated with the LAMIRD was the planned development on both sides of Hwy 20; this was not seen as consistent with pre-1990 conditions. Because the County was so late in dealing with their Comp Plan relative to the City, unplanned, poorly regulated, out of compliance growth continued during these negotiations. The final outcome was a tight line boundary with development predominantly to one side of Hwy 20, limited to 49 acres, with 40 feet of green belt. There had been no bulk and dimensional standards; the team dealt with that as well as impervious surface and storm water regulation. Mayor Sandoval said, however, that the County did not adopt the then current Storm Water Manual. She said she was surprised to learn, in reviewing the history, that the urban reserve (from the City Limits to the top of the LAMIRD) was never adopted by the County. Mr. Sepler mentioned a few points about Glen Cove from the previous meetings. He noted Mr. Toews and Mr. Robison recollections that City representatives had believed it better for the City to take responsibility for Glen Cove. County leaders at that time showed less interest in compliance with the GMA, and allowed many instances ofnon-compliant development. The adoption of the City Comp Plan in 1996 was a step to protect the area. Meanwhile, the County tried to find ways to designate the area. There was low residential population; the LAMIRD must be sepazate from the UGA and the LAMIRD was too close to the City. The situation called for a negotiated settlement. Mayor Sandoval added that one of the City goals was to establish a permanent LAMIRD boundary, i.e. to stop "creep" which is still occurring through flexible zoning policies. She noted that the GMA calls for logcal, consistent boundaries. After the Comp Plans passed, the County continued to alter boundaries almost annually. Another issue was withdrawal of the stand alone Glen Cove UGA consideration. Also, consideration of the best uses such as expanded light industrial, versus general commercial or heavy industrial, especially considering the area is an aquifer recharge zone. Height limits, surface area coverage and storm water, footprint limitations, conditional use for expansion, associated commercial options for manufacturers, buffers, urban reserve and enforcement were other points on the City's list. Mr. Ray mentioned that the County had apparently sought to populate areas and expand boundaries. This was prior to the Comp Plan and there was continuing creep afterwards. Mayor Sandoval said that was the reason that Nielson and the Hearings Boazd pushed for the Urban Planning Commission Page 4 ofB Reserve. (One in five acres is not appropriate; one in twenty provides more opportunity for reconstituting the area). Mayor Sandoval also mentioned the FUGA being deleted by the City. The City decided that in- fill was the most important thing, which is linked to having infrastmctwe in existing zoned azeas. She said there was also some discussion about rezoning existing City land as opposed to moving outwazd. Mayor Sandoval said that in the end the big issues were lack of Stormwater regulation and the Urban Growth Reserve. The City negotiated the best outcome they could, and decided not to sue over the remaining issues. In retrospect, she sees it as a good process in the main. She said a stand alone UGA would have been appealed and lost for many reasons, including lack of standards. The City agreed to expand the LAMIRD farther south rather than make other concessions such as crossing the highway. She said that keeping the trees buffer was also an accomplishment as the County had nothing in place to address that. Mr. Sepler reviewed the succeeding years after the settlement, and asked Mayor Sandoval if her position has changed. She said that she has always been most focused and vocal about infrastructwe. She said it is clear that although zoning is highly contentious in this County, nothing can be done without infrastructwe, and that is what must be addressed. She mentioned the light industrial area south of Sims Way and the need for a lift station and basic engineering. She said she still feels that infill is best. With regard to commercial zoning, by keeping the area small for small businesses, government can better afford to fund the infrastructure. She noted that the County does not tax commercially zoned land at commercial rates, so there is no presswe to develop or sell it, with resulting stagnation. She advocates keeping areas tight and taxing appropriately, so that infrastructwe is more affordable. Mayor Sandoval cited an example of an Upper Sims property owner with a development proposal, demanding that the City fund the infrastructwe. However, neither the property owner nor the City believe they can afford to fund the needed inftastructwe. She says she understands why, from feasibility and engineering perspectives, we need to consider Glen Cove. She can also see that the commercial zoning for Upper Sims and the Business Park is not appropriate for all the light manufacturing and entrepreneurial endeavors that we need here. However, she said it is also necessary for in-fill to continue. Since [he City does not yet have the infrastructwe on Upper Sims where it is zoned commerciaUlight industrial, the City can't compete because the land values are too high compared [o the County. The tension is entirely about revenue because all government budgets aze extremely tight. Mayor Sandoval said that since the City is the only UGA, it has both the responsibility and the privilege to accept, fund and be the place for growth. She acknowledged the schizophrenic natwe of Port Townsend, which resists growth but desires the benefits of open spaces, trees, and infrastrnctwe. The challenge of finding more space for light industrial in town was also discussed. There was additional discussion about the negotiation process and the outcome. Mayor Sandoval said that the process had taken about one year, and that it had worked well. She noted that the Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 County has had much turnover and is very short staffed at this time, so that would be an additional challenge to joint planning at this time. Commissioner LeMaster said that he believes that there is willingness on the part of the County and City to define what is best for East Jefferson County and to pursue creative solutions, and that this is an ideal time to do so. He suggested that Glen Cove is suitable as a mixed use azea, and that it could become a residential village. With regard to industry, he said all depends on how clean it is. There was follow up discussion regarding the need for more light industrial land and much less storage facility. The issue was raised of how the land should be used at Glen Cove, if/when infrastructure is put in. Mr. Sepler mentioned the staff to staff preparation that would be a necessary part of joint City/County discussions. He listed the major challenges, as he sees them: 1. Capacity -- lack of funds and staff resources especially at the County 2. Sprawl, Size -optimizing the area for which infrastructure is to be provided 3. Character 4. Who pays for infrastructure? Mr. Sepler said that he believes the outcome depends on whether those issues can be overcome. Mayor Sandoval noted that water is a major issue. However, County leadership has not acknowledged this. She said the challenge is obtaining that acknowledgement so that there can be meaningful negotiation. There was brief further discussion about the need to build a relationship as the first step, as well as to make clear. what each side has to offer and what each needs. Mayor Sandoval suggested that revenue is the most important issue for the County and that must be an element of any incentive to collaborate with the City. Commissioner Fry inquired whether the City has staff resources to pursue this. Mayor Sandoval responded that this would be manageable, provided there is commitment from the County to pursue a mutually beneficial solution. hi response to a question as to whether or not there has already been any attempt to discuss Glen Cove with the County, Mr. Sepler and Mayor Sandoval noted that County staff is overburdened, inexperienced and not in a position to address this. Mr. Ray suggested that it is important for the City to demonstrate good faith, and make it clear that they wish to collaborate, not attempt to dictate the solution. There was further discussion about the current economic climate. It was noted that the County is totally dependent on development, as it always has been; this is their only source of revenue and that revenue is down sharply at this time.. City sales tax is up compared to the County and State. Staff, Mayor Sandoval and Commissioners briefly explored revenue sharing options and water issues. Mr. Sepler cited examples from other cities. He noted that the initial risk of putting in infrastructure must be balanced against anticipated future revenue. Typically negotiations about exactly how the revenue. would be shazed happen after planning and policy adoption. The status of Tri-Area plans was briefly reviewed. P/arming Commission Page 6 of 8 The question of why the City, Port, County, WRIA and paper mill have not yet and cannot plan together was raised and briefly discussed. Mayor Sandoval said that the City has attempted to set up discussions but that the County has not given this priority. Judy Surber noted that the existing structure which includes a PUD separate from the County complicates the problem. There was agreement that one of the first steps is to identify what each party needs. A steering committee to define possible steps from easiest to most difficult was suggested. Mr. Sepler said that the current time is the best time to install infrastructure as there will ever be because of federal funding. The challenge is to optimize all possible fimding so as to create a win/win outcome for the County and City. Mr. LeMaster asked what types of support or services the City could offer the County in return for Glen Cove collaboration. Mayor Sandoval noted that water service is what the City has to offer, but that the County does not consider that a priority issue. Meanwhile, the County is pursuing a $35-40 million dollar Tri-Area UGA project. Judy Surber returned to an eazlier point made by Mr. Sepler about keeping the size contained. She noted that he had also stated at one point that the uses must also be contained, in order to be able to withstand a challenge by the GMA hearings board. Mr. Sepler said that despite all the obstacles, this is the best opportunity to make light industrial happen, which would benefit everyone. Commissioner Fry inquired as to the status of discussions with the Port, particularly with regard to light industrial activity. Mr. Sepler said that the situation fluctuates. At times they indicate they have no excess capacity, and at other times indicate that it is difficult to find marine related business. In response to a follow up question about the street right-of--way trade, Mayor Sandoval said that a verbal agreement had been reached but that the Port staff subsequently advised the Port Commissioners not to finalize the agreement. In response to a question about the natural water service boundary, Mr. Sepler said that more research would be needed to determine that. He noted that, in terms of process, there would be an effort to avoid duplicate work between the City and County. He mentioned that the City would do more work up front on a proposal and would be crafting new special zoning. The two Planning Commissions would then work together. The challenge is working out who pays for what services. [Mayor Sandoval left the meeting at this point in the meeting.] Mr. Emery also conveyed information that Joe Breskin, statistician, had reported at a HAPN meeting. Demographically, based on 1998-2005 figures, the 30 to 40 year old (middle class) population has dropped dramatically, and the County and City is therefore failing their Comp Plans. He noted that Glen Cove serves as an incubator for jobs and green technology. He says the waste products are going right into the ground and into the aquifer. Solving the infrastructure problem will therefore solve other problems. Mr. Sepler added the demogaphic gap actually encompasses 20 to 40 year olds. Chair Mick-Hager thanked staff for arranging the three meetings to gather background on Glen Cove. She said that, in her opinion, since the problems with the County are long standing, it will be necessary to find a new approach to collaboration. She said it is important to get to know the individuals on the County Planning Commission and BOCC, and to understand the issues they are grappling with. To that end, she said she planned to attend some of their meetings. Planning Canmission Page 7 of 8 Commissioner LeMaster noted that Team Jefferson had just completed a study of the businesses at Glen Cove. He suggested that another meeting with Team Jefferson be arranged to hear what is happening and perhaps get some insight into the County initiatives. VIII. DC. X. The discussion then fumed to future agenda items. Mr. Sepler gave an update on the Inventory. When John McDonagh has completed a review of the contracted work, the next step will be for experts to review and help truth it. He said that meanwhile, he would schedule a meeting with Team Jefferson. That may occur during the November 19 meeting, depending on when the Inventory is ready. Judy Surber announced that Beacon Development will be in Port Townsend to review the land bank holdings for possible affordable housing. UPCOMING MEETINGS November 18, 2009 - Open House -Designated Historic Residential Property Owners- Planning Conunission invited although not a schedule meeting. (Tentative) November 19, 2009 - Public Hearing -Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinance (Tentative) COMMUNICATIONS (None) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner LeMaster moved for adjournment; Commissioner Emery seconded. Chair Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. Monica Mick-Hager, Chair ~M-two/ `-' Ga' Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 8 of 8