Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121009CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 250 Madison Street Third Floor Conference Room Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:30 PM II. IH. IV Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, December 10, 2009 EXH 2A R. Sepler, Memorandum to Planning Commission, Recommended Approach for Glen Cove Utility Service and Subsequent Expanded Light Industrial Development within an Expanded Urban Growth Area, December 3, 2009 EXH 2B Draft Criteria for Identifying Potential Land to Rezone to Mixed Light Manufacturing and Commercial (M/C) or Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning EXH 3A J. Surber, Memorandum to Planning Commission, Draft Code Revision Ordinances: Title 7, 17, 18 and 20 Revisions and Clarifications, December 2, 2009 EXH 3B Attachment to 3A: Summary Table EXH 3C Attachment to 3A: Draft Ordinance CALL TO ORDER Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. A quorum was present. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Gerald Fry, Gee Heckscher, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mick-Hager, and Julian Ray Staff: Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director and Judy Surber, Planning Manager ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Commissioner Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda, as presented; Commissioner Heckscher seconded. The agenda was approved unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 22, 2009: Mr. LeMaster requested rephrasing of the first paragraph under the Glen Cove/UGA agenda item. Mr. Heckscher moved for approval of the minutes, as amended; Mr. Emery seconded. The minutes of October 22, 2009 were unanimously approved, as amended. Page 1 of 7 Minutes of November 19, 2009: Mr. Emery moved for approval of the minutes; Mr. Fry seconded. The minutes of November 19, 2009 were unanimously approved, as presented. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VL UNFIhlISHED BUSINESS: Draft Approach for Glen Cove Utility Service and Subsequent Expanded Light Industrial Development within a Revised City of Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director) Rick Sepler referred to the packet materials. His memorandum to the Planning Commission contains an outline of a scheme whereby the City and County can consider whether it is prudent to proceed with expanding the Urban Growth Area (City) to include the Glen Cove LAMIRD and associated areas. He said that staff had confirmed, as Team Jefferson had disclosed, that there is no operative needs study, extant, for light industrial lands in Jefferson County. That is, there is no basis for zoning additional land as light-industrial, at this point. Although there is fairly general agreement that such land is needed, the challenge is the lack of an agreed upon study from either the City or County. However, in the interim, it is possible to take certain steps that would move the process forwazd. Mr. Sepler mentioned the possible completion of the Hovee Study, which had been discussed at a previous meeting. This study had three alternative development scenarios and rough acreages of what is needed for light-industrial, ranging from 400 to 600 acres. He pointed out that moving forward with an assumption of at least 400 acres is not advised. He said that the models used in 2007 aze not necessarily applicable in the present economy, and that the information must be freshened and completed. The Hovee scheme provided for developing the three models, followed by public outreach and feedback, and then choosing/adopting the best of the three models. Mr. Sepler suggests that the City, County and Port move forward to achieve that end, by positing that as the first topic for the Joint Growth Steering Committee to come together. Mr. Fry inquired as to an estimate of cost to complete the Hovee study. Mr. Sepler estimated $15-20,000; the assumptions regarding three sectors of the economy would need to be verified as viable. Secondly, an analysis of available land must be done to determine the additional acreage needed. Growth Management allows a 30% market factor, i.e. planning for 130% of expected needs. He noted that the amount of available land within the existing Urban Growth Area (Port Townsend) would first need to be deternuned. This can begin with a GIS survey immediately. After determining steps lA and 1B (i.e. determining how much land is needed and how much is available), if the need cannot be met within the existing UGA, then it can be sought elsewhere. There is a significant issue in that the Comprehensive Plan (2004) says that there is adequate land available to meet the needs. Prior to 2004, the plan indicated that if more land was needed, Glen Cove might be a likely possibility. In response to a question, Mr. Sepler mentioned previous thinking about a Hadlock UGA and even eazlier thinking about a Glen Cove UGA. Page 2 of 7 Mr. LeMaster inquired as to the criteria for useable land, such as set backs, slopes etc. Mr. Sepler said he would step through the criteria as drafted in the memo. He said he believes it will be difficult to find adequate space in Port Townsend that is appropriate for light- industrial use. If it is determined that there is not adequate land in Port Townsend, a policy identifying other areas can be developed. He mentioned that the City has expressed concerns with possible plans for certain uses at the Airport. The concerns are based on the lack of a needs analysis, the lack of a strategy for coordinated development and the lack of clearly defined usage criteria and plans. In conjunction with a policy base, a set of warrants or trigger points would be developed, such as has been done with parking capacity in planning for the Uptown commercial district. Mr. LeMaster also mentioned intill and the fact that it has been less expensive to develop on .County versus City land. He asked if these considerations would be addressed in this process. Mr. Sepler said that they would. The City has requirements for development of light-industrial in the City: sewer; water system, fire flow, paved roads to an arterial, storm water management, low impact development and buffering/screening and other restrictions that are required by Growth Management for urban services. Development in non-urban areas is less expensive because of lower service levels and lower environmental protections. Growth Management (GMA) restrains light industrial in rural areas. However, in places like Glen Cove, there is a proviso for intill, i.e. a LAMIItD where pre-existing use can continue and some additional development can occur. He said the challenge is that some of the infill cannot work without sewer because of the amount of squaze footage needed for septic. The simple solution of tUnning sewer lines there would place a very high utility cost on a small area and leaves an open question regarding the sewer lines between the City and that area. There is a provision within the RCWs that allows for major industrial development in a rural area for a facility or plant of such a large size that it would not fit within a UGA. This would be on the condition that it is not feasible to accommodate within urban areas. He also mentioned the notion of industrial land bank, a county wide azea to accommodate lazger development that could not be accommodated within an UGA. The Airport has variously attempted to define itself as an MID, as part of a industrial land bank, and most recently as an Essential Public Facility. Mr. Sepler discussed the intention to develop a GIS report that would show the aeeas within the City boundaries that meet criteria for light industrial development. He stepped through the draft criteria included in the packet (EXH 2B). He invited Commissioners to comment on the items and to suggest any other criteria. He suggested the possibility of weighting the list in some way. Mr. Ray raised the possibility of adding a criterion to address "geographic suitability", i.e. appropriate slope and other topographical characteristics that would affect engineering and development costs. Mr. Heckscher asked if developers of commerciaUindustrial properties would be required to pay the costs for streets and utilities. Mr. Sepler said that is the case, and that those costs represent. one of the greatest disincentives to development. He mentioned the example of Madison Street frontage and the greater likelihood that vacant properties will be developed when improvements in that area are completed. In the case of Glen Cove, there would be Page 3 of7 economic development funding for infrastructure to make development more affordable, with an anticipated byproduct of additional jobs that benefit the entire community. Commissioners ageed that the draft list was a good starting point and that other criteria could be added as appropriate. Mr. Sepler noted that in terms of process, with regard to the work plan item for evaluation of Glen Cove, the memo and criteria would be submitted to City Council as a recommendation for taking the next steps. Mr. Fry asked Mr. Sepler how the time lines for the above and for the development of the pumping station are related. Mr. Sepler said that a possible recommendation would be for the pumping station to be located to allow eventual service to Glen Cove, and designed to allow eventual upgrade, but not engineered for that capacity/service at the outset. Mr. Fry said he is in favor of that approach. Mr. Sepler said he would prepare a draft letter (report and recommendation) to City Council that could be approved and signed by the Planning Commission Chair by the time of the next meeting. In response to a question, he said that the design life of the pumping station is about fifty years. With regard to the steps outlined in the memo, Mr. LeMaster asked if the update to the Hovee Study could be done with existing local staff. Mr. Sepler said that a collaborative approach would be best, i.e. joint selection of a third party to avoid the appeazance of bias. Mr. LeMaster suggested that the letter to the City Council include both a recommendation for the City to proceed with step 3 as well as to verify that the County and Port are willing to proceed with an update of the Hovee Study (Step IA). Mr. Sepler restated that he understood the direction for staff to be: to revise the Recommended Approach, with a background narrative, and including a pazagraph about the pump station, for the Planning Commission to review at the January 28 meeting. When approved, it would be signed by the Chair and forwarded on to City Council. Mr. Fry referred to [he list of minor arterials and requested clarification on the definition of minor versus major arterial. Mr. Sepler said that major and minor arterials are based on the number of trips per day, per the Comp Plan; major is defined as over 15,000 trips per day. He noted that designation of minor arterials affects eligibility for state-wide streeUarterial funds. VII. NEW BUSINESS First Touch Review -Consolidated Port Townsend Municipal Code Revisions (Judy Surber, Planning Manager) Ms. Surber referred to Exhibits 3A, 3B and 3C and reviewed the annual municipal code revision process. Staff maintains a list of necessary and desired revisions throughout the year, and prepares an omnibus code change for consideration and approval at yeaz end. She said that the items included in the omnibus are generally strait-forward "nuts and bolts" items. Any controversial or complex issues are usually handled under their own ordinance, so that more public outreach and attention can be paid to them. Page 4 of 7 This year, staff was assisted by consultant, Rachael Nathanson, who did research and provided a strike out/underline draft, which was then reviewed and refined by staff, as necessary. The Draft has not yet been through SEPA review, and is subject to further refinement by the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Surber pointed out that the Summazy Table (EXH 3B) is cross referenced to the section numbers in the Ordinance. She pointed out that procedural items need not pass through the Planning Commission, and that the City Attorney may decide to carry those items forwazd to City Council independently. Ms. Surber briefly stepped through each of the items in the Summary Table. Only items for which there were questions or comments from Commissioners are listed below. Section 2, 17.08 -Definitions: Garden Shelter is now specifically mentioned/defined under Accessory building. There was a question as to use and whether or not running water may be installed within such a building. Mr. Sepler noted that a building plumbed for n,nning water would be required to go through a pemut process. Fairgrounds - In response to a question, Mr. Sepler said that the "County Fairgrounds" are subject to City zoning rules. Section 5 -Shipping containers are allowed for temporary use only. Staff pointed out that the two week limitation can be extended upon request. Section 6 -.Regarding the maximum height of reaz yard fencing Ms. Surber asked Commissioners to consider whether rear yazd fences along a public right-of--way should be limited to 4 feet (consistent with side yard fences). The relationship to "openness" above 4 feet was clarified. There was agreement with the 4 foot limit. Section 8 -Maximum number of stories for C-II and C-II (H). There was agreement with the limitation of three floors. Section 16 -There was a brief discussion about the interpretation of "open fencing" and .agreement with the clarification proposed. Ms. Surber and Mr. Sepler mentioned that the CDLU may have a few additional items for the Planning Commission to review at a future meeting. Meanwhile, the proposed amendments will go through SEPA review. Noting a reference in the amendments, Mr. LeMaster inquired whether or not there were any microdistilleries in Port Townsend. Mr. Sepler explained that State RCWs now allow the establishment of microdistilleries (under 10,000 gallons per year); none have been established in Port Townsend as yet. Mr. LeMaster also inquired as to the definition of "small-scale artisan", a term that appeazs in the definition of microdistillery, microwinery, etc. Mr. Sepler said that areference/citation to the applicable RCW would be added to the code definition.. Mr. Fry noted that the format of the Ordinance Statement itself was very difficult to read. Ms. Surber explained that this is a standazdized presentation for the official name or title of the Ordinance. She noted that she had omitted the "whereas" phrasing within the recital portion in an attempt to make the material more readable. Page 5 of 7 Mr. Sepler suggested that Commissioners submit any other questions or comments that may arise via a-mail. Ms. Surber mentioned that certain changes to the Critical Areas Ordinance would be forthcoming in a separate Ordinance amendment. The Department of Ecology must approve any CAO changes since the Shoreline Master Program incorporates the CAO. The CAO amendment process is expected to take six to nine months. The original intention was to merely simplify the CAO document by deleting repetitions. However, since a DOE review is necessary, the City will take the opportunity to include some other substantive changes. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS January 13, 2009 Open House -Designated Historic Residential Property Owners A mailing directed at designated property owners announcing the Open House will include an explanation of the background and process, with examples/photos of pivotal, primary and secondary houses, and a FAQ (frequently asked questions) section. Planning Commissioners are invited and encouraged to attend. The open house will run from 5:00 to 7:00 PM, with a presentation beginning at 6:00 PM. (There will be additional materials, including a color coded map, on the web and a phone number to call for specific information.) Planning Commissioners will receive a copy of the mailing. Mr. Fry asked how many of the historic residential properties are newly designated. Mr. Sepler said he would check on the exact number. Commissioners complimented staff on the outreach/presentation materials. Mr. Sepler credited the Planning Commissioners for their guidance, and John McDonagh and Meg Way on the implementation of the mailer. He thanked Commissioner Heckscher for his help in ranking the properties. January 14, 2009 The regular Planning Commission meeting is cancelled due to the Public Art Open House. Location is the Northwest Maritime Center Meeting Room. Planning Commissioners are welcome to attend. January 28, 2009 This meeting will begin with a public hearing on the Historic Residential Properties Map; public testimony will be taken, but no action will betaken that evening. In addition, if timing permits, there will be a public hearing on the Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinance. If there is any problem in completing the preparations and notice of the hearing, this hearing may be postponed until February. hi response to a question about the status of Upper Sims, Mr. Sepler said there had been some delays because of cold, wet weather and power company schedules. The Madison Street area street work should be completed by 12/18. Streetscape work for the balance of downtown should begin in February. IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) Page 6 of7 X. Mr. LeMaster moved for adjournment; Mr. Ray seconded. Chair Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 7:55 PM. Monica Mick-Hager, Chair Gai Bernhard, Recorder Page 7 of 7