Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10141993 Ag Min ;. · · · City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Revised) Regular Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 30, 1993 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS October 14, 1993 Port Townsend School District #50, Rezone #9308-07, New Middle School 1. Staff report (Perkins) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Thayer/Enarson) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions A. B. Port Townsend School District #50, Conditional Use Permit #9308-08, New Middle School 1. Staff report (perkins) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Thayer/Enarson) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS A. November meeting schedule VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 21. 1993 (Special Meeting) Interim Urban Growth Boundary Public Hearing October 28. 1993 (Regular Meeting) East Jefferson County EMS Council, Conditional Use Permit #9307-01 VII. ADJOURN ~ · · · -/-" , City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNINGCO~SSroNAGENDA _Workshop Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 30,1993 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current· mail October 14, 1993 IV.· OLD BUSINESS B. Port Townsend School District #50, Conditional Use Permit #9308-08, New Middle School 1. Staff report (Perkins) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Thayer/Enarson) 4. Commission discussion . and conclusions C. Port Townsend School District #50, Rezone #9308-07, New Middle School 1. Staff report (Perkins) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Thayer/Enarson) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 21. 1993 (Special Meeting) Interim Urban Growth Boundary Public Hearing October 28. 1993 (Workshop Meeting) * East Jefferson County EMS Council, Conditional Use Permit #9307-01 * Arterial Street Plan Hearing VII. ADJOURN . . . City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 14, 1993 I. ROLL CALL Chair Pro-tem Karen Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present were commissioners Enarson, Baird, Thayer and Rickard. Welch and Sherwood were excused due to conflict of interest. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 30, 1993 Rickard moved, Thayer seconded that minutes be approved as written. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail No current mail. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Port- Townsend Sçhool District #50, Rezone #9308-07, New Middle School· 1. Staff report (Perkins) Perkins read- tile findings of fact fot the c6mmission. Erickson asked if it were basically a contract rezone; Perkins said. that it is not an official contract rezone, but there are conditionsCwhich tie this rezone to the construction of a middle school. A contract rezone is more complicated and this way achieves the same ends. Rickard asked why a rezone is needed at all because a school is a conditional use in both an RI-A and a P-I zone. Perkins said that instead -of doing a text amendment now to allow-schools to be permitted outright they chose to do a conditional use permit now. It is possible that the language of the comprehensive plan may someday be changed so that schools are permitted outright only in P-l zoneS. For future planning, it is advisable to rezone the property. now. 2. Public testimony David Werner· of Heery International spoke in favor of the application, and asked a question about the relevancy of the pending addendums-to the MDNS. Perkins replied that the changes to the MDNS, in the opinion of the Director are not signîficant enough to raise here or to warrant public notice. - Rickard brought up a point that if the DNS is revised, because the language is also written into the findings and conclusions, then the language adopted in the findings and conclusions will be wrong and will need to become revised. Perkins suggested that a new condition #14 be added to read "The City of Port Townsend issued an MDNS dated September 22, 1993. Any future amendments are amended to the Findings and Conclusions as approved by the Planning Commission October 14, 1993." Paula Mackrow stated a concern that she does not understand the ownership of the property, and wondered where the owner, Mark Johnson, stands in the rezone request. Perkins said that the negotiations for the purchase of the property are still under way. The rezone application definitely considers the owner of the property to be the school district. · · · Mackrow asked for additional clarification on the ownership of the property. Werner stated that one owner is Mark Johnson, and the other is Dan Yesberger. The Yesberger property is owned by the school, and the Johnson property is under negotiation, although condemnation proceedings give the school clear access and clear beneficial use of the property. It is a foregone conclusion that the title will transfer, but what is in question is the amount of money that it will sell for. Thayer clarified that Mackrow is asking what if the sale doesn't go through, and Mark Johnson is left with property that is zoned P-1. Mackrow asked a question about the boundary line and if the school district will only acquire a portion of the property but will rezone the whole thing P-l; questioned what is going to happen to the wetland portion of the property, if the city will take on an additional amount of expense for the benefit of county residents as a whole. Werner said that might have been an issue if the condemnation proceedings hadn't been initiated. The school district is only asking for a rezone on the portion that they intend to use. Mackrow rebutted his point by reading from #5 of the conclusions, "7 acres of wetland and 3 acres of wetland buffer." The rezone is for the entire 34 acres. Mackrow said that making the wetlands P-l makes it even less valuable to its owner. Erickson said that the questions that Mackrow asked are not in the realm of the Planning Commission. Perkins said that the outcome of the ownership of the wetland is not clear at this time. It is the judgment of the planning staff that P-l would be the most appropriate zone for a regional stonnwater facility, the purpose this wetland may serve. The wetland buffer is completely undevelopable for future residential use. As of now, studies show that it is indeed a wetland and a wetland buffer and undevelopable, therefore not of much value to the property's owner. Baird asked if it were documented that the wetland area is undevelopable. Perkins said that yes, it was. Kathryn Jenks stated that the question she has is that at one time Mark Johnson instigated the process of a subdivision. If he retains ownership of just the wetland, then it's possible that he will have an unbuildable site. If all the use of the upland land is taken away by the school, then Mark Johnson will be left with an unbuildable 10 acres. The subdivision process has not begun on the property. She asked if the rezone was premature because no one knows anything about the property negotiations. The ownership will determine the use of the wetlands. The school subdivision does not seem to be part of this proposal, and Jenks wondered why it is not. Jenks submitted a slide showing a portion of the property under water as an official exhibit. Mackrow clarified that the wetland property loses its complete economic use if it is segregated out from the rest of the school district's property. Jeneen Hayden said that one of her concerns with the project is regarding drainage and the reality that water runs downhill. Under SEPA review, the City retained an easement that would allow an overflow drainway to be built. The City is incurring this cost for the benefit of the applicant, a cost the city shouldn't have to incur. Hayden questioned whether or not this an appropriate site for a school. The City is agreeing to put in wider streets and other improvements that taxpayers will have to pay for. The costs of the project are being transferred onto the taxpayers. If the school district didn't appropriate enough money for improvements, then they should consider setting more aside so that not only the residents of Port Townsend have to pay for the new school. Baird asked what percentage of the students will come from the county. Mackrow said that it's relatively small, but the potential for build-out is relatively high. 3. Committee report (Thayer/Enarson) Thayer asked if the school district were going to buy the whole 34 acre parcel, and how can they ask for a rezone on property that they do not own. Thayer asked if Mark Johnson had been notified of the hearing. Perkins said that she believed that Mark Johnson had been notified, but would confirm. Baird asked if anyone could explain why the planning commission was being asked to consider a rezone now instead of after the ownership of the property had been determined. Since the school is not intended to be built on the wetland or the buffer, why is the wetland up for a rezone now as well? · · · Enarson suggested that the City not accept an application for a rezone until the ownership is clear. She also suggested a condition that the rezone be contingent on whether the school district is the owner of the property. 4. Commission discussion and conclusions Discussion ensued over the need to rezone the property from RI-A to P-1. Rickard commented on the idea brought up by Ms. Hayden about drainage. He said the way that city regulations go, if you create an impact, then you have to address it. The idea that the downstream resident should have to pay for impacts created by upstream property owners is not current City policy for new development. Rickard said that he doesn't see why the school district should be liable for costs incurred by surrounding property owners. He said that he agrees with Enarson that it might be good to add the condition that before rezone could take effect, that the property should be in the ownership of the school district. Erickson asked if #3 of the Conclusions that "the public interest will be best served by the issuance of a rezone" is not necessarily true. The purpose of rezone is actually for future planning needs. Discussion ensued over whether or not the public necessity for a new school was being met by the rezone. Perkins said that the purposes of a P-l zone accommodate a school better than an RI-A zone. Enarson said that Conclusion #17, referring to the Growth Management Act, suggested that rezoning the property now might lessen the workload in the future. She suggested rewriting the conclusions to better reflect reason why the school needs the property rezoned P-1. Discussion ensued over why a rezone was needed. Thayer moved to recommend approval of rezone application # 9308-07 to the City Council with the following changes: 1. The elimination of a sentence in Conclusion 1. 2. Addition to Conclusion #14 Findings of Fact, "and any further addendums as approved." 3. Elimination of the last sentence of paragraph three of Conclusions. 4. Addition of a second condition to read "In the event that Port Townsend School District #50 does not obtain title to the property then this rezone shall become null and void. " Enarson seconded. All were in favor. B. Port Townsend School District #50, Conditional Use Permit #9308-08, New Middle School 1. Staff report (Perkins) Perkins read through the Findings of Fact for the commission. Thayer asked a question about #18, page three, second sentence "sewer connections will be made to an existing or an oversized sewer main." Perkins replied that the City has considered upsizing the sewer main at the same time as construction. Rickard suggested putting "or an oversized" in parentheses to clarify the meaning. Thayer questioned why the MDNS was included in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, when it was discussed a few weeks ago that the Planning Commission cannot comment or make changes. Erickson and the Commission decided that it is preferable to have SEP A included as an addendum and not copied verbatim into the findings and conclusions. Rickard asked a question about page two, #8 "environmental review was conducted for the proposed school." 2. Public testimony David Werner asked if in the event that the rezone is not approved by City Council, then will the wording of the Conditional Use Permit be changed to reflect this. Perkins assured him that it would. · · · Kathryn Jenks asked if the comment period for SEPA is over on November 4, 1993. Perkins replied that the comment period is for the ESA permit. Jenks clarified that SEPA is a "done deal." Jenks said she would like to address Finding of Fact #8. She suggested specificity about what the landscape buffers will be. The areas that will be rose hedges need to be temporarily more protected until the hedge grows in. Paula Mackrow said that this is the largest project to go into Port Townsend in the past ten years; it is three times the size of Costco in Sequim. In some way, it needs to be made clear that access to the process is very difficult. Who is responsible for the creation of the hedge? She doesn't find the protection slated for the wetland to be adequate. 3. Committee report (ThayerlEnarson) Thayer asked if the Conditional Use were for the 34 acres or for the 24 acres. Perkins said that it was for 34, and for the conditional use of a school on the property. Thayer asked if there will be a thirty foot easement dedicated to the city to widen the San Juan right of way to 80 feet wide. She referenced the map, which only shows a 60 foot right-of-way. Werner answered several questions about the map. Thayer said that as far as the wetland buffers were concerned, they should be addressed under ESA. She suggested changing condition #3, to "in the underlying zone" and also adding a condition to read that "in the event the title to the property does not pass to the School District, then the Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void." Enarson asked if a year were a realistic time period for the length of the Conditional Use Permit. Perkins explained that the deadline could be extended. 4. Commission discussion and conclusions Rickard said that perhaps a cover letter to council could be drafted and signed by Cindy Thayer stating "in this particular process, the Planning Commission feels that the public frocess is not being addressed by the Planning Commission, it's being addressed in other areas." I Perkins said that an additional condition to the Conditional Use Permit could be added that would enhance the MDNS or make amendments to the MDNS. Erickson said that she felt that the packets the Planning Commission had been given were incomplete and that she couldn't tell what the school was going to be like from the packet the commission had received. All specifics were being dealt with in other areas. Rickard referenced Forest Park, regarding the Planning Commission's effect on a project; here they don't have much input from public and input into the project. Thayer said that she would have felt uncomfortable with the small amount of information that the commission had before them if there had been a large amount of people at the meeting. Rickard said that a large amount of the decisions that the Planning Commission are normally involved in have been decided elsewhere and that that statement should be made a part of the Conditional Use Permit recommendation to Council. The Planning Commission has already participated in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas part of the project by their work in developing the ESA Ordinance. It needs to be part of the public record that this work has been done elsewhere. Enarson said that there has been a significant number of public hearings over the past few years on the new Middle School site, and that the Planning Commission needs to be careful not to micromanage projects. Erickson said that she can not say that she is in agreement with everything in the proposal because she doesn't know everything in it. Rickard suggested an addendum to read, "In consideration of the aforementioned Findings of Fact and Conclusions and with the clear understanding on the part of the Council that many of the conditions that would normally be addressed by the Planning Commission have been addressed by other measures or in other public forums. " . . . Baird asked why the Planning Commission received so much more of a detailed application for Rosewind and Forest Park. Rickard said that it was something that was of concern to a smaller neighborhood, and not to a larger area. Discussion ensued about the general feeling that the planning commission didn't want to appear to be rubber- stamping projects. Perkins said that the opportunity still exists for the Planning Commission to make any changes that they would like. Enarson said that she feels comfortable that the public has had ample opportunity to comment. Thayer recommends that Conditional Use Permit # 9308-08 be recommended to Council with the following changes: 1. Conclusion #8, eliminating "additions ~." 2. Addition of parentheses, Conclusion #18, around "(or an oversized)" 3. Condition #3 amended to read, "... in the underlying zone. " 4. Adding a conditional phrase to the last paragraph as suggested by Rickard to read, "In consideration of the aforementioned Findings of Fact and Conclusions and with the clear understanding on the part of the Council that many ofthe conditions that would normally be addressed by the Planning Commission have been addressed by other measures or in other public forums... " 5. Eliminating "as follows" in SEPA conditions #2 and #3. Baird seconded. Thayer amended her motion, to read as stated above, and Baird seconded the amendment. All were in favor. Discussion ensued over the amount of information necessary to make a decision on an application. V. NEW BUSINESS A. November meeting schedule Perkins announced that the second and fourth Thursdays in November are both on legal holidays so the Planning Commission doesn't have to meet. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 21. 1993 (Special Meeting) Interim Urban Growth Boundary Public Hearing October 28. 1993 (Regular Meeting) East Jefferson County EMS Council, Conditional Use Permit #9307-01 Enarson asked about the televising of the Planning Commission meetings. Rickard announced that Planning Commission Minutes will be published on Internet. Werner asked a question about the ownership of the property and if the Rezone were contingent upon the ownership, specifically if either one is contingent upon the purchase of the entire 34 acres, or if it's necessary to change the Rezone and Conditional Use Permit when they come before Council. Perkins said she would ask City Attorney Dennis McLerran for clarification. Werner complimented the commission, saying that he appreciates the way they function.e VII. ADJOURN Thayer moved, Enarson seconded to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. · · · Minutes respectfully submitted by: Pia Boyer October 15, 1993