Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02241994 Min Ag 'r City of Port Townsend Planning and Building Department 540 Water St., Port Townsend, \VA 98368 206/385·3000 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting February 24, 1994 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 27, 1994 and February 10, 1994 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV.. OLD BUSINESS A. Text Amendment for P-1 Zone (G-2B) 1. 2. 3. Staff Report (Robison) Commission Discussion Public Comments B. Amendment to Towne Point Planned Unit Development 1. Determination of Need for Hearing 2. Staff Briefing (Robison) - materials will be distributed at meeting 3. Commission Discussion V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings March 10. 1994 Accessory Rental Units (ARU), Workshop meeting VI. ADJOURN £C-_ [~ · · · ~~ ~~ ~~ City of Port Townsend Planning and Building Department 540 \Vater St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 Planning Commission Minutes Business Meeting February 24, 1994 I. ROLL CALL Meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Karen Erickson. Other members in attendance were Bob Rickard, Cindy Thayer, and Ernie Baird. Lois Sherwood, Mark Welch and Lisa Enarson were absent. Staff members present were Dave Robison and Pamela Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 27, 1994 and February 10, 1994 Rickard noted an incomplete sentence in the Jan.27 minutes. Page 2, paragraph 3 should read "There will be reorganization of the existing parking space, but no extra density is proposed." In the February 10 minutes, the last sentence on page 3 under paragraph 3 should read "It appears that the City has already exceeded its water allocation for the Tri-Area, and this is why it has ...................." Motion to approve Jan. 27 and Feb. 10 minutes as corrected made by Rickard, seconded by Thayer. Approved unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS Dave Robison distributed copies of an article that appeared in the Foster, Pepper, Sheffelman law firm's newsletter. The article examines the recent Washington Supreme Court ruling that countywide planning policy ordinances, passed pursuant to the Growth Management Act are not subject to voter referendum. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Text Amendment for P-1 Zone (G2B) 1. Staff Report (Robison) Robison noted that the intent of the amendment proposed by the G2B partnership is to create a new marine multiuse zoning category. He presented an alternative staff proposal which staff feels would also accomplish the same purpose of providing for mixed use development in the area. Dave presented a comparison of uses in zones permitted now in P-1, C-II and C-III zones as well as uses permitted by Shoreline Master Plan and the uses proposed for the r _~ , · · · "- ~" t Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1994 Page Two marine multiuse zone. One concern of staff in regard to applicant's text amendment is that some of the primary uses identified in the marine multiuse zone conflict with the goals of the Shoreline Management Act and are not likely to be adopted by the D.O.E. Dave also explained staff's proposed text amendment which would defer the use of the underlying zoning to that of the use provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. By using the Shoreline Master Plan as an overlay to the zoning districts, the process would be streamlined so an applicant may deal only with shoreline commission since those use provisions would take precedence over zoning, and there would not be the need for additional review by planning commission. Robison noted that the city originally requested a text amendment from G2B that would allow multi-family residences in the P-1 zone and what G2B proposed was a text amendment which would establish a new marine multiuse zone. 2. Commission Discussion Rickard noted G2B's proposed project area must still be rezoned and asked why just one zone couldn't be revised to allow all uses needed for project, i.e. boat repair in P-1, multifamily in both P- 1 and C-II, adding that this would decrease rather than increase the amount of regulation. Erickson stated that the Shoreline Master Plan only deals with environmental protection. Robison noted that Shoreline Master Plan is an additional regulatory framework which looks at environmental protection but also deals with other aspects of regulating uses along the shoreline, and in that way it is also like a zoning code. Rickard expressed opinion that applicant's proposal is at variance with what citizens of Port Townsend want, since it would allow hotels, condos, and trailers at Point Hudson. He questioned why these were included in applicant's amendment if they weren't uses intended for the project. Baird asked if applicant would consider some deletions to the list of allowed uses, agreeing that in some instances a clear definition of uses allowed is desirable; but noting that uses unacceptable to citizens must be avoided. Rickard also said the shoreline text amendment would apply to a much larger zone than the applicant's property. He objected to the notion of allowing large numbers of primary uses since community officials are elected specifically to look at this sort of thing - r.i I - . . .J.r ........ Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1994 Page Three and to make decisions based on the expressed desires of the community. Thayer added that zoning codes will be revised under the Growth Management Act so fewer such decisions need to be made. Erickson noted that the creation of the applicant's new zone would have to be followed by a rezoning of applicant's property into the new zone. Rickard suggested the Commission consider al ternati ves to amend current zones to serve the multiuse goal, i.e. amend C-2 zone to allow boat building and repair, or amend P-1 to allow multi-family residences. He questioned whether the proj ect proposed by G2B wöuld have a reasonable chance of acceptance under these alternatives or the staff proposal. Robison thought staff would probably recommend approval, but noted Shoreline Commission and City council may not agree. Thayer noted that the Commission was trying to present workable alternatives, particularly in light of the small likelihood the shoreline amendment proposed by G2B would be approved by the DOE. She noted that a hearing on the multiuse zone should be set, but alternatives should be presented in case that proposal fails. Baird recommended that the alternatives include the current staff proposal as well as changes in wording to the C2 zone to allow boatbuilding and repair. It was agreed to request staff to prepare options, but not make recommendation on any of them before the hearing. Rickard noted there was sympathy to the mixed-use project, and that the Commission would like to find the simplest and cheapest way to allow applicants to meet their goal and to accomplish approval of the project. Robison proposed a hearing date of March 31 at 7:00 p.m. There was no objection. 3. Public Comments Bernie Arthur, speaking for the G2B partnership, explained applicant's purpose in proposing a new multiuse zone rather than other alternatives suggested by staff. The position of applicants is that there is already too much discretion allowed to the city in zoning matters. They want to create a zone that will clearly allow specific uses, and will avoid any conditional uses so that all uses were permitted outright. He also agreed to examine alternative proposals, but reiterated that he believes that G2B's proposed zoning and the shoreline amendment proposed by G2B are in the best interests of their project as well as solving" inconsistent" zoning problems for others in waterfront areas. ~ 1 . . . ·'1 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1994 Page Four B. Amendment to Towne Point Planned unit Development. 1. Staff Briefing Robison distributed resolution proposed by Towne Point residents amending section 1 of Article VI of Declaration of Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions of record of the Towne Point Owner's Association. 2. Determination of Need for Hearing After examining resolution, the Commission deemed that there was no need for public hearing. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Robison announced that City Council voted to appeal Jefferson County's Interim Urban Growth Boundaries to the Western Growth Management Hearings Board. Staff is working with Mike McCormick; result of talks was that a decision is necessary so all options are before community and rational choice can be made based on full information. There has been no response yet from the county. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. The next scheduled meeting is March 10, 1994. The meeting will be a workshop on Accessory Rental units (ARU). VII. ADJOURN Motion to adj ourn by Thayer, seconded by Rickard. All were in favor. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. G~ q),~ Pamela Kolacy Administrative Assistant