Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10261998 PC.CC Joint Wkshp Min . . . ." MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Council President Ted Shou1berg sitting in for Mayor McCulloch. City Council members in attendance were Ted Shoulberg, Ian Keith, Kathryn Jenks, Mark Welch, Peter Badame, and Joe Finnie. Planning Commission members in attendance were Cindy Thayer, Karen Erickson, John Boles, Craig Johnson, Nik Worden, and Larry Harbison. Staff members present were Bruce Freè1and and Tim McMahan. Introduction Mr. Shoulberg noted this is an historic occasion allowing the public to view live, by means of PEG television, the first amendment process of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He thanked the Planning Commission on behalf of all of the City Council, all of the citizens and all of the citizens of the future, for their dedicated hard work and what they do in Port Townsend. He said we all know this town is a very special place, that we are all here to protect that special place. Mr. Shoulberg outlined the three major elements for tonight's joint workshop with the Planning Commission and the City Council. He explained that Planning Commission Chair Cindy Thayer will be going over the amendment processes starting with the legislative amendments that were developed over the past year and then site specific requests. He established some of the ground rules stating it is a workshop for the purpose of getting information from the Planning Commission; Council will then ask questions. He pointed out that tonight's meeting is not open to public comment and noted the upcoming schedule: · November 2 -- City Council meeting will include a hearing of public testimony of legislative and site specific applications for zoning amendments. · November 16 -- City Council will make formal deliberations to consider the proposed amendments to the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Presentation Planning Commission Chair Thayer expressed appreciation for the vote of thanks. She read her October 26, 1998 memorandum to the City Council giving the Planning Commission summary report and recommendations regarding proposed amendments to the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. She noted copies of the Planning Commission's detailed findings and conclusions were forwarded under separate cover. Ms. Thayer further commented on the following: · · · MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Council President Ted Shoulberg sitting in for Mayor McCulloch. City Council members in attendance were Ted Shoulberg, Ian Keith, Kathryn Jenks, Mark Welch, Peter Badame, and Joe Finnie. Planning Commission members in attendance were Cindy Thayer, Karen Erickson, John Boles, Craig Johnson, Nik Worden, and Larry Harbison. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and Tim McMahan. Introduction Mr. Shoulberg noted this is an historic occasion allowing the public to view live, by means of PEG television, the first amendment process of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He thanked the Planning Commission on behalf of all of the City Council, all of the citizens and all of the citizens of the future, for their dedicated hard work and what they do in Port Townsend. He said we all know this town is a very special place, that we are all here to protect that special place. Mr. Shoulberg outlined the three major elements for tonight's joint workshop with the Planning Commission and the City Council. He explained that Planning Commission Chair Cindy Thayer will be going over the amendment processes starting with the legislative amendments that were developed over the past year and then site specific requests. He established some of the ground rules stating it is a workshop for the purpose of getting information from the Planning Commission; Council will then ask questions. He pointed out that tonight's meeting is not open to public comment and noted the upcoming schedule: · November 2 -- City Council meeting will include a hearing of public testimony of legislative and site specific applications for zoning amendments. · November 16 -- City Council will make formal deliberations to consider the proposed amendments to the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Presentation Planning Commission Chair Thayer expressed appreciation for the vote of thanks. She read her October 26, 1998 memorandum to the City Council giving the Planning Commission summary report and recommendations regarding proposed amendments to the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. She noted copies of the Planning Commission's detailed findings and conclusions were forwarded under separate cover. Ms. Thayer further commented on the following: . . . City Council and Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 2 Major Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code Amendments · LaVigne Request Minority Position -- Decided to declare a minority position because there are seven members on the Planning Commission and five present at the meeting; the vote was 3-2 in favor. · Speser, Arthur, Fischer/Dorn Requests There was no public testimony at the public hearing; however, there was testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing for inclusion on the docket. She said they hope there will be public testimony for the Council. Mr. Freeland distributed copies of Ms. Thayer's memorandum to the City Council and asked for questions. Questions! Answers and Discussion Mr. Keith: Asked for elaboration on what the covenants on the PUD property entail, what uses would be allowed, and what is allowable outside the available area. Mr. Freeland: This information is new to Council tonight. If they were to look at the cover memo of October 22, 1998 regarding the PUD application LUP98-30: · Voluntary restrictions Page 2, #5 (1) -- a. Maximum footprint -- 1,800 square feet (sq ft) with maximum total building size of 3,600 sq ft on two floors (two 1,800 sq ft floors would be the largest building); b. Maximum area of the site-devoted to parking would be limited to 5,400 square feet; c. Maximum total building envelope of 7,200 sq ft (includes 1,800 sq ft footprint and 5,400 sq ft site paving) all to be located outside the wetland and the 50 foot wetland buffer. Various maps are included in packets showing wetland constraints on the property; the property is very highly constrained by wetlands. There is only an area between 9,000 and 10,000 sq ft of the entire holding that is outside the wetland or a wetland buffer. The 7,200 sq ft of building envelope would all be within that approximately 9,000 to 10,000 sq ft area that is adjacent to Kearney Street, and outside the wetland and wetland buffer. d. The parcel is made up presently of 12 old lots of record that predate the subdivision of the town. One requirement would be that all of those lots would be tied together into a single building site, so that in the future we wouldn't be facing development on any of those individual properties. · Voluntary restrictions Page 2, #5 (2) -- It would be understood by the PUD that when it comes time for actual development, there were would be additional SEP A review and review under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) ordinance. Ms. Jenks: Clarification of the buffer -- which wetland are we speaking of, Kah Tai Lagoon, or another wetland? The buffer area for Kah Tai Lagoon is larger than 50 feet. · · · City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Freeland: Correct -- believed the Kah Tai Lagoon is a Class I wetland. A report from the firm Bionomics is also included which delineated a separate Class nI wetland that applies to this property; it is their opinion this is a separate wetland from the Kah Tai Lagoon wetland. Ms. Jenks: In their opinion; are they the only ones? Mr. Freeland: They are the only ones we have a record from. Ms. Jenks: Has the city itself delineated the wetland? Mr. Freeland: The city has asked the Department of Ecology to come and look at the site. They were unable to delineate it to a detailed classification setting. The one documentation we have is from a firm that was hired that confirmed it as a Class III wetland. Ms. Jenks: For clarification -- so is this wetland that has been delineated out of that buffer around Kah Tai Lagoon and constitutes a separate place? where is it in relationship to the buffer at Kah Tai Lagoon? Mr. Freeland: It is outside the buffer ofKah Tai Lagoon, a 50 foot buffer; according to the best information we have, the wetland delineation. Mr. Shoulberg: Did they delineate the area between the two wetlands that exhibited no characteristics of the wetland at all? Did they check hydraulic continuity as far as the water source there? What is the delineation between the two separate wetlands? Mr. Freeland: We don't have very detailed information on how that was determined. We have a short letter of clarification from John Heal, President, Bionomics Incorporated, to applicant Barbara Blowers on behalf of the PUD answering our question, is this a separate wetland. Mr. Heal said, "I checked again in the field and the "south wetland" is separate from the Kah Tai lagoon wetland. The trail along the lagoon traverses the upland area that divides the two wetlands. This is a Category In wetland with a standard buffer requirement of 50 feet." At least in Mr. Heal's interpretation the separation from the trail itself creates the separation between these; he is not addressing the sub-surface or the dimension between the two. This is all the information we have. Mr. Shoulberg: There is no substantiated documentation on findings of soil characteristics of the two? Mr. Freeland: On the question is this a separate wetland from Kah Tai lagoon, this is all the information we have. Mr. Shoulberg: No back up data. Mr. Freeland: We have a detailed wetland assessment before for the wetland itself that goes through the calculation and reasoning of why it is a Class III wetland. Ms. Jenks: Process question -- how many Planning Commission members would a full vote have been? Ms. Thayer: We are at seven members now. Ms. Jenks: So a full vote would have been seven. You have given minority votes for a couple, "",.", · · · City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 4 but not for all. She said if there are any other minority reports she would be interested in them. Ms. Thayer said the reports for the 3 to 2 are all included, the only one that was not was the 5 to 1. Ms. Jenks said if that person were interested in giving a minority report, she would be interested in hearing it, when we come to it. Mr. Finnie: Asked Ms. Thayer regarding her memorandum reference to the PUD application, where she was explaining the 5 to 1 vote, and indicated the CII/MU zoning definition would not prohibit the city from pursuing the purchase of this property. Ms. Thayer: Indicated it was not quite said that way; she quoted from her memorandum, "Some members of the Commission acknowledged their desire to have this property included within the limits ofthe Kah Tai Nature park, and do not see this recommended change in zoning as precluding that option. Mr. Finnie: Precluding the Nature Park? Mr. Shoulberg clarified it only said, precluding from the designation. Ms. Thayer concurred. Mr. Keith: What uses would be allowed outside the area of the buildable envelope; are there requirements for vegetation, etc.? Mr. Freeland: Any disturbance that would occur within that area would be subject to the ESA conditions. If there were any change in that area of the wetland or buffer, there would have to be a plan submitted for how that would be done. The PUD in its letter has indicated interest in restoration of that wetland, but they haven't suggested any kind of binding commitment to it. Since their interest is to sell the property to another party, that is probably not something we can count on. The extent to which there is any disturbance of it, would have to be approved through the ESA ordinance, and you will have a chance at that time to know exactly what is being done. Mr. Keith: As the comments are written now, if there were no disturbance, that area could simply be left as is. Mr. Freeland concurred. Mr. Shoulberg: Asked City Attorney McMahan regarding the Reasonable Use Doctrine related to the PI zoning for that particular piece of property. Mr. McMahan: Was not inclined to get into that on the record. CONSENSUS: Take questions randomly Ms. Jenks: A use question for the request by Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group, Comp Plan and zoning change from CII/MU to CII. There are studies in here, i.e., traffic impact analysis for the drug store -- asked regarding the specificity of need from current zoning to a change ....... . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 5 of zoning. Is this a zoning amendment requested by a proponent who wishes to do something with the property for which the current zoning is not allowed? Mr. Freeland: That is the case. Unlike all the other proposals, the applicant in this case not only wanted a change of zoning, but had a very specific development project in mind. Because of that specific nature of the development project, we were able to do a more detailed environmental review. In the event the zoning should be changed as they requested, they would then pursue other aspects. A lot of the details we find about this are pertinent for a later phases of approval, some of it less pertinent at the Comp Plan level because you might change the zoning on the site, for instance, and some other project entirely that is consistent with the zoning might come forward sometime. We have the details because we did the SEPA analysis for a specific project, but some of that might help you very much on the Comp Plan. Ms. Jenks: The proponent came to town and wanted to do something on a particular site, found the first road block was actually zoning, but did an environmental analysis in any case? Mr. Freeland concurred. Ms. Jenks asked if that is standard operating procedure? Mr. Freeland: That is ª standard operating procedure. It is really up to the applicant to decide how much investment they want to make at that stage. Ms. Thayer: The Planning Commission was given specific direction not to consider any proposal in our desire to rezone or not, that it was only the request for the rezone, but not any proposal. It was generic and we tried to keep it that. Ms. Jenks: Even though it was quasi-judicial because of a specific rezone? Ms. Thayer: It was quasi-judicial, but it was a rezone, although not a specific rezone. Ms. Jenks: In the case ofthe designation for the PUD property, if that rezone were to be granted, what would be the potential uses at that place? what would be allowed in that size building? · Does CII/MU still have a residential requirement component to the property? If we follow the Planning Commission recommendation, it would still be a commercial property with a required residential component and a potential for commercial. · What are the potential uses of that place, if the CIIIMU recommendation is approved? · The parking seems quite large. Why is there a 5,400 sq ft parking area for an 1,800 sq ft footprint? Mr. Freeland: CII zone has quite a different mix of uses from the CII/MU zone. · CII zone has very little in the way of housing -- provision that someone live above the store, but that is about it. .. You have independent proposals from the applicant to change the zoning from CII/MU to cn, then separately you have the Land Use Table 17.18.020, Mixed Use Zoning Districts- Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses for the CII/MU, page 16 of his October 19, 1998 · · · City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 6 memorandum to the City Council, you have independent proposals from the applicant to change the zoning from CII/MU to cn zone. As the CII/MU currently stands, you must meet the minimum density of 17 units per acre. This site is around 1 acre in size, so under the current zoning it would have a considerable component of housing. The proposal from the Planning Commission is that the housing component no longer be mandated, that it become a choice ofthe applicant whether or not to include housing. On the Option B the three members of the Planning Commission proposed, there is incentive. You are not allowed very much non-residential building on-site; it is a very limited FAR (for every 10 sq ft of site, you would only be allowed 2 sq ft of building. In order to get a larger building, you would then have to include housing; for every 1 sq ft of housing you put on, you would gain 1 sq ft on non-housing. Ms. Jenks: How is that translated into this PUD proposal with an 1,800 sq ft footprint? It doesn't sound like you could put 17 units in there. Mr. Freeland: It all depends on the way that site is developed. The current CIIIMU zone allows up to a 3:1 FAR; in other words a 30,000 sq ft building on a 10,000 sq ft lot. You can only accomplish that kind of density if you have parking in a parking garage, either under the building or above grade maybe behind the building. If a developer felt they had the economics, you could indeed include both housing and commercial in the project. It is really a question of what the developer would use in economics. If you consider that sites are most likely to be developed with at-grade parking, then there is constraint there. Ms. Jenks: With the recommendation of 1,800 sq ft footprint, 5,400 sq ft of parking, what are the uses with that footprint that would be allowed in CII/MU? Mr. Freeland: Whatever uses that are allowed under the use table. If you eliminate the requirement for housing, that could be an all non-residential building. If the PUD site is a 39,000+ sq ft site, a .1 FAR or ~ the amount allowed under Option B for the CII/MU zone, would be larger than the 3,600 sq ft building proposed. In other words, that 3,600 sq ft building is less than a .1 FAR; that would mean that even under the Planning Commission's Option B that building could be built without housing. If you do not change the CII/MU zone, that will have to have housing; the Planning Commission clarified the basis for that housing requirement to only apply it to the developable area of the site, rather than the full 39,000 sq ft of the site, because they couldn't do a minimum density of 17 units on that lot. Ms. Jenks: That is why the 5,400 sq ft of parking is so large -- why is the parking lot so large? Mr. Freeland: Thought they were anticipating the range of uses that might be in the building; if you assume 300 sq ft per parking space, 16 or 18 parking spaces could be created in that 5,400 sq ft. If you had an all-office project in a 3,600 sq ft building, it would probably need something like 12 parking spaces, so I think they have anticipated a parking lot big enough to cover different uses that might go in that building. · · · City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Finnie: Asked for clarification on the two dynamics. · There are accepted uses under cn and CII/MU that apply to both Baldridge and the PUD. · The proposal you presented to the Planning Commission, he called alternatives A & B. Neither would require any housing at all. Option B would present a restricted commercial use with an incentive for second floor residential use. Whether evaluating the Baldridge Proposal or the PUD proposal, we have to consider both the accepted use under CIIIMU, as well as the restrictions imposed by these two options that are proposed and the Planning Commission voted in favor, 3-2. Ms. Thayer: Clarified -- you keeping talking about Mr. Freeland proposing these. Alternative A and Alternative B came about from a workshop with the Planning Commission, that directed staff to prepare two alternatives. Mr. Shoulberg: In this particular instance in time, if you go along with the CII/MU zoning change, or if you don't go along with it, how does that application relate it to the PUD? It seemed that their zoning change related to the CIIIMU zone. If you don't go along with that, you have to have housing for that specific site. I am sort of seeing that there is a rolling domino effect on all these things. Mr. Worden: There is a domino effect and these things do impinge on each other. This PUD application was a really difficult one for us, probably the most difficult of all. What convinced him, as they discussed it, was the covenants proposed by the applicant made that property more available for open space and more available for public enjoyment, even though it is not open to the public, than the existing zoning would. They were directed specifically not to consider the fact that this might be a park; it is not, but it is adjacent to one, and they were trying very hard to make sure that whatever they voted would be at least compatible with the park as the PI zone that was there ahead of time. He was convinced the applicant's covenants addressed that issue. Mr. Shoulberg: If were to have CIIIMU with covenants, and you demand that they eliminate the housing components. Ms. Thayer: That is not quite what the proposal is. She thought some of these questions would be answered when they read the information packets they have. The Alternative B, which the Planning Commission recommended, does allow for eliminating housing, but a much less density, and gives an incentive for housing. Mr. Shoulberg: That is if a developer chooses it; if he doesn't choose it, it is not there. Ms. Thayer: With the PUD the covenants are such that it keeps it restrictive, no matter what. Mr. Shoulberg: I wasn't talking about the covenants. Supposing the City Council says they want the housing component there -- let's try this. What happens to the PUD application, if there is a housing component in that application? Ms. Thayer: It would be built to the CII/MU as it stands now. · · · City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Shoulberg: So the second floor would have to be housing. Was that considered in the discussion? Ms. Thayer concurred. Mr. Keith: Checked his arithmetic. Ifwe approved the PUD application, and did not change the CII/MU zone at all -- based on the 10,000 sq ft buildable area, roughly 1/4 acre, they would have to put in four, possibly five, residential units. Mr. Freeland: The actual Planning Commission recommendation is that the area upon which you would do the housing calculation would be based on a 7,200 sq ft footprint, it would come out a little less. It is not the whole area outside the wetland buffer -- approximately three units. Mr. Badame: Wanted to go back and explore the CIIIMU in relation to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on the east side of Kearney Street. Was there any discussion at that time regarding extension of that onto the west side. Ms. Thayer: She did not recall any discussion on the west side of Kearney Street. Mr. Badame: Neither the deliberations regarding the advocacy of CIIIMU, the value of it or the merits? Mr. Boles: The only discussion he recalled was the presence of the park across the street -- the additional amenity to housing in that area. The consideration of extending any other zoning across the street on the west side -- he was comfortable with it being PI, and CII/MU as a transitional zone along the east side of Kearney Street. Mr. Welch: Was on the Planning Commission at that time; his recollection is that the ownership was overriding at the time. Mr. Finnie: With the recommendation of the Planning Commission ofthe PUD project, and if Alternative B were approved, an 1,800 sq ft footprint, two-story building was built under those caveats, could the 1,800 sq ft on both levels be commercial? Mr. Freeland concurred. Mr. Finnie: If that is the case -- because of the size of the building where you would have a full commercial property built under CII/MU, under the auspices of Alternative B? Mr. Freeland: Yes, you certainly could. That is why I was pointing out earlier that the 3,600 sq ft building would be less than the .2 FAR would allow. That means it could be an all commercial project, or all residential project; it would be up to the owner to decide. Ms. Jenks: The only element that changed the CIIIMU in Option B was to take away the requirement for residential and make it discretionary? Ifthere is no other change, were we to adopt Option B, the CIIIMU would be different from CII in that it would allow residential uses; that would be the difference? CIIIMU would allow the discretion to choose residential ot commercial, if we approved Option B? What would be the difference between CII and CIIIMU? Mr. Worden: The detailed answer to that is in the Use Tables. The provision of residential is not exactly at the discretion of the applicant. The use they can make of the site is dependent . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 9 upon whether or not they provide residential. It is designed as an incentive. You can build a commercial project on a CIIIMU site under Option B, but it is very limited in size; it is in the order of magnitude of the things that are on those properties now. If you want to go beyond that, you need to add residential to it. It is not an option exactly; it is an incentive. Ms. Jenks: That is expressed by the FAR? Mr. Worden and Ms Thayer concurred. Mr. Worden: There is a clear distinction too, in the uses that are permitted in CIIIMU as opposed to CII. We did make some changes in that table, but not very significant ones. Mostly, we made changes to incorporate existing uses that were not specifically mentioned. Mr. Finnie: To follow the same question through, as it applies to the Baldridge request, because of the size of the proposed building, and if Alternative B became no option, it would clearly require a two-story building being built, and the second floor would include considerable residential space. Ms. Thayer: It would be an incentive; you could only have commercial, but if you wanted to provide residential, you could build more commercial. Mr. Finnie: I was looking at the Baldridge request, and the sheer size of the application. I was speculating their size requirements under Alternative B. Ms. Thayer: There again, we were specifically instructed not to take into consideration the project itself, but only the change in zoning. Mr. Boles: Using it only as an example, yes you are correct. In order to get to the size that is proposed, they would need a considerable component of housing with the.2 FAR. Ms. Thayer is correct, we did not consider that, but the applicant did state that kind of thing was not allowed and that is why they were pursuing the CII. That was not part of our consideration. Ms. Thayer: This was a very difficult one, because of the fact there was sort of a proposal, and we couldn't consider that, and had to take into consideration the change of zoning. It made it particularly difficult in the testimony, because it tends to get rather convoluted and you have to get people back to the rezone itself Mr. Keith: Clarified the design standards -- limit .2 FAR; that is what you can put on a city block under Alternative B; anything beyond that requires housing. Mr. Boles: The minority position, was the .3 FAR; three of us thought .2. The real issue discussed was if you do eliminate the requirement for housing in the CIIIMU zone, what incentive could you reasonably leave in place and still keep the concept of the CIIIMU. That is where the distinction comes in. That is what you need to deliberate -- what is the size of leverage, the incentive you want to use to produce a mix if you are going to keep CIIIMU. His personal observation was that one of the difficulties here a:qd all these properties is that you go from PI to CIIIMU or CII, and there is no intermediate, no reduced CII -- there are no options. In the future, you might want to consider something else. Mr. Shoulberg: The minority opinion felt there was a lack of economic incentive on the . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 10 majority opinion because of the FAR? Ms. Thayer: The minority opinion felt like the .2 was too restrictive. Mr. Shoulberg : How close was that to the CII? Ms. Thayer replied .3. Mr. Freeland: The cn has a 2: 1 FAR; 2 sq ft of building for 1 sq ft. Ms. Thayer: The .3 is still less. The minority wanted .3. Ms. Jenks: Denial issued to the Arthur request. If we were not to follow your recommendation and to approve the Arthur request, it would be subject to a conditional use permit. · How did the Planning Commission see the difference in impact with this request, especially in an RIII zone, and a home occupation permit that allows for three employees; 800 sq ft of space (or quite a large amount of space in the building); the requirement of someone living on the premises; and a Conditional Use Permit -- remembering the Conditional Use Permit process has options for the neighborhood to come in and make their comments? · Did you actually receive any testimonies from citizens saying they wouldn't want this as a rezone? I understood you to say there was no one at the hearing. Did anyone actually protest this particular request. Ms. Thayer: There was absolutely no testimony for those three projects; that was difficult for us. We actually commented on that at the time, hoping that there would be some public testimony for City Council. We did get some input when they first came before the Planning Commission. You probably need to read the proposal and see how it is different. One of the comments is that they not necessarily live there. There are definite differences in the home occupation permit. Ms. Jenks: She would like for the Planning Commission to see the difference in impact; it was a 5-0 vote, and assumed you were totally unified on it. What makes you think the impact would be much more substantial than a home occupation? Ms. Thayer: Thought they all felt the home occupation process covered as much business as they wanted to have. If they wanted a change they should go back to the home occupation ordinance, and make changes to that. Ms. Jenks: You didn't discuss it as a conditional use permit? You didn't discuss the permitting process? Mr. Boles: Requirement of occupancy, and adding more people in higher density, RlII, would be a greater impact and would be an erosion of purpose of a residential zone. Mr. Welch: What differentiated this in your minds, from what seem to be a more high tech use of roadside stands and agricultural sales? Ms. Thayer: Am not sure we discussed what the differentiation was. That is why we put in there that it only be on arterials and collectors. It was seasonal, and wouldn't be year round. We didn't specifically discuss that rationale versus what we did with these. · · · City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Boles: I had some difficulty with the concept of concession stands themselves. I thought there was a link to those places that were growing their own produce and selling it. That is not in the conveyance memo Mr. Welch: Even growing your own and selling it onsite seems to generate more traffic, perhaps, than some of the businesses that are envisioned and more impact on the peace and quite and integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Boles: We did discuss that at length, and there was a great deal of conversation about that and the sense was that the kind of property that would grow produce would be relatively isolated and probably be able to accommodate that, though I share your concern about the traffic. Mr. Welch: In our Urban Growth Area, agricultural areas would be surrounded by residential areas. Did that come into your request at all in terms of the impact? Ms. Thayer: One element that came into our discussion is the stands that are currently in town that are operating without conditional use permits, and their effect. Mr. Worden: To expand on Mr. Boles comments, we thought that the amount of traffic and the duration of the traffic to an agricultural site would be limited by the area of the site itself. On a 50 x 100 foot lot, you may be able to raise and sell something, but it won't be enough to produce a huge amount of traffic. If you get to the size of a garden that will keep producing and attract 50 people per day, you are talking a much larger piece of property and much greater impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Freeland: Drew on the board a square representing a 10,000 sq ft lot; with .3 FAR in which you could have 3,000 sq ft of building on that lot. If you have a one-story building covering 30 percent of that lot, that would be .3 FAR, contrast that to a 3 FAR, which the CIIIMU zoning actually allows on its face value at full development, that covers the entire site three stories high. It is quite a bit bigger building. As a practical matter, we are not seeing developers in town that are doing anything like a 3 FAR. That would be like some of these old Victorian structures in the downtown, and not many of those are 3 FAR. We have very few examples of buildings in town that are as large as a 3:1 FAR and none that have been built at all recently. Part of the reason we don't see that is, where does the parking go? If you are going to cover the whole site, three stories high, then the parking needs to be underneath that building. That is very, very expensive parking. It is something that is allowed in the current zoning, but as a practical matter we are not seeing very much of it. On the other hand, .3 FAR is about the size that can support all at-grade parking. The.3 FAR is pretty close to a market level of development currently in town. At some point as our land becomes more expensive, we will see those larger F ARs being built here. A.2 is a little bit less than what you are able to support with at-grade parking. Therein lies the difference . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 12 between the majority and minority of Alternative B. The.2 FAR would not let you get quite as big a building as you could support with at-grade parking and support housing. Mr. Keith: If we were to accept the minority position, not only would residential be an incentive for the commercial, there probably would be a disincentive, because you wouldn't be able to get the parking for the residential onto the site without either going under ground or shrinking the development. Ms. Thayer: Hated to say how to proceed, but suggested that discussion should be left to their deliberations. Ms. Erickson: The Arthur proposal, and Speser and FischerlDorn proposals -- thought they had a real problem when they first sawall three proposals; the first thing they wanted to do was to change a few things in each one. They found themselves making changes, and then decided to step back and take the proposals as they were presented. There were things they had a hard time dealing with in each proposal. · Arthur proposal -- thinks the Planning Commission added to the three person figure to make SIX. · RIII was not limited to technology -- expanded uses over home occupations. · Number of employees -- Speser proposal, 12 employees. · Homeowner not residing in the home -- Speser and Fisher/Dorn Each proposal has its own unique problems. Mr. Finnie: CII/MU is residential and commercial, and yet you are all strongly opposed to mixing residential and commercial. Do you have any theoretical discussion on that? In one case we are asking to mix the two, and yet in every one of your recommendations except agriculture, you say not to mix them. You are asking to separate them. Ms. Erickson: Don't see that at all. Residential zones are established; we're used to them being a certain way. CII/MU is a new idea in Port Townsend, except for the Historic District. You are going to build from scratch. I never envisioned it being something that was going to be turned into a CII/MU; it was a whole new ball game. There are a lot of problems with CIIIMU. I think it needs a special area, and I am not sure the areas we picked are the right ones. I don't compare it at all to residential RI and RII zones and looking for commercial comIng m. Ms. Jenks: Discussed the comparison table on page 23 of the Legislative Proposals, and noted the Planning Commission did not change or condition any of the proposals~ there was no negotiation with the proponent. Ms. Thayer: In their discussions they felt it was only fair to the proponent that they deal with . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 13 what the proponent wanted them to deal with and brought before them. The Commission initially was going to, and then decided that wasn't fair to the proponent. Ms. Jenks: The proponents didn't indicate that they might wish to negotiate about various conditions? Ms. Thayer: Replied they didn't negotiate because there was no testimony from them. Mr. Freeland: Clarified -- In some cases they received one or two line proposals, so staff actually wrote the first drafts of these trying to imagine the zoning. At that first draft stage, they got comments back from Dr. Speser, and from Fischer and Dorn saying they liked certain aspects of what they had done, but they would like changes made. Stafflooked as faithfully as they could at the details to modify them to reflect what they had asked for; they did not receive any specific feedback It was staff's intent to faithfully produce a zone that would do what the request was; the details of that came from staff, and in that case they did not get corrections. Ms. Jenks: Asked Council if they intend to take testimony on these proposals, should any of the proponents wish to give it? Council concurred. They have a lot of information, and she asked Council specifically regarding the legislative proposals, how the proponents might feel about how their proposals have been characterized, and if they have specific issues they want to address. Mr. Shoulberg: It is a public hearing; they will have plenty of opportunity. Mr. Badame: Asked about none the three (Arthur, Speser, Fischer/Dorn requests) giving public testimony, if indeed anyone had come to testify, was the Planning Commission in the mode of actually changing these proposals? Ms. Thayer: There was no one actually there to testify. If there had been, we would have listened, and it might have affected our deliberation. You always like to hear testimony; you feel like it hasn't been fair to the proponent without it. Mr. Badame: Did you as a Planning Commission in a sense of actually reviewing a proposal, evaluating it against the adopted Plan, creatively look for possibilities that fit the proposals and the Plan? Ms. Thayer: Yes, they considered and discussed that, and again went back to the home occupations ordinance and felt that if they needed to make changes, that was the avenue, Mr. Boles: Emphasized that they did recently gone through the whole home occupations ordinance. There was a great deal of discussion and deliberation there, and that carried over for many of them for the deliberations of these three proposals. They took them as proposals to amend and go beyond that had established, and in that context how it was different, how it might work, how it fit in with the previous deliberations in the home occupations, and what was consistent with the Comp Plan. Ms. Erickson: You could go to the Comp Plan and pull out language, statements that would encourage this or discourage this. . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 14 Mr. Shoulberg: It is not supposed to be cut and dried. It is a living document. Isn't it right, that is what we are all here for? Ms. Erickson: That is our hope. Mr. Badame: As a County Planning Commissioner he became tired of hearing "set in concrete" and "living document; " those phrases are used over and over again. He feels the validity only applies to the validity of the body that actually makes the final decisions. Mr. Badame: The agriculture request -- would like any illustrative examples that the Planning Commission could give regarding their discussions and deliberations. Brought this up because, he had concern when this concept first came up; and was told we have a UGA and an agricultural designation wouldn't fit anything. He personally took exception to that, in terms of what he considers to be a balance within a UGA; by definition it would be excluded in a UGA. Ms. Thayer: Thought some of them had the same reservation in the beginning. We have to look back; there was an RITA (RII agricultural) zoning district in Port Townsend before the Comp Plan, and thought that was one of their reasons. Mr. Freeland also talked to County Assessor Jack Westerman. Those were some of the reasons they decided to work with this change. She explained that the RITA zone was quite prevalent all over the city. Mr. Worden: This came to the Commission as a request to establish an agricultural zone, and he understands they are prohibited from doing that by the GMA. The applicant had two things in mind, 1) to gain tax advantages of being an agricultural designated property, 2) to facilitate some of the things he needed to do as part ofthe agricultural operation. What the Commission ended up doing was to deal with the proposal as a way to address specific things that made agriculture more possible than it was under the residential zoning. Mr. Badame: One concern he had when the issue first came up, was it being precluded by the GMA. Has that been determined? Mr. Freeland: There are several cities that have agricultural designations within urban growth areas. He did not know if anyone had actually challenged and taken it to hearing. Redmond has an agricultural zone; it is possible for agricultural activities to be in a UGA. There is the long-term problem if you try to channel urbanization into UGA's to have a large area set aside for non-urban growth purposes. In this case, we are not talking about large areas the city needs to accomplish the intended growth; we have abundant residential land (more than we will need for the 20-year growth forecast). He felt having agriculture certainly within 20 years would not undercut our 20-year forecasts. Mr. McMahan: During this application process, there actually was a Washington Supreme Court case which reversed a Central Board decision which held that you could not have agriculture zoning in UGA's. The city of Redmond had created agricultural zoning, but had . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 15 not created something like a transfer of development right to allow the property some reasonable use. The Supreme Court said that as long as you do something to address the land owners' concerns for the use of the property, until it becomes some more urban use, agricultural zoning would be allowed. The Supreme Court said one of the things the UGA is supposed to do is provide for active open space, and for those reasons, they allowed agriculture zoning. Mr. Keith: Was there any discussion or any concerns about the right to farm even though it is incompatible with encroaching urbanization in a UGA? He wondered if they were getting themselves into a potentially awkward situation in the future? Mr. Freeland: It is a permitted use. From that point of view, there is a right. What you are getting at is some protection for the agriculturalists that they know they can withstand complaints from the neighbors in case of noise, etc. Mr. Keith: It is usually noise or smell. He was concerned that a right might be construed from this that would inhibit the urbanization of the area. Mr. Freeland: They did not address that. There are some potential conflicts you will have to grapple with. Mr. McMahan: You could have conflicts, but the right to farm provisions in rural areas are something he would recommend in an urban area. There are provisions that have been adopted in codes and as covenants that preserve the rural areas; you certainly would not want that in an urban growth area. He said what he would resort to in an urban area is a common law of incompatible uses and nuisance and the like; a property owner adjacent to a farm in an urban area would have a hard time arguing that the farm ought to go out of business. He said he thinks it would up to the property owners, and does not think the city ought to do anything from a regulatory perspective to address it. There is risk of incompatible use, and that is part of what you should consider when you deliberate, whether this is a good idea. Ms. Erickson: Most ofthe agriculture uses are crops and tree, not animals. It looks like most of the small animal commercial that was around, was already allowed. Mr. Keith: Was not concerned about animals, but fertilizer. Was not suggesting they do anything regulatory to preserve the right. Ms. Jenks: Arthur, Speser, and Fischer/Dorn proposals -- Table on page 23, Arthur Proposal, Which residential zones -- New R-Ill(U) only. Why was it specifically uptown; it was such a general change? Ms. Thayer: That was in the proposal that came in from Mr. Arthur in the beginning; however, Mr. Freeland did say this was the proposal he didn't get any feedback on. It was her recollection that is how it came to them. Mr. Freeland: Recalled when they were putting these together asking the Commission, if they . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 16 wanted this to apply to all Rill's or just that particular geography, and the Commission felt just the uptown, that the uptown already had a greater mix of activities than other RIll's throughout the city and might be more in keeping with the area than RIII in general. Ms. Thayer: Also recalled Mr. Arthur discussing specifically the uptown as well. Mr. Boles: Remembered commenting that it would be possible under the proposal as expanded to RIll as it stood, for a person to occupy a couple of apartments, put a door through and have a business in an RIll building, not necessarily a new building, that would severely impact other apartment dwellers. He didn't feel that was appropriate. Ms. Jenks: Did you have any discussion about the fact that this was in proximity to the already existing uptown commercial district that is one block deep on both sides and how those fit into each other? Mr. Worden: Recalled they discussed that, and that was one of the reasons the (U) only appears there. Believed it was part of the applicant's idea, that all he wanted to do was to be able to have the slightly lower intensity businesses a little further on Lawrence, and that is the reason it came to the Commission that way. Ms. Jenks: Remembered that presentation also. Mr. Badame: Asked regarding the table on the Arthur proposal, New R-Ill (U) only -- what the New meant. Ms. Thayer: R-Ill(U) would be a new zone. Mr. Shoulberg: In trying to under the sequencing, is it correct the La Vignes requested a change in the underlying zone as a legislative proposal? Mr. Freeland: The LaVignes suggested the change from CIIIMU zone wherever it exists, to make it a more workable zone. Mr. Shoulberg: Is it correct the alternative suggestion came from the Planning Commission; it was their idea of what was workable? Mr. Freeland and Commission members concurred. Then the proponents didn't have a specific proposal as to what they wanted. What did they say, change the FAR? Mr. Freeland: In your packet you will find a series of letters from the La Vignes with specific things that were mentioned in the legislative reconsideration of the ClllMU zones. They wanted it addressed that the bowling alley had been made a non-conforming use. Mr. LaVigne was a faithful attendee at the Planning Commission meetings and made it clear on different issues at several different meetings. The specific proposal that came in mostly talked about the correctness of the old Cll zone and what Mr. LaVigne viewed as deficiencies in the CIIIMU zone as opposed to a point-by-point discussion of how the CIIIMU zone should be changed. He said he thought the broadest thing he read in those letters was that, not just for their one site, but in general the CIIIMU zone had not been a . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 17 good idea and that something closer than CII would be more correct. Mr. Shoulberg: But the Planning Commission chose not to go there; they chose these alternatives A and B, where they wanted CIIIMU to go. Mr. Freeland: Mentioned the fact the idea was initiated by the City Council as well, so they were not responding to a single voice. Mr. Shoulberg: Am I hearing it right regarding the legislative proposal, the change from a consensus of many people, not to eliminate the CIIIMU but just abide by it? Mr. Worden: We also had a request from the City Council to look at that zone, and they did have a lot of discussion about what the options were they could look at. Mr. Freeland responded by drafting Options A and B, now somewhat modified, as one way to respond to the Commission interest in modifying the zone. He thought they had a concensus that they didn't want to eliminate the CII/MU zone; the reasons for putting it there were good ones, and if ~t didn't work, we needed to find a way to make it work or remove it. Mr. Shoulberg: Those of you who voted all voted to maintain the zone, but there was a difference of 10% in the FAR. They came back on a quasi-judicial proposal to get rid of the CII/MU in a site specific and go with Cll. Mr. Worden: Those two ideas were presented simultaneously. We had them both on the docket all the time. Ms. Thayer: Suggested they had addressed the Baldridge group first, which was the request to change that zoning to CIL Mr. Shoulberg: As a site specific quasi-judicial request; asked if they did that first? Ms. Thayer concurred. Ms. Erickson: Said they were talking like we all agreed that CIIIMU is great, and did not think that is the case. They may agree that it is a good idea, but she has a lot of questions of where and when. She had a lot of problems about CIIIMU on some of the property that is zoned that way. She said she couldn't remember why they did some of the things they did; Puget Power is a really good example. There are a lot of things that need to be looked at, and there are some changes that need to be made, whether it's the zoning or the CII/MU. She said if the idea is great, then she thinks it is really hard to burden a property owner to make it work. Mr. Finnie: Looking at the memorandum, it would appear that when the Commission was asked to look at a site-specific application ofCIIIMU, the Baldridge group, two of five members recommended that we change the zoning to Cll. When Mr. LaVigne and the City Council asked that the Planning Commission give consideration to the restrictions of the CIIIMU zone, the discussion related to options that might moderate the CII/MU. He said what he thinks he is also hearing is that there is a view within the Planning Commission that more work may need to be done on the efficacy of the whole CIIIMU zoning. Ms. Thayer: Replied that is correct for the two of them, but there were only five who voted; there were two absent. . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 18 Mr. Boles: Made the comment earlier, there was no other alternative between CII and residential, but for the CII/MU; so there might be some need for a reduced density commercial and to consider other areas that are transitional to commercial and residential, and whether or not a mix of density commercial is important and appropriate. Given the constraints of what had come out of the charettes for Comp Plan input, he leans toward the CII/MU option as a transition option between the heavy commercial on Sims Way and the residential area on Kearney. Ms. Jenks: Regarding the CIIIMU and its efficacy and place in the Comp Plan, the fact that the Comp Plan is a 20-year Plan, and that some of those elements that might look a little strange now can perhaps be considered in the light of the fact it is a very long range planning tooL It was her understanding the CII/MU was a way of deaHng with some of the density buffer Mr. Boles just mentioned, and there are not many ways to deal with them. Did you discuss the duration of the Comp Plan and what might look right in a few years? Mr. Boles: If you review the minutes of our meeting he believed to be in their packets, you will see some of that discussion. He said he took the position that it was premature to rezone the corner property to CII at this time. That was a keystone property. If CIIIMU was going to work in that area, the greatest leverage would exist, in his opinion, at that property. Because the Comp Plan is fairly new, it ought not be changed. Others disagreed with him and took the view that it was a living document and they expected it to be changed. That is his view that there are other places where it should be changed. Our minutes and comments reflect that. Ms. Thayer: Mr. Boles is right that was the agreement of the majority in that discussion, that it was premature to change that zoning. Ms. Jenks: But you did change some of the stipulations of what CIIIMU is. Ms. Thayer concurred. Ms. Jenks said they are either talking about an unchanged CII/MU in these proposals, or talking about a changed CIIIMU in these proposaL It is really a different discussion depending upon which paradigm you wish to accept. Mr. Shoulberg: Asked the Planning Commission members if they wished to comment on any issues that were overlooked or they did not cover Mr. Boles: Commented on new zoning of the PUD property, and the concern with respect to all properties around Kah Tai -- whether that is needed as a problematic change now, what the implications are for other properties that are zoned because they are public entity but in the future might try to revert another way, and what zoning would be more appropriate. He thinks they have a real dangerous situation now. Ms. Thayer: Suggested to Mr. Boles that he voted in the majority to make the change. Mr. Boles: Said he took a pragmatic approach and crossed his fingers. . . . City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop October 26, 1998 Page 19 Ms. Jenks: If the property was zoned PI, if that is fair zoning for that property within the constraints of that ownership, how do you discuss this. She said she understood thePplanning Commission went into executive session to discuss this, and asked how to do this since they are not allowed to discuss it. Ms. Erickson: Replied, "Not yet, so move on. We are not the ones to discuss this." Ms. Thayer concurred. Ms. Jenks: Asked how they discuss reasonable use criteria? Mr. McMahan: Said he understands this is a difficult one; it was a difficult one for the Planning Commission. What makes it difficult is that all the testimony, and all the testimony you will hear next week, is that the design shouldn't be changed, because of the issue of the park. He advised the Planning Commission on record to try intellectually to put forward in their deliberation if they really should consider the fact that the PUD here is not in the business of providing parks. He said in a sense Council needs to determine in their view if the zoning is appropriate and fair from a land use perspective, for this ownership or any other. If they want further information from him on how the court would think about any particular thing, that is not the kind of thing he wants to have on public record. The Planning Commission wanted further information, and that is why we went into executive session. He said he understood some people did not like that, but given the practicality, there was no other choice. Ms. Jenks: When the Comp Plan was done, the zoning was enacted. Did the PUD at that time comment adversely on this. Did they establish a record or a request for a rezone? Mr. McMahan concurred. Ms. Jenks said to her that would be very important consideration, whether or not they were waiting for the Comp Plan process to happen to get an issue on which they had already commented. Ms. Erickson: Believed it was in their packet where the PUD did come to the Planning Commission public hearings and did request changes to CII. Mr. Finnie: Said he thought it was a great job. The analysis and tables were extremely helpful. Ms. Thayer: Said she did not envy Council, that it was a long, difficult process. There is a lot in there. Mr. Freeland: Responded to Mr. Shoulberg regarding the tables that it was the quickest way to get a handle on what the differences are. ~ ~ ·7 d:t~~ a~:~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker