Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10151998 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting October 15, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31) 1. 2. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Public Testimony B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Deliberation and Action Robert C. Harper (LUP98-07) Roger Evans (LUP98-16) Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group (LUP98-31) City of Port Townsend (LUP98-37) V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 22, 1998 PUD #1 Compo Plan Amendment, Public Hearing (Pope Marine Park Building) Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Comprehensive Plan Amendments Parks & Recreation Functional Plan, Public Hearing Rosewind PUDA Amendment #5 (not a hearing) October 26, 1998 October 29, 1998 November 12, 1998 VII. ADJOURN ,,4 ,. . . . " j MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED SESSION OF OCTOBER 15, 1998 of the PLANNING COMMISSION 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, John Boles, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison. Craig Johnson and Lois Sherwood were excused. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland, Tim McMahan and Eric Toews. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Thayer suggested putting off reading the minutes of the October 8th meeting, since they had just received them and had not had time to read them. III. COMMUNICATIONS ~ Agenda of the meeting for October 22, 1998 ~ City of Port Townsend addendum to Determination of Non-Significance for reference LUP98-31 ~ City of Port Townsend addendum to Determination of Non-Significance for reference LUP98-16 IV. OLD BUSINESS Chair Thayer noted a request from the Baldridge Group to put the open record hearing after the Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Deliberation and Action. She indicated there are a number of people present to speak at that hearing, and if they reverse the agenda items, the Baldridge Group open record hearing probably would not take place until at least 9:00 p.m. She polled the audience and Planning Commission. The Baldridge Group response to Planning Commission questions was that depending on the outcome of Comprehensive Plan amendments, it might cause them to withdraw the rezone, that this rezone is for one specific site. Mr. Freeland pointed out that the Planning Commission will be making recommendation, but is not actually deciding the issue, that it will be decided by the City Council. It was concluded to have public testimony for each group and then go into deliberations and determine ifthey want to proceed to the Comprehensive Plan amendments before deciding on the Baldridge Group request. A. DEBORAH HART for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland reminded that last time he had informed the Planning Commission they had received two letters that indicated their intention to appeal the environmental determination on this · -"- · · · , " Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 2 project. He stated that neither of those was perfected as an appeal, so there is no appeal to the environmental determination. He pointed out that this project is different from the others being looked at in that the applicants were ready not only to propose change to the Comprehensive Plan zoning, but to talk about specific details of a development project they wish to enter into. That development project will involve a subdivision to create a parcel on the Penny Saver side to have a parcel they can purchase and trade for proposed realignment of city right-of-way. He said there are a number of approvals that would be involved in this project, but the only thing that is under discussion tonight is the zoning. He said issues like the hill climb are not issues the Planning Commission will be making any decision on at all, at this point; they are matters that will be subject to future applications, that one thing that complicates the matter is that the environment assessment attempted to look at all the different aspects of this proposed project. He said while they did not get an appeal to the environmental assessment, they did get three letters that raised issues about the environmental assessment, and because of that he has written an addendum to the threshold determination, the mitigated negative declaration for this project to address some of the comments received from the letters. He told the Planning Commissioners that addendum is new information they have in front of them. He said most of the issues that were addressed had to do with later aspects of the project, irrelevant in some ways to the zoning decision, but primarily issues regarding details about the particular development proposal, and he pointed out: ~ Letter from Nancy Drogan raising issues about the Jefferson Hill Climb, concerns about environmental issues within the hill climb intended location. He said the hill climb was a policy in the Gateway Plan adopted in 1993; the question regarding whether there should be a hill climb is not one that comes as a result of this application. At a future time that the city might choose to put that hill climb in the upper portion of the hill, it would be subject to its own environmental review. The issue of whether the hill climb is a good idea is not an issue that is before the Commission and not an issue that should have been covered in this environmental determination. He said the applicants do propose to build a segment of the hill climb that is on the mostly flat area between Kearney Street and the Gaines Street right-of-way, a segment that was discussed in the environmental assessment. Mr. Freeland said he feels it was covered, basically adequately, and does not propose to do additional environmental work on that segment. ~ Second issue raised by Nancy Drogan has to do with the site plan that is included in each packet. Mr. Freeland noted he had not planned to give the Commission the site plan, because it is not relevant to the Comprehensive Plan decision being made, but it is relevant to the comments on the environmental document. On the drawings just to the east of the Penny Saver side, there is a driveway what is actually the Gaines Street right-of-way. There is already a driveway through that area; this site plan indicates a larger level of improvement of what is already there. Mr. Freeland said that issue of the improvement of Gaines Street was not dealt with in the environmental assessment. He said what he has done in the addendum is to say it would be subject to its own supplemental environmental work before any decisions are made on that aspect of the project. He commented that was a good catch on Nancy Drogan's part. ~ Letter from John Koschnick, Jefferson Transit, noting there is large number of busses that serve Kearney Street and asking for a bus pull out to be developed in association with the Rite Aid . . . ¡ " Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 3 project. Mr. Freeland felt this was a reasonable request, and he proposed a mitigation measure for the project which is to have the applicant work with Jefferson Transit to develop a specific requirement for a bus pull out and build that as part of their permanent improvements. ~ Letter from Harry Holloway ill, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kirchner regarding: 1) Flooding -- to the extent of information they had about flooding, flooding was addressed in the environmental document; Mr. Freeland said flooding is routinely dealt with on an individual building level basis. 2) Stability of the hillside -- if there is any cutting into the hillside; retaining walls which are on the site plan. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires a building permit for any retaining wall over 4' high, and it must be engineered. At the time grading might occur, there will be a requirement for an engineer to look at the situation and design a wall that will be stabile on that site, also routinely addressed through the UBC. 3) Jefferson Hill Climb, the potential of improvements in that area to attract vandals or people who might be disruptive, if that facility were built -- reminded the portion that goes up the hill is not under consideration, so that is not pertinent with this application. Mr. Freeland said he has suggested an additional mitigation measure for the project, that if they develop the portion of the hill climb that is down by the Penny Saver site, before that is approved, there be a detailed landscape plan and that landscape plan be reviewed by the Police Department for their input on security issues. Mr. Freeland said this document is complete as it stands; the environmental work is now done on this application. He reiterated from last week that in order to approve a change to the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and to the zoning, there are a number of required findings that the Commission must make. He said this is an application for the property that currently has the bowling alley on it; they have applied for a change from the current mixed use community centers Cll/MU zoning designation and Land Use Plan designation to Cll, general commercial. Mr. Freeland said that staff has recommended the application be denied and has made a series of recommended findings on that denial. He briefly outlined the reasoning: Comments on Findinis and Conclusions Findin~s: #4 Traffic Impact Analysis clearly indicated the level of development that is being looked at for this site is consistent with our level of service standard and can be accommodated. All other city services are available to the site, and no major impact on concurrency or services is expected; the site is currently in use for commercial activity. The level of impact on facilities and services will not change significantly because of this change in land use. #7 Policy 8.4 -- if you were to expand the CII area from where it is currently next door, Penny Saver side, you wouldn't be creating a continuous development as the policy proposes, but you would in fact be turning the commercial around the corner and beginning a new strip commercial pattern in conflict with Policy 8.4. . . . ~ Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 4 #8 Environmental issues -- the site has been reviewed through the environmental process. This finding should be updated - Declaration of Non-Significance was issued and became final on October 1, 1998, and subject to an addendum dated October 15, 1998. The conclusion of the environmental work is that the environmental issues can be dealt with adequately on the site. #9 Has some difficulties: 1) has been mapped as seismically hazardous -- old fill soil, routinely dealt with at a building permit stage; 2) history of poor drainage; will be required to have a drainage plan that meets Engineering Design Standards at the time of future development. The drainage and seismic problems are equally true for development under the CII/MU zone and under the CII zone. Mr. Freeland said that even though there are issues, in his mind the change of zoning does not create an additional burden for those issues. # 1 0 The Comprehensive Plan did not create as much commercial land as the analysis of the draft Environmental Impact Statement indicated the town could actually use in the future. It is also true that the CII/MU zone is already counted as commercial land; this doesn't do anything to diminish the forecasts on which they were based. Conclusions: # 1 Mr. Freeland thinks there would be pressure to convert other land in the area. Mr. Freeland said on the issues of Findings and Conclusions, Staff has recommended denial. Ouestions of Staff by the Plannin& Commission: Q Ms. Erickson: It is hard not to look at a project when you know there is one, but that is not supposed to enter in the decision. A Mr. Freeland: If you change this zoning, it could be for any project that is compatible with the zoning; you should also think about the long-term future. What is the right land use for this site? Q Ms. Erickson: Some concerns sound like building concerns, Per SE. Whether it was a very large multi-use building with residential and commercial or just a commercial building, most of the concerns would be concerns no matter what was developed: drainage, the hill climb, other environmental concerns. Regardless of the project, it appears no matter what it is going to happen there, no matter what the zoning is, those are concerns that would happen on just about any project, not just a CII project, but it could even be a larger project with mixed use. A Mr. Freeland: The question before you is, what should be the land use designation, what should be the zoning. Mr. Freeland pointed out the details of the project are in the site plan, and said if it weren't for the need to address the environmental document, he would have never given them the site plan. Q Mr. Boles: Isn't it correct the CII/MU has a long history in citizen participation that was related to the Comp Plan development? A Mr. Freeland: It was a major idea that came out of that whole process; that is why I quoted from the introductory section of the Comp Plan. The Plan itself identifies this as one of the four · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 5 big ideas in the Comprehensive Plan. It certainly came out of the extensive process. Q Mr. Boles: Do I understand correctly, the relationship of this rezone to the larger question of the "redefinition" that is decided of the CllIMU; the other issue with regard to the CllIMU is to elaborate more on the definition of CII/MU? A Mr. Freeland: That's correct. On one hand this application talks about changing the entire Cll/MU to Cil general commercial; whereas the other issue about the CII/MU district, a little later on the agenda, talks about what is the nature of Cllland use; how should it be controlled. Q Mr. Boles: So proposals to develop may be a little bit further in the concept that was carried forward through the history of development of the Comp Plan, and it is staff's understanding that there are no new data or new concepts that have come before us that probably weren't considered in the history of the development of the CllIMU for that area? A Mr. Freeland: You would be in a better position to judge that than I would. Q Mr. Boles: I certainly remember that. I wasn't part of the citizen participation, but it is my understanding that went on for a long time. A Mr. Freeland: That's my understanding too. Other members of the Commission who participated concurred. Q Mr. Worden: To clarify my understanding of the process, the issue of vacation from property switches that might occur, would come before the Commission as a separate issue as part of the project proposal? A Mr. Freeland: It would come before the City, not before the Planning Commission. Q Mr. Worden: That's an administrative decision? A Mr. Freeland: No, street vacations are done by the City Council. Mr. Freeland announced that shortly he will be leaving the city's employment. He said that in order to have continuity with the Comprehensive Plan process, he has just hired Eric Toews to pick up this set of Comprehensive Plan issues that are going through the process. Mr. Freeland said that Mr. Towes is here sitting with the Staff and is now working in that kind of relationship, so he will be with us from here forward with this Comprehensive Plan process. Chair Thayer said for the record that Eric Toews was Planner with the City and was involved in the Comprehensive Plan process, so he is very familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. Q Mr. Boles to Eric Toews: Were you involved from the beginning on the Comp Plan? Mr. Toews answered affirmatively A Mr. Freeland: Mr. Toews was involved in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan from its beginning, but as of today with this set of Comprehensive Plan updates. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer reminded participants that the hearing is limited to the rezone only, and that due to a long agenda, she is allotting hearing time to 5 minutes per person. She said if there is more . . . -, Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 6 time at the end, she will allow more testimony, that she will try to be fair to everyone that they have their 5 minutes if they want it. She also reminded that she wants to keep the testimony to the rezone only, and that as much they may want to talk about other issues, she will have to get them back on track if they sway from that. Applicant: Mr. Craig Berman, representing Rite Aid COrPOration in Washington State Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Berman expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission for allowing him to come before them to represent Rite Aid. He said he will not bring up site plans, that he understands they are not relevant to the discussion. Mr. Berman said he does think it is important to put a face on the folks that are really trying to be part of the community, that a lot oftimes developers or other people come in who ultimately end up leaving town, that are here talking about making long-range impacts on the town. He said he is here because they are the ones that are going to be here for a long time, making long-term commitments to the community. He said they think they have a proposal and have identified a location here in town that really fit in with what the city is trying to do. Mr. Berman said they have a rather fundamental difference in how they define strip development. They define strip development as multiple retail units right next to each other all sharing a parking lot; a video store with a 7-Eleven, a dry cleaner, all sorts ofthings. He said what they are looking to do is build a free-standing store. This location allows them to do that and have their identity, their own identity with the town they are serving. He said they do not see it as strip development; they see it as building their own store to provide conveniences and services important to customers here in Port Townsend, and yet the importance of a free-standing building that allows them to put in a drive-up pharmacy window, which has become one of the most popular conveniences they have seen around the country. Chair Thayer reminded Mr. Berman they did not want discussion of the project. Mr. Berman noted Mr. Freeland has been great to work with on his own, how last week people came up and said how great Mr. Freeland was. Mr. Berman expressed how truly the city is losing a good person. He said that Mr. Freeland indicated they are not consistent on two points. He discussed those two points, saying they seem to be the ones keeping them from an affirmative recommendation to approve the application:. ~ Point 5 -- Land Use Policy 10.2. He said that is hard for them to debate; that is what they are asking. They are asking for a zone change primarily because the mixed use component does not work for the building they want to do, the biggest reason being financially. He said when they look at a site, they take the real estate cost, construction costs, any remediation costs, environmental costs (he anticipated discussing that a little later, not regarding SEP A but simply . . . , Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 7 that there may be some contamination which would have to be cleaned up). Take that into account and with these other added to it, financially it doesn't work. He said it is difficult for him to argue that Point 5 is wrong, but when you look at Point 10 where it talks about residential housing, and conclude this was a housing development potential, it is insignificant in having a surPlus of resident land relevant to growth projections. He said balancing that out, designing and putting residential there, it is not that critical in terms of providing affordable housing for citizens for Port Townsend. He introduced Mr. Jim Schettler, SSOE, Architect for the project and suggested having him sworn in to also contribute information. Chair Thayer agreed, if Mr. Schettler spoke only to rezone issues. Mr. Berman said in terms of using mixed use on this site and looking at the precedent setting nature staff has said it is going to create, it is his understanding they will still have the opportunity to evaluate other applications further down Kearney on a case-by-case basis. Granting them a rezone would not automatically cause the city to have to grant other rezones; it is his understanding applicants still have to go through the same process they have to. Mr. Berman said they see the site as being unique and different because on a retail sampling it is a corner location, right on a high traffic area; it is very desirous from a retail point of view for exactly the same type of purpose they want to use it, whereas the other properties further down Kearney are not going to be as desirable from a retail point of view -- the traffic isn't there. He said he thinks you can look at rezoning this specific site differently because of its location, proximity to a very busy intersection, which is key from a retail standpoint. He said they picked that site because of the high traffic area, and as Mr. Freeland said this site doesn't have any traffic implications, getting in and out of the site. ~ Point 7 - Policy 8.4. It is their belief that allowing them to rezone and move forward with their proposal (difficult to separate the proposal from the rezone), they are integrating into the Gateway Plan. He said they have really made a effort over the past 12 months to develop a plan to integrate into the Gateway Plan, and in fact the plan has them paying for some of the improvements. He said he does take some issue with Point 7, in the sense they feel, from the Gateway corridor standpoint, that they fit there, integrated in, and will do anything they can. He said if there needs to be more, they would certainly take a look at whatever needs to be done to integrate more into the Gateway Plan. He said it is very attractive to them. That is another reason why that site is different than other sites further down in the area. Mr. Berman said given the harrow discussion allowed, that is as far as he wants to go, and given the narrow discussion. He said he hopes Rite Aid itself can see some of the letters that have come in, where the company making the application has been the issue of some of the letters, that the city is sensitive to that as well. He made himself available to answer questions. There were no questions of the applicant. Chair Thayer opened the hearing for those in favor. In Favor of the Request: Ms. Shirley Rudolph, representing the partnership of Lighthouse Associates, owner of the shopping center that includes the liquor store; not representing EDC as its president nor as a Realtor Swore and affirmed that the testimony she was about to give was true to the best of her knowledge. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 8 Ms. Rudolph said the partners want to speak in favor of the rezone, because the city needs commercial space to have some businesses here in town. As a resident in the neighborhood, living in the Edgewater condos, also speaking in favor of the rezone of that property, she said there are so few places in Port Townsend that are zoned for business size that can really serve the city's local needs. She said Mr. Freeland read a number of the issues in our Comp Plan that encouraged economic development; also the fact that we do not have as much commercial retail space we should or could have had to be successful to serve the local needs. She claimed it is not a large business -- 17,000 and 20,000 sq ft is not large; it is like a Henerys. She challenged folks to find more than a couple of sites in our commercial corridor that could serve a medium size business like this; there just isn't any. It meets a lot ofthe needs within the commercial corridor. She said there is a huge leakage out of this town, and she understands the retail sales are even down this year. The retail sector needs some more diversity to keep those people in town. There are a lot of people in town that don't want to go to Silverdale, herself included; she would just as soon þuy her things locally. She said they just need to have some of that space. Mr. Bernie Arthur Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Arthur said he lives on Jefferson Street and is familiar with the hill climb, and the safety of such at the present time. He said it is a little trail that goes through the brush, looks like a little camp in there, and all these kinds of things; it is still right-of-way, and he can and has used it to walk down to the bowling alley, etc. Chair Thayer reminded Mr. Arthur we were not discussing the hill climb tonight. Mr. Arthur apologized and spoke of the history of the Comprehensive Plan stating he had 2020 coffee hours at his house. He said they talked about multi use, and it was important to the people because at that time upper floors downtown were vacant and businesses and people that owned those properties couldn't see how to develop them. He said they didn't want the city to put up unnecessary roadblocks to people with parking ordinances, etc., so those people could provide housing in those upper stories. Mr. Arthur said at no time, that he went through the charettes and all, was it ever discussed as MU multi-use on Kearney Street. He said evidently it was not even discussed at the hearings until the last minute, because he did not ever see any of it, and he does pay attention; historically, it has been CII, a bowling alley. He pointed out several things that have stopped the kind activity of a strip mall, an electrical power station, already built buildings, Kah Tai Lagoon, a lot of things that affect the environment there. He said it seems strange to him if we downzone this to Cll/MU, and now are putting roadblocks in the way so that we can't go back to what it was historically. That property is within 200 feet of the Gateway project, so whenever they do improvements they are subject to contribute . . . , Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 9 to the improvements on the Gateway. He asked how many overlapping regulations do we put on a piece of property and still be fair to the owner; how many times can we take piece of property, changes, uses, zones, etc.. He thinks there ought to be a limit; we are in a small town. He reminded that this is a "living document"; it means we can change it if we made a mistake or we think it ought to be different. From the historic viewpoint, it's been CII; from the overlapping zoning requirements, plans and things we have talked about in this community over the last 30 years he has been here. To bring up issues later, like some ofthe things in the environmental statement that might be strange, is kind of like chewing old hamburger; he said he is tired of it and does not want to hear anymore; let's get on with it and help this county grow, the whole county. It is the only legal growth area, an urban growth area, in the Growth Management plan. He said he has been in business, has run businesses in the community, and it is tough. He declared that we need help. If these people that own that property need to expand their bowling alley, or do something else, why do we take those rights away from them; what purpose does it serve; who are we serving? He said we need to help these people. From an historic viewpoint, let's add a good chapter to where we are gomg. Chair Thayer opened the hearing for those speaking in opposition of the request. In Opposition: Ms. Nancy Dorian Swore and affirmed that the testimony she was about to give was true to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Dorgan said no matter what way the city decides to configure the residential and commercial components of the mixed-use district, she believes this is the only chance they are going get to create a mixed-use district on Kearney Street. Because of the nature of proposal, as it goes, so goes go Kearney. She said if the Planning Commission and City Council approve this rezoning, she thinks they will be forsaking the neighborhood concepts and the values that were so explicit in that development. She asked, "If you make that choice, what will you be forsaking those values for? This proposal is asking us to turn over a precious chunk of remaining developable land; land that sits at the crossroads; land that sits at the doorsteps of both historic districts; land that is adjacent to a beach, a park; pending non-motorized improvements and the city's best transit service; land in effect that is ideal for the creation of a mixed-use business district." Ms. Dorgan indicated the rezoning proposal is asking us to turn all of that over to Rite Aid, so that they can build a drug store that would sell us 150 types of shampoo. She said, meanwhile, we have one of the largest gaps in the state between average income and average housing prices; we need affordable homes, and the Comprehensive Plan has mandated their development. She said, "It is your job to implement that mandate." Here is a prime location for a creative architect to build architecturally relative cluster housing as well as commercial expansion. Ms. Dorgan said that not only does the Comprehensive Plan specify affordable housing, in Section 10.22 it instructs us to "discourage auto-centered commercial drive through uses in . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 10 community serving mixed use centers." She reminded that they have seen the layout and know that there is one there. She said she has seen a number of Rite Aid stores; even Y elm has one, that one of the reasons she likes living in this town is that she doesn't have to look at that kind of commercial building on every corner. She asserted that if Rite Aid gets their Cil rezoning, no design constraints will apply to a resulting building; they will probably just call their warehouse and tell them to ship a medium size one to Port Townsend. Chair Thayer reminded we are speaking only to the zone, not the project. Ms. Dorgan continued that the point is if they get this zoning -- it is very important, the Historic District people don't want this. The appearance is a very important aspect of your rezoning decision, because of the fact there are no design guidelines on a CII building; she said she thinks that is relative to the decision. It takes a little imagination to visualize a developed Kearney Street mixed-use district, but it doesn't take much imagination to see the Sims and Kearney intersection with a Rite Aid store on it, because we have seen these stores all over. If we approve this rezoning proposal, she thinks later they might regret it; it will be giving away a chance to develop the district. As this corner goes, she said the thinks the rest of Kearney will also go.. Mr. Harry Holloway ill, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kirchner Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Holloway said the ultimate question is, why should we rezone this tract of land? He said he knows Mr. Arthur has been here longer than he has, but he has been here since 1971. He knows what this community looked like back in 1971; he has seen, been part of, heard much of the debate about land use policies in general. He noted this community finally came about adopting a Comprehensive Plan. Whatever the history of this community was, through a lot of argument, angst, arm twisting, public 'speeching,' etc., the fact is the community did develop a document, the Comprehensive Plan, that says this is what we stand for, why, and gave reasons. From all ofthe citizen input that came in, the Comprehensive Plan came forth with four main objectives -- one was to maintain the "small town character of Port Townsend." He said that is what his clients want. They live up the side of the hill above the site of the proposed project. Mr. Holloway pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was input by numerous people, professionals, volunteers, citizens, etc., who came up with a Plan that said the primary point of this Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the "small town character" of Port Townsend, and with that in mind, they went about adopting certain tools to see that particular factor was protected. As set out in the Staff report, one of the tools, a primary tool to maintain the small town character, was the mixed use concept. He said he thinks it would be fair to argue and say it is the first protection that is listed in the Comprehensive Plan. When you look at the Comprehensive Plan and its aims and the tools that it gives you, you have to question, why do we want to change the Cll/MU to Cll zoning? Do we do it because of the profit of the individual, or the profit of the individual who owns . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 11 a piece of it, or do we do it for the profit of people who want to buy it? Is that a valid reason? He said he thinks you can always consider it, and, if you find that overall that city's best interest, and the goodwill of its people are best served by making such a change, I could not argue that. He said as Bernie Arthur pointed out, it is supposed to be a living document. We don't change it just because somebody comes in and says, "Please change it. We want this, so I can get rid of this piece of property and sell it to somebody who wants it for their particular profit." He said he does not necessarily think that is a valid reason, especially when people of the community are interested in the growth of this community enough to accept the Comprehensive Plan, implement with the kinds of aims that it has, and put tools in that protect against that very thing. He said he thinks if there is a change, there has to be a reason, not necessarily an overwhelming reason, but there have to be strong, valid reasons. He said he would argue that by and large there shouldn't be changes of zoning, unless there really is significant community support or some other overwhelming public policy that you want to accomplish by it. He said he couldn't agree more with Ms. Dorgan. He said he doesn't care what kind of project the proponent would want for the site, whether it is Rite Aid or somebody else, it makes no difference. He said he thinks it is very logical, that once a change is made to this area that is now protected by mixed use zoning, once the first step is taken, the next person who sees that somebody has made some money on a deal and says maybe they can put something together too, and if they can't do that, they come to you and say, "Change it." Even though we know that people here all have the protection of each project individually coming before you on its own merits, what criteria do you rationally use to tell the next person "no" when you have already taken that first step, unless that first step was for some sort of very strong public policy reason that serves the entire city populace, rather than individuals? He said the Plan gave strong tools, strong ideas. It is a living, breathing document, and when they adQpted it years ago, it was with the idea that you might be looking at a situation just like this today. Mr. Holloway, on behalf of his client, requested that they deny the application, stating it would be the first step taken to do away with the entire mixed-use concept along Kearney Street. Chair Thayer opened the hearing for anyone else wishing to speak. Any others wishing to speak: Mr. Jim Ramey Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Ramey said Mr. Holloway asked, why change it? Mr. Ramey's response, it is called progress. He asked, have you heard of growth and prosperity or have you heard of some prosperity without some growth? He said it is real easy for our city attorney, our city planner, Eric and a lot of these people that are making a lot of money to say, "We don't want any growth." He indicated if you take out the people that work for the government, what is left here in Port Townsend the average wage is $13,000 per year. He said we might ask ourselves, "Why?" He suggested one of the reasons is there has been no growth here for 20 years. He said one ofthe reasons people don't . . . ~\ Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 12 make higher wages is poor business conditions; everybody goes to Silverdale. City Council sees fit to hire consultants from Seattle; they drain our money and send it to Seattle; they hire attorneys from Seattle. He said they hired Bruce Freeland from Seattle; he said, however, he is sorry to see Bruce Freeland leave. This drain somewhere has to stop; we've got to have buildings. He said nobody thought that a 62,000 sq ft Safeway ruined our small town image. They were in competition with half of the stores in this town; nobody says anything about that. He related that he takes a prescription that Safeway charged him $48 for 30; Costco charged him $32 for 30. He asked, "If Rite Aid were here do you think Safeway would still be charging $481" Chair Thayer asked that the testimony be kept to the rezone. Mr. Ramey continued by pointing where he took objection with Mr. Freeland: ~ Finding of Fact #7 -- does not agree that the proposal is inconsistent with Policy 8.4. ~ Finding of Fact #6 -- thinks they have missed the whole point of this thing -- leakage to Silverdale. He said there has been element in this town over the past 20 years that did not want any commercial building. He said he strenuously objects to Mr. Toews taking Mr. Freeland's place. He said they don't think they are going to get a fair hearing in here; because this is his baby and his mind is made up. Chair Thayer pointed out these decisions will be made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, not Mr. Toews. Mr. Ramey said that is why he is addressing this; he would like to see that not happen. He said they are talking about affordable housing here with a mixed-use center; this is not affordable housing, when you get to talking about $40,000 for a truss; when you get to talking about elevators; when you get to talking about a sprinkling system. He indicat~d this mixed-use center is not an option; he said what you are doing is keeping it like it is for 20 years - that is not an option. He said they figure that a 1,000 sq ft apartment would rent for $1500 per month; this has nothing to do with affordable housing. He said his notes said, "Not going to happen." You are not going to see a mixed-use center; it is economically infeasible. Mr. Ramey said he would like to see a little growth and a little prosperity. He would like to see the Planners not run this town for awhile. Mr. Denny La ViKn Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. LaVign said he is speaking in favor of returning the zoning to CII. He said the opponents have erred in their reference to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan, as stated on Page 5 of Mr. Freeland's findings, show that the adoption of the detailed zoning code requirements of the CllIMU in 1997 constituted a change from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 13 and that Land Use Policy 10.2.3 is to accommodate high density housing in mixed-use areas while zoning goes beyond accommodation by mandating housing in new developments. Mr. La Vign said their testimony is not correct; they referred to the Comprehensive Plan; they eliminated the zoning codes which where adopted in April of 1997, almost a year later from the Comprehensive Plan that chose to accommodate housing in that area and not require it. Mr. La Vign stated that there is a special agenda here that he has to take issue with. Chair Thayer asked if there were anyone else wishing to testify; there being no else wishing to speak for the first time, she allowed further testimony from people previously speaking. Ms. Shirley Rudolph Ms. Rudolph spoke of the other idea that the Economic Development component wants to encourage. Locals come downtown to use business downtown. One reason why the city wanted the Waterman-Katz building was to bring the locals to the downtown area to use our businesses downtown. She said it is a very important part of keeping this viable small town going to have locals come downtown, not just tourists coming through the tourist shops. He said by rezoning this property, that is something you will be encouraging more of which is real important throughout the downtown. Ms. Rudolph asked Mr. Freeland how notices went out to people around giving notification of this rezone? Mr. Freeland replied they had the standard mailing to people within 300 feet, a newspaper ad including a map, a sign on the site. Ms. Rudolph said that she and Nancy Dorgan are in the same building, that there 17 people in their building, and she thinks everyone there was notified. She estimated roughly 30 to 40 notices must have gone out to neighbors. She said by virtue of the fact that no one else has come here, she said that she thinks that tells that a lot of people think its a good idea, or probably aren't against the idea or they would have appeared, because there are so many people that did get notified. Mr. Craia Berman Mr. Berman mentioned that is difficult for people to separate who may be the tenant on the site, or be developing the site, and the zoning. He said from the standpoint of Ms. Dorgan's testimony about Rite Aid, ordering a box from the warehouse; that is not how they work as a company. He said they work with the town to develop a building that fits in with the character and nature of the town. He said that is how he wants to leave it; he does not want you to leave thinking that is how we work as a company that we have these prefab buildings, and we just call and say to send it on over. He said that not accurate in how it works. Mr. Jim Ramey Mr. Ramey said that a lot of people here have talked for the neighbors. He said he is Mr. LaVign's only neighbor and he is for the rezone. . . . j ~ Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 14 Chair Thayer closed the hearing and moved to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. She reminded people they were welcome to stay and listen to deliberations. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Deliberation and Action Chair Thayer asked regarding the order in which the Planning Commission wished to consider the amendments. CONSENSUS: Complete deliberation on Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group first. Listed Exhibits: A--La Vign Packet B-- C-- D-- E--MDNS F--Letter from Holloway G--Letter from Dana Roberts H--Map DEBORAH HART FOR THE BALDRIDGE GRQUP (LUP98-31) ~ Mr. Boles: The testimony and hearing various viewpoints was helpful. He understands they are talking about whether this should be CllIMU vs. Cll, and as Mr. Freeland pointed out, both contain Cll. It is the nature of CII, promotes development and growth, certainly trying to keep with the character of the area. He agreed with testimony that it is a critical keystone to the concept ofCll/MU; he was finally persuaded by people during the Comp Plan development that CII/MU was worth trying, especially in his mind in the corridor where it exists on east Kearney Street. He said he has not heard anything that contradicts the concept or the deliberations he heard with regard to originally setting this as CII/MU that caused him to change his mind at this point; he is still willing to listen, it has nothing to do the nature of this specific project that is being proposed. He said that whatever is going in there as CII/MU is going to present some of the same issues. If we are going to do something creative, this is a real opportunity. If they lose it, which he thinks they would if they rezoned this parcel, he is not sure what some of the major efforts of the Comp Plan are about. He said he would hate to see them lose this opportunity at this time; it is too soon. It is premature to give up on the concept; there is nothing new to cause him to give up on the concept. He said before them as well, later, is the consideration of refining, redefining, or looking at the concept of Cll/MU and how might they deal with that to promote its use in this town. He said that it may be at a later time they will find it needs changing again. He said he can't see at this point where . . . , ' Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 15 they shouldn't take the leadership and stick with it as it is and keep it Cll/MU to try what was the vision at time, what he thinks can work. He said testimony they heard of bringing people downtown, is one of the elements of the MU, to put people in that location. Whether it is affordable or upscale housing, is not an issue for him at this time; there are other ways to accomplish the lower cost housing. ~ Mr. Worden: Feels Policy 8.4 is a really key policy regarding both commercial development and the protection of neighborhoods. He strongly endorses the policy statement that says the CIl zone should be increased in depth, and understands that as being opposed to increased in length. He said he feels it is very important that Sims Way not be a corridor of businesses fronting on the street, but rather that it provide access to businesses that are adjacent to the street. He feels this particular site is not black and white; it seems to be part of the Sims corridor, but really is the first property which does not front on Sims Way but on Kearney Street and seems to be key to the CIIIMU zone. Changing the zone on that property, would 1) tend to encourage the turning of the strip development on Sims Way around on Kearney Street; 2) decrease the amount of available land in the MU zone. He feels the viability ofthe zone depends on it being at least as large as it currently is and with Mr. Boles that if the way the Cll zone is currently defined is defective, they have an obligation to address that and look at ways to correct it. He does not feel that moving property out of the zone would have the effect; it would destroy it. 3) Cannot see if this property Were rezoned how they could define the rezone on the rest of Kearney Street up to the school, and can't see a significant difference between this property and the others there. He feels that to make this one change, would effectively destroy that MU zone. He said he believed the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was a valid one; it was reached as the result of a valid community process, and would like to support that. ~ Ms. Erickson: She considered this one of the hardest and most talked about issues, but not one of the most important things of the Comprehensive Plan. She said the year and a half they worked on it, several of them had to be talked into and encouraged, and almost forced-fed, with the idea because it was a little big beyond their concept of how this could happen in this small town, given the economic circumstances of our small town; we are not rich people. Zoning property tIIIMU was very difficult for her, because she questioned whether or not it would be viable; whether it was her property or someone elses, what were they going to do if this didn't work out if the people that own the property couldn't afford this type of project. Said they were assured throughout the whole year that this was a "living document," that it could be changed if the property owners found they could not use their land effectively with this zone; they could come in and change that. One of the main reasons she loved this Plan was that it could be changed yearly, changed to meet the whole community's needs, and also individual property owner's needs. She said she went back trying to remember how a lot of this happened because she looked at the Puget Power site and wondered how did they ever zone that CIIIMU; nobody in their right mind would want to live there. Her notes about the . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 16 Gateway Plan explained the different districts; it was not to be a complete zone on Highway 20 from the entrance aH the way to the ferry dock. There were pockets of commercial zone that would have a variety of different uses, and the crossroads intersection described what it would be like. The bowling aHey is within that pocket that was to be developed for commercial use. She said as she read through parts of it, it was what they were talking about, going into the depth off Highway 20 in order to have these pockets, and it made sense to her. In going back and looking several more times at the location, she determined it is a prime location for commercial, any commercial, because of its visibility from Highway 20. She said especially with our new sign code that says you can't have a sign above 17', all our business on Washington Street are unnoticeable to any passerby coming into town or going out. As far as visibility of this area, she feels commercial is # 1; also, because it is part of the Gateway Plan, the depth off Highway 20 is the whole intent of aU these Jittle pockets. Because of the neighborhood of this block, two zones of Cil commercial, a holly farm behind it; there is nothing to disrupt or change the livability of the neighbors, and the other side of Highway 20 is CII/MU. She said she does not see visibility of the CII zone going up Kearney Street whatsoever, that what she thinks makes this block special is because it is within the Gateway Corridor; it is visible from Highway 20; is a very good CII or commercial zone block, and personaHy she would not want to live there and does not know who would considering the neighborhood and what is around it, the Penny Saver, a bank across the street and Highway 20 traffic. The other side of Highway 20 has a piece of the bay and not the traffic at that intersection. She agreed it is not consistent with Policy 10.2, but said there are several other items before them that have policies they do not comply with and are recommended to be changed; there are definitely different reasons. She said she also found consistency with the goal of the Gateway Plan Policy (unsure whether 5.3 or 53) , "Promote the redevelopment efforts of Gateway corridor land owners by helping to assemble parcels and design buildings which meet the retail needs of the community." Policy 8.4, "where possible aHow the Gateway corridor to be increased in depth, to enable development of integrated commercial projects which depart from commercial strip development" -- she said she does not see this as a commercial strip development rezone, and does not think they will lose the rest of the CII/MU, other than losing it because of undevelopable land. She does not think Puget Power in the next 20 years is going to have land available, that the apartment buildings that are there are going to change much in the next 20 years, that any property on Kearney Street on the side ofKah Tai that would be changed from what its existing zoning is now. She said she does not see any domino effect, mainly because the location is special in relation to Highway 20, where the others are not. Suggested conclusions: 1) same as staff conclusions for the Evans proposal - (read Staff Conclusion l.a., b. and c.; 2) it is unlikely that changing the designation from CllIMU to CD will result in pressure to change the designation of other properties nearby since the site is the only land in the vicinity that is within the 200' Gateway Plan boundaries that is not already zoned CD; 3) the proposal reflects the values of the community; 4) the proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act and with the county-wide planning policies. · · · . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 17 ~ Ms. Thayer: Said she also had a real hard time with this, going through the Comprehensive Plan and the real issues they discussed about the Cll/MU designation and seeing the concerns and viability of developing that. She said she could be in favor of this, mainly because it is within 200' of Highway 20 which means it is in conformance with the Gateway Plan, which would be the one reason she would recommend approval. She said she tends to agree with Ms. Erickson in that when she looks down the street at what else would be developed, you couldn't justify it because it is not within 200' of the highway; this could be justified that way. If this is not approved, she feels they need to consider making some changes to the CII/MU district to allow for a little more flexibility in building. ~ Mr. Harbison: Said for the record that although he is new to the Commission, he has tried to review all the pertinent data and studied the Comprehensive Plan as much as he can in the period of time he has been on the Commission, and does feel somewhat comfortable in taking part in the decision making. He said he is concerned about this issue, because in some ways he sees it fall into the Gateway Plan, and he feels by definition it does meet some of the needs the Comprehensive Plan presents. He said he is very concerned about a domino effect. He has not been able to find specific language in Cll/MU whether it is "encouraging" or "requiring" housing with the commercial unit, and what specific language is involved there. ~ Ms. Erickson: Right now it "requires" housing. Chair Thayer pointed that is a separate issue, the legislative issue about making some changes and some incentives for housing. Discussion: Mr. Worden: ~ The argument in favor seems to regard ClIJMU as a non-commercial zone. It is a commercial zone; commercial is allowed and is still counted that way. ~ The only thing being asked of people who would develop that land is to make provision for housing as well; we are not turning this into a residential zone. ~ For the same reason disagreed with Mr. Arthur's statement that this property was downzoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. ~ The holly farm can be accounted as a buffer at the present time, but is RII residential zone land. He does not think it is fair to say that serves as protection. Ms. Erickson: ~ Did not mean the holly farm as protection. When it says it is not disrupting the tranquility of the neighborhood, we have to look at the neighborhood as it is now; you can't presume it will disrupt the tranquility of the neighborhood in 20 years. She didn't expect it as a buffer. Mr. Boles: ~ His specific concern is this is a living document, but it seems they ought not jump on the first train that comes along to change it. He is reluctant to go back and wear the other that he initially wore before he was persuaded to go with this zoning. ~ Why now it should be changed? They have heard it might not pencil out, but they knew that , . . . , . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 18 at the time; they knew it would be a difficult sell; they knew it was a leadership position to try this. He said he is trying to understand, not trying to disagree, trying to see what is new from when we went through this before, and why we ought to change it. Ms. Thayer: ~ It has been a year; she has had a chance to think it through more. She remembers going through the Comprehensive Plan and thinking all along, this is a living document, that it will be changed, and trying to stress to the public that was it. She said that doesn't mean that they necessarily have to change the first thing that comes along, but she remembered specifically knowing there were things that they were going to pick up. ~ It was a horrendous task; she doesn't think the public has any idea what kind of task it was for them to go through; there were things they obviously missed and maybe they are rethinking. Ms. Erickson: ~ Remembered Ms. Thayer asking in so many meetings why nobody was present, they needed help having more input, especially on these specific changes; they were extremely concerned about changing and not knowing for sure. ~ It's all hypothetical; we are guessing that this will work. Knowing that it could be changed had a property owner come with in a reason to change it, rather than stipulate that property as a zone that would not be used, or might not be used, is something they were reassured. ~ Some things changed from what they did at the Planning Commission level when it went to City Council. (They had done so much it is really hard to remember exactly each one.) ~ Remembered the Cll/MU being the most difficult concept of the whole Plan~ because this concept was new, it was very difficult, not only economically, but because there weren't too many here to look at, let alone wondering if people would want to live over commercial. It has happened in other cities, but they don't know if it is going to even be realistic for people here. They put a lot of question marks on it. ~ This piece of property should have been looked at more carefully before they put on that zone. She thinks this property is better CII in the corridor on Highway 20; it's a special block compared to the rest going up Kearney because of its visibility and it's zoned with other CII. It is not out there in the middle of several zones, and to her is consistent. Had they just been asked tonight what zone to put on, she would say CII. Mr. Boles: ~ Did disagree with they way it is being characterized, but still thinks to stay with the way it is, because of the leverage that special piece of property represents in an attempt to get the CII/MU in that area. ~ If they are going to do it, it is a critical piece of property, a desirable piece of property, a leverage for a developer to use and adhere to the CII/MU. To set a precedent for other parcels is critical. ~ Stay with it for at least another year. He asked if there is any other recourse than waiting another year for them to bring a rezone? Mr. Freeland: Once a year. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 19 Ms. Erickson: ~ Did not understand Mr. Boles' reason for waiting one more year to look at this. Mr. Boles: ~ He believed at the time he voted for Cll!MU, if this is going to happen in Port Townsend, this was the only area where it would and ought to happen as a buffer, as a transition element and all of the things that its purpose was stated to be. ~ It is not unlike the buildings downtown; hopefully the finances will appear and the upper parts of the buildings will be redeveloped like Waterman-Katz. Ms. Thayer: ~ This is a real tough one for us to decide. Mr. Harbison: ~ Asked if there is opportunity for a developer to present a plan that fits into the ClIIMU the next year? Mr. Freeland answered affirmatively. AMENDMENTS: ~ Findings of Fact #2 -- Correct typo to read: "General conditions have not changed. . ." ~ Findings of Fact #8 - Add to: "Declaration of Non-Significance was issued and became final October 1,1998 subject to an addendum dated October 15, 1998." ~ Findings of Fact #10 - Correct typo to read: ". . . would eliminate the requirement for housing at a density of at least. . ." MOTION Mr. Boles Deny application LUP98-31 by Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group with the findings of fact as amended appearing to be accurate; general conditions, assumptions, etc., not having changed; and conclusions as stated. SECOND VOTE Mr. Worden Passed 3-2 by roll call vote; Ms. Erickson and Ms. Thayer opposed. Chair Thayer requested a minority report go forward to City Council. She pointed out to the applicant this will go to City Council for their open record public hearing which at this time is scheduled for November 2, 1998. ROBERT C. HARPER (LUP98-07) Recommendation: The application by Robert C. Harper to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and Zoning Map designation for property at 261 Sims Way (SR20) from MIl-A (Marine Related) to C-ll (General Commercial) should be approved with findings and conclusions. ~ Ms. Erickson: Findings of Fact #7 -- is not sure how the espresso stand is a circumstance that has changed this and was not comfortable with that statement. Conclusion # 1-- last sentence. This might have been a very well thought out Plan, they definitely discussed this property, and . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 20 it definitely was not an error; it was definitely zoned M-II. She said what she remembers questioning why it was zoned M-II, that it was in hopes that property, when it ever did go from a service station that it would be used for marine trade, to encourage the property owner to have marine trades on the property. She stated it was deliberate and no error at all. ~ Mr. Freeland said this was probably not a diplomatic choice of words. ~ Ms. Erickson said that there is language that this zone is mainly Port related, and that is why it was zoned that way; because it was allowed under that definition. ~ Ms. Thayer suggested changing the wording. ~ Ms. Erickson said this is where she is coming from on the CIIIMU. Maybe it was not discussed enough, or maybe pur ideas were not right; when you go back one year later, here is another one that wants to have it changed to cn. This is what she understood the Comp Plan is going to be able to do every year when things came up. She said this is no different than other things they have been asking. Mr. Worden: Asked ifthe argument at the time this was designated as a marine site was that it was necessary to have some marine designated land that did not belong to the port? Ms. Erickson: Said her best guess is that they did not want to spot zone. Mr. Towes: His recollection is that M-II(A) and (B) were intended to apply to Port owned lands; he does not think there was an intent to extend those zones beyond Port owned lands. Mr. Freeland: Said he thought it was M zoning previously, and it just rolled on in. Ms. Erickson: Thinks that is why it was so easy to go to MIl, because it was previously MI, and that is why we figured at the time the Boat Haven designation would be the best designation, rather than change it completely. Mr. Boles: Said for the record, he did remember they discussed it, but at the time he was not familiar enough with the property, and didn't see it as pivotal as the CII/MU issue, so he disagreed on relating them to the same, though he does understand why you would. He said at this time he does think that CII is an appropriate designation for the HarPer Shell property. ~ Ms. Thayer agreed. AMENDMENTS: ~ Findings of Fact #2 - Add to: "Declaration of Non-Significance was issued and became final October 1, 1998." ~ Findings of Fact #3 - mid-paragraph, correct typo and eliminate "to" to read "requirement for. . ." ~ Findings of Fact #7 - Eliminate the first sentence and reword the remainder to read: "Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, no circumstances have changed." ~ Conclusions #1 - Change the last sentence to read: "Taking all these factors into consideration, CD is a more appropriate designation and zone." MOTION Mr. Worden Accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Staff Report with the previously made amendments for LUP98-07, application by Robert C. Harper . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 21 SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote Chair Thayer announced the Robert C. Harper LUP98-07 application will go on to City Council for an open record public hearing. ROGER EVANS (LUP98-l6) Mr. Freeland referenced the addendum to the environmental determination distributed tonight. He said in this case there were two letters of comment that he thought justified the addendum. One letter was from George Barber of First Western Investments, a partner in the property, noting an inconsistency within the environmental checklist, the way the wetland was treated -- one place in the checklist said one thing, and ~n another place something slightly different. Mr. Freeland said Mr. Barber was correct. Mr. Freeland said he corrected the error to make them read the same way, and they are now both correct; there is no major change that should affect the deliberation tonight. The second letter Jefferson Transit commented there is not currently a transit stop at this location, at Sims and Howard, and noted in effect that at the time of future development applications will need to be coordinated with Jefferson Transit. Mr. Freeland said since this is a non-project action, he did not think it was appropriate to make a specific mitigation measure that would affect the site. Mr. Boles said this is complicated and stated if anyone has a thought on the nature of the property trade in terms of what is accomplished, he would like to hear it. He said this application is difficult to evaluate. Discussion: ~ Mr. Boles: On face of this, is not opposed. It does appear that the corner property would be appropriately used and the Findings of Fact are accurate as stated. ~ Ms. Thayer: Tended to agree with Mr. Boles. When she looks across the street from the piece of property of the Evans rezone, she thinks it appropriate because it's right on the corner, and the trade allows a 200' buffer zone from there on, which is a win situation for coming into Port Townsend. She said being married to a forester, she knows when you have little narrow strips of trees, eventually they all fall down; when you have a wider strip of land, even though some of that may have been selectively logged at some point, when those trees grow up they tend to be stronger and support each other. ~ Mr. Harbison: Rezoning the corner is appropriate based on the surrounding commercial areas, and the additional lOO' is definitely a benefit. ~ Mrs. Erickson: Asked if there is no buffer at aU required of this rezone property. ~ Mr. Freeland: Not to the rezone -- however, in the separate agreement between the City and Mr. Evans about the land in exchange. In the area proposed for change to commercial zone, there is a 50· continuation of buffer into the area along the Evans side that will have some thinning; the thinking was the buffer won't stop abruptly, but rather taper off ~ Ms. Erickson: It tapers now. She was unsure if there was any requirement ofbuftèr, or what . . . Planning CommisÅ¡ion Minutes October 15, ]998 Page 22 ~ trees there are, because it does thin out by the time it get there. She asked ifMr. Evans access be off Howard or Highway 20? Mr. Freeland: The access would be offHowdrd. Ms. Erickson: So there would be no Toad off Highway 20 onto the property. She doesn't remember what the Highway 20 corridor calls for with new development on Highway 20, if you have to have replant or preserve a buffer. Mr. Freeland: It depends on this policy. If we change the policy as proposed, there won't be a requirement for a buffer. The only requiTementwillbe forthetransition area mentioned. It is pretty clear that the intent of the applicant is to try to get some visibility for a commercial site from the highway. He is sure they would want an area on the corner that is dear; so there is a trade off. Ms. Erickson: Expressed concern that light manufacturing zone was being inundated. She is not sure how much excess there is in the MC zone, but is also worried about the industrial park, and how it is developing. She does not see a lot of needs for light manufacturing or light industrial since the industrial park has been developed; it is developing slowly, and because they don't know what is going to happen to the UGA in Glen Cove, they may not have some of that industrial zone, so they need to maintain some industrial. Although she is a little concerned, she would rather see the commercial zone and have economic vitality there, so there is some growth, rather than keep it light manufacturing and have nothing. She will go along with it, because she would rather see something done and developed, andjobs brought in, than nothing done because they won't rezone something. Ms. Thayer: Agreed with Ms. Erickson that she would like to see the light manufacturing away from Sims Way and would recommend commercial for that strip. Mr. Boles: Agreed this is the sort of change to CII he thinks he could support, that would result in a viable location. Asked Mr. Freeland, "My concern was, if there is proposed widening of SR 20, what is the 1ikelihood lands would be taken, and that they would have a higher probability of being taken from the city's buffer than from some other property? Mr. Freeland: That has a tremendously wide right-of-way, 120'. In that particular stretch according to the Gateway Plan, in the forested corridor, the diagram shows two lanes with a bicycle/pedestrian facility on either side that doesn't change until the approach to Howard Street. He said within the large right-of-way there is very little prospect of any incursion into of that buffer, outside of the right-of-way. Ms. Erickson: Not sure she is comfortable with Findings of Fact #4; this is not supposed to sway us in our decision and she is not sure it should be used as a circumstance for a change in the Comp Plan. Mr. Boles: Is that a legal necessity; what is the purpose? Agreed with Ms Erickson. Mr. Freeland: It is a factual difference. Mr. McMahan: Having the Finding in there does explain why the language is changed to revise the extent of the 200' buffer to the boundary across the street, lining up with the tavern property. There are a couple of documents that are at issue here; the ultimate disposition of the settlement agreement has nothing to do with this, but the land exchange was pretty linked . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 23 ~ to this application. He said he wouldn't say that it is irrelevant to the consideration; it is true that the exchange will only happen if the rezone is approved; so in that sense, it is not connected directly with the settlement of the dispute. He said it is pretty connected to the Comp Plan policy, and he thinks it is appropriate to consider with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Worden: Would it be appropriate to rewrite that Finding so that the changed circumstances are that the property owner has made available to the city the increased depth of buffer in exchange for a piece of property that could have been zoned CII, contingent on approval of the rezone. He suggested that what has changed is the offer, not that the property has been exchanged. He said he also was not comfortable with saying the change that justifies a change in the Comprehensive Plan is something that wiH happen only as a result of this action. Mr. McMahan: It does not intend to drive a rezone decision; it does intend to drive what is the appropriate use for the property. Mr. Worden: He thinks this needs to be redrafted, that this is not an appropriate answer to a Finding they are required to find, which is changed circumstances. Mr. Toews: Suggested stating an error has been identified with that policy in consistency with the Gateway Plan, and the identification of that error is a change of circumstances from the information available when the Comprehensive Plan was developed initially, (and the City has an offer from the land owner that will help correct that. -- suggested by Mr. Worden.) Ms. Erickson: AU those things help justify it; it is better than the way it is written. Mr. Freeland: If that is the point, that speaks to new information; that criteria that has to do with the assumptions on which the Plan is based -- one is that certain things have changed; another is you have found something that indicates what you did originally was off base in some regard. So, this is a discrepancy with the Gateway Plan which chaHenges an assumption upon which the Plan was based. He was not really comfortable with that being a Finding; maybe circumstances haven't changed, but new information is revealed that the assumption is incorrect and there was a disagreement between the Comp Plan and the Gateway Plan that has come to light. Mr. Boles: That is stated in the Finding #2. Mr. Freeland: Maybe we can take Finding of Fact #2 from Part A (Amendment to Land Use Policy 8.11) and repeat the same language in Part B (Amendment to the Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map)as Finding off Fact #4.a (or a new #5). Circumstances reaHy have changed, then a new finding that is the same on the first page about the Gateway Plan. Mr. Boles: Was it proposed to have in another sentence to the effect of what Mr. Worden stated about an offer having been made to trade property to reconcile this difference? Mr. Freeland: Maybe it's best just to leave that out. Ms. Thayer: Findings of Fact #3 under B -- Declaration of Non-Significance was issued on October 1, 1998 and amended in the Determination of Non-Significance dated October 15, 1998. Mr. Worden: Concurred with the judgment that the additional depth of buffer is a very beneficial thing for the city and for the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Also concerned ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 24 ~ with the statement about being very appropriate to use this land as a way to expand our commercial base ofIand. He is generally in favor of the proposal, but stated a concern. Since access to the property will be limited to Howard Street, and since there is a wetland constraint on that access, he said he hopes they are not getting into a situation where they are forcing either a compromise in the protection of the wetland, or actually forcing an exchange. Mr. Freeland: There is nothing in this approval that limits access to Howard. That is a general policy of the Gateway Plan to not have additional curb cuts onto Sims Way when there is a viable alternative. He said his categorical statement that it would be on Howard is on the belief that it can be taken off of Howard. That wetland sits back some distance from Sims, so they believe it is possible to improve Howard and take access off from Howard and therefore it wouldn't be necessary to do a curb cut on Sims. He said he believes all that to be true, but in the event there is conflict, a curb cut could happen on Sims and would not deny access to the property. Mr. Worden: The other thing he is concerned about is that a property this size might not be viable with just one access point, that it might be necessary to have a double access to it and asked if there was space to do that. Mr. Freeland: He did not think so. Those are aU details that will happen at the time of development; his statement earlier would really just reflect our general policy which is to discourage access onto Sims. Mr. Worden: It does say access can be taken from Howard Street; there is no change necessary. ~ ~ ~ AMENDMENTS ~ B. Amendment to the Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map -- Following Finding of Fact #4, add a new Finding of Fact (repeat language from Findings of Fact #2, Part A.) ~ B. Amendment to the Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map, Findings of Fact #3 -- Change to read ". . . Declaration of Non-Significance was issued on October 1, 1998 and amended in the Determination of Non-Significance dated October 15, 1998." MOTION Mr. Worden Adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Staff Report as amended and approve LUP98-16 application by Roger Evans for changes on classification SECOND VOTE Mr. Harbison Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote Chair Thayer announced the application was recommended for approval and wiU go to City Council for an open record public hearing on November 2, 1998. At 9:28 p.m. Chair Thayer declared a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 25 City of Port Townsend (LUP98-37) MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN WHICH DO NOT REOUIRE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE OR OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of aU of the proposals in this group of policy changes not requiring change to the Zoning Code. A. Proposals to Amend the Land Use Element 1. Pa~e 1V-14. Chan~e ofbuildin~ hei~hts in M-II(A) zones Finding: Circumstances have changed since this table was written, in that the Planning Commission completed work on the revision of the Zoning Code (TMC Title 17) after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and determined that a 50 foot height limit is appropriate for the Boat Haven. Conclusions: a. The amendment is consistent with community values including strong support of marine trades which require tall buildings. b. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. PaKe 1V-27. Shorelines Clarification for Port Property Findinf:: The original language of Policy 9.9 made the factual error (if assuming that all land belonging to the Port of Port Townsend would be under Shorelines jurisdiction. The amended text clarifies the policy to make it consistent with the Shorelines Master Program. Conclusions: a. The amendment is consistent with the values ~r the community in that the amendment retains the original intention of the Plan to protect shoreline areas while correctly stating the area of Shorelines Act jurisdiction. b. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. E. Proposals to Amend the Transportation Element 1. Pa~e VI-S. State & Private Ferry Needs Findings: a. The proposals to support increasedferry service to Port Town.vend capture new ideas that were overlooked in the 1996 Plan. b. The proposals reflect the values (if Port Townsend in that they promote forms (if mass transportation and greater mobility. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with Transportation Goals 1 and 2 which callfor a balanced transportation system and coordination between jurisdictions involved in the planning and provision of transportation services. 2. Pa~e VI-B. Role of Port of Port Townsend Findings: . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 26 a. The assumptions underlying the original wording of Transportation Element Goal 2 and Policy 2.3 omitted important jurisdictions from consideration, and this factual error is corrected by the amendment. b. Inclusion of the Port of Port Townsend and Jefferson Transit in interjurisdictional coordination furthers community values which support a broad range of coordinated and cost effective transportation services. Conclusion: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Page VI-27. Street Utility Finding: The proposal responds to new information not available at the time when the Plan was adopted, in that the State Courts have issued a ruling that calls into question the viability of street utilities. Until this changed circumstance is better understood or until the legislature corrects the problems with the current enabling act, the use of a street utility should be considered an idea to explore rather than an idea that is ready to be implemented Conclusion: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. e. Proposal to Amend the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element 1. Page VII-4. Endangered Species Findin1:s: a. The intended listing of endangered fish species is a significant changed circumstance since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Protection (if endangered species reflects the values (if the community. Conclusion: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 0. Proposal to Amend the Economic Development Element 1. Page VIll-4. Maritime Center Findin1:s: a. Circumstances have changed since the Plan was adopted in that the concept of a Northwest Maritime Center to be located in Port Townsend has developed into a viable and desirable project. b. Protection A northwest Maritime Center would reinforce the values of the community as expressed through Economic Development Element Goal 3, "To strengthen the marine trades economy while protecting the natural environment and balancing public use of shoreline areas. " Conclusion: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Thayer asked if there was anything of concern in the minor amendments. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 27 MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Erickson Accept aU Minor amendments as written. Mr. Boles Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN WHICH REQUIRE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE AND/OR QFFICIAL ZONING MAP A. Criteria for Zoning Ordinance Amendment PTMC 20.04.090 requires that any change to the Zoning Code be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land use map. B. CIIIMU RECONSIDERATION Two alternatives proposed for amending the CII/MU zone, both could occur without amending the Comprehensive Plan: ~ Option A Housing permitted but not a required use. Floor area ratios are left at 3 to 1 for mixed use projects, but reduced to I to 1 for commercial-only developments. ~ Option B Creates an incentive for providing housing by allowing commercial-only developments at a relatively low floor area ratio (0.2 to 1.0), but requiring a housing component in order to reach the full 3 to 1 floor area ratio. Recommendation: Staff supports adoption of either Option A or Option B. The mixed use concept was a major idea in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, and the benefits of mixed use depend upon housing. Between th.e two, staffs preference would be for Option B which is likely to produce more housing. As developed, there would be no requirement to amend the Comprehensive Plan to make the recommended changes to the Zoning Code. The following findings would be valid for a change to the Zoning Code: Findinf;.: Adoption of the detailed Zoning Code requirements for the ClIIMI] zone in 1997 constituted a change from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan in that Land U'ìe Policy 10.2.3 is to "accommodate" high density housing in mixed use areas while the zoning code goes beyond accommodation by mandating housing in new developments. Conclusion: a. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ~ Ms. Thayer: Option B, Table 17.18.030, Maximum Floor Area Ratio, Cll/MU a) a base floor area ratio of 0.2 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot area -- does that mean on a 1 acre lot you can build 8,000 sf approximately? 1/5th? Mr. Freeland answered affirmatively. ~ Mr. Worden: Option B, Table 17.18.030 -- requested: 1) Remove the requirement for two-story construction from the CIIIMU zone. That is too specific a requirement and doesn't really gain us anything given we have a floor area limitation anyway. Anyone designing a facility should be free to work any they can as long as the basic · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 28 criteria for density, parking, and other requirements are met. It is unlikely anyone would propose putting housing and commercial an on one floor, but nonetheless, thinks they should not make the requirement that they be on separate floors. Mr. Freeland said the same requirement is in Option A 2) Option B, Table 17.17.030, Maximum Floor Area Ratio, CIIIMU a) a base floor area ratio of 0.2 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot area-- ~ Basic sq ft of gross building area allowed in commercial be increased to .26. (Mf. Freeland asked ifhe is asking what would be about the largest floor area ratio that could be achieved for a commercial project on one story -- anywhere from.3 to .35 depending on a given use.) Mr. Worden then suggested: the basic sq ft of gross building area allowed for commercial be increased to .3. One effect would be, it would make the bowling alley legal as it stands in the Kearney Street zone, not that it is particularly important because they are a non-conforming permitted use anyway, but it does match the development. His real motivation in suggesting all this, if we are going to make CII/MU zone practical for people to use, if you are doing commercial zone you should not be severely penalized for doing commercial only, but that you stilJ cannot realize the fun potentials for the site unless you incorPOrate the housing as weJI. ~ Ms. Thayer: Tended to agreed. Increase the floor to. 3 or .35, and remove two story requirement. ~ Mr. Worden: This speaks to the Comprehensive Plan language that says to accommodate housing and stilt provides a substantial incentive for adding housing to a project that otherwise would be commercial. It would not prohibit the kinds of uses that are there now, and doesn't prohibit developing the sites to their full one-store potential. ~ Mr. Freeland: They are two separate ideas running through this discussion. 1) To what extent do you want to push the housing component? He said the .2 FAR that he proposed moves to the side where you are becoming somewhat aggressive, that if you want to fulty develop your site, some housing has to be in there. You are suggesting we move that to a more neutral position where you could basically achieve a commercial development, but there stilJ is the point where that land is valuable enough to support a larger building, which stilJ is an incentive for housing. ~ Mr. Worden: Basically, it says you can build a commercial, and if you want more development on the site, you can add that if it is residential. ~ Mr. Freeland: The difference between the two is, as I have proposed it there is a more heavy- handed push towàrd incJusion of housing, and you have come at it from a more neutral position. 2) In his mind the second idea of two stories is linked with the other item targeted for elimination, which is no minimum building frontage along abutting public R-O-Ws. Historically, there was a major urban design idea that was expressed in this code. The idea of mixed use was to think about the character of the town and draw upon the strength you have, at say Aldrichs. In fact the Plan speaks about that intersection as its model for mixed use. It has in mind an urban model where the structures are taller and address the street, rather than a suburban model where the structures might be set back with a large parking lot in front and a smaller scale. There are very different components, 1) how aggressive do you want to be on '> . . . ". Planning Commission Minutes October 15, I 998 Page 29 housing? 2) what is the urban form you are trying to create? He suggested that the two stories and the minimum building frontage are probably a package. If you are comfortable with the suburban form, you might take them both out; if you are trying to accomplish that more urban form that is based on the Aldrichs model, they should both be left in. ~ Mr. Boles: Is having trouble accepting the concept of a single story, and would have trouble seeing the usefulness ofCII!MU in the suburban model; that wouldn't be the concept he would support. He asked Mr. Freeland to quantify in any way what would be more aggressive or less aggressJve. ~ Mr. Freeland: Said he is going to leave the philosophy to them. It all comes down to the question of what's an incentive; in effective what he has may be an a disincentive, rather than an incentive. If you can get everything you, what is the value of an incentive? When he put this together, his feeling was that some day land values may go up to the point where people want a floor area ratio of 1, 2 or 3; his belief is where we are right now and for the foreseeable future people aren't seeking to develop their property more intensely than what you can do with that on-surface parking. If you can accomplish the development of the site with on-surface parking and get an all commercial building, you would have no reason to build more than that intensity. What are you to gain by having theoretical increase in density above what you want? His sense was the bar needed to be set lower than what people would actually want to accomplish to make that extra density worth something. It's worth getting up to .3, or somewhere in that neighborhood. The question is how far do you want to go? ~ Mr. Boles: Thought.3 was about the current threshold. ~ Mr. Freeland: Each use has a different number of parking spaces per so many sf of building; maybe an office is a little different rrom a retail store. TypicaUy,.3 to .35 is about as far as you can go. MOTION Mr. Boles Adoption of Option B, as written with.2 FAR, two story and frontage requirement. DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND ~ Ms. Erickson: It's a heartburn. ~ Ms. Thayer: I guess, ifit's not going to be rezoned, what is the best we can do? ~ Ms. Erickson: If the CII/MU zone is so precious, as she has been hearing, then preserve it for what's meant to be. If you are going to whittle it down, you might just as well give people the opportunity for CII, and say if you want to put housing on it, put it. You are going to chop it up where you are going to have a Cll opportunity in a MU zone that is greater than the CII as it exists now; the height, bulk. There are so many things you are dickering with; the more you do that, you are going lose the intent that we are hearing that everyone loves so dearly. MOTION VOTE Mr. Boles Adopt as is with neither Option A or Option B. DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 30 MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Worden Adopt Option B as written with modifications Mr. Boles Passed 3-2, Ms. Erickson and Ms. Thayer opposed Mr. Worden said there are two ways to see this, and requested they express their concerns to the City Council. Chair Thayer said she feels it is really important to share during the Commission/City Council workshop on October 26th that we have agreed to disagree, and that we have some concerns. SPESER .PROPOSAL Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this proposal with the following findings: Findings: a. Circumstances have not changed since the idea to allow small high technology business in residential areas was originally proposed during the development of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. b. The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan are based have not changed since the plan was adopted c. The proposed changes are contrary to widely held community values that favor protection of residential areas, in that it would: 1) introduce businesses with up to twelve workers into residential areas without a public process through which neighborhood concerns could be addressed, 2) would threaten the tranquility of the surrounding neighborhoody through the introduction of more traffic and visitors than is normal for residential uses in that normal residential uses generate about ten trips per day whereas twelve workers would generate a minimum of twenty four trips per day plus any deliveries or customer visits. 3) would fùndamenially change the character of the use from one in which the building is someone '.'I home to one which does not require anyone to live at the site, 4) would alter the visual appearance qf the properties through conversion of unusually large areas of the sites to parking, 5) could lead to neighborhood blight through the introduction of incompatible uses into residential districts. Conclusion: a. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative Findings Findinf:s: a. There is a changed circumstance since the adoption of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan in that it was the intention of the City to address the needs of small businesses through the development of the Zoning Code, but the home occupation provisions . . . , . Planning Commission Minutes October ]5, ]998 Page 31 that were adopted did not address the need for businesses with more than 3 employees and did not resolve this issue. b. The assumption of the Plan was that the provision of adequate amounts (if conventional commercial and industrial zoning would provide adequate sites jÓr small businesses, whereas new information frompelilioners for this amendment state that properties suitable to their businesses can not be found in commercially and industrially zoned sites. c. The proposal reflects the community values of Port Townsend which welcome diversity of use in neighborhoods, and support increased opportunities for economic development Conclusion: a. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff further recommends: If this proposal is approved, it be modified to require a Type I ministerial permit, identical to the one that is granted for home occupations through PTMC 17.56.020 and .030. The home occupations permit requires no notice to owners of other properties and is issued by staff The proposal was written without a permit requirement to reflect what staff understood to be the proponent's request. However, without a permit, it would be impossible for staff to enforce the provisions of the ordinance. Discussion: ~ Mr. Boles: Invited other conversation for new members, but said this is something they have discussed at length; last year in a different forum; had a hearing about the concept; and now we are continuing with this. One thing he feels very strongly about, personally, are the residential zones and protecting them with a reasonable balance for growth, and to accommodate those things that might be appropriate to occur in residential districts. He said he thought they did an excellent job in their drafting of the home occupation ordinance and thought they gave it a fair hearing at that time. He has difficulty seeing how this is consistent with the concepts they have discussed in residential home occupations. MOTION Mr. Boles Deny the Speser proposal, moving Finding c. of the Staff Report to Conclusions, and accepting the Findings and Conclusions. SECOND Discussion: Ms. Erickson Mr. Worden endorsed what Mr. Boles' comments. He also feels very strongly that preservation of the residential districts is critical to th.e nature of Port Townsend that the Plan addresses. The Home Occupation permit process really does give a very fair opportunity for folks that are in a start-up business kind of situation that can, in fact, conduct their business without having a significant impact on the residential use of the neighborhood. If there were to be a change, the appropriate thing to do would be to change the criteria for the Home Occupations permit, and those were well- · · · '. . Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 32 VOTE discussed, are firmly established and that is what this community wants. He strongly concurred that they deny this application. Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote ARTHUR PROPOSAL Recommendation: Staff recommends that the request be denied with the following findings: Findings: a. Circumstances have not changed since the development of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan which designated areas for commercial, industrial, and mixed use development and which designated the subject areas of Uptown for medium density multiple family development. b. The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan are based have not changed since the plan was adopted c. The proposed change is contrary to widely held community values that favor protection of residential areas, in that it would: 1) change the nature of Uptown's multiple family neighborhood to a mixed use district, 2) would alter the visual appearance of the properties through conversion of unusually large areas of the sites to parking, 3) could lead to neighborhood blight through the introduction of incompatible uses into residential districts, 4) change the character of the area in a way that would be damaging to the integrity of Uptown as the heart of the residential section of the National Historic District. Conclusion: a. The amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative Findings Findings: a. There is a changed circumstance since the adoption of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan in that it was the intention of the City to addresses the needs of small businesses through the development of the Zoning Code, but the home occupation provision.v that were adopted did not address the need for businesses with more than 3 employees and did not resolve this issue. b. The assumption of the Plan was that the provision of adequate amounts (if' conventional commercial and industrial zoning would provide adequate sites for small businesses, but the Plan did not consider the additional opportunity that could be provided for economic development by converting residential structures into businesses. c. The proposal reflects the community values of Port Townsend which welcome diversity of use in neighborhoods, and support increased opportunities for economic " . . . " Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 33 development. Conclusion: a. The amendments to the Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ~ Mr. Freeland: This is to allow certain businesses in the RIll zone with a conditional use permit. ~ Mr. Thayer: Her feeling is the same as it was for the other proposals. That residential zone really should be protected, and it is protected with the Home Occupation designation. ~ Mr. Boles: Had a sense, maybe unfounded, that the higher density housing would be even more impacted by similar potential home elements; has even more concerns, possibly. He concurred with Ms. Thay.er's conclusion. MOTION Mr. Worden Deny the request for changes in residential zoning of the Arthur proposal, moving Finding c. of the Staff Report to Conclusions, and accepting the Findings and Conclusions. SECOND Discussion: Mr. Harbison Ms. Erickson noted this was going to have a new zone, RIII(U), uptown where y.ou have B&Bs and a lot of other things going on with the homes. Mr. Boles said there are B&Bs in places other than uptown and asked what makes that different. Ms. Erickson said to put this on top ofB&Bs would compound it. Unanimous,S in favor by roll call vote VOTE FISCHER/DORN PROPOSAL Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed amendment be denied, with the following findings: Findings: a. Circumstances have not changed since the idea to allow small businesses in residential areas was originally proposed during the development of the 1996 Comprehen.vive Plan and was implemented through the expanded home occupation provisions of the 1997 Zoning Code. b. The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan are based have not changed since the plan was adopted. c. The proposed change is contrary to widely held community values that favor protection of residential areas, in that it would: 1) threaten the tranquility of the surrounding neighborhoods by allowing business activities to operate until midnight, 2) would fundamentally change the character of the use from one in which the building is someone's home to one which does not require anyone to live at the site, '. · · · '. Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 34 3) would alter the visual appearance of the properties through conversion of unusually large areas of the sites to parking, 4) would afford less neighborhood protection than is now offered for home occupations, in that the proposal asks for more signage, and the ability to conduct business out of doors. Alternative Findings Option A Approve the proposal as drafted with the following findings: Findinz,s: a. There is a changed circumstance since the adoption (if the 1996 Comprehensive Plan in that it was the intention of the City to address the needs of small businesses through the development of the Zoning Code, but the home occupation provisions that were adopted did not address the need for businesses with more than 3 employees and did not resolve this issue. b. The assumption (if the Plan was that the provision of adequate amounts of conventional commercial and industrial zoning would provide a sufficient number of sites for small businesses, whereas new information from the petitioners for this amendment states that properties suitable to their intended business can not be found in commercially and industrially zoned sites. c. The proposal reflects the community values of Port Townsend which welcome diversity of use in neighborhood v, and support increased opportunities for economic development. Conclusion: a. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Option B Modify the proposal to reduce the scale of impacts. The signage, hours of operation and right to conduct business out of doors could be limited as they are in the Arthur proposal, with the provision that the conditional use permit could alter these requirements on a case by case basis. The same findings as Option A would be adopted ~ Mr. Boles asked of this was primarily for spas in residential zones ~ Mr. Freeland: It would have the same list of uses as the Arthur proposal, plus spas. ~ Ms. Erickson: It had six employees. ~ Mr. Freeland: Yes. This is the one they proposed to aUow some departures -- could operate until midnight, could be out-of-doors; more signage; not required to live on premises. MOTION Mr. Boles Deny the FischerlDorn proposal for the reasons discussed, moving Finding c. of the Staff Report to Conclusions, and accepting the main Findings and Conclusions SECOND Ms. Erickson ~. · · · .~ '. Planning Commission M.inutes October 15, 1998 Page 35 Discussion: Mr. McMahan asked for the record, if you could clarify with "for the reasons discussed prior to the Speser and Arthur proposals." Mr. Boles and Ms. Erickson concurred. VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote AGRICULTURAL PROPOSAL Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposal with one change, which is to make u-pick sales a conditional rather than permitted use in the R-II zone. Staff is concerned that u-pick sales could impact neighborhoods with parking, which could be better controlled through a conditional use pennit process. Iî approved, the îollowing findings should be made: Findinf:s: a. Circumstances related to agricultural land U'ie have not changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. b. New information is now available that changes assumptions about the role of agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan in that: 1) The State allows agricultural lands to be assessed on a current use basis for agricultural lands that meet certain criteria including land use planning and zoning recognizing the agricultural U'ie, 2) It is the role of the County Assessors to interpret and apply the special assessment criteria, 3) Prior to the 1997 zoning, the County Assessor recognized the R-IA zoning district as satisfYing the land use planning criteria for agricultural use, 4) Since the R-IA zone was eliminated by the /997 zoning, it is now necessary to clarifY the role of agriculture in the R-l and R-Il land use designations. c. The continued practice of agriculture in Port Townsend reflects the values of the community. Conclusion: a. The proposed amendment is consistent wHh the Comprehensive Plan. Staff discussion: Staff discussed proposed changes with Jack Westerman, County Assessor, who has confirmed that the proposed changes would be viewed by his office as satisfYing the land use planning criteria for current value tax assessment. ~ Mr. Boles: Asked Mr. Freeland regarding the table. ~ Mr. Freeland: There is an error in the Table on Page 3; U-pick sales should be C in R-II; (Mf. Greenway wanted P). ~ Mr. Boles: Crop or tree farming with community supported agriculture sales -- Basically favors the concept and what it is intending to promote. Concerned that they should take a broader perspective of what they know exists and is working and is not in conflict with people even ~-", . . . .~ Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 36 though something might not develop. Is worried about the permitting outright in RI and RII zones for community agricultural sales, because there is a traffic impact. Even though they are basically subscribed purchased, there usually are excesses that are also available and people showing up at a certain time can buy those excesses. If they are going to do that kind of sale, would not want to preclude them from selling their excess stock, but there is no real limit on how much traffic they might generate. ~ Mr. Freeland: Maybe conditional in R-I and RII? Mr. Boles concurred. ~ Ms. Erickson: Couldn't imagine anything big enough to cause a traffic jam. Can't picture something big enough to be concerned about, in RI and RH. Guessed it is because they have schools that in both zones and they have never done anything special, except now they are widening the roads, but for 50 years they hadn't, and the traffic manages. Does not worry in a residential zone too much about anything disrupting for very long, where in a commercial zone you may have all-day things going on where you are vying for parking, and vying for on and off the main route. Doesn't have a concern. ~ Mr. Toews: For seasonal uses like U-pick, isn't there provision already for outdoor sales under temporary uses. What about the temporary use permit? ~ Mr. Freeland: A temporary use permit costs about $350. One of the problems we have throughout, right now we have one in town that feels they cannot afford a conditional use permit. We might, if we do make things conditional, expand the definition. One concern is that agriculturalists aren't coming forward for permits that are available because of the cost. ~ Mr. Worden: The major concern with these sales seems to be that parking might spill over onto other parts of the neighborhood. In this table by footnote, can we say sales are permitted provided parking is provided on-site. ~ Ms. Erickson: That is a big problem. We have strawberry patches, etc. If they have to provide off-street parking, 9 times out of 10 they are not going to have off-street parking. ~ Mr. Worden: I guess, these are desirable things to have happen; I do not think the disruption is serious or long term and therefore we ought to have something to support having the sales happen, and allowing them outright instead of conditional. ~ Mr. Boles: Are we agreed that U-Pick sales should be conditional? ~ Ms. Erickson: Mr. Greenway is way out there. Although it is Rll, most U-Pick farms have land to support their equipment and could have parking. ~ Ms. Thayer: She could easily have it permitted; doesn't see it as a big issue. ~ Mr. Worden: Agreed, and since there is not a big problem, thought they shouldn't regulate it. ~ Mr. Freeland: Maybe we should just permit it and say the parking needs to be on the street. That would limit it to properties that are big enough. ~ Mr. Boles: Thinks Mr. Worden changed the argument to just focus on parking; is also concerned if you have seen the pumpkin patches recently, there is a tremendous amount of coming and going -- does not accept the premise that it is just a parking issue and thinks it is a disturbance to residents. ~ Ms. Erickson: Can we put a notation in the applicable regulations or notes that parking shall be off street? " .'.¡ '" · · · ~. Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 1998 Page 37 ~ Mr. Worden: The table does not say that agricultural sales has to be on the site. ~ Mr. Boles: Community supported agricultural sales was defined. ~ Mr. Freeland: U-Pick obviously is on-site. And you made U-Pick permitted in both? CONSENSUS: Amend U-pick "P" in both RI and RH. MOTION Ms. Erickson Approve Agriculture proposal as corrected, moving Finding c. of the Staff Report to ConcIusions, and accepting the Findings and ConcIusions SECOND VOTE Mr. Worden Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote V. NEW BUSINESS -- There was none. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 22. 1998 PUD #1 Comp Plan Amendment, Public Hearing (Pope Marine Park Building) Joint City CounciJ/Planning Commission Workshop Parks & Recreation Functional Plan, Public Hearing Rosewind PUDA Amendment #5 (not a hearing) October 26. 1998 October 29. 1998 November 12. 1998 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Worden. AU were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m. ~._-, ~,.~ /í . .............,.. f .. .. ,/ ,I" ..' Sheila Avis, Minute Taker "Y U-\\i'>J \ ~,~\ L-ot'-l\fv\ ~'^b't'): 00 CCi\1:'RE..HË~:VE.~UJ~ ~W~~DMé~G U· e· st L, Z·S· ·t Oc:\d~£-O- \c. l/c;¡c(ß .~ me (please Print) Address / !-" r..... ....... c.," OOt'""'IOI....:' t1&~ ~AA / v J~Þ'\. ~\A('-rïk/Æ'\l d II f).';'.. I ~ I An",. )u J-d" " J7'-11t'".,. T 'W:9 c..c.AJV ~ ¥r rg~ ~ M~./ t '1?-.f) ~ <~,\,'-, I ~ 1 JJ tA I ÅA J t C1K.. 4 3 "hJ ~ '" .LJ ~ Á ) . I >. "-0,,. 6rt~ AcJJ",o ci\ ~1 lJ 'h iJ. ~~ ~ 4/1 t; -n;~,,¿-, g~_~ /IA I ~ /¿) ..l/ ~ -- L _;' [7 , d-t37 wQ.......·-.~.¡t'?"'" 1/'11 ~¿~ ~ff:IÇ()Ù ~q¡..¡::.-«- '-V4- "I~/,j1 3" ~~ \ \.'L. do- h.-<.' N6 ~ \e~1.. ~ "'\ ß.)..:::t oS ~4Ç(, (p PrLtù H,/ .. I . -. .f - . ¡a- --- 'f "..<:'..'--,-; " Do you wish to If yes, indicate testify?(Mark box) topic Yes No v- ~ ...-- v ~ - ~ ~ 1/' R,'+<- A,'d 2'~~, ¡(( ^ k !4."GÁ itts A~ ~ ~. fr~ tho {¿Q'7~ ø~-t:~ - ..