Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10081998 Min Ag ... . . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Amended) Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting October 8, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER: Larry Harbison III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 17, 1998, and September 24, 1998 (Distributed 10/1198» IV. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail V. OLD BUSINESS A. Robert C. Harper, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-07) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony B. Roger Evans, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-16) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony C. Jefferson County PUD #1, Open Record Public Hearing (CANCELED) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-30) D. Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony E. City of Port Townsend, Open Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments (LUP98~37) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony þ . Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 1998 Page Two F. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Robert C. Harper (LUP98-07) Roger Evans (LUP98-16) Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group (LUP98-31) City of Port Townsend (LUP98-37) 1. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 15, 1998 October 22, 1998 Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC PUD #1 Compo Plan Amendment, Public Hearing (Pope Marine Park Building) J oint City CouncillPlanning 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 . VIII. ADJOURN . . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting October 8, 1998 I. ROLL CALL - . II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES , III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Robert C. Harper, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-07) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Roge,r Evan, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-16) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions C. Jefferson County PUD #1, Open Record Public Hearing (CANCELED) Com~rehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-30) D. Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions E. City of Port Townsend, Open Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments (LUP98-37) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission DIscussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS - -~~,-- ·. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 15 1998 October 22, 1998 October 29 1998 November 12 1998 VII. ADJOURN Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC PUD #1 Compo Plan Amendment, Public Hearing (Pope Marine Park Building) Parks & Recreation Functional Plan, Public Hearing Rosewind PUDA Amen~ment #5 (not a hearing) ,.. . ~ · · · r" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting October 8, 1998 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, Lois Sherwood, John Boles, Craig Johnson, and Larry Harbison. Nik Worden arrived at 7:05 p.m. Bruce Freeland was the staff member present. Chair Thayer introduced new Planning Commissioner Larry Harbison and indicated that since he is new to the proceedings his participation this evening will be limited. n. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 17. 1998 MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Boles Approve the minutes of September 17, 1998 as written Mr. Johnson Passed with 6 in favor by voice vote Minutes of September 24. 2998 MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Erickson Approve the minutes of September 24, 1998 as written Ms. Sherwood Passed with 6 in favor by voice vote Ill. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail ~ Duplicate packets ~ Mr. John Koschnick, Jefferson Transit, two letters dated September 30, 1998: 1) SEPA Checklist Case No. LUP98-16; 2) SEPA Checklist, Case No. LUP98-31 ~ Mr. Harry Holloway Ill, Attorney at Law representing Mr. and Mrs. Kircher, letter dated October 1, 1998 regarding LUP98-31 Rite Aid .. Ms. Nancy Dorgan two letters regarding LUP98-31 Rite Aid dated: September 29, 1998, and October 5, 1998 .. Mr. Jim Farmer, Chair Port Townsend Parks and Recreation Commission, letter dated October 1, 1998 regarding LUP98-30 PUD Request for Rezone at Kah Tai ~ Letter dated September 30, 1998 signed by 10 property owners regarding LUP98-31 Rite Aid ~ Messrs. David Fischer & Malcolm Dorn dated September 20, 1998, regarding their request COPJED TO PCOIIII BY ss DATE lo/¡:r/9% Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 2 for Comprehensive Plan change included in LUP98-37 IV. OLD BUSINESS Chair Thayer explained that Comprehensive Plan Amendment LUP98-30 Jefferson County PUD #1 has been delayed for hearing to October 22, 1998 at the Pope Marine Park Building. She pointed out the frrstthree hearings tonight are quasi-judicial,. that each will be opened for the staff report and a public hearing and then closed. At the conclusion of the quasi- judicial hearings the meeting will be opened for one public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan policy amendments, followed by commission discussion and deliberations. Ms. Thayer noted the possible need to continue the meeting October 15, 1998. She noted this is the only opportunity for public testimony and encouraged anyone wishing to speak to do so. She stated they were glad to have everyone present, because they welcomed the pubic input, that she would try to limit each public testimony to 5 minutes, due to the long session scheduled. Ms. Thayer asked if there was need for any Planning Commissioner to be recused. She noted her office's business involvement in listing the latle stand for the sale, but that they are not her client and she felt she could make a good decision on this application. She asked if there were any objections to her participation; none were raised. · Mr. Freeland cited the general criteria in the Zoning Code which must be met in recommending amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as it applies to individual sites, and stated that the first three hearings are all to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map for specific properties. Findings that must ap"ply to all: ~ Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; ~ Whether the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and ~ Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. In addition to the eeneral criteria. there are others that apply only to the first three hearings: ~ Whether the proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation, sewer and water, or does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services, such as police, fire and emergency medical services, park services, and general government services; · · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Page 3 ~ Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with goals, policies and objectives of the various elements ofthe Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan; ~ Whether the proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts on the city's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities;. ~ Whether the proposed amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; ~ Whether the proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term interests of the community in general; ~ Whether the proposed amendment does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, basis of the comprehensive plan; ~ Whether the proposed amendment materially affects adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city; ~ Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA, the adopted county-wide planning policy of Jefferson County, and other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other state or local laws. A. ROBERT C. HARPER, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-07) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 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- II (General Commercial) should be approved with findings and conclusions. Noted with the Findin2s of Facts: ~ Finding 2 MDNS became final on October 1, 1998, and was not appealed. ~ Finding 3 Was waived, under provisions that allow the waiver in the municipal code, because each of the environmentally sensitive conditions could be fairly easily and routinely handled at the individual building level of consideration Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 4 and did not challenge the question about suitability of land use at a comprehensive plan level. The answer to these questions lies at a project level. Staff understanding is that gas stations were permitted at that time. Since adoption of the comprehensive plan, the latte stand has been added and is non-conforming but would conform to the CII zone. Shortage on commercial acres, overage on industrial acres, according to the Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Noted with the conclusions: ~ Conclusion 2 Logically, it is unlikely that it will change. It is the only property that is orientated toward Sims Way. ~ Finding 5 ~ Finding 6 ~ Finding 10 Chair Thayer asked for Planning Commission questions of staff. There being none, at 7:23 p.m. Ms. Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony of the Robert C. Harper, Open- Record Public Hearing. 2. Public Testimony · Mr. Keith Harper, on behalf of Bob Harper Swore and affmned that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Harper said, for the record, he wanted to be sure the Environmental Checklist, the application they submitted towards the City's Environmental Checklist that covered this and the other applications he read through, and proposed findings and conclusions Mr. Freeland and the staff prepared are incorporated. Mr. Harper said it was his understanding that the Commission had already received his letter of June 30, 1998 to Mr. Freeland that they set forth in some detail why they are seeking this application and why they felt it should be granted. Highlights cited in Mr. Harper's June 30th letter: ~ The property was zoned in the 60's as a manufacturing area along with most of the property along Sims Way; that designation continued for a number of years under old zoning, even though the property has never been used for anything like that. From the very first when that property was developed in the 60's, a gasoline service station was constructed on it, and since then it has been used for those kinds of uses and related uses, as well as office space, etc., up to what is in use there now. It has never been used for any kind of marine related industry at all and has never been owned by the Port of Port Townsend and never been associated with · · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Page 5 any ofthe Port's activity. ~ When the City undertook the GMA process, Bob Harper was on the Transportation Committee that was involved in that planning process, and to a certain degree was trying to keep track of what was going on with the property there, and that there were some other people involved, particularly in the land use; after the zoning and planning were done Bob Harper assumed the property was zoned CII, the same as all other commercial property along Sims Way. They inadvertently found out some time later that wasn't the case. ~ The use of the property back in the late 1960's was for a gasoline station and has never been used for any marine related industries. The property is both legally and physically severed from the Port property and any other marine activity. There is a street between the station property and the property where the Skookum building is on the south. On the west there is a chain link fence, along the tree line along Sims Way that provides some demarcation between marine property and this commercial property. Because of its location on Sims Way and Benedict Street, it is ideal for commercial use. Much of the property on the south side of side Sims Way, the nursery, the Chamber of Commerce, under the old zoning code was also manufacturing at one point or another. With the new zoning and comprehensive planning, all of that has been designated CII. This is the one piece out of the whole area that had never been marine related and for almost 30 year was not designated commercial. He agreed with Mr. Freeland, the property would have been more suitably designated as CII. ~ Cited the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning ordinance, the Gateway Plan, and suggested the change is compatible with all those, that there is nothing in all those plans that would suggest that this application should not be granted. ~ Looking at the various purposes and various uses that are allowed, the desire not to create non-conforming uses, the desire to zone property somewhat compatible with the way it has been historically used, and things cited from the zoning ordinance, support this change. As pointed out by Mr. Freeland, if at some point development ever changes, at that time the City would have the opportunity to deal with a new environmental checklist. At this point it is entirely appropriate the property should be rezoned and the Comprehensive Plan designated as CII. Mr. Harper thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to address these issues and also stated his pleasure in dealing with Mr. Freeland and his office. Mr. Lloyd Cahoon, Port of Port Townsend Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 6 Mr. Cahoon spoke in support of the Harper application. He pointed out that the Port probably should have been more cognizant of this during the Comp Plan. He said that Mr. Freeland mentioned the local service, and Mr. Cahoon pointed out that Jefferson Street behind the Harper property has subsequently been improved which increases compliance. · Questions of the applicant from the public addressed to the Chair: Q Mr. Jim Ramey said when Mr. Harper stated that when the zoning was changed, the Harpers were unaware of it, and that both Keith and Bob Harper are very active in the community. Mr. Ramey said when he said the same thing, he was challenged by everybody on the committee as to all the advertising that was done, and everybody should know it. Mr. Ramey said we have one of the community leaders and his father who did not know it. A Mr. Keith Harper said he was flattered to be called a community leader; he does not consider himself such. He said he is not an active participant in that business and he does not own that property. He is just like any other citizen who actively follows what is going on with City Council, etc. in the GMA process, but he did not have a specific interest personally in trying to see what properties were all zoned, or that every property of a relative of his was zoned appropriately. He and Bob Harper communicated with the City last year. He said there were some citizens who actively came to the meetings and asked that the initial designations of some of that property that was supposed to be MIl, actually marine related, be changed, and were changed to ClI. He said that Bob Harper had understood that his property was within that same area that these other citizens were addressing, but he did not participate personally in that hearing process. He assumed his property, along with that on Washington Street where the motels are, was all going to be changed from MIlA to CII, but it turned out the other property was changed, but his was not. Mr. Harper also explained that Bob Harper is going to be 70 years old, has been retired for several years, and is busy with many other things besides the service station business. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Held for continued meeting of October 15, 1998 At 7:35 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the Robert Harper hearing and opened the Robert Evans public hearing. B. ROGER EVANS, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-16) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) · · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Page 7 This property is located at Sims Way and Howard Street. Mr. Freeland said presently, Howard Street is only on the north side of the road, but the right-of-way extends through and eventually there will be a four-comer intersection. The Hilltop Tavern and a vacant lot next to North Sound Bank are at the site; across on the other side of Sims Way is a complex with Lincare, Peninsula Flooring, etc., and a vacant comer. Mr. Evans is proposing a change of zoning from MC (Mixed Commercial/Light Manufacturing) and from P/OS (existing Park/Open Space) to CII (General Commercial) for the 4-acre site. Mr. Freeland explained that the P/OS area is the land immediately adjacent to Sims Way; 100 feet of that land back from Sims Way currently belongs to the City of Port Townsend with the designation ofP/OS. He said that separate from this application, there is an agreement between the City and Roger Evans to trade that 100 foot depth back from Sims Way for about 300 feet west of the intersection of where Howard Street would be if it were built, exchanging that area that fronts on Sims Way for other property Mr. Evans owns. The other property is 300 feet west of the intersection where Howard Street would be. He explained that from that point on for quite a distance, that land also has a 100 foot deep strip that belongs to the City. The proposal is to double the depth of that strip to 200 feet, so that the City's forested buffer along Sims Way would be a little bit shorter, and would not include the land nearest Howard Street, but for many hundred feet beyond that would be 200 feet deep, instead of 100 feet. Mr. Freeland said this proposal is not before the Planning Commission tonight, but that this is an explanation of how if affects the P /OS land belonging to the City. He said beyond the 100 foot depth, the land currently all belongs to Mr. Evans and is designated MC. Mr. Freeland said in addition to the proposed change to the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, there is another problem in the Comprehensive Plan this application brought to light. The Comprehensive Plan has a symbol on the Land Use Map that indicates where a forested buffer on both sides of Sims Way ought to be. He said it is his understanding and belief that the area that was to be designated as a forested buffer was the most definitive line in the Gateway Plan which was adopted in 1993. He said the Gateway Plan shows the forested buffer starting at the edge of the Hilltop Tavern, not Howard Street; extending that line across the street from the Evans property would be the same line that defines the edge of the property proposed for rezoning. Mr. Freeland said staff feels it is important to change the Comprehensive Plan to reflect that the Gateway Plan shows the forested buffer was intended to start about 300 feet west of Howard Street, lined up with the western edge of the Hilltop Tavern side. Two changes would be required: ~ Land Use Element Policy 8.11, which described in words the forested buffer all the way to Howard Street. Staff feels that description shows the buffer to be 300 feet longer than the Gateway Plan intended it to be. ~ Land Use Map, the overlay moved 300 feet to the west. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 8 A. Amendment to Land Use Policy 8.11 Mr. Freeland said there are two issues: ~ Whether you agree that Land Use Policy 8.11 and the Land Use Map designation should be changed to be consistent with the Gateway Plan. ~ If you should disagree with the rest of the rezoning of the site, staff recommends approval of the change in the forested buffer, that it was in fact an error and should be aligned with the Gateway Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following findings: · Noted with the Findin&s of Facts: 1. Circumstances have not changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. There is a discrepancy between 1) the land described as the open space buffer in Policy 8.11 and also shown on the Land Use Map as open space buffer and 2) the area included in the Gateway Plan as the buffer. The Gateway Plan indicates that the buffer stops at the western property line of the Hilltop Tavern, which line is approximately 300 feet west of Howard Street. Noted with the Conclusions: ~ Land Use Element Policy 8.11 (for policy changes, only the first three general tests apply: 1) was there a specific change, 2) was there an error or new information, 3) is it consistent with community values) and the Land Use Map both erred in designating an open space buffer larger than that shown in the Gateway Plan. ~ Amendment of Policy 8.11 and the Land Use Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and reflects the values of the community. Staff proposes if you should disagree with the rest of the rezoning of the site, you approve the change in the forested buffer; they feel it was an error and should be aligned with the Gateway Plan. B. Amendment to the Land Use Map & Official Zonin& Map Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the amendments with the following findings and conclusion. · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 9 Noted wi~h the Findin&S of Facts: · Would be compatible with surrounding uses; would make all four comers on Sims Way and Howard Street the same way; · No unmitigable impacts have been identified; Declaration of Non-Significance became final October 1, 1998 and has not been appealed; · Circumstances have changed; · City services can be extended; traffic signal would mitigate at the time of new development; · Environmental impacts would be mitigated; · Care would be required to enter the wetland buffer at the Howard Street right-of-way, but it seems feasible to accomplish. Noted with the Conclusions: If you agree with the Findings of Fact, Staff feels you could recommend approval. · Plannin~ Commission Ouestions of Staff: Q Ms. Erickson asked Mr. Freeland to clarify the location on the map. A Mr. Freeland pointed out on the map that it is at the comer of Sims Way and Howard Street, that the subject property would run from that comer for 300 feet and line up with the western edge of the Hilltop Tavern across the street, head south of Sims Way and return. to Howard Street. The City owns the area labeled "Remove overlay indicating open space buffer on Land Use Map"on the exhibit in the Staff report and corresponds to an area that is colored green on the Land Use Map indicating P/OS designation. That is the land the City currently owns and would give to Mr. Evans. The land the City would pick up from Mr. Evans is from a point 300 feet west of Howard Street extending further west to the far end of what is currently shown in green on the map. Mr. Freeland further responded and said, "Commissioner Erickson is transcribing on her Land Use Map the very same information that is shown in your packet called Area of Land Exchange Between The City and Mr. Evans." He pointed out the land they were giving up and the land they were gaining, making the total buffer 200 feet deep in that area of the map. Q Mr. Worden asked Mr. Freeland, for the record, to explain the status of the real estate exchange agreement; is this agreement final once the rezone is allowed? A Mr. Freeland replied that a condition of the property exchange is that this rezone has to take place in order for that property exchange to go through. He said, however, it was explicitly stated in that agreement that nothing in that agreement would in any way lead you to the conclusion that you have to make this change; in other words, you are being asked whether you feel this is the right thing to do from a comprehensive plan point of view. He continued that if is concluded that it is, this land exchange will proceed, but your arm is not being twisted to make that happen. He again replied to Mr. Worden that it is correct that the · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 10 exchange will not take place if the rezone is not granted. Q Ms. Erickson asked the reason why they should care to increase the buffer another 100 feet. A Mr. Freeland replied it is a property exchange that gets the City a larger buffer~ 100 feet as green belt buffers go is an ample area, but if you think about the winds we have, the thicker stand of trees you have the longer it is likely to stand, the skinnier the row of trees is the more likely it is to be damaged and lost over time. He said it was the Staff feeling that there is definite benefit in having a larger area where we can over time encourage vegetation to grow. It is also Staff belief that the area that was intended to be the buffer is the one described in the Gateway Plan, and that they wouldn't be losing buffer. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony only. 2. Public Testimony Mr. Roger Evans, applicant Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. · Mr. Evans said while driving through town on the way in tonight his son-in-law from Colorado, which is noted for its scenery, looked around and said he had never seen a prettier setting for a town. Mr. Evans said he thinks this is a real compliment to our city. He indicated he gets a lot of flack from his kids every time they cut a tree on their place, so they have been extra careful to try to work within the environmental plans and desire of the City. He said they have donated land to the Larry Scott Memorial Trail (LSMT), donated lands to the forest corridor, they have worked within the Gateway Plan to make sure all the rules there were observed. They want to help the city become the most beautiful city~ they are all proud as can be. He noted they own property just out of town and are trying to work with the LSMT to get hikers and bikers through there, and are anxious to see that completed. Mr. Evans said the Bruce Freeland has given them very good help and ~dvice as to what they should be doing, and he has appreciated working with Mr. Freeland.. Mr. David Graves, Madrona Planning, assisted in preparation of the application Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 11 Mr. Graves said they agree with and support Staff recommendations. He asked for permission to answer any technical questions that might arise. Mr. Dana Roberts Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Roberts commented there is another reason to welcome what sounds like a pretty generous offer. With the impending blight that has taken out a lot of madronas, the density is already showing some gaps, you have a greater chance over a greater depth that you will get some infill by some young surviving trees and by anything else that happens to take root. He alleged that carrying out this rezone will allow that to happen. Questions of the a~plicant from the public addressed to the Chair: Mr. Jim Ramey Mr. Ramey questioned the name of the person filling out the application. Mr. David Graves repeated his name saying he was with Madrona Planning Services. · 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Held for continued meeting of October 15, 1998 At 7:59 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the Roger Evans hearing. C. JEFFERSON COUNTY PUD #1, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-30) CANCELED Chair Thayer noted the Jefferson County PUD # 1 hearing has been canceled. Mr. Freeland announced the hearing is rescheduled for October 22, 1998, 7:00 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building. D. DEBORAH HART for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31) · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 12 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland noted letters received by the deadline of October 1, 1998 stating they are appealing the SEP A Threshold Determination for the Rite Aid development. He explained they did issue a Threshold Determination of Declaration of Non-Significance for this site; the end of the appeal period was October 1st. The two letters came from Nancy Dorgan and Harry Holloway III, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kircher, but neither had filed a formal appeal nor paid the $200 appeal fee. Mr. Freeland pointed out the dilemma and said there are two ways they can proceed: . As Staff, they can accept these as comments. Mr. Freeland can go back and look in the environmental assessment, and if he can conclude that it is deficient in some way, he can still amend it. Ms. Dorgan replied to Mr. Freeland that was the spirit of her letter rather than make a formal appeal. . Mr. Freeland asked Mr. Holloway if it were his intention to formally proceed with an appeal, or to record the areas he thinks they ought to reconsider. Mr. Holloway replied their intent was to start an appeal on the issues raised in his letter. Mr. Holloway said he had talked with Mr. and Mrs. Kircher directly this evening; they advised him they want pursue those issues. · Mr. Freeland stated he would have to check with the City Attorney and make a determination as to whether they can still accept a formal application after the date. He said since their intention was stated by the deadline, for now they will go on the assumption it is a live appeal for the purposes of where they are. Mr. Freeland said under their procedures for an appeal of a SEP A determination that had to do with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, there is some confusion in our Code he does not feel prepared to resolve now. He described it: · Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code, there is a provision for appeal of Staff determinations of all sorts. and said they can be appealed to the Hearings Examiner. · Chapter 19, the environmental chapter which includes the SEPA procedures, it says appeals can be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Freeland said the City Attorney has been out of town this week, so he has not been able to consult with him as to the proper process. Area of some potential confusion: Comprehensive Plan chan~es are typically are considered to be legislative, Type V applications; however rezones that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are Type III applications. There is a big difference in the process between those two: · ~ Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 13 ~ Type III application has only one hearing, a hearing before the Planning Commission; ~ Type V application has two hearings, one also before the City Council. Mr. Freeland said when you have an appeal of a SEP A determination, that appeal is to be combined with the public hearing so the applicant is not put through multiple public hearing opportunities. He said as a minimum, if they have an appeal, they need to combine that appeal with the hearing, and thought it would be a Planning Commission hearing. Since they do not have a formal appeal, he does not think they will1?e ready to hear that and he posed two choices: ~ Continue the whole matter to another date and allow a chance for the appeal to be perfected, giving a chance to state the background for the appeal so that is clear in the whole process; putting the hearing off for another day. ~ Open the hearing tonight but continue it, not close it tonight, so people coming for the purpose of talking about this application tonight would be able to make their testimony as to the Comprehensive Plan. The appellants on the SEP A would have time to prepare their testimony on a SEP A appeal. · Mr. Freeland said he thought if they were to open the hearing he feels they should have the approval of the Baldridge Group people to do that process, as well as the appellants. Mr. Boles asked Mr. Freeland to comment on the time of the process for either the appeal and the possibility of resolving this through a continuation to the meeting of October 22. Mr. Freeland suggested continuing the hearing to October 22nd. He said if it goes to a Hearings Examiner, it would not work, but he thinks since they are to have a single hearing, he believes the Comprehensive Plan hearing process would take precedence over any other process and would put the Planning Commission in the driver's seat. He said his belief is they could continue this to October 22nd, but that he thinks they will need to have the formal appeal done within the next couple of days in order to proceed. Mr. Holloway indicated he would be out of town October 22nd. Mr. Freeland pointed out the city code requirement to complete this process through the City Council by the second meeting in November. Mr. Freeland said that requires a City Council hearing November 2nd; the only possible dates to do that with the Planning Commission are October 15th or 22nd to make that time table. Mr. Freeland indicated ifthe hearing is continued, they can meet the requirements of public notice, and if the City Attorney finds a procedural problem. MOTION Ms. Erickson Postpone the DEBORAH HART for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31) to a continued hearing on October 15,1998 in City Hall SECOND Mr. Worden · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 14 · · VOTE Unanimous 6, in favor Chair Thayer explained the hearing would be continued to October 15th unless the City Attorney advised otherwise. She apologized to all who had come to testify for this amendment. At 8: 10 p.m. Chair Thayer declared the hearing recessed and at 8: 15 reconvened the meeting to continue the public hearing of amendments to the City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments (LUP98-37). She noted they are all legislative proposals. E. City of Port Townsend, Open-Record Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments (LUP98-37) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland explained that with all they are about to consider, only the first three general criteria have to be addressed in Findings and Conclusions: ~ Has there been a change in circumstance; ~ Was there an error or is there new information that wasn't considered when the Plan was originally adopted; ~ Does it meet community values. He said to the extent some of these also change the Zoning Code, you have to find that they are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Freeland said that there are several sets of ideas. He then enumerated the topics. Land Use Element ~ A proposal to change the building heights in M-II(A) zones from 35' to 50' ~ Clarify the Land Use Element Policy 9.9 - Clarification that some property belonging to the Port ofPott Townsend is subject to Shorelines (really only applies to the areas within Shorelines jurisdiction). The meaning was not intended as it is written. Transportation Element ~ Three policy changes all having to do with the State Ferry System and public transit service to the State Ferry System, calling for better connections to the ferry at Kingston; direct passenger service; eventually having a full service between Seattle and Port Townsend for car and passenger ferry. ~ Acknowledging that the Port has a role in transportation planning, in facilities provision, and Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 15 also acknowledging the role of Jefferson Transit. ~ Proposal to amend by changing reference to the street utility. Street utility looked like a promising source of funding at the time the Comprehensive Plan was written, later events in the courts have diminished it. Reference has been changed from a "go do" policy to a "look at" policy. Capital Facilities Element ~ One proposed change -- to add language that addressed the potential listing of species under the Endangered Species Act. Economic Development Element ~ A policy that would encourage a Northwest Maritime Center to be established in Port Townsend. · · Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of all of the proposals in this group of policy changes not requiring change to the Zoning Code. Mr. Freeland said the next group had consideration of the Comprehensive Plan but also the Zoning Code. He said they concluded for several it wasn't the Plan that needed to be changed but the Zoning Code; therefore some do not speak to changing the Plan but to the zonmg: ~ Amend the CIIIMU zone. Proposed Option A and Option B; both broaden uses allowed on the Use Table and have recognized those classes of land use that were made non-conforming by the change from CII to CIIIMU zones; e.g., the bowling alley is suggested to be a permitted use whereas now it is a prohibited use in the CIIIMU zone. They also included a series of expanded uses for things that are currently allowed in the CIIIMU zone, but in his opinion could be compatible with a setting that has homes in it; e.g. adding education and music studios, office supplies and equipment, other food services, i.e., coffee shops, espresso bars, catering establishments, massage clinic or center, small appliance repair, bowling alleys, neighborhood convenience grocery store, and art galleries. He said they are the same in the two options. Where the two options differ: Option A addresses the question should housing be a required use in the zone -- no it should not be required, it should just be permitted; makes adjustments to some of the bulk and dimension requirements in Table 17.18.030 which address building height, minimum building frontage along a public right-of-way; minimum ground floor non-residential space is eliminated; maximum floor area ratio is changed from 3 square feet of building every one square foot of site, to a provision that enables you to get up to 3 square feet of building per one square foot of site, but limits the commercial size of the building to only one square foot of building for each one square foot of site. In order to get to the 3 to 1 ratio, two-thirds of Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 16 that building would have to be in residential use under this proposal. Option B differs in that it attempts to create a greater incentive to have housing. (Housing is not required.) The incentive works with the Bulk and Dimension Table 17.18.030. The amount of building that could be created, that was all for non-residential uses, would be pretty severely limited. You could only have .2 square feet of building for non-residential use per one square foot of block area. Above that, you can get a bonus of one additiomJ1 square foot of non-residential use for each square foot of residential use that you add to a project. At the upper end, the building is capped at an overall size of a 3 to 1 ratio of square foot of building to one square foot of lot. The Commission flagged the question about maximum overall amount of commercial floor space in the structure; it is currently capped at 60,000 square feet. 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 the two, staff s 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 findings would be valid for a change to the Zoning Code: · Mr. Freeland explained the Staff Recommendation, that either option could be approved and they could support either one. He went on to say that on consideration, Option B, which has the greater incentive for housing, is more in the spirit of the mixed use discussion that is in the Comprehensive Plan. If you look back to the introduction of the Comprehensive Plan, it talks about several big ideas that shaped the Plan and among four major concepts was the mixed use. He said the benefits of mixed use are really felt when housing is there, as far as the mix. He said he concluded that Option B has the greater incentive and is more in the spirit of the Plan, but he could support either one. Mr. Freeland read the finding and said between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning there was a change from "accommodate" to "require." The Conclusion: that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that is the only required conclusion for the change that he could find in the municipal code. Q Mr. Worden told Mr. Freeland that he missed his statement regarding Option A, and asked for the criteria for how much housing you have to have to qualify for 3.1. A Mr. Freeland replied that it is not specified. Option A, Bulk and Dimension Table 17.18.030, Maximum Floor Area Ratio, lower right hand comer -- "3 sf of gross floor area per 1 sf of lot for projects including housing uses, provided that no more than 1 sf of lot shall · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 17 be devoted to non-residential use." It is saying that if you get to 3 to 1, 2 of that 3 is going to be housing, but you are not required to have any housing. You can have the same commercial whether or not you have housing, you just can't get more than a 1 to 1 floor area ratio. Chair Thayer asked if all of the proponents were notified, and stated she was surprised at the lack of public testimony. Mr. Freeland, said that he was also surprised, that they were all notified, but he said he would double check. He said they had been using the same mailing list for each of the meetings, which includes everybody who made an application. Ms. Thayer mentioned that Mrs. Short wanted to be notified. Mr. Freeland said he had an agreement with her daughter to mail the full staff report to Ruth Short in care of Penny D' Amico. He said he had a personal conversation with Ms. Ð' Amico. SPESER PROPOSAL · Mr. Freeland the proposal was to change the residential use requirements of the Zoning Code to allow small high technology businesses with 12 or fewer workers to be located in any residential zone. He said they thought this proposal did require amendment of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Comprehensive Plan amendment: ~ Land Use Policy 7.14 "Preventing the encroachment of commercial uses into residential zones, except for," and this would be a new exception, d. Small, high-technology businesses with twelve or fewer workers. Zoning Code changes as listed. Mr. Freeland said they drafted an amendment that reflects what they understand from correspondence to be Dr. Speser's proposal. He said he had not had any communication with him as to whether this is what he intended since the last letter they received. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this proposal with findings. . . 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 staffunderstood to be the proponent's request. However, without a permit, it would be impossible for staff to · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 18 enforce the provisions of the ordinance. ARTHUR PROPOSAL Mr. Freeland said the Arthur Proposal is quite different from the Speser Proposal in that introducing businesses generally into residential districts, it proposes the limited geographic area where a broader range of businesses could be approved with conditional use permits. He said the proposal was to change the Rill districts that are uptown. The way to accomplish this was to create a new RIll overlay zone, RIlI(U) zone for Uptown. This also requires amendment to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: · Create a new Rill overlay zone, Rill(U) zone for Uptown · Land Use Element description of all the different categories used · References to a new RIlI(U) Land Use category Amendment to the Land Use Ma,p: · Differentiate Rill(U) area on the map from other Rill areas Amend the Zooin~ Map Amend the Zonin~ Code Text · Recommendation: Staff recommends that the request be denied with findings. . . FISCBERlDORN PROPOSAL Mr. Freeland discussed the required changes. AmendIp.ent t() the Comprehensive Plan: · Land Use Policy 7.14 -- add, "A limited amount of small scale businesses. . ." AJn~nd th(( Zonin~ Code: · New definitions for "Day Spa" and "High Technology" Mr. Freeland said in a letter received last week from Fischer and Dorn they indicated they somewhat changed the direction from pointing toward a performance standard basis rather than individual uses. In his recent meeting with David Fischer he learned they have concluded that maybe it was safer from their point of view to go with a list of uses, rather than the performance standard approach. He noted the set of specific limitations on use within the Zoning Code that are proposed and the ability for the businesses to operate up until midnight. They did not require someone to · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 19 live at the residence. Mr. Freeland indicated he felt the potential impact was pretty great, especially going to midnight. · · Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed amendment be denied, with the findings: Mr. Freeland noted Alternative Findings and Options A and alternative Option B. He explained Option B, that if Commission finds merit with the basic idea but are uncomfortable with the extreme conditions like midnight and being able to do business outdoors, they could put those requirements back in, but have a provision that would say through the conditional use permit, the basic provisions would be altered, which would at least give some site-by-site provision. He said that language would have to be drafted. ///////1///// AGRICULTURAL PROPOSAL Mr. Freeland reminded that the concern was to make sure the Plan and the zoning provided for and explicitly recognized agriculture as a viable use in the community. Mr. Freeland discussed the required changes: Limited use of agriculture be permitted in the RII zone; now they are all conditional. (Agriculture is allowed outright in the RI zone.) Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: Þ' Addition to descriptions ofRI and RII to the Land Use Designations within the Land Use Element that specifically recognizes agriculture. Amend the Zoning Code: Þ' Include definition of "Community supported agriculture" (Differentiating between a subscription type of purchase from anybody that drives in to purchase.) Þ' Land Use Table 17.16.020 applying mostly to the RII District. (Corrected U-pick sales of crops under Agricultural Uses in the RII zone from r. to ç. His reasoning for conditional-- U-pick agriculture involves a lot of cars -- to make sure there is an off-street area suitable for those cars to park so they wouldn't have impact on the neighborhood.) (Concession stands, agriculture or produce -- suggested in RII they might want to consider the option of still having as conditional on other streets, but felt they did not belong on minor neighborhood streets; now you can have one anywhere through a conditional use permit; recommended they only be allowed on the more major streets making them permitted, not conditional.) 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-ll zone. Staff is concerned that u-pick sale could impact neighborhoods with Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 20 · · parking, which could be better controlled through a conditional use permit process. If approved, the findings should be made: Mr. Freeland said the change is that the ability to get special taxation was damaged without our understanding we were doing that. He said he discussed by telephone with Mr. Jack Westerman, County Tax Assessor, reading what was being proposed and asking ifhe would recognize agriculture in the RIT zone as proposed as still qualifying for the land use approvals for the special valuation taxation. Mr. Westerman assured Mr. Freeland they would be recognized, and he said he believes this would satisfy them. Q Mr. Boles asked the rationale regarding the Use Table, why a conditional use was proposed in RIT but not RI, for U-pick sales. He said his question extends to the whole issue of the community supported agriculture sales and U-pick. He noted Mr. Freeland expressed a concern about enforcement, and he said he had difficulty seeing why those were permitted uses in some instances in both RI and RIT. He restated it that he does not see a distinction for the logic of the Use Table between community supported agriculture sales and U-pick sales, and said he would like a clarification and his rationale for the selective application of conditional use sales in RIT. A Mr. Freeland replied that his understanding of community supported agriculture is that basically a market basket of goods that is made up according to what crops are in that particular week, and that people come and have basically contracted for a certain volume of that. Some people might come for a small box, some for a large box, but basically arrive at the farm and pick up a box and put it in their car. He said in his mind that differs from the U-pick where people come, park and get out of their car, spend an hour or two on the property and are people that live there or on a customary basis, and their cars would be there for a longer duration. He said his presumption was that it would have a much lower impact, because of nature of how those goods are already packaged would be picked up. There is no questions they would have more traffic. He said the distinction he had with U-pick sales was that RI tends to be a more outlying area, larger lots, more likely there is more room on the lot, fewer houses on the block to be impacted by the cars coming, whereas in the RIT with 5,000 sq ft lots, he thought if very unlikely that you could have U-pick sales and park enough cars to be successfl,J1. He said he is not sure that logic is real sound, but given the greater density, the potential neighbor impact was higher. He said he also wouldn't think: that it would be perfectly reasonable to make them both conditional use. 2. Public Testimony Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 21 i At 9:05 p.m. Chair Thayer opened public hearing on the following: MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH DO NOT UEQUIRE AMENDl\fENTS TO THE ZONING CODE OR OFFICIAL ZONING MAP Mr. Lloyd Cahoon, Port oîPort Townsend Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. · Mr. Cahoon spoke in support of Staff recommendations and thanked Mr. Freeland for his good job. He commented on changes: ~ Height limitation. Thinks it is important, and saíd they hope soon to be coming with a 70' request, but one step at a time. ~ Shoreline Master Program. Thinks it is just a technical correction. ~ State & Private Ferry Needs. Keeps us in better stead with transportation needs, both current and future. ~ Role of Port of Port Townsend. Transportation Element Goal 2 and Policy 2.3 is important. ~ Endangered Species Act. Occurred subsequent to 1996, fairly important and worthwhile. ~ Maritime Center. Occurred subsequent to 1996, fairly important and worthwhile Mr. Cahoon asked support of all of those. Mr. P~u~Boþçœ Endorsed all, and commented on: ~ Endangered Species Act. Part of the quality of the Plan is that it goes from major concepts to small things like fish and wildlife. Since a good deal of Port Townsend Bay has significant habitat values, and some of that is used by some of the increasingly recognized as endangered salmonoid species, it is an important statement to increase people's awareness that as we carry out projects we put the city behind it. ~ Maritime Center. Something of the same sort of consideration, more to the economic viability for many people, the continued livelihood of working on marine craft. To increase the expressed support, is a little better way of putting ourselves on the map as an important and widely respected center for all sorts of boats and boat building. Mr. Roberts encouraged to adopt all of them. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN wmÇH REOUIRE AMENDMENTS TO THE ~QNING CODE AND/OR OFFICIAL ZONING MAP · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 '. Page 22 Chair Thayer said this section including: ~ CII!MU Reconsideration ~ Speser ProposaJ ~ Arthur Proposal ~ Fischer Dom Proposal ~ Agricultural Proposal Mr. Denny LaVia=ne, applicant Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. LaVigne distributed a packet of his presentation which became Exhibit A. He asked if they would be deliberating tonight, and Chair Thayer replied they probably would not get to this tonight. . He said the packet included his letter requesting policy change, excluding any reference to the quasi-judicial material that was supposed to be considered tonight, and the testimony previously presented before the Commission and Council, Exhibits A, B, and C. Option A Mr. LaVigne said Land Use Policy 10.2.3 was to accommodate or enable mixed use in mixed-use centers, or mixed-use areas. He said that supports their position, that this is the only realistic document in the Comprehensive Plan for the process (brought out in Exhibit B). He said they favor this option provided the two-story requirement in the Bulk, Dimensional and Density Table is removed. He claimed that is an issue that has not been brought up in public testimony up to this point, that the Bulk and Dimensional requires anything built there, if it is not reduced or taken out, to have a two-story building. He said this then would bring their location in compliance with the Zoning Code, if this option is adopted by the Council. Mr. LaVigne made reference to Keith Harper's testimony with regard to our his being very similar to theirs; in past years being Cli, and being a bowling center since 1964,34 years at the same location. Option B The incentive for housing and expanding allowable uses. He said this option troubles him, and that the following information in the exhibits supports his objection to sending this . Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 23 information to the City Council as written: ~ His testimony references conversations with Eric T owes about where our Comprehensive Plan is drafted, the models he used in drafting the Comprehensive Plan. In that conversation, Bainbridge Island was used as the model, and in the workshop of September 10th, he said they also used Sumner's Plan as a model. He said those are true statements until you get to the Zoning Code; the Zoning Codes are far different from what we drafted subsequent to our Comprehensive Plan. He said both of them used the "enable and not require" approach. He asked if these were our models for guidelines, why are mixed uses required in the two neighborhood commercial zones, comparable to our CIIMU, and "enable and not require" mixed use in the four remaining mixed-use zones? He said Sumner uses "enable and not require" mixed use in all three of their mixed-use zones, including their neighborhood commercial. He indicated there are exhibits to support that. ~ Bulk, Dimensional and Density Tables for both Bainbridge Island and Sumner are based on maximums and rely on design guidelines to assist development of mixed-use centers. He declared, as he noted Bruce Freeland had said, we know how difficult it is to develop and mature a mixed use center, because of economic conditions. He said Mr. Freeland expressed those concerns at the September 10th Planning Commission workshop, stating that in particular, if you want to rent a 3 or 4-bedroom house for $675 - $800 in today's market, all you have to do is look down the street here to Phase IT of our condominium project next to Bay View which still has eight out of 11 vacant units selling for about $279,000. He said he thinks 4 years into a project, and you have sold less than one-third of your property, puts everybody at risk, bankers, developers. He said he thinks the $279,000 price tag on those units illustrates the potential risk to mixed-use developers. ~ Bowling Centers permitted in CII!MU zones. While permitted at the September 10th workshop, this option, as written, still leaves his location non-conforming. He said their building is larger than the floor ratio allows; they cannot comply with the two-story requirement. This option makes all properties in the Kearney Street mixed use as legal non- conforming, except for recently developed Puget Sound Energy property, and any future development under this option as written requires demolition of existing buildings, more expensive and maybe impossible remodel to conform to the code. He said he would like to put a second story on his building, no residential, if he wanted to add on to the bowling center, and were permitted. The economic potential under Option B, based on the offer they received in April 1997, estimated a completed 96,800 sq ft project for commercial only under the .2 to 1.0 square foot of property would cost approximately $1,936,000 taking into consideration all things that have to be done to build a building, storm drainage, SEP As, ADA, etc.; to lease that property, $2.06 per sq ft to realize an 8% return on investment. He asserted nobody can do that in this town. ~ Potential residential density loses. He said there are already 12 residential units in the · · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 . Page 24 Kearney Street mixed-use center. If the entire Kearney Street mixed-use zone were fully developed under current guidelines, there would be an additional 96 houses, and he projected the number of people residing on Kearney Street, assuming the units would be larger than one-bedroom or studio apartments and applying the standards for persons per dwe11íng. Mr. LaVigne requested another couple of minutes to speak. Chair Thayer suggested his material was all in writing and they would be able to read the testimony. She asked if he wanted to wind down. Mr. LaVigne replied the time was up. Ms. Thayer stated she wanted to let him know he could take another minute or two; Mr. LaVigne said that was O.K. Jeff Hamm, Manager, Jefferson Transit Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. . Mr. Hamm said as the Manager of Jefferson Transit and as a member of the non- motorized steering committee, he supports the expanded set of uses permissible in these areas and feels they will enhance the economic viabílíty and chances of success. He said he is concerned the proposed changes to the residential component could erode the mixed use vision that is contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and could have potential adverse effect on the long-term transportation vision. He said he recognizes the challenge this type of development poses for a community such as Port Townsend, and said if the Planning Commission chooses to make cbange to that residential component, he encouraged them to go with Option B. Ms. Margaret Lee Swore and affirmed that the testimony she was about to give was true to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Lee noted she had intended to testify on LUP98-31, but said she understands that public hearing is going to be continued to October 15th. She asked if the SEPA issue was going to be incorporated in the public hearing at that time; she sees they are really tied together, but questioned if she wanted to make her comments tonight, unless they have to comment on the Comp Plan tonight. Mr. Freeland said there is apparently only one who has chosen to appeal the SEP A, the only ones who came in within that deadline. He said he would have to check with the City . Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 . Page 25 Attorney to see if that opens it up for anyone else, but they would check it out for her for next week. He then said the application to change the zoning at the bowling alley site, to change the Land Use Map from a brown CIIIMU color to a red cn color, is what has been postponed until next week, and said tonight is the only opportunity to make comment on the general changes to all CIIIMU zones where ever they might apply, including the bowling alley site. He said if there are concerns about general changes, they should be made tonight. . . Ms. Lee stated that the memorandum to the Planning Commission from Mr. Freeland mentioned at the bottom of page 4, III.B. "Two alternatives have been proposed for amending the CIIIMU zone. . ." and page 5, "Since the last discussion with the Planning Commission, an added issue has come to light," and speaks of a change to allow one story buildings rather than two story. She asked what prompted the proposals and who proposed them. Chair Thayer explained that this came out of a workshop by the Planning Commission that they did in preparation for the public hearing. She said they went through a number of options and suggestions; that was the process. She said that was done at the workshop of September 10, 1998. Ms. Lee commented that from her heart the change in the Comp Plan was rather like putting cart before the horse, but realized this will affect aU the CIIIMU areas throughout the city. She said she lives on Kearney Street and walks that area a great deal. She said she is concerned about a project at the bowling alley being something that would affect land use in other areas, as Mr. Freeland indicated earlier tonight the possibility of a domino effect. She said she realizes it is very close to Sims Way, but emphasized that it is on Kearney Street. She said there are many empty lots, large lots, down along Kearney Street all of which will be developed at some point or another. She asked if this mean that this option of not putting housing means there would be commercial all along Kearney Street. She said she likes housing being incorporated into the comer, because she feels it is very much a part of the Kearney Street community which will be developing, not just what is there now. She is sure there will be other businesses and apartments along that way, and she likes the idea of mixed use, dwellings incorporated in with the commercial. When you walk through there at night when everything is closed it is like a big dark area. She said she likes the idea of someone living in that area; it brings it to life and makes it feel more like a part of a community. In the day time, at the present time, it is almost like a big dark area without a bit of greenery, nothing but cars and blacktop. She said she hopes whatever changes are brought about through these deliberations, it will be something that will beautify that area and make it more of a feeling of a community. , < Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 . Page 26 Mr. Jim Ramey Q Mr. Ramey asked Mr. Freeland if .2 sq ft of gross building area for 1 sq ft of site isn't pretty restrictive. He said he works with venture capitalists in Pierce County, and they are not even that severe down there. A Mr. Freeland asked the Chair if she wanted him to address the question, and she granted permission. He replied that the intention was to provide less development than an owner would probably would want, with the theory you would then give them reason to include housing in order to get the commercial up to the normal commercial development. It is pretty normal that with adequate parking a project might be about .3 floor area ratio. Zoning typically allows more than that, but .3 floor area ratio is about what we are seeing right now. . Q Mr. Ramey: That area is all fill. He said at one time he wanted to build a two story structure, and they did not get it accomplished. He said Mr. Freeland's predecessors did not even want to talk about it, because it is all fill. It is very doubtful that would accommodate a two story building. Underground parking, are you saying that is an option? A Mr. Freeland stated it he is saying that in order to get the kinds of densities that the zoning at its face value allows, a 3 - 1 floor area ratio would require probably 5 or 6 levels of underground parking to support a building that size. He said he does not think we are going to see that in Port Townsend very soon. That is why I am saying the more realistic level of development that people might be trying to achieve is closer to .3 or .35 FAR, because that is about what you can get with surface level parking; the reason that I proposed .2 was to get to something that would be less than full development of the property that would still provide some incentive for people to want to put in some housing in order to get a little bigger development. Q Mr. Ramey asked if the MU designation isn't more in urban areas than Port Townsend? He said we have approximately three vacant lots for every lot that a house on. If the population of Port Townsend doubles in the next 20 years, that means every other lot is still going to be vacant. He said he fails to see the need for mixed use, not only from an expense standpoint, but ftom a need standpoint. A Ms. Thayer explained that this consideration is for changes in the cn mixed use, not eliminating it. Q Mr. Boles asked Mr. Ramey regarding his pursuing something on property along Kearney Street, that it is fill and would not support a two story structure. He asked Mr. Ramey to elaborate. A Mr. Ramey said that was the contention of Randy Brackett. He said they never did do any work on it, but said that is all fill and there was some question whether or not it would . Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 27 accommodate a two story building. Q Mr. Boles asked if he agreed, disagreed or had no information on that point. A Mr. Ramey said he guessed he agreed; he did not want to go through what he would have had to go through and the expense to try to get it done. · · Mr. Dana Roberts Mr. Roberts said he wanted to touch upon the amendment to the Plan which requires amendments to the Zoning Code, and he would reserve anything more specific about a further proposal that seems to be behind Rite-Aide for the subsequent hearing: . Page 4.rn of Mr. Freeland's memorandum. He encouraged the Commission to strongly follow Option B. Having been a member of the Land Use Citizen Advisory group, he explained that the stimulus for the mixed use came from the perspective of two other municipalities, Sumner and Bainbridge Island; he did not know if either of those were urban growth areas. As they discussed it a good part was generated by their our own recognition as persons interested in the city's land use that we needed to do something to provide an incentive to bring about in fairly small locations this kind of more urban development. He said if it takes Option B to bring that about, he would like embracing that one. He said he finds it a little discouraging to hear that there is some way of equating a $275,000 waterfront apartment with this. With the kind of housing that might take place under this proposal, he urged the Commission to think really carefully about it; it is entirely a different circumstance where the project in question ought to be. . Speser Proposal. He said he could understand the recommendation for denial and thinks the specific facts of the proposal would support that; he thinks in reading behind this he sees some interest in trying to see if something can be smaller scale, far less than 12 persons, to help make the hom~ based business a bit more flexible. He said if it is possible to continue, even if you reject this proposal, to look at the Speser Proposal and its basic concept and the same with the FischerIDom Proposal, to look just a bit more broadly at, can the concepts of conditional uses be brought into play along with some standards and limits on size and the kinds of conditions that have been identified as to hours of audible and visible operation and sinage, etc., to find a way to help bring about greater opportunities for those home based businesses, but without disrupting the whole neighborhood. · Agricultural proposal. He said they have a small orchard behind their place and they try to keep it up and is really sympathetic to anybody that is going out on a larger scale. He thinks that it will give a little more success by approving their tax status. Q Mr. Worden asked Mr. Roberts if he feels that Option B with regard to the CIIIMU zone is actually an improvement over the existing conditions for that zone, or are you simply , ' Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 . Page 28 endorsing that we make it more achievable? A Mr. Roberts replied that frankly he preferred what we had, but he sensed, both from a couple of comments around the table and from the fact that it is apparently a tough sell, that sometimes you need to sweeten the option. He said if in your minds you think maybe that is a little too sweet, he would urge the Commission to think really carefully about the long- term and about the other locations where this district applies~ if you see the need to change, Option B seems better than Option A. . . L Mr. Robert Greenway, Applicant Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Greenway passed out pictures of his area as Exhibit B. He pointed out from the aerial photograph that they have been farming on the piece of land in the northwest comer next to the 35th Street Park for about 5 years, have had horses pasturing on it and various quasi- agricultural activities for about 40 to 50 years. He said when the Comprehensive Plan was forming he brought Dave Robison out to discuss what the property should be zoned, and didn't think much more about it until he saw the map and realized it was zoned Rll. He also complimented Mr. Freeland and said the way he has worked with them has been spectacular. He said Mr. Freeland has come out, has sat down and talked with them, explained things to them and been extremely helpful. He said he would prefer to be RI rather than Rll. It would free them up a little bit more~ he could build a little barn without anybody noticing, etc. He cited a memorandum of September 3, 1998 that said, "Greenways did not make application for a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map for a change of zoning. . . " He said to the best of his recollection, when he found out that to make a zoning change would cost him $1300, he did not recover until it was too late to make the change. He said he could wait another year if we need to make a change to RI. He noted this is an Rll zoned property, and pointed out the extensiveness of their agriculture operation on the property. He said they can live with RII, and thinks it is wonderful move in the right direction for those who are farming in the city, but thinks it should be jostled around a little more just to be specific on a couple of points. Mr. Greenway said the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) sometimes includes the u-pick option, e.g., Collingwood Farms, and noted the three basic agriculture operations in town: .. Collingwood Farm -- F Street .. Frog Hill Farm -- Cook Avenue, new organic farm~ over 20 acres, now inside the city limits .. Corona Farm .. Corona Street, off Sheridan~ 6 acres, next to the 35th Street Park .. Various orchards and back yards and other areas Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 · Page 29 He indicated they are all tied to and been selling at the Farmer's Market, which has had spectacular success. He said they would like to be able to have V-pick on their property under an Rll designation, that is the bottom line here, presuming it is off-street, and pointed out on the aerial photograph that it would be. He said they would love to see more agriculture encouraged in the town. At Mr. Boles' request, Mr. Greenway pointed out their location on the map. · Mr. Lloyd Cahoon, Citizen He said he is dismayed that in one component of the CIIIMU, one person was essentially driven out of this room, and people who were speaking to the opposing position, although he has absolute respect for that person, was given a private audience with the chair. He said he does not believe that is appropriate. Mr. Cahoon said in some of the proposals made tonight there is an assumption and a statement that there has not been a change since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He declared that is not true. He said in the case of some of the issues being discussed, particularly the CIIIMU proposal, a major change has occurred, the adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan. During that process, the City made it very specific, and so did the County, that the City is urban in nature and the County is rural in nature, and he said it would then follow that the mixture of residential and commercial or business interests within that urban growth area, the jurisdiction, would be consistent with the legislative mandate, and therefore any amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan have to be taken into consideration in the context of that new County Comprehensive Plan. He said he does not think they can avoid that. He said he has been saying, there has been a fairly substantive change since the adoption of the City Comp Plan by the adoption of the County Comp Plan. Mr. Cahoon said he would also hope that they would read the materials that Mr. LaVigne submitted, although he does not know if they are accurate or not. He thought the point Mr. LaVigne tried to make was the financial consideration of building a building in an area that may or may not be fill, with all the requirements for mixed use of residential and commercial use, that it is clearly far in access of the rent that could be received from that property and thinks they should pay attention to it. Chair Thayer responded to Mr. Cahoon, that she had tried to be fair in allotting 5 minute testimony for each person. She assured Mr. Cahoon that every Planning Commission member would read the information they had received thoroughly, that Mr. LaVigne was reading from that document. Mr. Jim Ramey Mr. Ramey responded to people who chose Option B. He said Option B is not an option; · Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 . Page 30 from a financial standpoint this cannot be done. He spoke of people that have challenged this, that this is something that has gone on in this town for 20 years that he knows of; they just don't want any commercial development. He repeated that Option B is not an option. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Held for continued meeting of October 15, 1998 At 9:55 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the public hearings for the City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments (LUP98-37). Chair Thayer pointed out she anticipates having a very full schedule October 15th, but asked if they wanted to deliberate on anything else tonight. MOTION Ms. Erickson Put off Planning Commission deliberations to October 15th SECOND VOTE Ms. Sherwood Unanimous, 6 in favor . V. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Freeland reported he had taken the job in Kitsap County and said he would be here through the month of October. He expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission and for their work and said they are a very good Commission. Ms. Erickson said she had never heard so many people comment on how nice it was to work with the planner. She said how it was nice to have wonderful comments about Mr. Freeland and that she appreciates it. Everyone concurred. Mr. Worden asked for an explanation on the hearing of the SEP A appeal. Mr. Freeland said he would initiate a fmding that the proposed project can be accomplished with mitigations without making negative impacts on the environment. He said they have yet to see the specific objections, but he believes they will considering whether that SEP A determination was correct, or whether there should be a requirement for an environmental impact statement. He replied to Mr. Worden that if they decide to have an environmental impact statement, this could not be incorporated this year. Chair Thayer indicated the Deborah Hart hearing will be continued to the meeting of October 15th, and they will also finalize the Comp Plan recommendations for City Council. . · · · ,. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1998 Page 31 VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 15. 1998 Deborah Hart, for Baldridge Group, Public Hearing Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC PUD # 1 Comp Plan Amendment, Public Hearing (Pope Marine Park Building) 6:30 p.m. Joint City Council and Planning Commission Comp Plan Amendments Parks & Recreation Functional Plan, Public Hearing Rosewind PUDA Amendment #5 (not a hearing) Election of Officers October 22. 1998 October 26. 1998 October 29. 1998 November 12. 1998 VII. ADJOURNIRECESSED Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Worden All were in favor. Ms. Sherwood informed the chair she will be absent October 29th. At 10:00 p.m. Chair Thayer recessed the meeting to October 15, 1998, 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall to continue the public hearing of Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group, Open-Record Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUP98-31), and to deliberate on public testimony heard in the previous requests. D R A T F r . . . Guest List Meeting of:, A~,1/I1I/AI() CO~:!;:': Purpose: ¡qqc¡ DONI h41// .4 ¡f/f- _'/)_ J:!LEJ- liE/ILl/Air) Date: !() ! 9/99 Name (please print) Address tI .""> 1/ ILL- ð-I "3") /]ij I , ~Q to ,/ /" ~ V - I II