Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05281998 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 14, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Open-Record Public Hearing) 1. 2. 3. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Public Testimony Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings June 11, 1998 Planning Commission Procedures (included in 4/30/98 packets) June 25, 1998 July 9, 1998 July 30, 1998 VII. ADJOURN May 28, 1998 -, . . kJ. , , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES Business Meeting May 28, 1998 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building by Chair Cindy Thayer. other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, and Nik Worden. John Boles and Craig Johnson were excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. StatT members present were Bruce Freeland, Tim McMahan and Dave Peterson. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of May 14, 1998, as written and amended was made by Ms. Enarson and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail Memoranda: · From Julie McCulloch, May 11, 1998 reappointing Lois Sherwood to the Planning Commission, term to expire December 31,2001. · From Bruce Freeland to Port Townsend City Council, May 19, 1998 -- overview of Staff Recommendations on the Docket for the Comprehensive Plan. · To Cindy Thayer, Chairman ofthe Planning Commission, from the Port of Port Townsend with issues regarding the Comprehensive Plan docket. IV. OLD BUSINESS -- There was none V. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Open-Record Public Hearing) Chair Thayer explained the Planning Commission would be taking public testimony only on the question of the policy of whether or not issues would proceed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The hearing on specific issues will come later in the process. Mr. Freeland pointed out that a number of ideas have been proposed for amending the Comprehensive Plan, that some of those ideas may be set aside and not considered thìs year. He said some things will be put on the docket and sent forward for formal consideration, but that the time to consider adoption of those ideas is much later. This is the first sorting of thìngs to take up thìs year, and things not to take up. Mr. Freeland noted four formal applications to amend the zoning on individual's parcels of land. He said their fees have been paid, and they will be considered at a public hearing later in the year and will not be addressed at this meeting: . . . Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 2 · The bowling alley site at Kearney Street · Roger Evans land at the southwest comer of Sims Way and Howard Street · Jefferson County PUD #1 on Kearney Street · Harper Shell Station on SimsW ay 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland stated they had received a large number of suggestions for amending the Comp Plan, and referenced the staff recommendations written on each of those. He said individual items will be discussed after public testimony. 2. Public Testimony Robert Greenway Staft~ Report, page 6. StatT recommendation was to not include on the docket. He would like it on the docket, and would like full hearing of whether or not an agricultural designation is allowable in the city under the Growth Management Act (GMA), or if it would require a conditional use permit. Mr. Greenway submitted a picture of the Corona Farn, 1611 Corona Street. He pointed out the 35th Street Park and Umatilla Street and indicated they have additional raised beds, now totaling 85, and that they think of this as an agriculture operation. Bob Mulli, Port of Port Townsend Claritìcation of Port position: · Issue 4. Policy 9.9 Where regulated by the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Plan (SMP): 1) Some existing uses in the M-ll(A) are not within the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program areas. 2) Port property acquisitions outside the Shoreline Master Program areas should not be restricted to water oriented uses just because the property would be owned by the Port. It is possible the Port might acquire properties that might not be directly related to the shoreline and, therefore, should not be regulated or required to adhere to Policy 9.9. · Issue 5. Policy 6.6 A strategy to consider appropriate transient moorage to provide in-scale support to the downtown business district. Would simply like the City to work with the Port on thìs issue; inclusion could also assist grant funding by the Port, one of the primary reasons in asking for City support. They are not looking for financial consideration or any other major participation unless the city chooses to do so. · Issue 6. Policy 10.3 Consider the development of afloat plane docking facility. They are looking at the opportunities available to create a float plane docking facility and marina. He said policies need not presume anything except that it is worthwhile to at least investigate the proposal; that is all they want to do at this point. They believe a strong demand for suêh a . . . Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 3 facility exists. He said they understand that there may be environmental impacts; they are aware they need to do a lot of work prior to the actual construction, and would like City support. · Issue 7. Policy 3.7 Development, implementation andfinancing of plans to increase the Pl'BH marina. . . for the purpose of warehousing approximately 200 additional vessels. Assist in developing marina expansion -- could change wording to alleviate financing; they do not expect money but support of the expansion. 1) Benedict Spit -- Already reviewed and approved for Enhanced Haulout Project (Substantial Shoreline Permit 7/96). City support is crucial to obtain grant funding to complete the work. 2) West end expansion - Just beginning. Need for both expansions has been demonstrated by studies, and demonstrated by 1) an existing waiting list of nearly 300 boats, and 2) the success ofthe Port Townsend Shipyard. This policy change directly supports Marine Trades Implementation item No.1. · Issue 8. Policy 3.8 Assisting the Wooden Boat Foundation with development of the proposed Northwest Maritime Center. Perhaps an appropriate policy recommendation would be: 1) to encourage the Port and Wooden Boat Foundation; or 2) to encourage the development by the Port, the Wooden Boat Foundation, or any other public purpose entity, of a facility for expanded education and demonstrations of Port Townsend's hìstoric maritime industries. In either event, they believe the City should have such a definitive policy. · Issue 9. Policy 22.4 Require a completion ofa comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) by ----- The Port believes completion of a comprehensive S WMP should be a major priority for the City. They claim the Port and City residents have been victims of stormwater deficiencies for too long. Mr. Wheeler's recommendation that Policy 22.4 indicating that completion of a Plan is a high priority, would certainly be acceptable. · Issue 12. Economic Development Element, Page VIl1-12. Review, recommend revision if necessary, and approve the Point Hudson Master Plan. Assist the Port in identifYing and evaluating its management options for the period 2002 to 2016. Bit of a touchy issue. As the entity solely accountable for the performance of Point Hudson, he said the Port will make decisions regarding management options for any future period. Also, City ap.,proval of a Point Hudson Master Plan is only appropriate through the Substantial Shoreline Management Permit process; consultation with the City is of course appropriate. · Issue 13. Port owned properties at Kah-Tai Lagoon and at Fort Worden that are designated PIOS on the Land Use Map. . . have an added symbol on the map to indicate the ownership by the Port and include reference to Resolution No. 97-08 regarding future changes. Resolution No. 97-08 should be ídentífied on the maps. While we agree a plan amendment Planning Commission May 28, 1998 . Page 4 is not required, the non,..substantive maps identification of Resolution No. 97-08 properties should be done in connection with this round of Plan amendments. . Issue 15. Map Correction. indicate on the Land Use map the areas of Water Street in Point Hudson that have been vacated. In all fairness, there have been revisions to the map since adoption and this error has not been corrected. An explicit action to be taken by the City at settlement, January 9, 1997, was that this is a non-substantive mapping correction. (Water Street is in the Port T oWllSend Boat Haven and Marina, not Point Hudson.) Mr. MUlli expressed appreciation for Mr. Freeland's efforts and the tàvorable response on issues 1,2,3, 11, and 10. . . Jeff Ham, Jefferson Transit Manager Mapping error. Encouraged the Commission to acknowledge the map to be in error in the Transit facility's westernmost parcels. He indicated he discussed this with Staff Dave Robinson and Eric Toews, and the intent was to treat all of the fàcility there as P-I, but the westernmost parcels were not designated. Amendment to Transportation Element, Policy 6.17 (Port Request: Hncourage the WSDOT Ferries Division and Jefferson Transit to provide transit service to the new proposed Kingston to Seattle passenger ferry.) -- Has no objection. Denny LaVigne, 414 Kearney Street Bowling Center Mr. LaVigne retèrenced his letter of March 19, 1998, discussing the downzomng of their property, Lots 1-8 Block 76 of Mabel Addition, specitically 414 Kearney Street bowling center. He distributed and read from his letter of May 28, 1998, noting that their request is to revisit CIlIMlU to consider a policy change to the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Codes. He made assertions, including: · Their property has been rendered a non-entity with regard to value. · Bowling recreation has been legislated out of Port Townsend. · Cll zoning allows mixed uses under past zoning codes (e.g., Jefferson Title southwest comer of Washington and Kearney Streets permitted to include residential). · Individual property owners should have been notìtìed of any commercial zoning changes relevant to the Comprehensive Plan. (He noted objections by Nancy Scott and Mike Kenna to Uptown MUC, and John Foley at the comer of San Juan and F Streets). Mr. LaVigne indicated they would be petitioning the Board of Equalization regarding the true value of their property after this rezone, and said it will bring to light what the City has done to their real estate values. He listed CIlIMlU impact to their location: · Parkin~: Control. · Children: Occupants playing on Kearney Street · Building Costs: i.e., 1000 square foot apartment rents elevated upwards to $1500 per month due to ADA access, sprinkler systems and elevators; commercial property construction costs . . . Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 5 to $1.60 to $1.80 per square foot (driving the cost of commercial space to at least double the going lease rate for Port Townsend). · Insurance: Residential located with commercial. · Noise: Adjacent to CII zoned midnight convenience store. · Public Notice in The Leader: Specifically addresses community centers as Alternative 2; makes no mention of Kearney Street rezone; and talks about San JuanIF St. and Howard St/Hastings Avenue as the most promising locations for these mixed use centers. Mr. LaVigne commented that the property owners in the Uptown district obviously saw their situation as a downzone as suggested by Eric Toews' comments on page 6 in excerpts of the Planning Commission and Council Minutes included in Commission packets, that mixed uses are allowed under historical preservation just as cn allows mixed uses, e.g., Jefferson Title. Mr. LaVigne declared if this was not a downzone, it borders on a taking for the good of the public, and reiterated their intent to petition the Board of Equalization. Ruth Short Said she was testifying for the same reason as Mr. LaVigne. She owns land on Kearney Street next to the bowling alley. She said she is concerned regarding the rezoning and asked why she was not notified. She provided hìstory of Port Townsend stating her ancestors, "made what you fell in love with." She said her father reclaimed, built and repaired approximately 17 hìstoric buildings and made them useful. She said she votes against the zoning placed on Kearney Street. Q Ms. Enarson: We were here to talk about whether this should be on the docket. I just want to make sure I understand that you would like all those zoning issues to be on the docket to be discussed later in the year. Is that correct? A Mrs. Short: Yes, but I do not want to pay for it. Q Ms. Enarson: We are all volunteers here. I just want to confirm that you want a chance to discuss it. David Fischer, proposal with Malcolm Dom Proposed amendment of Land Use Element -- Policy 7.14 (d): A limited amount of small scale businesses in residential zones whose character is in keeping with the neighborhood and whose activity level does not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. · Have been working on opening a small business in Port Townsend - day spa, a health and wellness facility open to the public. · Have not been able to find an appropriate site. Commercially zoned areas are not available for sale; many sites they feel are appropriate are in residential zones Response to staff concerns: "The FischerlDom request uses such broad language that it would Planning Commission May 28, 1998 . Page 6 open residential areas up to a potentially broad range of mixed uses." Mr. Fischer said they basically agree that the language at thìs point is broad and in need of definition refinement. He said that they hoped through this process to find a compromise based on their trying to locate an appropriate site for a small business, that the conditions are too narrow. He requested the Commission recommend to Council that their proposal be placed on the docket, knowing that it is in need of definition and refinement. . . Malcolm Dom They have been searching for a site for a small business in Port Townsend since last summer. He cited areas in the Comprehensive Plan he feels address what they are trying to do: · Economic Development Element -- Section 8, Goal 4, 4.9; Goal 9, 9.7. He invited the City to do what was suggested, to provide adequate, appropriately zoned land to support commercial development. He said they have not found that to be the case, and are searching for ways to open that up. Section 8, page 13, Implementation #3. "Research, identify and offer development incentives for new businesses and business expansions which are appropriate to Port Townsends resources and vision." He said it implies a proactive stance the City can take to promote small businesses. Implementation #7, "Review, and if necessary amend existing zoning regulations to allow compatible home based businesses and cottage industries in residential areas." He indicated it is a bit a stretch that what they are proposing is a cottage industry; it is somewhere between that and commercial, but they find the language encourages their consideration. Section 8, Summary, page 18 - In searchìng for a site they have discovered the constraints. He urged the City to do what they can and work with them for solutions. . Land Use Element - Chapter 4. Policy 7.14 -- ". . .discourage the conversion of residential areas to non-residential uses. Prevent the encroachment of commercial uses into residential zones except for . . . ." Proposed: Might be implemented by conditional use permits whereby neighbors could be included in the process. He said their recommendations submitted were for Comprehensive Plan amendment, and they did not realize they should be in finished form. He said they could be a little more specific and come up with other language. He said it would be their preference for a business like theirs to locate at the interface between commercial and residential. He said they would like to explore the possibility of the City's finding the means to open up the restrictions so that small scale businesses can locate within the City of Port Townsend. Cited examples: He said they are numerous, some non-conforming and grandfathered; some of the more notable are Ken Brown Electric; Coyote Found Candles' success story -- moved as expansion demanded. Suggested: It could act as incubator if not regulated too tightly. Hoped to be less restrictive. . . . Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 7 Aletia Alvarez, Director of Wooden Boat Foundation Port of Port Townsend Issue 8, Northwest Maritime Center Ms. Alvarez said the Northwest Maritime Center is a very desirable project, and even more so as it continues to grow in its support outside the Wooden Boat Foundation. She commended the Port for having foresight and planning and seeing that the Northwest Maritime Center as an entity for Port Townsend is desirable and stepping forward with their support without the Foundation encouraging it. She said the Foundation alone is not going to be able carry the project forward, but that the only to keep our working waterfront is investment, planning and foresight. She said she would like the City to also see thìs is the right project for the City to invest in. Reference to Staff recommendations: · Spell out what is requested -- She said they are asking for support, and trying to build a partnership; if the City and Port cannot come together on this plan, this project is not going to happen. · Comp Plan amendment does not appear to be the right venue for discussing participation in such a project and does not recommend inclusion of this proposal in the docket -- She said the wording could be changed around a bit that states more on behalf of encouragement and support of the partnershìp to implement and develop the Northwest Maritime Center. You would be taking the Port out and bringing in the private, public, etc. to support thìs project to move forward. Distributed brochure: "Balancing a variety of public and private objectives, thìs project provides a much-needed resource to complement and support other educational, recreational and vocational maritime activities. " "Building on the Wooden Boat Foundation's past successes. .." Ms. Alvarez spoke of building on the Foundation's success, that at thìs point they are trying to offer thìs to the community. She said the Foundation will only be able to hold it for so long, and it is going to continue to grow on its own and definitely outgrow the Wooden Boat Foundation. "Project Goals -- Further goals outlined in the Point Hudson Master Plan. . ." She said it is a citizen's plan put forward to thìs community for implementation, whìch has yet to be done. Ur~ency to the City of Port Townsend: · Looking at Port Townsend, its beautiful waterfront, its hìstory, the marine trades, it is time to invest in the Northwest Maritime Center. Waterfronts across the country are quickly disappearing. It is very expensive to bring back a working waterfront into a community that has already developed its waterfront. If you don't invest in it now, if you don't have a vision and foresight in it now, you are going to lose it. · Include as part ofthe policy and part of the Comprehensive Plan. . . . Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 8 Bernie Arthur · The Port point -- The Wooden Boat issue needs to be on the docket to at least put it into public forum. · His proposal to allow businesses in R-ill zones with a staff a¡>proved permit: Fit into two other proposals. They are separate ideas -- should speed to the issue on the lips of many people and should be put in the public hearing process also. With the Arthurs, it was just an idea put forth and needs to be tuned up. Byron Ruby Estimated the population at 8,000 and thought 15 - 20 years ago it was approximately 5,000. Mr. Ruby expressed his feelings: · Is all for Victorian, but the population can't afford it. · All ofthese proposals are good, but you have to jump through so many hoops to get into business. · The City is proposing too many thìngs, and does not have the money. · Federal grants are really nice, but who pays for those grants? · Is amazed the City has made it this far, that the town has changed over the last 25 years. He said Port Townsend has been a Victorian town since the 1800's, and he suggested there were business then people now would not accept now; he urged that people think it over. He said he has lived here 70 years. · Long range planning is good, but you have to maintain your own homes. · Kids won't be able to find jobs and go some other place. Q Ms. Enarson: Would you like things you heard to be on docket for further discussion? A Mr. Ruby: Yes, these economic things we should really be thinking about. Jim Ramey -- He said he knew the Planning Commissioners were volunteers, and he had sat in their seat in the county. He said with a zone change, usually someone benefits. He indicated he had talked to a lot of people who were concerned with the MU zoning on Kearney Street. He said he is still wondering who would benefit and cannot find anybody who has. He said if they are going to go forward to change the policy, he would like to understand the policy that got us where we are. Q Ms. Thayer: You want this on the docket to discuss? A Mr. Ramey: I want to know how we got here. Ms. Erickson spoke of all the public hearings and meetings and before that all of the citizen's meetings. Chair Thayer said they recognized it was not going to be a perfect document, and indicated that what they are doing here tonight is dealing with changes to the Comp Plan. . . . Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Ramey said that all of them who were downzoned were not notified. Chair Thayer again assured they were meeting to include changes on the docket. Madge Wallin Indicated a legal opinion needs to be given by the City Attorney, if it is legal to downzone property values. Chair Thayer closed public hearing 8:10 p.m. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions The question was raised if there is a limit to what they can put on the docket? Mr. Freeland spoke of impact to the workload, but said they need to look at the requirements of need/urgency/appropriateness. Ms. Erickson questioned how they make their decisions, if maybe there is not enough property zoned; not enough commercial land; or the viability of commercial business in residential zones if there is not enough commercial land zoned. Mr. Freeland spoke of the UGA and regional commercial needs. He indicated the Planning Commission is not deternining an aggregate supply, but they are discussing individual needs. The matter of appropriateness was also raised and Mr. Freeland explained it could be suggested: there are changed circumstances; the Plan was in error; there were erroneous assumptions~ the change is consistent with community values and attitudes. He said error tests would come up at a later time. Consensus: Motions with an official vote be taken on each individual request. POSSffiLE MAPPING ERRORS (will not need to be on docket if Commission and Council agree they are mapping errors) Mr. McMahan said that no zoning is being changed. (Staff Recommendation: Recognize all as mapping errors) · Jefferson Transit site at Sims and McClellan · Bishop Park Apartments · Port of Port Townsend property near Kah- Tai Lagoon MOTION Enarson Jefferson Transit site at Sims and McClellan; the Bishop Park Apartments; and the Port of Port Townsend property near Kah Tai Lagoon be called mapping errors and do not need to be on the docket. SECOND VOTE Worden Unanimous - 4 in favor . . I· I I Planning Commission May 28, 1998 Page 10 PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES Businesses in Residential Zones · 1) Phyl Speser, Foresight Technology (Staff Recommendation: Perhaps on docket for high tech) MOTION Erickson The Speser request for Foresight Technology be put on the docket. SECOND Thayer Discussion M~. Enarson: Regarding need/urgency/appropriateness; this was adequately discussed during Comp Plan discussions; not a valid use of staff time and do not want to see it on the docket. Worden: All three requests together suggest need for more commercial, but not adequate individually. Ms. Erickson: Voting on more commercial? I would have gone back to home occupations and relaxing stipulations. Mr. Worden: Would also be more inclined that way; allow more flexibility, if compatible with the community. MOTION AND SECOND WITHDRAWN Chair Thayer questioned discussing as a recommendation and also asked about discussing Home Occupations. Ms. Erickson asked if this should be a Comp Plan amendment or if the request to change should be a different venue. The language of the three proposed policy changes listed in Mr. Freeland's memorandum of May 19, 1998 was discussed. MOTION Erickson The Speser request for Foresight Technology be put on the docket. SECOND VOTE Thayer 2 in favor; Enarson and Worden opposed · 2) Bernard and Germaine Arthur, allow businesses in R-Ill zones (Staff: Fairly broad list of businesses - would change R-ill making it mixed use) Mr. Freeland: Thinks the concept is conditional use, and the reason to be staff approved is, if you have a conditional use that is fully contained withìn an existing building, it is a minor conditional use that goes to staff If it's an expansion of the building, it is a major conditional use ana gees. to the PlaPÆng Commission. Ms. Erickson: Rill would be rare. Is he saying mixed use for R-III, or is that in place of a dwelling unit, or with the dwelling unit? Mr. Freeland: It could either be a dwelling unit or a business if you have a conditional use .. . . Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 Page 11 permit. His letter provides suggestions of what it might entail. You could envision either conversion of presumably an existing residential structure to a business, or you could envision thìs as allowing brand new fully commercial buildings in an RIII zone. Mr. Worden: In the second page ofhìs letter he does say, administrative permit is limited to the business and not the location, so presumably once you grant the permit you would not permanently affect that property. ~1r. Freeland: That is not the usual way that conditional uses work. Ms. Enarson: Am confused about the Comp Plan amendments versus zoning teÀ'Í amendments that the code would address, Use Tables. Mr. Freeland: If you take thìs forward -- 1) In order to open the door for thìs there has to be a Comp Plan amendment, and Comp Plan policy in the Land Use Element limiting commercial uses in residential districts would have to be amended in some way. 2) Beyond dmt you would probably put a general policy in the Comp Plan that would describe how you want this to work and then the details would get worked out in zoning code change. You would have as a minimum one Comp Plan change, probably two. MOTION Enarson Bernie and Germaine Arthur's inquiry about considering an addition in the RID matrix allowing low impact business be carried forward on the docket. Erickson Ms. Enarson: The reason for the motion is that it is so similar to other issues versus commercial and high residential, and that they are probably going to address it in other ways. Unanimous - 4 in favor SECOND Discussion VOTE · 3) David Fischer and Malcolm Dom, allow limited amount of small scale businesses in residential zones (Staff: Appears unspecified uses not limited to specific zones) MOTION Erickson Put on the docket SECOND Enarson Discussion Ms. Enarson: Could not see why Home Occupation would not cover thìs. Ms. Thayer: Feel they are thinking about something bigger. Mr. Worden: Like a retail business. VOTE Unanimous -- 4 in favor Reconsider the C-IlIMU Desi~ation · Evaluation (Staff: Place on docket for evaluation of designation and associated zone) . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 Page 12 MOTION SECOND Discussion VOTE Erickson Put on the docket Enarson Mr. Worden: This was also a request from City Council. Unanimous - 4 in favor Requests by the Port of Port To~end · 1) Transportation Element - Policy Direction (State and Private Ferry Needs) Language (Staff: Appropriate -.. place on docket) MOTION Erickson Put Issue 1, Transportation Element Policy Direction, on the docket SECOND VOTE Worden Unanimous - 4 in favor · 2) Transportation Element - Policy (Amend Policy 2.3) Goal to add Port to programs relative to water and transportation (Staff: Appropriate to add Port to the Goal language and add to docket -- does not recommend adding specific agencies to Policy 2.3) MOTION Worden Recommend to the City Council that Issue 2 be put on the docket SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous - 4 in favor · 3) Transportation Element - Policy (Policy 6.17) WSDOT/JeffTransit to prowsed Kingston to Seattle passenger feny. (Staff: Appropriate -- add to docket) (Policy 6.18) WSDOT Ferries Div - study feasibility ofP.T. to Seattle service over 3- year period 1999-2002. (Staff: Appropriate - add to docket) MOTION Erickson Transportation Element Policies 6.17 and 6.18 be put on the docket SECOND VOTE Worden Unanimous - 4 in favor · 4) Land Use Element - Policy (Policy 9.9) -- SMP wording (Staff: Not clear what purpose would be achieved by change - Port should clarify intent.) MOTION Erickson Put Land Use Element - Policy 9.9 on the docket . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 Page 13 SECOND Discussion Enarson Mr. Worden: Are they agreeing or disagreeing with the language? Mr. Freeland: There is a subtle change. Mr. Worden: Why did they not concur? Mr. Freeland: Staff did not actually make a recommendation. Unanimous -- 4 in favor VOTE · 5) Economic Development Element - Policy (Add Policy 6.6) -- Transient moora¡:e to provide in-scale su¡>port to the downtown business district (Staff: Complete study underway. Do not include in the docket.) Mr. Worden: How would the Comp Plan impact this? Mr. Freeland: They are looking at this area, but not exclusively so. City may not want to support because of environmental issues; it may be way premature. Think they want this for grant funding; we could acknowledge in some way. Ms. Erickson: How much more weight would there be in the Comp Plan, rather than other ways? Mr. Freeland: It puts us in an awkward place; the City should not endorse ideas on a policy level if you do not have the facts, if we do not support later. Ms. McMahan: Referenced the Larry Scott Memorial Trail regarding grant money, but agreed with Mr. Freeland. MOTION Enarson Do not put the Port's request for Policy 6.6 on the docket. SECOND Worden VOTE Unanimous - 4 in favor · 6) Economic Development - Policy (Policy 10.3) -- Float plane dockin¡: facility (Staff: Appears premature. Do not include in docket.) Felt it to be the same type language. Enarson: There is adequate language in the Comp Plan already for support in general for maritime exposures. Without SEP A and need/urgency/appropriateness for a Comp Plan amendment to change the policy direction, is uncomfortable with this. MOTION Enarson Issue 6, the Port's request to add Economic Development, Policy 10.3 not placed on docket. SECOND VOTE Worden 3 In favor, Erickson abstaining · 7) Economic Development - Policy (Policy 3. 7) -- Warehousin¡: approximately ~OO additional vessels in PTBH marina at Benedict Spit and west end of existin¡: basin (Staff: Appears premature - not right venue for City financial participation. Do not Planning Commission Minutes May 28,1998 . Page 14 include in docket.) Ms. Thayer: Same reason as before. Mr. Worden: Is thìs their language? Mr. Freeland: Yes MOTION Worden Not be included in docket. Is not necessary; the language covers it. SECOND VOTE Enarson Unanimous - 4 in favor SECOND Discussion · 8) Economic Development Element - Policy (Policy 3.8) -- Development of Northwest Maritime Center (Staff: Not right venue. Inclusion in docket not recommended.) MOTION Enarson Port's request to add Economic Development Policy 3.8 regarding assisting the Wooden Boat Foundation with the development of the proposed Northwest Maritime Center not be placed on the docket. Worden Ms. Enarson: Am uncomfortable with this. As a policy direction, it is premature. Mr. Worden: It is most important to adopt the Point Hudson Plan. Unanimous - 4 in favor VOTE . · 9) Capital Facilities and Utilities Element (Policy 22.4) -- Require completion of a comprehensive SWMP by (Staff: Public Works -- Not role to set policy on specific date for a functional plan to be completed. Draft due July 1998; may be adopted before Comp Plan update is ready.) Mr. Dave Peterson: Don't usually specify dates; could encourage to say could be done. MOTION Erickson Do not put Issue 9 on the docket; it will be dealt with earlier SECOND Worden VOTE Unanimous -- 4 in favor · 10) Capital Facilities & Utilities Element - LOS (Apparent inconsistency Page VII-35) -- LOS for sq ft/admin office space per 1000 wpulation not reflected in Waterman & Katz Buìldint: (Staff: Do not place on docket. LOS standards in Comp Plan are minimums not maximums. Lease for 5 years, not long term solution.) Enarson: Staff addressed adequately in their memo. MOTION Enarson The Port's request to change Capital Facilities & Utilities Element regarding square footage of office space not be taken forward on docket. SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous - 4 in favor . . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 Page 15 · 11) Capital Facilities & Utilities Element - Policy (Add section and goal addressing listings) -- Endangered Species Act (Staff: Place on Docket. Should be flagged for local participation. Public Works -- focus should be on continuing support of the JCWRC. An additional activity for Port Townsend should be a continued focus on appropriate storm water treatment in 11.4.) MOTION Erickson Issue 11 be put 0" the docket Discussion Mr. Worden: Am having trouble understanding what we are doing. Mr. Freeland: Felt an important enough change that it should be addressed in some way. It could be as simple as putting in a call to action that the City engage in some activity. Mr. Worden: This would give a policy addressed in the Comp Plan. Mr. McMahan: There is new legislation. Jurisdictions that have specific policy language in their Comp Plans will stand in much better stead to qualify for state and federal projects to assist in salmon recovery. Think it is important to have something. SECOND Worden Discussion Ms. Enarson: Lacks consistency of need/urgency/appropriateness. She said she feels it is such a small matter of impact on the species for the 200 feet of the City of Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Freeland: Our water all comes out of the Big and Little Quilcene~ there are potential major consequences to the City of thìs listing. Ms. Enarson: Thìnks they have lots of policy language under the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element regarding clean and safe water, etc. -- there are other avenues. Mr. McMahan: Legislation appropriates a fair amount of money for these local planning projects, if you have identified the need in planning documents and policies, etc. We are talking more about thìngs in coordinating with other agencies. VOTE None in favor Ms. Enarson: Address in the future when staff has more time and shorelines is more settled. · 12) Economic Development Element - Marine Trades Implementation (Page VIII-12 -- Element 5) -- Remove sentence: "Assist the Port in identifying and evaluating its management operations for the period from 2002 to 2016. (Staff: Do not place on docket. Current statement reflects the City's very great interest and concern for the future of Point Hudson.) MOTION Enarson Not to place on the docket. SECOND Worden VOTE Unanimous -- 4 in favor Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 . Page 16 · 13) Settlement Issues Involving Land Use Map (Designation for Port owned properties) -- Kah Tai Laioon and Fort Worden desi~ated on Land Use Ma,p as P/OS. (Staff: Mapping correction rather than plan amendments.) Mr. Freeland: Has been dealt with. Consensus: Action has already been taken. · 14) M-TI(A) Height (Land Use Element, page IV-14) -- Change table to indicate 50' height rather than 35'. (Staff: Should be docketed. Height in Zoning Code is 50' and inconsistent with table.) MOTION Erickson Put Issue 14 of height on the docket to correct. SECOND Worden VOTE Unanimous - 4 in favor . · 15) Map Correction, Water Street (Land Use Map) -- Indicate areas of Water Street in Point Hudson that have been vacated. (Staff: Mapping correction, not policy issue. Do not place on docket if agree it is non- substantive mapping correction.) MOTION Worden Planning Commission designate this as a non-substantial issue SECOND Enarson VOTE Unanimous -- 4 in favor Chanie the Çapital Facilities and Utilities Element (Trudy Adams Application -- Exhibit H) (Staff: Public Works - An ordinance has been drafted and the SEPA process is underway to change this inconsistency with the Comp Plan. No need to modify the Comp Plan.) Mr. Freeland: More an error in the ordinance; no conflict with the Comp Plan. Mr. Peterson: Not in conflict with the Comp Plan. Consensus: Will be dealt with and notified. Have an Agricultural Designation in the Plan (Robert and Darby Greenway -- Exhibit 1) (Staff: Do not place on docket. In a UGA, would be in conflict with the GMA and not permissible. County Assessor will accept as now is.) Mr. Freeland: is pretty clear from the GMA that it is not appropriate to have formal agricultutal designations inside Urban Growth Areas. Feels it is very appropriate to protect those . Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 . Page 17 agricultural uses that are already in the city that want to continue. He spoke of Mr. Greenway's desire of getting the special agricultural valuation for hìs property taxes and explained the hìstory of the RI-A zone and current zoning. He pointed out the discrepancy with the County Assessor not having the current information were agriculture is allowed in the R-I zone. Mr. Greenway is in an R-II, where it is a conditional use. Mr. Freeland said that the County Assessor has agreed they will accept both. He suggests getting something in writing from the Assessor and not putting thìs on the docket. MOTION Enarson The Agricultural designation not be forwarded on the docket; staff to work with the County per policy direction and will notify all involved SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous - 4 in favor Eliminate Policies Related to Tiering (Barbara and Michael Anderson -- Exhibit J) (Staff: Do not place on docket. Concept central idea upon which Comp Plan is built.) MOTION Worden Recommend to not list a change in the tiering policies on the docket . SECOND Discussion Erickson Ms. Enarson: This does not preclude development, nor automatically grant money. Mr. Worden: The City received extensive congratulations for that policy and what was intended. Unanimous - 4 in favor VOTE Delete Policy Calling for a Street Utility Fund (Barbara and Michael Anderson -- Exhibit K) (Staff: Docket for amendment rather than deletion. Public Works - Comp Plan support as a viable option. Since some litigation questions legality, Comp Plan should de-emphasize, but not remove in case State action makes changes to allow.) Mr. Freeland: Referred to a court case. The concept is not dead, but is not healthy. Keep as a tool, but amend the policy to de-emphasize it. MOTION Enarson Put on the docket a discussion of the Street Utility issue SECOND Erickson VOTE Unanimous - 4 in favor . -~.---~~'.''--~ .. Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 1998 Page 18 VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings June 11. 1998 Planning Commission Procedures (included in 4/30/98 packets) Mr. Worden has not received information. June 25. 1998 July 9. 1998 July 30. 1998 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Ms. Enarson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ø ßJ-aø Sheila Avis, Minute Taker I --~ . / ./ . Guest List Name (please print) Address I OD~':; /~; C /",I·(/Ù G.---( l,v ç/m.( V¡;, ,/ ¡ _1 L I-- p / ·V ¿/ / ./ L_I J__ __ _.