HomeMy WebLinkAbout09301999 Min AgCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m.
Business Meeting
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Acceptance of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes:
V. Unfinished Business
September 30, 1999
A. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open- record public hearing)
1. Staff presentation (Judy Surber)
2. Public testimony
3. Commission discussion and conclusions
4W B. Proposed SEPA Threshold Amendments (open- record public hearing)
1. Staff presentation (Tim McMahan)
2. Public testimony
3. Commission discussion and conclusions
i
VI. New Business
VII.
Finalize Comp Plan Amendments findings & conclusions
Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (proposal by the Port to raise the
building height limit in the M -II(A) zoning district)
October 28, 1999
Port of Port Townsend (LUP99 -72)
Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open - record public hearing)
VIII. Communications
IX. Adjournment
4
•
•
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Business Meeting
September 30, 1999
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p,m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair
Cindy Thayer.
II. Roll Call
Members in attendance were Chair Cindy Thayer, Karen Erickson, Nik Warden, Larry
Harbison, Len Mandelbaum and Christine Ota. Stab members present were BCD Director Bob
Leedy and City Attorney Tim McMahan. City Council representatives were Geoff Masci and
Alan Youse.
Ili. Acceptance of Agenda
Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Ms. Ota.
All were in favor.
IV. Approval of Minutes -- There were none.
V. Unfinished Business
Chair Thayer asked how the Commission wished to proceed.
Mr. Mandelbaum expressed concern regarding proceedings from the meeting of
September 29th, that they properly convey to the City Council the Commission's intentions for
input to County considerations of UGAs. Mr. Leedy agreed to provide draft materials at the end
of the meeting for their consideration.
It was determined to break up the public hearing of the Comprehensive Plan amendments
starting each section considered with a Staff presentation and public testimony. Commission
deliberation for each of those sections will follow.
A. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open - record public hearing)
1. Staff Presentation
Ms. Judy Surber discussed Criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan, referred to the
Community Direction. Statement, Chapter III of the Comprehensive Plan, and stated the
Environmental Determination on Non - Significance has been issued. She indicated one
comment letter had been received, Exhibit 2, from Mr. David DiPrete.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 2
Criteria for Amending the Plan
a. 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;
b. 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
amendmems of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and
c. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. (Emphasis added.)
Exhibits
1. Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance for the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update
2. Public comment letter from Mr. David DiPrete
3. Map -- Kilham Rezone Property
4. Perpetual Conservation Easement Kilham Rezone
5. Map -- Thorsen/Brooks Rezone Property
6. Map -- Revisions to the Northerly Boundary of the Downtown C -III Historic Commercial
Zoning District
7. Proposed Text Revisions for Policy 18.1 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element
8. Summary of Comments from Survey of Commercial Zones in Other Jurisdictions
9. Mixed Use Policies (Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment - December, 1998)
• 10. Table 17.18.030 Mixed Use Zoning Districts -- Bulk, Dimensional and Density
Requirements
11. Port Townsend Building Official Rob Sears conceptual drawing of building in Cl/MU zone
to accommodate future conversion.
12. Survey of Mixed Use Zoning Requirements in Other Jurisdictions
13. Letter of September 30, 1999 from Ms. Penne D' Amico to Mr. Bob Leedy regarding
Revisions to the Northerly Boundary of the Downtown C -III Historic Commercial Zoning
District
t + t Z- ! . 1 !_ �JJ� to i i —a..i ±
At 7;23 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony on the three
amendments to the Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map.
Kilham Rezone
► Thorsen/Brooks Rezone
Revisions to the Northerly Boundary of the Downtown C -III Historic Commercial Zoning
District
Public testimony concluded at 7:25 p:m. and Chair Thayer closed public testimony for
this section.
Ms. Surber pointed out that rezones are not quasi-judicial.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 3
A.
Description: The proposal is to reume the Kham Property north of the Port Townsend Business Park front
R -IlI ( Multi - family) to an appropriate single- family zone. An obvious error occurred at the time of initial
Plan adoption in that R -III zoning is precluded by a previously recorded, perpetual conservation easement
(Exhibit 4). Conversely, the R- III zoning snakes current agricultural use nonconforming. The easement;
dedicated to the Jefferson County Land Trust by Oliver and Onda Kilham was recorded August 4, 1992, some
four years prior to adoption of the Plan.
Option 1• BUoue to R -I
Pros: The R i zoning district allows the widest range of agricultural uses.
Cons: To date, the R -I Zone has been applied only to areas within the northwestern portion of the City
where drainage problems present development constraints. Other agricultural_ uses in town (e.g , Collinwood
Farms and Greenway Farm) operate successfully under the R -II zone. Some of the agricultural uses allowed
outright in the R -I zoning district (e.g., stables, barns) may not be compatible with abutting R -n and R-N
zoning. (See Table 17.16.020)
QR02n 2: Rezone to R-H
Pros: Consistent zoning of other agricultural operations in town. K xam property abuts other R II land
The R -II zoning district requires conditional use permits for certain agricultural uses (e.g., barns, stables)
which are permitted outright in the R-1 atoning district. The conditional use process would ensure
compatibility of agricultural uses with adjacent residential development in the R -II and R -N districts.
Cons: In addition tit raising of vegetables, fruits, and hay, the conservation easement provides for raising
livestock. The R -II zoning district prohibits small animal husbandry on a coMmer l scale.
• Recommendatin Option 2, "Those parcels of the Kilham property which are encumbered by the coaervation
easement should be rezoned to R -II.
Finest' a A. Circumstances related to the use of the land have not changed since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. The conservation easement represents new information which was not previously considered.
The original R-111 zoning incorrectly assumed that the land was unencumbered. Amending the
zoning is appropriate and necessary to eliminate the conflict between the zoning and
previously recorded agricultural easement.
D. The continued practice of agriculture in Port Townsend reflects community values:
Cor:clusions: 77te amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Proposal: Downzone properly north of Pork Townsend Business Park from R -Ili (Multi- family)
to either R I or R -H single family designation.
Ms. Surber: Reason.: Existing perpetual conservation easement adopted in 1992 (4 years
prior to the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan) indicates the need to remain in
agricultural uses. Inconsistent: Requires multi- family use not allowing agricultural practices;
easement indicating this property as agricultural predating the multi- family residential zoning.
Options:
R -I Most flexible for agricultural: uses; may not be appropriate due to the fact it is abutting
R -H land on both sides. R -I uses permit outright such things as stables and barns, and may
not be compatible with surrounding single family homes.
► R -H -- Agricultural uses somewhat more restricted, e.g. riding stables require conditional use
permits.
U
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 4
Mr. Kilham indicated he is very interested at some future time in developing a duplex on
his property in Block 324; R -II zoning would not preclude that. If R -1, he could probably
accomplish somewhat of a duplex with a single- family home and an accessory dwelling unit. It
was noted Mr. Kilham owns portions of Lots 1-4 in Block 327 (not included in the SEPA
review), already zoned R -H; if an R -Il designation is recommended, it would be consistent with
the rest of his property on that corner.
Staff Recommendation: R-11 Zoning
Ms. Surber reviewed Findings and Conclusions:
Ques ionVComments fro ,ate mission:
Ms. Erickson: Asked if the Kilhams preferred, R -I or R -H zoning? In reading the conservation
easement it talks about preserving for farm animals with barns, and she wondered if they are
aware R -II would make it conditional use, which they still could use, or do they want the
zoning to reflect the easement?
Ms. Surber: Replied that in her discussion with Mr. Kilham, he described the agricultural uses
that he is interested in. Currently, he has field crops, orchards and chickens. She thought the
field crops and orchards under R -II are permitted outright; chickens in a large commercial
operation would not be allowed. For the future he indicated that perhaps he would raise
sheep, but nothing larger. In the past he had cattle and they had started to wander. He is also
looking at raising ornamental plants on the property, which would be allowed in R -II. He
was also told by Doug Mason, who works with the Jefferson Land Trust and is the instigator
of the easement, that they have looked into Abundant Life Seed Foundation using the
property to grow seed crops. It would only be larger livestock that is the basic difference
between R -1 and R -11 zoning districts.
Ms. Erickson: He doesn't have any intention of putting up barns or using it in the future, for
horses, etc., or anything other than what you have there?
Ms, Surber. He has barns on the property; he did not express interest to raise livestock or that
size on a commercial venture.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if the Staff Conclusion that the Collinwood and Greenway farms are
operating successfully under R -II, is based on direct communication, or on the basis that they
are still there, a more general conclusion.
Ms. Surber: Replied, that they are still there, that they come to the Farmer's Market, that she had
several encounters with Mr. Greenway and he has never expressed any problem with the
zoning; they worked with Mr. Greenway at one point to help him get the agricultural
designation for tax purposes that he was looking for. During last year's process, they
interjected some of the agricultural uses into the R -I and R -II zoning districts, and that was
enough to help Collinwood Farms and Greenway go for the tax break they were seeking.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he had one or two very general conversations with Collinwood, because
he is in that neighborhood. He said he thinks they feel some restrictions in terms of building
•
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 5
facilities, whether they were tool sheds, or whatever. He said he did not know whether their
anxieties are realistic or not, but those feelings or views were expressed
Ms. Surber- Replied that barns have super setbacks; and that may be the issue.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if that would be applicable under R -I as well?
Ms. Surber. Concurred -- super setbacks for barns.
Public Testimony -- there was none.
MOTION Ms. Erickson Approve the Kilham rezone, Option 2 to rezone to R H,
with Staff's Findings
SECOND Mr. Harbison
Discussion: Mr. Mandelbaum said Kilham himself seems to be comfortable with this;
ordinarily he would like to be a little less ambivalent about agricultural land and
would ordinarily like to give them the utmost flexibility unless there was some
apparent threat of some serious nature to the adjoining neighborhood; no problem
has been raised with this. He thinks it is a matter of policy we ought to
accommodate agriculture as much as possible. Mr. Worden asked Staff if this
were rezoned to R -II, that a conditional use wit would still arguably allow
them to do just about any agricultural activity they wanted to; they could, in fact,
. build a livestock barn under a use permit?
Ms. Surber reviewed the 9 agricultural uses listed and the differences between R -II and R -I:
► Barns permitted outright in R-1; conditional in R -II;
► Concession Stands -- permitted outright in both R -I and R -II;
► Crop or Tree Farming -- permitted outright in both R -I and R -Ii;
► Tree Farming with Community Supported Agricultural Sales -- permitted outright in
both R -I and R -R;
► Stables, Private and hiding -- permitted outright in R -I, conditional in R-11;
► Plant Nurseries, Landscaping Materials, Greenhouses on a Commercial level --
conditional in both R -I and R -Ii;
► Small Animal Husbandry, Commercial -- Conditional in R -I; not permitted in R -II;
► Small Animal Husbandry, Non - Commercial -- Permitted outright in both R -I and R -II;
► U -Pick of Sales Crops -- Permitted outright in both R -I and R -lI
Miss Surber said the main one is small animal husbandry on a commercial scale,
not permitted in R -II and Conditional in R -I. Ms. Thayer noted the only thing that
would prohibit would be small animal husbandry.
VOTE Unanimous -- 6 in favor by roll call vote
•
r �
U
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 6
B. THQRSEIVfBROOM R>FZ , NF
Description: The proposal is to rectify a mapping error affecting Lots 1,3,5 and 7 of Block 177 of the Estate
Addition. Existing zoning is P -I (Public - Infrastructure). These lots have been, and remain in private
ownership and cannot be used for public purposes without the City exercising its power of eminent domain.
Similarly, the current P -1 designation effectively renders the existing residential development nonconforming,
and private development an impassibility. The subject properties are landlocked by C -U/MU, R 1V and P -1
districts. No single - family residential districts (i.e., R -I or R -H) immediately abut the properties.
Qg m litho to R-11
Pros: Allows Thorsen to build single - family home on his one remaining lot.
Cons: The property is well suited for multi family development. It is relatively flat, and is located Aacent
to mixed use and transit routes. Given the relative abundance of single- family zoning and the policy
direction to provide a variety of housing types with an emphasis on affordable housing, additional single -
family zoning does not appear to be warranted.
Q2f tHt 2: Rezone to R M
Pros: Flexible zoning in that it would allow either single- family or multi- family residential development.
The physical characteristics of the land and its proximity to R -N (multi - family) and CH -MU (mixed use)
zoning districts make it appropriate for multi- family development.
Cons: The Iand is well situated for high density housing (i.e., inclose proximity to transit routes, parks and
shops). With a flexible zone, it is quite likely that the land will be developed with single - family homes.
Option 3: Rezone to R_y
Pros: Consistent with zoning to the south. Ensures development of multi- family units thereby furthering
the Comprehensive Plan goal of providing a variety of affordable housing types.
Cons: Would not allow Thorsen to build single - family home an his one remaining lot:
Recommendation: Option L
A. Conditions have not changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, however,
B. New information on ownership is now available.
C 7The amendment rectifies an inadvertent and unintended mapping error. The original P-1
zoning designation incorrectly assumed that the land was under public ownership.
Conctiiaom: The amendment is consistent wft the Gantpre*ensive Plan in that P -I zoning was intended to
apply only to public owned lands.
Proposal: Rectify mapping error.
Mls. Surber pointed out on an overhead the subject property owned by Thorsen and Brooks
which is behind Mountain View Elementary School, behind the apartment complex that fronts
on Walker Street, and includes two single - family homes. Reason: Current zoning is P -I (Public
Infrastructure) which was intended just for publicly owned land; subject properties are under
private ownership.
Options:
R -II, Single- Family Residential
R -II1, Either multi- family or single- family
R -IV, Multi- Family
Staff Recommendation: Rezone to R -111. (A, more logical transition between R -III and the
School District than R -II.) Mr. Thorsen has a single - family home and wishes to build one
more single- family home on this property.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 7
Miss Surber reviewed Staff Findings and Conclusions:
Questions /CoMme is from Commission:
Ms. Erickson: Asked if there was any feedback from Thorsen and Brooks regarding which
zoning they preferred.
Ms. Surber:: Replied that they provided a letter at the beginning of the whole process and that
their main goal was that they not be restricted to multi - family. Thorsen would like to build a
duplex within the year on an empty lot adjacent to the current residence. She did not find
that they had any preferences between R -III and R -U, just R -IV.
Ms. Surber thought there had been an error on the overhead indicating that the apartment
complex facing Walker Street next to Thorsen/Brooks was R -111 and should read "R -IV."
Public onv -- There was none.
MOTION Mr. Erickson Approve Thorsen/Brooks Rezone, Option 2
Rezone to R:111, with Recommendation,
Findings A, B, C and Conclusions
SECOND Mr. Mandelbaum
VOTE Unanimous -- 6 in favor by roll call vote
C. of the Dgwntown C-_W Historic Commergial
Zoning District
Description: The proposal is to rezone portions of the Original Townsite of Port Townsend from R -II (single
family residential) to C- III (historic commercial) to more accurately reflect the topographical separation
between the two districts created by the bluffs forming the downtown's northerly boundary.
Option 1; BUBW existing zoning,
Pros: At buildout, existing residential zoning may prove less impactive to the bluff.
Cons: Existing commercial parking lots would remain non - conforming. Parking is in high demand in the
city's downtown commercial core.
n 2: Shift the C -III zoning district to the_ north_ on_all_or- Dortiioas of Blocks 3637.3839.5556.57 of
Pros: Rezoning the properties from R -II Medium Density Residential, to C -In would allow portions of
these blocks that are not environmentally constrained to be used to meet the parking requirements for the
downtown commercial district.
Cons: If rezoned to C -III, potential impacts to the bluff may be intensified As cum platted, the
northerly lots could be sold off separately and reasonable use of the land could not be denied without
compensation. This would lead to a reasonable use exception under the ESA ordbuince_ Impacts would be
mitigated through implementation of the ESA ordinance, howevvr, the character of the bluffs may be lost.
Recommendation: Rezone the northerly % of Blocks 38,39, and 55 from R -II to C -III thereby following the
physical boundary created by the bluM%e. Relatively flat land exists at the base of the bluff adjacent to
existing commercial development. Existing parking lots on Blocks 38 and 39 would be made conforming
uses. The risk of these lots being sold off individually appears low due to the existence of facilities (parking,
C
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 8
garden) whicb support tinting commercial development. Block 56 is not recommended for rezone because
doing so would deviate from the concept of using the toe of the bluff as the logical boundary between
residential and commercial uses.
EMAW .' A. Circumstances have not changed since the development of the comprehensive plan which
designated the boundaries between the CHI Historic Commercial and R II single family
residential zones, however,.
B. New information has been presented which was not available at the time the original plan was
adopted Improved mapping showing the relation of toe and top of the bluf}''in relation to
existing development and zoning.
C. The physical boundary created by the bluff provides a logical boundary between single-family
residential and commercial uses.
D. The proposal reflects current wily held community values. Policy 7.6 of theEconomic
Development Element encourages the retention of existing businesses in the Commercial
Historic District. The proposed rezone would bring wm- tingparking lots and gardens which
support commercial uses into conformance with the zone.
Came-buions. The ansendment a consi Avot vA the Compreke nam Plan
Proposal: Revisit that division on Blocks 37, 38, and 39 -- through the docketing process was
expanded to include the entire northerly boundary in the Historic District.
Ms. Surber said the basic intent of the division between the C -III Historic Commercial
District and residential development above was to follow the bluff line using that as a logical
delineation between the two districts.
Options:
► Retain existing zoning
► Shift the C -III zoning
Staff Recommendation: Northerly half of Blocks 38,39 and 55, rezone from to R -11 to C -III.
The GIS staff located the top and toe of the slope, looking to locate the usable space.
They found that with the northerly half of Blocks 38, 39 and 55 the usable area, for the most
part, was at the toe of the bluff. There are parking lots behind the existing commercial buildings
in Blocks 38 and 39, including the Public House and Pizza Factory. On Lot 55, where the
Bishop Hotel is, there is a garden and some parking which is accessory to the hotel use.
Ms. Surber reviewed Findings and Conclusions.
estimWommmenh from Commission and Siff_:
Mr. Leedy read into the record as Exhibit 13 the following letter of September 30, 1999 he
received from Ms. Penne D' Amico:
"Dear Mr. Leedy,
`In response to your kind notice in regards to the possible rezoning now up for consideration
-- As a property owner on the Bluff line forming the Northerly Boundary of Downtown Port
•
Planning Commission Meeting
.September 30, 2999
Page 9
Townsend, I welcome Dr. James McCarron's request for an amendment to restore the C -Ill
Historic Commercial, land use and zoning designation of the original Townsite of Port
Townsend.
`I understand that you are evaluating blocks 36, 37, 38, 39, 55, 56 & 57. I am the owner of
block 56. I applaud the Planning Commission and the City Council for their foresight in keeping
faith with the history of our town and wish to request that my property be allowed to return to its
original zoning."
Public Testimony
Dr. James McCarron
He said he owns property there and had done engineering and geological studies
preparatory to putting some parking behind the medical clinic; they have some existing parking
that extends onto those lots in back, and had gone through some engineering studies to actually
put in parking. He said he suddenly looked at the map and there was no longer an option; there
was no way one was going to be able to use those lots for residential purposes. He felt it
appropriate to take it back to where it was, the line that ran across those lots two or three feet
into it; the legal interpretation seemed to be that the less restricted (Commercial) zoning would
then extend beyond the 25 feet. He indicated it was always a little nebulous, but at least the 25
feet or so, which is about all that was usable of those lots, would be Commercial zoning and
therefore available to serve parking for Commercial. It didn't seem to make any sense to add
more restrictive Residential zoning -- hence his recommendation.
o minionDi cussion•
Ms. Erickson: Regarding the letter received, she thought Staff had recommended they not rezone
that (the old church); asked why they would want that rezoned? Thought it would have been
better staying the zone it was with the church on it
Ms. Surber: Use for that building has not yet been determined; the owner wanted the historic
nature of the building to be preserved, so she moved it. If she gets the C -III Historic
Commercial that would open up a wide variety of uses for the building. If it stays R -Il, it
would pretty much be residential.
Ms. Thayer: Said from Ms. D' Amico's testimony at other meetings, she thought Ms. D' Armco
was under the impression that it was commercial, and it never was.
Mr. Worden: His recollection is, at the toe of the bank on Block 56 there is no usable space.
Mr. Surber: Replied that there isn't. There is parking in between the two commercial buildings
on Block 56 but not to the rear. The toe of the slope is showing pretty much.
Mr. Worden: There is another bank on the northwest side of Jefferson Street at that point.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 10
MOTION Mr. Harbison Follow Staff recommendation to rezone the northerly
half of Blocks 38, 39, and 55 incorporating Staff
findings and conclusions
SECOND Ms. Ota
Discussion. Mr.. Worden agreed that is the correct way to go, and in fact if they were to make
Block 56 also Commercial, the findings would have to be changed. Thought the
principal rational to do this is to make the areas that are below the bluff available
for commercial use and in Block 56 that has no applicability.
VOTE Unanimous — 6 in favor by roll call vote
At 7:44 p.m. Chair Thayer opened public testimony for both Text Amendments:
► Revise Table IV -2 of the Land Use Element to Reflect Recent Land Use /Zoning Changes
► Amend Policy 18,1 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities
There being no testimony, Chair Thayer closed public testimony on the Text Amendments.
s A. t
Cogs
Description: Tattle IV-2 has not been updated to reflect rezones which occurred through the 1997 and 1998
Comprehensive Plan Update.
mntendatian: Approve
EWA gs: Circumstances have changed since the 1996 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment
would update Table IV -2 to reflect rezones approved in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 annual
amendment process.
t rtr uts _M The amendment would make the Table wi*m the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the
adopted Land Use Map.
Ms. Surber stated this table has not been changed since 1996 when the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted; in 1997 and 1998 there were some changes to the zoning which need to be
reflected in the table. She mentioned she has been working with the GIS Staff, but they have
found other mistakes, and they are still working out a few of those. Staff recommendation is to
approve the changes to Table VI -2 to reflect the rezones and to revise the map as needed;
however, she does not have the revised table tonight.
Ms. Erickson asked Ms. Surber if she would have the table ready in two weeks for the
next Planning Commission meeting October 14th? Ms. Surber replied that is her, goal.
Public Tes iMonv -- There was none.
u
Planning Commission Meeting
.September 30, 2999
Page 11
MOTION Ms. Erickson Hold for deliberation until the next meeting on October
14,1999
SECOND Mr. Mandelbaum
Discussion: Mr. Worden questioned why this is being considered as part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. City Attorney McMahan replied that this is a
Comp Plan Table.
VOTE Unanimous -- 6 in favor by voice vote
B. Amend Policy 18.1 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities
Description: The proposal is to simplify this policy in a manner consistent with the recommendations
contained within the Draft Port Townsend Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the proposal
is to delete the somewhat convoluted direction provided by sub - policies 18.1.1. through 18.1.5 of the Capital
Facilities & Utilities Element of the Plan, retaining the broad policy direction to "ensure that all...
development is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities." (gee Exhibit 7 for
suggested Comprehensive Plan text revisions.) The City Engineer and City Attorney are currently working
on the corollary amendments to Chapter 13.22 PTMC, Sayer Connections,
Recommendation: Approve
Fings: A. Circumstances have changed since the 1996 adoption of the Plan. The city has further
researched and analyzed wastewater plans and policies. A Draft Part Townsend Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan is currently being considered for adoption.
B. The proposed amendment would clarify existing policy.
Conch- mions: The amendment chwyl s existing Comprehensive ,Plan polity.
Proposal: Policy change to clarify the policy which has been difficult to interpret both by Staff
and the public.
Ms. Surber distributed revised Exhibit 7, Proposed Text Revisions for Policy 18.1 of the
Capital Facilities & Utilities Element correcting typographical errors indicating the changes are
to "clean it up a bit" and to also reflect the research that was in preparation of the Wastewater
Management Plan, further refining the Staff's recommendations on the policy. She said she
understands the changes would be concurrent with revisions of Policy 18.1 in the Development
Regulations 13.32 which previously went through the Planning Commission and are not being
presented again. The draft ordinance for revisions to Port Townsend Municipal Code 13.32 are
going forward to Council next week and they would all be adopted fairly concurrently and would
match each other at that point.
Public Testimony -- There was none.
Chair Thayer called for Commission discussion. Mr. Worden said they had looked at
this before and it all seemed very logical.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 12
MOTION Ms. Erickson Approve text-revisions to Policy 18.1 of the Capital
Facilities & Utilities including Findings and Conclusions
SECOND Mr. Harbison
VOTE Unanimous — 6 in favor by roll call vote
M. Propmed Policy AmendMents to the Comprehensive 1 n the
Developmeat R=laUm
A. $,eview of Densities in; the R -IQ and, R -IV Zoning Districts
Description. This proposal is to revise the description of the R K Medium Density Multi= Family, and R -1V
High Density Multifamily land use designation and Table 17.16.030 PTMC to link allowable densities to the
number of bedrooms within dwelling units;
QR#gn L Purne Increased densities
Pros: The provision of more affordable housing to City residents was one of the overriding ubjmuvm of
the Plan, and continues to be an urgent need. This proposal could possibly promote efficient land use while
creating opportunities for the provision of more affordable housing. More flexibility would be afforded to
meet market demand.
Cons: An increase in density would result in increased parking needs and thus larger areas dedicated to
parking tots. 'traffic and mfrastructure/service impacts have not been analyzed. Monies and/or staff time
would need to be allocated to conduct the necessary analysis for a decision to be made in the year 2000.
Administration by bedroom vs. Unit may be difficult.
OR &_n 2: Status Quo/Reject the Rronosal
Pros: The City's zoning code is typical of zoning codes throughout the country; setting a maximum
density by units rather than bedrooms. Municipal Research & Services Center could not find an example of a
city that used bedroom per acre as a measure of density. Administrative problems would be avoided.
Cow: This proposal could possibly promote more efficient land use while creating opportunities for the
provision of more affordable housing.
Recomme e-dation: Staff recommends that the request be denied with the following findings:
1 in : A. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have not substantially changed since the
adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan, and
B. No new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process when
residential densities were set on a per unit basis for each of the residential districts_
C. The City's measure of residential densities on a per unit rather than per bedroom basis is
consistent with mun icipal planning practices.
D. The proposed amendment would change the visual appearance of R III and R Nproperties
through conversion of unusually large areas of the sites to parking.
* Increased densities would result in impacts to infrastructure and public services which were
not anticipated in development of the Comprehensive Plan.
F. There is no evidence that the proposal reflects current widely held community values.
Cancltrsion: 77w proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Proposal: Basically to change the Table for the R -III Medium Density Multi - Family and R -IV
High Density Multi- family bulk, height and dimensional requirements. Rather than linking
densities to the number of dwelling units, link to the number of bedrooms.
•
r-A
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 13
Reason: Intended to provide more flexibility to meet market demand, and is presented as
efficient land use in a way to promote affordable housing.
Ms. Surber said Staff ran into the problem that it is very difficult, and that Municipal
Research could not find any other codes linking density to bedrooms. They did, however, point
out that Bainbridge Island considered assessing a school impact fee based on the number of
bedrooms rather than number of units, and chose against it; their city finance director foresaw
possible administrative problems with defining bedrooms, people trying to cheat by defining
bedrooms as other types of rooms e.g., dens or libraries.
Staff felt the same administrative problems would be true in this proposed amendment.
She pointed out that during the workshop they discussed the fact that this change could result in
significantly higher densities in R -111 and R IV districts, which may not impact the bulk, height
and dimensional requirements, still having design standards for review of the building, but it
would increase parking, and further decrease open space around the building.
Staff recommendation -- Deny the proposal.
Reasons cited:
• Not being able to find another example
• Possible administrative problems
► Possible increase in parking
• Other alternatives for residential housing types within the Comprehensive Plan and the
zoning code, e.g. ADUs and multi - family mixed use zones
Ms. Surber reviewed Findings and Conclusions in the Staff Report,
Public Testimony:
At 7:45 p.m. Chair Thayer opened public testimony for the R -III and R -IV zoning
districts. Public testimony for this section concluded at 7:47 p.m.
Nancy Dorgan, 2137 Washington Street
Read her following testimony:
"One of my favorite programs on cable TV is called "This Small Space ". It's a
design/decorating show about coping with life in small living spaces. I lived in a studio
apartment for 10 years at one time in my life and loved it, and I lived on a small sailboat with my
husband for seven years. We are now in a two bedroom condo of about 800 square feet, which
to me seems palatial. It's all relative, If a small space is well -lit and well- designed, it needn't
be objectionable. Maybe not for everybody, but not everybody can afford more.
`I support this amendment because it will create more affordable housing for our community.
If there are environmental impacts from increasing these densities, I hope that we will still have
the kind of SEPA threshold that will identify them."
u
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 14
Joe Pipia, 1.540 22nd Street
Said for the record, he is clean shaven. He said the spirit in which this is presented,
affordable housing, is a wonderful thing. He encouraged more research on this idea, for other
ideas coming together, that we have more information as opposed to a proposal with less
information. He also encouraged everyone to keep working toward making affordable housing.
He said space is relative, and he related his experience living with his family in a motor home
for a year. He said if the impact on a smaller space is going to be more parking and more
pavement, he would encourage for that ream not to pursue it.
Commission Discussion:
Ms. Thayer: Definitely agreed with staff, and thinks at some point we may want to revisit this.
MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Accept Staffs recommendation that the proposed
amendment to increase densities in R-1111 and R-IV
based on bedrooms be denied with the findings.
SECOND Ms. Erickson
Discussion: Mr. Mandelbaum felt there could be a backlash, that there should be thoughtful,
specific approaches which combine tasteful aesthetics in our design to bring in
affordable housing, that we should be careful about it. Mr. Warden said he was
disappointed; he had thought this was a good idea and had hoped: they could come
up with some controls that would protect the impervious surface of the lot, and
control parking in a way that especially within the R -IV zone would virtually
make no difference in the appearance or the lot coverage from what we allow.
He agreed that the findings are appropriate, and especially that the circumstances
related to this amendment have not changed since the adoption of the Comp Plan,
and, therefore, we don't have a reason to go back and revisit it. He asked Mr.
Mandelbaum to consider if Finding F is an appropriate finding, that he does not
think they know there is no evidence and suggested they strike Finding F.
Friendly Amendment Accepted -- Strike Finding F
A MENNI) M, TION: Accept Staff's recommendation that the proposed amendment
to increase densities in R -H and R -IV based on bedrooms be
denied with Findings A - E, striking Finding F.
VOTE Unanimous -- b in favor by roll call vote
B. C -II Upper- Story Residential
Description: The proposal is to allow upper -story residential development in the city's C -II, General
Commercial, zoning district. This district "provides for those commercial uses and activities which are most
heavily dependent on convenient vehicular access, and located on sites having safe and efficient access to
major transportation routes... This district occupies more area of the city than any other commercial
.7
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 15
district, and occurs in various locations along Sims Way, Washington Street and Water Street, and in the
triangular area bounded by SR 20 to the south, Howard Street to the east, and Discovery Road to the
northwest." Currently, residential development within the C-11 district is limited to owner /operator
residences.
lm 1.: Aggrove ft I!_rr and
Pros: The amendment could provide more affordable housing to City residents.
Cons: Residential development may not be compatible with the intense commercial uses permitted in this
zone nor with the higher traffic volumes on the adjacent artenal/collector streets. (See Exhibit 8 for a
summary of comments from other jurisdictions regarding their experience with allowing residential in the
general commercial zone.)
tion 2; Deny, ft ymposal
Pros: Compatibility between uses would not be an issue.
Cons: An opportunity to provide affordable lousing may be missed
Recomme , ation: Deny the proposal at this time. Stab is not opposed to further consideration of mixed use in
this zoning district; however, proper design is hey to its ultimate success. The idea: should be given further
discussion during the public workshops/hearings for the C -II design standards.
rodin -es A. Circumstances have not clanged since the development of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.
Design Standards which would ensure proper design to overcome the potential conflicts
between residential and commercial development and residential development scent to
arterialslcollectors carrying heavy traffic volumes, have not been changed.
B. The assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are still valid and no new
• information has been presented.
C. No need or urgency for the amendment has been identified The city currently accommodates a
mix of commercial and residential uses in the C III, Cl/MU, and CIUMU zoning districts.
Con Mm: The ansendinent is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Proposal: To allow upper story residential in the City's general commercial zoning district,
primarily located along Sims Way, arterials and larger collectors.
Ms. Surber said that although Staff does not feel the idea should be rejected outright,
they are going through the C -II design standards process and having public input in workshops
on developing C -11 design standards. Staff feels this idea may be something to further explore
through that forum before making an outright recommendation, that it is a good idea. She
referred to her phone survey in Exhibit 8, problems with traffic volume, and being more of an
auto - oriented zone than a pedestrian- friendly zone. She said the overriding comment seemed to
be, it can work if designed appropriately.
Staff recommendation: Deny the proposal with recommendations presented
Reason cited: Staff strongly felt they could look at potentially incorporating design standards
for such a mix of uses through the C-II designn standards forum at that time.
Commission Questions:
Mr. Harbison: Asked if survey comparisons weren't with cities larger than Fort Townsend.
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 16
Ms. Surber: Replied some were larger, but not substantially.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked when they make a finding and recommend that circumstances haven't
changed in an issue like this, does that infer that we know demand for affordable housing has
not increased in the last 3 -4 years.
Ms. Surber. Replied that the Housing Needs Assessment was done as part of the Comprehensive
Plan update in 1996. She did not think there had been another one developed; that kind of
information has not been brought forth to show a deficiency. They have been hearing from
the community that there is a lack of affordable housing, but they have also heard the
argument through the workshops that building a mixed -use building for residential on the
second floor does not necessarily get you affordable housing.
Ms. Erickson: Asked for clarification of Staff Finding C, regarding C -III.
Ms. Surber: Clarified -- it is the downtown C -III Historic District.
At 7:55 p.m. Chair Thayer opened public testimony for C -Il Upper- -story Residential.
Subject public testimony concluded at 8:00 p.m.
Dr, James McCarron
isHe said we throw this question around rather glibly for any avenue that might possibly lead
to affordable housing. He asked that we face the fact price is in proportion to supply and
demand; the more apartments there are for rent, the lower the price will become, unless there are
more people chasing those fewer apartments. He stated it is still a matter of supply and demand;
that is the way all of our economy works.
Dr. McCarron said we have a lot of double standards in Port Townsend and noted that Gael
Stuart referred to those in the downtown area as worshipers of mildew. Anything goes
downtown -- you can say it's historical or whatever else; you can do all kinds of things.
Downtown is commercial on the ground floor, we get two, three and four levels of residential,
because that is all the second floor is good for downtown. He said nobody wants to go
downtown anymore, because of the parking.
Other C -11 in the city encompasses a tremendous amount of ground, a lot of which has nice
parking. Commercial runs from 9:00 a.m. to 4 :00 or 5:00 p.m. at the latest; look at 5:00 p.m. to
9:00 a.m. when somebody might work somewhere, return to Port Townsend and want to live in
their upstairs apartment; that parking is unused for two- thirds of the day -- also weekends where
a lot of commercially- provided parking is not used. He said he does not think it is right to say
you cannot have a second story, and not have a residential use of that; a residence of 1,000
square feet requires 1 -1/2, or whatever, parking spaces; the same amount of commercial space
has a much higher parking demand. So, the demand per unit of residence is actually quite small;
he thinks it quite wasteful and a double standard the way we have it right now.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 17
Ms. Nancy Dorgan
Read her testimony as follows:
"I support this amendment because there is just the outside possibility that at some time one
of these upper story residences will not be an expensive penthouse with a view, but will provide
a family with an affordable place to live.
`Wouldn't it be ironic if after the boisterous year we had with Rite Aid, that the old bowling
alley building ended up being developed as mixed use as a result of the McCarron amendment?
There are lots of options that this amendment opens up, and I strongly support mixing
commercial and residential. It's an urban thing, and yes there are people who would love to live
at Sims and Kearney with a view of the mountains and bay and the sounds of a growing city that
kept the rent affordable.
`Our C -H zones are where the buses are and people who need affordable homes often can't
afford cars. This amendment is a good idea, and I think the pedestrian features being addressed
by our CH Architectural and Site Design Standards will do a lot to facilitate car /people
relationships if the CH zone is expanded to accomodate residential use.
Commissiou Discussion:
Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he was not clear what Staff was offering in terms of a study and when
that might be delivered.
• Ms. Surber: Replied that it is a part of the C,-II design standards group. The C -Il design interim
standards were adopted, but they are still working to finalize them. It is a group that includes
several members of the public; Staff feels it is a good forum to discuss whether residential
should be allowed, and if so what design consideration should be included.
Ms. Erickson: With the design standards through that forum, you can't change whether or not
you want residential in C -H. She asked if you wouldn't have to go through this same thing.
Mr. Leedy: Clarified that there are certain amenities associated with residential, that mixed with
commercial use you would have to take into account. The design review committee that is
continuing to work on the permanent C -II design standards, kept looking at the difference
between pure commercial, and design standards and amenities that need to be provided for
pure commercial, compared to different design standards for different combinations that
need to be taken into account in you are going to be mixing residential with commercial --
parking lot layout, pedestrian access in terms of the residential user, interface between
parking and residents, open space needs of the residential user -- how to fit those into the
primary commercial intent of the C -H district. Those are the kinds of things the design
review committee will be looking at as part of the permanent design standard exercise.
Ms. Erickson: Said she is confused and is not sure why the design committee would bother with
a design for a commercial building with residential on top, if it is not allowed in that zone.
Ms. Surber: Explained that as part of this process the Planning Commission and City Council
were to state their interest in pursuing this through that forum.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 18
Mr. Leedy: Said that in other words, the review committee would be looking at commercial
aspects of design standards.
Mr. Warden: Noted that so far the committee has been looking only at those aspects of building
in the C -I1 district which are of public significance; they are not trying to draw standards that
have to do with quality of the building, particularly, except to the extent that it impacts
public space. It would be a shift in the focus for the design standards to start getting into
amenities for residential or commercial. We are not talking about amenities in the
commercial spaces, aside from the essential ones, like water, street frontage and parking.
Mr. Leedy: Interjected, "open space."
Mr. Warden: Asked Ms. Surber, what specifically led her to the conclusion that the amendment
is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; in going through commercial and residential
land sections he didn't see anything that would really contradict what has been proposed.
Ms. Surber: Replied she was looking at the basic description of the general commercial zoning
district, which states commercial uses and activities, most heavily dependent on convenient
vehicular access. She said if they were to recreate the policy, and it was decided the policy
did not currently specifically preclude upper story residential, that may address Ms.
Erickson's concern; you may be able to make that change through a zoning text amendment
rather than coming back for a Comp Plan amendment. If we read each policy in the Comp
Plan and felt there was nothing that strongly said that you cannot have upper story residential
uses in a general commercial zone, it would be inconsistent at some point to make a zoning
text amendment rather than waiting again for the Camp Plan process. But from Staff reading
and developing these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the general descriptions of the zones
did not state anything about residential uses, although it does not specifically preclude it.
Mr. Worden: Said his reading is that it does not preclude it; it does not even mention it. There
are some other things in there you might say encourage it; certainly as a whole there are
things that encourage residential opportunities.
Mr. Mandelbaum: On assumptions -- 1) the Camp Plan doesn't forbid this, 2) that it probably
would be desirable to incorporate this activity in with the C -II review group, 3) that if
somebody doesn't direct and think about this, they won't -- he suggested they recommend to
the City Council they so direct the C -II Committee, might even consider this a report on this,
so that when zoning text amendments are brought up, they could be brought up with some
favorable background.
Ms. Thayer: Reminded that they can also approve Option i tonight, if they so feel; there would
have to be new findings and conclusions, if they do. She said that is an option, and she is
hearing some feelings toward that.
Mr. Worden: Said she is reading his feelings correctly. He said he thought they would have to
delay action on this. The finding he would like to be able to state is that there is nothing in
the Comprehensive Plan which precludes upper story residential in the C -H district;
circumstances haven't changed -- it isn't necessary they have changed to do this.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
• September 30, 2999
Page 19
Ms. Thayer: Asked about directing Staff to make recommendations, findings and conclusions for
Option 1, and address it at the October 14th meeting.
Mr. Worden: Said that would be his preference.
Consensus: Delay to the October 14th meeting.
Ms. Surber. Asked if they had any indication for Staff what the change in circumstance would
be.
Mr. Worden: There doesn't need to be one. Said what he is asking is for Staff to confirm there is
nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that precludes this change in the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Surber: Said she was thinking about the criteria, has there been a change of circumstance or
new information presented that was not available in 1996.
Mr. McMahan: Pointed out that those criteria primarily target Comprehensive Plan amendments.
If a zoning code amendment is not at all inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in fact
implements certain Plan policies, he did not think that finding needs to be made. It is a
much more critical finding if there is inconsistency with the Comp Plan.
Ms. Surber: Concurred, but stated that Option 1 is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include
upper story residential in general commercial; not to make a conclusions that there is no
need to change the Comp Plan; we can make a zoning code amendment later. If we are
going to adopt Option 1 and amend the Comp Plan at this point in time, then we will be able
to draft findings.
Mr. Worden: Suggested, after review of both ordinances and the Comp Plan, he would like Staff
to tell them if they need to amend the Comp Plan in order to do this, which would take it off
their docket now, but could still be accomplished.
C. C1/MU Revisions
Description Amendments are proposed to Table 17.18.030 PTMC pertaining to Bulk Dimensional and
Density requirements for the C -MW zoning district. The "Neighborhood serving Mixed Use Center"
designation occurs in three locations in the city: the southwest corner of the intersection of 49th Street and
Jackman, the Hastings and Howard Street intersection; and the San Juan and F Street intersection.
Qgga l: Retain existing requirements.
Pm; The C:1/MU zoning district is a key part of the city's vision for the future. As part of a twenty year
plan, the mixed use zoning districts are only two years young. It may be wise to give this district a few more
years before making any alterations.
Cons. Community and landowner support fur this designation is dwindling. Some potential developers
believe that the existing requirements are too restrictive.
ption 2: Amend all or pfffianL of ft ta-k.
Pros: Amendments to the table could facilitate development and use of the district, which the city believes
is urgently needed in order to maintain community and landowner support for this designation.
Cons: Significant changes to the table could result in development which is vastly different than that
envisioned by the community in developing the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 20
the mixed use designations were intended to provide "for a compatible mix of single- family, multi - family
housing and neighborhood commercial businesses and services, with an emphasis on promoting multi -story
structures with commercial uses on the ground floor and multi - family housing on upper floors. This
designation will promote development of a mix of uses over time, like those found in the Downtown and
Uptown Districts of the City today."
Note: Although not anticipated, amendments to the table could require amendments to the Mixed Use Center Policies
10.1 and 10.5 through 10. 12 as they pertain to bulk, height and dimensional requirements (Exhibit 9).
Recommendation: See Exhibit 10 for Staff's recommended amendments to the table. Although there is some
reluctance on the part of Staff to make mixed use permissive rather than mandatory, the thought is that if
the buildings are constructed as envisioned, the uses will mature over time. This concept is set forth in
Policy 10.5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. In discussion with Rob Sears, Building Official (Exhibit 1) it was
discovered that constructing a two -story building for conversion to commercial on the first floor with
residential above would not significantly raise costs over those assumed for a strictly commercial or strictly
residential building. Staff conducted a survey of other jurisdictions (Exhibit 12). Rather than mandatory
uses, the trend seemed to be toward mandatory review under adopted design standards. Although not
currently in place, the Comprehensive Plan Calls for adoption of Design Standards for mixed use
development in Policy 10.13 (see Exhibit 9).
Finftnn: Adoption of the detailed Zoning Code requirements for the CI MU zone in 1997 constituted a
change f om the 1996 Comprehensive Ptah in that Land Use Policy 1Q. 1.6 is to "accommodate"
moderate density multi family development within neighborhood- serving mixed use centers while
the zoning code goes beyond accommodation by mandating housing in new developments:
CMclus, ids: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Compselunsive Plan
-
Proposal: Change bulk, dimensional and density requirements for the neighborhood mixed -use
zoning district to allow greater flexibility in hopes of retaining support of the mixed -use zone..
Ms. Surber pointed out a few policies in Exhibit 9, specifically Policies 10. 1, 10.5 and
10.12 which pertain to bulk, height and dimensional requirements. Exhibit 10 provides Staff's
recommended amendments to the table which were a group effort with Bob Leedy, Jeff Randall
and Ms. Surber taking into consideration the comments received by Mr. Randall in trying to
implement the C -1/MU zone and talking about whether or not the mix of use should be
permissive or mandatory. She said in research she conducted with other agencies, Exhibit 12,
the trend seemed to be to allow uses as permissible rather than mandatory. Staff's conclusion
was that, although there is some reluctance to take out the mandatory provision of mixed uses,
the hope is that if buildings are constructed as a vision with a higher ceiling height on the first
floor to accomodate commercial development and residential above, with the building set up
close to the street side, over time the uses would mature as market demand increases in that
particular neighborhood.
Proms ed changes to Table 17,16.03,0 Exhibit 10
MAXUIAUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Cl/MU) -- Debate regarding "None" meaning "0"
Front Yard Setback was mandatory, placing the building on the street -- or if it meant there
was no requirement whatsoever, and you could put the building wherever you wanted.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 21
Research with other agencies showed, she thought without exception, everybody was looking
for buildings presented at the street frontage without parking intervening between the street
and the building, accomplished in various ways.
Maximum setback of 15' -- Change precludes putting parking in front of the building, but
gives some flexibility. The building could be put right up on the street, or have a 10'
setback, which is quite consistent with the surrounding residential zoning.
MINIMUM BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG PAY
STREET FRONTAGE -- Changed to Primary Street Frontage, to reflect the fact that most
of the mixed -use centers are on intersections. There was some confusion about which
abutting public ROW to front.
► Primary Str Frontage was defined in the C -II design standards as the one carrying the
higher traffic volumes.
Stricko from this tab-IC -- would be recommending uses to be permissive rather than
mandatory. (Also reflected in the minimum average housing density.)
• MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL COMMERCIAL USE (CUMU)
► Changed to 10,000 sf from 5,000 -- To reflect input Jeff Randall received from commercial
owners expressing their needs. (Correct typo of 10,00 sf)
► Suggested change to: Maximum Amount of Any Individual Leasable Commercial Space
-- To reflect the policy that says the target is for smaller businesses and small tenants, and a
mix of businesses within each one of the mixed -use centers. Controlling the size of leasable
space, hopefully, would result in several business within a building rather than one large
business.
MINU14UM AVERAGE HOUSING DENSITY -- CUMU
Strike -out and added statement indicating no requirement, provided that the second -story
is constructed to meet Energy Code for Residential occupancy
MINIMUM USEABLE OPEN SPACE
P. Useable open space is defined in our zoning code indicating useable space is an open area.
Public Testimony:
At 8:15 p.m. Chair Thayer opened public testimony for Cl/MU revisions. Public
testimony for those revisions concluded at 8:30 p.m.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 22
Nancy Dorgan
Read her testimony as follows:
"I cannot support any amendment to our Comprehensive Plan that diminishes our capacity to
provide affordable housing to our residents. It should remain a requirement because affordable
housing is not an option that we have, but an overwhelming need — not to mention a GALi
requirement of our Plan. A recent PDN article entitled "Renters real income gap..." [which
was attached] said that 42% of Jefferson County residents cannot afford the average rent for
apartments in Jefferson County. The recently released County housing study showed the average
one bedroom apartment costs $475.00 per month and constituted only 1.1% of vacant units. The
corresponding figures for a two bedroom unit was $468.00 -- and constituting 6.4% of vacancies,
and for a three bedroom unit the figures were $656.14 per month -- and 2.3% vacancy.
`During the 1998 Comp Plan Amendment Cycle, we lost the housing requirement in our
CH/MU zones. Let's not do that again this year with our Cl/MU zones."
Jog Pi is
Agreed with Nancy Dorgan. He read from the Staff Report, "As part of the a twenty year
plan, the mixed use zoning districts are only two years young." He spoke of the talk at last
night's meeting about this Comp Plan, how people worked on it and the tremendous amount of
input, and he said now there is some grumbling. He again quoted from the Staff Report, "Some
• potential developers believe that the existing requirements are too restrictive." He said too
restrictive is what restrictions are -- restrictions are restrictive. He noted it says, "Some potential
developers;" that is not even all potential developers and thinks there are potential developers,
according to this, who believe that it is not true. He suggested with regard to types of setbacks
and changes, to make this as pedestrian friendly as they can is the most important thing they can
do, and he would not change the Comp Plan on this. He asked if 20,000 square feet is
envisioned for the parcel right now, and said if you up this to 10,000 square feet per leasable
unit, you are now at two tenants; there are no four or five little shops. He urged to hold onto the
Comp Plan for this, and let's see where it goes and see how it feels.
Catlin Robinson
Asked to retain the existing requirements within the Comp Plan She lives in the
neighborhood of San Joan and "F" on Tremont Street and is concerned specifically about the
proposed development of the corner of San Juan and "F She spoke of the newspaper article
showing this development with a scale architectural drawing. It struck her when she read the
proposal was for 50 to 60 parking spaces; she counted 45 parking spaces at Swains from Pacific
Office Equipment to the dry cleaners. The proposal for 50 parking spaces in a commercial strip
at the corner of San Juan and "F" was quite impacting to her. She said as she understands it
now, the zoning for that corner is commercial mixed use, a mix of commercial and residential,
and she declared that neighborhood is residential in function, but she does not know what its
r�
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 23
zoning is on various plots; Collinwood Farm, next door, is residential and farm. She indicated
San Juan grocery is an abandoned building at the comer of San Juan and "F" and has been
vacant of business life for a long time. She expressed concern regarding economic viability for a
commercial enterprise at that intersection. She said she is sure if the developers are doing their
homework on economic viability, they want to make their money. She cited Collinwood Farms
as having a farm stand for several years, stopping it because it was not economically viable;
Del's Grocery, at the corner of Kearney and 19th having recently closed and understanding they
could no longer offer gasoline to the public and could not make their business go by just selling
local neighborhood. groceries. She reiterated her concern about economic viability at San Juan
and "F" and realized what the zoning allows. The property has been sold and it is not now fair to
change the zoning from what was thought when it was bought. She urged keeping the zoning
mixed use including a residential component; if for some reason a commercial venture does not
go there, there would at least be a residential component connection to the neighborhood it is in.
Dr. James McCarron
He is a major owner of the property at San Juan and "F "; he is involved in it and is
indeed worried about economic viability at that corner; the feedback from the neighborhood has
been very receptive. They are still in evolution as far as exactly what is going to be put there.
He said that indeed his major concern is as to what is going to be the most economically viable;
• the more their hands are tied and the more restrictions placed on them, the greater the risk of just
sitting and having two residential buildings gradually rotting.
He said they would like to have flexibility, that no way would they want to give up the
ability of having residential; he has already spoken to having a residential mix in other areas, and
still sees the C -H zone as encompassing a much bigger area; there are three areas of the city that
have mixed use. He spoke of requirements that sometimes significantly increase your cost or
hassle, having to do with how you get in, etc., even saying there is maximum 5,000 square feet
can be a bit of a problem. He said they had worked with Aldriches and are still working the Co-
Op from the point of view of a tenant. To say you can only have one leaser may be restrictive;
the idea is to have somebody who leases and then subleases other areas; otherwise you have to
have a door with a lock in whatever area, have energy, have one person's heating and cooling
system conflicting with others. There are different ways of doing a joint area, but it is still nice
to have one person responsible and then have other little shops. He said their idea is still, and he
thinks there is no question the community will support this, a multi- facility type of idea. He said
part of their plan is professional office space, e.g., orthodontist, hair dresser, etc. within the
neighborhood. He could see some residential; mandating they must have six or eight units could
be restrictive. He thought the ability of having residential there was tremendously important,
that indeed the best use of that corner may be just pure residential, though you may say that was
not the intention. He noted there are some large structures down the road with residential, the
school down the way which needs places for the kids to go until they are picked up, etc. He said
•
Planning Commission Meeting
• September 30, 2999
Page 24
they are far from a clear cut picture of what they want for that area, in fact they welcome any
suggestions and interest from anybody on the development. He, said he thinks it has potential,
and there is potential of being a benefit for the neighborhood He stated that nowadays for any
kind of commercial you have to have one parking space for every 300 square feet; for a
professional office, e.g., doctors, dentists, etc., you have one parking space for every 200 square
feet. If you have 1,000 square feet for a dental office, you have to have five parking spaces just
to serve it_ He indicated as developers, they don't like asphalt -- it costs; a lot of that is a
requirement. He declared that putting in residential will not, in fact, reduce the amount of
parking that goes in and will, in fact, increase it He advocated to keep flexibility, but reduce
what is mandated.
Commission Dimussion
Mr. Warden: Said in reading the Plan once again he agreed with Ms. Surbees conclusion that
making this change in the zoning ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan says, "...neighborhood serving use designation which provides for compatible mix of
small scale commercial uses and medium density multi- family housing in multi -story
buildings." He said it doesn't say that commercial and housing have to be in the same
building; it doesn't say one has to be above the other; it doesn't say they have to be on the
same site. It is just recommending that we try to encourage the aggregation of this same kind
• of neighborhood commercial and housing in the same place. He thought the scale of this
zone is such that it is going to be multi -use no matter what gets into that particular piece of
property, and thinks it may be a little bit unrealistic to expect to accomplish the multi -use on
a particular piece of property, that multi -use is a characteristic of the zone as a whole. He
said he will probably stand in favor of the amendment, but wanted to wait to hear from
others before making a motion.
Ms. Erickson: Said 10,000 square feet doesn't seem like small business. She wondered about
scale and guessed when they did this zoning she pictured "small" neighborhoods -- dentist's
office, CPA office or a small bakery, etc. She said 10,000 square feet is big business; it's not
small. She wondered with all C -I/MU zones how three business with 10,000 square feet
each could go in the neighborhood. Parking would be a minimum of 100 cars.
Mr. Worden: Said his guess his parking requirements would preclude that much square footage
being developed-
Ms. Erickson: Spoke of the amount of property to put this in. She said it would definitely
change the character of that zone.
Ms. Thayer: It does say that is the maximum amount.
Ms. Erickson: She realized that and said that is without any residential at all. She looked at it as
almost a commercial zone, if the residential component is taken out. She tried to picture
30,000 square feet of commercial, all the cars and no residential, and suggested that could
happen in that or any of the Cl/MU zones, that it is hard to picture; it is quite a change.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
.September 30, 2999
Page 25
Mr. Worden: Said when they had their C -U/MU zone discussions, one of the things he thinks the
Planning Commission discussed and most favored is to structure the zoning code so that you
could put a commercial only, or a mixed building on the same site, but the amount of floor
area you were allowed would increase if you included the residential component. He said
that is not what they adopted, but that was a very appealing idea to him. He asked Ms.
Surber if this requires a two -story building?
Ms. Surber: She affirmed it did.
Mr. Worden: If you build a two-story building that is all commercial, it is going to have to be
smaller than if you had the commercial on one floor and the residential on another.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Reported for the record that he lives not too far away in that neighborhood. of
San Juan and "F ". He said he had a different philosophy about a commercial development
coming into that area, feeling that it is becoming more intense, or dense, from a residential
point of view, and that from an energy point of view accommodating people living, for
example, at San Juan Commons. He said he is not discussing the details of the project but is
also not convinced, location aside, that making provision for mixed use means that there will
be affordable housing coming on top of commercial space. He said he would like to focus
our affordable housing strategy where it might count; the C -II area might help, and some
other things coming up might help. He said he doesn't think this is an affordable housing
discussion we are having at this point.
• Mr. Worden: Asked Ms. Erickson if it would allay any of her concerns to change the language:
from; 5,000 square foot maximum amount of any individual commercial use (originally
stated)
to-. 10,000 amount of individual "leasable commercial space"
(keeping a 5,000 square foot limit, but saying that is the maximum of an individual leasable
space, so it would be permissible for one tenant to take more than one space.)
He said it would make him feel better, now that it was mentioned. It seemed to him when
Mr. Garrison was addressing the issue, his concem was that 5,000 square feet might not be
enough for some uses. That is true, unless they were allowed to take more than one space.
Ms. Thayer: Said she would be more comfortable with that.
Mr. Worden: That would make it usable by smaller tenants and bigger tenants.
Ms. Erickson: Asked if he is saying a single tenant could lease one or more 5,000 square foot
spaces. She said another side tells her that a really large business is not going to make it in a
residential neighborhood, anyway, but was looking at all of the uses that were allowed,
trying to picture any one of those permitted uses, e.g., restaurants, and thinking of the
parking for that area, C -1/MU zones. Restaurants had the most required parking; banks;
offices, etc., all those things she could see going into this zone, especially with all the
residential and the school nearby. She said changing to 5,000, isn't going to stop someone
going in with a 15,000 square foot business. She asked Mr. Worden if he would be more
comfortable with that.
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 26
•
is
Mr. Worden: Concurred that it would not stop someone, but that he would be more comfortable,
because it would mean you wouldn't have to have a 10,000 square foot business to be there;
you could do a smaller business, or your might take a 5,000 square foot space and divide it in
two, e.g. for hair salons.
Ms. Surber: Said if the recommendation is to change the language to say leasable commercial
space, leasable space needs to be defined. It is not defined now.
Mr. Worden: The intent would be that the building would have to be constructed in such a way
that you could separate it into 5,000 square foot leaseholds. It would certainly be in the
developer's interest to also construct it in such a way that those could be joined together. So
what it means is, you don't have bearing walls between the leasable spaces.
Ms. Thayer: Asked the Commission if they wanted to postpone this until they have a definition
for leasable space, or if they wanted to act on this with the idea they will come up with a
definition of leasable space?
Mr. Worden: Said he is comfortable and proposed the motion.
MOTION Mr. Worden Accept Staff's recommendation to amend the
requirements of the C-1/MU zone to make the
housing element optional, adopt the findings
proposed by Staff and adopt revised Table 17.18.030,
with the exception that the item titled "Maximum
Amount of Any Individual Commercial Use" be
changed to "Maximum Amount of Any Individual
Leasable Commercial Space" and that the figure
associated with that be 5,000 square feet rather than
10,000 square feet
SECOND Mr. Harbison
VOTE Unanimous — 6 in favor by roll call vote
At the conclusion of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, Chair Thayer called for a
recess at 8:42 p.m., reconvening the meeting at 8:55 p.m. for the remainder of business.
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 27
& ProUQUA SEPA Threshold Amendments (open- record public hearing)
1. Staff Presentation
City Attorney Tim McMahan stated in early July the City Council requested that Staff
and the Planning Commission consider raising the locally - adopted thresholds for SEPA
(environmental review and policy act). He indicated for those of the public present he would be
making pretty much the same presentation he did at the recent Planning Commission Workshop.
Docunients to be discus
sled
• His August 25, 1999 memorandum with attached draft ordinance to implement this change
• His July 15, 1999 memorandum with a summary of the proposal; pros and cons as seen by
Staff in raising the SEPA threshold; recommended action summary; attachments including a
section of Wacs
Mr. McMahan referred to Part Nine, Categorical Exemptions included in the July 15th
packet. He said Port Townsend has traditionally used the basic categorical exemption levels
with thresholds when environmental is triggered on State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). He
pointed out that these thresholds define certain actions which, by law, are subject to any
• environmental review under SEPA and explained that the proposal is to take advantage of
authority under Part Nine -- Categorical Exemptions to raise those levels up to a higher level so
certain additional projects would come through the permitting process without environmental
review under SEPA. He said some who have been subject to environmental review in the past
would no longer be subject to environmental review if the thresholds were raised.
He gave a summary of the proposal stating that levels authorized by State law and to be
raised upon adoption of the local ordinance to take that action are shown in Part Nine WAG 197 -
1- 1- 080(l)(c). The State law states that the local government may raise levels upon adopting
local findings that basically detail measures taken locally to ensure there are sufficient local
circumstances justifying the action and sufficient environment controls taking care of problems
that would otherwise be subject to environmental review.
Mr. McMahan noted this Planning Commission was at a training session today, and that
although he hadn't asked specifically, the presentation covered whether or not SEPA is really
needed any longer with the Growth Management Act (GMA). He said interesting things have
happened in State law that are being greatly discussed in local jurisdictions. With the adoption
of GMA, and a lot of environmental regulations required under GMA, local governments like
ours have been mandated by State law to adopt many scientific and environmental -based
regulatory standards which didn't exist in the past, dealing with a broad range of environmental
impacts totally outside the context of SEPA.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 2999
Page 28
The questions is, do we need a State Environmental Policy Act to direct this city toward
review of environmental impacts for smaller projects that are already addressed through a
panoply of other environmental regulations. Is that still needed; do we really need to essentially
double - review projects both under SEPA and under other things, e.g., traffic standards,
Engineering Design Standards Manual, Environmentally Sensitive Area ordinance which
addressed environmental review, zoning -- controls we have adopted after the Comprehensive
Plan was enacted, and a host of other regulations required by law to adopt under Growth
Management? He referred to the survey Judy Surber performed, with the assistance of the
Department of Ecology, indicating the information demonstrates that across the State of
Washington the vast majority of jurisdictions appear to be raising some or all of the
environmental levels categorical exemptions up to the State threshold that is allowed. He said it
is for the relatively small projects local jurisdictions have determined there is a sufficient
number of other environmental controls in place, so that we do not also need to engage SEPA
for that level of review.
Mr. McMahan referred to the ordinance and said for the recommended findings and
recitals to comply with the SEPA rule, it would justify raising the levels locally. The ordinance
recites the variety of local regulations enacted before and since the Comprehensive Plan was put
in place that regulate environmental impacts of the vast majority of these kinds of projects
described. Page 3 cites reference to proposal of maximum levels, and the existing codes based
• on SEPA thresholds within the Washington Administrative Codes (WACs). He said you can see
in brackets the existing code levels and the language described for what the new levels would be
for not effecting environmental review under SEPA.
The basic idea is for relatively smaller projects that are in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and in conformance with various regulations and controls enacted pursuant
to Growth Management, there really isn't need locally to engage the full level of SEPA review,
with one possible significant exception. The City Council in a July study session was not sure it
was a good idea to raise the threshold to 500 cubic yards for Clearing and Grading.
Unlike other jurisdictions which have raised these thresholds, Port Townsend does not
have a stand alone Clearing and Grading ordinance addressesing such things as speculative
clearing and grading of property when there isn't a development proposal associated with the
project, moving significant amounts of dirt and clearing significant amounts of vegetation that
can cause off -site stormwater impacts, etc. Mr. McMahan said when there is a full -blown
development proposed, there is a review that tends to be triggered in that process that addresses
those impacts. When we have stand alone activities occurring that don't have any associated
development permits, we do not locally have controls that address the vast majority of impacts
that can occur in that setting.
City Council wanted the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to Council
concerning raising that SEPA level from 100 cubic yards up to 500 cubic yards and whether the
Commission felt that was a good idea based upon Staff input. Mr. McMahan noted Judy Surber
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 2999
Page 29
had discussed at the workshop about the work done in the past to fill some of the gaps on
clearing and grading. He said Staff is comfortable with raising all thresholds other than clearing
and grading.
Staff recommendation: Raise all thresholds with the exception of Clearing and Grading until
such time as the Clearing and Grading ordinance has been enacted.
CommLiabW 52 1 and!!QlLmments:
Mr. Worden: Said it had occurred to him, the State has pretty strict controls on air quality
through Puget Sound Air Quality Authority, and he thought we don't have anything in our
city codes that really address that issue, except the SEPA determination. He said he can't
see that it makes much difference, the State is still going to be the regulating authority on
that, so we haven't missed anything by taking away SEPA.
Mr. McMahan: Said the idea is, for example in an apartment building of 20 residential units
versus four, for commercial space it is 12,000 square feet versus 4,000 square feet. Those
are still relatively small in the big picture in terms of impact. It is Staff's perspective that it
is not going to make a whole lot of difference. He said the other thing to note is that Staff
doesn't spend a whole lot of time on environmental review with this range of projects. In a
sense we have a lot relatively small projects and every now and then we have a big project,
• so there are not that many projects that you can fit into this range, at least with the current
development patterns in Port Townsend. He thinks it is a question if this makes a big
difference or not.
Ms. Surber: Regarding air quality, one thing that has been brought up through the SEPA analysis
and air quality in other jurisdictions where she has worked, when you degrade the level of
service at an intersection, having cars queuing up at an intersection, it creates a carbon
monoxide hot spot in that area. She said in some jurisdictions they have adopted policy that
says in those cases, if you have specific sensitive receptors e.g., schools, nursing facilities,
etc., that is considered significant air quality impact. She thought that is not something that
would be caught by a State agency, but could be caught through the SEPA process, although
she did not now if we have that specific information.
Mr. Worden: Said we don't have any regulations about that either in the city code.
Ms. Surber: She said she has used that analysis quite recently, citing the drop in level of service,
but indicating there were no sensitive receptors in the area.
Mr. Worden: Replied that is a good point, but guessed it did not apply to these range of projects.
Ms. Surber: Indicated the cumulative effect at an intersection could apply.
Mr. Worden: Replied 4,000 square foot of commercial could have that effect.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Was not comfortable with this. He said the case was made effectively at the
workshop today that SEPA should not be used, or need not be used as a substantive tool in
stopping projects on an environmental basis, that there are other legislative and regulatory
.7
Planning Commission Meeting
. September 30, 2999
Page 30
tools for that purpose; that is true, and he buys that. This sidesteps the main function of
SEPA which is to get developers and governments to think of alternatives, not because the
government is going to bar someone, but because in developing parking lots or roads or
buildings, unless it is insignificant, you want to encourage people to think of alternatives. He
said that is not done through any other regulatory process.
Mr. McMahan: He said that is a good point and the other point he makes in the pros and cons is
public notification, that SEPA does provide a public notification tool that doesn't necessarily
otherwise exist, unless some project is in a permitting process that requires notice. If is a
relatively small, outright permitted commercial project, e.g. if your trigger is 4,000 square
feet now, public notice goes out to the neighbors if it is a 5,000 square foot project. If this
raises that up to 12,000 square feet, that public notice would no longer go out. He said from
his perspective, is perhaps a larger issue in terms of the use of SEPA and whether it is
important or not. He said one still has to ask the question, what difference does it really
make, and does not in any way mean to minimize public input in the permitting the
processes, if something is an outright permitted use, and the impacts are otherwise regulated
through environmental controls, notifying the public perhaps only frustrates the public if
there is not opportunity to participate very much and shape a project, so it doesn't matter
very much. He supposes there are different perspectives on that, but it is a policy question.
Ms. Surber: Said regarding alternatives: 1) you only alternatives analysis if you DS the project.
When the project is the scale we are talking about with these thresholds, you are probably
you are not going to DS to get that alternative discussion you are looking for; 2) regarding
public notice process, one the thing she has always appreciated she gets a lot of information
about that particular site she would not have known otherwise.
Mr. McMahan: Said he wasn't sure if they were talking about alternatives in a strict SEPA
context of alternative sites and alternative kinds of projects or more soft discussion; in other
words, what other ways would you design a project in a way that is less environmentally
impacting. He said Ms. Surber is right, if there isn't a DS, you can't really discuss
"alternatives," and if a private project you can't discuss alternative sites.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Suggested that it reduces to that. If you determine it is not significant, it
doesn't take much to do that. If there is not great effort to make a determination of non-
significance, then what does the struggle here mean?
Ms. Surber: Said there is a lot of frustration on the part of property owners that fill out an
Environmental Checklist, frustrating for people who don't understand the broad base the
Environmental Checklist covers. The cost incurred, $250, plus noticing fee _ it seems like a
lot of added cost to people who feel frustrated to fill out 75 pages and pay the fee.
Mr. Leedy: Noted there is also a review period.
Mr. Worden: Indicated that is also very critical.
Mr. McMahan: Pointed out that the form is not of the City's doing; it is a State form.
0
Planning Commission Meeting
•September 30, 1999
Page 31
2. lPubUc T�
At 9:15 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony.
Mamaret Lee, 809 Gaines Street
Distributed copies and read her testimony as follows which was entered as Exhibit 1:
" Despite the progress that has been made on developing exacting regulations under the Growth Management Act
and general planning through the Comprehensive Plan I believe the City should use extreme caution in raising the
SEPA Categorical Exemptions. My primary concern is that it would eliminate the opportunity for citizens to become
informed and oomment, particularly those who reside in the neighborhood where development would occur.
`My experiences and observation during SEPA reviews has convinced me of their benefit:
`City staff (nor developers) cannot be everywhere, see everything, know everything. They have a heavy work
load at present as it is. Citizen activists and participants in the public process should be considered a great
resource and allies in forging our community.
* `Neighbors to a prospective project often have knowledge of the area that is valuable and beyond the ken of
planners, developers or (perhaps) relatively new residents. This might include seasonal water flow,
neighborhood traffic patterns and restrictions, unique vegetation, historically significant structures not
previously identified or underground hazards of one kind or another. They would be able to identify rare or
unusual birds or wildlife.
* The size of a project is in the eye of the beholder. Small? Larger? Truly large? (Interjected that based on
the Staff Report, what is large ?) There is no doubt that neighbors would be better served and shown respect
if the present thresholds that trigger notification and opportunity to comment are maintained. Decisions that
appear arbitrary, particularly to the immediate neighborhood, decisions that affect peoples immediate
surroundings without consultation, can create resentment and disaffection.
* `Construction projects can disrupt a neighborhood with truck traffic, noise, dirt and dust. New lighting may
glare. Precious views may disappear. People may be displaced. SEPA review is a vital tool that can and
should be used to mitigate these effects.
`The Comprehensive Plan states (VI. Transportation Element, Parking Management):
• "'Future parking management in Port Townsend should pursue a variety of alternate parking strategies, and
should take into account the City's overall transportation system goals. This plan encourages parking
management control rather than costly public investment in building new parking lots. It also acknowledges
that we cannot, and do not wish to, build enough parking lots to accommodate all cars. ..the control of future
transportation and parking problems must be addressed through strategic planning."
• `A parking lot for forty cars would be larger than the car lot provided for Bank of America customers. The
request to raise the SEPA Categorical Exemption for impervious surfaces is most egregious, not only because
it is out of step with the Comprehensive Plan, but because runoff carrying contaminants will flow into the
environment, whether through bioswales or storm sewers. The City of Port Townsend has taken many
actions to reduce environmental degradation and the listing of salmon under the Endangered Species Act
should mandate even stricter standards. I suggest the City consider reducing the Categorical Exemption for
parking lots rather than increasing it.
`Port Townsend is unique. (It is nothing like Anacortes.) Whether other communities or counties raise their
Categorical. Exemptions is not relevant. What may be is that Jefferson County has chosen not to do so during the
GMA and Comprehensive Plan process.
`The people of port Townsend have expressed the desire to maintain the environment and quality of life in our
town on many occasions. Many citizens have worked for countless hours over the years to see that developmental
pressures do not harm it. SEPA's safety net provides a brief opportunity, the only opportunity in some cases, for
individuals to be heard. Growth pressures will continue to increase. This is not the time to embark on a patio which
Planning Commission Meeting
isSeptember 30, 1999
Page 32
will undermine lively, productive, discussion which has traditionally contributed so much to the decisions that have
shaped our community.
NaW Dorgan
Read her testimony as follows:
• "why did BCD not do a written report on such an important change to our planning process? Even if our City
Attorney does have a degree in Urban Planning, I would have appreciated a thorough analysis and a
recommendation from our planning staff rather than just his memo to Council. If BCD staff have been too busy
dealing with the Glen Cove/ Tri -Area Study, perhaps a decision on this should be postponed until BCD is able to
complete a detailed report for you and for the public. Reading in his memo that Judy Surber had called Anacortes
and was told these changes were OK with them doesn't mean the changes would be good enough for us. After all,
that was the same county that at one time tried to rezone 7,000 ft of waterfront and 700 acres of Guemes Island
from residential/recreational to industrial for an aluminum reduction plant.
• `What is the connection between relaxing environmental review and facilitating affordable lousing? That was
one of the justifications given by the proponent. I'm all for affordable housing, but what evidence have you been
given that there is any specific connection at all? There is none in the file I had access to. where is the
documentation for years of "intimidation and control" by staff and useless development regulations that has led to
this proposal? I hear about these things, but I'm not really sure what they are exactly talking about. I would like
to know. I wouldn't be as suspicious of the motives of this proposal if it were more moderate, asking say, for only
a 50% change instead of the maximum allowable.
• `Are cheaper and faster building permits for a few developers worth the risk to our community that is created
when existing protections are diluted or eliminated? I don't believe so. The City Attorney's memo, which is the
only analysis in the public review file, states that Beanie Arthur originated this proposal. He is the listing agent
• for the bowling alley building, which is 11,000 square feet. This size development would be exempt from SEPA
review if the threshold changes were enacted Sims and Kearney is one of the busiest intersections in the City.
How would the traffic impacts of developing a property of this size be analyzed and mitigated without keeping the
SEPA thresholds at the current level? It wouldn't be. As much as I wish for the success of the bowling alley
conversion, I don't think a retail project of 11,000 should be exempt from traffic analysis. There would be no
safety net for transportation impacts if our SEPA process is changed. That is a major flaw in this proposal and one
of the reasons I cannot support it.
• `why would the City not want to protect unearthed: historical and cultural remnants? How would noise levels be
mitigated? I'm also especially worried about grading and erosion control.
`A year ago I didn't even know what SEPA meant, and I hadn't a clue what a SEPA Determination of Nonrsignificance
was. I got one of those notices in the mail a year ago because I own property across the street from the Penny Saver
and under SEPA rezone rules, had to be notified of the Baldridge rezone application. It's been an interesting year with
a steep learning curve as I struggled to learn enough to participate in this process. It turned me into a citizen.
Objecting to proposals such as this isn't pleasant or fun and rd rather be home, but it is important and necessary at
times. Rezone requests will continue to trigger SEPA public notice, but I hope that by maintaining all the existing
notification procedures under the current SEPA threshold levels, more people will become interested in their
community's future and find their way to City Hall."
Joe pia
Agreed with Ms. Nancy Dorgan. He said he was struck the by firm tone Mr. McMahan used;
he felt his terminology was very telling and he read quotations from Mr. McMahan (emphasis in
bold):
► "The issue is that while the other exemption levels are probably sufficiently addressed
through other non -SEPA regulations ..."
•
Planning Commission Meeting
is September 30, 1999
Page 33
This being the case, "consider raising the exemption threshold."
► "By raising the exemption levels a certain amount of time for some applicants."
CONS: "Raising the threshold will weaken the City's ability to rely on this "safety net;"
► "The overall level of environmental protection afforded to this geographical area will be
lessened."
► `By raising the exemption level, the Council would eliminate a range of notification and
ability to comment which historically has been provided in Port Townsend."
He said Mr. McMahan" s most firm comments are talking about the "Cons" and why this
is a bad thing, and he thinks that is very telling. With regard to the fact this is an important
public disclosure tool, he said he can't imagine anything that would lessen the ability to notify
people here in this town of things going on, and can't imagine any choice that would do that. He
suggested nonchalance on the part of Mr. McMahan in stating it didn't matter very much. Mr.
Pipia said he heartily disagrees, that it does matter, and there are people here who "would rather
be home; " because it does matter, and for no other reason than that. He asked them to not go
along with this. He said Mr. McMahan said certainly with any current projects, there doesn't
appear to be a problem with any current project. Mr. Pipia said that may very well be true today,
but SEPA is not necessarily current projects; we don't know what is going to happen 2, 3, 5
years down the road. He asked that they not go along with the recommendation
• Catherine Robison
Echoed the foregoing testimonies as her own and asked them not to raise the SEPA limits,
especially for public disclosure. She said, if there is truly no environmental impact, the
determination of nonsignificanee can be issued within a relatively short period of time and feels
like it is pretty efficient.
At 9 :30 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony and opened Commission Discussion
3. Commission Discussion
Mr. Mandelbaum: As he heard the problem presented particularly by the Staff, it seemed to him
that the problem might be correctable at less than the level being recommended by one or
two techniques: 1) dealing with the inefficiency of filling out the forms and probably even
the cost of filing, by having waivers; 2) possibly raise the exemption a little higher than now,
but not necessarily going to the maximum. He said he is uncomfortable in going to the
maximum; he did not see that the case was made.
Mr. Worden: Said he felt those comments were very appropriate, and he had the further
observation that they have all discussed and are all very concerned about maintaining public
confidence in what both the Planning Commission and Council are doing. He said it seems
•
Planning Commission Meeting
• September 30, 1999
Page 34
notification and getting people aware of what is happening in the community is a very
important part of that. For that reason he said he is inclined to think these should not be
changed by the amount that is recommended, at least.
Ms. Thayer: Asked, if they do not agree with them as they stand, if there is anything they would
agree with by reducing the thresholds ?.
Mr. Worden: Replied that seems like a technical question he is not sure he is prepared to address
tonight. His inclination is to not go along with the change at this time, and a another time we
can consider a different proposal.
Ms. Surber. Pointed out what she considered an inconsistency regarding short plats and SEPA
review.
Mr. McMahan: Corrected Ms. Surber stating they had determined they had been making a
misinterpretation.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if this is an action requested by the City Council or by Staff?
Ms. Thayer: Replied that City Council wants our recommendation.
Mr. Mandelbaum: Said is his view, the recommendation is either for Staff to come with
something more modest or to reject this recommendation
Mr. Leedy: Said for Commission benefit, he thought the appropriate thing is to pass along a
recommendation to City Council. He explained there was no Staff cover report from BCD
because the City Attorney's recommendation was sufficient, and there was no need to
reinvent the wheel.
Ms. Thayer: Quoted from page one of Mr. McMahan's August 25th memorandum: "The City
Council has requested that you consider this proposal, and make a recommendation to the
City Council after holding a public hearing."
MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Recommend to Council to not adopt the proposed
changes at this time and to consider referring it back
to Staff for further review and perhaps more
modest recommendations
SECOND Ms. Ota
Discussions Mr. Harbison said he felt the need to be more specific in what they were
recommending.
VOTE Unanimous — 6 in favor by roll call vote
Chair Thayer noted that both recommendations will go to City Council for their
deliberation and recommendation. She announced there are two proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments deferred to the October 14th meeting that will be considered at that time.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 35
V1. Other Business
The motion regarding UGA designations from the meeting of September 29, 1999.
Mr. Mandelbaum noted that Mr. Worden's motion followed his and as he looks at them
it rather renders his redundant. He felt the syntax on Mr. Worden's motion needs reworking, but
did not feel his own motion is necessary.
Mr. Worden said Council would be getting that for their consideration. Mr. L,eedy
explained Council would be receiving a draft of the motions. Mr. Worden indicated he had
corrections to make on both motions.
Chair Thayer stated these motions had been made at the meeting on September 29, 1999
and asked for clarification from City Attorney McMahan if they could be reconsidered. He
replied that they could do so at a following meeting, and concurred they could be considered at
this meeting.
MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Consider redrafting the adopted Warden motion so that
it is clear this Commission is not only recommending
• rejection of the two UGA scenarios but also the two
Logical Boundaries scenarios
SECOND Mr. Worden
VOTE Unanimous — 6 in favor voice vote
Mr. Warden's redrafted motion follows:
The Port Townsend Planning Commission recommends to the City Council they
continue to further put forward the proposal with the Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee that the designation of any UGA or extended Logical Boundary is not urgent
and could be postponed to a time when the City could prepare for it. It is further
recommended that the City Council go on record as preferring, if the County does
designate an UGA, designation of a UGA in Glen Cove that extends to the city limits of Port
Townsend, including all existing businesses south to Old Fort Townsend Road, and that
such UGA be constrained to the east side of Route 20, including area 6 of the areas
designated in the EIS.
CONSENSUS: Accept as redrafted
•
a
•
L
Planning Commission Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 36
Mr. Mandelbaum requested his motion of September 29, 1999 regarding UGAs not be
included in the report Mr. Leedy makes to City Council.
VI. New Business
,-ro M -7111 & ,.
October 14. 1999
Comp Plan Amendments
Zoning Code Text Amendment
October 28, 1999
Public Hearing (open - record)
VIII. Communications -- Current Mail
Imo. Adjournment
Finalize findings & conclusions
Workshop (Proposal by the Port to raise the building
height limit in the M -M(A) zoning district)
Port of Port Townsend (LUP99 -72) Zoning Code Text
Amendment - height limit
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr.
Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
41 a,,,
Sheila Avis, Minute Taker
Cindy Aayer, Chair
•
•
Meeting of.-,
Purpose: /
Date: --
Guest List
ox''l P 9% 4,41 s --
Name 1p►ease print)
Address
m
Testi n ?
NO
/ C
V--Cl z 11
"r
t
�Y'q
-
®q
,
°=