Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09021999 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3rd Floor Conference RID., Waterman & Katz Bldg., 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting September 2, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: August 12, 1999 V. Unfinished Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (CI-MU) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion VI. New Business A. Proposed Ordinance Amending SEPA Thresholds 1. Staff Report (Tim McMahan) 2. Commission Discussion B. Jefferson County EIS and Comprehensive Plan Update 1. Staff Presentation (Bob Leedy) 2. Commission Discussion VII. Other Business: Next Scheduled Meetings September 9, 1999 Comp Plan Amendments Workshop (C-III downtown northerly boundary) (C-II upper-story residential) Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district) September 30, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open-record public hearing) October 14, 1999 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 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting September 2, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room, Waterman & Katz Building, by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Len Mandelbaum and Christine Ota. Larry Harbison was excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were BCD Bob Leedy and Judy Surber and City Attorney Tim McMahan. Mr. GeoffMasci represented the City Council. Chair Thayer announced that Commissioner Lois Sherwood had indicated to her that she was submitting a letter of resignation from the Planning Commission. Ms. Thayer said that such a letter had not yet been received. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of August 12, 1999 as written and corrected was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES -- There were no reports. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (CI-MU) 1. Staff Report Ms. Surber began by referencing her Staff Report of September 2, 1999 regarding the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update and discussed t((xt amendments: ... Revise Table IV-2 of the Land Use Element to Reflect Recent Land Use/Zoning Changes. This is a housekeeping item and is being reworked to reflect rezones which occurred through the 1997 and 1988 Comprehensive. Plan Update. Revised numbers will be provided in Commission packets for the September 30th hearing. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 2 ... Amend Policy 18.1 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element to simplify the policy direction regarding the supply of ad~quate wastewater collection and treatment facilities to all existing and new development. Ms. Surber discussed strike--out language provided by Mr. Dave Peterson and some minor editorial changes indicating that basically the only exemption to hooking up to the city wastewater collection system would be if your parcel is 260 feet or more from the wastewater collection. She stated it does not matter where the house is; it is the parcel itself (assuming it is a single family house). No questions were raised. Ms. Surber said the text as shown with revisions will be included in packets for the forthcoming hearing, and she turned discussion of the CI-MU over to Mr. Leedy. CI-MU Mr. Leedy reported that due to pressing business regarding the Glen Cove/Tri Area study they were unable to prepare the analysis far enough in advance for tonight's meeting and they would schedule that for the next workshop. He indicated the Staff Report he distributed was prepared by Jeff Randall, is based on contact with the developer, and is an assessment of a typical kind of problem that is encountered with CI-MU. Chair Thayer stated that concluded the evening's Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Ordinance Amending SEPA Thresholds 1. Staff Report Mr. Tim McMahan discussed his August 25, 1999 Draft of Proposed Amendments to the City's SEP A Categorical Threshold Exemptions which was proposed for Council adoption and would raise most of the SEPA thresholds to those allowable by Washington law. He indicated the State Department of Ecology has adopted WACs concerning the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that set certain levels of thresholds where categories of actions are presumptively or categorically exempt from SEP A review. He said the WACs then indicate that if you adopt an ordinance that recites your local conditions, if justified, you can raise these up to an even higher level for exempting even more things from environmental review. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 3 Mr. McMahan noted that City Council directed Staff to work on and bring this ordinance forward to the Planning Commission to consider, and that he has included an ordinance that takes a first attempt at findings and recitals to justify raising the thresholds. He explained language on Page 3: ... Numbers in bold (underlined and bold) that show the EXISTING CODE - by just adopting the regular WAC threshold when the existing code sets the threshold. ... Numbers not in bold state maximums. (Suggested Planning Commission consider for recommendation to the City Council.) He referenced his July 15, 1999 memorandum regarding developmental exemptions giving background information; he pointed out they surveyed other jurisdictions, and it appears, especially since the enactment of Growth Management and of Regulatory Reform, this is a trend around the state. As they have been ordered by state government to enact all these regulations, the State Environmental Policy Act is thought to be less than the prime regulatory tool it used to be, that they now refer to it as the SEP A safety net versus the primary tool. If you get in trouble, and don't have something that directly addresses an impact, you can always rely on the SEP A safety net so that you are not degrading the environment in a way that goes beyond the SEP A. Mr. McMahan pointed out this is a policy question of whether or not these thresholds should be raised, a policy regarding whether Port Townsend is the place to raise the thresholds, whether all of them or some of them should be raised. City Council requested the Plàhning Commission consider and pass recommendation on to them. He said the threshold targeted in Staff opinion as needing some significant discussion was the Clearing and Grading or landfill excavation threshold, which under the existing code is set at the normal state threshold of 100 cubic yards and can be raised to as high as 500 cubic yards. It was Staff's concern that while a lot of the other impacts are addressed through new zoning codes, new Environmentally Sensitive Areas code, new engineering design standards - all enacted since 1997-1998, Clearing and Grading may not have been fully addressed. Port Townsend does not have a Clearing and Grading ordinance; it has not been comprehensively addressed, and whether there are gaps that need to be considered in raising the threshold is a topic for Planning Commission discussion and recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Surber distributed a Department of Ecology public information report showing that even from small site developments there can be large amounts of sediment to be transported to lakes, streams and coastal waters. She stated that many professionals feel the cumulative effect from the smaller and single family developments is a more important impact than the large parcel erosion which generally gets addressed through environmental review; the impacts are followed by which types of protection are implemented if there is a permit required. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 4 Ms. Surber also distributed Chapter 5, Clearing, Grading and Erosion Control, from the city Engineering Design Standards highlighting that it had been intended to require permits for clearing, grading, filling of 50 cubic yards or more. She stated that an implementing ordinance was never adopted; thus, it is not applied unless some other triggering permit causes a review of the engineering design standards. 2. Commission Discussion Ms. Thayer asked if 50 cubic yards is a Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirement. Ms. Surber replied that currently the UBC is in place, and requires a clearing and grading permit for any action that is not specifically exempted as shown in Section 3306.2. She referenced exemptions 8 and 9 stating: ... It addresses the manufactured slope and how deep or at angle what the cut is. ... It does not address the surface area. If you were to scrape off the top 6 inches of soil, it would not require a clearing and grading permit under the UBC, but you could be creating a very large area of disturbance that could cause sediment and erosion problems. Ms. Surber explained when they tried to do the Clearing and Grading ordinance, it was not adopted, but they did get a quick fix in the ESA permit, and she referenced Ordinance 2688. She said that Section 2, 19.05.030.C.2., basically says that, even ifthere are no other triggering permits, if you propose to alter 1,000 square feet or more, fill and/or excavate 50 cubic yards or more within a mapped ESA as is listed, you are subject to an ESA permit. She noted they all felt this to be a band-aid approach, and that this may be something they can use as a tool for enforcement They probably will not be able to use this up-front very often; people won't know to come and ask. She went on to say that if some other permit, e.g. short plat, or ESA review, triggers it, they can use engineering design standards, and concurred that the only thing that would not be subject to this would be if someone simply cleared the land and did not develop anything beyond that. She gave an example of 100 cubic years -- 10 dump trucks full of dirt (the large dump truck at Public Works holds approximately 9 to 10 cubic yards); 500 cubic yards -- 50 dump trucks full of dirt. She said there is a possibility that without the SEP A safety net projects that are scraping off approximately the top 6 inches of soil in a fairly large area would not get review under engineering design standards. Mr. Masci interjected, the pile of dirt that was next to the SubWay development was 600 cubic yards. Mr. Worden: Asked if the only time they impose mandatory filtration of surface runoff is where there is a building permit involved, or ESA. Ms. Surber: Replied that any time there is some triggering permit and they are concerned about sediment control, they would use best management practices (BMP). . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Erickson: Asked if it is correct there is a lot of acreage that is not under ESA, that it would be easy to go in, clear the land and then get the building permit. May people clear the land and do what they want to do, then go in for the building permit knowing it would trigger clearing and grading; they can do it without triggering anything by just having it done. Ms. Surber: Replied that in her background research she found in the clearing and grading ordinances that had been adopted that she reviewed, they set their thresholds at 50 to 100 cubic yards. She said there may a higher SEP A threshold there, but we have a clearing and grading ordinance to make sure there are BMPs. After that the city is rather left with SEP A being left as the tool to get that result. She said there is a good possibility they will have to have a clearing and grading ordinance within the next year or two. Mr. Worden: Asked where they catch sites that are potentially toxic. Ms. Surber: Stated it is regulated by other agencies, that they don't have map in the building showing that. Unless it is disclosed on SEPA checklist, or if there was a reason to know. Mr. McMahan concluded stating that Council specifically asked for this threshold, but there are some other areas too. Ms. Surber asked if it is possible to raise the threshold and add a caveat, e.g. 250 cubic yards within an area ofless than 1000 square feet of disturbance. Mr. McMahan replied that you could raise the threshold to 200 or to 250, anywhere in between, but categorical exemptions are set up under state law that if it's exempt, it is exempt. Mr. Worden stated the thing that probably is the most critical to have some control on is where there is a whole scale reshaping of land, e.g., flattening off for a huge parking lot. The topography is being obliterated, and all the drainage problems. Ms. Erickson asked if all other exemptions here are triggered by one thing or another, speaking of a safety net in requiring a building permit -- increasing the automobile parking from 20 to 40. Mr. McMahan clarified statewide policy: if in your zoning code you allow a certain kind of structure that is going to have limited number of parking (we have already figured out in our zoning code that is O.K.) do we really need to subject that to environmental review. Ms. Surber said the city also has ordinances for stormwater drainage. She said her understanding is that Title 13 says that a draining plan in required when you create impervious surface. A public hearing of the Proposed Ordinance Amending SEP A Thresholds was scheduled for September 23, 1999. B. Jefferson County EIS and Comprehensive Plan Update 1. Staff Presentation . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Bob Leedy distributed new documents: ... Staff Report, September 2, 1999, Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study - FSEIS & Planning Scenarios ... Expanded Section 3: Goals and Findings. City of Port Townsend Submittal to Jefferson County ~ Letter of August 27, 1999 to Mr. Reid H. Shockey, SHOCKEY /BRENT, INC. Item Omitted from Port Townsend "Scenario III" of the Draft Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Amendments ... Map outlining the area ... Excerpts provided by City Attorney McMahan regarding UGAs and Logical Boundaries. ... Final Sup.¡>lemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments Mr. Leedy explained that the Staff Report regarding the FSEIS is an attempt to encapsulate what transpired with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) leading up to the City of Port Townsend submitting the third scenario. The BOCC met and selected a preferred option out of two development scenarios and amendment scenarios. At the JGMSC meeting following that BOCC meeting, the City of Port Townsend requested they consider a third scenario. The JGMSC recommended the request be accepted, and the BOCC again convened as a Board and accepted the request to consider the third scenario. Mr. Leedy indicated that submittal of what the City considers another potential development scenario (now scenario III of III) to the BOCC is at the request of the consultant to the County and in the same format as the side-by-side scenarios included in the August 18th memorandum from James W. Pearson, Project Manager. The report includes: ... The history of Glen Cove ... The history of the planning effort ... Past input from Port Townsend representatives to the JGMSC ~ The city's position regarding Glen Cove in general ... Conflict between logical boundaries as they are proposed to be extended by the County, and the "frozen-in-time" kind of stature they actually have based on pre-I990 existing conditions pointed out by the City's representatives to the JGMSC. Mr. Leedy pointed out on a wall map the area being considered essentially as the third development scenario creating a new UGA in Glen Cove for ultimate annexation to the City of Port Townsend, and indicated the area: · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 7 ... Includes those parts of sub areas 1 and 2 of Glen Cove that are east of Highway 20; ... Does not include anything on the west side of Highway 20; ... Includes the mill property and other residual property that was not a part of the Glen Cove future growth area. (City representatives to the committee pointed out that the mill itself is existing and should not count toward a vacant development acreage to be counted in the UGA designation or count toward the 2016 population projection.) ... Includes the part of sub area 2, east of Highway 20. The two sub areas count for. . . acres (approximately 212 acres, pre-August 24 configuration). Backing the acreage off from the west side of Highway 20 reduces the acreage. There is some developable residual acreage in association with or contiguous to the mill between the existing corporate limits and sub areas 1 and 2. Mr. Leedy stated the questions posed as a result of the August 24th meeting and BOCC action and the answers are included in the report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. He discussed the proposed schedule for formulating a more formal report, action by the Commission, recommendation to City Council and for their action to be forward to the BOCC which is scheduled to meet regarding this issue either October 5 or 6. Mr. McMahan reported his office pulled out all of the policies taken from the City's Comprehensive Plan information pertaining to Glen Cove, the mill and the FUGA. The information is provided for Planning Commission use in the document entitled Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Pertaining to the Glen Cove Proposed UGA (Text excerpts from Final July, 1996 Comprehensive Plan). 2. Commission Discussion 1999. Public hearing regarding Glen Cove UGA, Scenario III was scheduled for September 28, Discussion followed. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: Next Scheduled Meetings September 9. 1999 Comp Plan Amendments Workshop (C-III downtown northerly boundary) (C-II upper-story residential) (C-IfMU) Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (Proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district) . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 8 September 16.1999 Study Session EIS (Review land use and county zoning) September 23. 1999 Public Hearing Study Session Proposed Ordinance Amending SEP A Thresholds EIS (Discuss land use and zoning options and draft: outline of items to be considered at public hearing) September 29. 1999 Public Hearing EIS (Recommendations to City Council) September 30. 1999 Joint Training Session Public Hearing (open record) 9:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (With City Council) Comprehensive Plan Amendments October 14. 1999 Finalize Comp Plan Amendments findings & conclusions Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-III(A) zoning district) October 28. 1999 Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open-record public hearing) Planning Commissioners to be excused: Ms. Erickson, September 7 to 23 Mr. Worden, September 16 Mr. Mandelbaum, October 7 IX. COMMUNICA nONS -- Current Mail X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Ms. Ota All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:04 p.m. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1999 Page 9 a+ ,,/ / . // æ . J~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker /í2 ~/ Cind· Thayer, Chair Guest List · Meeti1Jg of: /1,4 A/ rf/ //1 a Cd,q /II / sS/dA/ Purpose: Date: SÈ /IT: =2 I ¡C?99 , Name (please printl Address T p-~timonv? VF~ NO Nit."t''- [)"J"~ _ ~ 1/1'" L) ð¡ :) 7 """'''''$ Ja........ ., ".... V" '7l/lh /: _L~_ -/ ~ t/ , fl . · - - ·