Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07291999 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Waterman & Katz Buildinl!. Third Floo{ Conference Room: 7:00 PM Business Meeting I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: July 8, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business A. Peter & Helen Lauritzen Rosewind PUDA Amendment, LUP99-51 VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings 1. August 12, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (R Densities) 2. August 26, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Boundary) 3. September 2, 1999 Comp Plan Workshop (CI-MU) 4. September 30, 1999 Comp Plan - open-record public hearing IX. Communications x. Adjournment July 29, 1999 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting July 29, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Waterman & Katz Building Third Floor Conference Room by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Len Mandelbaum. Christine Ota arrived at 7:09 p.m; Karen Erickson and Lois Sherwood were excused. Staff members present were BCD Bob Leedy and Jeff Randall. City Councilmembers present were GeoffMasci and Alan Youse. In. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of July 8, 1999 as written was made by Mr. Harbison and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES - There was nothing to report. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Peter and Helen Lauritzen Rosewind PUDA Amendment, LUP99-51 It was noted that Commi~"Sioner Mandelbaum owns Lot 6 of Rose wind. He æcused himself and left the meeting during Mr. Randall's presentation, and for the discussion and vote. 1. Jeff Randall discussed the Staff Report pointing out on Exhibit B ofthe Findings of Fact and Conclusions that Peter and Helen Lauritzen own vacant Lot 7 of Rose wind. He stated their desire is to build a two story residence on the lot which is quite sloping to the southwest, the northernmost portion of the lot being somewhat level. They wish to build the two story house with the first story having all the necessary living facilities, e.g., bedroom, kitchen · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 2 and bathroom level with the street to be ADA accessible, and with extra bedrooms upstairs. In order to do that, they would like to have the north (front) setback reduced to 0, and the west (side) setback reduced to 2 feet, which also helps align to adjacent houses to the east and west. The north 10 foot setback is normally preserved for possible utilities as well as being a setback from the street. Mr. Randall noted that 33rd Street ends as a street before it gets to Lot 7, and the continuation becomes driveways for Lot 3 and for Lauritzens' Lot 7. The proposal was circulated to the affected utilities; Puget Sound Energy responded indicating they had no concerns with it. Public Works has also indicated they have no concerns. The setback reduction will not affect the use of the Rosewind Walk, 20' remaining right- of-way portion of Petty grove Street, as a pedestrian right-of-way. The Rosewind Commons, an open area viewed by surrounding Rosewind houses and also a stormwater area, is adjacent on the southwest. Mr. Randall explained that if the Planning Commission finds this is a minor amendment, is not substantial and recommends approval, this will go to City Council and would not require a public hearing. The amendment would be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor's Office modifying the original Planning and Development agreement and changing the setbacks. BCD recommends Planning Commission approval. Questions of Staff: Mr. Worden asked regarding vacation of Petty grove Street. Mr. Randall explained that it is shown on the Rosewind PUDA as not being a through street, ending basically at Lot 8 and shows only parking. He reiterated that extending beyond it is driveways for Lauritzens and Lot 3. It is not designed and can't be built as a through street; Rosewind was designed with this kind of broken street system, one-way dead-end streets with tum-arounds. Mr. Worden then asked where they were with respect to boundaries. Mr Randall replied they are close to the northeast boundary and pointed it out on a larger map. MOTION Mr. Worden That the Planning Commission finds the amendment is minor and that the findings of fact proposed by Staff should be adopted as the Commission findings. SECOND VOTE Ms. Ota Unanimous, 4 in favor by roll call vote; Mr. Mandelbaum was recused and did not vote. Mr. Randall pointed out that the applicants are present and could answer questions. Chair Thayer indicated Mr. Worden's motion approved everything but asked the Lauritzens if they had questions. They had none, and Ms. Thayer stated this would be forwarded to City Council for action. · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 3 Vlll. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mandelbaum returned to the meeting and indicated he would appreciate continuation of discussion ofthe Port Townsend Planning Commission involvement in some constructive way with the DSEIS process and the County dealing with the Tri Area as a possible Urban Growth Area. He referenced the July 26, 1999 letter to Jefferson County Department of Community Development on behalf of the City Council regarding the DSEIS for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments. He suggested there may be time for their deliberation and questioned if the Commission should get involved and in what purpose and what manner. He reminded the Commission of discussion under the initiative of City Attorney McMahan regarding the possibility under the new organization of the City Council that Planning Commission roles may be evolving in a different manner; that there is no longer a Land Use Committee of the City Council and that there are also some good arguments and reasons for focus in the Council and for the Planning Commission surrendering some of its judicial activity and transferring to the Hearings Examiner. He indicated that in such case the Planning Commission would have the time, initiative, energy and purpose to deal with larger questions, such as the Tri Area. He said this is an opportunity to reflect upon that and questioned: ~ Should we begin to be thinking of expanding our policies around land use questions to aid City Council? ~ Is there possibly a constructive role regarding this on the table now? Mr. Worden stated his understanding has always been that the function of the Planning Commission is that it is a policy body; they are certainly involved in policy when they do their work on the Comprehensive Plan, constrained by the weight the Comprehensive Plan has. He said that he also feels there are other things that weigh heavily on the City that they as a Planning Commission are in a very good position to address and to involve the public in hearings and workshops to learn about some ofthe issues. He felt the designation ofUGAs nearby in the County is probably the most significant thing that has happened since the adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. He said he is very concerned that people in Port Townsend don't seem to know it's importance, or are unaware of what the impacts might be. He is also very concerned that the schedule the County has set up does not allow for adequate public education nor adequate analysis of what is going on. He indicated he attended the County Planning Commission meeting week before last; several people there expressed shock that the Port Townsend Planning Commission was not involved in this. It seemed to him it is what a Planning Commission is for and noted they are residents of the County, as well as the City. Mr. Leedy explained that the Planning Commission is not a policy body as such; it is an advisory body to the City Council which sets policy for the City. Council is very much · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 4 interested in the input and recommendations from the Planning Commission, but there shouldn't be any mistake about who the policy making body is. He indicated that, given their workload, Staff had not had time during the review and comment period to serve both the Planning Commission and City Council. They had to make the call as to who they could best serve, and, given the time constraints, they elected to concentrate on City Council; Council has passed on the City's comments to the SEP A responsible person. He indicated that to the extent the Planning Commission would like to support or endorse what Council has passed along, it would be appropriate. If the Commission feels that something other than the official comments of the City are in order then it is not appropriate. Mr. Mandelbaum responded that neither Mr. Worden nor himself are about to assume a policy making role in land use for the City of Port Townsend. Whether they function on a subdivision issue, or are functioning in this kind of thing, they are advisory to the City Council and to the community. He stated that depending on what role they might take, they mayor may not need city resources or Staff time; the City Staff has to function in the same manner it does with regard to broader issues. Chair Thayer stated she has a real concern about this, because they do serve at the pleasure of the City Council. She suggested, if the Planning Commission wants to be involved to some extent, that maybe they appoint one or two members as a liaison to attend meetings with the City Council members so they keep informed. Mr. Leedy elaborated that they should not think that the EIS process is the planning process; the supplemental EIS laid out alternatives, an action alternative and a no-action alternative, for consideration. The planning is going to flow from that EIS. There is no UGA designated outside the City of Port Townsend; there is no added UGA at this point. The plan that evolved from the DSEIS mayor may not result in formation of an additional UGA; mayor may not expand the existing UGA, Port Townsend; or may result in the no action alternative. If any change is to take place as a result of the EIS, the Planning Commission and Council will have opportunity to input the County process as it evolves before that change takes place. After discussion of the schedule, Ms. Collette Costelec, one of three city reptesentatives on the County Planning Commission, commented that her understanding of the schedule handed to them by County Staff indicated the last public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) makes a decision was at the County Planning Commission public hearing last Wednesday. The County Planning Commission will have another workshop, but are not receiving puhlic comment. She indicated the schedule is that September 1 st the BOCC makes a decision on the land use redesignation of the Comp Plan; after they make their decision, they give it back to the Planning Commission to review, but she thinks it is unlikely the BOCC · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 5 decision will change after September 1st. Ifthey choose Action Alternative 1, much planning needs to have occurred that enacts that decision, but that decision will be made already. She agreed with Mr. Worden that much of the driving force is the vote for incorporation and about a UGA before that. Mr. Masci, City Council liaison, indicated he discussed this a week ago with Messers Mandelbaum and Worden. He told the Commission that as a council they have no objection to having informed advice from the Commission because that is their role. He spoke about the draft response discussed in his meeting with Messers Mandelbaum and Worden and that in their City Council meeting Council changed some of the wording of their draft. Since being on the committee with Mr. Rambo and Mr. Finnie, and also on the Joint Growth Management Committee, Mr. Masci sees that they are running against time schedules they have no control over. He suggested they all study the draft form and familiarize themselves with Alternatives 1 and 2, that No.2 will affect Port Townsend also if they opt for a Glen Cove UGA, which they thoroughly expect the City to annex. He felt it probably would make the work as a Planning Commission easier if they familiarize themselves with those two alternatives; as far as Alternatives 3 or 4, as City government, the City doesn't have anything to say policywise about the Tri Area. Ms. Costelec countered, there will be significant implications to the City if they choose the Tri Area as a UGA, e.g., the City is the water service provider. She pointed out, in accordance with a memo the County received from the consultant, they don't necessarily have to provide urban level infrastructure within the first 6 years of designating the Tri Area as a UGA, but there is an upzone in a lot of areas, a really significant draw of commercial and industrial development out of the city and into an area that may be cheaper in the short term to develop. She thought there were some broad implications. Mr. Masci said they have expressed their concerns to the County and again said he thought it prudent for the Planning Commission to familiarize themselves with Action Alternatives 1 and 2. He indicated other issues are not planning issues fòr the City but they are concerned as to how the County is dealing with them. He pointed out there are certain presumptions on the part of the County government about the Glen Cove option, which is something he thinks could be explored. Ms. Thayer stated Glen Cove has always been an option the City has wanted. Mr. Masci replied that the previous administration had wanted Alternative 1, no action alternative. He indicated from their point of view, with the study the City has done, they don't agree with the DSEIS because it is based on inappropriate data, i.e. 4.0 employment growth is based on unsubstantiated supposition; 3.2 would be much more adequate even though it is higher than what has been traditionally experienced over the past 5 years. He thought it appropriate for the Planning Commission to look into it, that Council values their opinion. · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 6 Concern was voiced that even if they make a decision based on a 3.2 growth assumption, that is at odds with what was assumed at the time the Port Townsend and original County Comprehensive Plans were done, thus the City will have to revisit many assumptions of its Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Masci explained that 3.2 was a compromise, that the City Comp Plan. was based on a 26 growth assumption, the previous. 5 year average, and was upgraded to 2.9 and 3.115. Mr. Leedy pointed out that the County Plan acknowledged that the majority of that growth would occur in the established UGA; discussion with the County now is what is meant by majority. Ms. Costelec stated the County-wide planning policy calls for 60% in UGAs; the City is already assuming 40%, so declaring another UGA would probably close that gap. Mr. Masci spoke of budget monies required for Staff to revise the numbers, that they are not available at this time, and he feels they will have to be out of consistency with the. County Plan for awhile. He wondered how well the County could substantiate 4.0 with the Hearings Board. It was suggested the City could appeal that position. Chair Thayer indicated her impression is there is not much the Planning Commission can do at this point Mr. Masci suggested some prep work, to be familiar with Alternatives 1 and 2, that it is highly possible the BOCC will choose some elements from different alternatives and if they read through and are familiar with the DSEIS, they would all be on firmer ground. Mr. Mandelbaum indicated Planning Commission members all do a lot of reading, but the major role of the Planning Commission is not to provide technical expertise. to the City Council. that to some extent they are a conduit between Staff. the City, the Public and the Council. One of their major roles is to air technical, complicated issues so optimally the public will be supporting a good plan. This particular issue really shows how the Port Townsend business community is going to be affected by some of these options. These are major issues with very little public input He imagined starting the process 1 to 2 months earlier and scenarios of the City and County Planning Commissions working together. Ms... Costelec noted the City has had input all the way along up until this documen~ there has been no opportunity to get sufficient public comment with everything so compressed from issuance. of this document to a decision by BOCC. Frustrations were expressed with the dilemma of timelines and lack of communication with the County.. Mr. Masci concluded that those in the room are the City, the people that are going to have to deal with the impact; he thought they should discuss these issues, but they are going to have to be able to get timely information. It has been a terrible burden on Staff Mr. Mandelbaum. stated this has gone beyond the first question raised. "Is this is appropriate for the Planning Commission?" He suggested one constructive possibility the Planning Commission can do: · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 7 ~ Endorse very strongly the City Council letter to the Board of County Commissioners; maybe emphasizing some parts the Commission wants to give emphasis to. He indicated ifthe Commission does it as the result of some deliberative process; reflective of the community feeling on planning issues, he felt jt would be setting an even stronger base to the challenge of the EIS in the future. The Commission would be giving a signal to the City Council that their intuition and instincts are correct and supported at least by this portion of the public, which has the role. Chair Thayer stated she feels that is giving more importance to the Commission than they have. Mr. Masci indicated he thought all of the support of the Commission would be helpful in the future; but he thought the real issue was that people realize they are being represented. He thought they were going to have to do the same tasks in parallel and exchange information every so often. With the liaison concept; it may prove a lot easier to have a type of communication or invite the Planning Commission to briefings that occur on an almost impromptu basis based on what the County does. He said they are in a reactive mode right now. Ms. Thayer thought the Planning Commission liaison member to City Council concept was a first step. Mr. Masci indicated he hoped Commissioners would not be offended if they missed contacting them for an impromptu meeting; that they really do want to include them. Mr. Worden commented given the situation Mr. Masci laid out; he felt the four points made in the letter City Council approved on July 26th are very appropriate and important: ~ Encouraging the County to take another look at a different growth rate; ~ Taking another stab at assessing what real impact of the No-action Alternative would be; ~ Asking that the DSEIS specifically address a combination of those elements (someone should investigate to see what the significance of that would be); and ~ The issue of how realistic costs are. Mr. Worden indicated he is writing his own letter to the County Commissioners encouraging them not to make a decision. The focus of his letter is; for a lot of these same reasons it is inappropriate to make a land use decision on the September deadline; which means they will not only miss the opportunity to have an election this year; but they probably will also put the changes to their Comp Plan over into the year 2000. He said he feels that is well worthwhile and argued there is no urgency to this UGA designation; there is no need for it this year, or even within the next 5 years; so if they wait another year to do it; nobody would be hurt by that. Mr. Worden said Mr. Mandelbaum's mention of the Planning Commission endorsement of this is great; but it would have more impact if maybe they had bad a public hearing first. The deadline was brought up and Mr. Worden asked what it would be if they just sent it as a letter to the Commissioners on perhaps August 20th? It was noted they could not take public comment at that time. · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Masci commented there is noting preventing them aU from going home tonight and E-mailing the Commissioners individually. He said he didn't think there was anything wrong with identifying themselves as the City of Port Townsend Planning Commission members; if they chose to do something as a group to endorse the City Council's letter, that also would be helpful, but it would not be appear on the record MOTION SECOND Discussion: Vote MOTION Discussion: SECOND Discussion: Mr. Mandelbaum The Port Townsend Planning Commission send a letter of communication supporting the City Council·action of July 26th regarding County Comp Plan amendments and emphasize particularly our interests in Paragraph 4, dealing with inadequacies of the response deadline. Mr. Worden Ms. Thayer suggested a letter be written and get copies sent to Commission before sending. Mr. Leedy offered to draft a letter on City letterhead as action of the Commission and have the Chair sign. Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote Mr. Mandelbaum The Chair call an emergency meeting next Thursday to invite representatives of the County Planning Commission to address that meeting on what they did in their meeting of August 4 and why, and if the Port Townsend Planning Commission wishes to take another communicative action or any other expertise brought to that meeting Mr. Harbison felt that was not a realistic timeframe; it would cut their effectiveness and fèlt what they are looking for is a broad band of public comment He indicated the Commission needs to clarify what their charge is as a Commission. Ms. Thayer and My. Harbison felt it needed to be at Council request. Mr. Worden Mr. Masci~ felt first they should consult with the City Attorney if this is the correct protocol. Mr. Mandelbaum said he was not necessarily suggesting a joint meeting~ but a meeting for people to come and testify before them; he did not want the motion tied to August 5th. Mr. Masci said they need to get direction from the City Attorney to hold that type of hearing. Discussion continued. Mr. Masci pointed out this is the County's show, they have issued a schedule with ample public workshops which are noticed appropriately and you as citizens or · · · Planning Commission Meeting July 29, 1999 Page 9 VOTE members of the Port Townsend Planning Commission can attend. He said he is not sure our Planning Commission or City Council has legal standing or scope to hold hearings on the County's issue. He noted there is another meeting after comment deadline for informational purposes that anyone can attend. He said he was concerned they were going beyond where they ought to be. Mr. Mandelbaum voted in favor, 4 were in opposition with a show of hands Chair Thayer said she felt the need for more information before doing this and agreed with Mr. Masci that, as citizens, they had every right to attend those meetings and get up to speed. The role of the Port Townsend Planning Commission to be an educational conduit to the community to handle real live consequences was again raised. Mr. Worden indicated his preference for a process would be to put it on their regular agenda, give adequate public notice, hold hearings, discuss the issues, bring in whatever expertise they could and make a recommendation to Council which would carry some weight. Mr. Worden felt it would be a benefit for Council to take to the Growth Management Committee, more of a representation of the citizens. The Commissioners agreed but recognized their constraints. In an educational attempt, Mr. Masci invited Commissioners to the City Council Meeting for the joint facilities' 15 to 30 minute presentation by the County Public Works staff exposing them to their facility's option 3 and possibly 2. He said whatever they decide to do with that based on the facilities issue, it is going to be a planning issue; the Commissioners could help by getting on the curve with them. Chair Thayer discussed the schedule. Mr. Mandelbaum reported he would be absent for the August 12th meeting. Next Scheduled Meetin~s August 12. 1999 -- Comp Plan Workshop (R Densities) August 26. 1999 -- Comp Plan Workshop (C-III Boundary) September 2. 1999 -- Comp Plan Workshop (CI-MU) September 30. 1999 -- Comp Plan, open-record public hearing IX. COMMUNICATIONS ~ Copy of July 15, 1999 memorandum from City Attorney McMahan to City Councilmembers regarding Development Exemptions under the State Environmental Policy Act · · · Planning Commission Minutes July 29, 1999 Page 10 ~ Draft minutes of the regular July 6, 1999 session of the Port Townsend City Council · Excerpt entitled Shaking up the Suburbs from the March 1989 Metropolitan Home X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. Jk¡~ , Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Name (plea.e printl Address T~~timonv? Vl=~ ~ ./-IeJeV\ ~(/. u//,·,r7 eh ~J..s - 5-:? iA A pr v' 1(1 (tc v Lauy rrè(~ ?,2.ç - 55vr~ f~ ì/ ~~~~ to ~.\- .vl'-C( S,-\G ~'-~ p~ -/ ,. . . Guest List 1. /~ \1// . / ::::;~~: of: 1~¿>Ú'/J(/¿(/~ ¡'A rA< 1 c; ; U.;v.;JL; Lð-i , Date: . ()1 ¿j.A'! .~) 1)'._ / fl q 51 /1 /-T ;1 ..../ . . II. t