Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05271999 Min Ag · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting May 27, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 13, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business · VII. New Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Open-Record Public Hearing) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber/Eric Toews) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings June 10, 1999 Continued deliberations on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and adoption of Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions, as needed Interim C-II Design Standards (Workshop) June 24, 1999 IX. Communications · X. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting May 27, 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, Nik Worden, Len Mandelbaum and Christine Ota. Larry Harbison arrived at 7:05 p.m.; Karen Erickson was excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were Staff Planner Judy Surber, and Eric Toews. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of May 13, 1999 as written was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES - There were no reports. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was no unfinished business. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Open-Record Public Hearing) Chair Thayer read into the record letters received relevant ~o New Business, Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Open-Record Public Hearing), which were entered as Exhibits M, N and 0. 1. Staff Report (Judy SurberÆric Toews) Ms. Surber noted this meeting is a hearing to discuss which suggested amendments will be placed on the docket for consideration in the Comprehensive Plan annual update; final approval of the annual update will be in November. She pointed out the two types of amendments: Copied to ammon (,/;5"/q¥ ~ EXHIBIT .y I · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 2 · Formal Amendments: site specific, quasi-judicial requests made by landowners or by their authorized representatives, accompanied by a filing fee and automatically placed on the docket. · Suggested amendments: those which broadly apply to the goals, policies, or implementing strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, made by anyone, do not require a filing fee and are not guaranteed to be placed on the docket. They are evaluated by the Planning Commission and City Council to determine need, urgency and appropriateness. She stated that following tonight's hearing, the Planning Commission will prepare their findings and conclusions and forward a recommended docket to City Council for their consideration. Council will make their decision on the formal docket June 21st. If the City Council chooses to amend the suggested docket they will set a date for another public hearing of the docket. Ms. Surber gave an overview of the amendments submitted: FORMAL AMENDMENT: · LUP99-36 -- change Key City Lanes property at 414 Kearney Street from C-II, General Commercial, to C-II/MU, Community~Serving Mixed Use Center. Proponent: Frieda Fenn, on behalf of "Rite is Wrong" citizens' group The applicant is not an "interested person" as defined by the Code and lacks standing for such an application. Accordingly, the BCD Director, in consultation with the City Attorney, withdrew the application and refunded the filing fee. The property owner, Mr. Denny LaVigne, submitted a letter which was read into the record (Exhibit M) which opposes the request and states that the proponent is not authorized to act as an agent on behalf of the landowner. CITIZENS SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: 1. Delete the "Seismic Hazard Element" of the Plan: Proponent: Michael and Barbara Anderson Not recommended to be placed on the docket, because no actual seismic hazard element exists in the Plan. Applicants are probably making reference to Chapter 4, of existing conditions which speak of seismic hazards and other limitations existing due to topography and wetlands. 2. Revise Policy 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Plan: Proponent: Michael and Barbara Anderson Proponents suggest specifically that Class m Wetlands of less than 10,000 s.f. which lie in commercially zoned districts should no longer be regulated in order to preserve the small quantity of commercially zoned property within the city. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27,1999 Page 3 Wetlands have been identified at the federal, state and local level as valuable resources in neetlefprotection. The City's current code, PTMC Section 19.05, pertains to environmentally sensitive areas and does allow fer compensatery wetland mitigation where wetlands must be impacted to make way for development. The applicant has not demonstrated a need or urgency for the proposal and Staff does not feel the request is appropriate. 3. Eliminate the Infrastructure "Tiering" Concept from the Plan: a. Proponent: Michael and Barbara Anderson Also suggested by the Andersons in last year's Comp Plan update process. At that time the Planniug Cemmissioufeuud the policies regardiug tiering were essential te the Plan and unanimously recommended the proposal uotbe placed 00 the docket. 4. Designate the Franklin Street Right-of-Way from Kearney Street to Scott Street as a Right- or-Way to Remain Unopened/Preserved: Proponent: Nancy Dorgan Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): The Non-Motorized Transportation Committ~ was reinstated by Council at their May 17 meeting. Dave Peterson plans to schedule the committee's kick-offmeeting within the first week of June. If Planning Commission recommends not to include Ms. Dorgan's request on the 1999 docket, she would have the opportunity to submit the requested amendment to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) to the committee. If the committee recommends that the amendment be approved, the request could be processed outside of the yearly update process as it is not inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. This would be an amendment to the Non,.Motorized Transportation Plan. As read into the record today, Ms. Dorgan has requested that this be heard by the Non,.Motorized Transportation Committee, rather than being placed on this year's docket. (Exhibit 0) 5. Rezone the "Key City Lanes" Property from C-ll. General Commercial. to C..II/MU. Community..Serving Mixed Use Center: Proponent: Freida Fenn, representing the "Rite is Wrong" citizen's group Two reasons why Staff is recommending not placing on the docket: 1) Rezoning of this property from mixed use to commercial was only very recently adopted by City Council, December 7,1998. This decision followed lengthy discussion and debate; the decision was not appealed, which would have been the proponents' appropriate remedy; circumstances pertaining to this proposal have not changed substantially since approved in December 1998. 2) The proposal is not as truly a suggested amendment, as it is site specific. (See Exhibit M, Mr. Denny LaVigne's letter of opposition to the request.) No.6, 7, 8, and 9.... Proponent: Vern Garrison Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): (~tatT ~ommends exoandin2 the seoue of review to include all elements of the tableoertainin!1 to th~ CI-MU ratherth,.n f~(,\L~iIl2 ontheSPKific items SU2!1ested bv Mr. Ganison. A comorehensive review is more orudent and the requirements set forth in Table 17.18.030 are interrelated,) · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 4 As requested, stafIhas provided a strike-out and underline version of Table 17.18.030 depicting Mr. Garrison's suggested amendments (Exhibit 1). These revisions pertain to the bulk, dimensional and density requirements of the mixed use zoning district, specifically the neighborhood-serving mixed use center, C-I/MU zone. Exhibit I, Table 17.18.030 pertaining to setback requirements, square footage, etc., for the C-I/MU district, includes strikeouts and underlines showing Mr. Garrison's request for changes to that table. The three locations of C-I/MU zone were pointed out and Ms. Surber said this district provides for a compatible mix of small scale commercial uses and medium density multi-family housing in multi-story buildings. The focus is on a pedestrian-oriented design. Mr. Garrison's suggestions are to place square footage limits on individual leasable spaces rather than on individual commercial uses. The proponent contends the change allows greater flexibility in the development and use of the C-I/MU district by allowing the same commercial use to occupy multiple spaces within a center while retaining a 5,000 s.f. limit on the size of individual leasable spaces. The suggestion is also to make the mixture of commercial and residential uses within this district permissible rather than mandatory. In addition to Mr. Garrison's suggestions, and if#6 - #9 are to be placed on the docket, Staff recommended they be expanded to review the entire table as it pertains to the C-II MU, Neighborhood-Serving Mixed-Use Center. A comprehensive review is more prudent, and the requirements set forth in the table are inter-related; changing one may result in need to change another. 6. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Place Square Footage Limits on Individual Leasable Spaces. Rather than Individual Commercial Uses within the C-I/MU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District 7. Revise Policy 10.5 of the Land Use Element and Table 17.28.030 PTMC to Make the Mixture of Commercial and Residential Uses within the C-I/MU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District, Permissive. Rather than Mandatory 8. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Eliminate Minimum Building Frontage Requirements and Instead Establish Maximum Building Frontage Limitations within the C-IIMU Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District 9. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Reduce the Maximum Allowable Commercial Floor Space in Any Single Structure within the C-I/MU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District Nos. 10 and 11 -- Proponent: Vernon Garrison. Pertain to Parking Code, codified in PTMC Chapter 17.72. Staff position - the entire parking code needs a comprehensive review and revision. It is a very complex code, includes a lot of performance standards and ratios (square footage to parking required, etc.). Staff suggestion is not to place on the docket with individual revisions as suggested by Mr. Garrison, but recommend that Staff revisit the parking code, 17.72. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 5 10. Revise Table 17.72.080 PTMC to Create a Universal Parking ReqQjrement for All Uses within the C-IlMU~ Neighborhood-Serving Mixed J]se Center Zoning District: Would also establish a unified parking requirement with sheltered bicycle storage and transit shelters being required. 11. Revise § 17.72. 190(D)(1 )(a)PTMC to Delete the "Planting Strips" and In,clude Appropriate Replacement Langua~e: Would eliminate reference to planting strips listed as one of the landscaping requirements for parking facilities. 12. Revise the Description of the C-II. General Commercial Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the Plan. and Table 17.20.020 PTMC to Allow Upper StOI)' Residential Use of Structw:~ within the C-II Zonin~ District: a. Proponent: James McCarron Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): d. Planning Commission asked for information on other commercial districts that allow residential uses. The C- m (Historic Commercial Zone) allows apartment houses, multi-family, boarding houses, and owner operator residences outright. This zoning district "is intended to accommodate the mix of uses that have occurred over time in the city's downtown and uptown historic districts. . . . It is designed to promote pedestrian- oriented land uses and design consistent with the character of the city's historic districts." Residential uses in the remaining commercial zones are limited to owner/operator residences which are permitted outright in all by the C-IV zoning district. Referenced Exhibit E - Staff does not recommend further consideration. The applicant has not indicated an urgency or need for the proposed amendment, and at this point does not appear to be appropriate. However, there is some discussion with the C-II design group about design standards for the commercial district and the issue has come up. Staff is not definitely opposed to the idea, but at this time there is no urgency or need to put this on the docket. 13. Revise the Northerly Boundaty of the Downtown C-ill. Historic Commercial Zonin~ District: a. Proponent: James McCarron Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): d. An exhibit depicting the downtown historic commercial district's northerly boundary and its relation to the bluff is provided as Exhibit J. Pointed to Exhibit J, C-ID Historic District, toe of the bluff. The request was to rezone Lots 37, 38, and 39 at the original townsite. These properties which straddle the bluff that runs generally along Water and Washington Streets were zoned c-m prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1996. The proponent asserts that rezoning the properties from the current R-II, medium residential, back to C-III would allow portions of these blocks that are not environmentally constrained to be used meet off-street parking requirements of · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 6 the code. Staff recommends that they revisit the northern boundary of the downtown C- m district along the bluff, expand upon the request to the entire northerly boundary of the downtown district. The bluff provides a natural division between commercial and residential zones, but looking at Exhibit J, there may be some areas where the commercial boundary is beyond the toe of the bluff which would restrict parking for commercial properties. If this request is placed on the docket, they would need to ground-proof Exhibit J to determine exactly where the division lies. 14. Revise the Description of the R-IIL Medium Density Multi-Family Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the Plan. and Table 17.16.030 PTMC to Link Allowable Densities to the Number of Bedrooms within Dwelling Units: a. Proponent: Michael C. Raymond This recommends that the hmd use density requirements be linked to the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit. Staff recommends that the item be placed on the docket; the provision of more affordable housing is one of the overriding objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and continues to be an urgent need. Proposals that could possibly promote more efficient land use while creating opportunities for provision for more affordable housing warrant further scrutiny. Though BCD currently takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the proposal, the proposal merits placement on the docket. CITY-SPONSORED PROPOSALS: Nos. 15,16,17,18 recommended for placement on the docket 15. Revise Table IV-2 of the Land Use Element to Reflect Recent Land Use/Zoning Changes Housekeeping item 16. Amend Policy 18.1 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element 17. Rezone Property North of the Business Park from R-III to R-II Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): Exhibit K depicts the subject property in relation to surrounding zoning. (please note that agricultural uses other than non-commercial, small animal husbandry, are prohibited in the current R-ll zoning district.) Pointed out on Exhibit K property north of the business park, a conservation easement for open space agricultural type uses. The suggestion is to rezone the property R-II which allows some agricultural uses. 18. Rezone Private ¡nholdings South of Mountain View Elementary from P-I to an Ap.,propriate Residential Designation Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): Exhibit L depicts the subject property in relation to surrounding zoning. Pointed to Exhibit L showing Mountain View School and the impacted privately owned property zoned P-I (Public Infrastructure, e.g. city-owned property, parks, and schools); it · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 7 was not the intent to include the private properties. Staff agrees with Mr. Thorsen and Mr. Brooks to correct the error and rezone their property to a residential zone. Chair Thayer reminded this meeting is to receive public testimony and make decisions as to whether these items shall be put on the docket for further hearings and public testimony. She pointed out they will not be making decisions about specific projects, only their placement on the docket. She indicated further deliberations and public hearings of those items placed on the docket will probably take place in the fall, and that notification would be made. Ouestions of Staff: Q Mr. Worden asked regarding the action of items, e.g., the parking code, where staff recommendation was that the item be incorporated with a broader examination by staff He asked if it meant the earliest the action could take place, the earliest they could actually make a Comprehènsive Plan amendment following staff examination would be year 20007 A Ms. Surber asked if he was referring to the northern boundary of the C-ID zone, and replied that they would be recommending that the Planning Commission place the item on the docket but describe a larger area; you can expand on the suggested amendment. She said for the parking code. they are suggesting that it not be placed on the docket, that the parking code be reviewed comprehensively through workshops; it is very complex. If it's consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, it can go on its own track. Q Mr. Worden asked in regard to the C-ID boundary, Planning Commission review and Staff recommendation. A Mr. Toews clarified the Staff position is to broaden Dr. McCarron's suggestion related to the three lots, and to reassess the entire northerly boundary in the C-ID and place on docket for review this year. Ms. Surber added that is also true of Mr. Garrison's suggested amendments to the C-I/MU table. The two May 24, 1999 letters from Nancy Dorgan were entered into the record as Exhibits Nand 0. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer opened public testimony and began with an individual 10 minute limitation indicating more time could be granted later if time permitted. Mr. Mark Beaufait. P.S., 914 Washington Street, Suite 6, Port Townsend Attorney representing the Rite-is- Wrong group · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Beaufait presented a letter to the Commission regarding his testimony which was entered as Exhibit P. He indicated the letter addressed both formal and informal proposals submitted by Ms. Freida Fenn on behalf of the group and the proposals were recommended for docketing, by the Planning Commission. Mr. Beaufait distributed copies of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He started by looking at the introduction, PTMC 20.04.010.E, and said the Comprehensive Plan map amendments ("period") are legislative; in other words they can be changed by the City Council at any time -- they can change their mind at any time. He explained that is consistent with the general background rule, that unless you have a project application in place that is complete, its zoning itself is never vested; therefore, zoning in the Comprehensive Plan of the Key City Lanes site is right for recommendation by the City Council at any time, and under this schedule, it is right for review now. The formal application for the Rite is Wrong group falls under the criterion PTMC 20.04.040(A)(I). He declared they are proponents of general use projects at this site; they do not have to be the land owners to submit this site specific proposal, and they hereby retender that application and ask that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council hear that formal application. He said later he would be getting into the Catch 22 Staff is recommending, that this condition change, made last year in error and to which there are now changes, can never be changed unless the owner wanted He believed that interpretation to be incorrect. Mr. Beaufait continued that the Rite is Wrong group does indeed properly qualify for a formal application, that it was improperly denied. They ask that the Planning Commission recommend it be considered. He indicated it is a matter of area-wide significance, but the group submitted both formal and informal applications, should the Commission find it to be site- specific. If it is deemed by Staff to be site-specific, it would have to be a formal application. He stated the formal application was submitted, and as noted under the terms of the section of the statute, they are proponents of general use projects, and consistent with the wording of that section of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. He said he is not addressing whether or not it is legally proper for the Planning Commission to put this on the docket (the merits will be addressed by some other people), but the importance of this particular site, the C-II and C-IIIMU zoning. He said to the Commission that as the group's attorney, it is his opinion this is completely proper to advance to the City Council per Commission review; the Commission should make their own recommendation, that their decision is a recommendation only. He asked that the Commission exercise their discretion, that they advance the formal application. Regarding an informal application, PTMC 20.04.040.(A)(2), he said this is an application of general importance to a wide area. This was fully half of the C-IIIMU zone in this area; it covers eight full lots. He indicated if you look at the case law, the definition of site-specific versus general area, application of very small parcels can indeed be of very area-wide importance. He also said that it is within Commission's discretion; if they find it is of area-wide importance, they can indeed hear it as an informal application and noted it is not legally . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 9 precluded because it may not be half the city. He referred to the proposed amendment regarding the area between the bluff and the C-III zone, considered to be of area-wide significance. Mr. Beaufait noted that legislative rezones according PTMC 20.04.01O(E) can be revisited. The Right is Wrong group had previous procedural difficulties with the adoption change; it could appeal to the Growth Management Appeals Board. It does not mean it cannot be revisited -- that is the nature of being legislative. He said Congress can change its mind; Port Townsend City Council can change its mind -- they are entitled to do that; that is the way legislatures work. Ifthey feel they have made a decision in error or if they want to make a change, they can, that while the GMA appeal was one appropriate remedy, it is not the only appropriate remedy to change this designation in this area. He noted all of this is addressed in his May 27, 1999 letter and he encouraged the Planning Commission to read through his letter before they consider these issues. He spoke of the Catch 22 that staff has put on the Rite is Wrong group and what it means for the City under the correct interpretation of formal versus informal decision. He noted it says only a land owner can apply for a site-specific change, and that it is not appropriate to do a site- specific change under an informal amendment request; it doesn't merit additional consideration. He said at that point you have now created a system where the only party that can make such site-specific proposals, or for at least small area proposals, are the land owners. The adjoining owner, who may be as directly impacted by that zoning change or possible change cannot do anything at all. They can't complain -- this could be the most critical area for a section of the city, and there is no opportunity for change in that zoning. It is just called site-specific, and it can't be advanced by the citizens in general., because they are not the land owners, or an agent of the land owner. They can't do a site-specific and pay their $890; they can't do it as informal because it is not of very wide significance, if it's called that. He commented, basically, you create a one-way system that can only go in terms of individual land owners for one of the parcels, not necessarily what is appropriate for the neighborhoods. He pointed out for policy reasons, that interpretation is not appropriate, and also is not consistent with PTMC 20.04.01O(B) which provides for the public to have full participation in the process; in other words that system has been biased in favor of individual land owners. He said he thinks legally that is a section violation; they are basically giving a right to one group of people for no particular reason; the neighbor next door could be as directly impacted by a zone rechange -- their value could go down or up. He asserted that is not a fair system, because it allows the individual land owners to be the only parties in the city that can make site-specific changes, if you are going to call them that. He said once they are deemed that, the process stops, and that makes a crazy process for whatever parcels are relatively small. He summarized: . Legally, both the formal and informal applications are right for Commission's decision. He said he disagrees with Staff, and the Ci~ Attorney and said if the Planning Commission reads the statutes for themselves and decide not to docket either one of these, he thinks they will be adopting a very bad precedent for the city. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 10 · Regarding informal changes, there are indeed change conditions. When the change was made last year, the C-IIIMU was a different C-IIIMU than it is now. The C-IIIMU through that same process was expanded and now has much greater uses; that part has changed and affects economic viability. That there are more uses now in the C-IIIMU zone than there were, is a factor. · Another factor is a broad segment of the community, politically and in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, finds the previous decision to be erroneous. A determination that the decision was made in error originally is a changed condition, and he declared this is right for review as a changed situation under an informal application. · He again stressed that the Planning Commission should consider both formal and informal. Mr. Beaufait indicated there would be other people talking about why this particular parcel is important, and why it should be docketed. It was determined that Planning Commission questions could be addressed speaker by speaker as necessary. Q Mr. Maudelbaum asked Mr. Beaufait regarding the argument on "standing" with the proponent and the City Attorney. He said he had not discussed this with the City Attorney, but takes it that by proponent, the City Staff means someone who is making a specific proposal dealing with that land. A Mr. Beaufait replied the wording is defined in this instance as proponent of land development projects, that basically, if you are proponent of a set of uses for a particular area, that would qualify. He indicated that is his argument; it is a different reading than theirs, but that is the crux of how you read that section, as he sees it. Q Mr. Mandelbaum responded asking if what he is saying the Planning Commission should look at that in a broader sense. A Mr. Beaufait concurred and said in part because of this equal protection problem, and in part because of the public pohcy problems it creates, if suddenly now there is no mechanism here to deal with this kind of problem. You may be for or against the particular change, but to say it should not be discussed is both a policy and a legal mistake. He said they are talking here about docketing, and he thinks it should be docketed. Q Mr. Mandelbaum asked if the issue is one of "standing" so someone might feel here that is should be discussed, but that technically the standing argument may mitigate against it. He asked Mr. Beaufait if he acknowledged that someone might be in that position? A Mr. Beaufait replied that the neighbors and people directly affected and very interested in this area because of their use of it would qualify under both federal and state standing requirements to be sufficiently interested to handle this case in court. Q Mr. Mandelbaum indicated that Mr. Beaufait made the argument on the suggested · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 11 amendments, presumably that there have been changed conditions since the original decision of the Planning Commission and City Council, namely the two major changes, 1) the political movement has developed, 2) Rite-Aid has been withdrawn. Mr. Beaufait interjected that also the C-IIIMU is different from when it was originally considered. Mr. Mandelbaum said he was not on the Planning Commission at that time, and asked what there was about the underlying debate that circumstances have changed enough to change the mixed use; with Staff recommending against the original change, what was there about the condition that changed? A Mr. Beaufait replied that he argued the changed condition point, but since it is a legislative decision and does not require change conditions, the question is not relevant to meet the criteria. Since it is legislative, to be heard, they do not have to show changed conditions; they can propose a formal amendment at any time. It can be a complete reversal of what was done 2 years ago. \v-",v Q Mr. Mandelbaum noted you have to'some criteria to deal with proposed changes. A Mr. Beaufait said the thinks it should be whether or not it is the right decision and whether or not you think it is important enough to docket. Mr. Joe Pipia, 1540 22nd Street, Port Townsend He responded to Mr. LaVigne's letter saying that over the past several months he and Mr. LaVigne have had several conversations, and in every case they were polite and courteous. He indicated this has never been about Mr. LaVigne's family, that not one letter printed in the Leader, no letter ever sent, no press release sent out has ever mentioned family. He declared this is aU about Rite-Aid, that he likes Mr. LaVigne and wishes him the best; this is about something bigger. He pointed out this group has never participated in personal attacks, and are not going to start doing that now. He said they are part of a group of citizens that is not going to engage in that kind of polarizing division. Mr. Pipia indicated this is about the future of this town and the thousands of people who live here. He said he is here to support the proposed amendment and ask that it be docketed, because it is in the best long term interest of this city and the people who live here. He noted they are talking about the Comp Plan which is an agreement, a covenant that bonds this town to our future. He said it would be nice every time the Planning Commission and City Council ask for input, the response would come back and you would know what we felt, but it doesn't work that way. He went on to say last fall that didn't happen partly because this process was new, they were aU getting used to it and didn't know what they were doing. However, the last several months public outcry can only be recognized as a clear, resounding voice of the thousands of residents here who want this town to grow in a thoughtful, community- minded way; the Comp Plan requires that they do that. Mr. Pipia said recommendations that are made tonight, reviewing what they have to say, · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27,1999 Page 12 will determine how this town will look and feel, and how we will live for years to come, and he admonished the Planning Commission to give the Comp Plan a chance to succeed, to put this on the docket. He distributed copies of his letter of testimony for the record which was entered as Exhibit Q. Ms. Michlle Sandoval, 686 Roosevelt, Port Townsend She spoke to the issue of docketing and pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was a long and time-consuming process; everybody worked hard -- members of the Planning Commission that went through the process, Staff, and a lot of citizens who were involved. She said she thinks it should be not only implemented but supported, that it is something they went through with the County, not without contentiousness, but something that we should all stand behind When citizens come and talk about their personal property, it is difficult to separate the personal emotions that are involved with that persons property and what that means to their livelihood, in many instances. She indicated that also affects her, but at the same time she believes when a public process has been concluded, like the Comprehensive Plan, citizens as a whole should stand behind it, because it is for the better good of all. She said that not at all to be disrespectful to the owners of the bowling alley, she believed the last change in the zoning was done under a very political climate, that it was the wrong decision, and suggested this is an opportunity to step back and once again have a discussion. Ms. Sandoval spoke to the issue of it whether or not it is a viable, economic zone and said that certainly the one buyer that La Vignes had wanted the rezone, but that was for their own profit equation and not necessarily true market viability. She indicated they had a system they looked at; that was what they wanted, but that it does not mean there would not be other real viable economic buyers for that locale. She thinks they need to return to the original zone in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and make it a pedestrian-friendly city, the lovely city that we have. She pointed out it is a nice segue from straight commercial into residential, and that there are a variety of reasons for the original zoning. She said we need to take another look at this situation by allowing it to be on the docket. She thinks many citizens were appalled, and rightly so, by the change in the zone by the Council, because as they watched public process, they did not think their interests were going to be protected. She did not think there was the right discussion available, and as she watched, she really did not think it was going to occur given the Staff and Planning Commission recommendations. She contends it needs to be opened up again. Ms. Sandoval related that as a realtor, she had just had a. gentleman from Hawaii who was elated at the thought that not only could it be commercial, but that it could also be residential, a mixed use. He felt the mixed use to be more lenient, less restrictive. She said she does not think they are actually impinging on someone's livelihood, or making a less viable area. There are positive things to be said for what it can do for the city as a whole, and also that it is truly viable in the economic sense. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Jeff Kelety, 419 Benton Street, Port Townsend His letter of testimony was distributed and was entered into the record as Exhibit R. He said the property they requested to be returned to the C-IIIMU designation is in his neighborhood, which is used by his family including three young children who routinely walk the tree-lined lanes above the Kearney and Jefferson Street intersection and down the adjoining Jefferson Street hiIJ climb to Kah Tai lagoon and neighbors at the foot of the bay. He stressed that this is their neighborhood, and they are gravely concerned for its future, that the recent redesignation to C-II marks the beginning of erosion of their residential area as wen as erosion of the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelety noted the powerful material included in the Comprehensive Plan and quoted from it regarding "Maintaining Our Small Town Character" and the overriding objective to maintain the special character. He read, "As our community grows, the very character that attracted residents here in the first place is threatened," and he pointed out this is happening in town after town. He went on to quote ". . .the Plan encourages the development of 'mixed use centers' surrounded by strong and diverse neighborhoods. . . intended to serve as focal points for new or emerging neighborhoods and to help promote pedestrian friendly areas with small- scale neighborhood shopping and services." Regarding Community Directions, "The City is pedestrian oriented, and neighbors greet one another as they walk: by for work, play, or exercise . . . buses, trails and bikeways provide useful transportation options for workers, shoppers and visitors and dependence upon the automobile is diminished." He said all of this is true in his neighborhood and in the town in general. He went on to say that the plan wisely designates Mixed-Use areas and further quoted, "C-IIIMU district is intended to promote more focused transit or pedestrian oriented patterns. " He praised this as very sound city planning and made the following points for C-IIIMU Classification: · Community indication of a strong desire to be "pedestrian oriented"; C-II/MU plays a critical role towards achieving that desire. · A well thought out transition area between the CII designation "which is auto [mobile ] oriented" and residential areas. · No better employment in our community of C-IIIMU than the Jefferson and Kearney area (surrounded by Kah Tai Nature Park, a residential hillside and the Jefferson St. hill climb, part of the Non-Motorized Plan -- providing an increasingly rare opportunity to "encourage development of 'mixed use centers"'). Recent redesignation to C-TI, in effect, a spot-rezone, was completely antithetical to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. · Argument made that C-TI justification was justified on grounds that the property was near an existing C-II zone is self-defeating. C-IIIMU by its very nature will always be abutting some commercial area. · The purpose of C-IIIMU is to serve as a buffer area. C-II will pervade all the way to the historica1 district if one by one the existing C-IlIMU areas are stripped away. We must not ~. ----'-- --------~*' · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 14 permit this kind of erosion from the intent of our Comprehensive Plan. · Argument that the rezone from C-II/MU to C-II was consistent with the Gateway Plan -- his reading of Policy 8.4 shows the rezone to be highly inconsistent, "Where possible, allow the Gateway Commercial Corridor to be increased in depth to enable development of integrated commercial projects which depart from commercial strip development. Prohibit the expansion of such areas where it would significantly diminish the livability or viability of an adjoining neighborhood." The recent rezone immediately opened the door to a large retail chain store that is both "commercial strip" by its very nature, and would have, as nearly 3,000 residents indicated, "significantly diminished the livability" of our town in general, much less this neighborhood in particular. Mr. Kelety asked the Commissioners to re-think Starr s recommendation and hear the voice of nearly 3,000 residents indicating that circumstances have substantially changed. He urged that a return to C-IIIMU is in keeping with Port Townsend's Comprehensive, Gateway and Non-Motorized plans, and one step closer to insuring that ''the very character that attracted residents here in the first place" is protected and nurtured. Mr. Michael Anderson, 330 Cleveland, Port Townsend # 1 -- Delete the "Seismic Hazard Elem~nt" of the Plan. He indicated he had previously gone before City Council and protested this inclusion, was told the information was of general nature, and that it wasn't heard at the time. He said he was subsequently approached by a Councilmember (who is no longer there) and chastised for being at the hearing, and so did not return; that deterred him from coming back. This year he said he went to the library and asked to see the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted. That element was in that plan at the library; they are dispensing that information, and he stated it behooves the city to get a new copy at the library. He apologized for belaboring and bringing up the issue at all, because apparently that was not valid. He claimed that was good news. #2 -- Revise Policy 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Plan. Mr. Anderson said he was not aware regarding this process that specific examples were wanted. He said he had not been prepared to submit anything, and was unable to do anything sooner. He submitted a map with an overlay of the Assessor's map showing all the streets and locations which were entered into the record as Exhibit S, and indicated he wished to discuss a specific location. Regarding the way wetlands are protected in the city, there are various rules, he thinks that the wetlands in commercial areas should be handled in ways that they can relocate downstream. He said there was a very minor wetland that was expanded as part of the CT water line by city construction in the area surrounded in yellow on the map, Exhibit S; downstream of that location is a very significant stormdrain facility. He pointed out, the entire corridor along Howard Street was designated by the State and by the Corps of Engineers as a drainage way, and not a jurisdictional wetland; this ~ of area he is specifically concerned about. He indicated · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, ]999 Page 15 the map shows the area is rather small, and to expand upon a very minor wetland in an area, particularly this area, prohibits the extension of 3rd Street over to Howard and beyond and provide an internet between Howard and McPherson. He claimed that is diametrically opposite to the intent and goals of the Gateway Plan, that the Gateway Plan suggested along a state highway, you enhance access to local business by providing a back door entrance. Living at 3rd and Cleveland Street, he can drive along 3rd Street ultimately and get his tires repaired by Les Schwab by taking that route and not having to go on Sims. He said we should be protecting the commercial areas, making them more viable, and live up to the precepts of the Gateway Plan by encouraging parallel streets, that these are the kinds of things that should be considered. He continued, that it would be very easy to expand downstream in that area and provide a habitat down towards the mill that would encompass the entire drainage basin, that sometime in the future, with the extension of Howard Street there is going to be a storm drainage system required in this rather significant basin; when that occurs, there ought to be a downstream treatment of the water, and that will be commensurate with the Master Plan and overall goals. He said protecting a very minor wetland in a commercial area seems likes a waste of effort and our good funds, and he thinks this was not in our best interest. He requested this be placed on the docket so they can discuss it more fully. #3 -- Elimi~te the Infrastructure "Tiering" Concept from the Plan: Mr. Anderson said he had spoken against the tiering program last year and brings it again because he feels it is wrong; it expands the role of government not only by the providing guidance and protection and establishment of master plans, but goes one step beyond. It takes on the task of designing for a particular development and participates in the cost of some improvements. He said having worked as a development review engineer, in the cities of Bothell and Tigard, and 1990 - 1992 in Port Townsend, he thinks what the city should be doing is establishing these master plans, but ought to be very consistent telling people what they have to do in development. He noted that in the cities of Tigard and Bothell, they had a pre- application review scheduled for 1 hour on both Tuesday and Thursday mornings; people were encouraged to come to find exactly what they had to do. He said oftentimes they spoke to people about the same property over and over again because people that were willing to buy the property did not realize the cost of these permits, but he said they were consistent and told everyone the same answers -- what permits had to be done, what development costs were. Both cities had direction by the City Council that aU building permits would be issued within 45 to 60 days, and upon submission of the construction plan, the construction plan would be approved in 3 weeks. He pointed out this might seem like a formidable task, but the city of Tigard is 10 square miles with a population of 35,000. In the 2 years that he was there, they built several new businesses, e.g., Costco and Sears and several subdivisions, all processed by one engineer, himself, with the assistance of one plan checker and some part time help. Mr. Anderson said the city should be providing guidelines, telling people what they have to do to be consistent with the development, but should not be subsidizing and taking from more · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 16 important issues. They should be spending their time telling everyone consistently what they have to do, and let them pay all the costs. Even with the fees that are charged, it takes away from staff time, and time away from more important work the ci~ should be working on. He said the answer he got last year from the Planning Commission was that tiering was the backbone of the general plan;. he declared any development should be at the expense of the developer, and if the city provides clear, concise and consistent information to the developers, the private sector will make prud~nt decisions. They do not need a subsidy from the city; only timing and correct answers to the developer. He said he would like to have the tier program reexamined; he does not think its implementation as it is consistent with the goals, that it constitutes a subsidy. A brief break was called for at 8:25 p.m.. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m. Mr. Vern Garrison, Citizen, 788 P Street, Port Townsend Mr. Garrison pointed out he was not attending in any official capaci~ as a Councilman of the city of Port Townsend. To cover the appearance of fairness and conflict of interest, he said he will not discuss his proposals or be party to any discussion of his proposals when they come before Councilor in any committee forum, and will not vote on any of his proposals that are brought forward. Further, he said in the appearance of propriety and fairness, he will not stay and hover over the Commission tonight as they discuss traits and attributes, pluses and minuses, of any of his suggestions and whether or not they should be docketed. He discussed the following proposals: #6 C-I/MU -- Sqµare Footage Limits. The reason his proposals stood out, his request for changes were not site-specifi.c, even though he is involved in the preJiminary agony of attempting to see if it would be possible to develop one of these sites. He said he ran into some features in the C-I/MU zoning that were rather hard to work with to reach the six purposes of the mixed use zoning district in PTMC 17.18.010. He referred to his wording in his Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, Exhibit D, and pointed out there is an error in transcription from his proposal to the wording in the interpretation by Staff His first proposal has to do with changing the wording in the use category for the 5,000 s.f. limitation for commercial use; he wanted it changed to 5,000 s.f. limitation for commercial space with no other provisions, no other amendments. Staff has attached a term "leasable spaces" that was not in his proposal and has nothing to do with his intent. He intends to propose building structures so that they have divided 5,000 s.f spaces maximum, but that if the open market dictates a general merchandise store could open and spill over into extra space and serve the needs ofthe community or the neighborhoods, minimizing vehicular traffic to other further distant commercial sites and let them conduct business. In the event a big or larger business is occupying 1-1/2 of those spaces and doesn't need to use aU that space, it can go into the 5,000 s.f., and the other can be rented out to someone else. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, ] 999 Page 17 This way, you meet the provision of prevention of not building one giant retail space, putting one tenant in who fails and end up with a carcass that doesn't work for smaller businesses. He said he thinks it meets the intent of the purposes, which he encouraged Commission Members to read, and at the same he didn't want to put that on "leasable" 1imitation; one person might lease two of the spaces. #7 C-IIMU -- Mixture of Commercial and Residential Uses Permissive. Rather than MandatoI)'. The housing requirement of providing nine units of housing residences he finds to be contrary to five of the six purposes of the C-IIMU district. He said a lot of them appear to be making a convenience of availability of goods and services, closer to neighborhoods, cutting down the length of duration and quantities of trips across our corridors and streets. He said he sees it as an advantage to have nine units of living, having nine people who can conveniently walk downstairs and shop. You stop nine trips, or ] 8 trips; it is limited space for these areas anyway. If you have an orthodontist who could be serving maybe kids close to school that are close to these areas, you could have 40 kids a day served and be stopping 40 trips in a vehicle. It meets much more the need of these neighborhood centers to do so. He indicated the revenue from housing is similar to commercial revenue, but he thinks it rather deters the purpose of the commercial centers in these neighborhoods. #8 C-IIMU -- Eliminate MiQimum Building Frontage Limitations. The restrictive configuration of these structures - there is a mis-statement that has been clarified recently that the uses allow no maximum and no minimum front yard setback, and has been interpreted by the City to mean that the building doesn't really have to be placed on the property line. He. quoted from the May 6, ]999 Staff Report, "Thus, the proposal would allow structures to be set back from abutting rights-of-way, which is not presently allowed. . . ." and he stated that it is allowed. He said this proposal to not orient a minimum amount of the building toward any right-of-way, is restrictive; ifhe is limited to where he has to place these buildings, it means he has to take out some large trees to put a building in a certain configuration. He contended that it should be so that it can have the mixed parking use, pedestrian access and a commercial enterprise, and it can be placed in accordance as to not take out vegetation or tTees, or to have more consideration of light travel; we don't need these restrictions. #9 C-I/M!J -- Reduce Maximum Allowable Commercial Floor Space in Any Single Structure. The C-I/MU zone is hard enough to work with, and he sees no reason to add a further restriction. #10 C-I/MU -- Create a Universal Parking Reqµirement for all Uses. The requirements for greenbelts and buffers, parking and square footage for use are all restrictive enough so that you are going to end up with a building that is going to be proportioned correctly to the site. He said he differs from Staff recommendations; there are only three C-I/MU sites in town; you are not going to abrogate any property discussion on any other issue in other zones and said C-I/MU should be discussed. He indicated he wanted to de-emphasize vehicular traffic and emphasize pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular traffic, bicycles; if you are not · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 18 vehicular-friendly having massive parking lots bidding you to drive here and come in your car, and can have enhanced covered transit stops, covered parking for bicyc1es, and more pedestrian-friendliness, you can minimize vehicular trips. #IIC-I/MU Delete Ref~rence to Planting Strips. If they want to discuss this later, or have more empirical coverage for other zones, that is fine with him. He said he just wanted to leave it more flexible to develop these sites and to meet the purposes of the zoning district. Mr. Garrison again referred to Mixed Use zoning districts, the six purposes listed and urged the Commission to please read and review them when you are considering his proposals. Ms. Freida Fenn, 1510 Jefferson, Port Townsend Distributed documents entered into the record as exhibits: · Exhibit T, Staff Report of October 22, 1998 · Exhibit U, Memorandum of October 26, 1998 from Cindy Thayer, Port Townsend Planning Commission Chair with a Summary Report to the Port Townsend City Council · Exhibit V, Letter from John Lockwood to the Planning Commission of May 27, 1999 Underscored what she said was an important change. She explained she thinks the change by CÜy Council in December] 998 in the C-IIIMU description and requirements removing the residential requirements was an important change that makes them qualified to go on the docket. She stated that issue had been one of the points the Attorney for Rite-Aid argued they needed for the zoning change to C-II; it was requested in cooperation with the La Vignes for that property.. She said that due to the change in December it is possible for a commercial operation to be at that site which does not require residences, and that at the time part of the argument made by Rite-Aid was that they were not in the landlord business and did not want to manage apartments or condominiums, etc. She noted this is a significant change; that in changing the property back to C-II/MU, it is a different designation than it was at the time. Ms. Fenn said in looking at PTMC Chapter ]7, there is a chart which indicates the type of businesses that could be in that property with the revised C-II/MU of December 1998, and she listed some as banks, business services, financial institutions, professional offices, medical offices, building materials stores, garden and market supply stores, food and grocery stores, general merchandise stores, office supply equipment, pharmacies, medical supply stores, restaurants, etc. She said she listed these to reiterate there are a lot of commercial options available, that potential buyers for the site have more leeway now and would not have to put residential units above the commercial operations. She quoted from the Staff Report of October 22, 1998, Mr. Freeland's original recommendation that rezoning of that property denied, "#5. The proposal is not consistent with Land Use Policy 10.2: 'Establish a community-serving mixed use center designation to be applied to areas which are in proximity to the City's existing east/west commercial and transportation corridor. . ." and "#7. The proposal is inconsistent with Policy 8.4 'Where · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 19 possible, allow the Gateway Commercial Corridor to be increased in depth to enable development of integrated commercial projects which depart from commercial strip development. Prohibit the expansion of such areas where it would significantly diminish the livability or viability of an adjoining neighborhood', in that application of the C-II zone to properties fronting on Kearney would begin to create a new strip commercial corridor along Kearney Street which would depart from the concept of the Gateway Plan and would be contrary to the livability of the adjoining neighborhood." "Conclusions: #1. On balance, the proposal is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan The introduction to the Comprehensive Plan identifies four fundamental concepts that shape the plan. First among the concepts is "maintaining our small town character", and the mixed use concept is listed as the first approach to accomplishing this objective (page II-4). It is likely that approval of this will lead to pressure for other requests to change C-U/MU land to C-II. If so, then in time this application could lead to the conversion of Kearney Street to a strip commercial corridor and to a loss of the mixed use concept in this area." Ms. Fenn said they agree with Mr. Freeland's position as oflast October and think that this is stil) true, that it could set a precedent and create an effect changing Kearney Street into a more straight commercial district instead of being more pedestrian-friendly and a transition zone into parks, and the Non-Motorized Jefferson Street trail, etc. She referred to the memorandum from Ms. Thayer of October 26, 1998, and quoted from page 2, "Vote SummarylRecommendatlon: By a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission recommends that the request be denied, and that the C-IIIMU (Community-Serving Mixed Use Center) designation be retained for this site. Rationale(s): The majority of Planning Commissioners voting on this matter believe that the 1996 Comprehensive Plan has not been in place long enough to conclude that it is economically infeasible to develop the site in a manner consistent with the requirements of the C-IIIMU designation. . .. The voting majority also voiced concern that a change in zoning to C-II (General Commercial) would invite future zone change requests that could erode the viabiJity of this C-IIIMU zone and potentially lead to C-II strip development along the east side of Kearney." She said this is a reiteration of that concern that Kearney uses, long term, could be eroded from what the 1996 Comprehensive Plan vision could be. Ms. Fenn asked the Commission to consider putting this on the docket. Mr. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson St., Port Townsend A member of the Rite is Wrong group speaking in favor of this proposal to change the zoning back to its previous C-IIIMU. Mr. Lockwood reiterated that the majority position of the Planning Commission last year was to deny the rezone, and one reason they gave was they thought the Plan adopted, ". . . has not been in place long enough to conclude that it is economically infeasible to develop the site in a manner consistent with the requirements of the C-II/MU designation.." He said that concern · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 20 that was voiced by the majority last year is a stronger concern this year because the economic viability of C-II/MU has been significantly enhanced by the removal of the condition that residential units be applied He mentioned Sears and others who, according to the newspaper, might not want to be in the rental business, and he said that restraint has been removed. He noted that as one of the new things that has happened since last year. He stated another new thing is that Port Townsend has a new City Council, and another is that 2,700 citizens have signed the petition that said they did not want this type of commercial use to be sited at this place on Kearney Street. Mr. Lockwood presented copies of his letter of May 27, 1999 which was entered into the record as Exhibit V. He read from his letter which made the foUowing points: · In December, 1998, the Port Townsend City Council voted to spot rezone the Key City Lanes Bowling Alley property, despite: 1) negative recommendations of all public agencies, i.e., P.T. Historical Society, the City Planning Commission, and the City Planning Department; 2) the Comprehensive Plan explicitly excluded this type of development from the Kearney St. C-II/MU Center; 3) the majority of the letters submitted from citizens were in opposition. · There was not a large public presence at the hearings. He said the pubJic did not attend the hearings precisely because there had been so much institutional opposition to the rezone, and many had asked how the City Council could dump the Comp Plan and overrule the Planning Commission and City Planning Department. · Last year's rezone set a bad precedent for spot rezones. The W A State Planning Office recommends against spot rezones because they tend to erode comprehensive plans. The Kearney Street rezone undermined the Comp Plan as a method for controlling and shaping growth in the city. · People who have a financial interest in a government decision are almost always well represented at meetings concerning their projects. A large profitable corporation simply picks a good employee to represent them and pays them to communicate with City staff and attend all relevant meetings. The public is not paid to attend or participate. The City Planning Staff and the Planning Commission are the very people in our government who are charged with representing the public's interest. It lessens the already limited ability of the general public to affect government decisions if the City Council ignores the official entities which are mandated to plan for the public good. · The public reaction to the City Council's rezone of the Key City Lanes property has been extremeIy negative. The fees for the rezone were paid for the Rite Aid's corporate partner, the Baldridge Group. Their lawyer argued the case. Their proposal included a 17,000 s.f. building and a drive through pharmacy window, an exampIe of auto-oriented deveIopment which the 1996 Comprehensive Plan explicitly ruled out for the "community serving C-W MU Kearney Street Center. · Citizens sent a flood of letters to the local paper; a huge number of people signed the Rite Is Wrong petition -- of the 2,700 signatures, 85% (approximately 2,300) were Port Townsend · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, ] 999 Page 2] residents, a larger number of citizens than voted for any city council member in the last election; the remaining 15% were from the surrounding area. The reaction demonstrates that a very large group of residents do not want this type of auto oriented C-II construction to occur at this site. Please docket this request and recommend that the zoning for this site be returned to its original C-JI/MU designation. · Pedestrian fiiendly nature of the Kearney Street C-II/MU center ties together the triangular pocket park on Sims Way, the Kah-Tai Lagoon Park, the Jefferson Street Non-motorized trail, and the residential hillside behind it. The Key City Lanes property lies right at the center of this complex. Its spot rezone last year, to an auto-oriented C-II commercial zoning, undermined years ofComp Plan work. The very purpose of the C-IIIMU zoning is to create a softer transition between C-II Commercial zoning, Residential zoning and/or public land. · Mr. Lockwood said the Jefferson Street trail goes right past the Key City Lanes Property and on to Kah- Tai Lagoon Park; they live six blocks from Kearney Street. He wants to be able to continue to walk that way with his daughter without going through an auto intensive commercial zone, and wants the community serving nature of the C-II/MU zone preserved. · Mr. Lockwood also said he supports the years of work that went into the creation ofthe Comp Plan and the thoughtful plan that was created within it for the Kearney Street area. Mr. Lockwood respectfully asked the Planning Commission to docket this request and recommend that the zoning for this site be returned to its original C-IJ/MU designation. Chair Thayer commented there are two Planning Commission members here who were involved in the process last year, and stated that there was extensive public input. She acknowledged Mr. Lockwood's statement that he was out of the country at the time, but said there was a lot of public input, both pro and con, and she wanted to correct that for the record.. Mr. Mandelbaum said he was particularly interested in Mr. Lockwood's introductory remarks about changed conditions, the changes in the City Council, and the organization of the resistance to the Rite-Aid location. He asked Mr. Lockwood to also address the circumstance of the current owner of the property talking to Sears. Mr. I..ockwood replied that the original rezone occurred because Mr. LaVigne received a purchase offer which was contingent upon the property being rezoned C-II, and the Rite-Aid representatives told him that the reason C-II/MU was not acceptable to them was they did not want to be a landlord. He said he came forward and this was one of the major parts of his presentation and one of the things the Planning Commission heard and responded to in their recommendation that the minority opinion was very concerned about the economic viability. He said he did not think that case was well made, that could have been other development that came in that were mixed use and had a residential component that could have enlarged the actual total floor space; you can create C-II/MU that includes residential development · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 22 and is larger than the total floor space you can have in C-ll. He said Sears is in the same situation; the newspaper said now that Rite-Aid has removed, Denny LaVigne has been contacted by Sears and is thinking about converting the existing building into several commercial spaces. He suggested that it is possible that Sears also would not want to be a landlord and a manager of apartments; last year, that would have been a problem for Sears. If they had built a new building, last year they would have been required to put up residential units above the commercial; this year, if they build the building at Sear's request to house Sears and one or two other commercial establishments they would not have to. The Comprehensive Plan cycle last year did two things: 1) it changed C-IIIMU zoning and, 2) removed the residential requirement He said they were asking the Commission to revisit one of the spot rezones; the other one they are not challenging. Mr. Worden said to Mr. Lockwood that his letter seems to suggest the energy that was in the Rite Is Wrong movement is equal to the energy that would now be in favor of rezoning this property; Rite Is Wrong didn't make that point during the campaign when Rite-Aid was a candidate for the property. He asked if Mr. Lockwood was speaking officially for the group. Mr. Lockwood replied, "No, that point is well taken." Mr. Jeff Kelety commented that it was not in what people signed to, but he would suggest that if they went back and revisited it, they would get a strong percentage of those people. Mr. l..ockwood commented it was a strong example of C-ll, auto intensive. It had a drive through; it was very auto-oriented, and it could be people were responding to that At 9:00 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Chair Thayer asked Planning Commission members if they wanted to deal with the issues in this meeting before reading a lot ofthe information they had received at the meeting. She said she also had another concern that they might want to get legal interpretation from some of the information they received in this meeting before they proceed. Discussion ensued. Consensus: Proceed and deal with the issues as they arise. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Letter dated April 26, 1999 from Barbara & Michael Anderson requesting an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan for 1999: Delete the Seismic Hazard Element for the Plan; Revise Policy 3.4 eliminating the wetland designation in his Commercial Zone Property for Class ill wetlands less than 10,000 sq. Feet.; Eliminate Tier Program · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 23 Exhibit B -- Exhibit C -- Exhibit D -- Exhibit E -- Exhibit F -- Exhibit G -- Exhibit H -- Exhibit I -- Exhibit J -- Exhibit K - Exhibit L -- Exhibit M -- Exhibit N -- Exhibit 0 -- Exhibit P -- Exhibit Q -- Exhibit R - Exhibit S -- Exhibit T -- Exhibit U -- Exhibit V .- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application (Franklin Street) by Nancy Dorgan dated April 12, 1999 Letter dated May 3,1999 from Freida Fenn for the Rite is Wrong Citizens Group submitting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application for property at 414 Kearney Street Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application dated May 1, 1999 by Vem Garrison requesting zoning code changes in CIIMU Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications dated April 27, 1999 by James McCarron for: Residential uses in crr properties; and regarding the Bluff Boundary Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application dated April 25, 1999 by Michael C. Raymond regarding present R-ill density requirements Letter dated April 27, 1999 from Doug Mason regarding the conservation easement granted to the Jefferson Land Trust by Oliver and Onda Ki1ham Letter dated April 25, 1999 from Gerald Thorsen, James and Bernadine Brooks regarding the unintentional rezoning to P-I (Public Infrastructure) of their private property Garrison Suggested Amendments to Table 17.18.030 Map of the Toe of the Bluff Map showing the Kilham Property Map showing the Thorsen/Brooks Property Letter of testimony dated May 24, 1999 from Denny P. LaVigne regarding proposed policy change amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding his property at 414 Kearney St., Lots 1-8, Block 76 Mabel Addition Letter dated May 24, 1999 from Nancy Dorgan regarding the Kearney S1. Rezone Letter dated May 24, 1999 from Nancy Dorgan regarding 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, Franklin Street Amendment Letter dated May 27, 1999 from Mark S. Beaufait, P.S., Attorneys at Law regarding Key City Lanes, Proposed Formal and Informal Comprehensive Plan Amendments crr to CII/MU Letter dated May 27, 1999 from Joe Pipia responding to the May 24,1999 Denny LaVigne letter, and regarding Comprehensive Plan recommendations Letter dated May 27, 1999 from JeffKelety regarding returning the property rezoned crr to its original zone C-II/MU Map submitted by Michael Anderson with specific location of the wetland designated on his property Staff Report of Bruce Freeland dated October 22, 1998 regarding LUP98.31 application by Deborah Hart for the Baldridge Group Memorandum dated October 26, 1998 from Cindy Thayer, Planning Commission Chair, to the City Council giving the Planning Commission Summary Report and Recommendations Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Letter dated May 27, 1999 from John Lockwood requesting the Kearney Street rezone from C-II/MU be docketed for reconsideration and return to the original designation FORMAL APPLICATION: · LUP99-36, Freida Fenn of "Rite is Wrong" citizens' group to change Key City Lanes property at 414 Kearney Street from C-II, General Commercial, to C~WMU, Community- Serving Mixed Use Center. The applicant is not an "interested person" as defined in Section 20. 04. 040(A)(1) PTMC and lacks standing to make !iUch an application; she also failed to include a completed SEPA checklist a.<; required by §20.04.040(B)(6) PTMC, and · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 24 therefore the application is incomplete. BCD Director, in consultation with the Port Townsend City Attorney's Office, has withdrawn the qpplication from consideration. AU fees paid by the applicant will be fully refunded by the City. Mr. Toews stated there is no formal application. Mr. Beaufait said it was being resubmitted tonight, that was the point of his testimony. He said he understands that Staff deems it to have been rejected, but it was retendered tonight and they are prepared to have a check tonight. Mr. Toews said the position of the City was made clear in the initial recommendation made by the BCD Director and concurred with by the City Attorney. To retender the application would not be timely; the application has already been withdrawn from consideration. Chair Thayer said that would be her interpretation, that she might want to hear more by the City Attorney, but she would expect he would say the same thing. Mr. Toews clarified that Staff was not acting as the Commission's legal counsel in the matter. Mr. Mandelbaum said he was willing to pass on this for any reason, because he assumed they could discuss the suggested amendment on this and whether it should be docketed tonight. Mr. Worden concurred. Mr. Mandelbaum poiQ.ted out the legal problems do not affect the suggested amendment; they are free to deal with that and postpone the other issue until the next meeting. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: Citizen Proposals 1. Delete the "Seismic Hazard Element" of the Plan: a. Proponent: Michael and Barbara Anderson b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Staff is unaware of any specific "seismic hazard element" within the Comprehensive Plan. The proponent may be making reference to provisions within Chapter IV, "Existing Conditions, " of the Draft Comprehensive Plan/Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996. The general location and extent of "critical areas" was mapped as part of the planning and enVÍronmental reVÍew process leading up to fina,l adoption of the Plan. c. BCD Recommendadon: Because no "seismic hazard element" exists within the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, this request does not merit additional consideration. Ms Thayer said it is her understanding Mr. Anderson agrees that this has already been dealt with, that they don't need to have this on the docket. Ms. Toews clarified for the record that the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Council in July of 1996, is the final policy plan, as well as the supporting conditions and analysis · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 25 contained in the draft Comprehensive Plan. His recollection was that the ordinance explicitly referenced that as part and parcel of the overaU Plan; even if they assumed that it is one integrated document, there is no seismic hazard element, per se, even in the draft Comprehensive Plan. What there was, were a series of existing conditions maps that showed the approximate locations and extent of the environmental hazards and developed the limitations on the best available data at that time. The purpose of including that data in the draft plan was to enable citizen work groups, Planning Commission and Council to make informed decisions about zoning limitations. MOTION Mr. Worden Do not include the proposal eliminating the seismic hazard element on the docket for reasons stated in the staff recommendation SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote Chair Thayer explained the final vote on the docket would be a roll can vote. 2. Revise Policy 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Plan: a. Proponent: Michael and Barbara Anderson b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Though not entirely clear, the proponent seems to desire the reclassification and redesignation of regulated wetlands under the City's Critical Areas Ordinance §19.05.110 P1MC. Specifically, the proponent suggests that Class III wetlands of less than 10,000 sf which lie within commercial zoning districts should no longer be regulated, in order to preserve the "small quantity of commercially zoned property within the City. " c. BCD Recommendation: Section 19.05.11O(F) PTMC currently allows for compensatory wetland mitigation, including both on-site and off-site constructed wetlands. The proponent has not described the proposed change with sufficient certainty to aUow a meaningful evaluation of the proposal, and has failed to sufficiently explain the need and urgency for the proposed amendment. The request does not merit additional consideration. MOTION SECOND Discussion: Mr. Mandelbaum Recommend they adopt the Staff Report Mr. Harbison Mr. Worden indicated that although he is very much in favor of facilitating the development of the C-lI zone, Commercial in general, he thinks the preservation and natural features are very critical to the city as a whole, and that aggregating drainage into a single wetland or even a number of larger ones, although it might be a good engineering solution, is not preserving the kind of character we are looking for; he is not in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote VOTE · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 26 3. Eliminate the Tnfragtructure "Tierintil" Concept from the Plan: a.ProponentMichaelandHarbara Anderson b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponents state that the "tier program is inconsistent with Poliq 11.3 which requires that developers provide tire essential publicfacilities necessary to support their development (Exhibit "A" of the Stqf/ Report). The proponents request that the tiering "program" be stopped because it is a "gift" ofpublic monies to special individuals at the expense of the general tax paying community. c. llCDRf!cQmmendati(Jn: TbepropøsaJ appears to be based upon a fund.amental misconception regarding the City's capital facility and utUitygrowth tiers, described in Poljçies 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Capital Facilities & IJtilitjes Element of the Plan. The tiering concept does not seeJ¡ to benefit individua.1 developers. Quite the opposite is the case. The concept set forth in these poJjci~ and implemented through §13.01.120 PTMC suppørt8 and implements the growth and development patterns envis.ioned by the bmd ITse Map by directing .scarce public resources into speci.fic prioritized geographic areas of the City. De.~pite the established tiers, individual developers may extend services and utilities neces..~ry to serve new development into currently unserved areas, but only at his/her own expense. The request does not merit additional consideration. MOTION Mr. Harbison Do not accept this proposal for consideration based on BCD recomme~datjo~ as we).' as previous action of this Commission SECOND Discussion: Mr. .Mandelbaum Mr, Worden said for the record .that Mr. Anderson's presentation did not make clear to him that there was any rea.c;on to make a change here. Hesaid-he understands he is upset with various kinds of specific processes, but he does not believe any of those are relevant to the concepts .of growth tiers., and that they really are centra] t.o the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Harbison concurred JJnanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote VOTE 4. Designate the Franklin Street Ri ght-of-Wa,y from Keamev Street to Scott Street as a Right-of-Way t.oRemain UnopenedJPreserved: a. Proponent: Nancy Dorgan b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: (See Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report.) In essence, Ms. Dorgan requests that the Port Townsend Nonmotorized Transportation Plan be amended to designate that portion of the Franklin Street right-of-way lying between Kearney and Scott Streets as a right-o..f- way to remain unopened and preserved The proponent also requests that this portion of right-of-way be added to the project list within the Nonmotorized Plan, and later developed and signed as a "pedestrian shortcut. " c. BCD Rf!com11U!.ndgtion: One pf the ee~tral p~rposes of tþe NonIDotorized Tr~~sportatjonPlan was to identify existing .sbortcuts used by pedestrians, and when sucb sÞQrtCQ~ lie within ~nopen,ed public rights-9f-way, to desigmde tþpse · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27~ 1999 Pag~ 27 rigb~of-way for preservation. (Empha~is added; see page 34 of the Nonmotorized .TransportationPlan.) With the adoptio:o of the NO:Dmotorized Transportation Plan on .June, 1, J 998, thisp.urpos.e wasaccomplish~. Circumstances. havenotappreciaÞlycha:oged .si:oce adoptjQn of the Nonmotori.zed TransportationPJa:o, and the proponent has failed to clearly articulate an .urge:ot need for tbepropo.l¡ed.ame:odment.Accørdj:o.gly, the proposal doe.l¡ not merit additional consideration. Suppleme.nta,1 information (Staff Repqrt 5120199): d. The Non-Motori2':ed Tran..~portation Committee wa.~reinst-ated by Council at their May 17 meeting. .. Dave Peterson .plans to schedule the committee's kick-off meeting within the first week of JUne. If Planning Commission recommends not to include Ms. Dorgan's request on the 1999 docket, she wouldbave the opportunity to submit the requested amendment to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) to the committee. Tfthe committee recOlnmend~.that tbeamendroeutheapproved, the request could be processed outside of the yearly update process as itis not inconsistent with Comprehen,.<;ivePlan policies. Chair Thayer stated, as they have received further notice tonight [see Exhibit 01, this win be revisited· by· the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee. MOTION Mr. Worden ¡\t the request of the applicant, we withdraw cQnsideratio:o ofthis.ltem from the docket SECOND VOTE Mr. Ma:odelbau.DJ tInani:mous, 5 In fav.or by voice v.ote 5. Rezone the "Key City Lanes" Propertvfrom C-IL General Commercial to C-U/MU. Community-Serving Mixed Use Center: a. Proponent: Freida Fenn, representing the "Rite is Wrong" citi7en's group b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponent requests that the "Key City Lanes" property, located at 414 Keamt%Y Street, be rezonedfrom C-lI, General Commercial, to C-lIIMU, Community- Serving Mixed Use Center, the designation applied to the property upon initial Plan adoption in 1996. The proponent's supporting arguments are more fully described in Exhibit "C" qf the Stqff Report. c. BCD RecontltlJ!ndatiOll: The..rezoningofthis prnp.ertyJrom C~DIMIJto <>D w~s only very recently adopted by the Port Townsend City Council (December 7, J 998) following lengthy discus.liions regarding the eco.nomÏ.c viabi.li.ty of the site as C-IIIMU, the application and effect of the C..ateway Development Plan,and the unique topngrapbjcand environmental circUJ:nstancesaffecting the subject parcel (see City CouncO Resolution No. 228-98). Tbeproponent .of this suggested change did notappcal tbe 1998 rezoning oftbesubject parcel to fh.e Eastern Washington GrnwthManagementHearings Board within the 60 day .appeal · · · Planning CommiJ\sionMinutes - . -_tò;j1." '-. .' ,_._ - __ ._ ._. .' ..·..c.... _ May 27., J 999 Page .28 periocl øtabJi~be4 in §;J6~ 7.0~Z90(Z) .BCW. Suçþap appeal wøuldhave been tbe pro.ponent's appropriate remedy. Mo.reover, §20.04.040(A)(2)rTMC indkates tbat sQggestedamendments "should be limited to proposals tÞat Þroadlyapplyto tþegoals,poUciesamJ implementing. strategies of the compreÞ~n..~ivepIaß, .rather tbanamendments designed to. addres..~.site-specific j.8,~ues of limited applicability." BCDstaffassertthatçircQms~nçespertaJnjng to tbisprøposed amendment Þav.e not cbangedsubstantiaUysince the rezoning was approved in December ofJ 998,..and tbat the pr()pos.ed . amendm~pt does not confo.rlJl witb the code provision çited .above. Acc()nlingly, the request does not merit additional considerAtion. (ThiS is íhe Same ameridifiëñí as eaflîêt diSC'ússedWith tešpeciío the ût¡e fotiflal request -- having individuals that do not have ownership or control for the development interests in a particuìar piece of property, singÌing out property jòr rezoning, is in essence making application for a quasi-judicial change.) Mr.Mandelbaumsaidthathere.they .do tlot have to bother witb qu.estions ofstancbng, just with the criteria -- utlder the code,cnteria outlined by th.e RCD Staff whether conditions have changed since the rezone occurred, The case made by the applicants here is they have changed, curiously.enough, with the· change of the City Council. .Henoted his struggle with this particular issue, thatordinarily, being a lawyer, you don't necessarily want to revisit yesterday's decision at 3 '00 a, m, tomorrow He said on the other hand, this strike.shim as a very significant matter for the city, and he could see considerations both ways a<; to the effectiveness of timing ofthe reconsideration. To some .extenLjtmjgh.theintrigui~g to wait .a year and See if there>areany buyers come in. He said that seems to be setting up a Catch 22 kind of situation that the attorney descrihed,becauseif you did w.ajt that Jong, and if somebody followed up tomorrow and made an offer which again would regenerate the kind of topic we have had without a review, the . opportunity of review is lost. He indicated his ownindinabøn would he to say, since the Planning Commission felt original1y that suhstantively they should have stayed with themixeduse,that we reaffirm that) and if the City Council feels that it i.s too early to look at it again, tÞey have the opportunity to reject the document He said they should not be concerned with the politics of timing, that.it is a City Council de.cisiøn" There is anew CityCouncil~ the issueÞas.heen raised to us; let them decide He said he thinks it should be revi ewed. again .on them~rits,.andheard agair.t Mr, Worden tÞanked.J\tk Mandelbaum and said that since this has come up again he is persuaded that Mr. Freeland's arguments were very.goodJastyear;he wason the Planning Commission andÞeard them. He said the letter they heard tonight was also very convincing that there are issues here to discuss,·and·he can'tsee how they canre.fuseto discuss them, He said to ·him it seems very important that the issue of the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, and what thi S does to 1t,1s one thatneedc;¡ .toheaddressed .again. He said he tbink:s that · · · Planning Çommission Minutes May 27~ ] 999 Page 29 the points the propønents.make thatthe C...Il/MUzone requirements have been changed with a very significant change are valuable, and. be would.hketosee us docket this, Mr. HarþisQß s.aid his question of Staffis tJ1eappropriateness of the application, that several questions have been raised about this. He asked if there is a problem with fhis ,application. Mr. TQews referred. him to thereJev.ants~tions ofthe code: PTMC 20.04.040.A2, suggested amendments, which indicates that anyone maysuggest.an ,amendment wbicb shaH be .added to tbe list of proposed. ameJ'ldments, and in general suggested amendments should be limited to proposals that broadly apply to the goals, ,policies, intpJementing strategies., etc. rather tban amendment') 4esigned to address site specificiss1.lesin general. He also referred to provisions in20.04.060.G.regardingtbishearing, and said tbeP1Mning Commission'.s recommendatjon indicatesthattbe.decision shan be made on the valuation of the need, urgency, and appropriateness ofthesesuggesíed.amendment'), That provision dOeSJ1ot açtµaUy provi4e cri~ri.athatarecrys:t:al.clear. Heintetjected a point relating to the changed conditions issue argument... relative to the modifi~tion, both t.o tJ1e Use T.able and the Bulk and Dimensional T.ableinChapter 17.18 PTMC; he thinks it is important to realize, and said itisaniss1.letheymay WMqoraise with the City Attorney" tbat changed c.o.nditioJ'lsare measµred from the time pf ª~ision< Tbetimethe decision was taken last year; the decision to amend both of those tables was conçurrent with .1hedecision to change the zoning. Mr. WorcJ~JJ c.ommentedthat,althoughthatis true, at the time the Planning Commission acted on this, they did not know tbatthe "fa,bJes would he changed. That was something they.did n<)t e~ct toh.ave happeR Mr. Ha.rÞison indicate<.! that the Planning Commission felt those two actions were consistent. Mr ..TQewsindicate<.lheis talki1')gabo1.lt the.finat Mr. .ß~rþjsoJJ saiª partlyþa.sç<.l On that clarification of the appropriateness of this, and partially in consideration of who win be attendingtheJune1othme~.ting, that then.~.may i1') Jac.tœ four onJy .and that one oftbem.maynotbave be.en a party at these discussions, that if we feel it is appropriate to.goahead th.at wesh.ouldroove forward 01') this tonight MOTION Mr· J!3rÞ.i~(m A~c~pt tbi~it~m .for cl()Cketc(m~icl~rati()11 SEÇONPMr. .M3I1cleIÞaQID AMENPMENI: M,~ Tba.y~r ~,,!gg~t~ ª~ amegcJme~t a.~cl ª,~k¢ w.batif tbey g~tSf).t:"e rC$.p.ol1~efrºm JIte Çityi\.ttørpey tÞa.t~~~l1tial)ymªymª.ke tbem ªIter wIt.at tbat tbeir c:I.~j~j(m js t()l1igbt.Sbeªs.k~ jf tbey woªlcJstm ....ave t.Ite().ptio!l to .rev,is,it .tl\ªt Oil .JQ!le J Øtb, ÞecªQ~e t.hey wpp't bave:fjI1ªIi~ecl tl:a~jr tPtaJ r~()mm~l1da.tj()11 tø tb~ Çity CøªI1~H. .Mr· !larþisø.n .llgree4 totbat, ª,~~ªmi:ng they wjllgetatlditiopª1 Î!lJ011l1atj()11 from tbe çjty Attorl1~Y'~ office .il1 tbe interim. Mr. Mandelbaum said he is not clear what comments the City ':-''''~'' .. - ',.. ,- ".;"_,,,, -- "." '~-.." " .. -_,'- .' ',,",,.-. ,. ""'~' .'.', ',- ,'" -.' ',.'.' ....c, "..<.c·· ',.' ", ,- ,~ '," .'~,., ,'" .:."', ".- 'v - ,- '" .' -..c.' .' - -,' ", .0' .' " ""',, " .... ',_ .' .' , .' ',_ _. .., .,..,~ .",: _ .,",'._ .' - '-"0-- " .. - .'.':. ........ -',- .' ',- ,", ,'_ eI .;\tt()1~J1eYmJgbtmª.ke op tbj8 propo~aJ a8 ªgªjD~t tbe formªJ areª wberebe · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 30 has to take a position. Ms. Thayer said she just thought it was the appearance of fairness fot everyone involved in this situation, because it has been volatile before, that they not pass up that opportunity. Mr. Toews asked if she is basicaUy concerned with issues raised by Mr. Beaufait regarding equal protection, and the Catch 22 situation that the code puts them in. Ms. Thayer said she is concerned about the interpretation of the code based on what she thinks their decision is going to be made tonight, and maybe that is not something the City Attorney can give them. Mr. Toews said again that he wants to stress for the record that he thinks there is broad latitude in the code regarding the way to handle amendments. He said submittal requirements that apply to all suggested and formal applications cross reference the criteria in 20.04.080.A.3, so you have two sets of criteria, the ones referenced in 20.04.060.C, need, urgency and appropriateness, and those in 20.04.080.A.3 by virtue of the application submittal requirements that are the considerations the Planning Commission was going through last year regarding their recommendation on the substance, the merits of the proposal, ultimately, the changed circumstances of the original Plan, whether they arefundamentaUy flawed, etc. AMENDMENT WITIIDRA WN. VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote 6. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Place Square Footage Limits on Individual Leasable Spaces. Rather than Individual Commercial Uses within the C-I/MU. NeiE:hborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center ZoninE: District: a. Proponent: Vemon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal involves amending Table 17.18.030 PTMC to limit the "Maximum Amount of Any Individual Commercial Space" within the C-I/MU zoning district to 5,000 sf The table currently limits the size of "individual commercial uses. " rather than "spaces." The proponent contends that the change would allow greater flexibility in the development and use of the C-I/MU district by allowing the same commercial use to occupy multiple spaces within a center, while retaining the 5,000 sf limit on the size of individual leasable spaces. (See Exhibit "D" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and the proponent's supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: The proposal does not appear to require changes to any Comprehensive Plan policies. It is possible that the proposal could facilitate appropriate development and use of the C-IIMU district, which staff believe is urgently needed in order to maintain community and landowner support for the designation. While BCD currently takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the proposal, the proposal warrants placement on the final docket for consideration durin& the annual amendment process. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): (Staff recommends expanding the scope of review to include all elements of the table pertaining to the CI-MU rather than ~ · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27,1999 Page 31 focusin& on the specific items su=~ted by Mr. Garrison. A comprehensive review is more prudent and the requirements set forth in Table 17.18.030 are interrelated.) d. As requested, staff has provided a strike-out and underline version of Table 17.18.030 depicting Mr. Garrison's suggested amendments (Exhibit I). Chair Thayer pointed out Mr. Garrison's comments were that "leasable spaces" was not his recommendation. Mr. Toews replied for the record that he thinks it is a distinction without a difference.. MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Accept Staff Recommendation and place on the docket Mr. Worden "Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote Clarification: Staff Recommendation is to review the whole C-I/MU table and by virtue of that, Nos. 6 - 9 would be considered Mr. Toews replied to Mr. Worden's questioning of the recommendation for this proposal of May 13th, that the initial Staff Recommendation was "yes" on each of the individual changes relating to the Table 17.18. Staff's Recommendation tonight is somewhat broader than those individual recommendations and instead looks at that table in its entirety, so that you can assess the interrelationship of those changes and make other changes that become apparent during your review. Ms. Surber added that the May 20th Staff Report revises Nos. 6,7,8 and 9. Mr. Worden asked ifit is correct that they will come back with a more detailed recommendation in the form of lines and Jines out on that table for them to take action on. 7. Revise Policy 10.5 of the Land Use Element and Table 17.28.030 PTMC to Make the Mixture of Commercial and Residential Uses within the C-I/MU. Nei~borhood,.Servin~ Mixed Use Center Zonin~ District. Permissive. Rather than Mandatory: a. Proponent: Vernon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to amend Policy 10.5 of the Land Use Element of the Plan to encourage, rather than require (i.e., the Plan language is "ensure 'I, a mixture ofcommercìal and residential uses within the C-I/MU district. The proposal would also require deletion of the minimum housing density requirement contained in the Table 17.18.030 PTMC, and inclusion of incentives for the creation of residential units. (See Exhibit "D" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: It is possible that the proposal could facilitate appropriate development and use of the C-IIM1.J district, which staff believe is urgently needed in order to maintain community and landowner support for the designation. While BCD currently takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the proposal, the · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, ]999 Page 32 proposal warrants placement on the (mal docket for consideration durin& the annual amendment process. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): (Staff recommends expanding the scope of review to include all elements of the table pertaining to the CI-MtJ rather than focusing on the specific items suggested by Mr. Garrison. A comprehensive review is more prudent and the requirements set forth in Table 17.18.030 are interrelated.) d. AJ3 requested, staff has provided a strike-out and underline version of Table 17.18.030 depicting Mr. Garrison's suggested amendments (Exhibit I). 8. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Eliminate Minimum Building Frontage Requirements and Instead Establish Maximum Building Fronta~e Limitations within the C-I/MU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District: a. Proponent: Vernon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponent seeks to amend Table 17.18.030 PTMC to eliminate minimum street frontage requirements within the C-IIMU district and establish maximum street frontage limitations. Thus, the proposal would allow Slnlctures to be set back from abutting rights-of-way, which is not presently allowed with the district. (See Exhibit "Ð" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) c. BCD Recommendation: It is possible that the proposal could facilitate appropriate development and use of the C-ItMtJ district, which staff believe is urgently needed in order the maintain community and landowner support for the designation. While BCD currently takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the proposal, the proposal warrants placement on the final docket for consideration durin& the annual amendment process. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): (Staff recommends expanding the scope of review to include all elements of the table pertaining to the CI-MIJ rather than focusing on the specific items suggested by Mr. Garrison. A comprehensive review is more prudent and the requirements set forth in Table 17.18.030 are interrelated.) d. AJ3 requested, staff has provided a strike-out and underline version of Table 17.18.030 depicting Mr. Garrison's suggested amendments (Exhibit I). 9. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Reduce the Maximum Allowable Commercial Floor Space in Any Single Structure within the C-I/MU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District: a. Proponent: Vernon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal seeks to amend Table 17.18.030 PTMC to reduce the maximum commercial square footage allowed in any single structure from 30,000 to 20,000 sf. The proponent contends this would prevent the development of bulky buildings that overwhelm their surroundi"gs, consistent with Policy 10.7 of the Land Use Element of the Plan. (See Exhibit "D" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: As indicated above, BCD staff believe that appropriate · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, ]999 Page 33 development and use of the C-IIMU district merit additional scrutiny. Though BCD currently takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the proposal, the proposal warrants placement on the final docket for consideration durin& the annual amendment process. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): (Staff recommends expanding the scope of review to include aU eIements of the table pertaining to the CI-MIJ rather than focusing on the specific items suggested by Mr. Garrison. A comprehensive review is more prudent and the requirements set forth in Table 17.18.030 are interreIated.) d. As requested, staff has provided a strike-out and underline version of Table 17.18.030 depicting Mr. Garrison's suggested amendments (Exhibit I). 10. Revise Table 17.72.080 PTMC to Create a Universal Parking Requirement for All Uses within the C-I/MU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District: a. Proponent: Vernon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponent requests amendments to Table 17.72.080 P1MC that would: create a single parking classification for all uses within the C-1/MU district; establish a unified parking requirement of 1 space per 500 square feet of building floor area of the new C-I/MU district; and require the placement of transit shelters along public rights-of-way abutting C-I/MU developments. (See Exhibit "D" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains narrative and policies that were intended to guide the preparation of a wide array of revisions to the Parking Code (see "Parking Management," pp. VI-8 and VI-9; and policies 7.1 through 7.14 on pp. VI-21 through VI-23). Several years ago, a comprehensive review and rewrite of the Parking Code was on BCD's work plan. Since then, other priorities have intervened and prevented a thorough overhauI of the Parking Code. Nevertheless, BCD continues tobeIieve that a comprehensive review and amendment to Chapter 17.72 PTMC at a later date is a better use of limited resources than consideration of piecemeal changes at this time. Such changes may, or may not, implement the overall direction of the Plan regarding parking management, and in no way obviate the need for a broader set of thoughtfully crafted revisions. BCD recommends that this proposal not be placed on the docket for consideration this year, though the department takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the specific proposal. Mr. Harbison suggested considering Nos. ]0 and 1] together. Mr. Worden questioned Staff for clarification, your recommendation on this one is that you review the whole parking code, but that win not come back to us for action this year; that will not be part of this years' Comprehensive Plan deliberations? Ms. Surber replied that was correct, it would be a work plan. Mr. Toews added it is part of the initial Comprehensive Plan implementation. It does not · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 34 necessarily have to occur with the annual review amendment cycle. Mr. Worden asked if it was because it was not really a planning issue; it was part of the administrative portion of the zoning code. Mr. Toews stated there is also explicit policy direction throughout the Comprehensive Plan to review and amend the parking code consistent with the policy direction contained within the Plan, and that has never happened in Comprehensive Plan. MOTION Mr. Harbison Do not include items No. 10, 11 on the docket for consideration SECOND VOTE Mr. Worden Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote 11. Revise §17.72.1~0(D)(I)(a)PTMC to Delete the "Planting Strips" and Include Appropriate Replacement Language: a. Proponent: Vernon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to delete the "planting strip" requirement codified in § 17. 72. 190(D)(1)(a), and to replace it with a more flexible provision that would require dedication of "an area equal to 10 times the street frontage, " excluding driveways, for "gardens, parks, covered decks, verandas or patios. " between the right-of-way and buildings. (See Exhibit "D" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: For the reasons set forth in 100c), above, BCD recommends that this proposal not be placed on the final docket for consideration this year, though the department takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the specific proposal. 12. Revise the Description of the C-II. General Commercial Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element of the Plan. and Table 17.20.020 PTMC to Allow Up-per Story Residential Use of Structures within the C-II Zoning District: a. Proponent: James McCarron b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to change the narrative description of the C-II, General Commercial Designation (see page IV-9 of the Land Use Element of the Plan), as well as the Commercial Use Table, Table 17.20.020 PIMC, to allow upper story residential use of structures located within the C-II district. (See Exhibit "E" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: Staff does not recommend further consideration of the suggested amendment. The applicant has not indicated an urgent need for the proposed amendment and the proposal does not appear appropriate in an auto- oriented zoning district. Per the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 17.20 PTMC, the C-II zoning district "provides for those comemrcial uses and activities which are most heavily dependent on convenient vehicular access. and is located on sites having safe and efficient access to major transportaiton routes. . . This district · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 35 occupies more area of the city than any other commercial district, and occurs in various locations ..long Sims Way. Washington Street and Water Street. and in the trianplar area bounded by SR 20 to the south. Howard Street to the east. and Discovery Road to the northwest." (Mr. Toews emphasis.) Allowing residential uses in the C-II zoning district would create a d~facto mixed-use district which could dilute and undermine the existing CI-MU and CII-MU districts. Existing mixed uses districts were intentionally crafted. and sited to facilitate pedestrian access. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20199): d. Planning Commission asked for information on other commercial districts that allow residential uses. The C-III (Historic Commercial Zone) allows apartment houses, multi- family, boarding houses, and owner operator residences outright. This zoning district "is intended to accommodate the mix of uses that have occurred over time in the city's downtown and uptown historic districts . . . . It is designed to promote pedestrian- oriented land uses and design consistent with the character of the city's historic districts." Residential uses in the remaining commercial zones are limited to owner/operator residences which are permitted outright in all by the C-IV zoning district. MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Accept the Staff Recommendation and do not place on the docket SECOND VOTE Mr. Harbison Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote 13. Revise the Northerly BoundaIy of the Downtown C-IIL Historic Commercial Zoning District: a. Proponent: James McCarron b. Description oj the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to restore the C-III Historical Commercial, land use and zoning designation to the north halfojblocks 37,38, and 39 within the original Townsite of Port Townsend. These properties, which straddle the bluff that rons generally along Water and Washington Streets, were zoned C-IlI prior to adoption of the Plan in July, 1996. The proponent asserts that rezoning the properties from R-IL Medium Density Residential, to C-IlI would allow portions of these blocks that are not environmentally constrained to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements of the code (Chapter 17. 72 PTMC). (See Exhibit HE" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: Staff recommends that the northern boundary of the downtown C-III district along the bluffUne be revisited; this is an expansion upon the original request which involved only three blocks. The bluff provides a natural division between the commercial and residential zones. Looking at the preliminary mapping (Exhibit J), the commercial boundary may not accurately reflect the bluff line. Ground-truthing should be conducted to determine the appropriate division based upon topographical constraints. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 36 d An exhibit depicting the downtown historic commercial district's northerly boundary and its relation to the bluff is provided as Exhibit J. Mr. Mandelbaum pointed out that Staff wanted to review the entire northerly boundary. MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Include on the docket as recommended by Staff to review the entire north zone SECOND VOTE Mr. Worden Unanimous,S in favor by voice vote 14. Revise the Description of the R-III. Medium Density Multi-Family Land Use Desi~ation of the Land Use Element of the Plan. and Table 17.16.030 PTMC to Link Allowable Densities to the Number of Bedrooms within Dwelling Units: a. Proponent: Michael C. Raymond b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to amend the narrative description of the R-III, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, designation (see pp. IV-7, IV-8 and IV- I 3 of the Land Use Element of the Plan) and Table 17.16.030 PTMC to link allowable densities to the number of bedrooms contained within an individual dwelling unit (i.e, studio apartments - 1,000 sf min. lot area; one bedroom apartments -1,500 sf min. lot area; two bedroom apartments - 2,000 sf min. lot area; and three bedroom apartments - 2,500 sf min lot area). The proponent asserts that this would allow greater flexibility in dwelling unit design without increasing the overall impacts of development. (See Exhibit "F" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) C. BCD Recommendation: The provision of more affordable housing to City residents was one of the overriding objectives of the Plan, and continues to be an urgent need. Proposals that could possibly promote more efficient land use while creating opportunities for the provision of more affordable housing warrant further scrutiny. Though BCD currently takes no position regarding the ultimate merits of the proposal, the proposal warrants placement on the final docket during the annual amendment. MOTION SECOND Discussion: Mr. Mandelbaum Include on the docket as a Staff recommendation Mr. Worden Mr. Toews made the point regarding the recommendation that the citizen suggested amending only those provisions of the Comprehensive Plan with the R- III district. He said the same issues with regard to density calculations would also pertain to the R-IV District. The initial Staff recommendation was very limited in scope; they were looking at each suggestion as proposed by the individual. Subsequent to that they have had conversations with the City Attorney's office regarding the liberty with which they might broaden some of these. Their reply was there was discretion to do that, and he thinks it is a situation in which you could exercise that discretion. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27,1999 Page 37 AMENDMENT made by the maker and approved by the seconder of the motion: Include on the docket as a Staff recommendation and include the R-IV District VOTE Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote City-Sponsored Proposals: 15. Revise Table IV-2 of the Land Use Element to Reflect Recent Land Use/Zomnf: Chanf:es: Amend Table N-2 of'the Land Use Element of'the Comp Plan to accurately reflect acreage witllln the various zoning districts following the 1997 and 1998 Plan amendments. (Mr. Toews said this is really a clerical correction to the table.) 16. Amend Policy 18.1 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element: The proposal is to simplifY this poÌicy 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-poÌicies 18.1.1 through 18.1.5 of'the Capitaì Facilities & Utilities Element of the Plan, retaining the broad poticy direction to "ensure that all. . . . development is supptied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities." This amendment wowd also require corollary amendments to chapter 13.22 PTMC, "Sewer Connections." 17. Rezone ProJ)ert;y NQrth of the Busine~s Park from RoIII to R -II: The proposal is to amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps to address an obvious error which occurred at the time ofinítial Plan adoption. Specifically a perpetual conservation easement was recorded with the Jefferson County Land Trust for the Otiver and Onda KiIham property on August 4, 1992, some four years prior to adoption ot the Plan. The subject property Ìies immediately adjacent and to the north of deta.iIed legal description of the subject property and accompanying map. Supplemental information (Staff Report 5/20/99): Exhibit K depicts the subject property in relation to surrounding zoning. (Please note that agricultural uses other than non-commercial, small animal husbandry, are prohibited in the current R-III zoning district.) 18. Rezone Private Inholdings South of Mountain View ElementaJy from P-I to an Appropriate Residential Desi &llation: The proposal is to amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps to address an obvious mapping error. Lots 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Block 177 of the Estate Addition were designated and zoned P-I (Pubtic- Infrastructure) upon inítial adoption ot the Plan. These lots have been, and remam in private ownership and cannot be used for pubtic purposes without the City exercising its power of eminent domaîn. Similarly, the current P-I designation and zoning effectiveìy renders the existing residential development noncont'onning. and additional private development an impossibility. An appropriate residential designation has not yet been identiûed, and is made difficwt by the fact that the subject properties are landìocked by C-II/MU, R-N, and P-I districts. No single-family residential districts (i.e., R-I or R-II) immedíately abut the properties. (See Exhibit "If' of the StaftReport for additional information and for the Gerald Thorsen and James Brooks letter.) Supplemental inlormation (Staff Report 5120/99): Exhibit L depicts the subject property in relation to surrounding zoning. ,~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 38 MOTION Mr. Worden Accept Staff sponsored proposals Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18 for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and of the zoning maps SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Unanimous, 5 in favor by voice vote TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Mr. Harbison asked the Chair if her amendment ofthe motion to not have this be a final docket decision tonight was withdrawn. Ms. Thayer concurred and said she thinks they need to have a roll call on what they have proposed for the final docket. Ms. Surber asked for clarification, and regarding the Freida Fenn proposal. Ms. Thayer said it was decided to place that on the docket. She said she was asking for a roll call for the total recommendations. MOTION Mr. Harbison Formalize the vote on the docket proposed by the Planning Commission at this meeting and approved SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call vote VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Next Scheduled Meetings June 10, 1999 Interim C-II Design Standards (Workshop -- Location to be determined by Ms. Surber) Continued deliberations on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and adoption of Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions, as needed -- Will not be needed June 24, 1999 IX. COMMUNICATIONS Current Mail-- Change in Workshop Meeting Location from Bob Leedy, BCD Interim Director. .. . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 39 X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:50 p.m. .~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker /} ~/jl -·,,-__.-/L z~~ Ci y Thayer, Chair '.~ . 'J .' Guest List Meeting of: ß'/f/V/lII/JG (to/tIÆf/5.SIO/v Purpose: C OAW~'"/V ,lVf'/VO/v/D/¡l) Date: ::r12 7 fi Name (please print) Address T ;tPT ;- '3~~ V 11 I