Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05131999 Min Ag · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Workshop Meeting May 13, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 29, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business · VII. New Business A. Comprehensive Plan and development regulation amendments - preliminary docket 1. Staff presentation (Eric Toews) 2. Commission discussion B. Review and adoption of findings and conclusions, and report to City Council on proposed Title 17 amendments C. Proposed Procedural Code Revisions 1. Staff presentation (Tim McMahan) 2. Commission Discussion and Recommendations VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings · May 27, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Open-Record Public Hearing June 10, 1999 June 24, 1999 IX. Communications X. Adjournment . . . :~. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Workshop Meeting May 13, 1999 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. II. Roll Call Members in attendance were Chair Cindy Thayer, Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, Len Mandelbaum and Christine Ota. Lois Sherwood was unexc}Jsed. Staff members present were Interim BCD Director Robert Leedy, Judy Surber, Eric Toews and City Attorney Tim McMahan. III. Acceptance of Agenda Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes of April 29, 1999 as written was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. V. Reports of Committees -- There were no reports. VI. Unfinished Business -- There was none. VII. New Business A. Comprehensive Plan and development amendments -- preliminary docket 1. Staff presentation (Eric Toews) Mr. Toews made the Staff presentation. He referenced the Staff Report and noted the one formal amendment and 18 suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and developmental regulations that were received by the May 3 deadline. He said the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the suggested amendments, and to make sure the Planning Commission has a clear understanding of the proposed changes and prepare for the May 27th public hearing on the formation of the preliminary docket. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission Copied to Couno1l 6//S'/qc¡ ~ EXHIBIT 3 I . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 2 will be formulating findings, conclusions and recommendations to City Council on what items should be placed on the formal docket for review during this year's annual review amendment cycle. In formulating its recommendations, Staff has endeavored to adhere to: Criteria that govern the Planning Commission's review as set forth in §20.04.080(A)(3): .. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located changed substantially since the adoption of the Plan? .. Are the assumptions upon which the Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information available that was not considered during the initial Plan adoption process or during the process for any subsequent Plan amendments? .. Does the proposed amendment reflect widely held community values? §20.04.060(C): need; urgency; and appropriateness Mr. Toews went on to discuss the applications received. 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-IIlMU, 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 such an application; she also failed to include a completed SEPA checklist as required by §20.04.040(B)(6) PTMC, and therefore the application is incomplete. BCD Director, in consultation with the Port Townsend City Attorney's Office, has withdrawn the application from consideratio~. AU fees paid by the applicant will be fully refunded by the City. Mr. Toews indicated this proposes a change in zoning which was approved by Council after lengthy debate on December 7, 1998. A question was raised about the applicant not being a property owner, and Mr. Toews replied that two different types of amendments are being considered: .. Formal quasi-judicial site-specific amendments -- Appropriate applicants are those individuals that have ownership and control of the property. .. Suggested amendments Chair Thayer pointed out this amendment no longer requires action because it has been withdrawn by the BCD Director. BCD Director Leedy concurred and stated the application fee has been refunded. . · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13,1999 Page 3 Consensus was to raise questions after hearing discussion on all amendments. Mr. Toews noted the Commission's task at this meeting is to identify any additional information for staff to provide in advance of the public hearing. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS Mr. Toews noted that amendments as submitted by the applicants are attached as exhibits to the Staff Report. 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 PlanÆnvironmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996. The general location and extent of "critical areas" was mapped as part of the planning and environmental review process leading up to final adoption of the Plan. c. BCD Recommendation: Because no "seismic hazard element" exists within the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, this request does not merit additional consideration. Mr. Toews indicated the Existing Conditions chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan released in January of 1996 mapped the general location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas throughout the City and was used as an informational element that helped citizens, the Planning Commission and Council came to some decisions as to where apply certain zoning designations. Mr. Worden: There was no response from the applicant? Mr. Toews replied that all applicants had been provided notice of the meeting and will be provided notice of the hearing. It was asked if the applicant had received the Staff Report, if they will receive a notice and Staff findings before the hearing? Mr. Toews said certainly the applicants would receive both a notice of the hearing and Staff recommendations. He noted the purpose of tonight's meeting is for review, that any findings and decisions regarding the docket will be made following the public hearing. If City Council desires to modify the Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council would be obligated to hold an additional public hearing. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 4 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 PTMC. Specifically, the proponent suggests that Class III wetlands ofless than 10,000 s.f. 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 19.05.110(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 allow 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. 3. Eliminate the Infrastructure "Tiering" Concept from the Plan: a. Proponent: Michael and Barbara Anderson b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponents state that the "tier program is inconsistent with Policy 11.3 which requires that developers provide the essential public facilities necessary to support their development (Exhibit "A" of the Staff Report). The proponents request that the tiering "program" be stopped because it is a "gift" of public monies to special individuals at the expense of the general tax paying community. c. BCD Recommendation: The proposal appears to be based upon a fundamental misconception regarding the City's capital facility and utility growth tiers, described in Policies 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of the Plan. The tiering concept does not seek to benefit individual developers. Quite the opposite is the case. The concept set forth in these policies and implemented through §13.01.120 PTMC supports and implements the growth and development patterns envisioned by the Land Use Map by directing scarce public resources into specific prioritized geographic areas of the City. Despite the established tiers, individual developers may extend services and utilities necessary to serve new development into currently unserved areas, but only at hislher own expense. The request does not merit additional consideration. Mr. Towes stated the tiering provisions adopted in the Plan were intended to focus scarcity of resources to geographically defined areas. Three tierings were called out in the city tiering system: Tier 1) existing areas that are within the reach of infrastructure; Tier 2) areas that have been upzoned for commercial, manufàcturing, or multi-family use that are not currently --* · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 5 within the reach of the city's infrastructure; Tier 3) all other areas beyond the reach of the city's infrastructure. The idea was to maximize use of taxpayer money to ensure that it was being wisely spent and focused appropriately consistent with the priorities set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. 4. Designate the Franklin Street Right-of-Way from Kearney Street to Scott Street as a Right- of-Way to Remain UnopenedlPreserved: 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-of-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 Recommendation: One of the central purposes of the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan was to identify existing shortcuts used by pedestrians, and when such shortcuts lie within unopened public rights-of-way, to designate those rights-of-way for preservation. (Emphasis added; see page 34 of the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan.) With the adoption of the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan on June, 1, 1998, this purpose was accomplished. Circumstances have not appreciably changed since adoption of the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan, and the proponent has failed to clearly articulate an urgent need for the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the proposal does not merit additiònal consideration. Mr. Toews indicated that the Staff position may have shifted somewhat and asked Ms. Surber to explain. Ms. Surber: Showed. maps from the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan focusing on the area associated with Ms. Dorgan's request pointing out Franklin Street, Kah Tai Lagoon, a blue area on the map which is a multi-use pathway, along Sims Way, and the one that goes through the Lagoon property. She said the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan currently shows connections to Uptown, going partially up Clay Street, up Lawrence Street, down Kearney Street to Washington and Jefferson Streets, and said the area is already covered quite well by the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan providing linkages from the Kah Tai port area over to the courthouse area. She indicated Mr. Dave Peterson of Public Works, who was intimately involved with the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan, commented the area was already well covered, that the bill climb of Jefferson Street was already adopted through previous plans, e.g. the Gateway Plan and the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront --~ · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 6 Plan. Ms. Surber said, however, they have noted the area where Clay Street is developed (pointing out the location), partial development of Jefferson Street, and picking up again at the top of the hilL She said that since this is zoned for commercial development, there would be commercial and possibly parking along both sides of Jefferson Street in that area; however, Franklin Street is not developed at this time. She commended Ms. Dorgan for the work on her request, and stated Ms. Dorgan pointed out it is an undeveloped street that goes through the Holly Hill farm, and provides character to a pedestrian connection different than afforded by any of the other streets. Ms. Dorgan indicated she would have gone to the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee as her initial step in trying to get a request to the Planning Commission and City Council, but the committee was not yet in place at the time of her amendment request. Ms. Surber said Mr. Peterson indicated the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee will be convening soon. She noted a couple of alternatives for the request: 1) put on the docket now for review, or; 2) direct that the matter go through the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee (which puts it on a slower track, but there isn't much urgency in this area and it is already well covered). Mr. Mandelbaum: Could we ask the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee to hold a special meeting to review this prior to the Planning Commission seriously taking public comments in a couple of weeks? Ms. Surber: replied the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee has not yet been formed. Mr. Harbison: You are clear that there is no time concern in terms as to where this goes; are there other alternatives? Ms. Surber: affirmed. She said it also should be noted that, even if the road were to be designated as a right-of-way to be preserved, we cannot deny access to lots. In this case, each of these 5,000 square foot lots front on Franklin Street. Even if it were designated as, to be preserved, if those lots sell or are developed individually, it would be an open right-of- way. Being that it abuts commercial property, it would have sidewalks in it. Ms. Surber replied to questioning regarding meeting information for the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee that she will get the information. Mr. Mandelbaum suggested the Chair might make a note to express Planning Commission interest to the Nonmotorized Transportation Committee. 5. Rezone the "Key City Lanes" Property from C-II. General CommerciaL to C-IIlMU. Community-Serving Mixed Use Center: a. Proponent: Freida Fenn, representing the "Rite is Wrong" citizen's group b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponent requests that the "Key City Lanes" property, located at 414 Kearney Street, be rezoned from C-II, General Commercial, to C-IIIMU, Community-Serving Mixed Use Center, the designation · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 7 applied to the property upon initial Plan adoption in 1996. The proponent's supporting arguments are more fully described in Exhibit "c" of the Staff Report. c. BCD Recommendation: The rezoning of this property from C-IIIMU to C-U was only very recently adopted by the Port Townsend City Council (December 7, 1998) following lengthy discussions regarding the economic viability of the site as C- IIIMU, the application and effect of the Gateway Development Plan, and the unique topographic and environmental circumstances affecting the subject parcel (see City Council Resolution No. 228-98). The proponent of this suggested change did not appeal the 1998 rezoning of the subject parcel to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Bearings Board within the 60 day appeal period established in §36.70.290(2) RCW. Such an appeal would have been the proponent's appropriate remedy. Moreover, §20.04.040(A)(2) PTMC indicates that suggested amendments "should be limited to proposals that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementing strategies of the comprehensive plan, rather than amendments designed to address site-specific issues oflimited applicability." BCD staff assert that circumstances pertaining to this proposed amendment have not changed substantiaUy since the rezoning was approved in December of 1998, and that the proposed amendment does not conform with the code provision cited above. Accordingly, the request does not merit additional consideration. Mr. Toews noted this is the same amendment as earlier discussed with respect to the one formal request. He stated having individuals that do not have ownership or control for the development interests in a particular piece of property, singling out property for rezoning, is in essence making application for a quasi-judicial change. It was asked if this general proposal is something that was developed after the specific proposal for the site? It was noted that both were submitted. The next 6 suggested amendments: Mr. Toews pointed the amendments are submitted by Mr. Vern Garrison, and nearly an of them relate to code amendments and do not necessarily duplicate inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan policies. 6. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Place Sq.uare Footage Limits on Individual Leasable Spaces. Rather than Individual Commercial Uses within the C-IlMU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoning District: a. Proponent: Vernon 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" · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 8 within the C-IIMU zoning district to 5,000 s.f. The table currently limits the size of "individual commercial ~," rather than "spaces." The proponent contends that the change would allow greater flexibility in the development and use of the C- IIMU district by allowing the same commercial use to occupy multiple spaces within a center, while retaining the 5,000 s.f. 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 a.ppear 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 during the annual amendment process. Mr. Toews distinguished between "uses" and "space" -- i.e., 10,000 s.f, ground floor commercial use in a mixed use building, divided into two distinctly usable spaces, one tenant could occupy both spaces. The limit would be on how the space configured rather than on placing a limit on the overall square footage an individual use can offer. He indicated that given the lengthy debate and scrutiny concerning the C-IIIMU last year, it appears appropriate that some of these similar conditions within the C-IIMU district are also worthy of consideration this year, but he pointed out that BCD makes no recommendation one way or the other at this time. He clarified the three C-IIMU districts: San Juan & F; Hastings & Howard; North Beach -- west and adjacent to the fairgrounds (49th Street). Q Ms. Erickson: Can Staff give us a table of comparison of the changes as to what exists now in the code, probably on 6, 7 and 8? A Mr. Toews: We will prepare a lines in and out. Q Mr. Worden: Questioned generally. He directed comments to Councilmember Garrison that this was not at all personal, that reading through this and knowing that there are only three C- I/MU places in town, and knowing that Mr. Garrison is the proponent of development of one of those sites, he was having a hard time seeing how they can preserve the appearance of fairness. It seems like maybe this is site-specific because it would be serving a particular kind of development that has already been proposed for one of those sites.. A Mr. McMahan: They are, in a technical sense, area-wide legislative proposals that affect code changes. He said he understood the concern, but at this point feels they are appropriately handled here. He said they are not technically Comp Plan changes, but Staff is going to be making some amendments to Title 17. He said in Staff discussions, it made · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13,1999 Page 9 sense to couple this with code changes after the Planning Commission and Council consider the Comp Plan revisions. Anybody has a right to make recommendations for code changes. Q Mr. Word.en: If these same proposals came from the City Council as a whole, it seems it might be more valid. Is that a possibility? A M.r. McMahan: Maybe the thing to do is to have that initiative, that Mr. Garrison could address the public hearing on May 27th. Mr. Toews: We have a basic deadline problem. The submittals were to have been received by BCD by close of business May 3rd. Ms. Surber: This is an odd year with the change in CounciL If the committees had been in place, a lot of people would have gone to those committees initially Ms. Erickson: Most of the suggested amendments are triggered by an individual that sees need for a change. Usually we do not have groups coming in needing a change. 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-IlMU. Neighborhood-Servin~ Mixed Use Center Zoning 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"), a mixture of commercial and residential uses within the C-llMU 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-I/MU 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 during the annual amendment process. Q Mr. Worden: Asked if the only difference between C-I and C-I/MU would be that in C-I the residential component is not allowed, in C-I/MU it would be optional. A Mr. Toews: It would be permissible in C-I, for instance owners of a grocery; but as a general rule having a multi-family residential in an upper story would not be permissible in C-I. 8. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Elimin~te Minimum Building Frontage Requirements and · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 10 Instead Establish Maximum Building Frontage Limitations within the C-IlMU. 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 structures to be set back from abutting rights-of-way, which is not presently allowed with the district. (See Exhibit "D" ofthe 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-IIMU 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 during the annual amendment process. Mr. Toews indicated the idea was that minimum building frontage requirements be replaced with maximum building frontage limitations. There now is basically a requirement that about 70 percent of the street frontage be occupied by a building. The idea was to try to get street level construction -- get buildings up on the sidewalk. This proposes a mirror image of that, basically to establish maximum frontage limitations and recharacterize the way the table sets forth this requirement. 9. Revise Table 17.18.030 PTMC to Reduce the Maximum Allowable COqlmercial Floor Sp~ce in Any Single Structure within the C-IlMU. 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 s.f. The proponent contends this would prevent the development of bulky buildings that overwhelm their surroundings, 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 development and use of the C-I/MU 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 during the annual amendment process. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 11 The following two proposals: Mr. Toews noted these proposals relate to the parking code. He explained that the BCD recommendation on both is that the parking code, for some time, has been in significant need of comprehensive review and amendment, and that it may not be a wise use of staff and city time and resources to contemplate when the entire chapter is in need of thorough review. 10. Revise Table 17.72.080 PTMC to Create a Universal Parking Requirement fQr All Uses )VÌthinthe C-IlMU. Neighborhood-Serving Mixed Use Center Zoninß District: a. Proponent: Vernon Garrison b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proponent requests amendments to Table 17.72.080 PTMC that would: create a single parking classification for all uses within the C-IfMU 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-IIMU 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 overhaul of the Parking Code. Nevertheless, BCD continues to believe 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. Q Ms. Erickson: Probably another comparison to what the code would be per use rather than per square feet; there are certain uses in C-I. A Mr. Toews: The use table in the parking code does not correlate with the uses called out in the use tables in the rest of Title 17. The suggestion here is to have one unified parking requirement for all uses within this district. Ms. Erickson: Then there is better parking use in C-I/MU than C-I. If somebody has the same use in C-IIMU as in C-I -- you are correcting the parking code C-IIMU and not C-I. Mr. Toews: That is why the position is that the code needs a comprehensive review to make it consistent with other chapters in the code rather than singling out just one particular C- IIMU. The recommendation is that it should not be placed on the docket. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 12 11. Revise §17.72.190(D)(1)(a)PTMC to Delete the "Planting Strips" and Include Appropriate Replacement Langµage: 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 10(c), 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 9fthe C-II. General Commercial Land Use Designation ofthe Land Use Element ofthe Plan. and Table 17.20.020 PTMC to Allow Upper 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 PTMC, 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 has not yet fully evaluated this proposal, and makes no recommendation at this time. A recommendation and supporting rationale will be provided to the Planni~g Commission in advance of the May 27,1999 public hearing. Mr. Toews said the proposal would allow residential uses in the upper stories of structures within the general commercial district, in essence making the C-II something of a mixed use zone in its own right. Q Mr. Mandelbaum: asked regarding this writing. A Mr. Toews: responded that the intent was to respond to specific information requested by the Planning Commission, that this will be written up and the necessary documentation provided. Q M.s. Erickson: said she assumed they are going to compare this to others that allow residential, e.g. the Historic District C-UL . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 13 A Mr. Toews: Currently the districts that allow multi-family residential are C-IJMU, C-IIIMU, and C-III. If this change were to be adopted by the City, it would in essence mean changing the C-ll to a mixed use district. 13. Revise the Northerly Boundary of the Downtown C-IIL Historic Commercial Zoning District: a. Proponent: James McCarron b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to restore the C-III Historical Commercial, land use and zoning designation to the north half of blocks 37,38, and 39 within the original Townsite of Port Townsend. These properties, which straddle the bluff that runs generally along Water and Washington Streets, were zoned C-III prior to adoption of the Plan in July, 1996. The proponent asserts that rezoning the properties from R-II, Medium Density Residential, to C-III 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 "E" of the Staff Report for a more detailed description and supporting rationale.) c. BCD Recommendation: Staff has not yet fully evaluated this proposal, and makes no recommendation at this time. A recommendation and supporting rationale will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the May 27,1999 public hearing. Mr. Toews pointed out the proposal relates to the northerly limit of the downtown C-III Historic Commercial zoning district. During the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan a number of parcels that straddled the bluff line were rezoned from C-III to R-ll, because at the time they were viewed as having no development potential as C-III. He said it has since been pointed out that the parking code, as written, prevents the use of any portion of those lots from being used for off-street parking, the useful portion of the properties, the toe at the bottom of the bluff currently zoned R-II. The proposal is to shift the boundary line northward for a number of blocks and enable those properties to be used to meet off-street parking requirements. Q Mr. Worden: It would be helpful to have a larger scale map. A Mr. Toews: We can provide a map that shows both the former and current zoning on the approximate locations. 14. Revise the Description of the R-III. 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 Dwellin,g Units: . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 14 a. Proponent: Michael C. Raymond b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal is to amend the narrative description of the R-lll, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, designation (see pp. IV-7, IV-8 and IV-13 of the Land Use Element ofthe 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 s.f min. lot area; one bedroom apartments- - 1,500 s.f. mill. lot area; two bedroom apartments -- 2,000 s.f. min. lot area; and three bedroom apartments -- 2,500 s.f 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. City-Sponsored Proposals: 15. Revise Table IV-2 of the Land Use Element to Reflect Recent Land Use/Zoning Changes: Amend Table IV-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comp Plan to accurately reflect acreage within 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 policy in a manner consistent with the recommendations contained within the Draft Port Townsend Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the proposal is to delete the somewhat convoluted direction provided by sub-policies 18.1.1 through 18.1.5 of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of the Plan, retaining the broad policy direction to "ensure that all . . . . development is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities." This amendment would also require corollary amendments to Chapter 13.22 PTMC, "Sewer Connections." · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 15 17. Rezone Property North of the Business Park from R-Ill to R-II: The proposal is to amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps to address an obvious error which occurred at the time of initial Plan adoption. Specifically a perpetual conservation easement was recorded with the Jefferson County Land Trust for the Oliver and Onda Kilham property on August 4, 1992, some four years prior to adoption of the Plan. The subject property lies immediately adjacent and to the north of detailed legal description of the subject property and accompanymg map. The easement restricts use of the property to agricultural uses. It is recommended that the zoning be changed to either R-II or R-I, both of which allow agricultural uses, since use of the property for multi-family residential development is a practical impossibility. Mr. Toews pointed out that despite the fact there were a number of individuals who were active members of the Land Trust participating in the development and adoption of the Plan, they nevertheless managed to designate a significant portion of area at that site for multi-family use that has been under a conservation easement since 1992. That easement basically prohibits use of the property for anything other than agricultural uses. Q Ms. Erickson: asked regarding a map. A Mr. Toews: indicated they would provide one. 18. Rezone Private Inholdings South of Mountain View ElementaIy from P-I to an Appropriate Residential Designation: 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 ofthe Estate Addition were designated and zoned P-I (Public-Infrastructure) upon initial adoption of the Plan. These lots have been, and remain in private ownership and cannot be used for public purposes without the City exercising its power of eminent domain. Similarly, the current P-I designation and zoning effectively renders the existing residential development nonconforming, and additional private development an impossibility. An appropriate residential designation has not yet been identified, and is made difficult by the fact that the subject properties are landlocked by C-IIIMU, R-IV, and P-I districts. No single-family residential districts (i.e., R- lor R-II) immediately abut the properties. (See Exhibit "If' of the Staff Report for additional information and for the Gerald Thorsen and James Brooks letter.) Mr. Toews indicated this asks -- is zoning information appropriate to apply to the situation which was clearly an error in the initial designation of property at the time of Plan adoption. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 16 Findinp and Conclusions of the Annual Review & Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan (as set forth in the April 15, 1999 Staff Report by Judy Surber, Senior Planner): 1) Is growth and development as envisioned in the comprehensive plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated. or is it failing to materialize? Recommended Finding: The annual growth rate in 1997 and 1998 has increased from 0.97% to 3.2% for an average growth rate of2.1% for fiscal years 97/98/99. Given recent adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and normal fluctuation of building from year to year, it is too soon to determine ifthe annual growth rate will average 2.6% as assumed in the Comprehensive Plan or if it will continue to rise. 2) Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminished òr increased? Recommended Finding: The city's capacity to provide adequate service has not changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. 3) Is sufficient land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and needs? Recommended Finding: A sufficient supply of land within each zoning category has been designated to accommodate Port Townsend's growth for the next twenty years. 4) Are the assum.ptions upon which the plan is based invalid? Recommended Finding: The assumptions are valid. 5) Are there changes in cpmmunity wide attitudes that necessitate amendments to the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the comprehensive plan community direction statement? Recommended Finding: The goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the Plan and the community direction statement remain valid. 6) Is there sufficient çhange or lack of change in circumstances to dictate the need for an amendment? Recommended Finding: There has been no change in circumstance that requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 7) Do inconsistencies exist betw~en the comprehensive plan and the GMA or the county-wide planning policy for Jefferson County? Recommended Finding: There are no inconsistencies between the City and County plans that necessitate amendment of the City Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Toews said there had appeared to be a general consensus that the Planning Commission did not want to add any additional items to the docket for the review and amendment cycle. He said, however, there was no formal motion, second and vote on the record regarding that issue. MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Erickson Accept Staff's recommended findings and conclusions Mr. Harbison UNANIMOUS, 6 IN FAVOR · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 17 B. Review and adoption of findings and conclusions, and report to City Council on proposed Title 17 amendments Mr. Toews explained that at the meeting of April 29th following the public hearing, there was a motion, second and unanimous vote that the amendments to Title 17 be approved with one change that the front fence height limitation within the M/C district be increased from 4' to 8'. TRANSMITTAL dated May 17, 1999 of Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Title 17 PTMC, Zoning An overview of the process; formal findings, conclusions and Planning Commission recommendations for transmittal to the City Council. MOTION Mr. Harbison Adopt the May 17th transmittal to the City Council as presented by Staff SECOND VOTE Ms. Erickson UNANIMOUS, 6 IN FAVOR Chair Thayer declared a brief break and at 8: 15 p.m. reconvened the meeting. C. Proposed Procedural Code Revisions 1. Staff presentation (Tim McMahan) Mr. McMahan presented the following proposed ordinances that he said make a couple of small changes in the permit process and implement what has already been adopted in the Personal Wireless Facilities Ordinance: .. PTMC 1.14.020: Establishing a process to appeal certain administrative decisions to the Hearing Examiner ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1.14.020, DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 1.14, UNIFORM APPEAL PROCEDURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF BUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORS, TO ADD TYPE I-ALAND USE DECISIONS AS "ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS" APPEALABLE TO THE PORT TOWNSEND HEARING EXAMINER · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 18 Procedural in nature; does not require SEPA review. Not a "land use regulation" per se, which would typically be referred to the Planning Commission. Seek recommendation of the Planning Commission, as this proposal will expand the hearing examiner's jurisdiction, change the permit process; recommendation is that these appeals not be filed with the Planning Commission or Council. Type I permits that have a real potential for controversy; ministerial permitting that have some discretionary actions associated with them. Win provide an opportunity for a hearing before the Hearings Examiner and allows Staff to establish a hearings record. There is urgency in moving forward on the C-II formal design standards, and revising the historic preservation regulations. Part of the remedy is adding a definition to the permit types which are appealable to the hearing examiner. .. PTMC 2.14.050 - Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction for Personal Wireless Facility Permits ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING SECTION 2.14.050, FUNCTION AND JURISDICTION, CHAPTER 2.14, HEARING EXAMINER, OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE EXAMINER TO MAKE TYPE m PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY DECISIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.78 PTMC Procedural in nature; does not require SEP A review. Presented to the Planning Commission for information only. Will be sent to Council for first and second readings and adoption, commencing at the May 17th meeting. Correction: Item E, add the word "major" -- personal wireless service facility requires a Hearings Examiner consideration of "major" variances. (Staff would handle "minor" variances. ) .. Chapter 20.01 PTMC - Amendment to the land use procedures code to establish appealable (Type I-A) administrative decisions, add personal wireless facilities permits, and fix other problems. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 20.01.040, PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATION FRAMEWORK, CHAPTER 20.01, LAND DEVEWPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, TO ESTABLISH A . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13,1999 Page 19 "TYPE I-A" APPEALABLE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT CATEGORY; CLARWYING APPEAL AND HEARINGS PROCEDURE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS; CLARIFYING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC REZONES; AND ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISIONMAKING PROCESS FOR PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY PERMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.78 PTMC Procedural in nature; does not require SEP A review. Not a "land use regulation" per se, which would typically be referred to the Planning Commission. Seek recommendation of the Planning Commission, as this proposal will expand the hearing examiner's jurisdiction, change the permit process, and recommendation is that these appeals not be filed with the Planning Commission or Council. Additionally, this ordinance proposes minor changes to other permit procedures which may be of interest to the Commission. Table 1 - PermitslDecisions - strikeouts and underlines moved things from Type I to the new Type I-A column. Mr. McMahan asked for Planning Commission input. Type II categories, Column 3 - at this point personal wireless facilities ordinance is actually described as Type IT permits. Key difference is that a Type IT permit is an administrative decision; it is noticed to the public and the public has a right to comment on the proposal before the administrative decision is made. Type II permits, two categories, minor variances and those described as personal wireless facilities. Type III personal wireless service facility permits and "major" permits. Action Type Table, Page 3 -- implements Type I-A permit process. Type 5, Legislative-- clarification of certain Type V actions. Footnote 2, Page 4 -- Utility plans were previously removed from usual Planning Commission review with the idea of being infrastructure more than land use and were taken to the Utility Committee for public hearing and recommendation to City Council who in turn could accept the recommendations or hold a public hearing. Reasons to change: 1) under the reorganization of city government, the Utility Committee has now been eliminated and the Council as a whole would conduct these kinds of hearings, duplicating areas; 2) Staff, in consultation with the City Manager, recognized the utility plans often have land use components, e.g. Wastewater Plan -- important ramifications regarding land use development. 2. Commission Discussion and Recommendations Ms. Erickson: Asked regarding Table 1, PermitslDecisions, Type I-A, C-II zoning district design review decisions. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 13,1999 Page 20 Mr. McMahan: They do not yet exist -- it is a very strong possibility; we did not want to have to change again. The Planning Commission will be involved with the C-II design standards currently being reviewed by the Citizens Committee. This is going to be a pretty comprehensive community process. We are working on some interim controls which are relatively minor, and that affect the relationship with the right-of-way. There is a lot of discussion in this committee about what is appropriate; these are going to be very difficult standards to define in a clear and concise manner. The City Council has its first reading next Monday and we probably wiU be adopting the first week in June. There is a little bit of urgency on the personal wireless facility provisions. Asked for recommendation that could be passed on to the City Council. MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Recommend that the City Council adopt the code revision ordinances as presented to the Planning Commission SECOND VOTE Mr. Harbison PASSED 5 IN F A VO~ Ms. Erickson abstained VIII. Other Business Mr. Worden reported for the CII Design Standards Committee and said the committee is proceeding fairly rapidly. He stated that two decisions have apparently been made but not yet finalized: .. Does not much favor a moratorium for C-II building permits. .. Favors placing an interim set of Design Standards before Council very soon~ by early July. Win address building locations on sites; general requirements and location of parking with respect to Sims Way; some things relating to building bulk, pedestrian circulation. Mr. McMahan said another issue is to have discussion regarding what process the Planning Commission would recommend. Mr. Worden noted options for City procedures: .. The committee presents to the Planning Commission; Planning Commission holds hearings and passes to Council who could elect whether or not to hold the second hearing. .. Declare an interim ordinance as an emergency. City Council could act without public hearings. Public hearings would have to be held at one place or the other. He suggested the committee would like to hear from the Planning Commission whether the Planning . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 21 Commission would want to take on both sections for public hearings -- if the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to discuss the interim ordinance at a public hearing Chair Thayer indicated she did not think it is fair to the public to do an interim ordinance without a public hearing. Ms. Erickson concurred and asked where is the emergency; what are the grounds? She said some things have gone on previously that have only been an emergency in a few people's eyes, and she thinks they need to have public testimony at the Planning Commission level. She pointed out that design standards, location, parking, bulk, Sims Way are things the Planning Commission has gone through over the past 7 - 8 years. She as far as changes that are going to be made to all these different plans that already have regulations in them, it should start with the Planning Commission and then go through City Coun.cil. Mr. Leedy said Staff is in the process of preparing a recommended process for carrying this through the Planning Commission and onto Council. They will be presenting that to the adhoc committee next Tuesday. He said Staff is concentrating on a couple of key things: .. Committee present material at in a workshop setting, giving the process they have gone through, what it is they are recommending and why, so the Planning Commission can absorb the material and subsequently hold a hearing. (Ms. Thayer indicated they assumed that is what the process would be.) .. Declaring an emergency, Staff, at this point in time, thought it would be necessary at the Council level. Chair Thayer asked for the opinion of the Planning Commission and said she is in favor of having a hearing. Ms. Erickson concurred with having a workshop with the committee. Mr. Worden said he had recently gone back through the Gateway Plan in great detail, and said he thought the recommendations they are arriving at do not change any of the directions of the Gateway Plan or the implementation of policies that was outlined in the Gateway Plan. He noted it is important to be very specific in the application. Ms. Thayer said she also thinks that during a hearing it would be advantageous to notify aU C-ll property owners; even if there not that many, that if it affects them they should be notified Mr. Garrison commented he is also on the C-II Advisory Committee and said they discussed a very simplistic route of handling non-emergencies. He indicated they will be putting these together at their next meeting to pass to the Planning Commission for public review. He thought that might have been too abbreviated, that they might have wanted to have -. . . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1999 Page 22 a workshop to digest it, but he certainly felt the public hearing should be with the Planning Commission. FolIowing whatever process the Planning Commission deems necessary, to go on to the City Council for further public review and Council action. CONSENSUS: The first step should be a workshop. Chair Thayer recommended that beginning next year the Planning Commission hold its first meeting in May at a different location because of the street distractions of the festival. Next Scheduled Meetings May 27, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Open-Record Public Hearing June 10, ] 999 Finalize Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendments Docket June 24, 1999 Chair Thayer announced she will be gone June 10th; Mr. Worden will chair the meeting. IX. Communications -- There were none. x Adjournment Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m. ~. II ÚtM J,' ... ,,~ . /' Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . . Guest List · Meeting of: ¡J¿ flk/f/I)¡r; COH~/S5ItJAI Purpose: . Date: ~ /;3 /gc¡ · · Name (pleal5e print) Address T estimonv? ¡ VF~ NO ¥{f I~ (ë1--/ 'itS M/lh^ ~r / - -. . . . I II