Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09142000 Min Ag . . . I. II. III. IV. V. VI. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm September 14, 2000 Call to Order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes: August 31,2000 Unfinished Business New Business 1. Workshop on amendments to PTMC 2.72, Historic Preservation Committee A. Staff Presentation - John McDonagh 2. Mardee Stadshaug & Jim Prince A. Staff Presentation - Judy Surber B. Public Testimony C. Commission discussion and conclusions 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open-record public hearing) A. Staff Presentation - Judy Surber B. Public testimony C. Commission discussion and conclusions VII. Upcoming Meetings: September 28, 2000 VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14,2000 I. CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chair Karen Erickson and Vice Chair Larry Harbison, Jerry Spieckerrnan was appointed Chair Pro Tem. Mr. Spieckerrnan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Christine Ota, Jerry Spieckerrnan, Bernie Arthur, Jim Irvin and Frank Benskin. Karen Erickson was excused; Larry Harbison was unexcused. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall, John McDonagh, and Judy Surber; and City Attorney John Watts. City Council representative was Alan Youse. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Ota and seconded by Mr. Arthur. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of August 31, 2000 as written and amended was made by Mr. Arthur and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Workshop on amendments to PTMC 2.72, Historic Preservation Committee I. Staff Presentation -- John McDonagh Mr. McDonagh pointed out that BCD put aside of couple of proposed changes to the municipal code they had previously spoken of with the Planning Commission, and that the presentation tonight is to cover amendments to the PTMC 2.72, Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) ordinance. He stated the ordinance sets forth the duties, functions, composition, and authority of the city's HPC, and noted the proposed amendments are being sought to qualify the city as a Certified Local Government (CLG). He reported one advantage of Port Townsend being designated a CLG is that the city would . Planning Commission Minutes September 14,2000 Page 2 . be eligible to seek additional grant monies from the State Office of Archeology & Historic Preservation (OAHP) passed down from the federal government. He referenced the handout in Commission packets Preserving Your Community's Heritage giving examples from many different jurisdictions throughout the nation of those who have utilized CLG monies for various kinds of projects. He indicated the grants are typically very small, generally used for capital type of construction -- surveys, helping with educational efforts, brochures, etc. Mr. McDonagh explained that this workshop is to acquaint the Planning Commission with the changes, identify any issues they might have, answer any questions and get input for the public hearing to be held hopefully sometime in October. He made the following salient points: .. A local register of historic places would be established. (At present Port Townsend has a state and federal register in two different districts -- urban waterfront and uptown districts, both enclosed within the National Historic District); .. The local register would not change the boundaries of the two present districts but add a third sutTounding area allowing any properties outside the historic district to be nominated to the local register. To start, anything on the local register would almost always already be on the state and national registers. .. SEP A review was done on all three of the proposed changes, a Determination of NonSignificance was issued and no public comment was received. .. Informal comments were received from the State Office of Archeology & Historic Preservation when the Certified Local Government officer with the State Office came to Port Townsend and gave a presentation to a joint meeting of the HPC, City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. McDonagh said the officer gave him a couple of corrections, mostly typographical errors, but otherwise said Port Townsend essentially functions now as a CLG. She said it is surprising the City is not a CLG, and basically the only thing needed to qualify for CLG status is establishing the local register, how to get nominated to it, process for removal from the register and adopting some of the special tax evaluations. He reviewed proposed amendments to the ordinance, Chapter 2.72, noting the proposed changes as underlined additions or strike through deletions. .. 2.72.060 - HPC functions and duties: (5) Initiate and Maintain the Port Townsend Register of Historic Places; (6) Review nominations; (7) Submit nominations to the State and National Register of Historic Places. .. 2.72.65 (added section) sets out: (I) Criteria for nominating, list of categories ( a) - (k); (2) Process for designating; (3) Removal from the Register; (4) Effects of listing on the Register. .. 2.72.070 Mr. McDonagh indicated the changes are fairly small, and he reiterated the State is very surprised . · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 3 Port Townsend has not sought this in the past, that we function largely as a CLG at the present time. Staff and many others feel this would be a win-win situation. · COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF: Mr. Spieckerrnan: Are there any negative aspects for individual property owners? Mr. McDonagh: It is voluntary; if someone wanted to have their property included on the local register, there is nothing forced on them. If they have a structure that had some historic significance, but wanted to change or alter it in some way that is not within keeping of the Secretary of Interior's standards, they could do so. They would just not qualify for the register Mr. Spieckerrnan: They would just lose their registration. Is there any cost to the City? Mr. McDonagh: That would have to be quantified in terms of Staff time and added administration in dealing with the local register, but he did not think there would be much more. A special evaluation could be an issue to the city. He gave an example of a home valued at $100,000 which might qualify and be listed on the local register, with a special tax valuation. If improvements valued at $50,000 were made, for the next 10 years the County would only incrementally alter its assessment based on the initial $100,000. He said if valuations happen every 3 or 4 years when the assessor gets around to reexamining properties for their assessed value, you would see a property go through potentially up to three County Assessor cycles. It doesn't stay valued at $100,000, for that entire 10 year period; the value would still increase over that 10 year period. The City would receive less tax revenue, but a lot of studies have shown that communities that utilize this kind of valuation and take this kind of pride and effort to keep their homes restored, receive benefits in other ways, e.g., tourism. It is an incentive for people to restore old Victorian homes -- for people who could not afford to do so otherwise. The valuation is going to go up substantially over that 10 year period, but they can at least stay at that initial tax valuation for 10 years. Mr. Arthur: What if there is a dispute, e.g., if someone wants to put it on the register, and HPC does not like the particular building, or doesn't want to put it on? As the ordinance is written, it doesn't appear to have any thought as to a dispute. HPC is just a volunteer group. Mr. McDonagh: HPC now reviews exterior changes to buildings, TypelA decisions ~_ recommendations from the HPC to the BCD director. If the HPC would make a recommendation and BCD would turn that wholeheartedly, the whole process would probably apply. Ifthere was a nomination HPC denied, BCD would still be the only approval authority. That is probably the way it would run; it is an HPC decision to approve or deny a nomination. Ultimately, that HPC recommendation is still subject to approval. Mr. Arthur: I can see easily a $1 million or $2 million remodel, and everybody says they don't think it qualifies (all of a sudden the economics change) ~- having a little experience with some of these properties around here that have gone through a remodel and have not qualified because they were outside of the district or for some other reason. Is there an appeal process? · · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 4 Mr. Randall: They have had a couple of special valuations; HPC can recognize that on buildings that are currently on the register. It has been like any remodel, addition or construction, plans for the work would be brought through HPC and be reviewed against guidelines they have and operate under the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. Once the rehabilitation is approved, BCD has a record of the plans, and the work has been done by the contractor -- when the work has all been done and they come back from the HPC, there is a timeline in the special valuation procedure. You have to submit an application before October 1st, or something like that of each year, to the County Accessor. The County Accessor returns the form to BCD and HPC would hold their meeting. Basically all the contractors have to do is to document all their expenditures; document the work - provide BCD some before and after pictures, the state the building was in before, the state after, and a listing of their expenditures. He said in each case he has been involved in, it has been really simple at that point. Approving the rehabilitation is the complex part; if they come in with the appropriate documentation, they can pretty much look at it, rubber stamp it, say · excellent job,' and forward it to the County Accessor. It is feasible the value of the property can be reduced to $0 for 10 years. HPC is not concerned with that, their concern is with long-term viability restoration of buildings. BCD will follow up on Mr. Arthur's question, if it would be treated as the same type of review they normally do. He concurred that it would be a concern for the Hearings Examiner. · Mr. McDonagh said they would schedule something for perhaps the first meeting in October. B. Shoreline Management Conditional Use/Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP) 00-030: Mardee Stadshaug & Jim Prince - (Open Record Public Hearing) 1. Staff Presentation -- Judy Surber Ms. Surber reported that the applicants, Mardee Stadshaug and Jim Prince own a single family residential home at 220 Lincoln Street, near Chetzamoka Park (Exhibit A). They are proposing a staircase for their private use so they can get over the low bank that separates their home from the beach. The low bank is about 10 feet in height; the proposed staircase shown on Exhibit B covers an area roughly 13 feet by 4 feet, goes from the top of the bank and is rather cantilevered over from the bank to the beach stopping just short of what they call the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). She said the only activity on the beach itself is the proposal to anchor some existing logs that are on the beach. Anchoring of these logs and some planting of native grasses is proposed by the applicant to help in preventing erosion of the bank. These measures were also recommended during a BCD field visit looking at that bank with Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Ecology. They discussed that it is fairly stable, but these were additional means of preventing erosion, and they were therefore incorporated. · · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 5 Although the property is zoned R -ll, single family residential, because it is in the Shoreline's jurisdiction, it is also subject to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP designates the upland portion of the site as suburban and designates down at the Ordinary High Water Mark, the beach area, as natural. In the SMP, staircases that aren't physically attached to a residence are not a listed use (a staircase leading to the deck and the front door would be considered part of a residential home.) As a separate staircase to the beach is not a listed use, it requires a conditional use permit with the SMP. As a conditional use, the recommendation from the Planning Commission goes to Council which also makes their recommendation and forwards it to the Department of Ecology who ultimately makes the decision of a conditional use for the shoreline environment. &taff ~~rl Page 3. Euvironmen1;ลกù Review. A Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) was issued in August; there were no comments or appeals filed in response to that Determination. Mapping of this area as environmentally sensitive is also discussed. It is mapped for seismic hazard and aquifer recharge zones, but those portions of the ESA ordinance only discuss habital structures and essential public facilities and does not really apply to a stairway to the beach; however, it was determined an ESA permit was not required for this staircase. Staff ReJ)Ort Page 4. Analysis of Consisten«y with ShQreline Master Prowam, policies and performance standards. Several areas of the SMP apply to the staircase: ... 4.102 "Natural Environment," the beach. The analysis again concludes the only activity is anchoring of existing logs and planting of native grasses, so the proposal is consistent with the standards and policies for that section. ... 4.104 "Suburban Designation" -- Only one policy in that category and it doesn't really apply to staircases to the beach. The meat of the Staff Report is really in the analysis of the projects consistency with Conditional Use Criteria (4.203 "Conditional Uses" & 4.205 "Unclassified"). ... 4.203 '''Conditional Uses." Criteria a - COijsistency & Criteria b - Public Use: Staff considered this proposal to be consistent with the policy direction of RCW 90.58.020. This section of the RCW has generally been the whole Shoreline's intent; to protect the whole environment and the public access to the beach is pretty broad. Criteria ç - COl1\Patjbility & Criteria d -- Causes no siiP)Ìfic~t adv~rse effects. The existing and planned uses are residential/recreation and the staircase would be compatible with those uses. As conditioned, the stairs would cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Criteria f -- cut11ulative impacts. BCD also closely looked at similar proposals that might be requested by individual property owners for their own separate staircase to the beach. As part of that research, Exhibit D was submitted by the applicant, Mardee Stadshaug. The low bank tapers out towards Point Hudson, so owners of those properties have direct access and wouldn't need stairs to get to the beach. On the opposite side, Chetzamoka Park has its own ramp. The probability of any other request similar to this is considered very minimal, and the cumulative impact was not considered to be significant. In Mardee Stadshaug's exhibit, shared use of this staircase is limited to non-existent, due to the fact their property is only accessible by a private . Planning Commission Meeting September 14, 2000 Page 6 . driveway; the general public doesn't have access across that private driveway and therefore couldn't use the stairs. > 4.205 "Unclassified"- .. 5. 160 "Residential Development" -- Although the stairs to the beach are not considered an appurtenant structure to residential development, several of the policies within this section and performance standards seem to apply in this particular case. Staff did an analysis including how this might affect geohydraulogic process on the beach. Discussions included another explanation that the staircase doesn't actually go on the beach; anchoring oflogs, etc., public access permissions, etc. Staff RePQrt. Page 8. Conclusions. RecoJ:UD1endations and Copditions -- Due to the conclusions, Staff recommendation is to approve the staircase as conditioned on Pages 10 and II. Conditions include all the mitigation measures that were included in the environmental review; addressing the general design of the proposed staircase to ensure the esthetics as viewed from the beach are considered in the design; and such things as there is no heavy equipment used on the beach. COMMISSIQN QUPSTIONS OF $JAFF: Mr. Benskin asked regarding anchoring the logs, if that is a major portion of the stability of the bank for the staircase. Ms. Surber replied it was explained to them on the beach that smaller logs can actually be a detriment because they bounce around as the wave action is occurring. If you have large logs that aren't moving, they do provide some protection to the bank and are an extra assurance that those logs remain in place; anchoring is sometimes recommended. Mr. Benskin said he was curious about the Helix system that was mentioned. Ms. Surber indicated it is something like drilling down through the log and then the Helix spreads into the log to hold it in place. Mr. Arthur said he had the same curiosity about the shoreline fisheries people coming and saying that you should anchor these logs to prevent the natural evolution of the beach. That seemed to him to be kind of an interesting point that they would want to anchor logs in the tidal area to keep the beach from eroding. It is like putting up a bulkhead; you change the dynamics of the water current. Ms. Surber thought the difference is that logs that are there are naturally occurring; they were not brought to the site, and therefore they have been considered by Fish and Wildlife as part of the natural habitat. Mr. Spieckerrnan asked if those logs don't change during the year. He said he looks over a bank and the landscape changes frequently during the year in terms of logs. Ms. Surber concurred that the smaller logs definitely do move around, but said there are several large logs within the city limits that basically stay put. She said, however, she can't guarantee that these logs never move. . . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 7 Mr. Arthur suggested if they anchor them they are trying to guarantee that they don't move. He then asked if the map is a plat of the offshore of this property. Ms. Surber indicated Exhibit A is intended to be the vicinity map. Mr. Arthur said he was just curious; there is a Front Street out there and some lines that aren't identified The description of land does not tell; it does include the tide lands. If this is a plat, that probably is not tide lands. Ms. Surber explained that she used it as a project vicinity map. She did not know whether or not the lines that are out in the water are legally platted areas under private ownership. Mr. Randall pointed out that if you look at maps of Point Hudson, there are a couple of platted lots. He thought this land itself was part of a subsequent short plat; they have replatted land, and in that older part there is a whole block of streets. Mr. Arthur noted that some of the other lots go out into the water to a Front Street. Mr. Randall indicated that is the same thing. Mr. Arthur said the tide land is different than the lots. Mr. Randall explained it as layer on top of layer. Mr. Youse (City Council) asked for clarification of the term used for the high water mark, whether the ladder could be placed beyond that and if the logs would also be anchored beyond that? Ms. Surber replied, "below it." Mr. Youse spoke of a storm, logs were there and there would be opportunity for them to be taken away. Ms. Surber replied it would have to be a very severe storm. 2. Public Testimony At 7:40 p.m. Chair Pro Tem Spieckerman opened the meeting to public testimony. There being no testimony, Chair Pro Tern Spieckerman closed the meeting to public testimony and turned to the Planning Commission for deliberation. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Ms. Ota said one of her concerns was heavy equipment down on the beach, but said it sounds like that has been addressed. Mr. Benskin asked if there would be any heavy equipment on the property, or if it is going to be a hand-dug job? Ms. Surber said it was described to her as a hand-dugjob, but as far as precluding heavy equipment, they just wanted to be sure. . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 8 Mr. Benskin asked if they brought in equipment, would it affect the stability of the property next to the beach while they are actually working. He said it is probably sandy hillside. Ms. Surber said that Mard.ee Stadshaug and Jim Prince stated to her that before they purchased the property they had a geologist look at the bluff and found it to be stable. MOTION Mr. Arthur PASS ON TIDS SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USEISUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVE IT AS CONDITIONED. SECOND VOTE Mr. Benskin PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5 IN FAVOR C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, YEAR 2000-- OpeD Record Public Hearing RezoDe Block 283 of the Eisenbeis Addition from M-C to R-ID 1. Staff Presentation -- Judy Surber, Staff Planner Ms. Surber referred to Staff Reports of August 22, 2000 and September 7,2000. She said as discussed at the workshop, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process is an annual process, and the two items they are considering this year are both suggested amendments rather than fonnal applications for rezones. Both items were reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council and placed on the final docket. They were then subject to environmental review, and a SEP A document was issued in August in a determination of non-significance. The first suggested amendment is to rezone Block 283 of the Eisenbeis Addition currently zoned M-C; the proposal is to rezone it to R-Ill, multi-family zoning that allows both multi-family and single family uses. As discussed previously, the original push to revisit the zoning was a petition from property owners and residents of Block 283. At their workshop the Planning Commission asked that BCD poll the property owners and be clear on property owners' positions regarding rezones to R-lll. Exhibit G was created by contacting each of the property owners, or was otherwise based on the signatures of the original petition or letters previously submitted. Ms. Surber pointed out that of the five property owners, only one property owner is opposed; Mr. Decker owns the two story structure on the northerly corner of Block 283. Mr. Decker currently lives in and sometimes operates a second hand store out of that structure. The predominate use is single family homes. Under the current zoning, residential uses are not permitted; commercial uses are limited to sales of goods or products that are manufactured on the premises. All of the current uses of this block are inconsistent with the zoning and · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 9 considered non-conforming. The proposed amendment to R-lll would make all the single family homes consistent with the zoning. It would not necessarily include the continued operation of the second hand store provided this so called grandtàthered non-conforming use meets the criteria for non-conforming uses in the municipal code. According to the code, if you go out of operation for a period of 365 days or more, you are out of operation; if you continue operation, you are allowed to continue within the confines of the square footage you have. Exhibit H is another new exhibit from property owners, the Mcgarys, in support of the proposed rezone. Staff's recommendation is to rezone Block 283 as requested. Staff has drafted findings and conclusions for Planning Commission considemtion, should the Commission choose to recommend approval of the rezone to R-Ill. The Planning Commission determined to complete consideration of the rezone before considering Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. COMMISS!ON QUESTIONS OF STM"F: There were no questions of staff. 2. Public Testimony At 7:45 p.m., Mr. Spieckerman opened the meeting to public testimony. Mr. Frank Mc~IY, 313 Logan Street, resident of Block 283 Mr. Mcgary acknowledged his neighbors who were present. He voiced his support and said he has liked the area where he has lived now for 8 months. He said one reluctance he had when he looked at it, 'the on-againloff-again, shall we buy it/shall we not,' was this sort of extremely broad zoning that seemed to exist at the time and exists there right now. He said he was a little bit worried about that but decided to go ahead. He bought the place and likes it He wanted to speak in favor of that zoning change which he thinks is completely appropriate, because nearly all of the lots are occupied. It is quite a residential character now. Me, Ted Senecal, 314 Logan Street Mr. Senecal said he has been a renter in one of the properties in the block for more than a year, 1 year and 3 months, and he is attempting to buy the property -- it is in transition. He said it is right directly across, not formally on the commercial block -- it is across the street. He commented on the care of this neighborhood, the awareness of each other -- something he has been able to see for a year and a half There is an awareness of your neighbors; there is a sharing. There is incredible history in this block. He is living in the home of the man who started the co-op} who was a bee-keeper and was welcome about town. He said knowing his neighbors who . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 10 lived there for 50 years or 30 years is a comfort, a solidity there. It is a transitional kind of neighborhood, the same kind of housing that gives character and a culture that is its own. He said he thinks that is 'stuff to hang on to as he has watched Port Townsend grow and grow in the time he has been here. He also said he thinks it is a precious thing, and he supports it. Mr. Jac~ Cady. 315 Logan Street Mr. Cady said he thinks they have a valuable neighborhood, and he would hate to see anything happen to it. Commissioner Arthur asked if Mr. Stafford Decker was in attendance. It was reported that Mr. Decker was not present. Mr. Carl McDieriçb, 346 Logan Street Mr. McDierich said he lives just across the street :fìom this block they are talking about. He said he would like to see it go back to family dwelling, because, like everybody else has said, it is a quiet little neighborhood. He said they have this one block that is zoned Commercial, it skips and then it goes back to Commercial. He said they would all like to see it put back like it was before. As already said, they all know each other and look out for each other, but if it is going to be broken up like that it is going to be inconvenient for everybody to look after of each other. Regarding the second hand store, it's been there 40 years. He said it was there when he came, but it has been closed now for quite awhile. Rezoning wouldn't affect him wanting to sell his 'stuff as a business because he has been there for such a long time. He said he would like to see it go back into individual family homes. Mr. John Addie, 322 Thomas Street Mr. Addie bought his property about 41 years ago. He said at the time the second hand store was a boarding house, that it didn't become a second hand store until sometime in the 1970s. He does not have any problem with the second hand store. He said he has a problem with it being zoned commercial and would like to see it changed. There being no further testimony, at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Spieckerman closed the meeting to public testimony and turned to the Planning Commission for deliberation. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Mr. Arthur asked for clarification if the second hand store is not a permitted use in the R-lll zone. · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 11 Ms. Surber explained that in the R-Ill zone, this commercial use is prohibited. However, our code allows non-conforming uses which have been in existence prior to the zoning to continue operation within that same square footage based with the same operation. They can't intensify; they can't add to. Mr. Arthur asked if it is a permitted use with the current zone. Ms. Surber answered that it is not; it would be considered a non-conforming use. Commercial uses in an M-C zone are limited to sale of those items that are actually manufactured on the site. Mr. Arthur then asked if he lives in his house and it is a home occupation, does that make any difference. Ms. Surber replied that home occupations don't allow retail uses off of the premises. Mr. Randall added that home occupations are fairly limited. Mr. Arthur said he was trying to get a classification because Mr. Decker was opposed to the rezone. If it doesn't change -- if it's a conditional use today under the current zoning, and it would be a conditional use under the new zoning. . . . Mr. Randall and Ms. Surber corrected "conditional" to "non-conforming" in both cases. Mr. Arthur observed that it really doesn't change his status very much, because pretty much the same conditions apply. MOTION Mr. Arthur APPROVE THE NEW WNE OF BLOCK 283 FROM M-C TO R-ID. SECOND Mr. Irvin Discussion: Ms. Surber asked if they could add to the motion, "Adopt the findings and conclusions proposed by Staff." The maker and seconder concurred. MOTION AMENDED: APPROVE THE NEW WNE OF BWCK 283 FROM M-C TO R-ID AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF. VOTE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - 5 IN FA VO~ NONE OPPOSED Revis~ policy 1.8 9f the Non-Motorized Trans.portation Plan 1. Staff Presentation -- Judy Surber Ms. Surber noted that this amendment was submitted by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee, and if approved, the language would read as follows: "Require that the fully platted widths of unopened rights-of-way mapped as part of the walkway system plan connections be preserved for non-motorized use as shortcuts, neighborhood connectors, safest routes to school, and/or multi-use trails where feasible and reasonable in view or cost impacts to the element." . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 12 Ms. Surber named applicable exhibits from the Staff Report: .. Exhibit E -- Taken from the application as submitted by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee; .. Exhibit F -- Includes excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan as they relate to non-motorized transportation. Three additional exhibits apply as a result of workshop discussion about use of rights-of- way, street use agreements, and street vacations: .. Exhibit 1- Sample dedication language from various plats recorded in Port Townsend; .. Exhibit J -- Engineering Design Standards regarding use of streets that are to remain unopened; .. Exhibit K -- Criteria for Approval of Street Vacations. In general Staff feels that the street use vacation criteria, the Comprehensive Plan, the Non- motorized Transportation Plan and the Engineering Design Standards support non-motorized transportation uses of the unopened rights-of-way, and the proposed amendment would be consistent with existing policy. It would be considered by Staff a clarification of that policy. This clarification was requested by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee in view of street vacation proposals of portions of rights-of-way that were designated by the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan as rights-of-way to be unopened. She noted that the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was not field bearing. The grid was set out as a non-motorized grid trying to make sure it is a walkable community, but that grid may change due to the need to open rights-of-way to provide access to lots. If an unopened right-of-way is designated, the lots all face on that right-of-way and there is no other access, it is going to be developed to provide access to those roads. She again said the grid system was laid out without field verification, and on a case-by-case basis it is considered through development review. During that development review, engineering design standards, the Comp Plan, and the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan are all considered. Ms. Surber explained that the street use agreement is a little different; it is not in distinct ordinances. Street use agreements have seldom been used by the city, but just recently a street use agreement for allowing dumpsters in the right-of-way was reviewed. They discussed the fact that there are no approval criteria for street use agreements, and that perhaps criteria that is included in street vacation consideration should also be considered for street use agreements. Mr. Dave Peterson, City Engineer, said that the Pubic Works Department will be working on such criteria for street use agreements, and the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan would certainly be one of the criteria used in reviewing future applications for grants. Recommendation: BCD staff supports the requested clarification of Policy 1.8. Findings and Conclusions listed on Page 3 of the Staff Report basically discuss that: · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Pagel3 · A) Circumstances have changed since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in that the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan adopted in 1998 is now being implemented through such things as street vacation application review; .. B) There appears to be need for some clarification of the policy · C) Clarification of Policy 1.8 would be consistent with widely held community values. Basically, community input that was conducted in 1997-98 to generate the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was pretty broad based and had lots of public support. That public support is shown throughout the City's Comp Plan, Engineering Design Standards, etc. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF: Ms. Ota asked regarding Ms. Surber's statement about lots facing each other and access to the lots, sometimes you can have a side access -- is the cost being taken into consideration? Ms. Surber replied yes, and in her discussion with Mr. Peterson he stated that certainly if it fronted only on one street, it would have to be opened. If not using a designated unopened right-of-way for access would cause you to have to extend the street for several blocks in comparison to one block, that is a cost implication. Those things are all considered. Mr. Irvin said he had struggled through the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP), that it is great plan and probably tells him more than he wants to know. He asked, if it is going to take 20 or more years to implement, is there a motorized transportation plan that would forecast what streets and driveways are going to be open which aren't currently open, or do they sort of have half of the picture and the other halfis going to evolve? Ms. Surber stated that a lot of it evolves by the land use patterns, because, although the blocks may be platted into eight lots facing on unopened rights-of-way, actual development that occurs may be four houses instead of eight houses on that block with other alternate access routes. That is why we say they do evolve, and they are considered on a case-by-case basis. You can't predict what the alternate land use pattern will be. Mr. Randall said in partial response, the City is not out building streets per vacant lots. The street development pattern is triggered by people proposing development, proposing construction. It is very difficult to be aware how that is going to occur. The mere fact that it is not designated as a street not to be opened means it is available for vehicular use if there are not other geographic problems, e.g., going over steep slopes, going through wetlands, etc. that prohibited it being used that way. Mr. Irvin suggested if you have little pockets of development and say 10 years down the road you decide you need an arterial and a secondary street is opened up -- his feeling is that as a City they would be wise to maintain all rights-of-way under the control of the City. He said he thought originally when this was presented that was part of the proposal, maintaining control of the entire right-of-way. Ms. Surber interjected she would say it is. · · · Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 14 Mr. Irwin said after reading a number of documents so far, it seems like it is even more focused on implementing the NMTP. Ms. Surber explained the street vacation criteria definitely shows the community's and the city's decision to preserve the rights-of-way because of the options that are available for stormwater, for motorized use, for non-motorized use, for a variety of uses that are missing in the Engineering Design Standards -- certainly, preserving your options for all of those things, including non-motorized. Mr. Arthur said he is curious: ... If we are trying to implement a non-motorized plan that is long-range, why we wouldn't want to vacate rights-of-way to automobiles. If we keep the rights-of-way, the very issue spoken of could occur, that as time goes by this trail plan could be broken up by new streets and new development; it seems that in the planning of the Non-Motorized Plan there might be an advantage to the community to continue to be able to vacate. One indicator he thought was interesting, EDS page 6-6, "if a street vacation is approved, the City will generally require that a minimum of a 20-foot easement be preserved for utility and non-motorized uses." He indicated that says to him forever that is going to be a trail, and not some point in the future become a street. ... Had not read anywhere, if it's an unopened right-of-way and there is a trail - unopened rights- of-way in past have been considered as part of the adjoining property to the center of the designated street. So, people have used them for horses or gardens, or whatever. If you have that entire right-of-way in the Non-Motorized Plan, there could be issues where someone decides to build a trail all on one side of the right-of-way, which takes away completely that one property owner's use of any of the right-of-way for parking a car, mowing the grass, planting a potato, or whatever, and ye allows the other side of the street continued use of the entire piece of right-of-way. Is there something that says there is fairness in the determination of where the trail goes; that if you are going to put a trail in there and have trees on it, etc., that it is not going to run right next to one piece of property as opposed to another? ... If you are trying to keep rights-of-way open, who will determine, when 1 am wandering and walking through the woods and someone has started to use (not for building) but to use their section of right-of-way for their own use, who is going to resolve the issue if I don't like it -- if I don't like what the property owner abutting the right-of-way has decided to use the right-of- way for? It may be just a personal thing, but is there a problem here we are creating that could be clarified in the drawing of this amendment? These are some issues 1 know come up; I have seen them. They may never get to City Hall, but when we do these documents we should try to envision and make it work instead of make it a another battle. Ms. Surber responded: ... EDS, page 6-6, item 2: "if a street vacation is approved, the City will generally require that a minimum of a 20-foot easement be preserved for utility and non-motorized uses" is preceded by . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 15 . the statement, "Street vacations are discouraged." So, basically the street vacation criteria and EDS say it is discouraged; we don't want to vacate the streets. But, the Public Works Department as a security net says, ~ If you do it at least reserve a 20 foot easement so that we have a utility corridor through there. ' ~ The use of unopened rights-of-way for private use and fairness of placement of the trail -- In discussion with Mr. Peterson and Ms. Franklin of the Public Works Department, right now there is the Green Street Ordinance that is being considered and being drafted by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee that would address some of the concerns about what can you do in an unopened right-of-way; if it is not being currently used as a trail or motorized, what uses would be allowed there. That is not in concrete; certainly if you are putting a fence across, or a structure, or something of that nature, you would need the City's approval to do that and those things are discouraged, if not prohibited within the rights-of-way. Mr. Arthur had previously mentioned landscaping, planting trees, things of that nature. The Green Streets Ordinance may address those things, but right now as far as landscaping goes, there is some language in the EDS that says preserve needed vegetation if possible, but the City is not going after people that planted a tree in middle of an unopened right-of-way. That is not happening. It is not explicitly written that you can't do that; it is going to be addressed if the Green Streets proposal comes forward She answered Mr. Arthur's comment that it is being done in unopened rights-of-way right now; she does not know what would be done because they have a lot of platted rights-of- way 66 feet, 73 feet in width that go right into what people consider to be their own front yard; that is allover the City of Port Townsend. She does not see this policy creating a new condition that would create those issues. ~ Who would resolve these as rights-of-way between private owners and the public? Again, if it comes up and is something our ordinances and/or codes say you can't put the fence, can't put the structure there, certainly the City would get involved and resolve that issue. She said if somebody was walking across her front lawn every day, she does not know what legal recourse she would have. She called on the City Attorney to clarify the issues ifhe wished. Mr. Tom Watts, City Attorney commended Ms. Surber for the good job she had done on the issues, and he made the following points: ~ 1) If the city wanted to vacate a preserved right-of-way by submitting a non-motorized plan, the constraint on the city to do that would be to make sure that the lots adjoining the right-of-way had access. The one restriction on the city's limit to vacating is, the city could be held liable for damages if they landlock somebody. ~ 2) Regarding fairness and location of trails: he thought that is the subject offuture city action, in possibly a Green Streets Ordinance in terms of how and where to locate city improvements within the right-of-way. .. 3) In terms of private improvements or encroachments in the right-of-way: the city has the ability to control the right-of-way. The city can make a determination that the use of a right-of- . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 16 . way is improper and inappropriate and could force the issue through legal means necessary to terminate encroachment. This gets back to the issue that the City needs to clarifY what procedures, processes, criteria, and standards are getting used to govern what uses can be made of the right-of-way by private citizens; there is language in design standards, but there is really not a procedure. If somebody walks in and says 'I would like do this,' somebody else says ' I would like do that,' how is that responded to? There needs to be some standardization, some guidelines, so that can be dealt with. Once that standardization and those guidelines get on the books, and you are walking down a driveway somewhere and see something you don't like, the city can respond to that by going out and dealing with the situation, can choose to deal with the situation, and say to the property owner such things as, 'This encroachment, the fence, what you need to do is to apply to the city for a permit (these are the criteria by which the city would judge application for a permit), and see whether or not what you are proposing to do or actually doing with the driveway is consistent with the standards.' .. 4) If it is not the city involved in it, but it is public use being made on an unopened right-of-way where an adjoining owner had a use of that right-of-way -- he did not think there was a clear answer to that. The city wouldn't be involved in that other than perhaps if the abutting owner applied for a right to landscape, to build a fence, to build a rockery to further define the use, this would be the reason to apply the standards. The city could then say to the applicant, 'Yes, you can do this' thereby restricting passersby or public use, or, 'No, you can't because it is not consistent with these specific standards.' Mr. Spieckerrnan asked if when the city establishes the standards, will they include any grandfathering clauses in case someone has farmed this particular right-of-way for the past 40 years, and they put a fence around it, is this going to be grandfathered in? Mr. Watts replied he didn't know what the plans are for encroachments (not a negative term) that are not 'bothering or interfering with safety issues and fire access,' - what the city might want to do is obtain some acknowledgment from anybody who applies for a street use, or anybody that maintains a street use acknowledgment, that at some point in the future if the city does want to open a right-of-way, etc. the city has the right to do that. Mr. Watts answered Mr. Youse that he is not really involved in the Green Streets Ordinance, but said he would think the first criteria would be safety, things creating hazards to passersby, etc. Mr. Youse asked for an opinion regarding the fairness issue, for instance on the trail -it was brought up that sometimes topography would designate how a trail would run. Topography can change. He asked for Mr. Watts' opinion on fairness; we are talking about two people with adjoining property. Mr. Watts said in his view (in advance of proper standards), consideration would be: 1) the city would want to develop the trail in its consideration and determination of public interest (it is not two abutting property owners, the city has its own standards as to how it would want to develop . . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 17 the trail); 2) he does not believe the city would want to be a bad neighbor. If the city is the owner of the right...of-way, his opinion would be they would want to take steps to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Mr. Benskin asked regarding the use of public lands, the use in a specific way -- using the non- motorized trail as the only use of this public land. He said he was reading in the plat information that it says, '. . .for use of the public for avenues and streets. . .for ever;' it is not limited to use of just trails for the use of this property. He said he thinks there are other opinions about use of this property for the neighbors of adjoining property of the trail; it seems like what we are proposing here is a bit narrow; to dedicate the entire right-of-way for a non-motorized use, and takes the use of that property in a different way away from possibly another portion of the public. He asked Mr. Watts how he sees it. Mr. Watts answered, that issue is one of city decision making. The city has the legal ability and legal right to determine what form of city use is going to be made of the right-of-way. If a decision by the City Council is to open up an arterial, like 'F' Street, or to open up a trail, it has the authority and prerogative to make that decision. It is a political decision opposed to a legal decision. 2. Public Testimony At 8:20 Mr. Spieckerman opened the meeting to hear public testimony regarding revision of Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Ms. ~ancy Dorgan, 2177 Washington Street #7, Member of the NonMotorized Transportation Advisory Committee Ms. Dorgan read her prepared written testimony verbatim: "'Require that the fully platted wid(h$ of Unopened rights...of-way mapped as part of Walkway System Plan connections be preserved for non-motorized use as shortcuts, neighborhood connectors, safest routes to school, and/or the multiuse trail, where feasible and reasonable in view of cost impacts to the development. ' 'This proposed text amendment to Policy 1.8 still includes the "feasible and reasonable" clause, but it is better understood with Policy 1.8.2 which says "Allow for alternative walkway alignments, that may change which rights-o¡"way are protected, based on site conditions and the viability of the walkway connections." 'The idea here is to be flexible and responsive to on-the-ground conditions, not to literally pave the way for dumpsters and overflow parking, or a larger private backyard. The idea in 1.8 is not that a propQsal to use part of a protected right-of-way may not be feasible and reasonable, but that the . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 18 right-of-way is to be protected where feasible and reasonable, and this clause acknowledges that some flexibility may be required in still undeveloped areas. 'As Jeff Randall, BCD Director, pointed out to you during your docket hearing on this amendment, the Planning Commission is not involved in any way with street vacation applications. They are solely the prerogative of the city council. 1 don't know why that is the process, but past and future street vacations, partial or otherwise, are the reason for this amendment. · As Councilmember Garrison pointed out in Council's docket deliberations, this is a "benign" amendment that will in no way prevent Council from vacating protected rights-of-way, partial or otherwise, if they so choose. While faulty interpretations of the practical flexibility in NMTP Policy 1.8 are still possible, it is nevertheless important to the NonMotorized Transportation Committee to make it completely clear to everyone - the general public, applicants seeking vacations, staff preparing reports, and councilmembers deliberating -- that when Policy 1.8 says that certain rights- of-way are to be protected, the policy intends that the entire right..of-way is protected from vacation wherever it can be. 'I refer you again to the Committee's application and 6-5 of the Enßineeril1i Desi~ $tandards: "As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, policies 9.1-9.8, it is the City's policy that the currently platted street rights-of-way should be used not only for motor vehicle travel, but should also be preserved and utilized for a variety of other public uses including NonMotorized pathways and connections, greenways, and open space connections." [Emphasis added] Page 6-6 of the EDS, section (t) requires that: "Rights-of-way shall be preserved as open space when located in the ''potential open space connections" overlay from the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan Use Map." 'The proposed amendment language is very simple and borrows language from the EDS almost verbatim. The additional wording gives us all a clearer, more explicit statement of adopted policy -- that cu"ently platted rights of way designated by the NonMotorized Plan are to be preserved. 'The subsequently rescinded Findin~s and Conc1usioI}.s of the Rigby vacation application last September that sought 8 feet of protected Cleveland Street for a dumpster began with the bold statement that: (Conclusion 1): "The proposal complies with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." Conclusion no. 5 went on to say: "Due to the preservation of 58 feet of the Cleveland Street right-of-way, the proposed partially vacated street will still be available as a pathway, trail or sidewalk corridor." 'While Mr. Rigby might have considered his application quite a reasonable and feasible development proposal, the final staff report to Council in April did not. "The applicant has provided . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 19 no real compelling reason to vacate the street right-of-way." Having failed to meet the burden of why the public should surrender its easement, the applicant was denied the vacation, a reversal which was heartening to those of us interested in preserving these rights-of-way intact wherever possible. The original, faulty findings had been based on the notion that with 58 ft of right-of-way remaining, there was still plenty of room for a trail. However, these protected rights-of-way have two intertwining, inseparable aspects - the actual transportation element of the trail between neighborhoods or whatever, and the enveloping open space through which that trail winds. Both are to be preserved per the language of Policy 1.8. and both are already referenced in the EDS. 'Land Use Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan also expresses this open space/trails connection: "Goal 3: To develop a comprehensive open space and trails plan and implementation program which protects the natural env;ro1UtU!nt and significant cultural resources, provides passive recreation opportunities, is integrated with the nonmotorized component of the Transportfltion Element, and is designed to link neighborhoods with parks, significant open spaces, schools, shoreline access areas, mixed use centers, and employment centers." . 'Reducing protected currently platted rights-of-way to utility/trail corridors is not what was intended, despite the remnant of old policy still lurking on criterion F of the Street Vacation Ordinance that Judy Surber provided to you in her staff report. Even though the revised ordinance was adopted after the NonMotorized Plan, the language in parentheses that a suitable trail easement may be required to satisfy this criterion--is text perhaps inadvertently carried over from the older ordinance which predates the NonMotorized Plan and is language that includes a very discretionary "may" . 'We need to protect trails and the surrounding open space from being unnecessarily vacated. During April 1996 Planning Commission Comp Plan Capital Facilities Hearing, Dave Robison made the following comment "I think that one place where the Plan does fall short, and especially in terms of level of service standards, is open space. There's no funding mechanism, no budget with the CIP, so open space one could argue is a component of trails; I think there is lot of language in the Plan, in the Transportation Element, of hooking up trails, providing the policy direction for new development to hook up trails, to do a nonmotorized plan that tries to hook up rights-ol- way that won't be opened, and also pedestrian pathways." 'The public already has this open space. It does not have to be funded, and it should be retained for the general public's enjoyment wherever possible, into the very long future-just as stated in some of the old dedications that Judy Surber also provided in her staff report. I think the proposed text amendment might further than [sic] goal with is clear language. . Thank you for your consideration of my comments." . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 14,2000 Page 20 There being no further testimony, at 8:33 p.m. Mr. Spieckerrnan closed the meeting to public testimony and turned to the Planning Commission for deliberation. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions There was no further discussion. SECOND VOTE The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Non-Motorized Transportation Amendments, including the Staff Findings and Conclusions proposed in the Staff Report. Mr. Irwin PASSED,3 IN FAVOR; MESSRS. ARTHUR AND BENSKIN OPPOSED MOTION Ms.Ota VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS September 28, 2000 Open-record hearing -- CUP for assisted living facility; hearing the SEPA appeal of the MDNS, City Attorney to be present. 1) SEPA hearing; 2) CUP VIll. COMMUNICATIONS -- Current Mail IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Irwin and seconded All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:35 p.m. I6f~er