Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08312000 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm August 31, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: July 27,2000 V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business 1. Port Townsend Marine Science Center - Shoreline Permit A. Staff Presentation - John McDonagh B. Public Testimony C. Commission discussion and conclusions 2. Workshop on Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments A. Staff Presentation - Judy Surber VII. Upcoming Meetings: September 14, 2000 VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment . '. . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 31, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Karen Erickson was excused. n. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Christine Ota, Jerry Spieckerman, Bernie Arthur, Jim Irvin and Frank Benskin. BCD staff members present were John McDonagh, Judy Surber and Jeff Randall. City Council representative was Alan Youse. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of July 27, 2000 as written and amended was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Benskin. All were in favor. V. UNFiNISHED BUSINESS. There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. OPEN-RECORD PUBLIC HEARING -- PORT TOWNSEND MARINE SCIENCE CENTER, SHORELINE PERMIT 1. Staff Report -- John McDonagh Mr. McDonagh gave the BCD Staff Report and explained that Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit LUP 00-19 for the Port Townsend Marine Science Center (MSC) is to remodel two existing buildings, 532 and 502, MSC utilizes at Fort Worden State Park: to Building 532 on the pier; to Building 502 next to the canteen. He commented that since the buildings are within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Admiralty Inlet, renovation of the two buildings requires approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. · Planning Commission Minutes August 31,2000 Page 2 to The shoreline designation of this location is "Conservancy." The activities undertaken by the Marine Science Center are considered "scientific and educational," and since within a "Conservancy" area are designated "Primary" activities. He explained the Staff Report made it clear that the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) takes the various areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark in Port Townsend and provides them specific shoreline designations, e.g. "Conservancy; " "Natural;" and "Urban" (which consists of several divisions). Mr. McDonagh stated the rest of the SMP goes on to elaborate what type uses are preferred or "Primary" type uses in "Conservancy" designations. He said other uses are less preferable, deemed conditional or require a more substantial set of review criteria; some uses are not permitted at all. In this case, designated "Conservancy" as a scientific and educational activity, especially a primary use, Staff sets review criteria required for primary uses and the Commission reviews those criteria for approval. to Public Park & Open Space (P/OS) zoning. The Shoreline essentially trumps the underlying zoning in that designation and takes precedence over what would take place. This kind of activity is something that has long-standing at Fort Worden. · Mr. McDonagh noted that Staff essentially supports the project with a number of conditions and has drafted the Findings and Conclusions for Commission review. He inteIjected that the historic aspect is unique; both buildings are designated as historic properties. Fort Worden is a National Historic Landmark, so it falls outside the city's Historic District. The renovation of both buildings has been very scrutinized by the Marine Science Center (MSC) and MSC's architect, and the work of both by the State Parks and State Office of Archeological and Historic Preservation. He said there are some conditions in the BCD Staff recommendation and draft fIndings that will require MSC to comply with the State Parks and State Highways Archeological and Historic Preservation's recommendations for restoration. Chair Harbison asked Commissioners if they wished further review. It was determined the written Staff Report was sufficient. COMMISS:(ON QUE~TIONS OF STAFF: The Planning Commission had no questions of Staff 2. Public Testimony At 7.05 p.m., Chair Harbison opened the meeting to public testimony. · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 3 PROPONENT Peter Badame, representing the Port Townsend Marine Science Center Mr. Badame stated MSC finished yesterday with a photo shoot of the interior of Building 502 required by the State Park's Office of Historic Preservation. The photos were sent today; turn around should be within one week, when start of demolition is approved from this point of VIew. COMMJ;SSION QtfflSTIONS OF PROPONENT Mr. Arthur asked if Mr. Badame had any problem with the conditions. to Mr. Badame said the conditions had not changed. Mr. Arthur then asked if he is happy with the Staff Report. to Mr. Badame replied affirmatively. Mr. Arthur stated he wanted to make sure they had included everything Mr. Badame was concerned about. · Mr. Spieckerman said he assumed with the new building they are going to attract more people. He asked if there is any concern about parking. to Mr. Badame replied that no, they are not really concerned. He referred to the site plan and noted that further north is the campground area. He showed a parking area the State Park has not really utilized much at all, and they are counting on enhancing that. As part of the site plan they are going to carry the sidewalk all the way across the site to increase pedestrian traffic and actually make it easier for people. He said really the only change from the site plan, they are probably going to bump the sidewalk back away from the street, do a little jog so the sidewalk isn't right on the Harbor Defense Way right of way, probably back it off3 or 4 feet to keep pedestrians separated from the street. He reiterated there really is adequate parking that is not utilized at all. Mr. Benskin asked regarding the remodel of Building 532, the proposed food truck area. to Mr. Badame replied the food prep area is essentially what they have now. He said they feed their critters -- half the critters out there get fed because they are filter feeders; they filter what is in the water. The rest of the critters such as crab, anemones and fish, are fed fish. Essentially the food prep is raw fish. It is an operating requirement; basically, they are establishing it is part of what they do. The counter area in the remodel will be set up so it is very easy for people doing the food prep. Mr. Benskin also asked about the restroom facilities, what the condition is now and what the possibility is of putting restrooms there. to Mr. Badame said there is a restroom at the north end of Building 501, an ADA male & female restroom. He said it is really daunting to put restroom facilities out there. · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Benskin questioned the need for restrooms with office space and increased classroom space. to Mr. Badame said they have been functioning with office space and classroom space there since 1982. He pointed out areas with available restrooms, and said it seems to have worked. Mr. Benskin asked if there is no water line there at all. to Mr. Badame said State Parks has a fresh water line they run to the outside of the building; that was set up when people were actually cleaning fish. They used to have a fish cleaning table right there, but they have taken it out. He said they do have a standpipe for fire suppression, so there is water out there to deal with any fires, a small line, a hangover from fish cleaning. But there is a fire hose they have inside the building. The only water inside the building will be salt water which they pump up from under the dock There will be a sink in the food prep area, but it is actually going to be like a janitorial sink with no fresh water, just to rinse out the salt water. Mr. Harbison thanked Mr. Badame for their very complete application. Public TestimoIty Closed: · There was no one speaking for and no one speaking against the proposal. At 7:15 p.m. Chair Harbison closed the meeting to public testimony and turned to the Planning Commission for deliberation. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusion to Mr. Arthur said this had nothing to do with the application, but spoke of looking down on the beaches and the dock, the effect on the depth of the beach to the west and how the east side is much shallower and deeper water. He said it gives you an idea of what happens when you build a bulkhead along those beaches, because they all naturally flow out; that slows the water and the sand drops. He noted the bulkhead on the other side of the breakwater for the Port is the same type of situation. to Mr. McDonagh said researching and preparing this Staff Report, he was interested in an older project establishing a breakwater which he believed the State Parks was the proponent to Mr. Badame told Mr. Arthur he thinks that is a good point. This is basically a bite, Point Hudson to Point Wilson up on the north. If you look at it that way, think about the geological factors that happen there -- why is there a spit? Because the cliffs are eroding both on the Straight side as well as on the Sound side. There is a drift to bring things in. In the winter, all the deadheads fall right in there, a lot of deadheads floating around Puget Sound and in the spring and summer are gone again. This shoreline is out a lot further than the other shoreline. He said State Parks had someone come in from Western Washington · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 5 University, and he found the drift is coming from south to north towards Point Wilson. Because of the total blockage it comes around a shoreline drift, more of a radical cut to Mr. Harbison asked if it is high and low tideline. to Mr. Badame replied that it is, but the one to the south is further forward. He said it is interesting what happens. A somewhat similar situation is happening just west of Point Wilson, particularly a winter storm he thought of 1992 that took whole chunks where the parking area is. MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Spieckerman APPROVE AS CONDITIONED Mr. Arthur Unanimous, 6 in favor by Voice Vote B. WORKSHOP ON YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS · 1. Staff Presentation -- Judy Surber, Sr. Planner Ms. Surber explained every year the City goes through the comprehensive plan cycle and allows people to submit suggested amendments and site specific formal amendments to the comprehensive plan and the zoning. This includes all functional plans that go along with the comprehensive plan, e.g., Non-Motorized Plan. This year BCD received two suggested amendments; both made it through Planning Commission and City Council to be included on the final docket. The Planning Department then does the an environmental review of those proposals. This review was completed in August; see Exhibit A. It was determined there were no significant impacts from the two proposals. The process now is to conduct this workshop to familiarize the Commission with the proposals and to discuss the criteria to judge the proposals in order to make a recommendation as set forth in the Staff Report, Pages 1 and 2, a - c: · Has there been a change in circumstances since adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan? to Are assumptions upon which the Plan was based no longer valid or is there new information not available at the time of the Plan adoption? to Does the amendment reflect current, widely-held community values? Ms. Surber stated the public hearing is scheduled for September 14th. BCD will be drafting Findings and Conclusions, including the above-mentioned a-c, for Planning Commission to consider as part of their recommendation for each of the amendments. · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 6 The purpose tonight is to identifY any other issues, other than a-c, that might be pertinent in making the Planning Commission recommendation and decide what the options are for the hearing: recommend or deny, or other things between. These are legislative actions, not quasi- judicial. She said this is also to see if everyone has a complete packet She then reviewed the packet. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS 1. Rezone Block 283 of the Eisenbeis Addition from M-C to R-m The proposed rezone is from M-C (Mixed Commercial/Light Manufacturing) to R-lll (Multi-family). The owners or residents of Block 283 petitioned the City and said they were concerned about the fact the block is pretty much built out with residential development, and yet it was zoned from residential development to this mixed commercial/light manufacturing with adoption of the 1996 Comp Plan. They petitioners recently became aware of that, and do not like the zoning. · Exhibit D -- Petition by those living within Block 283. Because it was a whole block with several different property owners, it appeared to Staff it may have been a mapping error; therefore, BCD took it on as a suggested amendment rather than a site- specific rezone. Exhibit B -- Map showing the location. Block 283 is bound by Thomas and Logan Streets and situated between 3rd and 4th Streets. Exhibit C -- Pictures showing single family homes in Block 283. One appears to be a two-story historic building that may have had relatively recent commercial uses, but appears now to be used as multi-family. To give a feel for the neighborhood, there are also pictures of the surrounding development. Mr. Spieckerman said he was curious why Pages 5,6,7 look like residences and Block 284 looks to be zoned mixed commerciaL to Ms. Surber replied that at the time the petition came in interim BCD Director Bob Leedy met with the property owners in the area. There was a specific request from the owners of Block 283, but not from any of the other blocks. From what she could tell of her site visit of Block 284, there were two single family homes, existing commercial buildings on that block and several undeveloped lots. There is still the potential that could become an M-C zone. to Mr. Randall indicated to Mr. Spieckerman what he is looking at behind the boat trailer on the bottom of Page 6 is now Bob Little's construction office converted from a church and is exactly the kind of use the City wanted in an M-C zone. The land on the other side is vacant; there are a couple of older homes there, but a lot more potential for commercial use. · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 7 Ms. Surber said she had received a phone call from Jack Cady who is one of the main people getting the community petitioners together. She expects Mr. Cady to attend the public hearing and probably some of the other property owners as well. Issues to potentially consider: I. Is the subject property physically suitable for the requested zoning change? to BCD deemed R~lll zoning suitable - already a flat site, and already along developed rights- of way with utilities; is already residential development. 2. Would the rezone require more infrastructures or services than previously anticipated by the Comp Plan? to No -- this would be considered a downzone from M-C to R-Ill and would not require more than the Comp Plan already anticipated. 3. Would the rezone adversely impact the city's transportation network, environmental features, public facilities, or services? to No. · 4. Will the rezone create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? to No - the area is approximately 80 - 90% built out with single-family and multi~family, and it is a logical move to go to R-Ill zoning. Surrounding properties such as Block 284 already mentioned have several vacant lots and don't have the same situation as Block 283. 5. Will the proposal affect land use and growth projections which are the basis of the comprehensive plan? to No -- This is nearly built out; you would not expect population to change much. Ms. Surber noted the three options indicating that with Option 3 they might have to go back through environmental review depending on what different designation was being considered. She asked for the Commission to let her know of other issues or options to consider at the hearing so that she could prepare to answer questions or include additional information in the packets. Mr. Arthur indicated he had earlier stated there are a lot of signatures in the petition, but had no idea if they were property owners in this particular block. He wanted to make sure people who owned the property were aware it was being downzoned; they may have plans we are not aware of, and may not have anything to do with the people who signed the petition. to Ms. Surber replied that has been done; they did a search of tax accessors listing of owners of the property and did a direct mailing. The only response was from Jack Cady. Mr. Arthur · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31,2000 Page 8 said the Commissioners don't know who are property owners. Ms. Surber is to supply them with a list of property owners. Mr. Irvin stated he counted about eight different addresses and asked regarding Ms. Surber's statement that the block is almost built-out, if that essentially represents a majority of that block? to Ms. Surber stated that on the list of property owners she would indicate which ones signed the petition and see whether or not it is a majority. Mr. Arthur said he does not have any problems; it appears logical. His only thought, it was zoned to a different use in the Comp Plan. People who live on that block who we may never have talked to, may be considering uses based on those zones, and if they are not aware that we are talking about downzoning back to R-Ill, that might foul up their planning process, or they may have a complaint with downzoning. He said that as long as they subscribe to this, are aware and have adequate time to voice their opinions, he thought this was fine. .. Mr. Randall spoke of tenant signatures and suggested that is one additional thing they might check. If property owners are getting notice and tenants aren't, a tenant may be wanting to · do a business that required some sort of land use permit, or something. 2. Revise Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Ms. Surber pointed out this request was submitted by the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee. She noted the presence of Nancy Dorgan, a member of the Committee, and stated that since this is a workshop and not a formal hearing Ms. Dorgan is available to answer questions. It is suggested to clarify the policy with the underlined language in the Staff Report, "Require that the fully platted widths of unopened rights-of-way. . . . .. The clarification was deemed necessary by the committee because there were some street vacation applications in for areas that had been marked in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan as rights-of way not to be opened. Ms. Surber said it didn't seem to be clear in those proceedings to Council, Staff and all involved that the intention was the "fully plated widths" be preserved for non-motorized uses and not be encroached upon for such things as parking, storage of dumpsters, bicycle racks, etc. Issues to potential(y consider: · 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan? · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 9 to Several of the transportation elements, goals and policies are directly related to non- motorized uses. (See Exhibit F.) Staff review found no conflicting language and seemed to fit with what is already existing. · 2. Could the adoption of the amendment reduce design options for future projects? to For example, the Co-op is considering moving into the old bowling alley and as part of the proposal there may be gardens that encroach into the right-of-way. This right-of-way is listed in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan as a right-of-way to be preserved and unopened. Those gardens and trail uses are Non-Motorized uses, and this language would not would preclude something like from happening. Ms. Surber said she discussed with Ms. Dorgan commercial uses that propose something like a courtyard with a fountain and benches open to the public in non-open rights-of way. Ms. Dorgan concurred in those uses as long as it is not something like storage of recreational vehicles or people spreading out their own private uses or their own required mitigation measures into the public way. It didn't seem to preclude some flexibility to allow some improvements that are a benefit to the public. Ms. Surber replied to a question that those improvements would be on a case-by- case basis. She said they also discussed as those improvements arise, when they have development review including all the Staff for sewer, water, and transportation improvements, if the encroachment is into an unopened right-of-way designated by the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan, the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee should be allowed to comment on those proposals to be sure it is within the intent of the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan. 3. Could the intent of the suggested amendment be better met through a modified amendment or change in the city's permit review process? to After discussion with Ms. Dorgan, it appears the City's permit review process may need some attention. Right now street vacations have formal public notice, criteria for approval and go through the City Council, but there are street use agreements which could result in the same physical encroachment into the right-of-way that don't have that same kind of criterion, nor do they have the public notice. The thought from Ms. Dorgan representing the committee was that perhaps as with street vacations, these street use agreements involving unopened rights-of-way should also go to the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee for their comments. Options: · None of the options would preclude making a recommendation that the City incorporate some changes to the development review to include the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee when it seems pertinent. · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 10 · · 2. Commission discussion and conclusions to Mr. Arthur reminded that during their last discussion of this he brought up the subject of rights.of-way actually being owned by property owners that adjoin the rights-of-way, and that various plats have various agreements as to what the rights-of-way can be used for and how they can be held by the City or what the adjoining property owner can use it for. He asked for some research, and said he brought some plats that have specific agreements on some rights-of.way in the plat. He said this Non-Motorized Transportation covers many different plats in the community, and he would like to know whether they are violating the rights of those people who own those unopened rights-of.way at this point and use them for whatever use until at such time as the city wants to use it as a street or a utility right-of-way or whatever use. He said he is concerned that blanket proposals like this may have some sort of agreements ftom the past. Having done some plats, he said he knows agreements are made between counties or cities and those are supposed to be the rules. to Mr. Randall understood those were all old plats, one being Plummers Addition talking about the rights-of-way, or whatever it said, that these streets are dedicated as highways, etc. He said he did not think this was what Mr. Arthur was questioning; it was not talking about non- motorized travel, that if you just want to use these things as non·motorized travel, is that O.K., or do they need to be used as whatever the dedication read. to Mr. Arthur responded he thought there were three different things, one was that each plat, depending on the age of the plat, has a different set of criteria. They are different; each one is a different agreement between the City and property owner. The property owners become the property owners as they go through life. He said if we were to say for instance, I have a piece of property that abutted a street right-of-way, and I wanted to use it to run my horse, and the City was in no way intending to developing that street, can I run my horse on it as I have in the past and there was no problem? If you were to say that is a pathway, the whole 80 feet, if you can't touch it, that is in violation of the agreement of the plat He questioned can they do that or not His recollection was they were going to ask the City Attorney and get back; he again asked the question so he knows whatever the decision they make is based on the law and what is currently the law. This could get very complicated; there are different pieces of property and different agreements the City has on such things as parking ordinances in C-ll, unopened rights-of-way and how they can be used for parking, etc. He felt they should describe exactly what streets they are talking about in this document, exactly what rights-of-way. There may be some reasons why some rights-of-way do want to be vacated, or reasons why a one-lot owner wants to put a house in a lot and a driveway on an unopened pathway, and what kinds of difficulties they would have. If it ended up they couldn't do that, is the City going to be forced to buy that property because they have taken away the opportunity for that person to use their property for what they felt they could. He said after reading this through both times he is not satisfied with the information that allows · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 11 · them to make a decision on this. .. Ms. Surber said she would do some research into plats and talk to John Watts, City Attorney. .. Mr. Randall noted they still have the three highlighted originals in the files. He said the way this is written it makes it look like this the only policy that applies to street rights-of-way. There are many; there is one that allows people to place driveways in there, and they need access because there is no other way to get access. He said that is one of the things they can do. .. Mr. Arthur replied they are talking about letting the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee have input into every request to use the street right-of-way. He understands the property owner is entitled to use there street right-of-way until the City exercises their rights under the agreement in the plat. He said, basically, what they are doing is taking away some rights; maybe it's O.K., but he asked how far can they go. Then we're giving some people rights to come in and make decisions of people's property use outside of all the rules and regulations that have already been written that we deal with every day.. .. Ms. Surber said there is a difference between policy intent and regulations in the municipal code. This is not a "shall not" bill within an unopened right-of-way; this is just clarifying that the intent is to preserve the fully platted width for non-motorized uses and also still has "where feasible and reasonable" in view of cost to the development. It is intent; it is not an absolute. That is the kind of thing when you are writing criteria for approval of street vacations, or if you get into approval criteria for street use agreements, you would certainly want to include things like, does this violate the original intent. She said that is when you can be more specific. .. Mr. Spieckerman said the way he reads this, it applies only to those rights-of-way that are specifically mapped as the walkway system plan. Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Spieckerman said if it is mapped as the walkway system plan, those rights-of-way are not covered under this policy. Ms. Surber again concurred. Mr. Spieckerman said this would significantly narrow the scope of the application. Perhaps you might review those specific thoughts that are involved with this; it is not a city-wide proposal, it is just walkway. .. Ms. Surber replied she could take a look at that, although she guessed it probably crosses every single plat, because it is meant to be a city-wide trail system. She will provide copies of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan to Messrs. Irvin and Benskin. .. Mr. Spieckerman questioned the words "the fully platted widths" and asked if there is any partially platted width, is that what we are distinguishing against? .. Ms. Surber answered, no; it is just that a lot of people assume that where the pavement is, or where the improvements are, is all that is in the right-of-way. The right-of-way itself is whatever was platted by the original subdivision. Although it may look like it is only a 20 foot right-of-way, it could be 60 or 90 feet; it depends on what the original platting was. · · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 12 .. Mr. Arthur gave Washington Street as an example. Where the street goes up on top of the hill is only 25 or 35 feet wide, and people have planted trees -- F Street, Jefferson Street. People have fruit trees and gardens growing out there; all that is in the platted right-of-way. We are saying here that somebody called the Non-Motorized Transportation group is going to tell us what we can plant in the rights-of-way, how we can use them. He said It may be O.K.; he just wants to know more about it. .. Ms. Surber said they might ask Nancy Dorgan her opinion of whether you would still be able to landscape in the right-of-way, and said her guess would be you would be able to as long as it wasn't blocking a non-motorized trail. Fencing would be an issue, paving; some of the rights-of-way actually need enhancing with landscaping. .. Mr. Benskin said that it seems what has been done, cannot be undone. It is kind of an unequal application of how this group would issue their decisions about how the land is going to be used or not used, if some of the land that is used already is being used for other things. He asked how it works if a piece of ground is not developed within the a trail system and an adjoining piece is? It doesn't seem consistent as far as rules and regulations are concerned. .. Mr. Spieckerman said that triggered his question if there are any rights-of-way that in effect have been fenced or in other ways would not apply with this now. .. Ms. Dorgan answered about one on P Street. She referred his question to Mr. Walker who had just arrived. .. Mr. Spieckerman said the asked the question, are there any parts of the Non-Motorized walkway system that are fenced or otherwise do not conform with the ordinance of the Non- Motorized Plan. .. Mr. Scott Walker, Chair of the Non-Motorized Committee, replied there are none that are designated in the Non-Motorized Plan that he knows of at this point that precluded from public access. The Non-Motorized Plan designated routes that are miles long. .. Ms. Dorgan said there are unopened rights-of-way that are not protected in this Plan, although that is not the issue. She noted Mr. Dave Peterson will readily tell you that there was not time for the effort to be comprehensive; they did what they could do in the time they had to do it. Not every driveway that is a candidate has yet been designated; you can expect some time in the future as time becomes available there could be others brought for designation that are equally important candidates. .. Mr. Arthur said one of the problems they are trying to deal with here is the whole width idea that it is the proposal based on the fact that many property owners use their right-of-way to plant trees, grass to mow and take care of, or any number of uses, because it is their property to the center of the street. Then, if we make a rule that says the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee is going to decide the entire width of that right-of-way through whatever pathway system you want to pick, or whatever street you want to pick, what is the . Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 13 -. legal ramification based on the agreements in the plats, and they how far can you go? If I plant fruit trees in the right-of-way, and then I want to keep the deer out of them and put a wire around, who do I go to see, the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee? Who makes the decision whether or not 1 can do that? He said he knows it's being done all over town now, and he is just curious regarding the application of this. .. Mr. Walker explained to Mr. Arthur he should read the wording specifically; it doesn't preclude the adjacent property owners from continuing to use the right-of-way. He said his thoughts when they drafted this were that they were telling the City to not be in the business of vacating all of that 10 foot strip, that what we had in mind here was that the entire right- of-way continue to be under the control of the City, or future possible control of the City, and that we don't end up with just the corridor trail itself, that we have the possibility of expanding the public's needs on this right-of-way at some time in the future. The Non- Motorized Transportation Plan designated trails; if we are just looking at them as non- motorized trails and the are never used as anything else, 10 feet is all we need. But there are other uses that fit in with the Non-Motorized Plan - wildlife corridors, kind of a linear park thinking. The thought was we don't want the City to look at these and think all they need is 6 feet. He said he can't imagine how the legal system would look at us saying the property owner can't use that right-of-way. The law is very clear that the property owner can use that right-of-way; they cannot take ownership of it. . Mr. Arthur said he would like more information on where everybody is coming from and what the intent is before making a decision on September 14th. He raised the issue of parking in unopened streets and the ability to park while walking a trail. Mr. Walker said the whole issue is a huge knot, that besides this formal request, the Committee has been working on a Green Streets ordinance where the right-of-way is designated as a vegetative street. But, specifically in this case, they are just trying to clarify the designated Non-Motorized trail corridor, and, unless there are reasonable needs, they would like to have them designated the full width of the right-of-way. Mr. Randall noted this was driven by street vacations and explained that street vacations go directly to City Council. He said the Municipal Code states that when someone wants to propose a street vacation, the burden is on them to show the street vacation is consistent with the criteria. One criteria is that it complies with all the Plans, e.g., Comprehensive Plan and Non- Motorized Transportation Plan. The Non-Motorized Plan is one of the main policies it would refer to -- fully platted widths should be protected, and that means street vacations. Maybe it could be more specific to say that is really what it's about. Right now you don't need a city permit or license of any kind and you can do many things we discussed. You do need a street use agreement for a fence and some utility-type things. Mr. Walker said this came up because of the request for street vacation from the medical center on Madrona. They wanted to vacate several feet of the right-of-way so they could gain , ø-. · · · Planning Commission Minutes August 31, 2000 Page 14 space for parking and for a dumpster. He said it didn't seem to the Committee to be a driving need for a street vacation. Mr. Randall pointed out the Council determined there was room for both the non-motorized use and the dumpster and propane tank without any significant conflict. Mr. Arthur said it would be nice if the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was effective, able to be implemented, long lasting, and if this were to go in that direction, affordable. He asked if it were possible to come up with some size; street sizes in Port Townsend are 100 feet, 80 feet, 72 feet and 60 feet. Let's say the width were the green space, the pathway and wildlife corridor; he suggested a good size to be 30 feet. If you said they could vacate the balance ofthe street to the property owner who would have to provide improvement to that section of the pathway, to put gravel down, etc. and it would be done, if we could share some of the burden, it may be a reasonable trade off He said now if you were to get a street vacation, you would have to pay the city one-half of the appraised value. He asked if the Committee would have an idea of what would be reasonable. Mr. Walker said the wording says reasonable needs, and that would have to be determined. Ms. Dorgan pointed out the major benefit to the public, the enhancement of open space for walking and that the public owns it, and Mr. Arthur spoke of the need for safety on the trails. Mr. Walker mentioned the huge benefit of Morgan Hill and the sense of wildness. Ms. Dorgan said there might be resources to develop some of those areas in the future, but when you vacate them, they are gone forever. Ms. Surber noted there could be some flexibility in determining these recommendations, if it were significant; the recommendations can go to City Council October 2. She mentioned the requirement to read the Community Direction Statement. UPCOMING MEETINGS September 14,2000 -- Public Hearing September 28, 2000 VIll. COMMUNICATIONS - Current Mail IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:20 p.m. · Planning Commission Minutes August 31,2000 Page 15 ISjM:'o/)~ Larry Harbison~ce Chair -~~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker · ·