Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07272000 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm July 27, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 29, 2000 V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business 1. Fifth Amendment to the Property Use and Development Agreement for the Port Townsend Business Park A. StatTPresentation - Judy Surber B. Public Testimony C. Commission discussion and conclusions 2. Mapping error Block 14'& 15 of Phillips Addition A. StatTPresentation - JetTRandall B. Public Testimony C. Commission discussion and conclusions VII. Upcoming Meetings: August 10,2000 (Marine Science Center - Shoreline Permit) August 31, 2000 VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Larry Harbison 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 Spieckerman, and Bernie Arthur. Karen Erickson was excused. Staff members present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Judy Surber, Sr. Planner. City Council representative was Alan Youse. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Jerry Spieckerman and seconded by Christine Ota. All were in favor. Mr. Harbison introduced and welcomed the newly appointed Planning Commission members, Frank Benskin and Jim Irvin. Mr. Randall reported Messrs. Benskin and Irvin would be sitting as members at the next regular Planning Commission meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of June 29, 2000 as written and amended was made by Bernie Arthur and seconded by Jerry Spieckerman. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS .. There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Fifth Amendment t9 tþ.e Property Use and Development Atreement for the Port Townsend Business Park 1. Staff Presentation .- Ms. Judy Surber, Sr. Planner Ms. Surber noted this is a request by the Port Townsend Business Park for their fifth amendment to the existing Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA). She said that the business park is located on the north side of Sims Way and Howard Street, and that the development that has been approved since 1994 is already underway. · Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2000 Page 2 · The proposal is to make a minor amendment to the setback requirements set forth in the PUDA. Ms. Surber said the code allows for minor amendments to PUDAs without hearings, if it is agreed by the Planning Commission and City Council that it is in fact an insignificant change, a minor adjustment. BCD recommends that the Planning Commission finds it is an insignificant change. It is proposed to reduce the setback on the easterly side of Lots 43, 46, 49 and 52 from 30 feet to 20 feet. The setback faces a secondary access road, and unlike typical zoning code setbacks which are measured from the edge of the property line, this setback is measured from the center line of the secondary access road. Under the proposed revision the building would be 10 feet from the edge of the travel way. Ms. Surber stated that Public Works had no comment. She said the Planning Staff expressed their only concern and recommended that this proposal be amended to say that a 10 foot setback from the travel way is fme, as long as you are not planning to put loading doors in that area. She explained if you have loading doors there and trucks pulling in, they may protrude out into the travel way; otherwise, the amendment seems as minor adjustments to the BCD Staff. She indicated she discussed the issue of not having loading doors on the easterly side of the building with Mr. Mark Zenger, representative of the Port Townsend Business Park, and said that Mr. Zenger could answer questions as to how this achieves a better design. COMMISSIQN OUESTIONS Ç>F STAFF: .. Are there any concerns about parking? Would this affect parking? Ms. Surber: They would still be required to meet the parking that was agreed upon through the PUDA. She referred to page 2 of Exhibit B and pointed out that the parking was shown as coming off the secondary access road, but with the proposed revision, the parking would be on the sides of the building as represented in Exhibit D. She noted there are a couple of parallel parking spaces off the secondary access road, right against the proposed structure. The majority of the parking would now be to the side of the building instead of on the roadway. .. If we assume that the loading doors will not open onto the secondary access road, which may mean in some cases that the loading doors will be put on the side of the building, will the the amount of parking be affected? Ms. Surber: The recommendation by Staff is that they can put loading doors on the secondary access road, provided they can show there is sufficient room to keep off the travel way, which means they might step back the building for the loading doors, or might pull back the building if they decide to. If they do put parking on the side of the building, which is what Mr. Zenger has indicated they most likely would do, they would still have to provide adequate parking or they would not be allowed to do the loading doors at that location. · · Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2000 Page 3 .. There are four lots here that are involved? How many lots will this proposed building take up? Ms. Surber thought Exhibit D to be just one lot. Mr. Randall indicated you can almost consider this a typical proposal. QUESTIONS OF MR. ZENGER: .. Is this proposal what you want? Mr. Zenger: This proposal is what we asked for. Ms. Surber distributed the letter provided by Mr. Zenger from the Architectural Committee of the Port Townsend Business Park approving review of the application. Chair Harbison entered the letter as Exhibit F. Mr. Harbison stated the first motion should be to determine if the Planning Commission would treat this as not substantial. Ms. Surber explained if that is the choice, the Findings and Conclusions have been drafted which include BCD recommendations. MOTION Mr. Arthur Approve the Findings and Conclusions and approve this amendment to the PUDA as an insignificant amendment. · Mr. Spieckennan called for a point of order and asked if the next order of business would be public testimony as indicated on the agenda. Ms. Surber pointed out if the amendment were determined to be not·substantial there would be no hearing. Mr. Randall stated that even in cases where there is not a hearing, as a courtesy, the Planning Commission has asked to allow those wishing to speak on the matter. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Mr. Mark Zenger, representative of the Port Townsend Business Park In clarification of questions, Mr. Zenger said if we do put loading doors at the side of the building facing the parking lot, we are allowed to park in front of those doors but not count those spaces according to the current code . . . . SECOND VOTE Mr.Spieckerman Unanimous, four in favor by voice vote Chair Harbison noted the Fifth Amendment to the Property Use and Development Agreement for the Port Townsend Business Park was determined to be NOT SUBSTANTIAL. · · Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2000 Page 4 · · B. Mapping Error Block 14 & 15 of Phillips Ad4ition 1. Staff Presentation -- Jeff Randall, BCD Director Mr. Randall stated this is a proposal to fix what BCD feels is a mapping error in the comprehensive land use map adopted in 1996 and zoning map adopted in 1997 identifying Blocks 14 and 15 of Phillips Addition, with the exception of a portion of Lot 6 of Block 14, as Public Infrastructure (P-I) rather than a zoning which is more appropriate for privately owned property. The Public Infrastructure district is intended to provide for public utilities, facilities and services, i.e., schools, libraries public utilities, government buildings.. basically properties and facilities that are in public ownership. Most of private land uses (commercial, residential, etc.) in the P·I District are prohibited, so it really has no use for a private individual unless he were to sell to a public land owner. Mr. Lonnie Penix phoned BCD last fall and indicated he owned two lots in this area, had found it was zoned P-I and asked how that happened. Mr. Randall said they did some research and could not find the answer. He discussed it with the Public Works Director and the best he could tell there was the identification of a future north-south arterial that would run from Discovery Road up to Hastings that was planned to come through Rainier·Howard Streets. (Mr. Randall said he thought that property was bisected by Howard Street.) He also said there is some storm water ponding that occurs there sometimes in wetter years, that perhaps the city was considering it at some point for one of those purposes and maybe that was how it got mapped that way. He indicated, however, there were no plans to acquire it, and that it wasn't really an appropriate zoning at this time. Mr. Randall said they have researched all the ownership as listed on page 2 of his Staff Report. He said those individuals have been contacted by mail to inform them of the City's intention to rezone this property due to a mapping error to residential R-ll zoning, which is the standard medium density zoning that applies uptown, most parts of town, and abuts this property, north and south. BCD received no comments from those notified. The R-ll zoning district has a 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Many of these lots are individually owned meaning they are at 5,000 sq. ft., in some cases perhaps a little bit less due to Discovery Road bisecting part of the property. R·ll is the lowest density zoning district adjacent to the property. R·IV is to the west, R·ill to the east, and both allow higher densities and potentially smaller area per unit. He referred to the environmentally sensitive area map showing a thin green line stretching from the north down toward Discovery Road that is relatively flat; there are wetlands to the north, and it ponds up there a little. One BCD concern is that there be some limitation for development due to the seasonal stormwater and/or potential wetlands·· that the lowest density zoning is the most appropriate. He said they might suggest R-I zoning which is 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, but there is no R-I zoning adjacent to this property, and at worst case they . Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2000 Page 5 would be situated in the same circumstances as all their neighbors to the north that have the similar situation. If the Planning Commission finds this is a mapping error and they concur with the zoning suggestion, BCD would pass this on to City Council. If they find it is not a mapping error or that it should be taken up as an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment to determine the most appropriate zoning for the property, property owners would have to wait until next year and either pay a fee or submit a suggestion. Mr. Randall stated the document packet includes draft Findings and Conclusions supporting the mapping error and rezone to R -ll. CQMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF: .. What is the minimum residential building site in P-I? Mr. Randall: Residential is not allowed in p.l. . .. 1 didn't think you could stop residential in P·I. Mr. Randall: P·I allows other things, e.g., camp grounds, but the implication is that it is supposed to be owned by the public, not private camp grounds. Residential uses are not listed as a use, meaning it is prohibited. It is not that you can't do something with P-I property, but it is all public facilities. Private property owners could all got together to convince some public entity that they need to build something there. .. Any P·l we have zoned in the community that is private property is useless to the private property owner? I don't think you can do that. Mr. Randall: I am not aware of any P·I zoning in the city that is private property. Schools, city properties, courthouse, post office, community center, everything is public with the one exception we recently found about and may need to be addressed next year with the Comp Plan. Part of the cemetery, shown as the Red Man Cemetery on the maps, is actually owned by a private individual. That is the only other piece; everything is intended to be public. Mr. Arthur suggested that it had to be a mapping error, if you can't have private property in a P-I zone. Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Arthur said in the old P·l zone you could include residential, and Mr. Randall indicated that is different now. Mr. Arthur asked if otherwise it would be a taking. Mr. Randall replied if this were refused, someone could possibly make that conclusion. .. Is the Howard Street corridor still a viable project? There is an offset there on that property. Mr. Randall: We don't have any plans right now to pursue it; it is viable. We have done some property acquisitions to the south of Rainier Street, the S·tum coming up Howard Street around the houses on the east side. The question would be, would it proceed up Rainier or . . Planning Commission Minutes July 27,2000 Page 6 somehow jog back. It is viable; we somewhat set up property acquisitions, the intersection alignment, but at this time we are putting our money in other areas. .. I was just noticing how it was offset right there. Mr. Randall: 1 don't think it would cause any problems with that. Mr. Youse asked how long this has been under P-I zoning. Mr. Randall replied it has been P-I since 1997; prior to that it was zoned low density residential. MOTION Mr. Arthur To accept the recommendation of BCD regarding the mapping error, zoning of Blocks 14 & 15, Phillips Addition. SECOND VOTE Ms. Ota Unanimous, 4 in favor by Voice Vote . VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS It was determined to cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of August 10. AUGUST 10.2090 AUGUST 3 L 2000 CANCELED Marine Science Center .- Shoreline Permit Chair Harbison again welcomed the new Planning Commission members and said they looked forward to having them sit with the Commission next time. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS .. Current Mail IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ,~a~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker ¡ÚÞy.4-- Larry Harbison, Vice Chair .