Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05252000 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval ofMìnutes: Aprìl13, 2000 V. Untinìshed Busìness VI. New Busìness Comprehensìve Plan Amendments A. StatIPresentatìon - Judy Surber B. Publìc testìmony C. Commìssìon dìscussìon and conclusìons May 25,2000 VII. Upcomìng Meetìngs: June 29,2000 - Review ofCìty Councìl Docket for 2000 Comp Plan Update VIII. Communìcatìons IX. Adjournment . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Karen Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Christine Ota, Jerry Spieckerman, and Bernie Arthur. Larry Harbison arrived at 7:02 p.m. BCD staff members present were Jeff Randall, director, and John McDonagh. Alan Youse was the City Council representative. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Jerry Spieckerman and seconded by Bernie Arthur. All were in favor. . N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . There were no minutes to approve from the workshop of April 13, 2000. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Open-Record Public Hearing) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) Mr. Randall reported that as of the May 1 deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendments, BCD'has received two suggested amendments but no fonnal site-specific rezone, quasi-judicial amendments that must be heard He noted it is optional for the amendments they have to go forward The purpose of the evening's hearing is for the Planning Commission to recommend to City Council which should continue to City Council for setting the final docket · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 2 Christine Ota stated she is the realtor named in the newspaper as the listing agent of the Logan Street rezone. She then recused herself and left the hearing. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AND BCD RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff Report to the Planning Commission from Judy Surber dated May 17, 2000 regarding the Preliminary Docket includes exhibits for the two suggested amendments: ~ Exhibit A Copies of City of the Port Townsend Land Use Map ~ Exhibit B Submittal Application from Residents of or beside block 283, Eisenbeis addition ~ Exhibit C Submittal Application from the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee R~one Block 283 of the ~isenbeis Addition from M-C to R-m a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Block 283 was recently rezoned from R~ I(A) single family resülenti4l/agriculture to M-C, Mixed Commerda//Light Manufacturlngwith adoption of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan and 1997 Zoning Map (Exhibit A). Several property owners have petitioned the city to rezone the property R-Ill, Mu/ti.-fomily, whicb would allow mnlti~family or single-family development. Several of the lots are already developed with residential uses. The property ownen are concerned that the existing M~C zoning will result in an incompatible mix of uses. Please refer to Exhibit B for further information. Mr. Randall said this proposal was brought to the attention of BCD by Mr. Jack Cady and a number of other property owners. It is for Block 283 on the south side of Sims Way adjacent to Logan Street, and Thomas Street between 3rd and 4th Streets. Mr. Cady and neighbors suggested the land be rezoned to R-ID, Mu/ti-family Residential. BCD supports the proposed zone change and Land Use Map amendment. c. BCD R~: BCD supports reconsideration of the zoning of Block 283. Residential and M-C uses on the same block are not recommended. The faet that residential development exists on Block 283 may be new informatioB wbic:b was not previously considered during the adoption of the M-C zoning in 1996-97. The property was developed with a number of buildings which are quite old. According to .Mr. Cady, a number of the smaller buildings were originally developed as cottages for mill workers; they are apparently being used as rental homes or owner-occupied homes. One building, a Second-Hand Store, had some commercial nature; .Mr. Randall was uncertaîn as to whether or not the store is still in business. He said BCD's opinion is the property is fairly built-out with structures, and the structures are primarily used for residential purposes. The property is abutting R·ill residential zoning on the east and south sides, highway and commercial on the north side, and mixed commercialllight industrial on the west side. He said BCD feels it would be appropriate for this property to be zoned R·m. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Cady indicated in his application that he felt the property was zoned in error in 1996-97. Mr. Randall said BCD staff sees how the Planning Commission at the time the code was adopted could have gone either way, since he thought there was found to be a lack of mixed ' commercial/light industrial zoning at the time and there was a concern about where new business would locate. He said that in the past 3 years there has been minimal activity in that zoning district, so they don't feel moving this block ofland from M~C will endanger the supply ofM-C zoning property, although there may be a case where there is a bit of a 'lack of multi-family zoned property, especially near existing infrastructure. He continued by indicating that if this property were to redevelop, it is his opinion it would probably be more likely to be redeveloped as R-III property. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAfF: ~ Mr. Arthur questioned BCD being the applicant. He asked if that means all the property owners in that block have been notified and agreed to the change. ~ Mr. Randall responded that when a suggested amendment is proposed, he believes it requires direct notice to all those affected property owners. ~ Mr. Arthur said it is his understanding that if you apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, at this point in time, it has to be by the property owners. ~ Mr. Randall referred to the same issue last year with the bowling alley site, but he said in that case they didn't act as the proponents. With this application he did not know what percentage of property owners have signed the application; a number of people have signed. He said that is one thing they could research and make contacts on the list prior to holding a public hearing, since there are very few properties involved. ~ Mr. Arthur asked if they wouldn't have to agree. ~ Mr. Randall replied he did not believe they would have to agree to have a proposal considered Since it is a very small area, as an option, it is something they can voluntarily do. He said the problem back in 1997 when the City adopted a brand new zoning code for the whole town, it wiped out some old building designations altogether and broadly applied new ones; the City could certainly not get owner consent for all those regional changes. It was thought to be in the public interest of the entire city. ~ Mr. Arthur raised a procedural question - this is similar to those he was interested in the past, and he thought it is only fair to people who own property in a particular district, when they are just doing one block (not like doing the whole city with newspaper coverage of the whole process), that those people be given an opportunity and notice to the change. Maybe they have some idea or plan that we are not aware of, and all of a sudden they are slapped with a change in zoning they hadn't any clue of; that brings up animosity and problems in the community that may not be necessary if we just let them know. ~ Mr. Randall said this is pretty small; it looks like we have most of the owners' consent, but we could find out who we don't have. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 4 ~ Mr. McDonagh suggested in the Planning Commission's recommendation to placing this on the final docket that in addition to recommending it be included, they could also recommend that all affected property owners be given written notice. ~ Mr. Arthur said it goes a little deeper than that, because in the future you could get 10 or 12 of these brought forward by BCD instead of individual property owners, and he felt that is effectively changing zoning without adequate notice. Maybe in the future there could be a system. ~ Mr. Randall reiterated that current procedures state that we must provide public legal notice and post the site. He said we are not to the point where it is on the final docket where we are considering the rezone; at that time they need to post the site and publish notice that a hearing is going to be held to consider the rezone. · Ms. Erickson asked if there is one owner of the property? ~ Mr. Randall replied he believed it was multi-ownership~ it is platted. ~ Ms. Erickson asked if the signatures were owner signatures; she would want all of the property owners notified. ~ Mr. Spieckerman asked if when someone else came and tried to rezone the bowling alley property, was it ruled inappropriate. ~ Mr. Randall replied they had to accept it on the agenda. He said he believed the City Attorney rendered an opinìon where he did not feel fully comfortable with the proposal. He also believed that the Planning Commission recommended that it not be put on the docket~ City Council affinned that, and it was taken off. ~ Ms. Erickson concurred (a member of the audience disagreed). · Mr. Randall said regardless it did not make it to the docket. ~ Mr. Spieckerman, following up on Mr. Arthur's procedural concerns, asked if they are clear whether or not a non-participating agent such as someone who is just interested in getting a piece of property rezoned, someone who does not have ownership to it, if they have the right under current procedures to request zoning changes. ~ Mr. Randall stated that anyone can suggest a zoning amendment on any piece of property in the city. ~ Mr. Spieckerman asked what the zoning was before 1997. ~ Mr. Randall answered R-I(A), the lowest density residential zoning, 10,000 square feet. · Mr. Spieckerman asked if there are multiple structures there now. ~ Mr. Randall said there are multiple structures and multiple residences there now. Some of them may be rentals. He said Mr. Jack Cady implied he is an older occupant of his home. Some of the structures appear to be very small cottages probably designed to be single family residences originally for mill workers. He said he believed there were at least five buildings which are primarily used for residences. ~ Mr. Arthur informed them the old Second Hand Store was originally a boarding house years ago. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 5 ~ Mr. McDonagh said there are eight lots in the block; there are seven separate property owners signed -- seven of eight potential owners. ~ Ms. Erickson said a lot of these are across the street from that property. At 7: 15 p.m., Chair Erickson opened the meeting for public testimony. 2. Public Testimony There being no public testimony, at 7:15 p.m. Chair Erickson closed the meeting to public testimony and called for Commission discussion and conclusions. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Ms. Erickson said that tonight the Planning Commission will discuss and decide whether or not to continue this to the docket. Mr. Randall explained that formally the Planning Commission is recommending a preliminary docket to City Council. City Council selects the preliminary docket, sends it to BCD to do the State Environmental Protective Agency (SEP A) environmental review on both proposed amendments, what the potential environmental impacts are of both proposals if approved BCD would then do a formal public notice to property owners of the changes of site- specific proposals and come back to the Planning Commission with an analysis and facts for public hearing on the merits of whatever issues arise. Chair Erickson pointed out that from here it will go to City Council to either approve or change the docket and send back to the Planning Commission. She said basically that is all they are doing tonight. Mr. Spieckerman said he could see the property owners in that area and the way the roads subdivide the area, Thomas Street being a main road, where it may be a legitimate request. . He said his only question was who made the request and whether or not it would be followed through on. He did not have any problem with it being on the docket. Mr. Randall said this is not a new item; the BCD office has been petitioned for a number of years to change this to a residential zone classification. MOTION SECOND Discussion Mr. Spieckerman Include this Plan Amendment on the docket Mr. Arthur Mr. Harbison requested they make sure to add the recommendation that BCD notify all affected property owners. The amendment was accepted by both the maker and seconder of the motion. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 6 AMENDED MOTION Include this Plan Amendment on the docket - BCD to notify aU affected property owners VOTE PASSEDUNANIMOUSLY,4INFAVOR Mr. Randall noted that when they go to City Council, BCD can basically answer these questions: Who are the property owners? Are they in favor of this? Are they aware of it? Ms. Ota was summoned to return to the meeting for her further participation. Revise Policy 1.8 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan a. Proponent: Non~Motorized Transportation Committee b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The committee bas requested clarification of an existing "Non Motorized Transportation Plan Policy." A copy of the request is attacbed as Exhibit c. Policy 1.8 addresses the preservation of unopened rights-of~way for non-motorized uses, as well as other uses. Mr. Randall said he believes this amendment comes up in the wake of recent street vacation hearings. City Council originally supported a street vacation or two where portions of the right-of-way were reserved for non-motorized use, where, for example, the remainder of rights-of-way on either side of a 20 foot easement would be vacated. Since that time we have had one reconsideration of a street vacation where the street vacation wàs denied because it was a non-motorized path. The rest of the street was open space, trees, and the City Council felt the street vacation shouldn't occur. What this amendment proposes is to clarify when the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan talks about preserving unopened public rights-of-way mapped as part of the Non-Motorized Transportation System, that the fully platted width be conSidered for preservation, not just some portion felt to be adequate to serve a half-way function. Co BCD Recolllltlelldøtion: This item should be placed on the docket to clarify the existing poIic:y. Mr. Randall stated the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee gave BCD quite an analysis and backing for this proposed amendment. He indicated BCD supports it as a clarification; they basically support further discussion on the issue> because they would like some more direction from Planning Commission and Council as to what to do with unopened rights-of- way, and what to do when they are presented with street vacations. , Chair Erickson asked if the Planning Commission could get the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee's analysis. Mr. Randall replied it is part of the application. He said that Ms. Nancy Dorgan can provide more discussion as a member of the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 7 Chair Erickson called for Commission questions of Staff. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF: ~ Mr. Arthur questioned plats -- if you do a plat, the description of green belts and open spaces and where they are located are agreed to by the applicant and the City. ~ Mr. Randall answered that they are signed off by property owners as well as representatives of the City. ~ Mr. Arthur said in dealing with any number of plats, he was curious as to what plats say now that represent the development of the City. He read the following quotations: (a) Port Townsend Original Townsite, old original script. They give the streets in the original townsite for ". . . use of the public and as thoroughfares open and to be enjoyed by all and usually as such public streets at the time they are made and titled said plat and ever since to the time of the making of the indenture." He went on to explain that what they are saying in this particular plat of the old 1878 original townsite is basically that city streets are for the enjoyment of the citizens of the town. (b) Plummer's Addition: ".. . assigns and grants and dedicates to the public for their use forever all the streets shown in the said plat." Mr. Arthur said that is not all the plats in Port Townsend, so what happens is the City has made agreements with the plat acceptance, which we still do. C c) Petty grove 's Addition - (shows concern with complete overlay): ". . . said edition to be used as public highways." Mr. Arthur said his question is, do we have any respect for old agreements and what they say, and if we do, how do we deal with taking the rights of a plat to be used the way they said they were going to be used in certain instances. He further said that in most instances it is not going to be an issue, that he is just bringing this up to clarify so he knows they don't have to deal with this. He stated he has done some replatting of property, and put in green belts and trails, etc. and knows exactly how it works, but questioned after the fact if he owned a piece of property and wanted to vacate the street it may be in violation of Plummer's Addition agreement. You really couldn't violate it; in another addition you might be able to vacate the street. He asked how they deal with that. ~ Mr. Randall replied the language that goes on plats now is uniform; we have subdivision code that says, you will have the following dedication - so everyone is agreeing to the same thing. Uniform language is, "We hereby give the following rights-of-way for the following purposes." Mr. Randall said prior to 1937, the State did not have a subdivision statute, and he believed the language that occmred could be a bit arbitrary, depending on perhaps the city official, the surveyor who prepared it, etc. The language primarily is saying as property owners we give this land for the city with the following restrictions for use. He said he did not think the language necessarily restricts them from vacating it and giving. it back. Since · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 8 then they have been broadened a bít to include such things as open space, storm water run off, trails and other sorts of transportation. He pointed out that if they like, one of the things they can recommend is if this proposal goes forward and comes to public hearing, some analysis by the City Attorney be prepared. Now they do not go back and research if someone is proposing vacating a portion of a street in Pettygrove's Addition; they do not go back and research the dedication language on the face of the plat. ~ Mr. Arthur asked to go one step further; if a right-of-way is not opened, the City does not choose to use it as a highway, or for public enjoyment or whatever, who is responsible to take care of it? ~ Mr. Randall replied he believes the practice is, if we have trees in danger of falling down and doing damage to private property, if the City is notified we will go out and take down ail the trees. There have been problems with occasional illegal dumping on our rights-of-way and we have gone out and cleaned them up. We have blocked off vehicular access in some cases, where they are not open, to discourage that sort of thing. He said he would have to defer to the City Attorney about responsibility for different actions on that property, but the City has assumed some responsibility for certain situations. ~ Mr. Arthur asked if basically then it is the City's view they are responsible. ~ Mr. Randall replied that the City has taken some responsibility for some things. He said they primarily take responsibility because they feel they have most of the rights; they cannot do everything on the property, but they can control most things. At 7:30 p.m., Chair Erickson opened the meeting to public testimony. 2. Public Testimony PROPONENT Ms. Nancy Dorgan, Member of the Non-Motorized Transportation Committee Ms. Dorgan said the Committee voted unanimously to forward this, and continued by reading her testimony: There is an integral relationship between the trail and the open space corridor it passes through. City Plans protect both trail and corridor because those Plans use the term "right-of- way.'~ The purpose of this amendment is to insure that protected corridors are fully protected from development within the parameters of the Non-Motorized Policy 1.8. Just this month, the public came very close to losing an 8 foot strip of Cleveland Street behind the new medical clinic on Sheridan. On May 1 st the City Council reversed its September 7th approval of the Rigby Street vacation application for a variety of reasons. Several Council · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 9 members, at least, did not want to set the precedent of vacating a protected right-of-way for a dumpster and several parking spaces. Despite the multi-faceted reversal, incremental erosion of designated rights-of-way protected by the Non-Motorized Plan is a real possibility. That threat makes this amendment urgent, which is the first criteria for adopting a proposal. Another example of the threat of right-of-way development encroachment is the site plan submitted by the Baldridge Group to incorporate an unopened half-block terminus of the Jefferson Street trail. . . so that a larger building could be permitted Since then the property owner has submitted a redevelopment site plan that includes partial use of that same terminus of parking spaces adjacent to a proposed east entry of the existing building. Additional parking within the protected adjacent right-of-way is being sought in this case, even though excess of that convenient parking already exists elsewhere onsite. As Port Townsend grows, the development pressure to use our designated unopened rights~of-way will only increase from commercial ventures looking for more or better parking. Providing more parking space for people using their cars is the antithesis of what non-motorized polices were written to create, and the antithesis of what our unopened streets should be used for. The Non-Motorized Committee expects to see an increasing number of residential applications for street vacations. The now-rescinded September 7th City Council findings and conclusions for the Rigby Street Vacation argues, "The proposed street vacation wiIl not affect the use of this portion of the street as a non-motorized trail." The idea here was that removing a block-long 8' strip from the driveway, did not interfere with the trail. By following that same logic, how much more could be vacated without interfering with the trail? Trails themselves aren't very wide; so where could this line of reasoning lead? -- conceivably to a minimum 20' wide utility easement. The Non-Motorized Committee does not agree with that interpretation of all the adopted policy. In Approval Criteria #2 of the application, we have quoted language from the Engineering Design Standards (EDS): "As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. . . policies 9.1 to 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 non-motorized pathways and connections, greerrways, and open space connections. " The language of this proposed text amendment mirrors that EDC language, and the Committee feels that this proposal is not only urgent and necessary to guide planning decisions, but it also reflects the assumption of adopted city plans. This committee has not changed its mind about how it wants to use its unopened streets to preserve Port Townsend as a waIkable community. There being no other public testimony at 7:40 p.m. Chair Erickson closed the meeting to public testimony and turned to the Planning Commission for deliberation. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 10 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions ~ Mr. Arthur thinks there is a conflict with the zoning code and the need for using unopened streets in business locations. He said it seems there have been a couple of instances where business owners have been given credit to create public parking on unopened rights-of~way. In reading this, and he asked Ms. Dorgan to correct him if he is wrong, it seems if it is an unopened right-of-way, it becomes non-motorized permanently. A lot of our rights-of-way in Port Townsend are not opened at this point because development hasn't reached that far; there is not a need for a driveway or for a city street to be installed because there hasn't been any developed in that area. He said he is not sure ifthis is just geared toward the present pathway or whether geared toward every unopened right-of-way that exists today. ~ Ms. Dorgan explained that the proposal is related only to those that have been designated to remain unopen within the Plan; however, when you look at the policies that are incorporated within the EDS they are much broader than the Non-Motorized Plan. The Non-Motorized Plan deals with the bikeway/pathway system. She went on to say, as she started out, there is an integral relationship between open space and trails, so when you look at the EDS under the rights-of-way management section, you will see a listing of all the various things that our unopened streets are intended to provide: wildlife corridors, open space. Trails is just one of them and that is what the Non-Motorized Plan is primarily focused on. ~. Mr. Harbison asked Mr. Arthur if further clarification would address his concerns. ~ Mr. Arthur responded he is still a little confused. He said he is looking at it from the standpoint of an access problem to non-motorized locations; some people who have kids, or whatever, and may want to drive to a location and go for a walk. It seems if they are not allowed to park on a right-of-way they may be parking in peoples' yards or sidewalks, etc. But, that is not as important in comparison to how many unopened rights-of-way there are, e.g. Hill Street behind the credit union is 100' wide. Does this mean that Hill Street could never be developed; if someone wanted to build a house and put his driveway on Hill Street he couldn't do it? · Mr. Spieckerman asked if Hill Street is mapped as part of a walkway system. He said that it looks like it is fairly specific. It applies only to rights-of-way mapped as walkway system planned connections. ~ Mr. Arthur replied that is what he is trying to clarify. ~ Mr. Harbison said that as a result of what he feels is need for clarification, as well as the appropriateness, he would make a motion. MOTION MI". Hal"bison Recommend to revise Policy 1.8 and place this amendment on the docket SECOND VOTE Mr. Spieckerman PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, S in favor . Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Randall explained that City Council has the ability to add items to the docket. He said it is possible to have others. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Next Scheduled Meetings June 8, 2000 (Canceled - City Council street vacation) June 29, 2000 Mr. Randall stated that preparing findings and conclusions as indicated in Judy Surber's Staff Report he felt would not happen for some time. He said it is his understanding Council will set the docket; BCD will do the environmental review and come back for a public hearing and at that point they will have some findings and conclusions. He said it may take some time and may take some analysis of other related policies, etc. Mr. Randall also reported that Ms. Surber had not been able to attend the meeting due to her father's death. . VID. COMMUNICATIONS -- Current Mail i. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Christine Ota and seconded by Larry Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 7:45 p.m. =K~-- R ~L Karen Erickson, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker