Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03092000 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. Call to Order March 9, 2000 II. Introduction of New Members: Bill Wolcott, Bernie Arthur and Jerry Spieckerman III. Roll Call IV. Election of Officers V. Acceptance of Agenda VI. Approval of Minutes: February 10, 2000 VII. Unfinished Business VIII. New Business San Juan Baptist Church, Conditional Use Permit Application #LUPOO-OO2 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) 2. Public testimony 3.. Committee report (Larry Harbison/Chris Ota) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions A. B. Comprehensive Plan Annual Assessment 1. Staff presentation (Judy Surber/Jeff Randall) 2. Commission discussion and conclusions IX. Other Business: Next Scheduled Meetings March 30, 2000 April 13, 2000 April 27, 2000 X. Communications XI. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. Call to Order II. Introduction of New Members: Bill Wolcott and Bernie Arthur III. Roll Call IV. Election of Officers V. Acceptance of Agenda VI. Approval of Minutes: February 10, 2000 VII. Unfinished Business VIII. New Business March 9, 2000 San Juan Baptist Church, Conditional Use Permit Application #LUPOO-OO2 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Larry Harbison/Chris Ota) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions A. B. Comprehensive Plan Annual Assessment 1. Staff presentation (Judy Surber/Jeff Randall) 2. Commission discussion and conclusions IX. Other Business: Next Scheduled Meetings March 30, 2000 April 13, 2000 April 27, 2000 X. Communications XI. Adjournment · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 9, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Ms. Karen Erickson. II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS: Mr. Randall introduced Messrs. Bill Wolcott and Jerry Spieckerman as new appointees to the Planning Commission. He reported that Mr. Bernie Arthur, also a new appointee, is on vacation and expected to return in time for the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Erickson welcomed the new members. She called for Deputy Mayor Finnie's comments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Finnie referenced a recent Planning Commission meeting he attended where one of the issues raised was preparation of a joint Planning Commission work session with the City Council. He noted a Council work session Monday, March 13,2000 to finalize the Comprehensive Plan amendment process for year 2000. Mr. Finnie said they will ask the City Manager to contact the Planning Commission Chair and schedule a joint meeting. Mr. Finnie then · excused himself to attend another meeting as a city representative. III. ROLL CALL Members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Larry Harbison, Christine Ota, Bill Wolcott and Jerry Spieckerman~ Bernie Arthur was excused. BCD Staff members present were Jeff Randall, Sheila Spears and Judy Surber. City Council representative was GeoffMasci. N. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. Chail1)1an Ms. Ota nominated Karen Erickson for Chair. Mr. Wolcott seconded. There being no other nominations, Ms. Erickson closed nominations. Ms. Erickson was elected 4 in favor with herself abstaining. 2. Vice Chairmtm Chair Erickson opened nominations for Vice Chairman. Ms. Ota nominated Larry Harbison and Ms. Erickson seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations, Ms. Erickson closed nominations. Mr. Harbison was elected 4 in favor with himself abstaining. · · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 2 V. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Bill Wolcott and seconded by Larry Harbison. All were in favor. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of February 10, 2000 as corrected was made by Larry Harbison and seconded by Christine Ota. All were in favor. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mayor Masci welcomed the new Planning Commission members. He stated Monday they announced Council was accepting more applications for the Planning Commission and that appointment would be made two weeks following based on solicitation of new applications. He explained that some of the people in the pool have withdrawn due to such things as serious health problems. Mr. Masci also announced concerning Council and Planning Commission cooperation in working together, that next Monday at the Council study session they will be addressing the Comprehensive Plan amendment process final ordinance. He expressed hope that one of the Planning Commissioners will attend, that they need input because there has been discussion of accelerating the application time to make the workload easier. He said Council wants to know how the Planning Commission feels about handling that process in addition to all their other ongoing work. Council reaffirmed its commitment of use of the Hearing Examiner to remove the quasi-judicial function from the Planning Commission which mayor may not relieve an onerous burden. He also reported that next week the Public Works Committee will be meeting to discuss the resurrection of the previous standing Transportation Committee and expanding the committee to a citizen task force including all the transportation elements. That committee can act as a liaison with the Planning Commission and Public Works Department so infrastructure and planning needs won't have to occur piecemeal in isolated fashion. They are looking to try to broaden the base and spread the workload among more people, so when decisions come to the Planning Commission for recommendations, they have already worked on them. Mr. Masci expressed that he hopes the Commission will be happy with the new ideas in terms with making everything easier and accessible. He said having sat through the County's Comp Plan amendment process he had to compliment the Planning Commission on last year's efforts. Compared to how the County handled theirs, this was smooth, easy. rational. civil and a pleasure to sit through compared to many 4 to 6-hour sessions of the County. He admonished to keep up the good work saying the Commission is doing a marvelous job and it is really appreciated. · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9. 2000 Page 3 Chair Erickson responded that one reason the Comp Plan amendment process was so smooth was because Staff Planners helped tremendously, giving the Commission such great information and answering all their questions. Mayor Masci reported the Monday work session is set for 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. The Comprehensive Plan will be the second item discussed. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. SAN JUAN BAPTIST C~CH. ÇONJ}ITIONAL USE PERMIT APP\.,CATION LUP00-002 I. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) BCD Director Jeff Randall presented the Findings of Fact and Conclusions: Findinp offaet and CQtl~lusioM of the Planning ComQlission, March 9, 2000. Findinp of ~,et: 1. The applicant proposes construction of an approximately 28 foot tall steeple with 5'x5' base to the existing 28-foot-tall church; total height would be approximately 56 feet. Speakers for audio transmission before, during and after church services are also proposed (Exhibit A -- application) . 2. San Juan Baptist Church is located at 1740 Discovery Road (Exhibit B -- site plan and street vacation ordinance). Mr. Randall noted the location is west of Sheridan Avenue and east of Towne Point. .. The site is located in both R-II (medium density, single family residential) and R-Ill (medium density multifamily residential). Mr. Randall pointed out the mixed zoning districts are both residential. .. Under the current zoning code churches are permitted in the residential zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit. When the church was originally constructed a conditional use permit was not required There was the administrative decision that to make a significant addition to a church required a conditional use permit, especially when talking about something that exceeds the normal maximum building height which church steeples are exempt from, subject to going through the proper channels. .. Under the current code. church buildings must comply with the requirements ofPTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements; however, towers, spires · Planning Commission Meeting March 9,2000 Page 4 · and steeples exceeding the height requirements of that section may be allowed, provided they comply with Chapter 506 of the Uniform Building Code, Maximum Height of Buildings and Increases. þ> Surrounding uses include Towne Point Planned Unit Development (manufactured homes) to the west, single-family residences and a day care center which is currently being developed to the east, and undeveloped parcels north and south of the site. (Exhibit C -- vicinity map). 3. The property measures approximately 146,000 square feet in area, and is used for church services/classrooms, Red Cross disaster shelter, and associated parking. The existing church occupies approximately 41,680 square feet of the site. 4. The proposed steeple would be constructed on top of the existing 41,680 square foot church. The base of the steeple would be approximately 25 square feet (Exhibit D). Mr. Randall said it is a steeple like used on historic churches in town, a rather traditional looking steeple. It is proposed to house speakers, and he thought the transmission would be church bells and other such appropriate sounds. 5. The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas as defined in Title 19 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. 6. The proposal is exempt from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in accordance with WAC 197-11-800(I)(b)(iii). 7. Public notice was published in The Leader and posted on the projèCt site on February 2, 2000. No comments were received. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in The Leader on February 23, 2000. Mr. Randall said the main criteria applicable to this project are questions regarding such as: harmonious, appropriate design, character and appearance in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Anatysis of "p,roval Ctiteria and Consistency with Ap,li~ble Goals and Policies: Pursuant to the review procedures codified in Chapter 17.84 PTMC, the conditional use permit application has been reviewed for conformance with the applicable goals and policies contained in the city's comprehensive plan and other adopted plans. (Approval criteria, goals and policies are in italics.) 1. The City may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit if the following criteria are satisfied A. The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property. · · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 5 · The location and character of the proposed use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, would be in harmony with the character of the area in which it is proposed to be located, and is in general conformity with the comprehensive plan.. Mr. Randall commented that the site is a fairly large site, that the steeple appears traditional in nature and seems compatible with other similar structures in Port Townsend. B. The Conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including streets, fire protection, water, sanitary sewer, and storm water control. The proposed steeple addition to an existing permitted church is presently being served by adequate public facilities including streets, fire protection, water, sanitary sewer, and storm water control. C. The Conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. The proposed steeple addition is surrounded by church-owned property and the construction shall be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC). D. The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. The Community Direction Statement declares: "A wide choice of housing types and prices is available for a diversity of lifestyles and incomes. Residential development is centered in distinct neighborhoods that are safe, secure, and have identities and characteristics of their own. Opportunities for socializing, recreation, quiet and solitude are all close at hand, as are facilitie~ and events ~t enrich t§ body- mind and sDmt." (City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, Chapter V. The housing Element, Goals & Policies, Introduction). Churches in Port Townsend typically have steeples. The addition of a steeple to an existing permitted church would be comparable to other neighborhoods within the City. E. The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the Port Townsend Municipal Code and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. I) The proposal was processed and reviewed in conformance with the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC), Chapters 27 (Zoning) and 20 (Administration of Land Development Regulations). ii) The proposed use would be required to meet all the conditions and specifications set forth for uses in the residential zoning district in which the property is located. Churches with steeples are permitted in the R-II zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. The City must impose additional conditions on a particular use if it is deemed necessary for the protection of the surrounding properties, the neighborhood, or the general welfare of the public. · · · · 2. · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 6 · No additional conditions are necessary to protect adjacent properties or the general public. · Conclusions and Rec~mJDendation: CONDmONS: 1. The proposed steeple requires a building permit and shall be in compliance with all building codes listed in the Port Townsend Municipal Code and obtain a final inspection and certificate of occupancy prior to use. 2. The proposal shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan. 3. The proposed use shall comply with these Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions. In case of any conflict, Conditions shall prevail over Findings in interpreting or applying the same. EFFECTIVE PERIOD: I. A decision granting a conditional use permit shall become effective upon the date of such decision. 2. A conditional use permit automatically expires and is void if the applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the conditional use permit unless: A. The applicant has received an extension of time for the conditional use permit subject to PTMC 17.84.100; or B. The conditional use permit approval provides for a greater time period. Mr. Randall said Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the very limited conditioning. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code, that the proposal be completed in substantial conformance with the plan shown and construction begin within three years of the date of approval. He said the Planning Commission will be giving recommendation to City Council and a closed record hearing would occur before the City Council on this matter and that the Planning Commission minutes will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Randall said he talked with a member of the church staff who requested that one phrase in Condition 1 be modified in reference to the certificate of occupancy. Their concern was that the 5'x5' steeple structure containing equipment and for esthetic purposes technically would not be occupied by anyone. Staffhas no problem with the words "and certificate of occupancy" being stricken from Condition 1 to read: ". . . and obtain a final inspection prior to use." Mr. Randall said it still implies that it requires they get a building permit, and the permit receive final approval prior to fmal use of the construction. · · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 7 Çouncil questions of Staff: Mr. Wolcott: Asked about the mounting of speaker; the reply was the speakers would be inside. Mr. Harbison questioned if that is any part of their consideration. Mr. Randall said he thinks it is fair. In general with the conditional use permit, things like esthetics, noise, and traffic all are legitimate questions. Then you need to decide based on the facts given to you, if the proposal applies with the criteria you have. We don't have a noise ordinance in Port Townsend. We do have state requirements regarding decibels that cannot be exceeded. In a residential area in the daytime it is higher and in the evening it is lower, something like 60 and 45 decibels, but that really refers to continuous noise events. Something like a dong, a bell going off, is an exception to that. Perhaps if they were proposing to play music all day long at a sustained level, the Commission might have a problem with it, or the City might have a problem with it. Mr. Harbison asked if they know if the public notice included any mention of the speakers, just trying to foresee any questions that might come up in the future. Mr. Randall replied affirmatively, "Speakers for audio transmission before, during and after church services are proposed." 2. Public Testimony At 7:15 p.m. Chair Erickson opened the meeting for public testimony. Applicant: ~r. Dan Mc~illa~, 373 Loftus Rd., Port Townsend, Pastor of the San Juan Church Mr. McMillan thanked Staff for their help through the process. He said this has been a project in the church's mind for a number of years, and they have created into the building complex the ability in a future date to put on a steeple. People have been giving little bits of money here and there for the last 9 years or so since that building has been in place. He said they have come to a point now where people feel it would be a nice addition, an attractive addition for our church building, with one of our members, Harry Williams, giving great time and energy to the project. He is a man that just seems to believe that the time is now for us to pursue it. I really can't speak anything more for it, except we, the church body, really are hoping this can be a nice addition to our facility in the near future. We are still in the process of raising funds~ we don't quite know when that fund raising process will end, but we hope this will be something that will happen. Mr. McMillan said regarding the speakers, he knows that would probably create the greatest concern -- that somebody will be blasting sound all over the neighborhood and creating havoc with the neighbors. He said that would not at all be their desire~ it might be something that · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 8 would be hooked to their electronic keyboard where there could be something played like "Amazing Grace" before or after a service or possibly a carillon system. It is not something they have looked into, but a possibility of something were they to do, that would be signaling that it is time to worship. He said that is their desire. No one else spoke in favor of the application. Those speaking against: Peter Pieder~n, 2011 Queen Anne PI., Towne Point Mr. Piederson said he received the application, letter of intent, at his P.O. Box, not at his home address, and said he feels that Towne Point was not duly given notice of this application. He asked for an extension at this time for better notice to be given to all residents, that a lot of the neighbors do not know there is a process going on except for the public notice in front of the church, which he said he believed most people do not stop and look at. He said all he asks is an extension of this at this time. Chair Erickson asked for clarification, if he got a notice in a P.O. Box rather than his physical address. Mr. Piederson replied affirmatively. Mr. Randall explained the process. The Port Townsend Municipal Code provides that notice be provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project, starting from the outside of the church boundary and drawing circle around it. He said the records they use are the County Assessor's records of ownership; if the mailing address with the Assessor's Office is a P.O. Box, that is where the notice would go. Mr. Piederson said he had asked his neighbors across the way ¡fthey had gotten a notice and they replied they had not. The neighbors to their immediate right are renting, and he thought probably the owners got the notice. Chair Erickson confirmed that on a rental home it would be the property owner and the property owner's discretion whether or not they wanted to share that information with their renter. She asked Mr. Piederson if the people he is concerned about are farther away from the church than he, that if they were within the 300 feet she is assuming everyone got notification. Mr. Piederson answered that they told him they had not received a notice. Mr. Randall asked their names. Mr. Piederson replied Bill and Sharon, that he did not know their last names but they live on Queen Ann Place. Mr. Randall read some names. Chair Erickson asked Mr. Piederson that when he notified these people of this meeting, were they not concerned about it and that is why they did not come tonight. · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 9 · Mr. Piedenon replied he did not see anyone else in attendance from Towne Point that he is aware of. He said his concern is if this project goes through and someone says they weren't notified. Chair Erickson asked Mr. Piederson if he had any information he wanted to give them against the application. Mr. Piedenon said he is so busy during the day at his work that he didn't have time to see the planning, and his only concern is the speakers -- before, during and after the service. He said it was said they were not going to do it so loud that it will disturb the neighbors, and when he heard, that's fine. He was concerned that maybe someone else knows it is going to go on, and he would like them to be really officially notified. He said he had only received his notice less than 2 weeks ago, and 2 weeks is a really short period of time for any notice, that it was said this thought has been going on for the last 7 to 9 years, and he thought there should be more concern at an earlier time. Maybe 5 years ago they should have said they were going to do this and notified the public of what was going on. MI'. Randall said for the record, the notice of application was sent out February 2nd. Mr. Piedenon replied he had not received his notice until late February. Mr. Harbison asked if any notices were returned undelivered? Mr. Randall said there were none in the file, and they normally place non-deliverable notices in the file. He said there are approximately 40 individuals that have been notified. The comment period ended February 22nd. Those speaking neither for nor against: Mayor GeotT Masci Mayor Masci spoke as the City Council liaison to COP AB and the Public Safety Committee stating the Public Safety committee is proposing a noise ordinance. The ordinance has been written and will begin a series ofpublíc forum, subject to public hearing, and Port Townsend will have a noise ordinance that will deal with situations such as being deliberating here. He said the issues involved in this matter will have another layer of municipal protection that did not exist prior to and when this application was made; it is a future item but is in process as they speak At 7:15 p.m. Chair Erickson closed public testimony and asked for the committee report. 3. Committee Re.port (Larry Harbison/Chris Ota) Çhristine Ota said she still has a concern with the speakers, that she doesn't have a problem with the steeple. · · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9,2000 Page 10 Lany Harbi$oQ stated with the additional layer of regulation the noise ordinance would provide, there is some layer of protection. He asked concerning the public hearing before City Council. Mr. Randall indicated the public hearing before City Council would be a closed record hearing, and if no new information comes in it is basically that there is no additional testimony. Chair Erickson asked if there is any way of making a condition that it meets the future noise ordinance. Mr. Randall indicated that would be appropriate for something like set backs that affect the way a structure is built, but something such as an activity like noise, the whole town would automatically be subject to it. Ms. Ota asked with the speakers if there were any plans of being able talk over them. Mr. McMillan said that was not part of this at all. Ms. Ota asked if they were only to be used for the music. Mr. McMillan saW that would be the purpose. 4. Commission discussion and conclusions. Ms. Surber said if the noise ordinance is not adopted and there is no guarantee we can cover this specific instance, we can always consider addition of a condition that spells out what it is you want and say something to the effect that if there is an ordinance adopted at a later date that covers this specific concern, that would supersede this condition. Mr .Wolcott asked regarding conditioning speakers on this church, are other churches in town, other centers in town, subject to any kind of noise condition. Mr. Randall replied that he is not aware of any, that when he has dealt with conditions it has been such things as mechanical equipment on Safeway; construction activities~ activities at the Port. In those situations they have relied on the state law referencing that noise activities shall comply with the state WAC. He said in this case, unless they are continuously playing something, they would probably be exempt from that law anyway, because it does include exemptions for small noise durations. Mr. Wolcott said his only concern is if no other groups are subject to it. Mr. Randall went on to say there isn't a permit required for noise. Someone could put speakers on their house and start blasting and neighbors would call the police; we would get involved in and apply what laws we have. We do have authority under a conditional use permit to include certain conditions we feel are necessary to meet the criterion. Ms. Surber pointed out there are others that have bells and some kind of speakers and that sort of thing. She said they addressed a variance for a small church in a residential neighborhood and specifically had to say the bell noise could not be addressed in that case since they were · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 11 talking about a variance from a height requirement The bell noise could not be addressed. She said since that time the code has placed churches in a conditional use rather than being outright permitted. One of the reasons they put them in a conditional use is because of traffic and noise, things of that nature that can be an impact to a residential neighborhood. Recognizing that gave the Planning Commission and City Council the ability to mitigate those thing to ensure that the residential character was not degraded. That would be the difference, now conditional use permits are required specifically for that reason. Mr. Wolcott said the idea that this might be conditional noise, and none of the other churches are conditional noise)right -- is that going to be done retroactively, if there is a complaint or something? Are they going to have to come before the City and be subject to conditional use for noise? Ms. Surber stated that is an interesting question. She said if there were a complaint about a newly established church, she would have to go to the City Attorney to determine how to handle that. If a noise ordinance came into play city-wide . . . Mr. Wolcott replied that would cover that, but if it doesn't, I would say this should be handled the exact same way. If there is a complaint, they can be subject to that Mr. John Timmis, from the San Juan Baptist Church; a government employee, designer, etc. for about 45 years or more, said he suggested including the speakers. He felt by doing this upfront they were in a better condition than if they had gone ahead and tried to hide it. He said he has traveled all over this country, and has been in many towns on Sunday mornings, gone to church services. Many churches are playing bells, playing music off the organ, things of this nature, and it is compatible with both the neighborhoods and with the church use. He said we have churches that ring bells every day at noon, and they seem to be compatible with the neighborhood~ that is why they put this in. He said they didn't want anybody to say they tried to pull something over on them; they didn't want to do that. They wanted to let the City know what was going o~ if you had a problem with it, we would find about it right now, not in 8 months when we have the steeple 'up, have bells and put speakers in there and turned them on. Ms. Erickson said she personally doesn't have any problem with the speakers. She said she doesn't imagine they are going to make the neighbors angry - church music or bells on Sunday. She said she can hear it where she lives; she can hear several churches from where she lives, and she loves it. She said she has no problems with it, with the application, or with the steeple. Mr. Spieckerman stated he has no problem with church music or bells either, but said speakers, however, do offer the opportunity to broadcast messages other than music or bells. He said he would like perhaps to put in the condition that speakers be limited to music or bells, chimes. Mr. Harbison suggested a way to possibly follow Ms. Surber's suggestion and to bridge the period of time before a noise ordinance is in place or becomes effective. He said perhaps an ......,....~ · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 12 · additional condition could be: "The proposal should be developed in conformance with pending noise ordinance maintaining reasonable sound levels and duration of sounds and the applicant will be responsive to community concerns in the interim." He said it doesn't really have the same authority that a condition would have, but thought maybe it could be included somewhere in there. Mr. Harbison was asked to reiterate his statement. He pondered stating that "in conformance," there isn't even a draft of the ordinance. He continued with the statement and said he was trying to find the piece that could make a condition that would make everyone comfortable, but obviously that is not it. Mr. Wolcott stated that if he understood Ms. Surber correctly, there is a mechanism in place to address this if it becomes a problem. Ms. Surber said a conditional use permit can come back for review if there are complaints. Mr. Wolcott indicated he meant, that regardless of this church or another church, or another organization, if somebody is creating something ongoing. Ms. Surber said if it is an established church that doesn't have a conditional use permit and was lawfully established before conditional use permits were required, she is not certain how they would handle that complaint. She indicated because they don't have a noise ordinance, she doesn't know if they would be able to retroactively require a conditional use permit~ she would go to the City Attorney to address how handle that situation. This application does require a conditional use permit; from here on, if there are complaints, it can come back. Mr. Randall asked Ms. Surber if her thought was, if they were thinking to attach some conditions in there regarding noise. Ms. Surber replied, to say that noise complaints will be addressed by church, and if anything exceeds the criteria for approval, they could include a statement in there concerning residential character. Mr. Wolcott said he would be very concerned if the applicant were singled out. He said it would be his inclination not to have this as a noise-conditioned approval. The Chair denied a request from the audience for a question, since the hearing had been officially closed to the public. She asked if the Commission was ready for a motion or if they wanted to comment more regarding the speakers. Ms. Ota indicated she would like to resolve speakers for the surrounding neighborhood; how loud, how they would be used in the neighborhood. not only the San Juan Baptist Church, but also other churches that come from here on out. It would be like saying because we have ADDs right now, are we going to do the same~ we can't look at this one because we haven't looked at the past churches. Mr. Wolcott said that in a sense, yes. They are not a new but an established church; they are not an unknown. He asked Pastor McMillan how long they had been in that community; Pastor McMillan replied almost 30 years. Mr. Wolcott said 30 years; he thought the church was · ~..,;i¡r·-·, · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 13 actually rather pushed to this process by the City in order to get this steeple, and he would hate to seem them get caught here in a rather bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Ms. Ota reiterated she is not concerned regarding the steeple itself, just the speakers and the neighbors. Mr. Wolcott acknowledged her concern was the speakers. He said to him it seemed it was more important that the City be more forward in terms of enacting a noise ordinance, so that everybody is under the same regulations and comply with the same rules, other than one single individual group being picked out. Mr. Harbison said, and Ms. Ota concurred, he did not feel they were singling out this group. He said he felt any group that comes to them with a conditional use, they would have to consider the same way. He said he still thinks there is a way to put in language that would make them comfortable if there were nothing more than, "The applicant will be responsible for community concern of sound levels." It states our concern. It makes it one of the conditions that places the responsibility on them~ they know as a community organization they are responsible. Mr. Wolcott asked regarding the meaning of sound level? Does it have any teeth? Does it mean, one person says, "I don't like that music;" and now they are responsible as part of their condition? or sound level, -- "I can hear it in my back yard?" Mr. Randall said he thought one thing they could say is, "Noise generated by the speakers shall comply with applicable State noise regulations." He said he had a little concern about being responsive to concerns of neighbors. They have never had a complaint about church noise and suggested because it happens on Sunday. He said he thinks he echos Ms. Erickson's statements, and said they have never had a problem with this. They are a community organization as opposed to a business organization that is trying to solicit something. He told the Planning Commission they have some discretion, but it is not something that has been a problem in the past with other like uses. Ms. Surber asked regarding putting a limitation on the hours that it could operate. She used the example of engineering design standards for construction noise that it stated you can't start before 7:00 a.m. She said if timing is the concern, that would be much easier to regulate. Ms. Erickson asked BCD Staff Sheila Spears if there had been any noise complaints from any other churches at all. Ms. Spears replied that they have not had any complaints. Ms. Erickson said the church where she can hear music and bells is four or five blocks away from her that this is quite loud, but to her is enjoyable. She said that church is on San Juan, and there are probably 100 homes closer than she is; if there have been no complaints she said she can't personally see where it would be worth conditioning -- if it were anything but a church. She had no problem from what she has seen in the past, and having no complaints ftom any other churches, many playing music and bells on Sunday. . . . Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 14 MOTION Mr. Harbison Recom.mend to Council that Conditional Use Permit LUPOO-OO2 be granted as conditioned. Mr. Harbison amended his motion to include Mr. Randall's proposed amendment to Condition 1 to strike the words, "and certificate of occupancy." AMENDED MOTION Recommend to Council that Conditional Use Permit LUPOO-OO2 be granted as conditioned, Condition 1 amended to read, "The proposed steeple requires a building permit and shall be in compliance with all building codes listed in the Port Townsend Municipal Code and obtain a final inspection prior to use." SECOND VOTE Mr. Wolcott Unanimous, 5 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstaining Chair Erickson reported the Planning Commission will recommend to City Council to approve this conditional use, and the City Council will hold a closed public hearing in April. She also said BCD Staff Sheila Spears would be sending notification. Chair Erickson thanked the audience for their participation. B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAl.. A&SESSMENT 1. Staff presentation (Judy Surber/Jeff Randall) Ms. Surber welcomed the new Commission members. She said they had started the comprehensive plan annual update process the last time she was before the Planning Commission a month ago. During that workshop discussion they looked at the seven criteria set forth in Chapter 20.04 of the Municipal Code, and that the Planning Commission is to review every year to determine whether or not they need to make a recommendation for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan during that annual cycle. She said that during the brief discussion, the Planning Commission agreed there was no need to make any recommended amendments in this year's cycle. They also talked about potential amendments to Chapter 20.04 on the annual update process; having been through the process twice they realized what the strengths and weaknesses of our code are. The primary weakness they found is going through the comprehensive plan update on an annual basis which is very stressful on Staff and the Planning Commission. Typically they did not have the information they need to meet the criteria - do not have information to show that the population trends have changed. Ms. Surber said within a I-year cycle, you don't have that information. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) .-.. · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 15 which does the census, does that every 10 years, and unless the County is paying for a population trend analysis within that time frame, we don't have new infonnation. She said also they looked at the assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan, within the Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan, and they discussed how there haven't been any real changes that would make any of the assumptions invalid. She said they might want to go through those assU111ptions~ there were things like Port Townsend will continue to be the commercial, retail, government hub for Jefferson County and that would get the majority of the growth, etc. Next year the City may be faced with quite a few changes to the Comprehensive Plan due to what is going on at the County level. Information from the Urban Growth Areas that are being studied now will come our way and may very well dictate changes to the basic assumptions and policies of the Plan - the Land Use Map and discussions of annexation, etc. That will not be until we have that new information to base those decisions on. Ms. Surber referred to the Staff report in Commission packets including the flow chart. She said she would be happy to meet the new Planning Commissioners and discuss the process in detail and give any more information. Staff Report Overview of Comprehensive Plan Update, Planning Commission's Annual Assessment -- Judy Surber, March 2, 2000 · Process for updating the Plan. Set forth in section 20.04, Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) and outlined in flowchart (Attachment 1). Planning Commission's Annual Assessment of the Plan. a. Commission indicated at the February to, 2000 workshop it did not have any proposed amendments. b. The idea of replacing the annual update cycle with a three or five year cycle was also discussed. c. At Commission direction, Staff prepared a Draft Assessment for Commission consideration (Attachment 2). Next Step: Planning Commission Recommendations on the Docket a. Commission's charge -- review citizen's suggested amendments to the Plan. b. Decision is to be based on evaluation of ~ Ufiency, and apprQpriatepess of each suggested amendment. c. Staff will present suggested amendments the latter part of May or early June. d. Proposals placed on the Final Docket will be reviewed under SEP A, and win be the subject of workshops and public hearings later in the year. e. Ultimately, the Commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation on each amendment which considers the following: 1. Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption · · . . e Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 16 of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; 2. Whether the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan~ and 3. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. Ms. Surber pointed out the second attachment in the Staff Report is the Draft of the Planning Commission's Annual Assessment, 2000. She said it goes through each of the seven findings as stated in Chapter 20.04 and gives an explanation of recommend findings for each one of those. She also explained that Chapter 20.04 does not even specifically say we have to write all this out. She said that in the future we could be a lot more brief. ~ DRAFT - Planning Commission's Annual Assessment 2000 (Attachment 2) (Criteria for annual assessment of the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 20.04) 1. Is ~owt!} and development as envisioned in the com.prehensive plan occurring faster or slower than antiçi.pated. or is it failing to materialize? Recommended Finding: The estimated average annual growth rate is approximately 2.1 %. Given recent adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and normal fluctuation of building from year to year, it is too soon to determine if the annual growth rate will average 2.6% as assumed in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminishe4 or increased? Recommended Finding: The City's capacity to provide adequate service has not changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. 3. Is sufficient land desi~ated and zOJ;}ed to meet prQjected demand and needs? Recommended Finding: A sufficient supply of land within each zoning category has been designated to accommodate Port Townsend's growth for the next twenty years. 4. Are the assuruptions upon which the plan is Qased invalid? Recommended Finding: The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are valid. 5. Are there changes in cOJ;}1IIlunity wjde attitudes that neçessitate amendments to the goals and pur:poses of the cotI\Prehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the cOlItpreheJ,}sive plan community ~ction statement? Recommended Finding: The goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the Plan and community direction statement remain valid. · · · Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 17 6. Is UJ,ere s¢ticient chan~e or lack of change in circumst@nces to Øiçtate the need for an amendment? Recommended Finding: There has been no change in circumstance that requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the c~m\pr~hensiv~ pl~ and the GMA or the county-wide plannin~ poli«}' for Jefferson County? Recommended Finding: There are no inconsistencies between the City and County plans that necessitate amendment of the City Comprehensive Plan. 2. Commission discussion and conclusions Mr. Spieckennan referred to the method of census and asked Ms. Surber if she was saying we do not have any method of tracking or projecting census within the city. Ms. Surber replied that the OFM sends cities a worksheet. On that worksheet they ask a question about how many building permits have been issued, how many multi-family units there are, etc. Until you get the census, etc., you really don't have that hard data. She noticed last year a couple of the city worksheets were incorrect; there were certain multi- family developments that had been left out. She said that data is not that reliable and certainly doesn't show trends, like over a 10 year period. You can't tell whether our 2.6% projected growth rate is coming to fruition if you have only been looking at it for only I year. Mr. Spieckennan asked regarding things like numbers of people registered to vote. Ms. Surber said she had not been involved with all of that, and that all the hard data Staffhas at this point is no different than they had when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Mr. Wolcott asked where the 2.6% comes from. Ms. Surber replied that was from the population forecast prepared by the group the City and County invested in for the Comprehensive Plan development. She said they came up with three different growth trends which are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, or at least were in the draft Comp Plan and the EIS. The City and County had to jointly agree on which one they would use - low, medium or high growth rate. Ms. Surber answered questioning that she believed the 2.6% to be the medium growth rate. Ms. Erickson said that when she looks back at some of these requirements, she does not see how they could have ever thought they would be able to answer these within a I-year period. At the time she thought that was reasonable, but now looking back there is no way. You can start, and 3 years later you might be able to answer some of the changes, but other than that it is hard to believe these are the requirements we were basing everything on, that they would have to meet all of this in order to even get changes. She asked Mr. Randall if the Planning Commission's recommendation to look at 3 years, rather than every year ~ goes on to City . . e Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 18 Council, and if the Council will discuss this at the Monday study session. Mr. Randall stated that this Monday they are actually taking the ordinance for last year's amendments to Council. There was a delay because of the issue of how the R-III and R-N will be written. Last year's ordinance will be discussed and probably be acted upon at the next regular Council Meeting. The issue of modifying the amendment process, making it a once every 3-year process will be a proposed ordinance change and effective for next year. Ms. Erickson asked Ms. Surber if any proposed amendments had been received. Ms. Surber replied they had not received anything~ they have had a couple inquiries. Mr. Randall said some packets had been picked up, so they will be seeing some. Mr. Wolcott asked regarding the beginning of the amendment process. Ms. Erickson indicated it goes from February until November. It has started now and they will accept amendment applications until May 1st. Ms. Surber explained it is discussed before the Planning Commission and City Council which suggested amendments get docketed. Once they are docketed, they and the formal amendments, which are automatically heard, will go forward. Mr. Spieckerman asked about the amending process, since the process has already started. Mr. Randall said they haven't begun the amending process, but basically the BCD office has been given feedback from Council and the Planning Commission to go ahead and draft that. He said tt is for us to get started on it. Ms. Erickson pointed out that the Planning Commission had discussed it at last month's meeting and directed Staff to proceed and talk to City Council that we were interested in moving it to a 3~year cycle. Ms. Surber suggested once Staff has had an opportunity to find from some other jurisdictions what they are doing, you have a workshop and talk about what kind of criteria you are wanting to set Are there certain things we would want to see on an annual cycle, and some criteria that say others should be on a 3~year cycle. If it is urgent, we certainly want to be able to look at it. Formal amendments would probably continue on as annual. Mr. Spieckerman asked if we are potentially going to change the cycle, would that possibly have any impact on the general population in terms of what they are going to do this year. If someone is thinking that maybe they will do it this year or maybe they'll do it next year, and all of a sudden they find out they can't do it next year, would that have any affect on what they do this year? Mr. Randall said projects that would require Comprehensive Plan amendments to go forward, commercial projects or multi-family or whatever, requiring zoning code use, regardless of what we do, would be something someone could propose in any year. Land use zoning could be done any year. He said a lot of proposals are "feel good" proposals, etc. Mr. Wolcott asked ¡fyou treat them all the same in theory, on a I-year basis all have to be proposals. Mr. Randall said they have criteria they have to apply to them. We have no way to say it is not . . . Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 2000 Page 19 important, perhaps it can wait 5 years. Ms. Surber explained there are always options~ we can recommend that we do not docket this year. Mr. Wolcott asked if there is process up to that point~ you just decide not to docket? Mr. Randall said so far there were not many that were invalid. Ms. Erickson stated there were a few that didn't make it. There was discussion regarding reasons involved in Comprehensive Plan changes. Mr. Randall said it is a well-written Comp Plan. Ms. Surber pointed that many amendments to the text of the Municipal Code which are consistent with the Comp Plan are not involved in the annual process. Ms. Surber asked for comments on the material presented. Chair Erickson replied to Ms. Surber that she had no corrections. Mr. Spieckerman said he was impressed with the depth in which it was prepared. Mayor Masci pointed out the May I st deadline on the flow chart and said they might want to be thinking about possibly changing to an April 1 st deadline because of overlaps in the budget. He said this would eliminate that. He asked for recommendations to Council of how the Planning Commission and Staff feel about going to an April 1st or March 1 st deadline, that they want it to be workable for the Commission and Staff, and relieve the burden on Staff. Ms. Erickson said she would prefer working on this during the winter time. She said if Staff wants to start this in January and get it through to City Council by June, or even start it in December, she would be very happy to get it through before summer. She explained that a lot of people are concerned but gone in the summertime. There was a sense of consensus to step up the time frame. Chair Erickson asked that Staff make their recommendation to the Planning Commission and see if it would work. Mr. Randall suggested they attempt to get the process over by the end of June~ Ms. Erickson agreed that was a good recommendation. Mayor Masci asked as a Council liaison, what the Planning Commission wants him to take back to the Council, what their needs are and how they can make recommendation? He noted Glen Cove and said nothing had been resolved~ some resolution is occurring and they are being told by the County that maybe that discussion can take place in 18 months. Mr. Masci said it means we need to be prepared for that~ we may want to start that discussion in at least 6 months. He asked ifthere are issues that came out oflast year's discussions; the Council would like to know the Planning Commission's idea separate from the what the work plan coordination is going to be. Are there issues you see on the horizon that are going to come up that need to be discussed, that you need authorization from Council. We want to see proactivity; we want to see being productive and see getting the community dialog involved. Because of the legislative nature of all of this, it requires give and take on both sides. He said please think about that, that · · · Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2000 Page 20 he thinks that is something that might be a workshop discussion, or a retreat discussion. Chair Erickson thanked Mayor Masci and said they would think about that. Mr. Randall asked if the Planning Commission wanted to take action of Ms. Surber's draft. Ms. Surber said it would be in the form of a Planning Commission report to Council. MOTION Mr Harbison Accept and recommend for forwarding to City Council Staff's Planning Commission Annual Assessment, that virtually all the Planning Commissioners felt it was a model, represented all of the concerns and presented a balanced view. SECOND VOTE Mr. Spieckerman Unanimous, 5 in favor IX. OTHER BUSINESS: Next Scheduled Meetings March 30, 2000-- Chair Erickson asked regarding using the March 30th meeting for training to allow the new commissioners to get up to speed. Mr. Randall answered that new City Attorney John Watts might be available to discuss with the Commission such things as the appearance of fairness, comprehensive plan, etc. He suggested scheduling that session for the April 13 meeting. April 13, 2000-- April 27, 2000-- BCD Director Randall announced he thought they had completed interviews for his replacement as Planner II and hoped by the first of April to have someone hired. He said he would notify the Planning Commission. X. COMMUNICATIONS -- Current Mail XI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Harry Harbison and seconded by Christine Ota. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. · · · Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 21 . ~>/~ ) Karen Erickson, Chair ~/'-J. -./- . J ../ -,Ii /,..Y <:,,' ,...,c;{/;'-. ¿~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . . . Guest List Meeting of: fJ¿AA/1//JlG CO*/Æ1/55/{)A( Purpose: l;!! Jtti/A/b¡f¡Jí'pt C/lt/¡?C/f - C'/(P Date: -5 _ _JJO I Name (,Ioue "~In"~ I Address I T~stimOn~? I -- ES I 0 (e;r ~ 1frd W~(.,¡V þ)l Q Vt c. ~ ¡4--.-v .,.;v t' V- .7Jt{v M cyU,II~AA ~73 [¡; -r1vs. ~d pT / \ ,~ G ;5 r-;;;;'~I' f 09'0 ohhýJ¿/J ØJ/cI pi: 4.-¡)~ A ¡,/ ~' ~ / I I I ~