Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02102000 Min Ag . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMl\1ISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. February 10, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: January 13, 2000 V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business- Workshop - Discussion of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process A. Staff's Perspective 1) Difficult to Substantiate Annual Amendments 2) Vague Docketing Criteria 3) Timeline Constraints 4) Need Funding for SEP A Studies 5) Planning Commission/Council Workshops Crucial 6) Modification of Amendments - Mixed Blessings . B. Discussion of Problems Encountered and Suggested Amendments to 20.04 a) How Often Should the Plan be Amended? b) Should Docketing Criteria be Revised? c) How Could PresentationslPackets Be Improved? C. Action Plan for Year 2000 Annual Update VII. Upcoming Meetings February 24,2000 - Comprehensive Plan Annual Assessment VITI. Communications IX. Adjournment . ---,"-./~ . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10,2000 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Larry Harbison and Christine Ota; Len Mandelbaum was excused. Staff members present from BCD were Director Jeff Randall and Judy Surber. City Council representative present was Alan Youse. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of January 13, 2000 as written and amended was made by Ms. Ota and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. v. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Chair Thayer reported she had heard the City Council is preparing to appoint new Planning Commission members at their meeting on Tuesday, February 22nd. She indicated to Mr. Youse, City Council liaison, that she understood as of yesterday there are five applicants, three of which are realtors. Ms. Thayer voiced concern, without reflection to Ms. Ota or herself as realtors, that it might appear to the community there is some loading the Commission with realtors. She said to her it might be unwise, although she acknowledged it is City Council's decision. Ms. Ota agreed. Mr. Youse stated he would relay their concerns to the City Council. Chair Thayer referenced The Peninsula Planner noting a Peninsula Section 5th Annual Planning Conference on Saturday, February 26th at Fort Worden. VI. NEW BUSINESS Workshop -- Discussion of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process A. Staffs Perspective Ms. Surber pointed out that the City had now gone through two annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment updates and had experienced the anxiety, stress and long hours that are put into the Comp Plan annual process. She said she had discussed with Mr. Randall suggestions for changing Chapter 20.04, the Municipal Code's process for Comp Plan updates, . Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2000 Page 2 and that former City Attorney Tim McMahan also noted the need for revision and to reconsider the necessity and wisdom of the annual process. Ms. Surber said tonight's discussion would center around Staff perspective of what might be changed in Chapter 20.04, to elicit Commission perspective and perhaps start drafting amendments to that section of the code. She pointed out that those code amendments will not be in place for the Year 2000 annual update, and they need to also determine an action plan for Year 2000 and in the interim what they can do to make the process a little smoother. The Planning Commission meeting scheduled February 24th would start the actual Planning Commission annual assessment which needs to be completed by May 1st. 1 ) Difficult to $uþstantiate Annual Amendments. . She referred to her handout, Findings and Conclusions Required for All Amendments including: a. Whether circumstances related to the proposed aqtendment and/or the ~t(a in which it is IQ9ated have substantiaUy chan¡ed since the adQption of the Port Town~end cOUlprehensive plan~ .. Probably obvious things, e.g., mill closure or some huge business moving to town -- has not yet happened, but has potential with the County designation of UGAs, etc. b. Whether the assumptions 1Jpon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid. or whether new information is available which )Vas not considered durin~ the aQoption process or aI\Y annual amendments of the Port Townsend çomJ}rehensive plan; .. Key issue at this time. When the Comp Plan was adopted it was based on some assumptions that are included in the introduction -- basically growth trends, what our population base will be. the age range and need for commercial versus residential lands. what kind of residential land will be in demand based on age and salary ranges of the population. Annual updates on that kind of information are not received; the Office of Financial Management (OFM) does their census every 10 years. The information they receive on an annual basis is by asking the City how many building permits have been issued, and how many multifamily units the City has. The City does not have new documentation that would substantiate the change in a growth trend which would indicate the assumptions were wrong and they need to correct them. .. The County has been going through their first annual comp plan update. Ms. Surber met new County Planning Manager Warren Hart and Alice King, and they discussed how it really points to more of a 3-5 year assessment of the Comp Plan. If necessary, in between the OFM information that comes every 10 years, the County and City could jointly do population . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2000 Page 3 forecasts and cover the expense of doing housing needs assessments, etc., which would givè the basis to alter Port Townsend's Comp Plan. Ms. Surber said they do not want to go to that expense every year, and growth trends obviously aren't going to show much over 1 year; in order to get a trend you have to have 2 years. c. Whether tbe proposeçi amendment reflects current widely cot.nßU.lIÚty values. Þ- The amount of community input they receive on an annual basis is no way near what went into the original Comp Plan. Ms. Surber pointed out we can't expect people to show up every year and be as involved in the process as they were originally; if it were for example a 3 or 5"year cycle, people might be willing to commit some time on the periodic basis. Ms. Surber said one thing they have been talking about is an annual assessment. She clarified that she is really talking about suggested amendments; site specific amendments for rezones may possibly be considered on an annual basis. Perhaps policy changes, things that have a broader application, could be docketed for 3"5 year cycles. 2) VaiUe Docketing Criteria a. The 4ecision shall be based on an evaluation of the need. ur¡en«y. appropriateness of each suggested amendment. Docketing Criteria are pretty vague. Findings and Conclusions are pretty specific. Criteria for Annual Assessment (20.04.050 C.l) which the Planning Commission uses to make their recommendations is also pretty specific. · Need -- such things as conflict in county-wide plan policies, GMA, etc. · Urgency - a little difficult to show on an annual cycle. · Appropriateness. Ms. Surber said this is a little vague. The Planning Commission is supposed to have pretty specific reasons to docket something. The final Findings and Conclusions are pretty specific -- she suggested having something more specific on the docketing criteria to help to select which ones should really go forward, since it is a time consuming matter. Once a suggested amendment is docketed it becomes the City's amendment at that point, and it is no longer the onus of the applicant to substantiate the amendment. Ms. Surber also suggested including as part of the docketing criteria specific criteria that get to the point of whether there should be a 3-5 year cycle, when should it be put on a 3-5 year cycle, or when should it be done on an annual basis. She suggested if there were a real emergency we might want do it on an annual basis - otherwise, possibly make these criteria for a 3-year cycle. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2000 Page 4 3) Timeline Constraints a. Although the process doesn't actually start until the deadline for submitting an amendment May 1 st, and does not come to the Planning Commission for docketing for a month or so later, there is a crunch by end of the year. The code says by the second meeting in November they have to have an ordinance to Council. ~ This year, Staff wants to have a hearing with Council before drafting an ordinance, which limits time for workshops and hearings. o There are some obvious glitches in the code that don't allow for proper noticing. Last year they had to double notice a couple of times to cover the problem; Staff would like to fix that. 4) Need Fl.pldinli: for SEP A SUIdies a. Once a sUimested amendment Ii:~ts docketed it becomes the Ci1y's amendment. ~ This year there was a huge glitch. When the R-llIJR-IV was docketed, they got into the SEP A review and the SEP A responsible official felt it necessary for technical studies. A traffic study would have cost several thousand dollars; BCD did not have that in their budget, and did not know who would pay for that study. It then became a problem for Council, and they could not really vote on it. ~ Suggested change: somewhere along the process, probably at the docketing stage, Staff be able to say before docketing, that it is their feeling the amendment will need technical studies and indicate the ball park range ($10,000 for environmental impact analysis). That would then be part of the decision of whether or not to docket -- is it that urgent, or should they wait to the 3-5 year cycle when they will probably be doing other studies anyway? That information should be part of the docketing stage. 5) Planninli: Commission/Council Worbh%ps Crucial a. In the code. both are listed as voluntaty. ~ Staff strongly suggested doing at both the docketing stage and after the Planning Commission has made their recommendation. It is important for the new Council getting in sync, and for the Commission to convey their message completely and not have to rely purely on Staffs oral report. Ms. Surber suggested they could wait to see how many suggested amendments come in; if there are only one or two, it may not be necessary. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2000 Page 5 Ms. Thayer said after going through this process now, she felt they need to have workshops before going through the hearing process. Ms. Erickson felt the reason that worked, is that Council can ask questions at that stage on docketing it, see where the Commission is coming from and see why they felt it was important enough to put it on the docket. They concluded that former workshops had been done at the recommendation stage. Ms. Thayer referred to the January meeting when City Council members were present, and said the feeling she got was that Council meetings are to do business and to get it done quickly. She asked if they would have just a workshop in addition to their Council meeting to work things through? Mr. Randall explained this would be a workshop session other than the two regularly scheduled monthly Council meetings and felt it would work well with the Council's format. 6) Modification of Amendments ~- Mixed Blessings a. A suggested amendment, a policy level amendment, can be molded throughout the process. You can play with it all the way to the end result, but if it changed at the last minute, there could be problems: ~ the public feeling they were not well informed~ ~ Staff doesn't have time to give a clear picture of what that decision might mean; ~ implications that aren't obvious right there at the meeting; ~ SEP A needing to be redone. It would have to be pointed out, if the SEP A analysis had already been done and it was being changed dramatically, the SEP A analysis would no longer be applicable. Ms. Surber noted that Warren Hart was particularly concerned with the numerous amendments they were taking forward to their Board of County Commissioners and how much they may be played with at that hearing. The County Planning Commission was wondering if a lot of changes are made at that point would they have some input into the modifications. Ms. Surber suggested that at a workshop level there would be opportunity perhaps to talk about molding a specific amendment further and having input on whether or not it would still be agreeable to the amendment. B. Discussion of Problems Encountered and Suggested Amendments to 20.04 1) How Often Should the Plan be Amended? · Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2000 Page 6 · Ms. Thayer: We probably all agree with these comments; we could probably go into a 5-year update. How do we deal with the issues of emergency or a change; we need to accommodate what happens within that 5 years, and how do we determine what is the emergency? Ms. Erickson: I would be more comfortable with 3 years. Things are changing year to year -- 3 years is a long time. Look at how many changes we have already seen in just 2 years. I would be more comfortable to try 3 years, see how that works, and if we see there is still room we can bump it to 5 years. I would be nervous waiting 5 years; 3 years is a good start. Ms. Surber: I am planning a survey of other jurisdictions to see what others have changed to. Ms. Thayer: I would be comfortable with either. Mr. Harbison: Three years is an appropriate period of time to change. That would address people's concerns that they are going to be cut off in the process. Ms. Thayer: A year's process virtually takes all our time. Ms. Erickson: We start in February and it ends in November. It will give us a lot more time to work on the Comp Plan as far as other parts of it that need to be done. Ms. Surber: We have specific plans that need to be changed, i.e. the ESA ordinance. Ms. Erickson: The changes we have made over the last 2 years were not major changes; most of them were site specific or corrections. Ms. Thayer: We have spent a lot of time on corrections, which is understandable. Ms. Erickson: After 2 years the major corrections have been made. As long as site specific can still come in, if somehow criteria can be put down and they can meet the criteria, that a site specific comes in and not wait the 3 years or wherever they are in the 3-year or 5-year period. 2) Should Docketing Criteria be Revised? Mr. Harbison: Isn't that in the clarity of the document, criteria? Aren't we looking to make that determination? Mr. Randall: In addition to saying that right now this is annual, it would be basically a non-site specific policy limited to a periodic 3-year basis. Site specific would come under the existing criteria. A lot of exemptions are allowed outside the annual. Ms. Surber: It is in the municipal code. Ms. Erickson: What are the emergencies? Mr. Randall: . . . "Resolution of an emergency condition or situation that involves public health. safety or welfare and when adherence. . . would be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare. " Ms. Surber: We might search other codes through MRSC to see what docketing criteria we might come up with. We could then have workshops to specifically look at the docketing criteria to make sure any concerns are addressed that certain things do go forward on an annual basis. · · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2000 Page 7 Ms. Thayer: I think we four all agree and are comfortable with that. Ms. Surber: If that is agreeable with Mr. Randall, I will research what other jurisdictions have and we can start with that amendment, an amendment to the municipal code and not to the Comp Plan and is not part of the annual update process. It can be if you want to lump it together, but it can be a separate schedule. Mr. Harbison: Do we present those from the Commission to the Council? Mr. Randall: Concurred and said it would be like any Land Use amendment. 3) How Could PresentationslPackets be Improved? Ms. Surber asked if the Commission had any other suggestions that would help the process along, i.e. enough time for workshops; information during workshops. Ms. Thayer thought the Planning Commission had enough information, but maybe the City Council needed more. Mr. Youse advised that Council had a hard time wading through the information they did have. Ms. Surber noted that the Commission was considering a subject at each workshop and had packets for each subject. The Commission was focused only on that one thing; when it got to Council there was a huge stack of material from workshops, and it was difficult to decide what should go forward at that point. It was determined that Council needs to answer those concerns of what they need. Ms. Thayer said maybe workshops would help alleviate having to go through the volume of material. C. Action Plan for Year 2000 Annual Update Ms. Surber asked for suggestiòns for this year since they won't have the amendment for this year's process. She stated that when they docket they will try to be sure to bring the Commission's attention if technical studies are likely to be required. Ms. Thayer thought Council had some recommendations like the bedroom criteria. Ms. Surber replied Council made specific amendments and changed amendments at the last meeting they had, but as far as the Year 2000, they have not talked to them about what they would want to see in this annual process that would help them. She said she would think, even though they haven't changed the criteria yet, they would start to show specifically the need, urgency and appropriateness before Staff would make a recommendation for docketing. Mr. Harbison asked if there was any way a definition could be attached. Ms. Surber replied that being policy level material they could say what they assume is "need, urgency or appropriateness" and wondered if a correction might not be considered appropriateness. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2000 Page 8 Discussion followed regarding an eagle's nest located in the middle of a block rezoned C2H; that being the case, according to Fish and Wildlife there isn't any way to build a commercial building on that property. Mr. Randall pointed out the impossibility of the City proposing to change the land use and zoning designation of that block. Ms. Surber noted that as an urgent issue and would check into the matter. Chair Thayer indicated that was the only possible change that came to her mind. Mr. Randall stated he thinks the way the City does SEP A is really important. Reading through the SEP A section it says the City will do SEP A on these things; what if you have a situation where you felt it was appropriate, but the amendment was so significant, so sweeping and so unknown as to the overall impacts? Ms. Surber suggested it would have to be done on in an annual process, and said she felt there should be a point in the process to touch base with the Planning Commission and City Council and say this is where we ask, do we go or not. If we go forward with this, where does the money come from? She said it takes quite a bit of time to organize technical studies. Chair Thayer asked if there had been any response to the newspaper ad on the Plan update. No response has been received, but usually they come in towards the end of the allotted time. Ms. Surber said Warren Hart from the County is also going to push to get out of an annual cycle. She will be talking to him about how many years, what period he is thinking of. One suggestion she had received is that perhaps the City shouldn't be doing the same year the County is, and make sure we are not on exactly the same cycle as the County so the public doesn't have to be attending both processes at the same time. Mr. Randall suggested at the point the City does site specific amendments they ought to be able to put the burden of SEP A review on the applicant. Ms. Surber concurred and said the first year they designated suggested amendments and did a SEP A on them, and a separate one on site specific with a section on cumulative impacts. That was then supported by those monies, and the costs were easier to track. Ms. Thayer thought it should be the applicant's responsibility, unless something like an issue of the eagle's nest where the City had rezoned. Mr. Randall said he knows there is nothing in the RCWs that says they have to do an annual amendment process, but asked if there is anything about the Comp Plan criteria -- or did we come up with the docketing criteria? Ms. Thayer replied they talked about an annual update at first because they weren't sure what it was going to require. The agenda for February 24th was discussed. Since no one had any other input for the Year 2000 update, Ms. Surber suggested if the eagle's nest issue in zone C2H is the only thing on the agenda for February 24th, she could move it into some other scheduled meeting. Mr. Randall said maybe what they can do for this year, when they aren't doing the docketing criteria, is to put a lot of emphasis on really asking some tough questions -- what is the urgency? what is the need? does more than one specific property owner have a problem with this? is there ~ city-wide need? - really asking some tough questions. If you don't ask these · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2000 Page 9 questions it gets us into months of work:. Is the driver just one person; are there other ways we can work with them than doing a Comp Plan amendment? Ms. Surber will be looking into criteria common to other jurisdictions. Mr. Randall said they can apply those, and also when they do SEP A, they can try to apply a price tag to things so that people realize it is not a decision made in a vacuum; there are some consequences we need to take into account and with a price tag. He suggested that would occur at the docketing stage to let Commission know what studies would likely have to be done, and if too expensive it cannot be done. Ms. Erickson pointed out, if they really held strictly to the criteria of the annual assessment, proven need and urgency, the docketing is almost insignificant. Ms. Surber suggested they might use that as the docketing criteria. Ms. Erickson said all of these are basically for need and urgency. Appropriateness is in the eyes of the beholder, the same as "c" under Findings and Conclusions, "widely held community values." Other DiS((ussion: Chair Thayer asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Youse stated he is pushing a green street ordinance that comes out of Seattle, under Non-Motorized, and asked how the Planning Commission would handle that. He explained that instead of vacating a street to a private land owner, the City could turn it into a green street and agree not to put a street on it unless it goes before Council. In other words a land owner later couldn't say they are going to put a street on it; it would be a green street and would have to go to Council to approve a change back out of a green street. There may be reasons to do a green street and reasons not to do it, Le., if a neighborhood decides they want one access -- there are plenty of facilities for fire, etc. They may want to form their own little neighborhood using green streets and be open for trails and open spaces. But, it couldn't be changed unless it comes before Council. He said Scott Wilson suggested the ordinance and Mr. Youse proposed it to go to the Non-Motorized Committee. He asked if the Commission felt it should come before them, or how it should be handled. Ms. Erickson asked if property owners that instigate this would be responsible for maintaining it; or basically that it will not be developed into a street by a single person or a single property owner, that the neighborhood would like this to stay natural vegetation? Mr. Youse replied it would be city property, and the Non-Motorized Committee would put trails across it He said it wouldn't be a piec~roperty where the trees possibly would be knocked down for parking, etc.; it would just be open space, basically, and would be addressed by the neighborhood. Ms. Thayer expressed that she felt it was appropriate to go through the Non-Motorized Committee and then back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Randall pointed out that in the Non- Motorized Plan streets that are shown as green and are not to be opened. They were adopted as · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2000 Page 10 part of the Non-Motorized Plan. He said he thought those streets were looked at to some extent by the Non-Motorized Committee that drafted the Non-Motorized Plan, but there was no real specific review by the public. He said he thought the green street program would give a little more meaning and definition, and if a street is not to be opened anymore it could potentially be called a "green street." He supposed at the time this ordinance would be adopted one option would be for the city to say they feel so strongly about some of those they feel they want to propose them as green streets right now, or to say no they are only going to allow adjacent property owner's to propose. There are a number of different ways. Mr. Youse said it would be discussed, but one of the concerns he has is that the rights of the neighborhood and of the property owners be considered before it happens, that he is for property owner's rights. Ms. Erickson said she could see a problem unless the abutting property owners are in favor. Mr. Randall said right now you can pretty much open a street if you want. We do have streets that are not to be opened on the map which means that Public Works and BCD Staff will discourage opening of certain streets as streets, but right now, adjacent property owners don't get to comment necessarily. Mr. Randall felt it should go to the Non-Motorized Committee and then to the Planning Commission as an ordinance. Mr. Youse said Council proposed it be sent to the Non-Motorized Committee. It was indicated as a component ofthe Non-Motorized Plan, and that every amendment is adopted as an ordinance. Mr. Randall said what Mr. Youse is suggesting is a lot more specific than the policies of the Non-Motorized Plan and creates process e.g. hearings, etc. Ms. Surber said if it doesn't change anything in the Non- Motorized Transportation Plan, it could be done. Ms. Erickson stated it sounds like it would put action to the Non-Motorized Plan, and Mr. Randall suggested it could very well be consistent with the intent of the policies of open space, etc. Mr. Youse said it is pretty important to the Non-Motorized Committee, if they can make it work with their Plan and everyone agrees. It was agreed that the ordinance should then come back to the Planning Commission. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS FebruaJ:y 24. lQ99 -- Comprehensive Plan Annual Assessment IX. COMMUNICATIONS- Current Mail · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2000 Page 11 X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Ota and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. éf!~ < ~M>k / Karen EricksQn /) .(þ ~1 ~t{:r,-. Sheila Avis. Minute Taker . Guest List ~-Plc1\ìíì\ \1:\ CO\lìí\li".Non rt hflJ(\{lI I D I 2ono ~me ~lease ~rint) Address Do you wish ~ If yes, i:1dicaœ ~--- testify?(Mark bOx) topic Yes No S~ÞAJ > ~ ~JIl A-1!~ y~" A 0 . - .- - -. - .~ .. , ......- - - ! . ." .. - ·t " :",,"·..'·~··-:"'<."-'Ü . ,'- -.. j -- . " .. ....... ..- ~