Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05312001 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 31,2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers after a delay to adjust audio equipment. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jerry Spieckerman, Bernie Arthur, Jim IIvin, and Frank Benskin. Lyn Hersey was unexcused. Also present were BCD staff members Judy Surber and Jean Walat, and City Attorney John Watts. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2001 as written was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Mr. Arthur. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearing - Preliminary Docket, 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chair Harbison explained initial testimony time limit for those proposing amendments will be 5 minutes; time limits for proponents and those opposing will be 3 minutes. He asked Ms. Surber to make the BCD Staff presentation. She explained that this is an annual update of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted the BCD Department received four proposed Comp Plan amendments from the public; in addition, the BCD Department also suggested four amendments. One formal amendment proposed by the Northwest Maritime Center regarding height limitations is automatically placed on the final docket. Ms. Surber pointed out that the site specific suggested rezone amendments should be treated as quasi- judicial and are in various areas of the city. She said the Planning Commission recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council for their meeting of June 18,2001. Mr. Spieckerman asked the procedural question if amendment consideration would be block by block or if each amendment would be considered separately. CONSENSUS: Attempt to proceed considering each amendment separately. TEXT AMENDMENTS: 1. Clarifv Definitions of Unit/Bedroom and Various Housin2 Tvnes Ms. Surber noted there had been inconsistencies in definitions. She stated BCD recommends placing the amendment on the docket. · Mr. Spieckerman stated that during a recent public hearing they were confused regarding different levels of care for assisted living facilities, nursing homes and congregate care facilities. He asked that they be very clear as to the different levels of care, that it is not a clear issue. Mr. Benskin asked who would be responsible for that clarification. Ms. Surber indicated BCD would revisit those definitions to clarify them. BCD's recommended changes would be presented to the Planning Commission later in the year. There would be opportunity for public input during SEP A review and subsequent hearings. Mr. Arthur asked if the Planning Commission is basically looking at problem areas, and if they need to look at them. Mr. Harbison pointed out there is new information, and that the issues will only be considered if they are approved for the docket. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -- There was none. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Place on the docket SECOND Mr. Irvin VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR Ms. Surber suggested scheduling a meeting before recommendations go to the City Council. She indicated information could be forwarded to Mr. Harbison. 2. Revise Goals & Policies. which Imolv a Soecific Utilitv Provider Chair Harbison asked if there were questions. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -- There was none. · COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Spieckerman suggested there is the possibility of a name change for Puget Power. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Place on the docket SECOND Mr. Irvin VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR 3. Add Policv re: Maior Industrial Develooments PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. Larry Crockett, General Manager, Port of Port Townsend Supported BCD Staff's recommendation to place amendment #3 on the docket. Mr. Bob Sokol. Commissioner, Port of Port Townsend Port Commissioner Sokol concurred with Mr. Crockett. Mr. Sokol also requested a change in wording to paragraph 2 of amendment #3, changing the word "may" -- to read "Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), counties, in consultation with cities, "will" establish a process for siting of specific major industrial developments (MIDs) outside of urban growth areas (RCW 36.70A.365 . . .)" COMMISSION DISCUSSION · Mr. Spieckerman raised the question if an MID is commercial rather than industrial. He said he is a firm backer of industrial development and would like to see cooperation with the County. The question was asked, is it is true this is a requirement? Ms. Surber responded that an MID is limited to industrial activity and retail commercial activity cannot be part of an MID; her recollection is the RCW states may establish an MID process, but she further 2 · · · indicated the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) has directed City and County staff to begin creating language changes for insertion into the County's Uniform Development Code (UDC). It was asked why the City should be involved at all. City Attorney Watts explained that this is more of a process for the City. MOTION Mr. Arthur Place on the docket SECOND Mr. Spieckerman VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR Ms. Surber spoke of consistency to develop policy recognizing county ordinances. She pointed out a correction on page 4 of the Staff Report --" . . . Suggested Amendment #4" (rather than #3). 4. Remove FUGA Lan2Ua2e from the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Surber indicated BCD had meet with People for a Livable Community (PLC), a City Planner who had previously been involved with the Comp Plan, and also with the County. She pointed out this matter has been on hold at the County since 1999 and is now being reconsidered since the County has adopted their Uniform Development Code. She noted the City's Comp Plan considers the potential for a future UGA, but that the County has a time line to go ahead with adoption of a Glenn Cove UGA in June/July of this year. She indicated the County's currently proposed Glenn Cove UGA boundary is smaller than the FUGA shown in the City's Comp Plan. PLC proposes removing all references to a Glenn Cove FUGA from the City's Comp Plan. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ms. Freda Fe!!!!, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend Ms. Fenn reported that an emergency had arisen in Ms. Nancy Dorgan's family immediately preceding the meeting. Ms. Fenn therefore read Ms. Dorgan's written testimony: Public Testimonv -- People for a Liveable Community "It is urgent that we remove the conceptual FUGA language before it can be used -- even in error -- to justify a new Glen Cove UGA that is about to be designated right at the City limits. The average citizens of Port Townsend do not support a Glen Cove regional shopping area, and regional retail C-IV zoning was erroneously adopted in our Comp Plan in 1996. 'Under the Growth Management Act, consensus on a community vision is a requirement -- planning must begin by asking citizens what they want their hometown to be like, look like and feel like in the future, at least for the next twenty years. A broad, publicly supported vision is the focus of our state's planning law and process. The opinions of elected officials, City Staff, and special interest property owners are heard, but their views are supposed to be secondary to the community vision. The desires of the community at large are supposed to drive land use planning in Washington State. 'In setting out the procedural criteria for designating Urban Growth Areas, the Washington Administrative Code says that: . "The urban growth area should represent the physical area within which that jurisdiction's vision of urban development can be realized over the next twenty years" (WAC 365-195-335(2)(3)(b). 'The WAC also states that the city's process of making a UGA proposal to the county should involve: "Selection of communitv l!rowth l!oals with respect to population, commercial and industrial development and residential development. (WAC 365-195(3)(d)(ii) 'The required visioning took place back in 1993 when the City conducted a series of public activities designed to generate the Community Direction Statement which is now Chapter III in our Comp Plan and which has to be the rationale for all the goals and policies in the remaining chapters. As part of the PT2020 coffee hour process in 1993, over 80 coffees in private homes were held, involving 1,400 hours of public participation. The Port Townsend public overwhelmingly expressed its desire to protect and enhance this vital small pedestrian-oriented town with a diverse local economy. 'In October of 1994, the City prepared a full 2-page insert, which ran twice in the Leader. People were asked for feedback on the community objectives that should receive the most emphasis in the comprehensive plan, and, in ranked order, the public chose: small town character, 3 · · · preservation of the environment/quality of life, pedestrian orientation, economic development that encouraged small business, and a diverse employment base. 'The newspaper insert included maps of proposed options available to the people of Port Townsend and asked them to select the one they liked best. Alternative 1) "Residential Community" and Alternative 2, "Neicl1borhood Community" are identical in the Glen Cove, but Alternative 3, called "Urban Community", proposed the creation of a huge new commercial center extending from Upper Sims Way down along the highway and out oftown. None of these maps included any proposed FUGA boundaries, however, the narrative describing this map says "this alternative assumes the annexation of commercial and industrial areas adjacent to Port Townsend. . ." [Ms. Fenn showed maps entered into the record as: Exhibit L: Enlarged maps and The Leader survey, October 1994 Exhibit M:Enlarged maps showing options 1, 2 and 3] 'When asked which planning alternative they preferred, 91.3% of the responses to that question chose an option that did not expand the city's commercial center out to Glen Cove. When also asked if the City should "encourage large-scale commercial-retaü developments", 94% of the respondents said "No". Combined with the earlier PT2020, the expressed community vision was quite clear. 'When you contrast that public vision of a small town with the looming annexation of lands all the way out to Old Fort Townsend Road, mostly for a sprawling commercial district and a regional shopping center, you have to ask yourself how such diametrically opposed policies could coexist in the same document. 'The June 3, 1996 Planning Commission draft of Policy 8.9 was preceded by a note that this policy applied only to alternative no. 3. At that point in time, the policy read: "Locate regional commercial retailers, which cater to a county-wide or multi-county clientele, in the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend urban growth area." 'During their deliberations of that draft, the City Council voted unanimously on July 2, 1996 to delete that policy as well as to delete policy 16.2.1 which stated: "Limit larger scale regional retailers to one or two locations (i.e. approximately 20 acres) within the unincorporated portion of the UGA." 'At the next council session on July 9th the following week, BCD staff returned to the Council with reworded versions of those policies, suggesting instead that Policy 8.9 read: "Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing regional commercial uses, along with the primary light manufacturing and associated community-serving commercial uses, in the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA)." 'Staff also proposed new wording for 16.2.1, which then became: "Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing up to 2 locations, i.e., a total of approximately 20 acres for regional retail use within the incorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area." 'Both staff revisions were unanimously tabled by the City Council. The text of both tabled motions, however, was inadvertently left in the Plan and adopted the following week on July 15, 1996. 'PLC would like those two policies deleted from the Comprehensive Plan because they were clearly adopted in error, and we would like the remainder of the Glen Cove FUGA language to also be removed because it does not accurately reflect the community vision of protecting our small town character. ' [Ms. Dorgan's written testimony was submitted and entered into the record as Exhibit N.] Mr. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend Mr. Lockwood, People for a Livable Community, reported from his written testimony, excerpting a table from the Washington Office of Financial Management which was attached to his comments. His written testimony and excerpt were entered into public record as Exhibit O. 'Although the Public had clearly stated that it did not want the high growth alternative that depicted commercial growth sprawling down the highway, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan on July 15, 1996 which envisioned light industrial, associated retail, locally serving retail, and regional retail occurring in Glen Cove. 'The public has not changed its mind. It still wants the alternative 2 it picked in 1994 which was characterized by, "'the focused growth' alternative [which] would not serve to aggressively expand Port Townsend's commercial and industrial base." 4 · · · 'Members of People for a Liveable Community have talked to several past City employees who worked on the Glen Cove proposals. They expressed concern that the County was going to do "something" in the Glen Cove area that the City wouldn't like, and that the City needs to annex Glen Cove to control the process. Our careful research shows that this fear is unfounded. The County cannot do something on our boarders that the people of Port Townsend have said they don't want. And we do not need to annex Glen Cove and develop it to prevent them (see RCW 36.70A.IOO, RCW 36.70A.21O and County Wide Planning Policies 3.4 & 3.5. 'Tbe proposed expansion of our UGA (or FUGA) is not GMA compliant. 'According to US Census 2000 data, Jefferson County has grown at an average rate of 2.7% over the past decade. Port Townsend grew at an average of only 1. 9% over the decade. During the last 3 years both Port Townsend and Jefferson County as a whole have grown at less than one percent a year (see Washington State Office of Financial Management data below). [See Exhibit 0.] All these numbers are way below the 4% growth rate that the County is trying to base its attempt to expand our Urban Growth Area boundaries on. 'Neither the City nor the County has, as yet, any adopted policy regarding a Glen Cove UGA. So far the County has only produced a study of the Glen Cove UGA. When the County passes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it will be required to justify its actions based on the actual OFM population statistics. 'The estimated population that can be accommodated within our current City Limits is 30,000 people. Eighty percent of the platted, buildable land in Port Townsend is undeveloped. The Growth Management Act will not allow Port Townsend to expand its city limits or its Urban Growth Area while there is still plenty of available land inside its UGA. 'Port Townsend residents want to presen'e the existing buffer between City Limits and the Glen Cove Industrial Park. 'There is a big difference between rural residential and urban zoning. The undeveloped land at the edge oftown is currently zoned rural residential. The Growth Management Act will attempt to protect this land from being developed so long as it remains outside an Urban Growth Area. The opposite is true if the land is included inside an Urban Growth Area. The Growth Management Act requires counties to direct development toward Urban Growth Areas and attempts to protect rural areas. 'Regardless of the type of commercial zoning the Glen Cove UGA is assigned, the new jobs will likely cause population growth. The bulk of the population allocation for Glen Cove will be assigned to Port Townsend. 'The off site infrastructure costs to develop Glen Cove are estimated at over $100,000 per business acre, by Jefferson County (see their Oct.2000 publication, "Jefferson County Viewpoint"). These costs will be paid for by the taxpayer. The projected population increase will require us to expand our City Hall, fire department, police department, EMT, and parks and recreation areas. These costs, which are also paid for by the taxpayer, are not included in the $100,000 computation. 'The human cost of dealing with increased traffic, loss of open space, increased congestion, and noise have also not been computed. Why should Port Townsend residents be overwhelmed by a type of growth, which the majority of its citizens have stated they do not want? 'The FUGA language in our Comprehensive Plan invites exactly the type of rim development rejected by the citizenry during the community visioning process. Big development on the edge of town has killed the city centers of thousands of small towns all across America. Port Townsend taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for the destruction of their own downtown. 'Tonight:. we ask you, members of the Planning Commission, to go to bat for the public interest. Please take to heart the many ways in which the broader community has expressed its vision for Port Townsend. Our Comprehensive Plan should match the community's pride and love for this place as a unique, small town. We don't want to become Anywhere, USA. Please recommend that our amendment be docketed. Mr. JeffKeletv. 419 Benton Street, Port Townsend Mr. Kelety read and submitted his written testimony which was entered into the record as Exhibit P: 'Members of the Planning Commission: 'I would like to speak tonight on the appropriateness of removing references to C-IV zoning and Glen Cove from our Comprehensive Plan as proposed in PLC's amendment. 'Zoning is crucial to the way our land is used or in the case of our present Comp Plan, abused. Zoning is the instrument that takes us as a community from vision to implementation. It is normally part of a citizen planning process. However, no citizen-planning group ever came up with the concept of C-IV zoning or recommended its inclusion in the Compo Plan. It is quite irregular, as has been done in our Compo Plan, to pre-assign zoning categories to lands that are not yet within the city limits. Normally, a zoning designation in the City's Plan can be implemented only if the land already lies within the City limits and is therefore subject to the City's zoning code. 5 · · · The only way to apply C-IV to Glen Cove is to annex it into the city. And the result is a very dangerous cart before the horse. 'Even though all the Glen Cove text in the Comp Plan is couched in conceptual terms, the eventual annexation of Glen Cove is the lurking subtext in the document. The very long section on the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) on page 2 of the Land Use Chapter contains the following statement: ''It is anticipated that Port Townsend's FUGA boundary will be designated either at the time Jefferson County adopts its GMA Comprehensive Plan, or in the subsequent amendment to that Plan. Ultimately, this process is likely to lead to the development of joint planning, management, and annexation policiesfor the unincorporated portion of the FUGA." 'Annexation of Glen Cove is where this is all heading, and with it an additional fiscal burden to Port Townsend taxpayers. In November of 1997, the City replied to a request from the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee for more information about the City's request that new commercial or industrial developers in the Glen Cove area be required to sign no-protest agreements to annex their land to the City if Glen Cove should be added to the Urban Growth Area of the City. The resulting discussion indicated just how serious Council is to extend the borders of our town. 'It is the contention ofPLC, however, that the Comp. Plan's references to a final urban growth area and the associated annexation of Glen Cove is entirely at odds with our community's vision of growth as reflected in The Community Direction Statement. Such language should never have been written into the Comp Plan in the first place. 'It is our abiding conviction that a regional shopping center in Glen Cove just outside our city limits is as harmful as a shopping center inside the city limits, should they be shifted south to accommodate the development. Commercial development on the edge of town weakens and destroys downtown centers. Numerous examples exist in Western Washington: Tacoma, Centralia, Chehalis, and Vancouver, just to name a few. Thousands of examples exist across the US and Canada. . . it's called sprawl. 'It is completely inconsistent and self-defeating to talk about preserving our sense of place and small town character while at the same time proposing an expansion of the City limits all the way out to Old Fort Townsend Road. Nobody, by any stretch, thinks of that area as part of Port Townsend. The small, walkable township envisioned by our Community Direction Statement will be irreparably harmed by the application of C-IV zoning to an annexed Glen Cove. Big box retail, so far from the center of town will preclude pedestrian shopping. A constant flow of traffic will further jam an already stressed Sims Way corridor. 'It must be said that our Comp Plan as presently penned is schizophrenic. It celebrates the historic, small town vision with great enthusiasm, yet contains the seeds for destroying that very vision by embedding references to Glen Cove and C-IV zoning. There is a cure, however. Please recommend to the City Council that PLC's amendment be docketed so that the Comp Plan can be amended to reflect the people's vision for our future. Jim Todd, 1515 Fir Street, Port Townsend Mr. Todd read and submitted his written testimony which was entered into the record as Exhibit Q: 'Our city Comprehensive Plan was adopted in July, 1996. One of the important criteria for docketing proposed Compo Plan amendments is whether anything relevant has changed since that time. One of the tremendous changes which HAS occurred, is the numerous studies and books now available on the true cost of growth and the true cost of the sprawl model of development. We have information available to us now, that the City Council and citizens simply did not have in 1996. In light of the new information available, I want to affirm that the "C-IV zoning and regional retail" language, as well as the multiple references to pulling Glen Cove into the city of Port Townsend urgently need to be deleted from our otherwise excellent Comprehensive Plan. 'Tonight, I will quote from a nationally recognized leader in cost of growth research, Mr. Eben Fodor. 'These direct quotes come from, Better Not Bigger, his ground-breaking book published in 1999 by New Society Publishers. Fodor is a professional community planning consultant, living in Oregon. His carefully researched book contains information and references to over 100 studies. Scale of Urban Development, p. 19 "In the U.S., we have lost 95 percent of our old-growth forest, 55 percent of our wetlands, and 99 percent of our native prairies. . . Urban development in North America has covered more land in the last 50 years than in all previous history. Between 1982 and 1992, 14 million acres of the US became developed land. This area of newly urbanized land is equal in size to football fields laid end to end circling the earth nine times. Urban sprawl in the U.S. is consuming 160 acres of land every hour." Annexation, p. 125 6 . . e "Annexation is the process through which municipalities expand their boundaries to include land outside the incorporated city limits. Developers often seek annexations in order to gain access to the urban services provided by the city. Expanding these services can result in a new burden on the city's taxpayer. Policies restricting annexations can help ensure that development is compatible with the city and fiscally balanced. Requiring a fiscal (or taxpayer) impact analysis is one approach." Population Growth, p. 144 ". . . even if population growth occurs at the apparently slow rate of one percent per year, the population will double every 70 years and the consequences will eventually become impossible." Cost of Sprawl, p. 82 "On the whole, studies on the cost of sprawl tend to show that compact, well-planned growth consumes about 45 percent less land and cost 25 percent less for roads, 20 percent less for utilities and 5 percent less for schools." (Robert Burchell's study, "Cost of Sprawl Revisited: The Evidence of Sprawl's Negative and Positive Impacts" Natl. Transportation Research Board, 1998.) Cost to Existing Residents, p. 86 ". . . existing residents continue to pay a greater share of new infrastructure costs required to serve new development. The more the city grows, the greater the burden on existing residents." Cost benefit Analysis, p 103 "Finally, it is argued that growth benefits the community and therefore deserves to be subsidized. The benefits are said to include increased revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and increased business revenues. As we have seen, increased tax revenues are often not sufficient to offset the increased costs of serving new growth. While certain private businesses and individuals in the community may benefit from growth, the real question is whether the community as a whole benefits. .. If growth really does produce broader benefits, it should be possible to document them in an objective analysis performed by the local government." "In addition to using an economic cost-benefit analysis, the local government can perform a community impact analysis that provides broader and more complete information on a given development proposal . .. By doing a community impact analysis, the community can make much more informed decisions about major new developments." '[Example of Note: Greenfield, Massachusetts requires a citizen committee to do a community impact assessment on all stores that exceed 20,000 sq. feet or are expected to generate more than 500 vehicle trips a day. They evaluate: environmental impact, public revenue stream, historic preservation, traffic flow, effect on local economy, effect on existing business districts, and the effect on community character.] 'Thank you for your attention. Please recommend that our amendment be docketed for this year's Compo Plan cycle. Mr. Todd referred to a recent planning seminar in Port Townsend with the Governor of Maryland. Mr. Todd also claimed the book from which he quoted, Better not Bigger, should be a workbook. The book was submitted into the record as Exhibit R. Ms. Rosemary Russell, 776 53rd Street, Port Townsend Ms. Russell read and submitted her written testimony which was entered into the record as Exhibit S: 'In 1997 my husband and I were driven out of East Bremerton by the encroachment of a commercial strip of gas stations, fast food places and huge retail stores coming relentlessly toward us from the south, together with a sea of housing developments from the west Walking or cycling along the four-lane highway as a means of transportation from our home became impossible and all sense of community was lost. 'We came to Port Townsend because we saw that most people here still believe passionately in their community. We were encouraged to find there was a strong committee focused on non-motorized transportation and another on historic preservation, as well as a number of other committees whose energies were directed toward making this town a pleasant place for all of us to live. We were further encouraged to find local ownership of so many businesses and that owners and employees alike lived, shopped and played in Port Townsend. 'We believe we can all win by approaching the problems of growth and change in a creative but sustainable way. We believe that the creation of living wage jobs need not conflict with a healthy and beautiful environment in which to raise a family or retire. We are people of modest means but we want to do all we can to ensure that the BremertonlSilverdale sprawl stays in Kitsap County and doesn't get translated to Port Townsend. Please accept the Proposed Amendment to remove C-IV Regional Retail Zoning for Glen Cove and all references to annexation of the Glen Cove area. 7 · · · Nora Regan, 1331 Olympic, Port Townsend Ms. Regan spoke in opposition to the C-IV zoning, and read" 10 sins of economic sprawl." She stated that Glen Cove is not an acceptable entrance to our Victorian town. She noted the concerns of her 87 year old aunt in Montana that their K Mart had gone out of business because a WalMart store located nearby. Ms. Regan urged the Planning Commission to docket the proposed amendment. Arne Hansen, 1331 Olympic, Port Townsend Mr. Hansen said his main concern is the devastating impact also on costs. He referred to the October 2000 Jefferson County Viewpoint and quoted such statistics as "the cost of providing infrastructure (sewer and water) for the six year period is $9.0 million in the Glen Cove PUGA"; "The cost to install infrastructure. .. $106,816 per business acre in Glen Cove." He spoke of long-range costs and additional costs and asked if this is quality oflife, answering that it is not. He urged the Planning Commission to support the amendment. He submitted Jefferson County Viewpoint, October 2000 which was entered into the record as Exhibit T. Mr. Phil Dinsmore, 320 Meadow Road, Port Townsend Mr. Dinsmore read from a prepared written statement, which was later submitted and entered into the record as Exhibit U. He spoke in favor of the PLC's proposed amendment, and in particular, the paragraph that he said this well-researched amendment proposes to add: "Develop a "Community Vitality Plan" to protect and enhance the local economy and the inherent social value of locally owned businesses. The Community Vitality Plan shall recommend techniques and legislation to strengthen local businesses and minimize the adverse effects of corporate businesses headquartered outside the community. He made the following claims: When RiteAid attempted to move into town, 2,600 signed a petition against it. Next was an attempt by the Hollywood Video chain and over 2,300 community people signed a petition against that. Recently 62% of the Port Townsend voters in the last County Commissioners election voted for Michelle Sandoval and her vision of Glen Cove, a modest expansion of only light industrial zoning. These are all public expressions of a desire to preserve and enhance the local economy. He said this is new information since the Comp Plan was adopted and is relevant to the docketing process. Mr. Dinsmore said Glen Cove is not the place for regional retail; C-IV zoning and the retail sprawl that it entails is not in our economic best interest. He alleged that the signers of the Hollywood Video petition, which he said for the record he would submit, said that not only would they boycott such a chain store, but that the City Council should take proactive steps to protect and enhance our town's unique commercial landscape. That section of the petition reads: "Our City Council should adopt a chain franchise ordinance, like Bainbridge Island's, for the welfare and betterment of the community." He continued, this proposed Comp Plan amendment, like the Hollywood Video petition, is not just about saying no to something. The authors have identified and documented a very real threat to our community and what its residents value. This amendment provides a way for the City to put the brakes on its participation in the Glen Cove sprawl game with the removal of C-IV zoning. And with its call for a Community Vitality Plan, it proposes a positive future vision, protecting and enhancing what's good for the whole community. Mr. Dinsmore said communities around the country are using innovative legislation to enhance and preserve their local economies. It is a good time to get language into our city's chief planning document and encourages the city to plan for a vigorous community-based economy. Thank you. [Mr. Dinsmore submitted a signed petition against Hollywood Videos, which was entered into the record as Exhibit v.) Mr. Bob Sokol, Citizen, 1005 Quincy, Port Townsend Mr. Sokol said he was a council member when the City was going through the initial Comp Plan adoption process. He said the first comp plan he saw was a whole stack of blank paper; nothing had been written it -- it has come a long way since then. He stated he was against including Glen Cove as a part of the FUGA at that time. His recollection was that the 20-year population projection was 13,013 people; the City had a land capacity, as mentioned earlier, of 30,000 8 · · · people. It was definitely, in his opinion, unnecessary sprawl. He said, however, the other six council members in the ensuing council were unable to make the difficult decisions about what land within the city limits to upgrade to industrial and/or commercial and didn't even talk about zoning to meet the minimum requirement of the Growth Management Act. He stated the vision at that time was not within the City Limits (also to protect the small town environment). Mr. Sokol proposed adopting Staff Recommendation #3 -- .., that the item not be placed on the final docket because the proponents have not identified the land within the UGA, i.e. the City of Port Townsend, to make up the for the commerciaVindustrial deficit caused from removing Glen Cove from the Comp Plan. He claimed this deficit will put the City out of compliance with the Growth Management Act, and suggested that if this process were to be followed through at next year's update and revision that balance could be established, and then Glen Cove could be taken out of the Comp Plan. He said his reasons are a little bit different than recommendation #3. Although, back in those days there were many hours of community and public comment, etc. and the Western Growth Management Hearings Board actually complimented the City during the challenge of the Comp Plan for the good public process they went through. He indicated it is very possible that next year the County's action within the Glen Cove area would make this whole thing moot. Mr. Larry Crockett, Citizen, 153 McCurdy Pt. Rd., Port Townsend Mr. Crockett said he was now speaking as a citizen and taxpayer who pay taxes to the City of Port Townsend, and not as Port Manager. He said he guessed he agreed with what Mr. Sokol said, although he was not here at that time. He mentioned he felt it odd that the same group opposing this amendment, the PLC, just a few weeks back took out a full-page ad in The Leader recommending that we should follow the lead of a city in New York. He declared that city is a town about the same size, about 8,700 folks, with an historic downtown actually older than Port Townsend. He went on to say the lead we are told to follow was exactly what Glen Cove is to Port Townsend - - that New York town formed a highway commercial zone, what they called it in the zoning code, for businesses up to 45,000 square foot for commercial to allow grocery stores and that sort of thing, but small enough to keep out malls and WalMarts. He claimed they also established an office/businesslindustrial park to allow buildings up to 300,000 square feet for industrial, not commercial, and they put it all out on Highway 20 (their main road like it is here), and that they did that purposely to protect their historic downtown, to keep it outside the city -- inside the city but outside the historic district. Mr. Crockett stated his fear is what Mr. Sokol eluded to under the UGA. We are the only UGA in this county. He said we have to absorb all the growth when it comes to commercial and industry, and he does not want to see all the open space used up within our city limits as it is now and thereby jeopardizing other stores in town. He suggested putting it out in Glen Cove, in that area. He indicated they keep bringing up the specter ofWalMart and shopping malls such as Silverdale. He declared there is not enough land there for that, and nobody except the PLC has even proposed that would be a suitable site for a shopping mall, that he hasn't heard that from the County yet. He also recommended Staff Recommendation #3. He stated that BCD Staff has better things to apply their time to, that other taxpayers in the City don't want to waste any more tax dollars on this amendment. Ms. Michelle Sandoval, 686 Roosevelt, Port Townsend Ms. Sandoval said she was in attendance to testify on another issue but wanted to respond on the previous comments. She had three points to make: 1) Infrastructure; infrastructure; infrastructure. She said the city cannot afford to put in the infrastructure; she thought at least that is why the city is starting to talk about floating monies to do so, and yet we are willing to expand at a cost that is going to be so great to the taxpayers. She asserted we have plenty commercial/light industrial zoned; what we don't have is the infrastructure to make that usable. She suggested the city put in the infrastructure instead of expanding for more land which will mean more infrastructure -- more unaffordable infrastructure -- more taxes for the citizens. She said she would move on quickly, but infrastructure is the main concern. 2) She questioned Mr. Sokol's contention that this would deplete or somehow go against the GMA requirement for commercial land, and said she would like to see proof of that inside the city limits, what is required by the GMA for the city to have and whether or not we have enough land. She thinks it is extremely important that they get the facts of that, and doesn't think we will be out of compliance by not zoning that, given it is outside the city limits already. 3) She pointed out what she thought was an oversight by Mr. Crockett. He said he is a citizen of Port Townsend and pays city taxes. She said that in fact Mill Point Road is outside of the City Limits; he's a county 9 · · · resident. Mr. Larry Crockett replied he owns a house in Port Townsend and pays taxes on it. Mr. Brian Hoffman, 2538 Gise Street, Port Townsend Mr. Hoffman said he had not intended to speak, but he had a process question. He said he was shocked to hear about years and years of inviting the public to participate in a process he would call participatory democracy, something he takes very seriously as a U.S. citizen, and yet there is talk about usurping the will of the people. It's either "the City might do it," or the "County might do it." He said it just shocks him that this happens, so he asked the Planning Commission to prove to them that they still do have a participatory democracy, that this isn't the shadow of a Soviet style community where we take the land, the use of half of the land, away from the people. The people have spoken. It sounds like for years and years people have been talking in large numbers about what they see as their vision of our community. He said he doesn't understand how in the United States it's possible for the people we either elect, or people we have chosen to represent us, to take away our will from us, to take our power away from us, to take our choices away from us. He said that shocks him, so he asked for the Planning Commission to prove to them that they are still a participatory democracy, please. Mr. John Lockwood Mr. Lockwood asked to speak again, since Ms. Dorgan was not present, saying he would like to make a couple of comments from the applicant's standpoint of what has been spoken about. He first addressed Bob Sokol's presentation stating that the Growth Management Act actually requires us to do what Mr. Sokol was in favor of back then; it requires infill. He pointed to Exhibit M, maps with options, and said the other thing, which may have gotten missed, they reported 91.3% of the people did not pick expanding our city limits. You take the alternatives that had the Glen Cove industrial park exactly the same size, and of those 90% of the people picked Alternative 2. He went on to say Alternative 2 is the neighborhood intensification alternative, that it has predicted a substantial increase in Port Townsend's population, a substantial increase in its density, and a substantial increase in its commercial activity. He asserted it was an alternative that envisioned these increases, and pointed to the maps showing what he said we were, and the existing situation, and that the town has essentially intensified. He then said the public has had no problem with the fact that Port Townsend is growing or becoming more commercially intense than it is now; it just did not want sprawl at the city limits to do it, and that should have been in the Comp Plan. Mr. Lockwood spoke of Ms. Surber's comment that the County is starting to generate momentum to again proceed with the UGA. He said he talked to the County Planner today, and talked to him last week regarding what is going on in the County, and that the County is actually going on an ordinance it is planning to vote on in a month, which they think will establish the UGA. He said they talked to the State, and the State indicated there were things they had not yet completed, e.g., the impact analysis, Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, have not submitted a proposal to CTED. He suggested there is a big debate whether or not the County is trying to do something legal, or illegal. He urged that this thing is very timely, that it needs to be dealt with, and the City needs to be shown that it is in process of expressing the people's will as opposed to just letting this thing happen despite our best intentions. His final comment was, to Messrs. Crockett and Sokol, the Growth Management Act does not, and he repeated, does not require that we plan for commercial growth; it requires that counties plan to accommodate population growth. He said it is within the power and the prerogative of cities to determine the kind of commercial areas they want and the kind of cities they want to be. He said, for example, it is possible for a city to decide it is going to be a bedroom community with no commercial center at all; the people of Port Townsend have not chosen this alternative. He declared what they have chosen is Alternative 2 and it is what they deserve. Thank you. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Irvin: Asked how many respondents there were to the newspaper survey? Mr. Lockwood: Replied that Ms. Dorgan, the person who did this research, is not here, but he speculated 140 or so. There were many coffee hours that happened around town; there was supposed to be around 1,400 hours of community participation and it came out with the same results. Mr. Lockwood encouraged him to read Chapter 3 of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Irvin: Said he was just interested because he moved here in 1995, but was taking the newspaper before that for a couple of years. He remembered reading about this and even had a thought about returning a response, but didn't. 10 · · · Mr. Arthur: Said he had heard a lot of history, that he had a coffee hour at his house; he was here when this all happened, and owned property in Glen Cove at one time. He said thinks it is kind of interesting, the specter that's evolving here and the real world that's in Glen Cove at this point. There's Edensaw Woods, athletic center, and some storages. He said it seems, from his experience, like it has been kind of an attack area for even the people who wanted to do something there that he thought might be within the boundaries of their coffee hours that they had. One person said -- participatory government; he thought it's more representative government than participatory. He said they tried to listen to all that and tried to make it work within the whole scheme of things, but one of the things he thought they ought to know is, at the coffee hours that he had, there were a lot of retired people (just people around your house), the biggest, the top concern of those people, was the fear of government, the fear of City Hall. He went on to say, if you really read what was in the newspaper, you would have found that in there; one of the top items of all the people that went to these things was the fear of the City, of the government. He thought that was kind of sad that we are trying to represent these people here today, and they have issues, but they are afraid to be here. He said to the audience, that you all are not afraid to be here -- obviously, you've stood up and said something, but there are thousands of people in this community who are afraid to be here; they are afraid to be identified; they are afraid of what could happen -- whether it's the right feeling or the wrong feeling. He said he is not here to make judgments, but he is just saying that when you come and you say you represent the people of the community, I think you ought to think about just how many of those people you really represent; and if you want to represent them, you should be talking to a lot more people because there are a lot of people that can't afford a house. There are a lot of people that can't raise their kids here. The population in Hadlock/Chimacum, the average population has dropped to 39 years of age. In Port Townsend it went from 39 to 47/48. He asked if that isn't kind of interesting for you who represent the people, who you are representing today opposed to 10 years ago? It is kind of an interesting development, because those people that do the work in the community, these businesses that we want to maintain, those people want to have a place to live. Evidently, they are living in an unurban area, because they can't afford to live here. Hè asked if the number he heard, $106,000 for each undeveloped acre, a cost to the taxpayer -- whoever came up with that number? He said he has owned property; he has put in all those utilities and all those things. He helped in the water system out in Glen Cove, and he said it was nowhere near $106,000. Mr. Lockwood: Responded these are the offsite charges, not the onsite charges. Mr. Arthur: Asked, do you think that is realistic? Mr. Lockwood: Responded absolutely he thought that was realistic. He said they went to the Kitsap Planning Conference, have read a lot and done a lot of study on this. There has been a recent analysis of the cost of growth in Washington State that came up with public infrastructure charges for a residential house, he thought of $84,000 or so. He said the problem is, local communities don't pay this, they are state taxes; the state carries a big part of the burden -- highway expense, but in any event these number will probably grow. Member of the Audience: That was $106,000 per business -- this was right from the County study. Mr. Arthur: He said he understood they got the number from somewhere, but just questioned how accurate it is, not because they brought it up, but he has done development, so he knows what it costs to do that. He was curious where the number came from. Mr. Lockwood responded that Mr. Arthur paid contract charges and that is not what this is. Mr. Arthur said he put in water lines, sewer lines and all kinds of things. Mr. Lockwood: The offsite charges are for highways put in, sewage treatment systems with trunk lines, schools. He said roads are the biggest single cost. Mr. Arthur: That is if you have growth. If you don't have the growth, if you drop the 1% and our sewer system was set up for 12,000 people and we only have 8,000, are we paying more because we don't have the population or are we paying more because we do have the population? Mr. Lockwood: Replied, that so long as we do not take this on, our infrastructure charges are not increasing much because of our low population rate. He said the trick is to grow at a rate in which the public can afford to keep up with the growth. He said first of all he doesn't think Glen Cove is legal -- with less than 1% population growth, it's going to be challenged. He said what they are trying to do is the right things in terms of the city. Mr. Arthur: Said he always thought it was a stretch; he thought the intent was so they wouldn't have to rezone some of the city. If it's not accurate what people have said, that we wouldn't be required to rezone other pieces of property within the urban growth boundaries to satisfy that 60 acres we removed by saying it's not a Glen Cove anymore, that would be interesting. He asked City Attorney Watts if he had any answers -- that if they removed the 60 acres that are now presently called the UGA at Glen Cove, would we need to replace that property within the City Limits? Mr. Watts: Replied that no, he didn't have any definite answer to that, and he didn't think the Staff does. He thought in part it is what gets to Alternative #4 in the Staff Report, whether or not the assumptions and analysis 11 · · · that led to Comprehensive Plan language 4 years ago are still valid, or whether they need to be revisited. If they are revisited, they would get some analysis as to whether or not to allow it. Mr. Arthur: Asked which one of the recommended alternatives would allow them to do some more investigation -- #4? Mr. Harbison: Suggested #1 would also allow them to place it on the docket in a broader sense, or #4. Mr. Arthur: Or some combination of the two? Mr. Harbison: Replied affirmatively and said they are not tied to these 4 alternatives. Mr. Spieckerman: Said he was curious looking at the documents that were actually prepared in the City Council sessions and what they voted on, and how those particular documents weren't deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. He was curious about that process and how those particular documents weren't deleted from the Comprehensive Plan; it seemed to have been slipped into the Comprehensive Plan -- 8.9, etc. He asked Ms. Surber if she might elaborate. Ms. Surber: Said she could not speak to that, has not listened to the tapes and has not read all the Commission minutes. She said, however, discussion at Staff level is, should we really go back and delve through that, or should we just be asking ourselves today, what is the City's position now rather than how did it get on there? Mr. Spieckerman: Agreed, other than was there something included in the City Comprehensive Plan that City Council, in fact, had not intended to be there. He questioned striking every reference to the FUGA, even though it might appear to be appropriate. Rather than just saying this is the approach we should recommend, he suggested rècommending #4 or something along that line that does need review. Someone has mentioned that FUGA might not be the right term to use anyway. It would be best to look at what the County is doing now and come up with some sort of plan, or some sort of proposal to mesh with that. He said he would not like to see a mall in Glen Cove that would harm the downtown businesses. He was raised in Bellingham, not Port Townsend; the downtown was a very vital part of the community, and upon each return visit he could see the changes that happened after the mall opened. He related how the downtown basically disappeared with mall development; he thought what happened there was not to the advantage of local business and the people of Bellingham with the type of mall development that took place. He thought they should look at the whole relationship we have here in Jefferson County and the UGA and what they are proposing. He recommend something like #4 and go back to study this issue, and make it very worthwhile, that it is vital to the community. Mr. Irvin: Said he read as much material as possible since they received their packets and came to the same conclusion, striking out pages of text without replacing it or not knowing what the replacements were going to be in some of these other areas, especially those that are being worked on between the City and County. He said he is mystified how something got in by accident and stayed there 4 years without coming to someone's attention. He said his recommendation would be either recommend #4, or recommend #4 with consideration of what has been submitted with text amendment. Mr. Lockwood: The question is whether or not staff could propose actions on the part of the Commission and City which were completely different than the PLC Comprehensive Plan amendment, not actually submitted as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle by May 1st, that basically proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as an alternative to the PLC amendment, doing it way after the deadline. He thought the Council would be happy to see #4 happen as a part of processing and docketing the PLC amendment, but that the Commission needs to answer the question as to whether or not you are going to docket. He didn't think the Commission has the alternative to start the Comprehensive Plan amendment process here tonight. Ms. Surber: Said a suggested amendment is basically bringing to the attention of the City an issue, and certainly you can suggest how to resolve that issue. The way it gets docketed is up to the Planning Commission and the City Council. She pointed out that recommendations listed in her report are basically -- #3 is no action, leave it as it is; #2 is just to be consistent with what's going in the County, no big change there; #1 docket as written by the applicant; #4 is the one that would give you the most latitude throughout this process and throughout continued contact with the public, through the SEPA process and through hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to investigate, to look at the supporting analysis. She said it may well be you end up saying to delete all that language, or it could be that you decide to leave it in; it just gives you that latitude. She explained, it's important that when you docket, if you are very specific at the docketing point and we go through the environmental review with that specific docketing language, later on through the process, if other alternatives come up, you may be limited because all the public notices that have gone out to date and all the environmental review was on a specific limited amendment. She said that in this case, it may behoove you to have a broader docketing than what was suggested by the applicant so that you are not limiting yourselves, so 12 · · · that as we investigate and get more familiar with the Glen Cove issues, we have the latitude. Mr. Harbison: Is part of your question, whether or not this issue would be docketed if the fourth alternative were something that -- my understanding is and was that if we did arrive at a modified conclusion, a conclusion other than is shown here is appropriate to offer as an amendment -- that would be forwarded on this docket; is that correct? Ms. Surber: That you can formulate a suggested amendment based on this issue and send it to City Council. It doesn't have to be as written. Mr. Harbison: And that would be in this cycle? Ms. Surber affirmed. Ms. Fenn: So you would hold a series of hearings, something on this topic? She asked if they have time to do that. Mr. Lockwood: That is one of the things you would consider, and it would be docketed? Mr. Arthur: Replied, of course. He said the problem is that we have heard a lot information here, and we have nothing in our stock to really make a reasonable decision. So the choice gets down to -- forget the whole thing, it's too much trouble; or, it sounds interesting to a lot of people and we should come to a conclusion that benefits the most people in Port Townsend, not just the 100 or 50 of whatever that are here. Mr. Lockwood: If you could work this in a way that wouldn't prejudice -- He said he appreciates this, that he thinks this is good, and he thanked Ms. Surber. Mr. Irvin: My assumption was that #4 was in fact requesting that this be a docketed item. It seems to be a policy issue, and I think the issue should be docketed. We don't have specific language to recommend an alternate modification to the Comprehensive Plan at this time. I think the policy decision makers should recognize it's an item on their agenda. Ms. Sandoval: She is on the County Planning Commission and said she was confused about this procedure, because she was thinking when the Comprehensive Plan amendments come before the Commission, it is simply the procedure to docket or to not docket, and the investigation and the possibilities come once it is put on the docket, and then the staff does the investigation, does the EIS or anything else that needs to go on and the Planning Commission then deliberates once it is on the docket. She said the deliberation doesn't take place now, that all the Commission is deliberating is to docket or not docket. Mr. Harbison: Asked City Attorney Watts to help with language and clarification. Mr. Watts: Agreed this is not the point where the substance and the merits of the issue get resolved; that comes later and this is a docketing point at this time in the process. He also agreed with what Ms. Surber said that whatever the proposed amendment is put forward, it is not a take it or leave it situation. The ability of the Staff or the Commission to recommend it go forward, or not recommend to go forward, also includes the ability to modify the proposal, to suggest to the Council that maybe this specific proposal shouldn't go forward but maybe some modification of the proposal could go forward. He does not think it is a take it or leave it situation. He said the way he reads Alternative #4 in the Staff Report, if the Commission adopts #4, that does give the Planning Commission at future public hearings the ability to look at a mnge of alternatives with respect to the issue that is raised by this amendment. He thought in general the issue is, what is the appropriate land use for the Glen Cove area, and what should the City's Comprehensive Plan say about that? If #4 is moved forward the PLC will be free to say what they believe the appropriate land use, the appropriate Comp Plan language, would be; staff could come forward with language that mayor may not mirror what the PLC wants, and the Planning Commission would then follow with a public hearing, make a recommendation as to what modifications, if any, should occur with respect to the Comp Plan on the issue of land use planning. . Mr. Spieckerman: Questioned if they have to extend their recommendations tonight beyond the recommendation to docket and just leave it at that? No other adjectives are necessary? Mr. Watts: Replied, simply a recommendation to docket. Mr. Spieckerman: No other adjectives are necessary? Mr. Watts: Replied, no, by recommending docketing, of course, you are not recommending that you are going to accept specific language. Mr. Spieckerman made the motion to docket this amendment. Mr. Watts: Questioned what was meant by "this amendment." Mr. Spieckerman: Recommended that they review this amendment. Mr. Harbison: The #4 docketing action, ifwe choose that. Is that considered a docketing action? Mr. Lockwood: Said Staff, Mr. Watts in particular, seems to be arguing that #1 and #4 are exactly the same thing. 13 · Mr. Watts: Said they are not the same thing, that he is saying if the Commission moves #4 forward, that would allow at subsequent public hearings the working out of specific language changes to the Comp Plan which could include language that is put forward in . . . Mr. Lockwood: When you were asked if docketing the amendment meant you couldn't change it, or analyze it or study it or add new language . . . in this cycle . .. Docketed as is, in other words if the amendment was docketed, he thought Mr. Watts answered that you could change it, and that you could do all the things that you wanted to do. Mr. Spieckerman then changed his motion as follows: MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Docket according to recommendation #4. SECOND Mr. Irvin Discussion: Mr. Arthur: Said he was afraid if they docket #1 as written, they could put the Staff in a bind and the Commission in a bind with flexibility. He said not that this isn't a well-written document with all the marks out, etc., but those sorts of things happened years ago, and, you know they tabled it and then it gets into the Comp Plan; he knows why those things happen. He continued that he is just saying if we are really going to try to solve this problem that has been brought forward, we need to be flexible and listen to everything and read some more. Mr. Spieckerman: Requested that the motion be reread. Mr. Benskin: Said he is still not clear. To docket or not to docket -- the judgment on our recommendations is separate from that -- is that correct or incorrect? Mr. Spieckerman: That is correct. Mr. Benskin: So the motion should be to docket with the recommendation the Council go along with the docket? Mr. Spieckerman: Confirmed and stated that is what his motion said. VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR · Chair Harbison thanked the participants for bringing their points of view; it is very important. They are all concerned about the same thing, community values, that is important to all of us, and we appreciate this process and the information. At 9:00 p.m. Chair Harbison called for a break. The meeting resumed at 9:07 p.m. SUGGESTED REZONES - Quasi-Judicial 5. Rezone - U.S. West on Lawrence Street Ms. Surber said the proponent of this amendment is the Building and Community Development Department. BCD was approached by U.S. West earlier this year to consider some modification and/or expansion of the U.S. West facility, and it was recognized that the zoning is not appropriate for the existing use. Any expansion or modification would not be allowed since it is a non-conforming use in the C-III district. To resolve that, the Commission would need to look at either changing the zoning to something that allows the U.S. West facility, or add something to the existing tables that would allow this particular use in the C-III zoning district. BCD recommendation is to place on the final docket, giving them the ability to work out with the property owner and through public process what is the most appropriate solution for the use versus the zone. Ms. Surber said BCD Director Jeff Randall spoke with Denny Atkinson of U.S. West, and currently they have no preference on how to resolve the zoning. U.S. West has been contacted both by mail and by telephone. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Irvin: Asked regarding the addition. Ms. Surber: Responded that she is not actually sure of what the addition was -- just an antenna or what. Mr. Arthur: Questioned, saying there can't be much more than a couple oflots there? Ms. Surber: Speculated a half block. Mr. Spieckerman: Asked if it made sense to rezone. Ms. Surber: Said they would investigate if this is appropriate if it is docketed. · 14 · PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Docket this recommendation SECOND Mr. Irvin VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR 6. Resolve .1,(min2 of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discovery Road Ms. Surber said the proponent, Abundant Life Seed Foundation, currently leases the property shown on Exhibit E. The P-I zone, public infrastructure, has been in place for over 15 years. Abundant Life Seed Foundation current uses are agricultural and seed processing, and they would like to expand the uses of the site, not necessarily the structures, to include some educational facilities, office space, maybe have some employee housing. They would not be able to do that under the current zoning. . Ms. Surber noted that at the time of the Staff Report, Mr. Gariss, the property owner was not in favor of revisiting the zoning. She has since met· with Abundant Life and Mr. Gariss; Mr. Gariss is now is support of revisiting the zoning. She distributed informative material which she received from Abundant Life See Foundation which was entered into the record as Exhibit W. She pointed to the property off Discovery Road to the north indicating it is approximately 2-1/2 acres in size and surrounded mostly by cemetery land, with residential property to the north. One of the issues that came up in preliminary review of zoning and property ownership of this proposal is a strip of land (she pointed out) along 22nd Street that is under County ownership. Ms. Surber said she would work with the County to find out how they want to resolve that, if they want to keep it a strip or if that should have actually been dedicated for a road right-of- way. Ms. Surber reiterated that this is the sort of thing that could resolve in a rezone or it could resolve in changing the allowed uses under the existing P-I zoning. · PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ms. Elsa Golts, 624 Lincoln Street, Port Townsend Ms. Golts said she is the Co-Chair of the board of Abundant Life Seed Foundation. She explained they have a three-part presentation. She will present the vision, Michelle Sandoval zoning, and property owner Mr. Gariss will also speak. Abundant Life Seed Foundation is a non-profit; it has been in existence in Port Townsend over 20 years, and they have been farming at Will Gariss' farm. This year they are growing 62 varieties of peas and alliums in the onion family; she thought they have in their seed bank 178 different kinds of beans. She said they have a resource in this community that is phenomenal with the amount and breadth of the seed collection, which right now is located above Aldrich's Grocery Store in a room that is temperature controlled. There is a kitchen below it and the fire danger is great. Ms. Golts said they need to secure that seed collection; that is one of their first items of business. They already have some facility at the farm, but they need to make that bigger and to make that more temperature controlled. To start putting more of that into the farm, they want to get a lease-option in place on the farm, so that Abundant Life knows that this is its home, and it owns its home. She said to do that, there needs to be some sort of agricultural kind of use to that land, because they grow seed on that, produce it then sell through a catalog. They are an educational foundation, so they have classes coming to the farm school. The public and seed growers from the Northwest area are already coming to the farm for education. Ms. Golts said they feel it is a real opportunity to make sure they have locally-grown seed that is open pollinated and not hybridized that is put into a living seed bank. · Ms. Michelle Sandoval, Realtor, Representative for Abundant Life Seed Foundation She said she has been working with Abundant Life for some time, a couple of years, looking for the proper piece of land for them to purchase, when in fact they are actually farming it. Ms. Sandoval said one of the things that continued to occur with the Planning Department with the City and with the County when they were looking for a different piece of land, was they found there was really nothing that would put Abundant Life in a position of being within the zoning constraints -- they were always going to be out of compliance. She said where they are now and where they love being is Will Gariss' property, which they have done 15 · · · wonders with; it is a beautiful piece of property out there, and they would like to continue to be there, but without breaking the rules. They would like. to be able to fulfill their dream of having a farmer present, in terms of living quarters, office space, also .potential for seminars, and other educational-type ventures. They started trying to investigate what was the proper zoning. The current zoning of public infrastructure is really inappropriate given that it is owned by a private party, and it's not part of the public infrastructure at all. And yet in looking over the different zoning options, there doesn't seem to be one that is a perfect fit. She felt farming of that land fits in with compatibility of the surrounding area. It's next to the cemetery; there is a lot of open space there, and yet it's residential -- very low impact. Ms. Sandoval said they had worked with Will Gariss on trying to come up with some alternative for zoning that would meet his needs and his vision for his land, which is not to have it be high density residential. She said he does not want that; he wants it to be maintained as a farm. Mr. Gariss investigated the City's Comprehensive Plan. Land use natural resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas: Goal #2 -- to protect, sustain, and manage Port Townsend's natural resource land, and environmentally sensitive areas for both present and future generations. More specifically, 2.3 -- to continue to encourage agriculture use in the least developed portions oftown along certain agricultural uses outright in low-density residential areas, specifY allowable agricultural uses in revisions to the zoning code. Lastly, here is the real strategy: 2.3.1 -- consider the need to adopt and implement the right-to-farm ordinance in order to protect agriculture uses in certain residential zones. She said what they are proposing, they don't quite know what zoning is appropriate for this, but she had said earlier residential/commercial -- you couldn't quite have a farmer living there, and you couldn't have all the different uses that fit the vision of Abundant Life's final plan. But, at the same time a farm ordinance, or a right-to- farm ordinance as an overlay may work because all these uses are grand fathered; as was already stated, they have been there for some years. The right-to-farm ordinance may be applicable to not just this specific land, but also to some other lands in the city where people are already doing this kind of thing, they're farming, but perhaps they would like to have some educational possibilities and have the farmer be able to live there. It doesn't quite fit within the box, but that is why they started, as Will Gariss suggested and she felt was an excellent idea, to have an overlay developed as the Comprehensive Plan suggests. Ms. Sandoval said she would love to see Staff work on that; she said she told Ms. Surber she would be very willing to research other areas where they have similar overlay zones, and would put that forward during the actual hearing process. Ms. Sandoval concluded by saying all owners of property would like to be in compliance, and not out of compliance or a non-conforming use. So they would like to be able to take care of that. She also said that recently in the County Planning Commission, they did a map correction for Camp Parsons, Boy Scout Camp, and actually asked Staff to create a zoning for private parks and preserves to fit an area that has been an ongoing concern for many, many years. To not limit the use by implementing a residential density they asked them to expand the use, specific to how it is being used today. She said she thought that was a first for the Board of County Commissioners and she thought it would be an excellent idea to explore that option if it's possible for the farm-owned land, because there may be some other farms in the area, small as they may be -- 2-3 acres, that would like to have that as well. Mr. Will Gariss, 411 Discovery Rd., Port Townsend Mr. Gariss said he lives right across the street from the farm. They have owned this property since 1971, and it was zoned public when he came. He said all these years it has provided sort of a protection barrier. He laughed that nobody wants it, and said they have been able to continue with their vision of basically keeping it open space. The area is growing, and they are very pleased to have Abundant Life Seed Foundation basically as caretakers of land for them. He said it is a joy for them but also the neighbors who occasionally walk in the evening in the gardens. They have cooperated by not planting vegetables and flowers that would cross-pollinate adversely, and it has been a nice community thing. Ms. Wendy Nordquist, 320 Meadow Rd. Ms. Nordquist is a part time farmer in Port Townsend. She said land is scarce. Abundant Life is know across the nation, and is great to take a look at. Mr. Phil Dinsmore, 320 Meadow Rd. 16 · · · He also farms some land within the city limits. He clarified, that when people hear "farming" the picture that comes to mind is often livestock, 3,000 acres of soybeans with large equipment, dust and noise. He said this is not what happens out there; this is an amazing urban garden oasis where they grow some of the most amazing seed that is distributed nationwide, and even worldwide. He said it is entirely compatible with the surrounding land use that is already there. There is quite a bit of support and synergy within that neighborhood. He said they are not introducing large combines; it is very appropriate for what is already there. Mr. Jim Todd, 1515 Fir Street Mr. Todd said Abundant Life is exactly the kind of business that would enhance Port Townsend character. He strongly urged the Planning Commission to help them out. Mr. JeffKeletv, 419 Benton Street He said he echoed what was already said, that if anything speaks to the vision of our small town character Abundant Life is it. He said he really wanted to support them; they are great community neighbors. He understands there are corporations that would like to offer genetically engineered seeds throughout our agricultural system, and you could face licensing fees for our own pumpkin seeds that we grew. He said that is true; it sounds absurd, but it is really true. He higWy, higWy supported these neighbors. Nora Regan, 1313 Olympic Street _She said she is totally in favor farm and Abundant Life Seed. Arne Hansen, 1313 Olympic Street _He said he is also in favor of this amendment. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Spieckerman asked Ms. Surber if she is clear as to the overlay that is proposed. Ms. Surber said she had not investigated it, but they discussed if it were OK with the Planning Commission and City Council, they would consider the overlay as one of the options or maybe a combination with zoning, that they would investigate that further with the assistance of Abundant Life and Michele Sandoval. Mr. Arthur asked with these land use changes if the neighbors surrounding the rezone areas are going to be notified that something is happening so they have an opportunity to voice their opinion? Ms. Surber replied that if this were a formal amendment, part oftlle application material would include a mailing list of300 foot radius; these are site-specific rezones under a suggested amendment, which is legislative yet quasi-judicial. Staffwould like to go ahead and generate that mailing list and do a direct mailing. Although there is a cost involved with generating a direct mailing, it is not a high cost and it is important to notify neighbors. Mr. Arthur said his only question, he really supports everything everybody said except for the fact of one little mention that the neighbors are working to not grow certain things on their property so as to not cross pollinate. He said he is not sure how many people that would effect eventually, and what kind of buffers they are talking about, what kind of control the use of the property would have over 100, 200, 300 feet radius. Some of the neighbors, obviously, aren't going to care, but the ones that do live close by, if you are going to make this work over a long period of time, it would seem like you would need to design an overlay that would rather restrict outside of these areas. He said he thought it was a good idea, but he didn't know what they are doing to the neighbors. Ms. Golts said there are many ways to isolate plants so they don't cross-pollinate. She said every time they have talked to neighbors about not growing particular things, always it was voluntary. They wanted to know what was growing, and they would give them seeds to grow the same kind of thing. She said it has been a very easy relationship so far. Someone commented the overlay is not asking any particular commitment on the part of neighbors, and Ms. Golts replied, "Not at all." Mr. Arthur said he thought it was great. Mr. Harbison concurred that he thought notification of the neighbors is very important. Mr. Arthur said he was thinking if someone had a vacant lot there and a kind of noxious weed was growing, who is going to protect Abundant Life; what kind of enforcement issue is needed? He said he doesn't like to have things they do come up later and wonder why they hadn't thought about it. Mr. Gariss said one of the things they are doing is planting trees and shrubs in a way that it creates airflow. MOTION Mr. Arthur Place #6 on the docket SECOND Mr. Spieckerman 17 · · · VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR CONSENSUS: Ms. Surber verified that this included consideration of a farm overlay. 7. Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279. Eisenbeis Addition Ms. Surber said that BCD recommendation is to place on the final docket with an expanded scope, not only looking at the two lots of the property owner, Frank Vane, but also looking at portions of Blocks 278 and 279. Mr. Arthur asked if they wouldn't have to notify people. Ms. Surber replied when she drafts the Planning Commission recommendation, she plans to include that the Planning Commission would like to have a notification of 300 foot radius for the rezones. She told the Commission she wanted them to know she did send notification to property owners involved, not neighbors, but property owners. Mr. Arthur said that was good enough. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -- There was none. Ms. Jean Walat, BCD Planner, explained that Mr. Vane came in and brought this to Staff attention back in the fall. They wanted a small expansion of their business and were unable to because of zoning, and that is what triggered this request. COMMISSION DISCUSSION -- There was none. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Place on the docket SECOND Mr. Arthur VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR 8. Rezone Blocks 152 and 183 of the Eisenbeis Addition Ms. Surber explained the proponents had originally received letters from Peninsula Builders (owners of Block 183); also from Zamperin (owner of Lots 7 and 8 of Block 152); and Loeschen (owner of Lots 5 and 6 of Block 152). She said BCD has since received a letter of withdrawal from the Zamperins who have changed their minds and do not want to be considered for rezone. She distributed copies of the letter, which was entered into the record as Exhibit X. Ms. Surber referenced a form letter signed by several neighbors of the site. Copies of the form letters were included in Commission packets. She spoke to one of those people. The neighbor's understanding and concern was, multi-family doesn't make a good neighbor for the adjacent single family; that currently the property is wooded and a field and they enjoy that open space. Ms. Surber discussed with her that R-IV, multi-family, could quite likely include preservation of buffers around a multi-family structure vs. single-family development on 5000 square foot lots, which would end up changing the open space character. Ms. Surber said to the neighbor that she may want to think about which would better preserve the open space character. In fact, multi-family design review for anything more than five units would require environmental review and the neighbors would have opportunity to comment. She explained that although in the past multi-family has been seen as potentially being a bad neighbor, but now we have design guidelines in place and environmental review. It doesn't have to be a bad neighbor. Ms. Surber also noted she did some checking, and in 1998 two blocks, she thought 177 and 178 to the north, were downzoned from R-IV to R-III. Originally, the R-IV district included the three blocks to the north. She said she checked the ordinance on that to find out how they justified downzoning. Part of the justification was that apparently there had already been some applications filed for single-family development; there had already been some infrastructure development -- permit applications for single-family infrastructure. She read the finding which concluded"... the change in land use designation from R-IV to R-III as proposed by the applicants involves less than 2 acres of land and would decrease the development potential of Blocks 177 and 178, but would not negatively impact the ability of the city to achieve its target growth management population level, in that the 1996 Comp Plan designated 284 acres of land for multiple family development, when 139 acres would have been adequate to meet the city's population forecast. Further, adequate high density multi-family R-IV zoned land will remain available to meet or exceed the Comp Plan goals and policies for diversity in affordable housing types." She said she did some number checking on her and own, and she is not sure where the 139 acres came 18 · · · from, but she does know, according to the land use acreages they have in the Comp Plan, there are only 18 acres of R-IV land left. She said the multi-family options are there, but you have to think about the fact in R-III the general pattern seems to be it is being developed as single family rather than multi-family. There isn't much R-IV zone left. Ms. Surber said a technical conference has been held for development of this specific property for multi- family development. It is not that the land isn't attractive or suitable for multi-family development. She said BCD recommendation is that the item not be placed on the docket, but again she wanted to bring to Commission attention that it wasn't Council's conclusion in 1998 for the two blocks to the north. Jefferson County-Clallam Community Auction Council owns the other half of Block 152. Although she made many attempts, she did not actually get to speak to anyone, but she received a voice mail message that they were not opposed to revisiting the zoning. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Mr. Richard Spindor, Realtor, 292 Board Walk Avenue, Jefferson County resident Mr. Spindor asked that they go along with the BCD recommendation and not place this on the docket. He said being a real estate broker and being in land development and knowing what land was available, he was approached by a group looking for property to build -- he said he did not want to call them multi-family, that this is a senior citizen assisted living unit -- property presently that adjoins the Discovery View Senior Citizen Congregate Care. They think this ties in perfectly, and looking at the present zoning, it is ideal for something like this. He was originally involved in putting together the Discovery View complex and he knows that neighbors at that time were objecting to it; they didn't know what to expect. He said he believed if you were to talk to those same people today you would find they are all very pleased with what is there -- a lot of open space; a lot of improvements were done in the area because of the development that were aU beneficial to them. He believed that to be the case here. Mr. Spindor said he would like to see it not put on the docket, for zoning to remain the same. He said he also played phone tag with Dan Wollam, director of CAC. They are in the process of negotiating with the CAC in the purchase of their property -- CAC is very in favor this. He said that is just his word, but they are very much in favor . of this and would actually like to participate with this particular project. Mr. David R. Hensel, 14803 S.E. 368th Place, Auburn W A, representing Sun West. Mr. Hensel said he was the gentleman who contacted Mr. Spindor to help him find a place. He spent several visits at the City talking to Ms. Surber and others in the Planning Department, trying to find a reasonably zoned area in the city for the type of use Mr. Spindor referred to, an assisted living facility. He said it is difficult. He didn't realize there are as many acres as probably she said there were, but a lot of that isn't even available to buy; it's zoned R-IV, but it's not on the list to purchase. Some places that are zoned R-IV are very small; places zoned R-IV and possibly could be purchased, might be half of a block, which wouldn't be near enough for them put the facility they are looking for. He said he was really happy when Mr. Spindor found this, putting several of them together to really make it work. Mr. Hensel said they have since had the technical review conference with the City, as far as Public Works is concerned, and it is all workable. He said they are happy and excited about it; he would like to see them keep it like it is and not rezone it. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Spieckerman indicated that regardless of the project, one of the goals they have in the City is to provide for low cost housing, and he thought if they start to eliminate R-IV, they start to eliminate those possibilities. Mr. Arthur said that one of the difficulties with some of the R-IV, it is miles from infrastructure, and if you did want to do something those costs precludes that particular area -- those 18 acres from being used unless someone comes along with really expensive development. He said that might correct itself over time, but he has had people mention to him they have R-IV and can't do anything with it; you might be able to build a house there but R-IV precludes doing even anything like that. He said he can see the concern of people who made the request, but he agreed they need to keep property available; inventory of the zone should be kept. If it's R-IV and for affordable housing we ought to get the road there, the sewer there and make it affordable. Mr. Harbison said there had been a number of discussions about multi-family and affordable housing; it is clearly the intent of a number of parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Things that might affect this are population growth, but this isn't the case. He said he does not see any changes or other factors that would trigger the Commission to docket this. 19 · · · MOTION Mr. Benskin Moved not to docket SECOND Mr. Irvin VOTE UNANIMOUS 5 IN FAVOR Ms. Surber asked if the Commission wanted her to basically take the BCD recommendations and pass them by Mr. Harbison, or if they wanted to seem them again. . CONSENSUS: Ms. Surber proceed without returning to the Commission Ms. Surber noted for the record that any of the rezones that are ultimately approved should be reflected in Table 4-2 of Comp Plan so that they are keeping their acreages up-to-date. VII. UPCOMING MEETING -- June 14, 2001 Chair Harbison announced that Karen Erickson has submitted a letter of resignation from the Planning Commission. He noted Ms. Erickson had been a long-time Planning Commissioner and would be missed. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was nothing. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ¡Jkfty1~ Larry Har1>ison, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Exhibit L: Exhibit M: Exhibit N: Exhibit 0: Enlarged maps and The Leader survey, October 1994, submitted by Ms. Fenn Enlarged maps showing options 1,2 and 3, submitted by Ms. Fenn Ms. Nancy Dorgan's written testimony presented by Ms. Preida Fenn Mr. Lockwood's written testimony including -- Table from the Washington Office of Financial Management attached Mr. Jeff Kelety's written testimony Mr. Jim Todd's written testimony Book titled, Better not Bigger, submitted by Mr. Todd Ms. Rosemary Russell's written testimony Jefferson County Viewpoint, October 2000 submitted by Mr. Hansen Mr. Dinsmore's written testimony Signed petition against Hollywood Videos submitted by Mr. Dinsmore Information from Abundant Life Seed Foundation Letter of withdrawal from their request to rezone Lots 7 & 8 in Block 152, Eisenbeis Addition to the City of Port Townsend, from Angelo & Waltraud Zamperin Exhibit P: Exhibit Q: Exhibit R: Exhibit S.: Exhibit T: Exhibit U: Exhibit V: Exhibit W: Exhibit X: 20