Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06142001 Min Ag . . - CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm June 14, 2001 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Unfinished Business V. New Business 1. Review and Approval of May 31,2001 Minutes Staff presentation by Judy Surber 2. Review and Approval of Planning Commission Transmittal to Council regarding Recommendations on Docket Staff presentation by Judy Surber VI. Upcoming Meeting: June 28, 2001 VII. Communications IX. Adjournment . . . CITY OFPORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Bernie Arthur and Frank Benskin; Jerry Spieckerman, Lyn Hersey, and Jim Irvin were excused. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall and Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA There was consensus to accept the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Spieckerman submitted a memorandum with changes to the May 31, 2001 minutes to be considered in his absence. Other amendments were also proposed. Mr. Arthur made the motion to approve the minutes as amended, and Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS Review and Approval of Planning Commission Transmittal to City Council regarding Recommendations on Docket. Ms. Surber presented the Letter of Transmittal from the Planning Commission to City Council regarding Planning Commission Recommendations on the 2001 Preliminary Docket. She pointed out that she had included two additional exhibits that were not in the draft transmittal. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Mr. Arthur Approve the letter of transmittal as presented Mr. Benskin Unanimous, 2 in Favor Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 June 14,2001 · · · VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS -- June 28, 2001 Discussion ensued as to various topics the Commission would like to see addressed in the future. Facilitating incorporation of changes into the May 31 st minutes so final copies would reach City Council members in time for their meeting on June 18 was also discussed. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS - There was none. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Mr. Arthur. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. ÁJ~ Larry Harbison, Vice Ch~ ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 14,2001 I;' · · · City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Watennan & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301 Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-3208 Fax: (360) 379-6923 TRANSMITTAL Date: June 14, 2001 To: Port Townsend City Council From: Larry Harbison, Planning Commission Chair Subject: Planning Commission Recommendations on the 2001 Preliminary Docket This letter transmits the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the 2001 preliminary docket. This year, the preliminary docket consists of eight suggested amendments. Suggested amendments may be submitted by anyone at no charge but, are not guaranteed a place on the final docket. Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and deliberated on each of the suggested amendments. Following is a brief description of each suggested amendment and Planning Commission's recommendation on docketing. The commission has been guided by the criteria listed in §20.04.060(C); specifically, the "need", "urgency", and "appropriateness" of each suggested amendment. 1. Clarifv Definitions of Unit /Bedroom and Various Housim!: Tvpes a. b. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department Description of the Suggested Amendment: Several inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code (Title 17) were revealed during the recent appeal of the Port Townsend Assisted Living Facility. Definitions of unit, bedroom, assisted living facility, boarding homes etc, need to be reviewed and amended. Use tables should be reviewed to determine if allowable vs. conditional or prohibited housing types have been appropriately linked to density and potential impacts on other permitted· uses within the zoning district. Also, the zoning code_was amended in 1999 to limit the number of dwelling units in anyone structure to 4 in the R-I and R-II districts. However, there is not clear policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code explaining what types of uses this restriction was intended to apply. While apartments, multi-family dwellings, and nursing homes are - 1 - prohibited in the R-I & R-II; other uses such as foster homes, congregate care facilities, boarding houses, schools, colleges, churches, residential treatment facilities, child day care centers, and preschools are permitted outright or conditionally in the R-I,or R-II zoning districts. These uses often involve large bulky buildings and often include a residential component. Are the residential units in these structures "dwelling units" therefore limited to 4 per structure? Should building size be limited in R-I and R-II as the number of dwelling units is limited? BCD seeks clarification of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code on these matters. · c. Planning Commission Recommendation: The commission recommends placing the item on the docket. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code must be clarified to avoid future appeals. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. 2. Revise Goals & Policies. which Imply a Specific Utility Provider a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Several of the existing policies in the Capital Facilities Element refer to "Puget Power" or" the local serving utility". For example: Policy 31.5: Encourage Puget PowerJo install an electric car charging station in downtown Port Townsend. · Goal 30: To work with the local serving utility JO plan and allow regional and local improvements to electric facilities and include prospective service plans for facility development within the City's Comprehensive Plan. This language may be construed to limit the city's ability to contract with other utility providers in the future. PSE had claimed that the City of Bellingham could not change utility providers due to language in their comprehensive plan. Staff proposes to search and replace specific references with general terms. c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Place the item on the docket. Consideration of this amendment is appropriate given the fact that similar language has been subject to challenge in the City of Bellingham. The amendment may be needed to ensure the city's ability to select ftom competing utility providers. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. 3. Add Policy re: Maior Industrial Developments a. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), counties, in consultation with cities, may establish a process for siting of specific major industrial developments (MIDs) outside of · -2- · urban growth areas (RCW 36.70A.365, attached). The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) has directed city and county staff to begin drafting MID ordinance language to be inserted into the County's Uniform Development Code (UDC). Supporting policy language exists within the County-wide Planning Polices (CWPP) and the County's Comprehensive Plan (policy LPN 11.1) (Exhibit A». Current policy within the city's comprehensive plan is largely silent on the issue ofMIDs. By their very definition, to be an MID, a project must be too large to be located on available vacant land within an established urban growth area. The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan contains the following policies related to this issue: "Commercial Lands Policy 8.9: 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). · Manufacturing Lands Policy 9.1: Work with the Economic Development Council, Jefferson County, and the Port of Port Townsend to determine the area's projected manufacturing land use needs and each entity's role in satisfying those needs. Cooperate with these entities to develop a coordinated strategy for manufacturing development in the area. Policy 9.7: If additional land is needed to accommodate manufacturing uses or provide capacity for projected manufacturing growth in Port Townsend, it should be located within the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Final Urban Growth Area (i.e., the Glen Cove area)." (please note that the above referenced policy language is suggested for deletion in Suggested Amendments #4.) c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Place the item on the docket. Consideration of this amendment is appropriate given the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee's decision to pursue MIDs within Jefferson County. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. 4. Remove FUGA Lan2ua2e from the Comprehensive Plan a. Proponent: People for a Livable Community (PLC) b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Delete Comprehensive Plan policies, which refer to a Final Urban Growth Area. Please refer to the attached application materials (Exhibit B) for a detailed description of the · ·3- amendment. The PLC application refers to several city documents. Staff located as many as possible. You will find them attached as Exhibit C. · c. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Commission recommends docketing an alternative to the PLC item. The Commission recommends that the city review Jefferson County's current UGA proposals and supporting analysis, identify what the city's policy position is, and amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect that position. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. Docketing this item reflects Commission member comments that future planning for Glen Cove is important to the City. Docketing the item gives the Planning Commission and Council the ability to look at a range of alternatives, including the amendments proposed by PLC. SU1!1!ested Rezones - Quasi-Judicial 5. Resolve Zonim!: of US West Facility on Lawrence Street a. Proponent: Building & Community Development b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: The US West Facility on Lawrence Street is currently considered a nonconforming use. It is zoned C-III, Historic Commercial (Exhibit D). The facility is defined as a "Public Utility" under the definitions provided in Chapter 17.08 of the PTMC. Although defined, public utilities are not listed in the use tables. Where a use is not listed, it is considered nonconforming and cannot be expanded. · The problem could be resolved by: 1) Amending Table 17.20.020, Commercial Zoning Districts -, Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses to make public utilities a permitted or conditional use within the C- III zoning district; or 2) Rezoning the property P-I, Public Infrastructure and amending Table 17.24.020, Public, Park and Open Space Zoning District, Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses, to ad public utilities as a permitted or conditional use. c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Place the item on the final docket. US West has contacted the city to discuss improvements and/or additions to the existing Lawrence Street facility. A revision to the zoning and/or land use tables will be necessary to allow improvements and/or expansion of the facility. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. · - 4" · · · 6. Resolve Zoninl!: of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discovery Road a. Proponent: Abundant Life Seed Foundation b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Abundant Life Seed Foundation leases approximately 2.5 acres of land off Discovery Road that is currently zoned P-I, Public Infrastructure (Exhibit E). The property has been zoned P-I (Public-Inftastructure) for over 15 years (Exhibit F, Zoning 1984- 1996). The P-I zoning district is typically only applied to land under public ownership, which is used to provide pubic utilities, facilities, and services. The subject property is in private ownership and cannot be used for public purposes without the City exercising its power of eminent domain. Similarly, the current P-I designation effectively renders the existing agricultural use nonconforming. Abundant Life would like to have the zoning and/or use tables amended to allow agricultural uses as well as classroom and office space. The property owner, Mr. William Gariss, supports docketing of this item. c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Place the item on the docket. Planning Commission recommends that the city research a farm ordinance overlay as another possible resolution to this zoning conflict. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. 7. Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279. Eisenbeis Addition a. Proponent: Frank Vane (Owner ofLots7 & 8, Block 278) b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: Mr. Vane suggests rezoning his property at 334 Sherman Street from R-II, single-family residential to C- II, General Commercial (Exhibits G & H). The property has long housed two businesses. Mr. Vane points out that several other businesses exist on Block 279, which may also warrant a rezone to C-II. c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Place the item on the final docket. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. 8. Rezone Blocks 152 and 183 of the Eisenbeis Addition a. Proponent: Peninsula Builders, Ltd. (Owner of Block 183); Zampcrin (Owners of Lots 7 and 8, Block 152; Loeschen (Owner of Lots 5 and 6; Block 152) (Exhibit I). b. Description of the Suggested Amendment: A downzone is requested ftom R-IV to R-III to allow more flexibility in the type of housing (Exhibit J). . The R-IV zoning district requires multi-family development while the R- III zoning district allows multi-family and/or single-family residential development. The owner of Block 183 contends that it has been difficult to sell the property under its current R-IV zoning designation. Several letters of support were submitted by neighboring property owners (Exhibit K). The Zamperins, owners of Lots 7 and 8 of Block 152, have withdrawn their rezone request (Exhibit.x). Clallam-Jefferson Community Action - 5 - owns lots 1-4 of Block 152. They have not requested a rezone. The Director, Mr. Dan Wollam, has received written notice of the proposal. · c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Do not place the item on the final docket. Providing affordable housing and a variety of housing types is goal, which is repeatedly stated throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The land is suitable for multi-family development and a technical conference has been held to examine a multi-family development proposal (e.g., an assisted living complex). In fact, BCD recently conducted a technical conference to locate an assisted living facility on this site. Multi-family housing is subject to environmental review under SEP A and design review under Chapter 17.36 PTMC. Buffers and sensitive areas can be better addressed under the R-IV zoning than on a lot-by-Iot basis. Vote: Unanimous 5 in favor. For all rezones, which make the final docket, the Commission recommends notification of property owners within a 300-foot radius. Also, note that Table IV-2 of the Comprehensive Plan lists acreages by zoning district. This table will need to be amended to reflect any rezones approved by Council at the end of the year Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Planning Commission, · Larry Harbison, Chair A. B. C. List of Exhibits Excerpts Relating to MIDs PLC Application Material Referenced in PLC application 1) William Eldridge vs. City of Port Townsend 2) County-wide Planning Policy 3) Minutes of the Port Townsend City Council Comprehensive Plan Special Workshop Meeting (June 18, 1996) 4) Minutes of the Port Townsend City Council Comprehensive Plan Special Workshop Meeting (July 2 1996) 5) Minutes of the Port Townsend City Council Comprehensive Plan Special Workshop Meeting (July 9 1996) 6) Minutes of the Regular Session of City Council (July 15, 1996) 7) Planning Commission Minutes (May 11, 1995) 8) Planning Commission Minutes, Workshop Meeting (September 23, 1999) · -6- · D. E. F. G. H. I. 1. K. 9) Joint Growth Management Steering Committee Minutes of Tuesday, August 24, 1999 10) Planning Commission Minutes, Business Meeting (September 29, 1999) US West Current Zoning Abundant Life Current Zoning Abundant Life 1984 Zoning Vane Application Blocks 278 & 279 Blocks 278 & 279 Current Zoning Blocks 152-183 Application Letters Blocks 152-183 Current Zoning Blocks 152-183 Letters of Support Exhibits Attached to the Minutes of the May 3 L 2001 Public Hearing L. M. N. O. P. Q. · R. S. T. U. V. W. x. · 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. Freida Fenn Mr. Lockwood's written testimony including -Table from Washington Office of Financial Management attached Mr. JeffKelety'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 -7-