Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09272001 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . September 27, 200 I I. CALL TO ORDER Chainnan ProTem Jerry Spieckennan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jim Irvin, Frank Benskin and Lyn Hersey; Larry Harbison was excused and Bernie Arthur was unexcused. Also present were BCD staff members Judy Surber and John McDonagh. III. NEW BUSINESS (Workshop on SU2.2.ested Comprehensive Plan Amendments) 1. Amendment #3 = Add Policv re: Maior Industrial Develo»ments (MIDs) Ms. Judy Surber made the presentation. She distributed a fax from Jefferson County DCD showing what the County is proposing to adopt in the near future, and said RCWs now allow MIDs outside of urban growth areas (UGAs). She indicated the City's role is that there has to be a land use inventory, basically, to demonstrate there isn't available land within a UGA; if land is available, this kind of development would belong on that available land. A procedure is required for the City and County to work together to do the land use inventory before the County proceeds with an application outside a UGA. Exhibit 3, Draft Maior Industrial Development (MID) Pennit Process, outlines that process. An MID can be a commercial business, but not be retail/commercial; can be an office park, but not a multitenant office park. It would be something really large coming in that needs a huge facility that wouldn't fit within the City Limits. Ms. Surber explained that the process outlined is something the City would like to get into place with the County. Right now Staff is looking at an ordinance being placed within the Comprehensive Plan that recognizes tile fact that the City and County are talking about this MID ordinance and some process and protocol. OPTIONS: 1) Draft Policv -- Underlined on Page 3 in the Staff Report of September 27,2001. Language is suggested that could be inserted in different places. Ms. Surber felt it best inserted in the Economic Development Element: Proposed insertion point -- Chapter 8, Page 8-3, The Economic Development Strategy. Similar language in manufacturing lands and commercial lands (does not fit because manufacturing lands allows commercial business and office). Ms. Hersey referred to the statement in the Staff Report that this would enhance Port Townsend's economic development strategy and asked ifMIDs would be going against the basic strategy of our small business, cottage industry. She suggested a change, e.g., "to include other ideologies other than. . .n Ms. Surber replied that MIDs are going to be in the County; what we really need to watch for is that growth going out into the County isn't something that would be draining and contrary to our strategy. She suggested they could also include in the proposed policy that it does not run contrary with the intent of the RCWs. Proposed insertion point -- Mr. Spieckennan suggested inserting with Page 7, Section 9 that would encompass both. (page 8.7, Policy 9 says Commercial and Manufacturing Zone.) Ms. Surber suggested that Policy 9.2 would be O.K. Mr. Spieckennan concurred citing 9.2, "Cooperate with Jefferson County to ensure that high intensity commercial and non-resource industrial related activities are concentrated within the urban growth Planning Commission Minutes Page I September 27, 200 I areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or will be provided at the time of development." He said they could come down with the next one and change to 9.3 since this is referring to cooperating · with Jefferson County and felt it would fit better there. 2) No Action Ms. Surber noted this is another option. Mr. Spieckennan asked if the County proposal is a finn document or if the City would have input. Ms. Surber replied she was not sure of the County Commissioner's adoption date. Mr. Spieckennan also asked if there was anything regarding a sunset clause for an MID. Ms. Surber agreed to check; she said there was also reference to the abandonment of the site. CONSENSUS: Place with 9.3 2. Amendment #6 = Resolve Zonißl! of US West Facility = Lawrence Street Ms. Surber noted the facility is currently considered a nonconfonning use. Discussion included options. OPTION lB-- OPTION 2A Definition from U.S. West. Conditional use to address impacts. Ms. Surber cautioned Commissioners not to debate the issues since this is quasi-judicial. 3. Amendment #7 = Resolve Zonin2. of Abundant Life Ms. Surber distributed Staff Revisions to Options I and 2 dated September 27,2001. · Comments from the audience included: Mr. Will Garriss, 411 Discovery Rd. His property leased by Abundant Life is to be passed on to his sons whose intentions are to keep the same use. Ms. Elsa Goltz, 624 Lincoln Spoke to the needs for office space. Commission discussion included: Con~ession stands are pennitted in both R-I and R-II zones, but must front on an arterial in R-I. A County-owned strip of land adjacent to the existing property is an archeological dig. Mr. Spieckennan asked if tlús would leak over; Ms. Hersey replied she did not think so. Option 2 - Mr. Spieckennan suggested a reference to the Home Occupation Code in the definition of community supported agriculture. Option 2 -- Boarding house restrictions. Option 3 -- Look at Transfer Development Rights (TDR) policy. Mr. Benskin asked regarding boarding house restrictions, limit of 5 in R-II. Ms. Goltz responded to questioning that five would be more than adequate for Abundant Life's needs. Mr. McDonagh noted that four would confonn with R-II. It was detennined to be four in addition to a resident farmer. Ms. Surber is to consult with Michelle Sandoval regarding Private Covenants & Land Trust and her suggested overlay for the property. 4. Amendment #8 = Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis Ms. Surber distributed a chart of owners and portions owned in tile Eisenbeis Addition. She also distributed an additional comment letter from Luz Loch. When the Loch property was purchased it was zoned commercial; it was cut in half when rezoned. · Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 27,2001 · · · Mr. Irvin asked for history regarding the comment letters. Mr. Dave Robinson was asked for his recollection as to tile original zoning. According to his memory of 5 years ago, the Planning ComllÚssion recommended to increase the commercial zoning along Sims Way, for a good commercial zone 200' deep, but that Council recommended to make it residential due to public testimony. Mr. Irvin referenced Option 3: "Rezone properties C-II if requested by the current property owners," and asked if that would mean the whole block or just selected lots. Ms. Surber replied you would not want one by itself, but perhaps being contiguous to existing C-II would be an option. Mr. Irvin was understanding that you could draw boundaries as long as it's contiguous, but you couldn't have isolated lots C-II in a residential. Ms. Hersey requested Staff identifY those requesting to be Commercial and infill them on a picture of Option 3, Mr. Spieckennan suggested concentrating on those two blocks. Ms. Surber agreed to come back with those areas identified. Mr. Spieckennan asked iftlley were proposing both for the entire blocks. Ms. Surber replied there are different options, but none say rezone both lots commercial. Proposed Options: Put it back the way it was before 1996; If there was an existing business in 1996, zone it commercial (probably pretty similar); Look at the property owner's desire; if contiguous to a C-II zone, allow them to be picked up. Mr. Spieckennan suggested the drawing be enlarged and options identified with different colors. Ms. Surber will come back with those requested drawings. Ms. Hersey asked who requested the amendment; Ms. Surber indicated, Mr. Frank Vane. 5. Formal Amendment -- Northwest Maritime Center DistributiOlis: By Ms. Surber -- 1) SEP A Review Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for Northwest Maritime Center Height Amendment, Dated September 26, 2001; Appeal Deadline October II, 2001 Existing Building Heights, source Urban Waterfront Plan Draft EIS, Sept 25, 1990, By Mr. Robison -- Rationale for height limit amendment and drawing of potential building 2) Ms. Surber noted this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, a fonnal amendment that is automatically placed on the docket. The proposal is to raise the height limit as put forth in the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Port Townsend Municipal Code (pTMC) from 30 to 40 feet. She pointed out they are not reviewing the proposed structures or use, only looking at an amendment to tile Urban Waterfront Plan and the PTMC. She indicated in tile Staff report she noted it is a special height overlay district fonned out of policy in the Urban Waterfront Plan and reflects Pyramidal City Fonn following tile bluff line -- higher in the middle and tapering down. The highest 50' tapering down to 30'. For the record, Ms. Surber entered the Special Height Overlay, in the Urban Waterfront Plan, Figure 4.a. as an exhibit. She distributed copies of Existing Building Heights, source Urban Waterfront Plan Draft EIS, Sept 25, 1990, representing the actual heights. Discussion ensued; Ms. Surber pointed out you have to keep in llÚnd how buildings are measured under the Unifonn Building Code (UBC), from the average gable height. Mr. Dave Robison clarified the drawing, that the Pope Marine Building had been moved to the City Dock. A member of the audience asked Mr. Robison about raising the height, and the reasoning for the Maritime Center wanting a higher limit. Ms. Surber reminded that in the quasi-judicial proceeding, questions need to be addressed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission asked questions of Mr. Robison. Mr. Robison gave an update. Mr. Dave Robison. Northwest Maritime Center The Urban Waterfront Plan of 1990, was well before the Port Townsend Comp Plan. The current height overlay district was done to really stop a couple projects in this part of town. The Thomas Oil site was zoned 50' in 1990 and went down to 30' when the Comp Plan was adopted. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 27,2001 · It is the only parcel at tIlat height. The height of tile failed project was seen as a guideline; even though otller heights were taken block by block, it was seen as a guideline and not as an absolute. One problem, when the City adopted the 1996 Comp Plan, it adopted the Urban Waterfront Plan by reference, and because the height limits are now in the zoning code, it is also in tIle Urban Waterfront Plan. It should have been zone by zone. They were trying to develop a community project that implements the Urban Waterfront Plan and Comp Plan. When they started the actual design they went to community groups -- Chamber, all non- profits, etc. They started the design process in January. Mr. Robison knew by May 1st they needed a Comp Plan amendment because they realized no matter what tlley did, that 30' limit probably would not work. One reason the 30' height limit was established was to stop a condominium or hotel. In going through the design process, realizing that they were trying to build a community waterfront center, they wanted to have some design flexibility. To have a 2-story building in the National Historical District you needed to have such things as nice pitched roofs, some gables, possibly a tower, but they didn't know what the outcome of that design would be. They put together the proposed Comp Plan Amendment to try to increase their design flexibility. Goals included 1) design a building that is rather a centerpiece for this end of town, that provides transition between the historic downtown and Point Hudson; 2) try to reduce the bulk and scale so they can maximize the narrow public space, outdoor public access space. The actual preliminary design was finished in June; two buildings are proposed on the site. They have gone through the review groups soliciting community desires. It is proposed as a 2-story building trying to incorporate a very marine oriented warehouse feel compatible with adjoining properties. The Bishop Hotel is 48' at midpoint of the gable, approximately 57'; the top of the Sail Loft approximately 55'. The Maritime Center is looking at a building height, 40' at the peak where the glass monitors are. The preliminary design showed a very flat roof without the glass monitor, right about at the 30' height limit. HPC did not want a flat roof and encouraged them to move ahead and try to make it more of a warehouse maritime feel. They came up with some modulation to reduce the view impacts and a glass story, a glass monitor, to really help make it much more a maritime feeling, and much more usable in tenns of ventilation, heating and ambiance. The actual building height would be 40', measured by the UBC, a 34' height. On the other side, the Maritime Education Building, the future home of the Wooden Boat Foundation, is the same building height with a glass tower at the end. He referred to the graphic illustration in his handout and noted that because of the location, the Maritime Education Building, looking from the water, mirrors the Sail Loft building that is a landmark feature of the Point Hudson district. Working at actual building height, the peak of the glass story at the east end of the Maritime Education Building would be 44' (actual height -- tIle eave 28', and under the UBC average building is 36'). They are working with the HPC and the City to maximize the public open space on the site that is a critical component. They could have built a I-story building and taken away 20,000' of public outdoor open space, but that is not the intent of the program. They are really trying to build a building that fits in and transitions, a design challenge, between Point Hudson and historic downtown and maximize an the public facilities they can on a very small site without exceeding the bulk and height, and scale dimensions of the site itself. Similarities were noted WitIl the old DeLeo Building where the Harborside Hotel is now. They are trying to integrate the building influences from historical maritime warehouses and buildings of other old businesses in Port Townsend. A lot has been guided by the HPC and an architectural design team. · Mr. Robison noted tIlere have been a couple of changed circumstances since the 1990 Urban Waterfront Plan. He thought the Swan Hotel was built after 1990; it was a vested project. He said tIlat influences tIlis site as well. Also, the property was really downgraded from 50' to 30' to try to stop a couple of projects, because the City wanted to buy them for the express purpose of building a community park or a waterfront museum. That is what they are trying to do. He stated this design is totally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Waterfront Plan, the Shorelines Master Program guidelines, and the Zoning Code with tIle exception of the height limit and the parking requirements for downtown which they will be coming back and working with the City in future months. · Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 27, 200 I · · · Commission Questions & Discussion: Shadows - Mr. Spieckennan referred to comments in a letter regarding shadows, but understood by the sun's path tile shadow would be cast on the building itself. Mr. Robison replied absolutely, that the architect considered this carefully and it was a conscious strategy. Mr. Benskin thought the concern was for shadows on tile otller side of the facility itself, the Swan Hotel, the cabins -- that side of the street. Mr. Robison indicated that may be the case, but he noted the Swan Hotel has a permit that may be close to expiring for a 2 or 3-story building where those cabins are, and that they are planning on going forward with that in the next few years. Ms. Surber pointed out tl13t comment was addressed in the environmental review; tile conclusion was in a commercial district periodic change during the day is not considered to be significant. Blocks View - Mr. Irvin asked about a comment of the view being blocked due to the height of the building and the 0 setback. Mr. Robison indicated the site on the Water Street side has a 0 setback; it comes up to tile property line, as does every building, with one exception, along Water Street. Mr. Irvin indicated that person may be impacted regardless of the height. Parking - Mr. Benskin spoke of parking. Mr. Robison suggested they may be part of the solution, looking at what would work best for the downtown National Historical District and taking a comprehensive approach. Mr. Benskin pointed out significant impacts of a new structure would be different from buildings in the Historic District. Mr. McDonagh cautioned to be careful not to get into project specifics. View Iml)acts - Mr. Robison pointed out that the major view impact is going to be on Water Street. Mr. Spieckennan suggested to Mr. Robinson that they take photographs and ink in what a person would see 2 blocks away from a vantage point standing on Water Street, and maybe also on Monroe Street. Ms. Hersey also noted the view impact of trees at the Pope Marine Park. Mr. Robison explained there will be public views unmatched anywhere else in town from an inside walk 20-30' from Water Street, open 24 hours a day. After further discussion, Mr. Robison indicated the building is wide -- 70' wide to accommodate a 62' vessel. Public Comment: Ms. Nancy Dorgan asked about quasi-judicial comments. She was concerned that the process doesn't get down to the public for discussion and thinks the City is remiss not having tIlat deliberation. It was pointed out that the next meeting will be a public hearing, that tonight is an infonnative meeting. Ms. Surber stated she has material in the office regarding conducting a quasi-judicial meeting and suggested Ms. Dorgan could get it from her. OPtions: Ms. Surber reviewed options presented in the Staff Report. Mr. Benskin asked the maximum height for this project if they approve a 40' height limit. It was stated the average from the bottom of the eaves to the top of the building. There was further discussion regarding possible changes to the proposed building, excavation, contallÚnated soil clean up, etc. Ms. Surber pointed that in the SEP A detennination it was noted that in order to get the Maritime Center approved they will have to go through a more project level environmental analysis; Shorelines Pennit which focuses on shoreline issues such as public access; HPC; various levels of review. . Public Comment: Ms. Nancy Dorgan expressed concern regarding recommended text of the MIDs and about receiving infonnation that would be contrary to the City. Ms. Surber explained that Staff had discussed what recourse they would have if the City felt a development would fit within the urban growth area and the County disapproved. Going through a Hearings Examiner the City could appeal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 27,2001 IV. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 11, 200 I - Public Hearing . V. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was nothing. VI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Pro Tem Spieckennan declared the meeting adjournèd (_. ~f1v0 Sheila Avis, Minute Taker List of Exhibits provided in Commission Packets: Amendment #3 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 RCW 36.70A.365 Excerpts from County-wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and the County's Comprehensive Plan (policy LPN I 1.1) Exhibit 3 Draft MID Pennit Process Meetin~ Handouts: Fax from: Jefferson County DCD showing what the County is proposing to adopt in the near future Amendment #6 Exhiþit 4A --Zoning of US West Exhibit 4B --US West, Public Comment Exhibit 5 Photographs of US West and Surrounding Area . Amendment #7 Exhibit 6 Current Zoning of Abundant Life Zoning Exhibit 7 Historical Zoning of Abundant Life Zoning (1984- 1996) Exhibit 8 Materials Submitted by Abundant Life Exhibit 9 Photographs of Abundant Life and Surrounding Area Meeting Handouts: Revision to: Options 1 and 2 in Staff Report dated September 27,2001 Amendment #8 Exhibit 10 Blocks 278 & 279, Location and Current Zoning Exhibit 11 Blocks 278 & 279, Historic Zoning Exhibit 12 Blocks 278 & 279, Public Comment Letters Exhibit I3 Photographs Meeting Handouts: List of Owners and Portions Owned Comment Letter -- from Luz Loch dated September 24,2001 . Amendment #6 Exhibit 14 - Northwest Maritime Application for Fonnal Amendment Exhibit 15 - NWMC, Public Comment Letters Exhibit 16 Special Height Overlay, in the Urban Waterfront Plan, Figure 4.a. (Entered for the record at this meeting.) Meeting Handouts: By Ms. Surber -- 1) SEPA Review Detennination of Non-Significance (DNS) for Northwest Maritime Center Height Amendment, Dated September 26, 2001; Appeal Deadline October 11, 2001 2) Existing Building Heights, source Urban Waterfront Plan Draft EIS, Sept 25, 1990 By Mr. Robison -- Rationale for height limit amendment and drawing of potential building Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 27,2001 · · · "'II1II GUEST LIST Meeting of: Port Townsend Planning Commission Purpose: Workshop Meeting -Proposed Comp Plan Amendments: #6. US West Facility: #7: Abundant Life: #8. Blocks 278 & 279. Eisenbeis Addition: Northwest Maritime Center Date: September 27.2001 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No /' ~ ht\A^Y\f\º Æ~{A^ (~~ r.:Wg :JA<\Lk- V ^/a. Yl r" nð/C.~ ~ d I <f ~ 'L.¿,~L-L ~- - .b- ,.,.. 7 l....- I ,I ~ E/5f1- hrJ /A bJ- if L.)/lCd! r) IJ/¡ L L {} /7~L ., ~ 4l/ Сç" /? ~C,