Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10172001 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 6:00 pm October 17, 2001 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call ID. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business August 30,2001, September 20,2001, September 27,2001 Open Record Public Hearing 1. BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #1, Clarify Definitions ofUnit/Bedroom & Various Housing Types B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 2.· BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #2, Revise Goals & Policies that imply a Specific Utility Provider B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 3. BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #3, Add Policy re Major Industrial Developments Amendment #4, Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5, Review & Amend FUGA Language in the Comprehensive Plan B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings: October 25,2001 October 30, 2001, Special meeting to finalize Findings & Conclusions and Minutes of October 25 VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 17, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Bernie Arthur, Lyn Hersey, and Frank Benskin. Jerry Spieckerman arrived at 6:40 p.m; Jim Irvin was excused. Also present were BCD stafImembers Judy Surber and Jeff Randall and City Attorney John Watts. ill. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA -- There was consensus to accept the agenda as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Hersey made a motion to approve the minutes of August 30, 2001. There was unanimous approval of the minutes as written for the following meetings: August 30, 2001 September 20, 2001 September 27, 2001 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was no unfinished business. · NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendments Ms. Surber reviewed the following -- New exhibits disseminated at this meeting: Exhibit R Two letters from Ms. Nancy Dorgan dated October 11, 2001 regarding the SEPA Process and a Request to Reschedule October 17th Adoption Hearing on Suggested Amendments #4 & 5 Letter from the Port Townsend Leader dated October 17, 2001 Staff revisions of Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #5, Glen Cove Urban Growth Area (to be inserted into Exhibit P) . Memorandum from City Attorney Watts dated October 17, 2001 regarding the Glen Cove Exhibit S Exhibit T Exhibit U Amendment Exhibit V Memorandum from Ms. Surber dated October 16, 2001 regarding Amendment #2 TEXT AMENDMENTS: Chair Harbison called for the Staff Presentation. Amendment #1 = Clarifv Definitions ofUnitlBedroom and Various Housine: Tvpes Ms. Surber referenced BCD Staff Report of October 10, 2001 from Jeff Randall and Judy Surber to the Planning Commission. She noted this amendment was the subject of an August 9, 2001 workshop before the Planning Commission, and that there are several more exhibits from that workshop that are supplemental to tonight's packets. A couple of issues prompted BCD's request for review: To review and amend definitions of various housing types . arising from several inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code (Title 17) revealed during a recent appeal of the Port Townsend Assisted Living Facility, making sure of their adequacy and consistency throughout the Municipal Code and Comp Plan. · Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 October 17, 2001 · Limitation of the number of dwelling units to four within a single structure in the R-I and R-II districts (as amended by the zoning code in 1999). Ms. Surber referenced ExhibitM, revisions to strikeouts and underlined language incorporating comments from the August 9th workshop. She noted Exhibit M represents the department's recommendation on resolving those issues. Ms. Surber stated she had received a phone call at 5:00 p.m. from Dave Hensel, a professional working with assisted living facilities. BCD sent Mr. Hensel a copy of Exhibit M, and he responded that Alzheimers units are commonly included as part of a congregate care and assisted living facility. She said they had only written them in as nursing homes/convalescent homes. She felt it depended on how advanced the person is. If the person is an invalid, nursing home would be appropriate; if they need assistance they would belong more with assisted living/congregate care. She pointed out they may want to change those definitions. Mr. Randall explained the need to clarify -- nursing, rest or convalescent homes are treated in one category; congregate care and assisted living facilities are in another category (conditional use is allowed in R-II). Ms. Surber indicated Staff suggestion is to include Alzheimers units in the definition of congregate care. Mr. Arthur questioned the possibility of over identifying illnesses -- today Alzheimers, tomorrow maybe something else, if it is the purpose of identifying who is going to be in which facility. Mr. Harbison suggested it is more in reference to the nature of the care, two different kinds of care involved in the different facilities. Ms. Surber indicated it could possibly be left out in both, and classify based on whether or not you are invalid. Mr. Randall thought it is vague if an Alzheimer's unit is proposed and they do not have it clarified, that the purpose of our regulations is not to be vague so it's predictable. This allows that Alzheimer's units could be proposed as a conditional use inR-II, where a nursing home would not. CONSENSUS reached by the Planning Commission to incorporate the following modifications to · Amendment #1 = gm Definitions ofUnit/Bedroom and Various Housin~ ~ (Exhibit.Ml Change Line 23 -- Page 1 (Comp Plan) to read: "Practical nursing care and Alzheimer's units mav be provided. Change Line 21 -- Page 3 (PTMC) to read: "Practical nursing care and Alzheimer's units may be provided£" PLANNING COMMISSION OUESTIONS OF STAFF: Mr. Benskin: Definition of Bedrooms, Exhibit M, Pg. 3 of 3, Lns. 7-10; questioned if it is necessary to insert "closet. " Mr. Randall: Looked at the definitions in the Uniform Building Code as well as in Port Townsend and other zoning codes. In our last discussion we talked about saying a bedroom had to have a closet. He said, however, he did not find that reference anywhere. Mr. Benskin said he had understood they always had to have a closet; Mr. Randall asked if he had found that in writing anywhere. Mr. Benskin answered negatively. Ms. Hersey: Clarified that the County designates bedrooms in septic permits. She indicated if you get a two bedroom septic permit, only two bedrooms can have closets. That is how the County designates how many bedrooms you can have in the house. She thought the discussion before was how do you regulate size if you just regulate on bedrooms. Mr. Randall: The definition currently says, "Bedroom means a room other than a kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom, 0 proposed change was drafted to include bedrooms inside the house. A detached bedroom, clarified later, can't be just a stand alone; it needs to be either an ADU or to be in a house. He thought the requirement to have a closet is really meaningless in their review of building permits. In a building permit plan you need to designate what each room is. You may want to have an armoire for a closet or a curtain rod on the wall and not build an enclosed bedroom, but you have to designate what each room is. He did not think requiring a closet helps anything. The issue with the County is different than the City's because they issue septic permits before they issue a building permit; the City does not. Ms. Hersey: Why designate bedrooms at all? Mr. Randall: You need to designate what use is going to occur in each room; bedrooms have requirements for smoke detectors, etc. Ms. Hersey: You could have a bedroom that has offices, etc. A bedroom is usually used for sleeping and has a bed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 17, 2001 · · · Mr. Randall: The use is primarily for sleeping purposes. Ms. Surber: It should be as designed. Mr. Randall: Closets have not been a problem. It answers the problem of detached bedrooms. Mr. Benskin: Raised the issue of egress and said he believed most bedrooms require an exit. Mr. Randall: The code requires bedroom windows be at a low enough height to have an egress and it has to have a door. We are talking about zoning requirements here, not code requirements - whether detached be allowed. Mr. Arthur: Questioned the bulk & scale issue, that he did not find anything here that would preclude somebody building a four bedroom unit in R-I or R-II that was 100,000 sq.ft. Mr. Randall: Single family residences are allowed; there is no limitation on the number of bedrooms. You can have up to four dwelling units in a single family residence. It has to be consistent with building code. We tried to clarify some of the congregate care facilities and some of the other uses -- boarding houses and lodging houses that seem to allow more tenants and units. We tried to make it more consistent. Mr. Arthur: I still do not see in here the recurring issue (and by people in the valley), the bulk & scale issue. Mr. Randall: That was an indirect problem; the answer is rather indirect. The problem was reference of no more than four units per structure. No one had ever gone through all the uses and all the definitions with that limitation in mind to see if it was consistent with the limitation of no more than four dwelling units per structure. He stated they have gone through all the definitions and uses in mind; the strikeouts and underlines reflect that. They are rather intermittent minor changes to reflect when they felt it was or was not consistent with that philosophy. He answered Mr. Arthur's question if you can build a huge building in a residential neighborhood, that if the use is otherwise permitted, you can build a very large fourplex. Lot coverage is really the limiting factor, and how much of the lot is covered. This does not change such things as maximum building heights and maximum lot coverage. CONSENSUS: No need to go through Exhibit M in its entirety. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS = (Amendment t!L Exhibit Ml Mr. Randall reviewed modifications which are incorporated into the Chart on Page 6. Mr. Randall recommended they continue the review and proceed to public comment before Planning Commission discussion and making motions. He requested Amendment #2 be considered last to accommodate people wishing to testify on the remaining amendments. Chair Harbison opened the meeting to Public Testimony on Amendment #1. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AMENDMENT #1 Ms. Colette Kostelec. 540 Benton Street, both private citizen and representative of Olympic Environmental Council Rel!:ardinl!: the amendment process: They do not believe the process used to docket these amendments (didn't include specific line-inlline-out language at the time of docketing) is in compliance with Port Townsend Municipal Code 20.04.040P. The lack of early and continuous public involvement with broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, is not in compliance with Port Townsend Municipal Code 20.04.010P. Conclusions proposed in the Staff Report that suggest that circumstances related to these amendments have "substantially changed" since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan is not substantiated. Their recommendations on these general issues: 1) Specify exactly what the substantial changes are that justify the actions and, 2) Disseminate these proposals more broadly and provide alternatives for discussion in accordance with the Municipal Code listed above. Specific comments!m Amendment #1: The proposed definitions for accessory dwelling unit are not consistent between the Comp Plan and the zoning code; there are still some inconsistencies in that definition. Most multi-family uses are prohibited in R-I zone, it is not really clear why there is a need to change the Bulk & Dimensional Table, especially related to density, for the R-I zone. With respect to changes that allow you to go up to 8 bedrooms and 16 bedrooms respectively for R-I and R-II, · Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 17, 2001 · · · doubling the density for a PUD. She suggested the PUD section of the code, Chapter 17.32, allows a maximum bonus density of 20% for PUD - maximum, not the automatic 100% bonus density through a PUD. She said just calling something a bedroom as opposed to a dwelling unit doesn't change the impact here. You are effectively doubling the density automatically through a PUD. With respect to the 4 unit per structure requirement in R-I and R-II zones, she disagreed with the Staff Report that there was an inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code with respect of that requirement. She stated that there wasn't any inconsistency, and you simply don't change that requirement through a PUD just by saying, "Refer to the PUD section of the code." The PUD section of the code allows you to modify very specific development standards, e.g., setbacks, heights, off-street parking spaces, landscaping, lot size, lot widths, engineering design standards, multi-family and mixed-use development standardS, only. It does not allow you to change units per structure through a PUD. She declared there is no need to change that; that is there for a very specific reason, to protect the integrity of our single family residential zones and make sure development is compatible with it. Respective of other changes brought up tonight, if anybody understands the difference between Altzheimers, and the need for care of Altzheimers patients, as opposed to the nursing care home or assisted living facilities, she thought it would put them more in the category of nursing home as opposed to assisted living facilities. She asserted that someone going into an Altzheimers facility is not capable of independent living like a lot in assisted living. You receive more care in a nursing home, not less care. She indicated that if you are going to specify them as a separate type, she would agree with Mr. Arthur that you should be very careful about doing that because of the disease a person has, you would put them more under nursing homes. Respective of changes made to the parking issue, she thought the existing parking allowed for accessory units, that as long as the existing use on the property met the off-street parking requirements, you didn't have additional requirements for on-site parking spaces for new accessory units. She suggested this would seem to impose an additional burden for an additional space on the site, that they look carefully at that language.. She pointed out that since the Olympic Environmental Council and she were the appellates on the assisted living proposal that started to generate Staff's interest in this amendment, her feeling was that they ultimately prevailed on that appeal, not because there was something wrong with the code that they needed to allow multi- unit development in R-I and R-II, but instead the Council recognized the need to protect the single family zone and the integrity of the zone by recognizing the limitation of 4 dwelling units and density in those zones. She did not think the correct approach is to change the code and Comp Plan to affectively allow multi-family residential in those zones. Their recommendations: 1) Go back to the intent of the R-I and R-II zones, which is single family residential; 2) Honor the Comp Plan limit of 4 units per structure, clarifying if you have to, but it doesn't matter, whether they are complete dwelling units or bedrooms intended for nonrelated people, and; 3) In accordance with the PUD code, allow a maximum of 20% increase in density, if the specific approval criteria pertains to that. Chair Harbison asked Ms. Kostelec to repeat her recommendations: Go back to the intent of the R-I and R-II zones, which is single family residential up to four-plexes. Honor the Comp Plan limit of 4 units per structure clarifying that it doesn't matter whether they are complete dwelling units or four separate bedroom units intended for nonrelated people. In accordance with the Planned Unit Development code, allow a maximum of 20% increase in the density, if the specific approval criteria contained in that section pertains, not an automatic 100%. Richard Berl!:. 727 Taylor Street Agreed with Mr. Spieckerman that prohibiting detached bedrooms seems unnecessarily restrictive. He cited an example where someone might want to design a Japanese style type of house, a boardwalk sleeping facility, and he said it seems the language in here would not allow that to happen. He indicated that in general he did not think it was a good idea to have laws that make criminals out of people that are just doing their life, like having their kids sleep over their garage, when it is basically a harmless thing. He did not understand completely regarding parking per unit and when it did and did not apply. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2001 Page 4 · · · Chair Harbison asked if the reduction was from 1.5 parking space per dwelling for residential studio/I bedroom units (detached or multi-family) -- so it is a 1 bedroom studio or a 1 bedroom unit. Mr. Randall clarified that is not intended to apply to ADUs, which are exempt from parking requirements in the code. This is intended to apply to a multi-family structure. He cited a condominium project that is nine (one-bedroom) unit, multi-family structure, and that now the code requires that each unit have 1.5 parking spaces. He indicated that creates an excess of off-street parking, and what they are saying is, if for instance they have a mix of units, a two-bedroom unit and one-bedroom unit, that one-bedroom units should only require one off-street parking space. This amendment is to recognize that. Mr. Berg said then the assumption is that any guests would park on street. Does that apply only to one- bedroom units that are part of the multi-family development. In other words, would it apply to one-bedroom cottages or any detached single family one-bedroom unit? Mr. Randall replied that single family dwelling units still require two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and answered Mr. Berg's question regarding the recommended change, it says detached or multi-family so it could be clarified to say just multi-family. The other thing they are dealing with is possibly in PUDs you could have some different kinds of housing arrangement, e.g. detached, very small dwelling units (in response to a proposal by Doug Mulholland -- a common house, with a common kitchen and common bathroom facilities and some sleeping units and then surrounding that with separate bedroom units having bathrooms, etc.). Should you require 1.5 parking spaces for every one of those one-person units? He reiterated it could be clarified that is only for multi-family, and through PUDs you can modify parking standards. He said they would probably recommend it say multi-family -- be clear they are talking about studio and one- bedroom units in a multi-family project. Chair Harbison called for further testimony. There was no other testimony and Chair Harbison opened the meeting for Planning Commission discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION - Amendment #1 (Exhibit M:l Mr. Randall: The ADU definition should be clarified. The intent was to have the same definition in the Comp Plan as the dwelling units. He thought the reason they wanted "kitchen" rather than "cooking facilities" is because "cooking facilities" are not defined; "kitchen" the definition is loosened to allow for other things than to say oven range. Staff recommendation would be with a separate kitchen. Mr. Spieckerman: Why did you take bathroom facilities out of the accessory dwelling unit? Mr. Randall: Did not think it ever had been in it. Mr. Benson: The definition above it did. Mr. Randall: The one above was the definition in the Comp Plan. We were trying to make it more consistent with the definition of the zoning code, which is the definition that is closer. The definition of dwelling unit says that needs to have a bathroom, sleeping facilities. Mr. Spieckerman:· Referred to Accessory Dwelling Unit. Mr. Randall: It means a separate dwelling unit. You could add that, but already by saying a separate dwelling unit, dwelling unit is defined as a facility with a bathroom. Mr. Harbison: To clarify, on Page 3 of 3, Lines 33 - 36, the Municipal Code, and Page 1, Lines 31-35 -- both of those as dwelling units include bathroom. Mr. Randall: Answered Mr. Spieckerman's statement that bathroom facilities were specifically in the definition deleted on page 1 for Accessory Dwelling Unit -- that definition was not reflective of anything, was something in the Comp Plan that was totally inconsistent with the zoning code. They are trying to make the Comp Plan definitions consistent with the zoning code, but he does not think they have to say bathroom in the definition of accessory dwelling unit because it is in the definition of dwelling unit. . Mr. Arthur: Page 5, Kitchen, designed for cooking. Is confused; is there a description of room (ADUs --kitchen, living room and bedroom, all open)? Mr. Spieckerman: Said he had written in a note that says a kitchen is any portion or a room. Mr. Randall: There is no definition of room; we would fall back on the UBC definition or dictionary definition. To answer an earlier question from Mr. Spieckerman, that is why there is no reference to bathroom in the accessory dwelling unit; if you look at Dwelling Unit on Page 1, you need to have a bathroom, rather than being repetitive, they are saying it is a dwelling unit. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 17, 2001 · · · City Attorney Watts: Suggested strike "with separate kitchen facilities"; it is also in the definition of Dwelling Unit. Mr. Randall: Concurred, for consistency. Mr. Spieckerman: Said that was the part he found inconsistent City Attorney Watts: Said Mr. Randall was saying dwelling unit has a variety of activities. REVIEW OF EXHIBIT M - MR. JEFF RANDALL & PLANNING COMMISSION (pCOM) CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE PAGE 1 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PTMC, DEFINITIONS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Mr. Randall: The ADU definition should be clarified. The intent was to have the same definition in the Comp Plan as the dwelling units. The reason for "kitchen" rather than "cooking facilities" is because "cooking facilities" are not defined; the definition for "kitchen" is loosened to allow for other things than oven range. Staff recommendation would be with a separate kitchen. City Attorney Watts: Suggested to strike "with separate kitchen facilities"; it is also in the definition of Dwelling Unit. Mr. Randall concurred, for consistency. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 11: Strike with separate cooking facilities; (See Page 2, Lines 12 & 13) CONGREGATE CARE/ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Mr. Spieckerman asked for clarification -- dwellings or dwelling units? Mr. Randall replied that a dwelling is defined as the building or portion thereof designed and used primarily. . .. He concurred and said he thought it should say dwelling units and should apply also to the zoning code definition for congregate care facilities. Change to dwelling units (See Page 3, Line 18) Change Line 23 to read: "Practical nursing ~ and Alzheimer's units may be provided. (See Page 3, Line 21) DWELLING UNIT Mr. Randall: Regarding the maximum number of 4 dwelling units in R-I and R-II coming from the Comp Plan and being reflected in the zoning code, intent with this amendment is not to change. Answering Ms. Kostelec's statement there was no inconsistency that it is consistent, he countered there is inconsistency coming from the Bulk &, Dimensional Table that multi-family dwelling units are not allowed in R-I and R-II because the multi- family unit is defined as any structure with more than 4 four dwelling units. The PUD chapter says PUDs are allowed in R-I and R-Il and, "This chapter permits the development of limited housing in R-I and R-II zones." The Bulk & Dimensional Table says you can't do it, and a PUD Chapter says you can. Staff proposal in the Bulk & Dimensional Table is: the 4 dwelling unit limitation can be modified through a PUD, which Chapter 17.32 indicates, and provide a bedroom calculation for density in dealing with multi-family units. He suggested it might not be stated as clearly as it should be, but the intent is not to allow the doubling of density. If you truly have units in a PUD, you should not be allowed to exceed the 20% bonus; if they are truly bedrooms, in a multi-family dwelling the bedroom calculation should be allowed. The intent was not to allow alternative types of housing within PUDs. He suggested the need to modify that language to clearly state that. City Attorney Watts: Suggested adding in the Bulk & Dimensional Table, "not to exceed the density bonus." Mr. Spieckerman agreed. Mr. Randall said he could see Ms. Kostelec's point; you don't want to allow someone to propose studio units and then claim the bedroom calculation in order to double the density. He said that was not their intention. Ms. Kostelec said she would still argue coming from 4 dwelling units for 10,000 s.f. oflot area in R-I to essentially 8 units, which is what you are saying, multi-family. Mr. Spieckerman: Referred to Line 34, permanently installed sink. In putting his mother into an assisted living facility, he has seen where they would have one sink and some sort of kitchen; the sink also happens to be associated with the bathroom even though it is in the same room as the kitchen. Could the bathroom and the kitchen sink be considered the same one, or would they have to be separate? Mr. Randall replied, a permanently installed sink -- the types of layouts are unlimited. It could be a bathroom, or a very open floor plan. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 17, 2001 · · · CONSENSUS: (pCOM (See Bulk & Dimensional Table, Page 13 -- Maximum Number of Dwelling Units) FAMILY. Mr. Spieckerman: On Line 43 you are excluding servants and including them on Line 45. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 43, strike -- (excluding servants) (See Page 4, Line 19) PAGE 2 - TITLE 17 PTMC, 17.08.020, DEFINITIONS ACCESSORY BUILDING Mr. Spieckerman: Line 6, "Accessory building" means a subordinate building. . . incidental to the use of the principal building and not involving the conduct of business or a sale of a service." He was confused regarding, cannot be used; are you saying an accessory building cannot be used for an office or business? That is inconsistent with the section on Home Occupations. Mr. Randall: It could be stricken; it is otherwise regulated under the Home Occupation Code. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 8 -- End with building. Strike the remainder of the sentence. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Lines 12 and 13 -- Strike with ª separate eeekiøg faàlities kitchen (See Page 1, Line 11) PAGE 3 - TITLE 17 PTMC, 17.08.020, DEFINITIONS CONGREGATE CARE OR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES Mr. Benson: Line 21, Is this Alzheimer's language redundant to Nursing, rest and convalescent homes on Page 6? Ms. Surber reiterated it was suggested by Mr. Hensel who is a professional in locating these types offacilities. Depending on the level of disability they are sometimes under nursing homes, but are more often associated with assisted living where sometimes you have a couple where one has Alzheimers and the other does not and they can live together. Ms. Hersey: Asked regarding Hospice coming in to help. She referenced an issue raised by Ms. Kostlec and stated that at some point if wanted or needed, a person who is dying could either stay or move into a nursing care facility. She suggested that might be where the line is drawn; it might be more of a medical question. Mr. Randall: This was suggesed by someone from the industry who develops these and has asked for more flexibility. The other option is not to alllow them as congregate care facilities and require that they fall under the category of nursing homès which would limit them to zones R-III and R-IV. Staff recommendation is that they be included. Although these changes occur quickly, Staff has created the clear disincentive in R-II now allowing more than 4 dwelling units per structure, or otherwise a PUD subject to a full hearing process. One idea was to strike them from R-II as an allowed use; there is a limited amount ofR-III and R-N land. There is enough process built in to deal with it, and he suggested adding and allowing them in congregate care facilities. Ms. Hersev: Supported, in an area where it would work; people who are dying need as much support as possible. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 18, Change to dwelling units (See Page 1, Line 20) Change Line 2Ito read: "Practical nursing care and Alzheimer's units maybe provided~. . . " (See Page 1, Line 23) PAGE 4 - TITLE 17 PTMC, 17.08.030, DEFINITIONS FAMILY CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 19, strike -- (excluding servants) (See Page 1, Line 43) Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 17, 2001 · · · PAGE 5 - TITLE 17 PTMC, 17.08.030, DEFINITIONS GUEST HOUSE/ DETACHED BEDROOM Mr. Spieckerman: Lines 16 & 17, strike Guest houses/ detached bedrooms are not permitted in m!Y zoning district. and asked regarding" Accessory dwelling unit." Mr. Randall: "Accessory dwelling unit" is in there just to refer to something that was permitted with a kitchen. Thought not a problem leaving it as a cross reference. Ms. Hersev: Did not like saying guest house, just detached bedroom or even detached room liberalizing to use as seen fit. Mr. Randall replied Staff got hammered hard for how they interpreted the building code and what can be built. He cited circumstances, and asked if it is their desire to recommend an unlimited number of bedrooms . or one detached bedroom in addition to the ADU, they clarify their intent. Ms. ~: Including bathrooms is different because they are trying to eliminate all the extra plumbing in each facility. Why are they are calling it a bedroom; why not a room, for whatever a person chooses to do? Mr. Randall replied it is from the Building Code; they have to know the use -- if primarily for sleeping purposes it needs a:fire alarm or smoke detector, certain things, i.e., egrees windows. Mr. Spieckerman: Did not have a problem with the code; just eliminate that they are not permitted. Mr Randall asked if they would be open to limiting them to one detached bedroom, or should they be be allowed to have an unlimited number of detached bedrooms up to the amount of lot coverage? Staff preference was not to allow them at all, but it might be reasonable to limit to one detached bedroom in addition to an ADD. You can already have detached storage buildings, office rooms, whatever, as long as you comply with Home Occupation codes. Mr. Benson: Doesn't it become a house -- someone living and sleeping there everyday; that is their house? Mr. Randall replied that is the problem. Mr. Benson, ifit's a relative and they have a detached bedroom with no facilities on your property, it becomes a house; someone will end up eating there. Mr. Spieckerman: It's defined "without a kitchen located on the same lot with a principal building and occupied for the sole use of members of the family, temporary guests, or persons permanently employed on the premises. Mr. Randall: Suggested it might help if they added "not for rental purposes"; Mr. Spieckerman thought just eliminate it. Mr. Arthur: Thought maybe it is bad to call anything something it isn't and would rather see allowing a guest house as long as it has a bathroom, what you need for health and safety -- over your garage, in your basement, whatever. People have them. He was not looking at it as a huge complex; a small place with a bathroom, shelter from the rain. Mr. Randall reiterated that was intended with the ADU; this would be a third house. Ms. Hersey. not necessarily, a room over the garage, not anything in it -- not making it an ADU. She asked if it is attached by a breezeway or some other structure, is it still considered detached? Do you have specific codes for what that breezeway has to be? Mr. Randall: It is more for the use of bathroom facilities, or be able to get there. He thought a covered way would meet that definition. Mr. Spieckerman: If we delete this and permit them, you can define later what a bedroom is (whether or not it has to have a bathroom as the other part of the code). Mr. Benson: This would be different; it is not defined in the other part of the code. Mr. Randall: The concept is it was included in the house, so it had access to bathroom facilities. If detached bedrooms are allowed, he encouraged them to require a bathroom. He said if they don't want that recommendation, he thought they should state that in their recommendation and limit them to one per property. Mr. Benson: Thought a bathroom should be required if they are detached. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 4 -- after living quarters add with ª bathroom but Lines 16, 17 & 18 -- change sentence to read, One Guest house/detached bedroom is permitted as an access01Y use to ª single familv dwelling. See aslo "Accessory dwellnig unit." (See Page 11) PAGE 6 - TITLE 17PTMC, 17.08.030, DEFINITIONS NURSING. REST. OR CONY ALES CENT HOME Mr. Spieckerman: Proposed by Mayor GeoffMasci. Mr. Randall noted the idea is not to turn it into a hospital. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Line 3 -- After shall not include add scheduled Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 17, 2001 · PAGE 8 - TITLE 17 PTMC, 17.16.010 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) R-I - LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY Mr. Randall: References to bedrooms. CONSENSUS: (pCOM) Lines 6 & 7 - delete or ~ bedrooms ~ 40.000-sauare-foot area for Planned Unit Develooments. R-II - MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY CONSENSUS: (pC OM) Lines 22 & 23 -- delete or 16 bedrooms ~ 40.000-square-foot area for Planned Unit Developments. PAGE 9 - TABLE 17.16.020 (RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS USES) ADULT FAMILY HOMES (for ~!!I fewer adults) Mr. Randall: Was not added as a cross reference. Conforms to the definition in PTMC 17.80.020. EFYIENCY DWELLlNC UNITS Mr. Randall: Efficiency dwelling units -- Staff suggestion to delete; it is a term used in the building code, but for their purposes a single family dwelling can be efficiency dwelling unit. It is a redundant definition. PAGE 10 - TABLE 17.16.020 (RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS USES) BOARDINGHOUSES Mr. Randall: Raised from four or fewer to six or fewer roomers to be consistent; a family can be six or fewer unrelated individuals. Left as a permitted use in R-I and R-II. · LODGING HOUSES Mr. Randall: Made prohibited use in R-I and R-II to provide some distinction -- seven or more roomers and can only occur in R-III and R-IV where larger and bulkier structures would be considered more appropriate. HALFWAY HOUSE Mr. Randall: Was unclear how it would be treated ifin definitions and not listed in the use table. It is not listed as a permitted use in zoning and thereforewould be assumed not permitted. Specifically listed ha1fwy houses as prohibited uses; they are facilities for people that are transitioning from confinement in a prison, jail situation, and are not allowed in residential districts. (He answered Mr. Benskin's question -- the difference in being released from a residential treatment center -- it is a place where they are going involuntarily.) Mr. Spieckerman asked regarding alcohol treatment. Mr. Randall clarified those would be residential treatment facilities. It is not intended to address group homes. NURSING. REST. OR CONY ALESCENT HOMES Mr. Randall: Raised from three or more persons to seven or more (adult family homes are six); currently prohibited in R-I and R-II. Congregate care facilities were prohibited in R-I and conditional in R-II. Congregate care and assisted living facilities imply that people are not able to live independently on their own and require some sort of care. They are not senior housing apartment complexes; people in nursing homes may need fairly intensive nursing care, not living in a quasi-apartment of their own and dining in a commons. (Note indicates, "In R-II zoning district. facilities proDOsing greater than four units ~ structure reauire ª PUD. Ch. 17.32.") For an R-II development you can apply for a PUD and Conditional Use. Mr. Harbison stated in their discussion at the workshop, the Commission felt there was a clear distinction. PAGE 11 - TABLE 17.16.020 (RESIDETIAL ZONNING DISTRICTS USES) · ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Mr. Randall: Left at accessory buildings. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 17, 2001 · · · GUESTHOUSEIDETACHED BEDROOM Mr. Randall: Listed as prohibited. Clarifying that you can have accessory buildings; when you have single family, you can include offices, storage buildings. You can have one accessory dwelling unit subject to its regulations; you can't have unlimited guest rooms or detached bedrooms. Mr. Spieckerman asked why a detached bedroom is prohibited. Mr. Randall replied that the building code provides minimum provisions for such things as sanitation, health and egress; it says if someone is sleeping in a room it should have bathroom facilities as part of that room. Mr. Spieckerman asked about being above a garage, and Mr. Randall answered it should be designed to be an ADU with bathroom and cooking facilities. With the redefined dwelling unit, it could be a sink and microwave and a bathroom. Mr. Spieckerman asked if that isn't excessive. Ms. Hersey agreed. Mr. Spieckerman asked if it is logical to say a person cannot put a bedroom, bed, sleeping room above a garage. Mr. Benson replied it may not be illogical, but you need to meet the requirements of a bedroom. Mr. Spieckerman, a guest house or guest room cannot be put above a garage? Mr. Randall indicated they could, but that would count as their ADD. Staff is trying to make it consistent with the building code; it would require a bathroom available where you could access it through a covered area. Mr. Spieckerman asked why we care -- guests for three or four nights throughout the year. Ms. Surber spoke of the difference in designing for a bedroom. Ms. Hersey asked how they would regulate it. Mr. Randall indicated it would be regulated at the time of the building permit when they specify the use; if they classify as storage, it is not reviewed as a bedroom, presuming the honesty of people's intentions. Mr. Spieckerman replied that you are building in a mechanism to make people dishonest. Mr. Randall raised the reasonable question -- an issue of do you want to invite multiple structures, structures to be rented out. Mr. Spieckerman indicated that is different. Ms. Surber indicated it would be enforcable; you could regulate it on the basis of someone renting it out as a bedroom on a regular basis. Mr. Randall stated that Staff stays with the recommendation -- the same as the building code; if sleeping in a detached room have a bathroom and cooking facilities. Mr. Spieckerman asked how they go about changing this. Chair Harbison pointed out they have had the opportunity to craft these as they have gone along through the workshops. CONSENSUS: (pC OM) Permitted in R-I and R-II (See Page 3, Line 17) PAGE 13 TABLE 17.16.030 (RESIDETIAL ZONNING DISTRICTS, BULK, DIMENSIONAL & DENSITY) MAXIMUM HOUSING DENSITY Mr. Randall: Modifications allow R-I and R-II PUDs. Clarified. R-I maximum housing density -- 4 .dwelling units (10,000 sf of lot area per unit); or 8 bedrooms for PUDs; R-ll 16 redrooms for PUDs; R-III and R-IV use of bedroom unit calculation is allowed. Deals with alternative residential styles; the PUD chapter allows R-I and R-II PUDs for various residential facilities. City Attornev Watts: Suggested adding in the Bulk & Dimensional Table, "not to exceed the density bonus." Mr. Spieckerman agreed. Mr. Randall: Said he could see Ms. Kostelec's point; you don't want to allow someone to propose studio units and then claim the bedroom calculation in order to double the densiity. He said that was not their intention. Mr. SDieckerman: Asked Ms. Kostelec if that satisifed her, Ms. Kostelec: Said she would still argue, coming from 4 dwelling units for 10,000 s.f. of lot area in R-I to essentially 8 units, which is what you are saying, multi-family -- you are talking about bedrooms. The only thing permitted essentialy in R-I that's anywhere close to being multi-family is residential treatment facilities, 6 or fewer units; everything else is prohibited. She said R-I is rather a special case, and she did not think they needed to make any changes to R-I. In R-II, if you are talking about multi-family where bedrooms are essentially dwelling units, as they were in the assisted living facility, you are going from doubling your density from 8 dwelling units to 16, and now you are saying increae the 16 by 20% through a PUD. It still looks like a doubling of density. She did not see in the PUD code, . .. 4 units per structure. Mr. Arthur: Is there presently a limit on a four-plex being only one bedroom? Mr. Randall replied negatively. Mr. Arthur: If he were to use the present code and come in on an R-II piece of property, build a four-plex with three bedroom units? I could do it with four bedroom units? Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 17, 2001 . . e Mr Randall: Replied affirmatively. Mr. Arthur: If we put in 16 bedrooms, that is the same as if I built --. He said he understands there is an inconsistency, but if they leave it the same, and you want to build a four-plex on R-II with four bedroom units, that is 16 bedrooms. Ms. Kostlec: Asked what this is supposed to clarify? This is supposed to be clarifying the assisted living situation which was whether the units were bedrooms or dwelling units and how many would be allowed; bedrooms were equivalent to dwelling units in that case. You are right, if you are just trying to limit the number of bedrooms in the four-plex. Mr. Arthur: But this R-II zone is not exclusively for assisted living; people use the R-II zone for other purposes. Ms. Kostelec: That is the question in front of you tonight. Do you really want multi-family development in an R-II zone, and are you regulating it through the number of bedrooms through a PUD? Mr. Arthur: You were mentioning this was a significant increase, but if I were using the code today I could go up to 16 bedrooms with the present code. Ms. Kostelec: If you had the lot area needed, and if they aren't in effect dwelling units; Mr. Arthur agreed. She continued that you don't need to have the number of bedrooms regulated through this Bulk & Dimensional Table; you need dwelling units regulated. Mr. Spieckerman: The other thing is, which one would be the controlling factor? In an R-I, if you put in three dwelling units, each with three bedrooms, you would have nine bedrooms. Are you exceeding the code? Mr Arthur: Said he is just trying to clarify it. He could see what they were talking about back and forth, but could not really see an answer to the dilemma. Mr Randall: Said with more thinking he saw their dilemma. Council changed R-III and R-N to a bedroom calculation, with the intent purpose of encouraging studio units. If you do just studio units, you could get more dwelling units than you could have previosly; if you do apartments with more bedrooms, two to three bedrooms, you would actually get less density than previously. He was trying to make the PUD chapter and this read better together, but he thinks Ms. Kostelc has a good point. The way it's written, if you did studio units through a PUD you could get more of a density bonus. We don't want that to occur; we should strike the bedrooms. What we are trying to accomplish is still accomplished below, Maximum number of dwelling units, and clarifying that 17.3 2 allows multi -family structures. PAGE 13 TABLE 17.16.030 (RESIDETIAL ZONNING DISTRICTS, BULK, DIMENSIONAL & DENSITY) MAXIMUM HOUSING DENSITY (Continued) Mr Randall: There should be a note in the Bulk & Dimensional Table. He thought they should just strike the bedrooms, because it creats a conflict. Mr. Arthur: You could still leave the not to exceed PUD density, but you could eliminate the bedrooms. Mr. Randall concurred. CONSENSUS: (pC OM) R-I -- delete ~ or for ~ bedrooms for PUDs; add but not exceed 20% in 17.32 R-II -- delete ~ or for 16 bedrooms for PUDs; add but not exceed 20% in 17.32 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS Mr Randall: Normal is 4 per structure; limited structures with more permitted through the PUD process. Intended as a cross reference to Chapter 17.32 and to reflect that it can be done through a PUD process. which already limits it to 20%. MAXIMUM REAR YARD SETBACKS Mr Arthur: Questioned barns on Minimum Rear Yard Setback, and asked why permit them with those restrictions. Ms. Surber and Mr. Randall indicated this was not included in the environmental review and cannot be changed at this time. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 17, 2001 · · · PAGE 15 TABLE 17.72.080 (MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS) RESIDENTIAL, STUDIO/l BEDROOM UNIT, 1 PER DWELLING UNIT Mr. Randall: Not designed when they went to the bedroom classification. Encouraging 1 bedroom apartments has been working; they are being proposed. Maximum Residential, studio/l bedroom unit was not reflected in parking space requirements. Mr Randall: Commented regarding the process that they did not include line-in and line-out with the docketing of the amendments. Those changes are fairly extensive, and that is why they used the workshop process to get the input of the Planning Commission on what changes were needed. They intended that workshop process to provide public involvement that was needed and to raise awareness. They feel they have had adequate environmental review and public notice. Mr Arthur: Asked if there were any legal issues raised here. City Attorney Watts: There are some issues, but the process is adequate. Mr Randall: Said he did not think it is possible to front load the exact detail of what an amendment is going to have in some cases. You need some public process to work out that detail. He said they probably could have had more detail upfront given time, but they are limited by Staff and Staff resources; it was not intended to come in late in the game with the amendment. They tried to work out the details as soon as they could. Ms. Hersey: Asked if they had received all of the public input. Ms. Surber: Indicated they had and said there hadn't been word from the group. Ms. Kostelec: Said she had just gotten what they were proposing this week. Ms. Hersey: Stated they had been working on this for months. Chair Harbison said it should be noted that, although the workshops are listed in notice for these meetings as Planning Commission workshops, folks present and others are always welcome to participate in those workshops. He indicated the points of view expressed in the workshops have been very beneficial, and the workshop process for this particular Commission has been an opportunity to make these changes, to have everyone's input about the lines- in and lines-out. He said that although not a public record hearing, they certainly have welcomed input at those workshop meetings and participation. A member of the audience asked if that applied to any proposed future amendments on the Comprehensive Plan, the public's requirement to have fully written amendments. . . .? Mr. Randall asked to clarify his question, if that creates a precedent. The member of the audience again asked, come in with a very general amendment and bring in . . . . language? Chair Harbson asked if he meant for the purpose of docketing. Ms. Sutber stated the submittal requirements have changed over time. She pointed out they received many suggested amendments that were so vague; they did not have the time to work it out at the department level and had to request more information from those submittals to see if Staff could support docketing those suggested amendments. She spoke of the BCD's time involvement with preparing strikeout and underlined language before an item gets docketed by Council giving them permission to expend Staff time on it. She said they have not always been able to do that, but they have always gone through the workshop process and provided that information. A member of the audience countered, "Not with Amendment #4." City Attorney Watts spoke to revisiting the issue. Mr. Randall explained there is a distinction between suggested amendments and formal amendments; with the formal amendment the applicant is proposing something specific and it is not up to the Council to modify that when it is docketed. The suggested amendment for bedrooms a few years ago was basically a letter without strikeins and strikeouts, just an indication that it would be nice. He and agreed with Mr. Watts it should be looked to determine what is an adequate amount of detail. Chair Harbison closed the meeting to Public Testimony on Amendment #1 at 7:40 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERA TION (Contained in Chart on Page 6) CONSENSUS on modifications to be incorporated into Amendment #1 (Exhibit M) (Contained in Chart on Page 6) Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 17, 2001 · · · MOTION Mr. Spieckerman ACCEPT AS MODIFIED EXCERPTS FROM mE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE AND mE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE LANGUAGE SECOND Ms. Hersey VOTE UNANIMOUS, 5 in Favor At 8: 10 p.m. Chair Harbison called for a 10-minute break. He reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Randall asked for consideration of the Amendment #1 Suggested Findings & Conclusions in the Staff Report of October 10, 2001. He indicated the findings are pretty general and don't refer specifically to the definitions they modified, and he thought they were still accurate. Ms. Surber concurred and explained they had voted on the changes, and they now have to substantiate their decision through these findings and conclusions that will be forwarded to the City Council. Chair Harbison stated that would start by making a motion to accept or reject the suggested findings and conclusions followed by any discussion. Mr. Benson said Finding #3 is certainly relevant. MOTION Mr. Benson ACCEPT STAFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO AMENDMENT #1 SECOND Mr. Arthur Discussion: Mr. Spieckerman thought there were comments they had not substantiated regarding specific changes since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the statement in #1 regarding circumstances that have substantially changed and asked if they have identified what those changes are. Mr. Randall noted that one of the changes was the adoption of the zoning code, and that the zoning code definitions were somewhat inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Another amendment that occurred was the adoption of the 4 dwelling unit maximum in R- I and R-II, and also the adoption of the bedroom calculation for R-IIl and R-IV. They did not have a parking ratio commensurate with the changes that occurred in studios. He said pretty much every amendment they have proposed was pursuant to a change that has occurred since the original Comp Plan adoption. The following specific findings were cited: 1) Four dwelling unit maximum in R-I & R-II. 2) Adoption of the Zoning Code and definitions that differed from the Comp Plan. 3) Adoption of bedroom calculations. 4) Lack of a parking procedure for Residential, studio/l bedroom units (detached or multi-family). 5) Separate specific finding: discussion by Commission regarding Guest house! detached bedrooms, that there is a valid purpose but should be limited to 1 per family residence. . Ms. Surber said she had proposed that they need to get finalized Findings and Conclusions in the minutes ready to move forward to Council. Mr. Randall stated they would have a revised draft for the Commission. MOTION AMENDED: Mr. Spieckerman ACCEPT STAFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO AMENDMENT #1 WITH INCLUSION OF THE SPECIFIC FINDING DIRECTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Discussion: Mr. Arthur said he would like Finding #3 to be # 1; he questioned the reference to appeals in Finding #2. Mr. Spieckerman asked if appeals were really significant. Mr. Randall suggested they could downplay that so it is not the driving factor, but it was an issue that occurred. Mr. Spieckerman asked if it was a circumstance that had changed. Mr. Randall replied they could list it as a separate item; the event raised ambiguities, and the code needs to be clarified pursuant to it. FINAL AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Spieckerman REQUEST STAFF TO REVISE THEm SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO AMENDMENT #1 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AT A FUTURE MEETING VOTE UNANIMOUS, 5 in Favor Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 17, 2001 · TEXT AMENDMENTS: Amendment #3 - Add Policy re Major Industrial Developments Amendment #4 - Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 - Review & Amend FUGA Language in the Comprehensive Plan · Mr. Randall indicated People for a Liveable Community (pLC) submitted a suggested amendment that would primarily remove language from the Comprehensive Plan. They didn't add very much language in reference to a Community Vitality Plan; a couple of other lines were added. It was mainly removal of language. Staff suggested there be an amendment to deal with MIDs as that was a process they were working through; that was docketed. Staff was also concerned that removal of FUGA language the PLC was suggesting might not be docketed by Council, so Staff suggested alternative amendments that would include reviewing FUGA language in the Comprehensive Plan and amend the Comp Plan as necessary to reflect where the City and County currently are in the Glen Cove discussions. He said a lot has happened since. All three items wére docketed. They have a very specific PLC amendment and a docketed item that really did not have any language associated with it. Staff conducted an environmental review. Since that time, they now have a very specific MID process and a couple of very short amendments referring to MIDs. Staff reviewed the suggested Amendment #4 submitted by PLC. The City accepted the PLC amendment; at that point it became the City's suggested amendment. Staff reviewed that language and found they could support nearly all of the PLC items, but also found a number of areas where the PLC amendment was in error, missing some language and in some places not fully listing the policy. Staff was concerned that the Planning Commission would not fully see what the PLC changes were affecting. Staff made changes to the PLC amendment, submitting Staff Amendment #5. Mr. Randall explained his intention is to review Staff Amendment #5 and note differences between that and the original PLC Amendment #4. He referenced Ms. Dorgan's letters entered into the record tonight as Exhibit R, regarding adequate SEPA review of Amendment #5, questioning how such a review could occur when they didn't have language. He stated that Staff had the PLC amendment and had made that environmental review. The language Staff is submitting now is fairly moderate modifications to that. He felt they have conducted adequate environmental review on the differences. Ms. Surber indicated that tonight she distributed and was entering into the record Exhibit T, changing language on pages 11 and 18 of Exhibit P. The information resulted from a conversation she had with City Attorney Watts. Mr. Randall reviewed Staff's proposed changes in the Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #/ SUGGESTED AMENDATORY LANUGAGE FOR AMENDMENT #5 (EXHIBIT P) Mr. Randall said the City does not designate any Urban Growth Areas; that is the County's role. The County is supposed to do that in conjunction with the City. Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) talk about the process, population forecasts, etc. The City's current Urban Growth Area (UGA) is its City Limits; the Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) was delineated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Glen Cove. Our Comp Plan and the State Growth Management Act (GMA) laws require our Comp Plan to contain an element that refers to UGAs. Section L Palle IV-2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #4 --Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA). (page 1) PLC proposed striking entirely Amendment #5 --(page 1, Line 9) Staff proposal: Change to ¥iMI Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (FUGA) Mr. Randall: Staff suggested keeping language in here because we cannot delete it entirely; we have to have references to what our UGA is. (page 1, Line 11) Staff proposal: Retain the paragraph. (page 1, Line 19) Proposal: Change to read, ". . . more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) in the Glen Cove area." Strike remainder. · Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 17, 2001 · Suggested by Jefferson County Randy Kline. Mr. Randall's understanding was they had not been designated, but have according to the County. He suggested a Search of the word intense and Replace with intensive. Mr. Randall explained the basic principles of Amendment #5: 1) Involvrnent in the Major Industrial Development (MID) process with the County; it appears as the County will proceed with the adopting code revisions to implement that. We should include a reference in our Comp Plan. The CWPPs which were adopted also reference a process for something like that, although the MID term did not exist then. 2) City Stafffeels that when the Comp Plan was drafted, as you read in the language, there were a lot of questions about what would happen with Glen Cove. Some of the language is pretty clear and it says that additional studies are needed before Glen Cove is considered to be a UGA. Other language is a little more forceful and says they really should be having regional commercial land out in the Glen Cove UGA, etc. Reading the two provisions together, they do not read consistently, probably caused from different groups, subcommittees, writing different elements of the Comp Plan. We are trying to accomplish saying that while it appears the City will become the public water provider in the Glen Cove area, we do not have the ability or plans to extend other urban level services out there at this time, sewer or other services. The County designates the UGAs in the county, and our UGA does not need to extend to Glen Cove to handle the growth and development that our Comp Plan is predicting at this point. We feel we have adequate lands in the City we can look at; if the point arises when we are reaching approaching build out of commercial and industrial lands, and it doesn't appear feasible to rezone, at that point we still have the door open recommending to the County that an expanded UGA be adopted, and we have included that language. 3) the County LAMIRD designation in the Glen Cove area, identifying commercial and manufacturing lands existing as of 1990 that look urban. The County may be saying they have already done that process. Amendment #5 -- Staff proposes (page 1, Line 16): New paragraph adding language. Mr. Randall: Talks about the City of Port Townsend as the only current UGA in Jefferson County; the County is working on a potential Tri-Area UGA; references the County process of working on a potential Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMlRD) designation for Glen Cove. Recommends that the City finds the industrial uses in Glen Cove are appropriate and that a LAMlRD designaûon there is also appropriate. · Amendment #5 -- Staff proposes (page 1, Line 23): New paragraph adding language. Mr. Randall: The City is coming up on 5-year Comp Plan update cycle to occur during 2002. At tlrat ûme it would be appropriate and the City should conduct the vacant land inventory including our commercial and industrial lands to determine if additional land is needed for commercial! industrial zones within our current City Limits Section ~ Pal!e IV-3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 2, Line 47) Staff proposal: Language added Mr. Randall: Cites language in the Comprehensive Plan not included in Amendment #4 --listed for more complete reading. (Anything referring to Glen Cove as an FUGA has been pretty much deleted.) Section ~ Pal!e IV-7. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 --(page 3, Line 27) Staffproposal: (Same as Amendment #4) -- Delete Regional Commercial, C-IV from Land Use Table references. Mr. Randall: To make consistent with other proposed amendments. Section ~ Pal!e IV-IO. Comorehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 3, Line 36) Staffproposal: (Same as Amendment #4) Delete text. Mr. Randall: To make consistent with other proposed amendments. Don't have anything zoned in the city. Basically, we can accomplish all our retail and service needs through our existing C-II highway commercial district. Did not think the C-IV Regional Commercial necessary at this time. Amendment #5 -- M-I (page 4, Line ll) Staff proposal: Reinstate first part of sentence. Mr. Randall: Appropriate to leave; delete remainder of sentence. We have no M-I zones, although there is the ability in our zoning code to add it through a Comprehensive Plan amendment at which ûme this part of the sentence could be eliminated. It is a reflection of where we are currently. · Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 October 17, 2001 · Section ~ Pa1!e IV-ll. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 4, Line 18) Staff proposal: Reinstate first part of sentence. Mr. Randall: Same concept as the one above. Absolute fact. Section !to P(l1!e IV-n. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 4, Line 27) Staff proposal: Additional Lanugage Section 'L Pa1!e IV-14. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 6, M-II(B) Staff proposal: Delete lREl1:l5trial Mr. Randall: Table of Land Uses later appearing in the zoning code. To conform to Zoning Code -- Point Hudson marine related uses. Section 2s Pa1!e W-20. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 9, Line 3) Staff proposal: (Same as Amendment #4) Section !!h Pa1!e IV-24. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 10, Line 2) Staff proposal: Add Old Fort Townsend Road Mr. Randall: Old Fort Townsend Road -- County's proposed limit for the LAMlRD. County is interested in establishing some buffer standards. Amendment #5 -- (page 10, Line 2) Staff proposal: Added language Language proposed by Mr. Lockwood:. :. :. Road and to maintain ª low density buffer around the entire Port Townsend UGA. Section !.L Pa1!e IV-26. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 10, Line 6) Staff proposal: (Same as Amendment #4) Mr. Randall: Not needed; have addressed later. · Section ll.s Pa1!e IV-30. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 10, Line 22) Staff proposal: Change "Ensure" to "Encourage" Mr. Randall: Neither the City nor the County have jurisdiction over the other. Section ll1 Pa1!e IV-32. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 10, Line 31) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Most changed -- PLC deleted entire section; Stafffelt important to have language to talk about our UGA which is a state-mandated element of our Comp Plan. Referenced the CWPP that gives direction to City and County interaction on this issue; talking about Jefferson County establishing an LAMIRD in the Glen Cove area. "... at the time of this writing, the City of Port Townsend does not support extendini1: a UGA . . ." Does not make sense, but thinks this is not an end; things are going to continue to occur. If something changes in the future, we can change the Comp Plan. We are trying to say "as of this time" for the County to proceed with their planning and the City to proceed with theirs. (page 11, Line 32) Staff proposal: New Policy 16.3. Mr. Randall: Amendment #4 would have eliminated entirely. Refers to the water system that appears the City will be acquiring. The City will have a water plan, but this gives some direction to the City, and also some direction to the County and residents who might live on that water system, that you are still subject to County . zoning and the City needs to be responsible and encourage being consistent with Jefferson County's rural regulations. These are all important updates since Comp Plan adoption in 1996. (See Exhibit T Revisions following.) Section Ms Pa1!e VII-2. Comprehensive l!m! Amendment #5 -- (page 12, Line 5) Staff proposal: Minor change Mr. Randall: Similar to Amendment #4. · Section ä Pa1!e VII-51. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 12, Line 12) Staff proposal: Same as Amendment #4 Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 October 17, 2001 · · · Section Ms PQJle VII-8.9. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 12, Line 29) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 (page 12, Line 33, Goal 8) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Talking about not extending City public facilities and utilities inappropriately into rural areas. Mr. Benson asked if that is not going to happen somewhat with the acquisition of the PUD in the Glen Cove area because not all of that is going to be included in the LAMIRD. Mr. Randall replied this is talking about future extensions; it's o.k. for us to operate and maintain something that is already there. Mr. Arthur commented that he believed with accepting federal grants for the sewer and water systems, you can't really exclude people outside the city if they are willing to hook up and you have capacity available. Mr. Randall was unsure; they are required to adopt utility plans. Mr. Arthur cited his experience indicating it is something that may not be. Mr. Randall said they would raise that with the Public Works director. He knows Growth Management says you are not supposed to be extending your urban facilities outside. (page 12, Line 36-46) Staff proposal: Same as Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Deletions are identical. (page 12, Line 48, Policy 8.14) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Adds reference to Major Industrial Developments is in a section that was already talking about joint City/County review. Mr. Benson asked if that was a duplication; that some of that language. other than the FUGA language, was Policies 8.1, 2, and 3. Mr. Randall said it was really talking about the Glen Cove area. and it's not necessary for them to engage in that kind of cooperation with us for a LAMIRD. The only reason for our interaction is on the MID, and the reason for that joint interaction is because the MID is definitely a new project and definitely Urban Level development, and it should go in the UGA first. If it can't go there, and meets other MID criteria, it can go out. We will definitely be involved in that process making sure it is not something that should be done otherwise. Mr. Benson asked about 8.1.2, because we will be the provider of the water source out there in that area. Mr. Randall said he did not know if it would require an interlocal agreement to maintain that water system. City Attorney Watts indicated that the City is going to be the primary urban purveyor. He answered Mr. Randall's question about needing an interlocal agreement, that it goes away with the City takeover of the water system. (page 13, Line 10, Policy 8.Z- 6 c.) Change to read: Do not accommodate businesses and services that are more approoriatelv located within the UGA. Suggested by Jefferson County Randy Kline. Mr. Randall concurred that is appropriate (page 13, Line 12, Policy 8.Z- 6) Staff proposal: Language added Mr. Randall: Added MIDs and LAMIRDs as an area that contain urban growth in an unincorporated area. Section 11 Paee VII-H. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 13, Line 22) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Same as Amendment #4 except retained reference to (UGA). Section !L Paee VII-IS. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 13, Line 25) Staff proposal: Same as Amendment #4 Section !2s Paee VII-I6. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 14, Line 3) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Same as Amendment #4 except retained reference to (UGA). Section ~Paee VII-72. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 14, Line 5) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Retained first portion of the policy. Added qualifier to 3 (Line 17) -- In future olannine: ohases. if Port Townsend's Urban Growth Area i§: extended bevond the current ç!!y limits. then. . .. but that they should look inward first. Section lls Paee VIII-7. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 14, Line 24) Staff proposal: Added whole section. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 October 17, 2001 · · Mr. Randall: Not in Amendment #4. References MIDs and the countywide planning policy that talks about these things. Section lit Palle VIII-15. l§.s Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 15, Line 16) Staff proposal: Add to Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Much longer in Amendment #5. Thought it important they see the policy language that exists on revitalizing our commercial Historic Districts. (page 16, Line 40) Staff proposal: Eliminate Mr. Randall: "... adverse effects of regional commercial" -- Repealing regional commercial as an option, saying Glen Cove should not be a UGA and the County should not have any uses like that out there, this is no longer necessary. (page 16, Line 48) Mr. Randall: "Community Vitality Plan" thinks really replaces the intent of the Main Street Plan, and goes a little farther. People are now realizing in the economic development realm that especially in rural counties the key to economic development is keeping your existing businesses, helping them grow and flourish rather than pursuing big businesses. (page 17, Line 18) Staffproposal: Change to read ootential adverse effects of new Mr. Randall: Addition of words, "potential" and "new" tones down the language but leaves the essence of what that Vitality Plan is intended to do. Mr. Benson commented that it was a good change, but there is not a definition of exactly what it is; who does it and what is it. Mr. Randall replied it could be a lot of things, something driven by the Economic Development Council (EDC). Main Street serves downtown. There are a lot of other commercials districts in town that are also very important and need to have our representation and support. He did not have a lot of ideas regarding the details or what would drive it but invited public comment. Mr. Spieckerman pointed out these are goals and strategies, you don't have to say how. Mr. Benson indicated everybody is worried about the large corporate business coming into Port Townsend. He said there are a lot of outside businesses that want to locate here; they are eager to locate here -- small businesses, 20 to 60 employees. They are having a hard time finding space and cooperation to locate here. He thinks that needs to be encouraged just as much as encouraging local businesses, because the city is growing and there is need for jobs.· We need to look at all of the avenues. Mr. Randall said back in Section 16 that the City extend and provide adequate infrastructure in our existing commercial areas. That is something we have not really looked at, so the medium size businesses have a place to go, have an option other than Glen Cove, etc. Section ~ Palle lX-I. b Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 17, Line 7) Staff proposal: See Exhibit T Revisions following, for Page 18. Section ä Palle lX-6. 7. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 19, Line.6) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 Mr. Randall: Almost the same as Amendment #4. Amendment #5 -- (page 19, Line 13) Proposal: Modify Exhibit P. Conclude with the word increase. Delete remainder of the sentence -- and significant amounts Qf. a shertage af suitable for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. Proposed by Mr. Benson; Mr. Benson asked about there being significant amounts of available commercial and manufacturing land within the City Limits. Mr. Randall indicated that is his statement; if you feel other language is appropriate, you can do that. Mr. Spieckerman thought it was a little premature to include that statement. Mr. Benson said the inventory is coming up and may show there is land available but not be usable because of the lack of infrastructure. Mr. Randall said he had taken issue with the statement Port Townsend had a shortage of land suitable for commercial and manufacturing development and based on that they were saying we should do the UGA. Mr. Randall concurred with the suggestion. Amendment #5 -- (page 19, Line 33, Policy #3) Staff proposal: Added language. Mr. Randall: Amendment #4 deleted whole paragraph. Language added referring to Joint Cityl County planning in UGAs. If we do expand, at that point we engage in joint planning with the County to expand our UGA. Mr. Benson asked if there would be a definition of countywide planning there. Mr. Randall said the countywide planning policy is an adopted policy. Policy on Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas is the title of the countywide planning policy and sub-elements under that. · Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 October 17, 2001 · · · Amendment #5 -- (page 19, Line 47, Policy #7) Staffproposal: Added language Mr. Randall: Did not find the existing reference reflected what they had, so suggested some new language, all things that were in the Economic Development Chapter. Trying to be more consistent with what it was trying to summarize. Amendment #5 -- (page 20, Policies 9 & 10) Staff proposal: Same as Amendment #4 Exhibit I Revisions Ms. Surber based on telephone conversations tonight with Mr. Randy Kline, Jefferson County. Amendment #5 -- (page 11, Line 12) Staff proposal: Change to read Sup\>Ort industrial zonim~ in the unincoI1>orated Glen Cove LAMIRD. (page 11, Line 21) Staff proposal: Change to read Encourage the establishment ofzoning designations within the Glen Cove LAMIRD to support diversified manufacturing and accessory commercial uses. Ms. Surber: Recognizing the fact that Glen Cove is under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and LAMIRD already. (This is the County's position.) (page 11, bottom of page) Staff Proposal: Addition to read Policy 16.1.3 SUDPOrt Jefferson County in limiting commercial develoDment in the Glen Cove ~ to within the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Ms. SUIber: Suggestion made by Mr. Lockwood, PLC. Emphasizing that under the GMA, you can't designate commercial development within rural areas; it has to be a UGA or LAMIRD. Mr. Benson asked if redundant with the definition ofLAMIRD. Ms. Surber felt nothing wrong in adding the comfort level with being able to clearly point it out to the county. Mr. Benson questioned 16.1.2 under the definition ofLAMIRD, isn't a small retail allowed also for manufacturing businesses and what they produce? Mr. Spieckerman clarified - accessory commercial uses. Mr. Benson asked if it should be clarified. Mr. Randall answered they do not want to get too detailed because it is the County's code; the County will define the LAMIRD and its uses. Jefferson County and City residents should be participants in that process; the City would have a right to appeal. Mr. Randall explained the concept of growth management is rural areas are outside of urban growth (rural is defined), and then urban growth areas. A couple of exceptions are the LAMIRDS and MIDs. He felt both the City and County were heading in the right direction and getting closer together on these issues. (page 11, Lines 27 & 28) Staff Proposal: Strike industrial area; replace with LAMIRD. (page 11, Line 34) Staff Proposal: Strike industrial area (potential Ms. SUIber: Intended to set forth what has been discussed between the PLC, Jefferson County Randy Kline, and Ms. Surber, that although not officially designated as a LAMIRD by the Board of County of Commissioners, it is defined as such under GMA and you might as well call it what it is. Section lls Pa1!e IX-l,2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5 -- (page 18, Line 34) Staff proposal: Modify Amendment #4 to read, "Finally, the Plan recommends that the Port Townsend Paper Mill should be left outside the City's peteatial futufe FUGA, and zoned for "resource-related" manufacturing uses. The Plan suggests that compatible light manufacturing and accessory commerci~ uses be located in the area west of the Glen Cove Mill site, inside the peteRtial unincorporated peftiea ef ~ FUG..'~ Glen Cove LAMIRD. Ms. Surber: Recognizes the fact that the City and County were in agreement that the pulp mill is a resource-based industry and therefore shouldn't be within the UGA. Mr. Benson asked how far west; Ms. Surber replied it is inside the LAMIRD. Mr. Randall said they found a lot of value in and appreciated the hard work that went into Amendment #4, but they felt some additional language and additional references were needed, that cross referencing policy language needed to be included. Staff feels Amendment #5 with the suggestions that the PLC has submitted is better than Amendment #4. They have really rolled Amendment #3 dealing with MIDs into Amendment #5 because they are so interactive, and that references to FUGAs and joint planning, etc. all belong together in one document. Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2001 Page 19 · RECOMMENDATION: Amendment #5 be recommended to Council for adoption and that Amendment #4 not be recommended for adoption. Changes from Jefferson County incorporated into Exhibit ~: Ms. SuIter relayed suggestions for change from Jefferson County's Randy Kline: Page 1, Line 19 " . . . more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) in the Glen Cove area." Strike remainder. Mr. Randall's understanding was they had not been designated, but according to the County they have. He suggested a Search of the word intense and Replace with intensive. Page 13, Line 10 Policy 8.~ é c. Change to read: Do not accommodate businesses and services that are more aoorooriatelv located within the UGA. Mr. Randall concurred that is appropriate. Other changes incoTPOrated into Exhibit ~: Page 10, Line 22 (Mr. Randall) Change "Ensure" to "Encourage" Neither the City nor the County have jurisdiction over the other. Page 19, Line 13 (Mr. Benson) Conclude with the word increase. Delete -- and simificant amounts Qf.. a sIlertage ef suitable for commercial and manufacturing development still exists within the City limits. Mr. Randall concurred. · Mr. Arthur disclosed that he owns an interest in property in the Glen Cove area and is also talking to the County about planning that. He asked about the appropriateness of his participation in the deliberations on these issues. City Attorney Watts told Mr. Arthur if he has a direct property interest that would be affected by these changes to policy, zoning and regulations, he should not participate in this Comp Plan amendment. Mr. Arthur said he was confused because it looked to him like this was eliminating any City concerns. Mr. Watts said if he has an interest that might be affected by the outcome of this action. Mr. Arthur recused himself and left the meeting. Mr. Randall said there are references in the Zoning Code to C-IV, Regional Commercial. If it is recommended that these be adopted and forwarded to Council, he would ask that Staffbe directed to prepare strikeout language in the Zoning Code consistent with the deletion of the C-IV district. It was determined to return to the matter later. At 9:32 p.m. Chair Harbison opened the meeting to public testimony on Amendments #3, 4, and 5. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Ms. Nancy Dorgan. 2137 Washington Street #7, Private Citizen, and representative ofPLC (Read from written testimony) "As we explained in the PLC amendment, the term "FUGA" is obsolete at this stage of our GMA planning. To remove it entirely from the Comprehensive Plan has been a necessary housekeeping action for several years, so I'm glad Staff is recommending that it now be done. Deleting FUGA language this year will also make the broader 2002 Plan review process easier next year. 'PLC initiated the FUGA deletions this year in our May 1st application partly because we knew it was a necessary update. More importantly, it was apparent to us that the community's growth intentions documented in the pre-plan GMA survey of preferred growth alternatives, plus the 1,400 hours ofPT2020 coffee discussions, could never be realized by a sprawling expansion of the City's commercial district into Glen Cove. 'The threat to the economic health of our community by a large commercial FUGA expansion is very real. The PLC amendment reflects our understanding of the frequent damage to small town commercial districts that occurs when large commercial centers consisting of big boxes, little boxes, or strips of little and big commercial boxes locate on the edge of town on cheaper land. This is called sprawl and rim development, and no town is immune · Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 October 17, 2001 · · · from its damaging impact, including Port Townsend. Our fears are not based on fantasy, and have been fueled by the reality of the C-IV zoning category which was adopted into our Comprehensive Plan in 1996 and which we would like to see removed. That zoning could apply to up to 20 acres in Glen Cove, and that is a fact. 'If the Planning Commission and the City Council approve Staff's recommendations in amendment #5, C-IV zoning in our comp plan will be a relic. It was never supported by the community. PLC would like to thank Staff for recognizing that, and they have also done an outstanding job of adding smart -growth text to the Comprehensive Plan in several new places. Our amendment application narrative referenced those GMA requirements and principles, but we did not propose any specific text making them implicit. So in that sense, #5 is a better amendment than #4, and we encourage you to retain those new passages (and we agree with the other suggested changes that have already been accepted tonight [verbal]) Mr. John Lockwood. 1510 Jefferson Street, Private Citizen and representative ofPLC Thanked Staff and said he thought they had done an excellent job. He said they support going forward with Amendment #5 and abandoning Amendment #4. He said in general they agree with all of the changes; there were a couple of things he wanted to raise. Page 1, Line 18, "~~ .for the Itondale. Hadlock. Chimacum -- "Tri-Area" ~ ~." He said the BOCC has eliminated Chimacum from the UGA definition of the Tri-Area. The Tri-Area UGA has been reduced to a bi- area UGA sometimes referred to as Irondale UGA. Page, 1, Line 23 -- a paragraph Sta;fI has inserted -- " ~ ~ ~ ~ City should seek to rezone land within the existing: çlly limits before identifving areas outside the çlly limits fur expansion of the city's UGA ~ ~~" He said they support that Staff addition, that it is also required by state law. He pointed out that, if there was a shortage of commercial land in Port Townsend, what Staff is simply saying the :first place we need to look to rezone land, upzone land, is inside the city. He spoke of the mandate of the city, that when they gave their dog and pony show, alternative #2 indicated there were already a series of areas where there was enough neighborhood development model identifying various potential areas of the city. Page 10, Line 3 -- suggested a minor change adding a few words to read: :.. ~ ~ Old Fort Townsend Road and to maintain ª low density buffer around the entire Port Townsend UGA. He said there is a low density buffer going around the entire Port Townsend UGA now. Mr. Spieckerman asked why not say "the low density buffer?" Mr. Lockwood explained that basically the current buffer goes around the town until it gets to the special study area. It looks as if the outcome of the special study will be that they will designate a LAMIRD in Glen Cove and that the rest of the Glen Cove area will remain as it is now. He said LAMIRDs are not really so much established as they are identified, that you are required by the GMA to not only create a Comprehensive Plan of all the cities in the county but are required to go out and identify the limited area, more intensive growth area. The County did that and not just Glen Cove, but also area along SR 20, Quilcene, etc. Those are not only designated but also mapped and part of the County's Comp Plan. So, it is possible that the County may redraw the line on the LAMIRD; they are saying they may have drawn the line too conservatively, and if they go back and again look at the 1990 built environment, they may redraw the LAMIRD line. Regardless, of whether or not they succeed, and whatever the eventual LAMIRD boundaries might be, it seems clear at this point there will be a LAMIRD in Glen Cove, and that there will be a UGA in Port Townsend. He spoke of 20 year projections and there being enough land within the city to accommodate both population growth, and very likely with appropriate rezoning whatever is needed. He answered Ms. Hersey's questioning about the buffer, that there are two reasons for where they might want the buffer to go outside the city limits: 1) a buffer to screen the industrial part of the city; 2) create an urban reserve area which is outside the city areas where they are likely to expand sometime in the future. You are encouraged not to put in infrastructure and build development in areas that possibly some time in the future you are going to need. Mr. Lockwood said adding their suggested wording does not imply an outcome; it just makes a statement that supports a buffer. There was discussion clarifying the location. Mr. Spieckerman said he thinks there is some industrial property down in that part of the city, or commercial, inside the city limits. He asked if that property abuts the mill property. There was uncertainty, and Mr. Spieckerman said he was just questioning if Mr. Lockwood's definition would apply. Mr. Lockwood clarified that would only apply to areas that are legally and appropriately zoned rural. He thought Mr. Benskin raised an interesting question on Page 12, Policies 8.1 and 8.2. He hadn't talked to other members ofPLC and said he had a feeling they would have some problem with Policy 8.2, .\dept iBtedeeal Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 October 17, 2001 · · agFeeHlelHs ".vhiøh iàeBtify the aPPFefJriate pr-eviEler ef pU9liø :faeilit:ies alu. seniees wHæR the UÐÍaceFpeæteå pertieR efthe FOO\., within the Glen Cove LAMIRD. The same thing for 8.1. . .£\sS1:H'e that levels ef&efViee fer p1i9lie faeiliâes iR the Glen Cove LAMIRD are eemisteftt ..-MIl or ideøâøal te the City's level at serviee staBŠftfds. It raises a new issue. Ms. Dorgan pointed out that even though LAMIRDS are limited areas they are not urban. He liked the comments added on Page 14, Lines 17 & 18, an future phases. if Port Townsend's Urban Growth Area ~ extended beYond the current Q!y limits. then cooperate. . .) He said concerning the Community Vitality Plan, Page 16, Line 48, this proposal makes almost no statement about what the plan would contain. It is common across the United States. What we had in mind is get together a citizen's advisory board that would do some real work on identifying how to maintain a strong local economy. One of the things that could be included is that you want a strong local economy for a variety of areas or the entire City of Port Townsend, not just the downtown business district. He stated concern for the success of the proposal to have a Community Vitality Plan and said to remember that it will come up when this process begins. The committee members should be encouraged to look at other cities. He also noted Mr. Benskin's comments and said he thinks there are new businesses that could come to town that are extremely valuable. He thought there is language that describes what kinds of businesses Port Townsend really wanted and that would be appropriate. He said they are not trying to put any limits on what this Plan would be, just suggesting that they have one and to focus on the vitality of our local economy. He thought Page 18 is great. He said he would speak to the issue ofMIDs later. Mr. Jim Lindsav, 8055 - 45th N.E., Seattle, W A, 98115, representing Messers. John and Roger Evans He said he was representing the Barber family and the Evans family, owners of property in the Glen Cove area and also in the City of Port Townsend itself. He cited things he was sure the Commission was aware of, but he wanted them in the record: RCW 36.78.110 -- Section dealing with the Comprehensive Plan. Requires each county to designate Urban Growth Areas. Most of the UGAs are within the city limits, but there are also UGAs that are adjacent to and outside the city limits, or at least in the sphere of influence of those UGAs that have been developed. He said if there is anything that prohibits the establishment ofUGAs outside of the city limits, the area has to be characterized urban, or at least partially urban. It says: 1) "Urban growth shall be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth as adequate existing public facilities and services capacity has been developed; 2) the area is already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by the combinaûon of existing public facilities and services, and any addiûonal needed public faciliûes and services that are provided by either the private or public sectors; 3) and in the remaining portion of the Urban Growth Area. In general cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services, and generally it is not appropriate that the urban governmental services be extended into rural areas. The County Commissioners June 11th adopted findings of the Glen Cove Tri-Area Special Study. He said there was a quote today that said a LAMIRD established in the Glen Cove area. He disagreed with that conclusion and would say that it is under study, that he would go through that process. He quoted from the summary of the findings of that special study just adopted in June, Goals and Findings, Section 3: "The Urban Growth Area boundaries will designate a UGA boundary in the Glen Cove industrial area. That puts in some protecting rural areas to the west of Glen Cove from some incompatible uses of visual impact, the adoption of the Corridor Management Plan addressing the access set back, uniform signage and buffering." He said it goes on to make some other recommendaûons in some other areas. Sections 5 or 2... studv J2y Earth Tech. Seotember 2001. just commissioned by the County He quoted from their report ofrecommendations to the County. "According to the Jefferson County CP (at pg. 3-30), 'it is anticipated that the Glen Cove area will be determined to be the appropriate location for the majority of the County's future industrial development "'. The report goes on to say, "The Central Puget Sound Hearings Board has sometimes used the notion that 'the land speaks for itself' in its decisions regarding the appropriateness of particular land use designations. Applying that principle to Glen Cove also tends to lend support to the notion of Glen Cove as an industrial area as opposed to being suitable for rural residential--especially in such close proximity to existing non-residential uses. The presence of public water system facilities, electrical utilities, an existing improved internal road network with multiple major arterial access points, land clearing in preparation for non- · Planning Commission Minutes })age 22 October 17, 2001 · · · residential development and an existing pattern of non-residential preparation for non-residential development and an existing pattern of non-residential development all 'speak' to the most appropriate use of the land as something other than residential. In addition, many of these 'facilities' constitute the 'built environment' and can help to shape a 'logical outer boundary' (LOB) for an eventual 'final' LAMIRD designation." Mr. Lindsay said the built environment by its very nature is urban in nature, not just rural. A built environment does, by its nature, define urban-type settings that refer to the need to plan for UGAs under the Growth Management Act. He spoke of the recommendations in proposals both 4 and 5, that this is the first he had seen the specific proposals and he had to read them while the other discussion was going on so he not going to go detail by detail but give some impressions and follow this up with additional written testimony. He said some of his observations listening to the conversation, are that either one of these proposals are getting way ahead of the County, simply by predetermining there is going to be a LAMRID out there. He cited a Growth Management Hearings Board decision (on a very similar case to what is happening in Glen Cove) in Tacoma. He had not had a chance to review it but according to the principal planner from Pierce County Planning who is in charge of all the subarea plans, there is· a situation where the industrial characteristics adjacent to the City of Tacoma basically decided they wanted nothing to do with Tacoma; they didn't like them; they had noting in common and they didn't want to be part of their UGA. So, they tried to do a LAMIRD. He said according to the planner, the city sued them; the Growth Management Hearings Board essentially said, "You will become the UGA because you have characteristics of urban built environment." He reiterated he had not had time to read that, but when he can he will be more than happy to pass the information on. Mr. Lindsay said the proposal, Exhibit P -- Amendment #5, is a major change to Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan. Dropping all the reference to all the planning work that was done for the Glen Cove area, essentially leaving it without any direct input or criteria for doing planning that is currently outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, seemed to him to him to be causing a lot of problems down the line. He has not seen the SEP A, or environmental review that was done, but suspected with such a major change that is being proposed in the Comp Plan he thought they would have had to have gone back and amend the environmental impact statement. He had not seen that review or how inclusive that review is nor were the property owners notified of that review. You would think there would be some notification to the property owners as to who it would directly affect. rather than just advertising it in the Leader. So, they questioned that environmental review, and the adequacies with which that review was done. It appeared to him, that while there was reference to doing joint planning, the proposal really purports not to do any planning for the area, but does purport to continue to control it. He said there is passage after passage about maintaining buffers along the highway, about what kind of development can go out there, about buffers around the city that are in the county, so the control elements about what is purported to happen are in the proposed changes, but not this really intensive planning effort that he personally believes is obligated to be peñormed. The area is clearly a mixture of inputs. Glen Cove exists because it is an employment center and adjacent to the City of Port Townsend. Take away Port Townsend and there is no Glen Cove. Take away Glen Cove and there is still a Port Townsend. He stated that it is part of your economic base. It's the area, and this happens in many jurisdictions, where you are told to go down to Glen Cove because we really don't want to look at you. These are outdoor storage facilities, users of land that require a lot of land for parking equipment, start-up industries -- very similar to the multi-industrial area in Snohomish County with the exception "multi" is a rural area that is designated UGA specifically for industrial development. He had mentioned that Glen Cove was definitely in the sphere of influence of Port Townsend. He thought it was an undeniable, indisputable fact. He could not, nor had he seen what substantial changes have occurred that would bring the City Council to the conclusion that they could change the Plan; what has changed in the Glen Cove area that would change it from being an identified UGA -- in the Port Townsend Comp Plan as being a preferred alternative for a UGA, to not becoming a UGA today? He could see nothing that has changed materially with the exception that the County doesn't have all the planning work done, but that doesn't necessarily mean there have been changes in circumstances that would basically back up these kinds of changes that are proposed with your Comprehensive Plan. He continued that it has to be remembered, and there has been a lot of dispute about this in the courts, if the Glen Cove area is left as rural, whether it be a LAMIRD or not, it is questionable whether you can ever provide any urban services out there or not, and it's questionable whether you can extend your water system out there. That issue is argued on cases constantly back and forth with the opposing parties about whether water lines constituted Planning Commission Minutes Page 23 October 17, 2001 · · · urban services. If you were to ask Mr. Brickland, he would say it does absolutely constitute an urban service; if you were to ask Mr. Rich Hill, he would say, "No, these are just two opposing land use services." But, there is a question. He said that in fact you probably would never be able to provide sewers out there, if it's not a UGA. The city provides services for that area, e.g., sewer system. You will now own, you made a deal, for the water system. As he read earlier, cities generally provide the services; it is in your sphere of influence; it is the built environment. He thought the city would be remiss in walking away by rejecting the policies in our Comp Plan. There ws a discussion tonight about deleting regional commercial. He said if the City of Port Townsend is the only UGA currently -- we don't know if one will be established in the Tri-Area or not, that is currently under study - - who is to provide the regional commercial? Who is going to do that? It can't be done in the County. He asked," Is that going to be Silverdale? Is that where your regional commercial will be?" It is easy to delete something from the Plan, but let's ask the other question -- if the Tri-Area becomes a UGA, is that where you want your regional commercial? He said these are questions he thinks they need to ask and understand. Do you want the corporate type offices to end up in the Tri-Area; it is more centrally located, there is no question about that, but that is something if you don't allow for it is hard to scrutinize when they come knocking on your door -- because you simply said no. He said it is always better to have the basis of dealing with the applicant rather thanjust simply saying "We don't want you here." That doesn't prevent them from going to another jurisdiction that may in fact impact you. Mr. Lindsay requested that the record be left open so they may submit comments in writing; maybe that's not necessary. His assumption was that the City Council will also continue public hearings on this matter; if so the record does not need to be left open. RECOMMENDATION: He respectfully urged that this Planning Commission deny all aspects of proposals #4 and #5 -- or as it is stated, Exhibit P. He said to wait until the County has done their thing. You say the County may never get there, but sooner or later they will. Until they do, nothing is going to happen out there anyway; the land is basically frozen -- nothing can happen; services can't be extended, the LAMlRD is basically pinned down in the southern portion of the UGA. He declared that the City is predetermining the outcome, and maybe they know something he does not know, but that is not the way the process works. He said that is not a defensible position for the Growth Management Board; process is what usually hangs up development. That same process has to be followed when you work with making changes to the Comp Plan; that is the law. Mr. Lindsay expressed thanks for being heard out. Ms. Colette Kostelec. 540 Benton Street, Private citizen and representative of Olympic Council Ms. Kostelec expressed a couple of general concerns that came in review of Table N. You make changes to the Comprehensiv Plan because there is an inconcistency with the zoning code. She felt it should work the opposite way, if there are inconsistencies between the two, you should make changes to the zoning code, not the Comprehensive Plan. The other came up in the language about whether it's marine-related industrial uses at Point Hudson or marine-related, but it is also just as appropriate with our previous discussion on Amendment #1 as well. Specific lane:uae:e: Page 10, Policy 13.4.2 -- "Ensuring" that the City Planning Commission is involved in amendments that affect land adjacent to the city and making that "encourage." When she was representing the City on the County Planning Commission and discussions came up about Glen Cove during the special study, it was her real concern knowing that the City Planning Commission had never even looked at them and that there hadn't been discussion at the City level and there hadn't been discussion on the city level about proposed land use amendments in an area that does affect the City. She urged -- do not change "ensure" to "encourage" but stay involved in land)1se proposals that do affect land adjacent to the city. Page 20 -- Deletion of the language regarding 2,700 "family wage" jobs, did not know where it was coming from; there is that same language on Page 18 - family wage jobs. She did not know if that was an inconsistency or not. She was also generally concerned regarding MIDs and said apparently this RCW changewas made in 1995 that specifically addressed MIDs that was before the city adopted their Comp Plan in 1996. She said she thinks the City needs to be really careful how they address this subject, that in her opinion it's not in City's interest at to have MIDs approved in the County. She asked, from the Staff Report and the amendment exactly what it is they are doing with Planning Commission Minutes Page 24 October 17, 200 1 · MIDs, what it specifically accomplishes, why we are doing it. She believes that the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee should be doing a lot of work for its development of very specific criteria to be used in approving MIDs, where they are appropriate in the County, especially since no other county in the state has done this, that our little county is again on the edge of Growth Management planning. She thinks serious consideration needs to be given to the repercussions ofMIDs and how to prevent the cumulative impact from opening this Pandora's box. The County Planning Commission has been going through a review; they are not all of like mind. It is a minority report that specifically addressed issues that were of concern to the County Planning Commission that had not come up for discussion yet. RECOMMENDATION: Don't make any changes to Comp Plan relating to MIDs. She thinks it is not necessary, that potentially it is really problematic for the City. Mr. Lindsay's comments about making language change in our Comprehensive Plan related to an area ofland that is under the jurisdiction of the County and why we are doing it, and it's not necessary -- she thinks again that it's really important how we write our Comprehensive Plan because it does give direction to the County as to what they do with the lands that are adjacent to the city. It is very appropriate to talk bout the land adjacent to the city in our Comprehensive Plan, and we want that language to be well thought out and directed. She did not support the idea that we shouldn't discuss language just because it's outside our immediate jurisdiction. · Mr. John Evans. P.O. Box 666, Quilcene, W A98367 -- Land Owner in Glen Cove Spoke of Mr. Lindsey being. more of an expert in this area and just wanted to speak as a landowner. Theyhave invested hundreds of thousands over the last 10 years. They have tried to work with the city and have been patient. He said that frankly they had to sell all their holdings within the city and own a piece of property on the city limits in Glen Cove that it is an example of how this property's worth was suddenly changed to a buffer in the last half hour by changing the word, "the" to the word "a" in the added section. He said they hadn't had their say. They progressed down the road and thought they had full buy-up on a potential development, whether 5 or 15 years and we just did a 180 and we're back to now we have a piece of property that could have been zoned commercial, maybe 20 years from now, but now maybe it's a buffer that we hold onto. It was just fortunate it was after taxed income in this property. He said he is disappointed in the process and the fact they haven't had a say, haven't received clear direction on the property, what they should do, how they should proceed. He said they have been very reasonable. He asked that the Council and Planning Commission, tonight, would consider the land owner. RECOMMENDATION: Hold onto the amendment until we hear from the County and until they have a clear direction of what you want to do, what you recommend for their property that is in the unincorporated part of the UGA Mr. Roger ~ John's father, P.O. Box 666, Quilcene, W A 98367 -- Land Owner in Glen Cove Said he had been involved for about 20 years in property in the Glen Cove area along SR 20. During the 20 years they have donated over a half-mile of green belt to the city, half mile to the Larry Scott Trail and have done it free and clear, haven't asked a cent from the city. Their properties are adjoining properties and they have been paying taxes for 10-15 years on commercial and manufacturing. He said they went to the City and tried to put residential there, and they said it is not appropriate to have residential that close to the mill, and they wouldn't let them put in a residential development there. Now they have gone full cycle and say they want it to be residential and the mill does not allow residential there. He said that does not make any sense to them at all with all that residential area next to the mill with all that manufacturing. He feels the PLC has too much control over the City Planning Department. He said it is scary to him when he reads that John Lockwood said that keeping the area in the County's jurisdiction assures that the residential portion will remain, and then when the City says that is the PLC amendment and they intend to use it as voted on. He said they tried to work with the City. They had a 25 acre parcel there, and if somebody came tomorrow and asked if they wanted to put a mini college or a think tank, he was not sure they would be able to accommodate them; that is a valuable piece of property. It is not a residential piece of property and would be an asset to the City. He said they had tried to work within the City's and County's recommendations of ensuring a beautiful gateway to the City, and so far from Jacob Miller Road into the Frontier Bank they have kept that a green belt. He said he would like to see it stay that way; he does not want to see this sprawl development they are talking about, but that is the best way to get sprawl development, to tell everybody they · Planning Commission Minutes Page 25 October 17, 2001 · · · can't cooperate with each other and develop. Each one has to go individually on his own, then you get an Aurora Avenue, a bunch of used car lots and everything all up and down the highway. He commended PLC for their activism, but if they would come and meet the property owners and sit down with them, maybe by trying to work together they could come up with something unique and something that would really help the community. Ms. Nancy Dorgan Page 14, Line 40 -- Section on MIDs. It bothers her because it's adding text to the Comprehensive Plan, but it is not really adding any substantive criteria to guide the process. Attaching onto the next phrase, a legislative process whereby an inter-local agreement would be adopted by the City Council -- but it doesn't really give them some guidelines for making the decisions about inter-local agreements. She thought the role of the Comprehensive Plan is to lay down some considerations, what are we looking for, etc. Also, she was curious about the consistency of this text, Consistent with county-wide Dlanning miliçy #7.4. She said nowhere in 7.4 is the inter-local agreement mentioned or required. She questioned the consistency of the text on Page 14 referencing the inter-local agreement without giving it any criteria by which the Council can benchmark whether or not to agree to it. She did not know of any work being done on that and wondered if they should ask the County Planning Commission if they're not concerned with this, but said in essence it is good they are looking at it more carefully. She did not think this kind of placeholder kind oftext really helps it any. Mr. John Lockwood He had been attending the Growth Management Steering Committee meetings. He agreed with Ms. Dorgan and said he did not think they should be baptizing something that happens at a lower level than the Comprehensive Plan. The inter-local agreement is something that doesn't have anything as near this amount of public process and scrutiny that self-occurs with the Comprehensive Plan. If you want to do this, you put your intentions and guidelines in the Comp Plan. He said for example, they have not yet identified how large, e.g., 100,000 acres - he was not saying that is going to happen, but we have no idea. Bob Sokol said about a month ago, if at the mill we lost 100 people, we might need six or seven small MIDs that employed 15 or 20 people, to which Mr. Lockwood replied by citing a business that employed 12 people, "That is just slightly larger than you are, are you proposing it is a major industrial development?" -- buy in the county, get cheaper land. There is no minimum requirement that has been established. He spoke of the importance of Ms. Kostelec's comment that there have been no criteria for control of what the cumulate impact might be for a whole series ofMIDs, no statement of how close they may be, if they are clustered and spread all the way down the highway. It is really clear that we want to have some policies in place that it is not just another way to say prevent sprawl. He commented there are no other counties in the state that have adopted this proposal yet. It is a very powerful thing, and it can be used wisely. He said speaking for himself; he could support it ifused wisely. He pointed out that there have been several LAMIRDS that exist in the county that have already gone to the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and the Board has definitely agreed they are LAMIRDS that they exist. He thought Mr. Lindsay's comments that these LAMIRDS don't exist is probably incorrect. He pointed out that Mr. Lindsay had said this is a major change to the Comp Plan, and that Glen Cove is just a preferred alternative for a UGA in our Comp Plan. He said that in every place in the Comp Plan where they deleted reference to FUGA there are qualifies, e.g., "it might happen", etc.. There is no adopted policy regarding a FUGA that they have removed from the Comp Plan; this is not a preferred alternative or a UGA expansion that has been adopted or considered as a possibility for some action in the future. He said they are saying totally they agree with Mr. Randall and we are completely convinced that the Growth Management Act will not allow Port Townsend to extend its urban boundaries down into the Glen Cove area. Mr. Lockwood concluded by saying the fact that the northern portion of the Glen Cove area might now be a buffer between the industrial park and the City, that in no way implies that you can't at some future date become part of our Urban Growth Area. It is obvious that at some point in the future, Port Townsend is going to grow. He said there is no incompatibility between our references and having a low-density buffer and around the city and any future possibility for growing the city limits of Port Townsend, in fact it is an encouraged thing. Chair Harbison expressed appreciation to the public for their input stating it is important for the Commission to hear from all of them. He closed the meeting to public testimony at 10:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 26 October 17, 2001 · · · Mr. Randall recommended Planning Commission deliberations be considered at a continued meeting October 23,2001, 7:00 p.m. Written public testimony for Amendments #3. #4 and #5 will be accepted ifreceived in BCD by 4:00 p.m. Monday, October 22, 2001. The public hearing will be continued October 23, 2001; however, public testimony will be closed. Mr. Randall explained because this is legislative action, the record will still be open and written documents can be submitted to BCD and then submitted into the record. Mr. Spieckerman asked to have any written testimony faxed to him, that he cannot be at the October 25th meeting but he may want to comment in writing. Mr. Watts pointed out that since Mr. Irvin was not at this meeting. he would have to review the record before commenting at a future meeting. The meeting concluded at 10:40 p.m. with Ms. Hersey making the motion and Mr. Spieckerman seconding and was recessed until Tuesday, October 23,2001. 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to hear Planning Commission deliberations on Amendments #3, #4 and #5 and a public hearing on Amendment #2. LIST OF EXHIBITS (previously provided) Exhibit A MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit B DNS for NWMC Exhibit C Planning Commission Packet, August 9 Workshop (Amendment #1) Exhibit 1 Excerpts from Zoning Code Exhibit 2 Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 3 Use table for the Residential Zoning Districts with proposed revisions Exhibit D Planning Commission Minutes, August 9,2001 Workshop Exhibit E Planning Commission Packet September 20, Workshop (Amendments #4 & 5. FUGA) 1) Year 2001 Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendments RE: Glen Cove 2) Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #4 (pLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application) 3) Jefferson County Viewpoint -- Urban Growth Area Update 4) Excerpt from RCW Section 36.70A.070 Re: Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) 5) Taking the Mystery Out of Economic Development Exhibit F Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2001 Workshop Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop (Amendments #6, 7, 8 and 9) Exhibit H Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2001 Workshop Exhibit IPlanning Commission Packet, October 17 Hearing (Amendments #1-5) Exhibit JPlanning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 Hearing Exhibit K Planning Commission Minutes Packet, October 25 Hearing (Amendments #6, 7, 8, and 9) Exhibit L Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2001 Hearing (provided in packets for meeting October 17, 2001) Exhibit M 1-1 Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan and PTMC (Amendment #1 - Clarify Definitions ofUnitIBedroom and Various Housing Types) Exhibit N 1-2 Excerpts from Capital Facilities Element of Comprehensive Plan (Amendment #2 - Revise Goals & Policies which Imply a Specific Utility Provider) Exhibit Q 1-3 Excerpts from Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Amendment #3 - Add Policy re: Major Industrial Developments) Exhibit P 1-4 Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan relating to Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) and MID Policies (Amendment #5) Planning Commission Minutes Page 27 October 17, 200 1 · · · Exhibit Q E-6 (provided at meeting October 127, 2001) Glen Cove Land Use Options by Earth Tech Exhibit R Exhibit S Exhibit :¡: Exhibit Y Exhibit ¥ Exhibit 1-5 Comment letters from Nancy Dorgan 1-6 Letter from Leader, dated 10-17-01 1-7 Suggested Revisions to Exhibit 1-4 1-8 Memorandum from John Watts dated 10-07-01 1-9 Revision to 10/10 Staff Report (re: Amendment #2) 1-10 Suggested Amendments to Title 17 to Delete C-IV Planning Commission Minutes Page 28 October 17, 2001 . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Amendments: Date: Port Townsend Planning Commission Open Record Public Hearing: Comp Plan # L #2. #3. #4. and #5 October 17. 2001 Name (please print) Jò 0 0~of I~ R 0 L~ 5().jDy-JS Address Testimon ? Yes No X J2/~ì ""',,,,,:... .¡.,,"' /5/iJ de í-S:'o¡,\ ~ 7:;2. 7 J2 (or ~-f. Dò)( 6~ b V\ G-I v v