Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10302001 Min . . . MEETING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 17, 23 and 25, 2001 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION October 30,2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Harbison called this continued meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for a final vote on Comprehensive Plan Amendments #4 and #5, to review Draft Findings and Conclusions for Amendments # 1-9, and to review the Minutes from October 17, 2001. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jerry Spieckerman, Lyn Hersey, and Frank Benskin, Bernie Arthur, and Jim Irvin. Also present were BCD staff members Judy Surber and Jeff Randall. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Consensus was to amend the agenda to begin with review of Draft Findings and Conclusions for Amendments #1- 9 since Messrs. Arthur and Irvin are recused from the final votes on Amendments #4 and 5. Final vote on Amendment #5 will precede the vote on Amendment #4. Minutes of meetings from October 17, 2001 and October 23,2001, received at meeting start tonight, will be held for approval at the next meeting. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-- Continuation of Public Hearing. NEW EXHIBITS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETNG: Exhibit L-l Ms. Surber referenced the report from Chair Larry Haribson to City Council regarding the Planning Commission Summary Report and Recommendation Regarding Year 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. She explained that the report includes the introduction which basically outlines the process; an outline of the Environmental Review and public comment received from that review; and Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation of the Planning Commission. Each Planning Commissioner took lead review of Findings and Conclusions for an amendment. AMENDMENT #1 CLARIFY DEFINITIONS OF UNIT/BEDROOM AND VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES Lead: Mr. Jerry Spieckerman made the following observations and suggestions: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Clarifications -- EXHIBIT M 1-1, Page L Line 23 & Page 3. Line 21 Practical nursing care and Alzheimers Units may be provided. . . ." Mr. Spieckerman thought the wording ". . . nursing care and Alzheimers Units. . ." was awkward. Mr. Randall stated that although one is about "care" (an action), and the other is a "thing," he thought from a zoning context it works, because they are both talking about uses. Mr. Spieckerman's concern is with Assisted Living -- "unit" may be construed to mean an area sectioned off for Alzheimer's care and may not apply. He suggested, " . . . Practical nursing and Alzheimers care may be provided. . . ." Mr. Randall said that would be pretty easy to fix. Ms. Surber stated it would be a clarification. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 October 30,2001 · PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change to read: "Practical nursing and Alzheimers care may be provided." Page 5. Line 14 "Guest house" / "detached bedroom" means living quarters. . . Mr. Randall thought the intention was it means a detached building used primarily as sleeping quarters not living quarters. It has to be detached and not an ADD. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change to read: " Guest house"/ "detached bedroom" means a detached building used primarilv as sleeping quarters. Page 6. Line 2 Alzheimer units. . . PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- No Change · Page 7. line 13 "School, commercial" Mr. Hersey asked about the relationship of schools in regard to the endorsement of community agriculture centers in Amendment #7. Ms. Surber: Instructional activities, Home Occupations. Mr. Randall: Schools are allowed in P-I -- they have definitions for School, commercial; School, Community Agriculture Center -- agriculture operation which includes growing, processing, retail sales, office space, and truck instructional activities and farmer apprentice housing. . . He thought that meant there can be an educational element involved at this place. Ms. Hersey: They talked about possibly the school in P-I; she didn't think they had time to go through that, but maybe they should come back if they are going touch base on that and look at Schools, commercial. She said when they talk about the building where instruction is given to pupils in arts, crafts or trades. Would agriculture be trades, or would we include agriculture? Mr. Randall: Thought they could revisit that when they come to it. Ms. Surber: She did not know if they could make that change, since the public hearing has been closed on it. The decision has already been made. Mr. Randall: Said to look at it, and if they can't, they could bring it up at Council, if nothing else. Possibly revisit Page 13 References to bedroom limit Mr. Spieckennan: Deleted bedroom limit -- Mr. Randall: Had been talking about "not to exceed bonus density." Thought it became a moot issue when they removed the bedroom language, and, in reviewing, thought that is why they did not include bonus density. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- No Change CHAIR HARBISON 10/30/01 REPORT TO COUNCIL: Ms. Surber stated she had some items to clarify. Mr. Spieckerman said for the record they had not been given sufficient time for review including proposed Findings and Conclusions. Page 6. (para 2. line 4) Ms. Surber suggested a clarification: . . . family members, guests or temporary employees. Per the definition. a detached bedroom guesthouse is primarily for sleeping purposes. It would not have a kitchen, but would have a bathroom. . . . (para 2. last line) Strike: , and R-III . . . Mr. Spieckerman made a counter suggestion to emphasize what it is for. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change to read: . . .family members, guests or temporary employees primarily for sleeping purposes. Per the definition it would not have a kitchen, but would have a bathroom. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 30, 2001 · · · · R-III reference (Delete). Mr. Irvin asked regarding R-III. Mr. Randall: Single-family residences are allowed in R-III. His thought was that they had mistakenly missed adding detached bedrooms, guesthouses as a pennitted accessory use to a single-family residence in R-III. If you have multi- family development, you shouldn't have detached bedrooms on the same property. He did not now how they feel about that; if that is a clarification, too -- if you would want them to be allowed in R-III as an accessory to a single-family residence, but not accessory to multi-family dwellings. He asked if there was consensus or if they preferred to leave it; they don't get a lot of single-family residences in R-III, but they have a few. Ms. Surber felt it was a change. Others concurred Mr. Randall said leave it as is, and leave it as something they did not discuss. They can bring it up to Council ifthey feel it needs to be added. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- No Change Page 6. (Findings & Conclusions I --line 4) Ms. Surber felt it was awkward and suggested a change. Mr. Randall felt it was consistent with his intent and reflected the different circumstances that happened since adoption of the code that necessitate this clean up. Mr. Arthur asked if he is saying it is a maximum off our dwelling units per structure unless there is a conditi01.lal use? It's definitely the limit. . . Mr. Randall: Unless there is a PUD. What he was trying to point out, there is a conflict. The zoning code listed congregate care facilities as a conditional use; however, the zoning code also listed the maximum number of structures as four. You really aren't going to have a congregate care facility with fewer than four units; so there was a conflict. It was also listed that the PUD chapter allowed multi-family units. He indicated it didn't really say the Planning Commission determined the clarification. It only points out these conflicts. Ms. Surber: It points out the circumstances that have changed since 1996 -- there was a change in 1997; there was a change 1999. Mr. Randall: It is pointing out the problems with the code we are trying to fix. Ms. Surber concluded. Mr. Randall then answered Mr. Arthur that the code normally does prohibit multi-family projects in R-I and R-II. The code clean up basically would say, these large, bulky buildings such as lodging houses which would have more than 7 residents, etc., aren't allowed, but you could do limited multi-family development through a PUD. So, if you wanted to do a congregate facility in R-II, you could do it through a conditional use permit, but it would also require a PUD if you are going to have more than 4 dwelling units in a structure, which they probably would. Potentially, they could do a congregate facility of several four-plexes, then they wouldn't need a PUD. If they wanted to put them in one building, which is typically what they would want to do, that would require a PUD. He said what they are trying to do is to address that appeal they got on assisted living so they would know that it would be allowed through that process; there would be no other basis to appeal that other than it not being compatible with the neighborhood, which would be a legitimate appeal. You couldn't appeal it based on the four dwelling unit argument. Mr. Arthur asked if the circumstances they are talking about here are just to elaborate the reasons why you got to this point. Mr. Randall and Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Spieckerman: Looking at that earlier, he questioned the statement regarding inconsistent definitions that were contained in the revised zoning code adopted in 1997. Mr. Randall indicated there were many of them. Mr. Spieckerman: Would it be worthwhile to say what they were? Mr. Randall: There were scattered amendments -- one which included adding the four dwelling unit per structure. At the time it was listed as a code cleanup and they had multiple different parts of the code that were amended. Mr. Eric Toews was the consultant and one thing added was this limitation of no more than four dwelling units per structure. At the time it was billed as a cross reference from the fact up to four-plexes were allowed as outright pennitted; however, by putting that in there, they basically said that other uses that were permitted such as congregate facilities, could not have more than four dwelling units per structure. What they did through this amendment was to clarify that, that is true, but, because the PUD chapter says that limited multi-family projects are possible through a planned unit development in R-I or R-II, a congregate care facility that is listed as a conditional use in R-II could be allowed to have more than four dwelling Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 30,2001 · · · units per structure if it was done through a PUD. He said they are just trying to tie up the loose ends, to say how this thing that is listed in the table could actually happen, where through that appeal they really didn't resolve that. Mr. Spieckerman said the only reason he brought it up is that in 5 to 10 years, someone might read this and want to know what it was for. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Clarify to read: The zoning code also listed congregate care facilities as a conditional use in the R-II zoning district. However, the zoning code. Page 6. (Findings & Conclusions 3. line 2) Ms. Surber added quotation marks as it was quoting the code and also shows the from/to a little better.. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Clarify to read: -- from "dwelling units! 40,000 square feet" to "bedrooms! 40,000 square feet" . . . MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey Accept the Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #1 Mr. Benskin UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor EXHIBIT 1-1 MOTION Mr. Spiecl{erman Accept Exhibit I-I, Amendment #1 as modified for clarification SECOND Mr. Bensl{in VOTE UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor AMENDMENT #2 REVISE GOALS & POLICIES, WHICH IMPLY A SPECIFIC UTILITY PROVIDER Lead: Mr. Harbison found no inconsistencies on the exhibit not on the Findings and Conclusions. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Clarifications .- EXHIBIT 1-2, Page 2. Policy 31.5 Ms. Surber missed striking Puget Power in a search and replace PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Strike: Fugat Pewer MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr Spieckerman Accept the Findings and Conclusions as written for Amendment #2 Mr. Benskin UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor EXHIBIT 1-2 MOTION Mr. Spiecl{erman Accept Exhibit 1-2, Amendment #2 as modified for clarification SECOND Mr. Benskin VOTE UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor AMENDMENT #6 RESOLVE ZONING OF US WEST FACILITY ON LAWRENCE STREET (QUASI- JUDICIAL). Lead: Mr. Irvin found no errors or inconsistencies. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: MOTION Mr. Irvin Planning Commission Minutes Accept the Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #6 as written Page 4 October 30,2001 . . e SECOND VOTE Mr. Spiecl{erman UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor EXHIBIT K-l MOTION Mr. Spiecl{erman Accept Exhibit K-I, Amendment as written SECOND Mr. Benskin VOTE UNANIMOUS, 6 in favor AMENDMENT #7 RESOLVE ZONING OF ABUNDANT LIFE SEED FOUNDATION ON DISCOVERY ROAD (QUASI-JUDICIAL) Lead: Ms. Hersey made tIle following observations and suggestions: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Clarifications -- EXHIBIT K-3a and K-3b Ms. Hersey had no questions regarding the new language for either Community agricultural center or Community supported agriculture. Mr. Randall: Clarified that Staff will prepare some options and some review for Council based on Planning Commission recommendations of leaving tIle zoning the same on the site and including Community agricultural center in the P-I zone. They will present that to Council as the Planning Commission recommendation and then Staff will elaborate on the feasibility of their opinion of doing that. CHAIR HARBISON 10/30/01 REPORT TO COUNCIL: Page 14. (Description -- para 2. line 3) Eminent Domain -- Ms. Hersey said Staff made a brief statement that the City needs to take eminent domain in order to be able to use that property -- is that correct? Mr. Randall eminent domain or condemnation. Mr. Harbison asked iftIlat wouldn't be by definition, P-I zoning. Mr. Randall supposed it was possible the City could lease property for an instructional facility. Normally, they wouldn't do that, they would purchase -- that could be done through eminent domain or negotiation. Ms. Hersey asked if he was saying, due to that fact, that the possibility of putting the two different agricultural definitions would not go under P-I because of the need of taking eminent domain in order to use it? Mr. Randall did not think that was their intent there, but just to say the property to be used for the predominant number of uses listed in the P-I Table that are public. He thought their point was that the public would need to acquire the property, not that Community agricultural uses couldn't be conducted with a private ownership. That wasn't their intent. Mr. Arthur: You're not saying P-I can't be privately owned? Mr. Randall said they are not saying that either. Mr. Surber said tIle intent of the P-I zone is for public purposes. Since this is private ownership right now, they can't use if for public services without exercising eminent domain. Pages 14 and 15 Recommendations Mr. Hersey said in the Findings and Conclusions, they also talked about it being supported under schools as P-I -- the possible uses, slipping it in there. Said she is not sure if it is in these Findings and Conclusions; she hasn't found that and they had discussed that as to a way to do it. Mr. Arthur asked if it referred to Community agricultural center in the Findings and Conclusions. He said he thought he saw it. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 30, 200 I · · · Mr. Randall said Recommendation 3, bottom page 14 (Mr. Harbison said Recommendations 2 and 3), talks about retaining the P-I zoning. Mr. Randall said their intent would be to include that in their oral presentation and options to Council. Mr. Harbison said if it refers to 17.24 that is the definition, the added definition for community supported agriculture, he did not think the definition had to be in the Findings and Conclusions. Mr. Hersey thought she was concerned, because they talked about, ifit was a possibility putting it into pol, that it could be slipped under schools. Under the two definitions, community agriculture center and community supported agriculture, you have a limited instructional activity. Mr. Randall asked if her idea was that rather than having them add this to the use table, community agriculture center in the P-I district, interpret that what they were doing would fall under the definition of a school that is permitted in P-I. Mr. Hersey said she thought they had discussed that as a way of being able to put it in P-I. If the definitions, which are set already -- a limited instructional or instructional activity, which means teaching, that could be possible under a school- type offonnat. Ms. Surber said her recollection was that it may have been touched upon, but the final decision was to insert community supported agriculture as supporting in the P-l use table. Ms. Hersey agreed, but said she just wanted. . . Chair Harbison said part of that discussion seemed about how they could justify or clarify the use. Ms. Hersey said she just wanted that to be passed on to Council, how there was a justification of how it might be able to be used in P-I and relate to what is the definition ofP-l now. Chair Harbison indicated he did not recall that being part of the discussion, but he was not sure they offered that. Mr. Randall thought it was pretty clear Commission's first choice was to be more direct and add the specific uses. He said what they are going to do for City Council is include Commission's recommendation, include Staff's initial recommendation, which is rezone in R-II, and have some options for Council. One of the things they could talk about would be leaving the zoning alone and trying to take a broader interpretation of one of the definitions already listed as a use. He said they are likely going to have the discussion with Council, but he recommended staying with. . . you have kind of already made the recommendation. Ms. Hersey said she was concerned because she knows she discussed that, and thought the way to do it would be through the schools in P-I. She did not see that reflected, and that was her concern. Mr. Randall asked if she thought they were actually amending the definition of schools? Ms. Hersey replied that no, she had thought that would link it to it. Chair Harbison asked if any other Councilmembers thought that part was a secondary consideration. It would be appropriate that they make sure that is offered as part of the discussion -- how could we insert that without changing the Findings and Conclusions? Mr. Randall said the COlmnission could add a finding; these are Commission findings. Ms. Surber suggested, under Recommendations. Ms. Hersey said they don't have the notes for that meeting, so they don't know what they are going to say. Chair Harbison said it was not a motion. Ms. Hersey concurred and added, but you make a motion based on reasons for doing it. The reason we thought we would do it is because. . . Chair Harbison said is part of the discussion, and he thought it needed to be included in the motion if. . . . Ms. Surber discovered the discussion rationale for the whole section was missing and should follow the Vote Summary. Mr. Randall thought that might be an appropriate place to include it. Ms. Surber indicated a lot of the information in the recommendation really belongs in the discussion rationale, which is: "We recommend that Mr. Gariss's desire to maintain the P-l zoning be honored. . ." and Staff recommendation was. . . The recommendation should be more bulleted. Ms. Hersey asked if she is saying there is part of this missing right now. Mr. Randall said the format just isn't consistent with the other elements. Mr. Arthur thought what they were talking about was Mr. Gariss and several other people desired to keep it as a block of land that could be used for agricultural purposes, and that rezoning the property R-II would allow it to be sold and used for residential development, which he said Mr. Gariss didn't want to do. What seems to be coming around, everyone has the idea P-I has to be owned by the public, and that is not a true statement; it never has been. In fact public property that is Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 30, 200 I · · · owned by the County and City in town should not be rezoned out of its original zoning to P-I just because a public entity owns it. If property owned by the County in repossession, etc., is in an R-I zone, it should not become P-I because the County owns it by foreclosure, or that the City owns property that used to be a water tank on Morgan Hill shouldn't be a school site; it should be whatever the practical zoning is for that area. He thought there was nothing wrong with adding uses to the P-I zone because it has a definite purpose in the zoning regulation. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be owned by the public. He cited experience of having owned property in Fleet Marine, for years, that was P- I, and that had nothing to do with whether or not the public paid taxes on it; it was a land designation that controlled the use of that property by the use of the building. He does not like the idea that we keep hearing it has to be owned by the public; that's not true. It's another zoning category that can be placed on property; it doesn't necessarily mean the public is now owner, ever, but it is a little different control purpose. Ms. Surber thought what they were saying is the uses allowed in the P-I zoning district are typically government and public uses, and for them to apply it to private property and say all that can be built is a government building or a water treatment facility is not right. Mr. Arthur said he was not saying because the City owns it, that it has to be changed in zone. Ms. Surber replied the City does now own. The opposite is not true, but applying public to private. . . Mr. Randall indicated Mr. Arthur was right; the City has a lot of land that is zoned P-I. If the County or City acquire property it is not automatically zoned P-I. Mr. Arthur stated that iffor public benefit, and many people in the community feeling a particular piece of property should have more restrictions on it, and the owner, Mr. Gariss, (not shoving it down his throat) says he would like to have it as public, a few more uses so the public could have more use of the property, that's a reason there is P-l in a zoning ordinance. It's not necessarily a bad thing that a person who owns it and pays taxes on it can't add restrictions on it. You can add tllem to such things as your deed; we don't have visions of the future, but sometimes tllat mayor may not be true. What he was trying to say was that Mr. Gariss does not want to have his residential; should he die tomorrow and somebody take ownership of the property and decide to make it into a housing project. If it was zoned R-II that is permitted, but that was not his desire, and he owns the property. Ms. Surber suggested for clarification: Recommendation 3 -- retain the first sentence. Discussion/Rationale -- Include tlle remainder of the paragraph beginning with "Staff recommended . . ." to conclude ". . . if these amendments are viable." Mr. Randall concurred. Ms. Surber suggested within the discussion/rationale if they wanted to expand it to incorporate anything else, trying to insert something -- a secondary discussion was brought up regarding schools. Mr. Arthur does not want Staff at the Council meeting to enter into debate about what P-l stands for. Mr. Spieckerman asked that if these are indeed Planning Commission recommendations, why does it say Staff recommends it be rezoned R-II? Chair Harbison answered, Staff recommended one thing; we had discussion and recommended something else. Mr. Arthur said there is nothing wrong with that. Ms. Surber noted that historically they have always included where Planning Commission and Staff differ; we moved it under DiscussionlRationale. Chair Harbison asked that tlley finish about whether or not the discussion needs to reflect issues of potential justification for maintaining the P-I zoning being the educational component of community supported agricultural. His feeling is that the community supported agriculture definition includes educational programs and covers the concern that be the part of what Council understands. Ms. Hersey concurred and said she thought she was recommending that be related to P-I, because P-I states that can be part of it. These two portions they are going to add talk about instructional activities. Mr. Randall suggested addressing Ms. Hersey's concern, Recommendation #3 the part added to the DiscussionlRationale, on Page 13, Line 6, before "Staff indicated. . ." add a sentence to basically say, We feel these added uses would be consistent with other permitted uses in the P-I district e.g.. schools. He thought that would give the linkage Ms. Hersey was concerned about. Ms. Hersey agreed that would work for her. Chair Harbison suggested, or community agriculture center which includes. . . Mr. Randall thought the point is you're proposing to add these to the P-I district and this is consistent with other pennitted uses in the P-l district, including schools. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 30, 2001 · · · Chair Harbison concurred. He asked if that is an addition for clarification. Mr. Randall asked Mr. Arthur if he wished them to include something about the ownership? Mr. Arthur declined, and said that was fine. He just wanted to make sure, it just sounded like P-I is a strange animal to everybody, but to him it has a purpose, a reason it is there. He reiterated that he doesn't want people to think that just because the City or County owns something it ought to be P-I, and outhe other hand he doesn't think P-I should be considered outside the purview of the private property owner who wants to put his property into a . .. Mr. Randall noted this is very rare; it is the first property he has run into in town that wanted it zoned P-I. The opposite us usually true; they have made a few mistakes in that regard. Mr. Arthur said they wouldn't want to change them if they should be zoned something else. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change for clarification: Recommendation 3 -- retain the first sentence. Add Discussion/Rationale following Vote Summary -- Include the remainder of the paragraph beginning with "Staff recommended. . ." Page 13, Line 6, following ". . . conditional use." and preceding "Staff indicated. . ." insert the sentence: We feel these added uses would be consistent with other permitted uses in the P-I zoning district. e.g.. schools. Conclude with the remainder, ending with "Staff indicated . . . if these amendments are viable." Ms. Hersey continued her review and indicated that would work and identify any other changes following. Mr. Randall asked if there were exhibits -- Exhibits K-3a and K-3b. Ms. Hersey spoke about Table 17.16.020 what they have just changed on Page 15 -- the P-I district. Mr. Randall said it is pretty easy, they will just that add that use and it will become Exhibit K-3c. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- For clarification add: poI to Use Table 17.16.020 as Exhibit K-3c Page 16. f. Ms. Surber noted it said "Rezoning of the 2.5-acre parcel to R-II could, . . ." which needs to be eliminated. Eliminate Rezoning of the 2.5 . . . to the end. Mr. Randall said they could probably eliminate the rest of that, don't need Tier I? Ms. Surber said these particular findings are specific to when you are rezoning a piece of property. Mr. Randall said that the end of "Public-Infrastructure zone." -- delete the rest. Mr. Benskin suggested changing beginning line 6 to read: " . . . and the Public-Infrastructure zone. The site is located within Tier 1 . . ." deleting the two middle sentences. Mr. Randall said basically you just need to strike the references to R-II and 21-unit residential. Ms. Surber suggested in review -- change line 6 to read: ". . . and the Public-Infrastructure zone. the P-I zoning designation is to be retained." PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change for clarification: Findings and Conclusions f., Page 16, Line 6-- " . . . and the Public-Infrastructure zone. the P-I zoning designation is to be retained. The site is located within Tier 1 . . ." Delete the two sentences in between. Page 16. g. Ms. Surber suggested in review -- Line 1 change to read, "The subject parcels are physically suitable for the P-I land use designation and. . ." PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change for clarification: Findings and Conclusions g., Page 16, Line I -- "The subject parcels are physically suitable for the P-I land use designation and. . ." Page 16. h. Ms. Hersey reiterated that the City needs to exercise safety in its power of eminent domain. She said in the sentence above, 'The P-I zoning district is typically. . ." that schools needs to be added, because that is what they say. Mr. Benskin said, considering that public facility. Ms. Hersey explained that is poI zoning again; you are discussing P-l zoning -- what it provides is public utilities, facilities, and services. You said in the P-I definition that schools are there also. Chair Harbison asked if that is not a public facility. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 30, 200 I · · · Ms. Hersey answered public utility/ facility. Messrs. Harbison and Irvin added public utilities, facilities, and services. Ms. Hersey said they need to get rid of the proposed R-II zoning to be consistent. Ms. Surber asked if they also want to get rid of eminent domain. Ms. Hersey replied they had talked bout it. Ms. Surber pointed out in the descriptions, but it doesn't really support the findings. It can't be used for public purposes, unless either an easement, or as Mr. Randall said, exercise eminent domain. Chair Harbison asked if they are saying that clarification in the description is sufficient without this being a part. Ms. Surber explained this doesn't really support what they are saying. Mr. Randall asked if"The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. . ." a required finding -- how are they going to leave it in there? Ms. Surber suggested rewriting the sentence to something like: The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties; the proposal is to retain the P-I zoning which has been in place for over 15 years. Mr. Arthur indicated the County-owned land is P-l and the cemeteries are P-I. The rest around it is R-II; it's kind of a no-man's land there. Ms. Surber suggested a language change to read: "The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designatjon of other properties; the proposal is to maintain the P-I zoning which has been in place for over 15 years. Mr. Randall asked if they would delete the remainder? Ms. Surber and Ms. Hersey concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change for clarification: Findings and Conclusions h., Page 16 -- The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties; the proposal is to maintain the P-I zoning which has been in place for over 15 years. Delete the remainder. Page 16. i. Mr. Benskin pointed out the need to change. The only thing that might be inconsistent there is where it is located. It is in Tier 1. It is a proposed rezone that we're dealing with, so that's O.K., but referring to Tier 1, they are removing that from. .. Change to: The area to be rezoned involves approximately 2.5 acres that could be developed. The site is located in Tier 1 where urban facilities and services are concentrated. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change for claritìcation: Findings and Conclusionsj., Page 16 --The area to be rezoned involves approximately 2.5 acres that could be developed. The site is located in Tier I where urban facilities and services are concentrated. Page 16. k. Mr. Benskin asked if they need that in there. Chair Harbison said it does not reflect their findings, and Mr. Benskin agreed. Mr. Surber said they couldn't completely strike it because it is one of the findings that they are consistent with GMA. Mr. Randall suggested saying Retaining. the P-l zone is consistent with the GMA. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS --Change for claritìcation: Findings and Conclusions k., Page 16 to Retaining the P-I zone is 'Consistent with the GMA. Chair Harbison called for a motion. Ms. Surber suggested reviewing the actions, which she re-read, and adjustments were made to Findings and Conclusions f. and g. as reflected in the above Planning Commission Consensus items. Mr. Arthur said he had understood early on they were going to have two proposals for City Council, make two recommendations. Mr. Randall explained they are going to give the Commission recommendation, the four parts -- give the definitions, but when it comes to the site-specific one they will give Commission recommendation to leave it poI. Mr. Arthur didn't know why they were wordsmithing every item because there are going to be several different. . . Chair Harbison said he would like for the Commission's recommendations to be clear. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 30, 2001 · Mr. Randall stated they need to be the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Arthur acknowledged they would differ from BCD's recommendations. Mr. Randall noted they will include some Staff points, but it should be Commission's recommendation. Chair Harbison asked if there was any more discussion or an amendment. MOTION Ms. Hersey Accept the Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #7 as changed SECOND Mr. Bensl{in Discussion: Mr. Spieckennan informed the Chair he had not participated in the previous discussions on Amendment #7. Mr. Randall said that since he had not completely reviewed the record and had not attended the public hearing, he should not vote on the matter. Mr. Spieckerman recused himself from the votes on Amendment #7. VOTE UNANIMOUS,5 in favor (Mr. Spieckerman was recused.) EXHIBITS K-3a - K-3c MOTION Mr. Spieclœrman AcCel)t Exhibits K-3a-K-3c, Amendment #7 as modified for clarification SECOND Mr. Benskin VOTE UNANIMOUS, 5 in favor (Mr. Spieckennan was recused.) AMENDMENT #8 REZONE PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 278 & 279, EISENBEIS ADDITION (QUASI- JUDICIAL) . Lead: Mr. Arthur stated everything looked fine to him regarding the discussion and all. He assumed the letters and information they received last time would be available for City Council to review. Mr. Randall indicated City Council would be presented with everything that was presented to the Planning Commission. · FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Clarifications -- Block 278 Mr. Arthur was unclear about what was written regarding Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. The way he nnderstood it, the entire block is being rezoned to C-II. Mr. Randall stated that was correct. Mr. Arthur continued that he didn't have a map that showed the lots. Normally, there are 8 lots to a block. Mr. Randall indicated it reads a little strangely and explained that already the northern lots are C-II. This is basically south of Lots I and 2. Mr. Arthur said there is a vacated street in there. Mr. Randall concurred and stated it says, "and the south \12 of vacated 4th Street." He thinks the north halfis already. .. Mr. Arthur asked if they had the lots on it? Mr. Randall concurred. He said basically the Commission recommendation will be to rezone the remainder of the block that is not C-II. (It was pointed out on the map -- 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, and the south half of that street, picks up the whole thing, he told Mr. Arthur they are recommending to become C-II.) Mr. Arthur asked, the ones we are not recommending are people requesting not to be rezoned? Mr. Randall added, or they did not comment. Mr. Arthur agreed and added, or they are presently residential. Mr. Randall agreed. Mr. Arthur said he was just clarifying what those numbers meant. Mr. Randall pointed out it is broken into four, but if you total them it is one block. Mr. Arthur said that was good, and that as far as he could tell in his review, there was no conflict that was not discussed, and he made tlle following motion: Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 30, 200 I · · · · MOTION Ms. Arthur Accel>t the Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #8, the rezone of portions of Block 278 and Block 279, Eisenbeis Addition SECOND VOTE Mr. Irvin UNANIMOUS,S in favor (Mr. Spieckerman was recused.) AMENDMENT #9 HEIGHT LIMIT A TION ON BLOCK 4 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWNSITE, SUBMITTED BY NORTHWEST MARITIME CENTER (QUASI-JUDICIAL) Lead: Mr. Irvin reported he found no inconsistencies or errors based on his recollection of all their discussion. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Clnrifications -- Exhibit G (Attachment DO») Northwest Maritime Center: Proposed Amendments to the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan and Port Townsend Municipal Code (Attachment 14) Mr. Harbison addressed confusion concerning the source of Exhibit G. Ms. Surber indicated this is one page of Attachment 14 (the whole Northwest Maritime Center's submittal package), and she stated Attachment 14 has been included in Council packets. Mr. Irvin asked if there were comments that came in later. Mr. Randall noted comment letters that were included in the environmental review in Attachment 14. Mr. Irvin said he did not recall seeing the letters referenced on Page 3 of Mr. Harbison's October 30th Summary Report to Council that says: "A Determination of NonSignificance was issued for the Northwest Maritime Center Height Amendment (Exhibit B). Five comment letters were received." (Bill Curry, Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building -- in support) (Jacky Nichols -- in opposition to height amendment) (David Stuart and Bruce Tipton -- in opposition, 40 foot buildings) (Jana Allen supports NWMC concept -- concerned regarding scale of building; parking) Ms. Surber explained these letters were attached to the SEP A document provided to Council much earlier. Chair Harbison confirmed these letters were in that package. Mr. Irvin did not recall those but did remember the only dissenting testimony at the October 25th public hearing. Chair Harbison indicated the significant difference was that the letters referenced above were in response to the SEP A determination. He pointed out that those people had the opportunity to present public testimony. Mr. Randall said for the record, when it comes to the public testimony part of the public hearing, there is no longer an environmental impact by this decision. It is a policy decision -- does the Planning Commission, based upon all the factors presented, recommend this change be done? The same question will then presented to Council. Mr. Irvin said, that being the case, he found no inconsistencies or errors, and wished to make a motion that the Amendment be accepted. Mr. Benskin indicated that first, he wanted to make a clarification. He said they had previously discussed that the 40' height was defined, and he asked how it was defined. Ms. Surber replied it was defined by the RCWs. Mr. Randall explained the building height will be defined by the UBC definition of where you measure height, which is also referenced in the zoning code, and while there has been no fonnal application, and BCD has no fonnal plans to review it to determine height, the preliminary plans BCD has been provided show a sloping roof with a clear story above it that is part of the roof structure and has no habitable space. Therefore, the mechanism BCD would use to determine the height of a building like that would be -- halfway between the eave, which is the point of the wall; and the peak, the highest point of that roof ~- halfway point would be the average of that sloping type roof. Mr. Benskin asked what the height of that building would be? Mr. Randall replied they showed the peak, at the very highest point of that tower, he believed as being 44'. He said they had different heights, but the average heights of the two different buildings, he believed one was 34' or 36' and the other 38' or 36'. He said 44' is not the height per the building Planning Commission Minutes Page I I October 30, 200 I · · · code Mr. Benskin referred to; he believed highest point of the building per the building code would have been 36' as the building height for the building would be 36' at the average height of the highest gable on each end. Mr. Benskin said that was his question, that depending on how the building is designed you could have. . . Chair Harbison said there was discussion and clarification of that point from that meeting. Mr. Benskin stated he wasn't at that meeting, and he thanked them for the clarification. Suggested Findings and Conclusions b. Mr. Arthur cited, "New l1úormation is available. . . Specifically, the property has been purchased by the NWMC for the purpose of developing the site for year-round public benefit." He did not know what that had to do with height. He also did not know that anybody sat here and said that he is going to be able to go down there any day he wants to; that's one thing you rather assume this says. And then it indicates the project has broad community support demonstrated by $600,000 raised locally, and it goes on to state that the amendment would permit the establishment of an "educationally oriented working seaport that enhances and preserves the marine trades." He said that may all be true, but he thought they are only considering height and not selling the project. Mr. Randall believed some of those things were mandatory; Item b. Sentence I ~- "The New Information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or subsequent annual amendments." He said that was one of the criteria they have to evaluate; they were trying to provide the new information raised by the applicant that is currently available. He said if tlle Conuuission wanted to they could modify some of these findings. Mr. Arthur said he goes down and looks in the dirt below that street level, and then somebody says they are going to measure from street level~ it's almost a 4' - 5' increase in height from the current building level. Then say they are going to put in additional dirt that requires a cap over the contaminated soil -- he thought that was a reasonable finding to say there is a reason why the height is increased. He was not exactly sure that any of these tell why the height is increased; it might be why you should allow the building to be bigger in scale. Mr. Randall referred to Finding e. e. Mr. Randall answered Mr. Arthur that he is right, it doesn't specifically say they need that additional IO'. It seemed to Mr. Arthur the things they came up with ought to be related to the request; Mr. Harbison added, rather than a broader definition. Discussion included: Chair Harbison suggested if they particularly addressed Finding c, they could move ahead with the project. Ms. Surber said what they are trying to get at in Finding c, is show there is community support, and in doing that they linked the project and its backing to that. She explained you have to show it is supported or valued by the community. Chair Harbison added, in order to justify a change in the Comprehensive Plan that is part of the criteria. Mr. Irvin thought a lot of this comes from the applicant's iIúormation and the public testimony, and he saw it as a positive feature, not so much a selling point but simply a finding. Mr. Arthur indicated he was just saying the property is known for a purpose, that it has had many purposes beside how these people are using it, that if we are doing a variance or changing a zone, or whatever, it seemed as if it should be a reason based on what you are doing. Mr. Spieckeonan asked if he was trying to say, giving the property a higher height limit; Mr. Arthur indicated, actually it is just taking it back to where it was formerly. All he was saying was when they read the findings and conclusions tlley would be directed at what it is talking about, instead of some philosophical type of good feeling that is put into this. The whole idea is how high do you want to allow a building to be built on that piece of property; that's what the people that objected to it were concerned about. If they don't have a finding and conclusion that is reasonable, it's not fair to those people that didn't agree with the change. Mr. Randall said they have already voted to raise the height limit to 40,' and they are not revisiting that. They are talking about findings and conclusions in support of that motion, for those who were present for that vote. Staff tried to present iIúonnation, a large part provided by the applicants in support of their application. He said these need to be Commission's findings and he asked to please suggest, deletions, additions, or modifications that reflect the reason why you support the amendment and the record Mr. Arthur said he would like it to show somewhere in there (in his own personal opinion) reasons the height limits were increased: I) To allow for the additional height of ground required to cap the contaminated soil. Mr. Randall said that was brought up in public testimony that the remediation process would involve "removal of some soils, backfilling, and then providing a clean cap of additional soils that would raise the actual elevation of the building . . ." Mr. Arthur thought it to be approximately 1-1/2'. Mr. Irvin's recollection was that it would bring it back to Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 30,2001 · · · grade. Chair Harbison and Ms. Hersey concurred. Mr. Randall said it does not matter, because the point where you are going to start measuring is the street and that is not changing; that is the highest point of the property because the property does not drop more than 10'. You go to the highest point of the property and go up 30' from there or go up 40' from there, depending on what the height is. He felt the argument was for this building to function properly; to have the light and air and other elements; the tall ceilings for the moveable walls; the hoists and all the things they want inside; they felt they need the flexibility to go higher than 30', and to respond to HPC design recommendations. Mr. Arthur said he looked at the property again, and it looked to him that it was 5' below the sidewalk grade, which if you built on the grade that exists today, you wouldn't need to increase the height of the building. It was his understanding they were having soils that raised the building. 2) The Historic Preservation review of their building reqnired them to make some changes that increased the need for a height increase. Mr. Arthur felt those are critical to the real project, rather than some of the other things. He said he did not know where, or if, you want to put it in there. Mr. Randall said they could try to craft that and asked if there were some specific ones Mr. Arthur wanted to remove; Mr. Arthur replied if Staff says they need them, he is fine with that. A resolution was discussed which resulted in adding a new Suggested Findings and Conclusion. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS --Add New Finding to Suggested Findings and Conclusions between Findings e. and f.: "Preliminary design review by the HPC of the project resulted in a recommendation to add design elements to the roof that would raise the height of the building above 30'." Suggested Findings and Conclusions f. Mr. Benskin referenced the last sentence and asked for clarification regarding, "The proposed amendment itself will not generate any impacts to existing city services and infrastructure, and will pose no environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated." He indicated the amendment itself does not do that, but what it allows, does. Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Randall explained that is why they are saying, "The proposed amendment itself. . ." Mr. Benskin felt the converse also needed to be stated, that the project itself has the possibility of impacting city services and infrastructure, and he said it does. Mr. Randall noted the requirement for additional environmental review, Shoreline review, and design review. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Add to Suggested Findings and Conclusions f,: "Future construction on the site would be subject to SEPA environmental review." MOTION Mr. Irvin AcCel)t Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #9 as amended for clarification, and accel)t Exhibit G-I4, Sub D SECOND VOTE Mr, Arthur UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor (Messrs: Spieckerman and Benskin were recused.) Chair Harbison called for a recess at 8:50 p.m. At 9:00 p.m. he reconvened the meeting to consider Amendments #3, 4, and 5. AMENDMENT #5REVIEW AND AMEND FUGA LANGUAGE IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Randall said Staff has drafted Amendment #5 to include Amendment #3. It also includes MIDs, but they will break them out separately for Council. Lead: Mr. Benskin made the following observations and suggestions: MOTION Mr. Spieclierman Accept Amendment #5 SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion Mr. Benskin said he had the task of reviewing this. He thought Staff had done a great job; there had been a lot of changes and Staff reflected pretty much all of their changes right to the word. He said, however, he had a couple of questions: Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 30, 200 I . . . Section 10, PolicY 8.10.5, Section 11. PolicY 9.8 & Section 13. Policv l6.:S4.1 Mr. Benskin questioned, open space buffer to Old Fort Townsend Road. His recollection was they stated that in Policy 8.10.5; he did not remember adding that language under Manufacturing Lands and. .. Mr. Spieckerman noted the discussion, if it was under the commercial lands section, it should also be under manufacturing lands. Mr. Randall concurred and clarified for their understanding that there were two references to open space buffers. This one was the reference to the vegetative buffer along the highway. Tbe other was a reference to the buffer around the whole City limits, that Planning Commission decided not to go with. Page 12, Line 2 -- Section 13. PolicY 16.M.l and footnote Mr. Benskin pointed out a typo. Staff will delete. Page 12, Line 6 -- Section 13. PolicY 16.5 "Encourage Jefferson County to maintain a low density buffer adjacent to the Port Townsend UGA." Mr. Benskin asked if they want to define low-density buffer there. Mr. Randall asked the Commission if it is the intent to include this. Messrs. Harbison and Benskin thought it would not be included in the final draft. Chair Harbison answered Mr. Spieckerman's question why the discussion was not to include it, that in part it was in conflict with something that was already existing. Mr. Benskin said that nobody really knew what. . . was there and what the use of that land was. Mr. Randall said it is almost all zoned residential until you get down to the Fort; there is probably some 5 acre and 10 acre residential, maybe 20. Mr. Spieckennan thought they decided low density, and by GMA it couldn't be anything but that. The County can't come in and make it into that R-II or R-III. Mr. Spieckennan and Ms. Hersey concurred to deleting the policy. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Delete Proposed Policy 16.5 "Encourage Jefferson County to maintâin a low density buffer adjacent to the Port Townsend UGA." Section 16 Mr. Randall felt the wording was awkward and suggested they look to changing it since it had not yet been voted on, basically things that are not being deleted. He indicated that at Council's workshop they questioned regarding Policy 8.1 why they are even looking at all these things. Mr. Randall said this section used to talk about ensuring that adequate public facilities and utilities are provided within the incorporated Glen Cove FUGA. He said it also talked about cooperating with the County to establish "mirror image" plans; adopt il1terIocal agreements to determine appropriate providers; to coordinate with Jefferson County and other appropriate agencies and entities; to establish interlocal agreements with Jefferson County regarding the provision of urban water, etc., for the FUGA. Mr. Randall said they tried to reflect that if they are not going to have a Glen Cove FUGA at this time, they do have a Glen Cove LAMIRD at this time, and do have the possibility of Major Industrial Developments (MIDs). Both of these are exemptions from the rural development rule that Counties should only have rural type development or natural resource development. He said maybe his attempt at modifying this to reflect these things was an error; maybe Section 16 should be deleted because we no longer are going to have a Glen Cove FUGA at this time and no need to coordinate with the County on delivery of service to that FUGA, whatever we have out there. He said we have a water system; we will continue to maintain that, and we reference that in other sections in the Capital Facilities Element. He sensed from Council that his attempt to reflect LAMIRDs and MIDs in this section is causing more confusion than anything. Policy 8..f. -6- -- Mr. Spieckerman questioned. Chair Harbison asked if part of the intent there was to keep it rural. Mr. Spieckerman added, the intent was for the County to keep rural conditions by not offering UGA services in the areas that. .. Chair Harbison concurred and asked if in part they we were looking at pockets of potential residential growth. Mr. Randall said not really pockets of residential. The new language of the goal begins,"To ensure that urban public facilities and utilities are only extended into UGA's and otherwise extended only if consistent with official land use designations. Mr. Spieckerman suggested making tile following changes which Mr. Randall thought would help: Policy 8.14 (Stl'ike) Policy 8,1. ...(t .·enumber to 8.1 . Mr. Surber said they have to have a goal; Mr. Spieckennan replied the goal would still be there. Mr. Randall said strike Policy 8. I because it is confusing. MIDs are really too big to be in the city; tile assumption is they are going to provide their own services -- they are not going to cause extension of services and create sprawl, etc. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 30, 200 I . Goal 8 -- Mr. Randall said it is a LAMIRD; Mr. Benskin indicated it is likely we would be extending our services, and Mr. Randall said we have the water system that serves that area. Mr. Benskin thought LAMIRDs should be referenced along with UGA's; the only UGA that has been outside of Port Townsend is the Tri Area. Ms. Surber said that is what the rest of the language is supposed to get to. Mr. Benskin asked if that wouldn't clarify that they are serving the LAMIRD rather than the UGA in the Hadlock/Chimacum area? Ms. Surber said it is not very clear, but she felt the intent is already reflected, ". . . otherwise extended only if consistent with official land use designations." LAMIRD is an official land use designation. Staff suggested language change as follows: Goal 8: Amend to read: ".., only extended into UGA's, LAMIRD's, and otherwise extended only if consistent with offiCÎallnnd use desi2:nntions." Section 16, Pa1!e VII-5L -- Change title to read: Unincoruorated Areas Served by the City Mr. Randall and Ms. Surber suggested the title be changed since it is talking about is extension of urban level public facilities and utilities. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS --Change Section 16 title; amend Gonl 8; delete Policy 8.1 and renumber 8.2 as 8.1 Chair Harbison asked if there was more discussion. . Section 22, Pn2:e VIII-I5, 16: CommerCÎnl Historic District Revitalization Mr. Randall asked the Commission to verify how Staff dealt with the Community Vitality Plan, and if it was consistent with their intent. He understood the Planning Commission desire to be that they were deleting the references to the Main Street study because they were removing references to Glen Cove, UGA and regional commercial, and didn't need the Main Street study. His understanding of the Community Vitality Plan, the Planning Commission wasn't comfortable with it and felt there was not enough information to tell what the Plan would do, that it was better brought up for further discussion in the 5-year amendment cycle next year PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS --Leave as shown Section 23, Pn2:e IX-I, 2: Consistency With the 13 GMA Goals -- Goal #5 Page 17, Line 48 .. "The Plan designates significant areas within the City limits for commercial and manufacturing development. " Mr. Benskin questioned if that was a true statement. Mr. Randall thought that actually occurred in 1997 reflecting Comp Plan rezoning of considerable additional acres of multi-family land, manufacturing land, and commercial land. He thought, while this says designate significant areas, we may be wondering are there significant vacant areas available -- that they are in a little bit different mind-set than when this was officially adopted. Mr. Benskin wondered if it should reflect what it is now. Mr. Randall replied he wouldn't recommend going too far with this. Mr. Spieckennan felt this is something to take up later. Mr. Randall suggested this spring when they look at where they are, how much is left, what do they need, what are the growth rates -- then they would look at what they feel now. He thought they should probably leave this alone, because this reflects where they were at the time. Ms. Hersey asked why they tie the growth rate to economic development? Mr. Randall asked her if that was based on what he just said; Ms. Hersey affirmed. He was saying next year when they do the 5-year Comp Plan updates. She asked why they base growth rate in proportion to what the needs are? Mr. Randall said it is one of the required elements of the GMA, like in their population growth rates. Ms. Hersey asked if they base how many jobs they need on the population growth; there's no summation of whether or not you need more now instead ofwaitil1g until we get bigger? She said what they are hearing, they are basing their growth rate on whether it's zoned commercial or a necessity for economic development. She feels there is a need now, whether there is growth or not; she did not think they were at a base of conúork'lbleness in economic development in order to wait until they have more reassurance that they are going to have a better base. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 October 30,2001 . . . . Mr. Randall thought Ms. Hersey was referring to the Findings and Conclusions he drafted. One of those talked about the City experiencing slower growth than anticipated. It was detennined to hold the discussion until later. AMENDED MOTION Mr. SI>ieclœrman Accept Exhibit 1-4 --Amendment #5, modified with changes as I>resented SECOND ACCEPTED Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Spieckenuan read his written comments: I support the Amendment 5, or Exhibit I-IV, as prepared by staff (and modified tonight) for the following reasons: The City's Comp plan was developed and finally adopted a full 4 years ahead of the County's Comp plan. I believe there was concern at the time about the future of the Glen Cove area and City was looking for a mechanism by which they could be involved in the discussions with the County should the Glen Cove area become a UGA. But times and circumstances have changed. There has been some suggestion that Glen Cove is adjacent to the City. Actually, it is close to the City limits, not adjacent to the City. (He clarified he was referring to some of the public testimony.) I do not believe that Glen Cove just being close to the City is enough to justify a non-contiguous UGA. It is reasonable to locate light industrial development in the area; I do not feel that it would be appropriate to make it a formal UGA. If you look at Glen Cove as it stands today, its character is not urban and it will probably not become urban in the near future. I do not believe there is justification for continuing the FUGA designation for the area. There is some light industry and storage units in Glen Cove, not a mix of residential and commercial uses that would be characteristic of an urban area. Glen Cove does not have the sewers and roads that would be found in an urban area and I see no reason for it to be designated a UGA nor would I feel the City would be justified in the expenditures of monies to do so. What has changed since 1996. First and foremost, there is nowhere near the population nor the commercial growth forecasted in the City's Comp plan. I believe tIle State Office of Finance has indicated less than 1 % growth, or one half of the original projected growth. This change in the growth of the area should justify revisiting this section of the Comp plan. I have read the Earth Tech report and support their conclusions that the land speaks for itself concerning the appropriateness of the land use designations. As they have stated in their report, this principle supports their conclusion that Glen Cove is not suitable for residential or even more intense Commercial development and should remain an industrial area. I would like to suggest to my fellow Commissioners that should growth of the City and County exceed current trends and an additional UGA is needed in the Glen Cove area, we could always turn the table and reconsider our decision. Mr. Benskin asked for a point of clarification, that since they took the MID language out of Amendment #5, -- Mr. Randall corrected Mr. Benskin to say there are other MID references in Amendment #5. Mr. Benskin wondered how that referred to Amendment #3 that was rolled into Amendment #5. Mr. Randall said it is still there. Mr. Spieckerman asked if there isn't wording that says they should cooperate with the County. Mr. Randall suggested they take the vote on Amendment #5 as they discussed it. When they come to Amendment #3, they feel that Amendment #5 adequately deals with this issue, take a vote on it. He said when it goes to Council they will break them out. They will copy the MID policy language in Amendment #5 and lift the whole thing out, put it stand-alone by itself under Amendment #3 so they can see the MID policies just exactly as you have recommended. Ms. Surber recommended separate Findings and Conclusions for the MID; Staff has drafted them. VOTE 3 IN FAVOR -- MESSRS, SPIECKERMAN, BENSKIN, AND HARBISON; MS. HERSEY OPPOSED AMENDMENT #5 Lead: Mr. Benskin said he did not have time to review this and asked Mr. Randall to make recommendations: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Finding #7 Mr. Benskin said that did not reflect his perception, nor was it Mr. Harbison's. Mr. Randall asked if he cared to delete that Finding; Mr. Benskin replied he would. Ms. Surber pointed out the initial adoption of the Comp Plan. There Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 October 30,2001 . . . was specific reference to the PLC amendment; Mr. Harbison interjected where they changed the initial adoption. Ms. Surber concurred and said where the Staff and Commissioners were both saying their only concern was they didn't hear much about this Glen Cove issue. They are not referencing the current information. Mr. Benskin felt that was confusing, because these are current findings and facts, and he was not comfortable as it stood. Other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Randall said if they are not comfortable, they should take it out because this is Commission's statement. Chair Harbison asked if that iIúormation was ever part of an exhibit? Mr. Randall replied it was included in the application for Amendment #4; there were significant references to Vision 2020 and other steps. Mr. Spieckerman thought there was quite a bit of involvement. Mr. Randall did not know if it was lack of public involvement; they [PLC] stated it as lack of public testimony. Mr. Benskin thought there was a lot of public involvement. Mr. Randall said there were meetings, a lot of opportunities, but he did not know that there was a lot of input directly relating to Glen Cove. He thought that was what Staff was referring to. Ms. Hersey cited an example being on the Parks Board: twice they had to send out their survey because they didn't get back information the first time to count as a real survey. They changed the format and sent it the second time. She thought it was that way throughout the entire Comp Plan process; you always get a small percentage of people. Mr. Benskin said perhaps it is clear, then. Mr. Randall asked if they desired to keep it or delete it. Ms. Hersey said it is history. Changes to Finding #7 were determined to include the date; change public involvement to public input; change UGA to FUGA in both places since in 1996 it was a FUGA. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENSUS -- Change to read: "City records pertaining to the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1996 show that city staff and planning commissioners were concerned over the lack of public involvement input in the issue of Glen Cove and an expanding EUGA. In the last three years, the city has received testimony opposing a Glen Cove EUGA. Mr. Randall pointed out the following: Finding 6 -- ". . . A reduced population growth rate is an additional reason not to support an expanded Port Townsend UGA at this time." Mr. Randall said this is one Ms. Hersey brought up; he drafted this and brought it up during the public hearing. He pointed out that it is one factor. Regarding the question if that is a reason not to zone additional commercial and manufacturing lands, he thinks population growth is a factor. Chair Harbison spoke, conversely a factor. Mr. Randall said it is trying to show something additional they have discovered since then, not to show it is the only reason or should be the driving force. Mr. Spieckerman thought when they look at how much land might be available for commercial/ industrial! manufacturing -- Mr. Randall indicated that would be a key factor of what they are doing, validating where they are now, what is the current picture of Port Townsend now, what are the trends tlley are seeing. Mr. Spieckennan said you could rezone anything you want, but that is not going to bring in the business. Mr. Randall thought the County was also struggling with that in places. In his opinion, that is the issue. You can have raw land zoned for whatever; if you don't have all those other factors -- if the land isn't in the right place; if you don't have the infrastructure; if the land isn't for sale for a reasonable price; if the zoning doesn't fit the land -- all those things, plus someone wanting to build there. It's not just vacant land; it just one element. References to the Glen Cove area. etc. -- changed to reference that Glen Cove is currently a LAMIRD, i.e., Finding #4, "The Glen Cove LAMIRD is not adjacent to the city limits of Port Townsend. . ." Mr. Randall thought this was in response to Mr. Spieckennan's comments and also to the somewhat threatening public testimony by Mr. Lindsay citing the Tacoma case. Mr. Randall said for their clarification, Mr. Lindsay cited a case where the City of Tacoma sued, he believed Pierce County, over a situation where Pierce County designated a portion of industrial!commercial rather urban-looking land outside the City limits, a LAMIRD in order to try and block a fllture UGA extension by the City, to try and keep Tacoma from being able to annex and have a UGA out there. Formally, the County designates the UGA, so Tacoma said this should be a UGA, you should be designating this in our Tacoma UGA because it's industrial, commercial, and it is right next to us. The Growth Management Hearings Board declared they were right -- this was right next to them and should be a UGA. Mr. Randall thought Mr. Lindsay was trying to say that the County and City have to consider Glen Cove a UGA because it's adjacent to the City of Port Townsend, and the Hearings Boards have already said that it won't hold up as a LAMIRD. Mr. Randall felt it was a very stretched version of that case. He said Mr. Spieckerman was pointing out about the current Glen Cove zoning district not being adjacent to the City (Mr. Randall scaled it out and the nearest limits of the Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 October 30, 200 I . Glen Cove LAMIRD to the City of Port Townsend is 3/4 of a mile away) and he did not consider that adjacent. Mr. Randall answered Mr. Benskin that is the current, not the extended LAMIRD; Randy Kline was talking they may try to expand the LAMIRD. He said that is something that doesn't exist yet. Mr. Randall said that is what he was trying to reflect in that language. He had no other comments. Chair Harbison asked if there were any further comments on Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #5. There being none, he called for a motion. MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Spieclœrman AcCel)t the Findings and Conclusions of Amendment #5 as amended Mr. Benskin 3 IN FAVOR -- MESSRS. SPIECKERMAN, BENSKIN, AND HARBISON; MS. HERSEY OPPOSED AMENDMENT #4 Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan There was discussion regarding language of the motion. Chair Harbison read the recommendation. Mr. Randall said mainly what is included is a little history and a reference to why the Planning Commission preferred Amendment #5 over Amendment #4, that it focused on improving city ÌIûrastructure, that it referenced MID policies, encouraged city focusing on its existing vacant lands, etc. He said the Findings say the reasons they do not basically support it is because the things in Amendment #5 better completely address the issue of leaving room to expand the Port Townsend UGA if needed, focusing on infrastructure, etc. MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Recommend they approve the Findings and Conclusions which recommend that Amendment #4 not be adopted SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey UNANIMOUS, 4 in Favor . AMENDMENT #3 ADD POLICY RE: MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS Ms. Surber pointed out an error on the first line and said they wilI change 1995 to 1996. Mr. Randall said they basically summarized the MID RCW. They cited some of the supporting language in the County-wide Planning Policies. He read the recommendation and said the amendment references the process, covers the things that are required -- assumptions upon which the Plan is based, that it is stilI valid, but if there comes such an application as a legitimate MID we need to have a process to deal with it for the benefit for Jefferson County economy and whatever benefits it might have for Port Townsend. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Finding #3 -- Ms. Surber asked if the draft MID ordnance would be considered new information. Mr. Randall replied the MID process wasn't actually considered during the annual amendments; he thought it could be considered new information. Ms. Surber suggested language: Change to read: "Jcffel'son County's draft MID ordinance represents new information which was not considered during the adoption process." Recommendation -- Mr. Benskin requested change to remove "lines 8 and 23" and replace with "line 23". MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey Adopt the Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #3 as amended Ms. Benskin UNANIMOUS, 4 in Favor APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- . CONSENSUS -- Delay approval of minutes from October 17,2001. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 October 30, 200 I J. . UPCOMING MEETINGS -- November 8,2001 -- CANCELED November 29,2001 -- Cottage Housing Ordinance Open Record Public Hearing There was a short discussion regarding the Cottage Housing hearing. V. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting that concluded public hearings from October 17, 2001, October 23,2001, and October 25,2001, was declared adjourned by consensus at 9:50 p.m. ~~ Larry Harbison, ChaÌ'hnan Æ1~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker .. Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 October 30,2001