Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02282002 Packet · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm February 28, 2002 I. Call to Order ll. Roll Call ill. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business A. Welcome New Members: Position 1 - Alice King Position 2 - Richard Berg Position 3 - Cindy Thayer Position 7 - Michael Hyland Position 8 - Nancy Dorgan Position 9 -Frank Benskin Comprehensive Plan 2002 Update - Workshop 1) Overview of Work plan Planning vs. Implementation - a two pronged approach (Jeff Randall) 2) Kick-off of Annual Assessment a) Introduction to Seven Assessment Criteria (BCD Staff) b) Report on City's Infrastructure (Ken Clow, Public Works Director) 3) Public Comment 4) Planning Commission Discussion B. VIT. Upcoming Meetings: Then next regular meeting is scheduled for March 14. Agenda items include: Comprehensive Plan 2002 Update - Workshop Review of Draft GMA Revisions to the Land Use and Housing Elements VITI. Communications IX. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28,2002 I. CALL TO ORDER BCD Director Jeff Randall called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ll. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, Nancy Dorgan, James Irvin, Cindy Thayer, and Michael Hyland. Alice King was excused. Also present were BCD Senior Planner Judy Surber and Public Works Director Ken Clow. Mr. Randall noted the need to elect a new Chairperson. He suggested that since there were so many new members, a temporary chair be elected for the next couple of meetings and on March 28 officers be elected for the remainder of the year. There being consensus, Mr. Randall called for nominations. NOMINATIONS FOR INTERIM CHAIR: Ms. Hersey nominated Jim Irvin, seconded by Michael Hyland. Mr. Irvin nominated Cindy Thayer, seconded by Nancy Dorgan. Mr. Arthur asked that nominations cease, seconded by Frank Benskin. Following discussion, Mr. Irvin withdrew his nomination. Cindy Thayer was unanimously elected Interim Chair. NOMINATIONS FOR INTERIM VICE CHAIR: Ms. Hersey nominated Jim Irvin, seconded by Michael Hyland. Jim Irvin agreed to accept the nomination and was unanimously elected Interim Vice Chair. m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randall indicated the agenda was accepted and·there were no minutes to approve. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- there were none. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS A New members were welcomed and all Commissioners introduced themselves. B. Comprehensive Plan 2002 Update - Workshop Planning Commission MinutesIPage 1 Febrwuy 28,2002 . . . Ms. Surber stated the Comp Plan annual assessment that is to be completed by April 15 is based on seven criteria. She indicated the State had also mandated requirements and BCD has determined to take a two-track approach to include the normal update cycle. Mr. Randall pointed out the reason for their approach is that City Council is interested in the implementation of Comp Plan related things that can be done any time. State mandated items must be done according to schedule. What is being done now is the annual amendment cycle. Track 2 implementation items can happen any time. Track 3 updating of the Shoreline Master Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance will include consultant input. Ms. Surber distributed updates to the Work Plan that she said would change as they proceed. She introduced discussion of the seven Annual Assessment Criteria: Criteria #1 Mr. Randall showed charts of growth projections. He said State projections for Port Townsend growth of2% had not proved true, that historically the growth rate had been 1.3% - 1.6%, a little slower than projected. Criteria #2 Mr. Ken Clow handed out and discussed an overview of infrastructure projections and impacts of accomplishments regarding wastewater, water, streets and storm water. He spoke of other areas of need and the Capital Improvement Program that has functional updates different fÌ'om the Comp Plan, including things planned for and those in response to happenings. . Criteria #3 Mr. Randall discussed land zoned and showed GIS statistics. He suggested it does not look as though land needs to be rezoned other than zones R-m and R-IV. Criteria #4 Ms. Surber said most assumptions are still valid. She suggested others needed to be watched, that one might be wrong -- the growth rate, and to also watch the County's plans for the Tri-Area, Urban Growth Area. Criteria #5 Ms. Surber thought this is difficult, that there has been no comprehensive survey. She suggested perhaps this be considered for a 10 year update. Staff thinks things are pretty consistent with the Community Direction Statement. Criteria #6 Ms. Surber suggested this wbuld be impacted if the mill were to go under or there was a substantial influx of businesses. Mr. Randall stated there was a lot offoresight in planning in the original Comp Plan, and the Plan has a lot of good strategies. Criteria #7 Ms. Surber noted the focus for 2002 update with State Mandated timelines. Mr. Randall reported they would address land use and housing elements at the next scheduled meeting. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Hersey asked if they were going to break into committees. Mr. Randall replied that the Comp Plan is really good, that the Shorelines Master Plan needs to be updated, and that they will need committees to deal with problems with development regulations (e.g., parking; interim design standards, etc.). He· suggested a committee for strategies for affordable housing. Mr. Irvin asked regarding the overall process and suggested they determine what they need to focus on in the Comp Plan. Mr. Randall noted there are specific elements in Criteria 1, 2, and 3. Ms. Thayer asked if everyone has copies of the Comp Plan. Mr. Randall replied they would all be given copies and other things as well. Planning Commission MinutesIPage 2 Febrwuy 28,2002 · · · Ms. Dorgan questioned Criteria 7 and hiring a consultant, if they are anticipating a fair amount of activity. She suggested there are inconsistencies between the Comp Plan and the County's population allocations. Chair Thayer asked Ms. Dorgan to secure that information for Mr. Randall. Mr. Randall requested the Commissioners consider any suggested amendments for this year or the next year. Mr. Arthur spoke of things in the original documents, e.g., family wage jobs, the relation of land and services available to impact them, and suggested they study goals and objectives and relate them to any amendments. Mr. Randall concurred. Discussion followed. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Robert Greenway representing the Dundee Hill Neighborhood Mr. Greenway said there is a neighborhood movement on the rise regarding the proposed 35th Street Park property, and he wants to be involved in the planning. He said he had given former Commissioner Jerry Spieckerman material about the 35th Street Park. Mr. Greenway noted the County's request to have the deed back to provide for low cost housing. He said that is now moot, that the City plans to purchase the property fÌ'om the County. He continued by saying they want to be vividly in support of the City buying this land, that by buying the land there will be a modest park. He thanked the City, submitted and read a petition signed by neighbors fÌ'om the Dundee Hill neighborhood. Ms. Nancy Dorgan suggested that since the model agenda in the Bylaws for the Planning Commission has no designated place for public comment, the Bylaws be amended to coordinate with the Staff work plan for the Comp Plan review process. Chair Thayer stated that would be considered at the next meeting. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS March 14, 2002 VITI. COMMUNICATIONS There were none. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Jim Irvin and seconded by Ms. Lyn Hersey. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ~ /?/~ "O.c " ~Æ¿ztS1~/ Cindy ayer, Chair :/ ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission MinutesIPage 3 Febrwuy 28,2002 . City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 Date: To: From: Subject: I. ß. . ill. Staff Report February 26, 2002 Port Townsend Planning Commission Jeff Randall, BCD Director Judy Surber, Senior Planner 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update - Annual Assessment Workshop Purpose This workshop meeting is intended to: Introduce new Planning Commission members Provide a brief overview of the annual update process Explain the "Planning vs. Implementation Approach" Review the W orkplan Begin the Annual Assessment Comprehensive Plan Annual Update Process Attachment A, provided to Planning Commission members at the January 31, 2002 joint workshop with City Council, provides an overview of the process. Planning vs. Implementation Approach During the January 31 Joint Workshop, the group discussed various options for proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan update. Some described an intensive, page-by-page review of the Plan with numerous public workshops over a two-year period. Others supported an update that focused strictly on the state mandated requirements with the balance of the committee's energy spent on drafting of implementation ordinances. The solution? A two pronged approach that implements both strategies. This strategy have been reviewed and approved by the City Council Community Development Committee. Jeff will provide an overview. IV. Work Plan Attachment B is the proposed workplan for the 2002 update. V. Annual Assessment Chapter 20.04 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) sets forth seven criteria, which form the basis of the annual assessment. The criteria are listed herein followed by an outline of the information we intend to provide over the next few meetings. The following information is intended to provide an introduction to the annual assessment. As you can see on the pr~osed workplan (attachment B) the Planning Commission's workshops held on March 14th, 28 , and April 11 th may also be used for gathering data on which to base the annual assessment findings. . Staff Memo January 26, 2002 Page 2 The Planning Commission is scheduled to make their final recommendation for the annual assessment on April 11th. . Annual Assessment Criteria: 1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the comprehensive plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated. or is it failing to materialize? Staff will be provide and overview of the population data that compares anticipated growth as identified in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan with the most recent data available from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) based upon the 2000 census. 2. Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminished or increased? Public Works staff will report on: · Service Capacity (water, sewer, streets, stormwater) · Change in Service Area · Inftastructure constructed in 2001 3. Is sufficient land designated and zoned to meet proiected demand and needs? GIS and BCD staff are gathering data that reflects development trends in Port Townsend since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1996. 4. Are the assumptions upon which the plan is based invalid? Fifteen assumptions for Port Townsend's future influenced the formation of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 11-9, Introduction, Comprehensive Plan). BCD staff has reviewed the assumptions and found the majority of them to be accurate. One, however, may prove incorrect given the . slower rate of population growth we are currently experiencing. Draft text will be provided for the Planning Commission's review. 5. Are there changes in community wide attitudes that necessitate amendments to the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the comprehensive plan community direction statement? Always a difficult one to assess without benefit of a scientific survey. We welcome the Planning Commissioners thoughts on this criterion. 6. Is there sufficient change or lack of change in circumstances to dictate the need for an amendment? This is a broad question that may include a review of issues surrounding specific salmon species listings under the Endangered SpeCies Act, growth rates, actions by the County, revisions to the GMA, etc. Again, we welcome your thoughts. 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the comprehensive plan and the GMA or the countywide planning policy for Jefferson County? The city plans to retain a consultant to analyze the plans consistency with recent GMA amendments and Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. Attachments: A. B. Overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Update Process Suggested Planning Commission W orkplan . . City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz. Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 Overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Update Process An overview of the annual update process is provided in the following text and on the attached flowchart. For a complete explanation, please refer to Chapter 20.04 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). Planning Commission Annual Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is charged by the Municipal Code to conduct an annual assessment of the comprehensive plan, and to make recommendations as necessary to keep the plan current. This task must be completed by April 15 of each year. Any recommended amendments must be forwarded to the BCD Director by May 1st. Seven review criteria are to be considered by the Commission in their annual assessment: 1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the comprehensive plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated. or is it failing to materialize? 2. Has the capacity to provide adequate services diminished or increased? . 3. Is sufficient land designated and zoned to meet proiected demand and needs? 4. Are the assumptions upon which the plan is based invalid? . 5. Are there changes in community wide attitudes that necessitate amendments to the goals and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the basic values embodied within the comprehensive plan community direction statement? 6. Is there sufficient change or lack of change in circumstances to dictate the need for an amendment? 7. Do inconsistencies exist between the comprehensive plan and the GMA or the countywide planning policy for Jefferson County? Forming the Docket Each year, the city accepts applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. There are two basic types of proposed amendments: "formal" and "suggested." Formal amendments are site specific, quasi-judicial requests requiring a fee to be paid by the landowner. This type of amendment is automatically placed on the final docket for review. I A'Brr Suggested amendments may be made by anyone. They do not require a filing fee, but are not guaranteed a place on the City's final docket. Planning Commission and Council review the "need, urgency, and appropriateness" of each suggested amendment (§20.04.060) to determine which warrant placement on the final docket. Applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments are accepted through May 1 of each year. By May 31st, BCD complies the list of suggested amendments into a "preliminary docket" and forwards it, along with staff's recommendation, to the Planning Commission. The Commission in turn, forwards their recommended docket to Council. Council must consider the Commission's recommendations by the second meeting of June each year. . Recommendation on Proposed Amendments Amendments placed on the Final Docket are reviewed under SEPA. Workshops and public hearings are typically scheduled in the late summer months. Ultimately, the Commission develops findings and conclusions and a recommendation on each amendment placed on the final docket. Both the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the following findings: 1. 2. Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; Whether the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. 3. Eight additional findings are applied to site-specific formal amendments. (Section 20.04.080 A . . (4) a-h PTMC). The City Council must adopt any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by the second Council meeting of November of each year. . · · · WORKPLAN for COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE February 20 First Public Notice - Call for Suggested/Formal Amendments February 28 Planning Commission Workshop Annual Assessment - Monitoring our Progress . Review of Growth Rates Overview of Land Use Development Patterns Public Works Report on Service Capacity and Level of Service Review of Assumptions and Circumstances March 6 March 14 March 28 April 11 .MAY 1 May 1- 31 May 15 May 22 May * May 30 June 1 Public Comment Second Public Notice - Call for Suggested/Formal Amendments Planning Commission Workshop Review Draft GMA Revisions Land Use and Housing Public Comment Planning Commission Workshop Review Draft GMA Revisions Transportation, Capital Facilities & Utilities Public CoIIUrient Planning Commission Workshop PC Finalize the Annual Assessment (April 15 deadlme) PC Memo to BCD Director re: Recommended Amendments (20.04.050 C (2) (Focus is on GMA Compliance) DEADLINE for Applications BCD Compile the Preliminary Docket and staff recommendations? Publish Notice (10 day) Planning Commission Hearing (and if needed, workshop) Planning Commission Packets Optional Workshop - "Overview of Suggested Amendments" (Joint?) Planning Commission Hearing on Docket Staff drafts Planning Commission Transmittal to Council I EXHIBIT 1? June 13 June 17 June 19 June 21 June 26 June 27 Planning Commission approves transmittal on recommended docket Council Hearing- adopt final docket BCD Letter to Applicants - projects which made final docket · Complete SEPA Checklist- Notice to Leader Notice of Pending SEPA (20 day comment period) & Planning Commission Workshops (10 days prior) Planning Commission Update on Final Docket Develop schedule * * July Staff Ground truth Draft SEP A Threshold Determination Form BCD recommendations for all suggested amendments o Letter to CTED - 60 day review period July 11 July 16 July 25 July 31 Aug8 Aug 29 Sept. 12 Sept 25 Sept. 26 Oct. 2 Planning Commission Workshop GMA Revisions Comment Period on Pending SEP A expires Planning Commission Workshop Suggested Amendments · Notice of Planning Commission Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination (DNS - 15 days; EIS see WACs) Planning Commission Workshop- Formal Amendments Planning Commission Hearing GMA Revisions Suggested Amendments Planning Commission Hearing Formal Amendments Notice Council 10/7 Workshop Planning Commission Finalize Findings & Conclusions Notice Council Hearing(s) to Pam for publishing Council Packets due for Workshop · · · · Oct. 7 Oct. 16 Oct 21 Oct. 30 Nov4 Council Workshop (optional) Council Packets Due for 10/21 Council Hearing Council Packets Due for 11/4 Council Hearing November 13 Draft Ordinance in Council Packets November 18 Council Adopt Ordinance Nov. 22 Maps to Tyler Pages to Pam Transmittal to DCTED (within 10 days) / "" ,,. · To: David Timmons, City Manager Port Townsend City Council Port Townsend Planning Commission Transmission of Petition Re 35th St. Park February 25, 2002 Almost 8 and 1/2 years ago, on October 17, 1993, Woody Dennis sent to then Mayor John Clise and the City Council a letter requesting that "the 6.12 acres of woodland near the top of Umatilla Street" be held as a reserve "until such time as the city could afford to develop it as a park . . . when this area of town is filled with houses, there will be that many more people glad to have a park." By November 3rd of that year, 1993, the County, who owns the land, announced its intention to sell the land as surplus, at auction, with an assessed valuation of $60,000. Now, finally, after at least 47 meetings and the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars, the discovery of storm-water and wetland issues with the land, and the intense concern of neighbors hoping that this surplus land would be used in a way that wouldn't destroy the peace and quiet of the neighborhood -- now, finally, it appears that the City is buying the land from the county, and there will indeed, someday, be a modest park in this most quiet corner of Port Townsend. · Those of us who have worked for these 8 1/2 7 years to achieve this wish to express our deep thanks to the City Manager, David Timmons, for working out with the county the purchase of this land. Surely it is a win-win situation for all concerned: the county gets its money for the land; the city meets the promise of the City's Comprehensive and Park Plans to locate a park within 1/2 mile of every citizen in town; vast amounts of money mitigating the severe problems with the site need not be spent. We wish also to thank the City Council for it's decision; and the Parks and Recreation Committee for deciding a few weeks ago that the current land-use zoning of parks and open space should be kept on that parcel. * * * * This petition, directed to the Planning Commission, with 143 names of people living within 1/2 mile of the park, was underway when we heard the news that the City intended to purchase this land from the county. Because, as we understand it, the deal has not been completed, and because we want the City Council and Planning Commission to have · no doubts about the opinion of the majority of people living close to that .. . · · · .. land, we decided to complete the petition, gather it together, and submit it to you, anyway. So here it is, to be made a part of the permanent record of the "35th Street Park". Finally, we wish it known that there is strong sentiment to participate with the city in finding solutions to low-cost housing -- in the Dundee Hill neighborhood as well as other areas of the city. The petition reads as follows: WE THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS LIVING WITHIN 1/2 MilE OF THE LAND KNOWN AS THE 35TH STREET PARK, IN CONSIDERATION OF NINE YEARS OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION WITH CITY PLANNERS, COMMITTEES, CONSUlTANTS AND COUNCil MEMBERS, REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVOCATE lEAVING IN PLACE THE P/OS ("PARKS/OPEN SPACE") DESIGNATION ON 35TH STREET PARK LAND. WE REQUEST THIS BECAUSE AS A GROUP WE WANT TO BE CONSUlTED SO THAT THERE IS AN ADEQUATE PROCESS TO INSURE THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THIS PIECE OF LAND IS DONE SENSIBLY, WITHIN THE SCALE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Respectfully submitted, The Dundee Hill Neighborhood