Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09122002 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12,2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members answering roll were Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Nmcy Dorgan, James Irvin, and Alice King. Michael Hyland was excused, and Bernie Arthur was unexcused. Lyn Hersey arrived at 7:02 p.m.. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Berg made a motion to accept the agenda as corrected to change the upcoming meeting date from October 17 to October 24. Mr. Irvin seconded the motion. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A discussion of the process of minute taking was moved to Unfnished Business. Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes of August 29,2002, as corrected; Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was discussion regarding the change this yœr to an abbreviated format in Planning Cornrnission minute-taking. It was pointed out that the official records are tape recordings that are available for review. There was concern that minutes are forwarded to the City Council with enough detail for Coum;il's consideration. Mr. Randall stated the change was brought about to make conformity of minutes throughout the City council and cornrnittees, as an economic measure, and to ensure timeliness of the minutes. He explained that the minutes are surnrnary, and that a transcription would only be required if there were a formal appeal. He indicated minutes of hearings would be more detailed and would reflect a surnrnary of public testimony, that minutes of workshops would cover action items. Mr. Randall responded to the issue of Findings of Fact and Conclusions that they are important. He said the Planning Cornrnission would approve them before sending them forward to City Council. VII. NEW BUSINESS Workshop - Comprehensive Plan Formal (Quasi-Judicial) Amendments: Mr. Benskin reported he previously had professional dealings with Mr. Kelly, and that he would recuse himself from the Kelly-Jefferson Transit amendment when it is presented. Ms. Surber reminded that these two amendments are quasi-judicial. They are not free for discussion. She stated Staff would give no response to specific questions, and no public cornrnent on these amendments would be accepted tonight. City Attorney Watts noted written testimony would be accepted anytime and public testinony would be taken at the public hearings. Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12,2002/ Page 1 · · · Pak - Indian Point In a background overview, Ms. Surber indicated that under law the County and City worked cooperatively with shoreline management, but since the adoption of the Port Townsend Shoreline Maser program (SMP) in 1994 the City is now on its own. Ms. Surber pointed out on a map the area involved noting the SMP trumps the municipal zoning code provisions. She enumerated the three designations for use: 1) Water Dependent -- a use that has to be on the water; 2) Water Related -- a use that has to be close to the water; 3) Water Enioyment -- a use that provides access to the shoreline to large numbers of the general public. She gave some examples and went on to explain how these uses inter-relate to requirements in other plans and policies. In the Indian Point area there is a rule allowing transient accornrnodations, but they have to be on the upper floors and 50% of the ground floor has to be reserved for any of the three water-oriented uses. Water-oriented uses encompass Water Dependent, Water Related, and Water Enjoyment. The applicant feels the 50% is an undue burden and has asked for relieffor the property. Ms. Surber said there are other districts where this requirement does not apply. Th other part of the proposal addresses conference centers. Conference centers are not listed specifically anywhere in the SMP and leaves the question whether it is Water Dependent, Water Enjoyment, etc. The request is to list conference centers as Water Fnjoyment use and insert it as such into the SMP appendix. Ms. Surber said the defmitions of those types of uses in the SMP basically corne out of the State's definitions. Ms. Surber said the 50% rule was established in 1992, Ordinance 2320 (Exhibit P-7). In general, they were trying to encourage water oriented uses of the shoreline and were very concerned about residential development and the displacement of marine trades. Finding #5 references "A Survey of the Economic Impacts of the Marine Trades Industry in Jefferson County" and is more pertinent to the Boat Haven Marina and Point Hudson Districts where marine trades are the main use. Findings #8, 9, 10 apply to this proposal-- #8 referencing a statistically validated 1992 Citizen survey undertaken in 1991 in the Port Townsend Main Street Project. Finding # 14 -- mixed use developments, trying to meet all the uses. Requiring water oriented uses but allowing transient accornrnodations on the upper floors was one way to achieve that. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS: Q Ms. Hersey -- Would the request for accornrnodations, e.g. conference rooms, meet the needs on the second floor? Would you consider living accornrnodations or other uses for the second floor and above? A Ms. Surber -- It would depend on the specific proposal. It would probably require a conditional use permit. Q Mr. Benskin -- Exhibit C of the MDNS (Exhibit P-2), Randy Davis, DOE Shorelines Planner, questions the amendment proposing changes to Performance Standard #9 that concerns residential proptrty. How does residential fit into this? A Ms. Surber -- She could ask Mr. Davis to attend the public hearing. Mr. Benskin -- He would like to have Mr. Davis attend; he would like clarification. Is it like a hotel or a conference center where people stay -- if it is residential then is it condominiums, houses or permanent residences and takes it out of the public realm? Q Mr. Irvin -- Regarding #8, Ordinance 2330, "A statistically validated 1991 Citizen survey. . :' It was a flag to him and wondered if it carried any particular weight. He asked concerning specifics of the survey. Even if statistically validated, he wondered if the conclusions were representative of the city as a whole or only people responding. A Ms. Surber -- Will provide copies of the Main Street survey referenced in Cornrnission packets. Q Ms. Dorgan -- If there were a development with a hotel on the second floor and under current regulations 50% being water oriented as required, the other 50% could be any general cornrnercialwhich includes conference centers. Could the other half be a conference center on the first floor? A Ms. Surber -- There could be a lobby for transients on the ground floor. Will check into non-oriented water uses occupying the other 50%. Ms. Dorgan --If there is already zoning C-II range, is it already accessible? Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12, 2002/ Page 2 · · · Mr. Randall -- Sounds like you are interested especially in how the current regulations would deal with a possible proposal on the site, given a range of possibilities. Ms. Dorgan -- It helps understand what we art> changing. Wants to know the range of possibilities. Ms. Surber -- It is important to note that hotel transient would require a conditional use permit. Q Ms. King -- Wants to know what properties are already exem¡i:; they want to add this property. A Ms. Surber -- Has already drawn up something and will put into the packets. Q Mr. Benskin -- How does the Tides Inn operate there? They are on the Shorelines? A Mr. Randall -- The original Tides Inn probably predated the Shoreline Master Program. The addition came in and was vested by Mr. Pickett when he owned it prior to the current version of the SMP, which became more restricted with water dependent uses. When Mr. Pak bought the property, he made a big pointto ensure that the vesting was still valid, that it hadn't been considered abandoned or something. One of the conditions of purchase was a letter from the City Attorney stating Mr. Pak was still vested under the old Shoreline Master Program. So, that program did not have to comply with these rules; it still had to be a substantial development permit. Mr. Pak got the permits for the Tides Inn addition, but he had no involvement in the actual construction. Mr. Pak sold the project, and has no more interest in the Tides Inn. Q Ms. Dorgan -- Would an art gallery be water-oriented, or just straight cornrnercial? A Ms. Surber -- Said she would fmd out. Q Mr. Berg -- Wanted clarification as to what is allowed in the restricted 50% water-dependent, and asked if all three categories are allowed? A Ms. Surber -- Replied, affirmatively including wate¡:.enjoyment. A water enjoyment use could be such things as a restaurant, renting kayaks. Mr. Berg -- You could put water-enjoyment in that 50% and could put æything in the other 50%? Ms. Surber -- Is going to be checking, but thinks that would be included in the mixed use. You carltput the hotel units on the first floor. Mr. Berg -- Has it been determined a conference center would not be included in wateFenjoyment? Like a big view windows, and the view was part of the draw to get people to corne to that conference center? . Ms. Surber -- In the defmition of Water Enjoyment Uses, it says there are certain types of uses that if they forward the public access directive, they could be considered water-enjoyment. Mixed use developments, and restaurants, museums, aquariums-- if they forward that public access directive and allow a substantial number of the public to enjoy the waterfront, they can be considered a water-enjoyment use. It would depend on the design. Ms. King -- It says it is the primary use, not secondary. Q Mr. Benskin -- Exhibit P-8. A Ms. Surber -- It is another document you have to look at when you are reviewing shorelines prop<Jals. It is called the Comprehensive Public Access Plan and has some very conceptual designs and ideas for stree~end parks. On Indian Point there are some platted rights-of-way that affect the property and the Comprehensive Public Access Plan gives some general recornrnendations on the use of these public rights-of-way. Mr. Benskin -- So those roads won't be vacated? Ms. Surber -- There is no proposal like that. It is very difficult to actually vacate a street that is on the waterfront. Q Ms. Hersey --The Parks and Recreation Cornrnission, now advisory board, took months and went through this with vacated streets being parks (as to what needed to be there in order to allow that project to go through). Nothing has never been done. There is a proposal that has been given to the City and approved through the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that there is supposed to be something there on this position. Q Mr. Benskin -- This would not be Mr. Pak's responsibility to develop this area? His responsibility for providing public access would be on his own property? A Ms. Surber -- Answered in general terms, when BCD reviews an application for a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and are looking for mitigation measuresand consistency with the Shorelines Management Act and the SMP, they look for public access. They would look to the Comprehensive Public Access Plan and see whether or not it was forwarding the direction that has been given through that document. Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12,2002/ Page3 · · · Q Ms. Dorgan -- Questioned the strikeout language on the application in Pak A.I.a., the applicant is suggesting striking two of the categories that fall within the umbrella category, wateroriented. What is the difference in interpretation of what is being plOposed as a strikeout? A Ms. Surber -- That is very specific to the proposal. She said she will get into that at the hearing. Q Mr. Irvin -- It seems if an exemption of the 50% rule were waived, it would open up the possibility for numerous projects. We don't seem to know at this point, and I don't know if we are going to get to that definitive conclusion at the time of the hearing. lis almost like it is a question of what do we decide first. Are all of these a single proposal; if you reject one you reject all? A Ms. Surber -- She will ask the City Attorney. Conference centers and the 50% rule are two separate issues in her mind; that maybe we could say we are okay with this one, but we wouldIit recornrnend the other one. Q Mr. Irvin -- A procedural question to Ms. Surber regarding document hierarchy: This is all being done under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Plan changes. Are both the Shoreline Master Program and the Urban Waterfront Plan supporting the documentation, so that if we male a Comp Plan change it is automatically dumped in the lap of the people who keep those documents to make those changes without further debate? A Ms. Surber -- Both documents are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. It specifically has to go through this Comp Plan amendment process. Replacement pages would go into those documents as a result of this process. Mr. Irvin -- So in a manner of speaking we are responsible for those documents as well? Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Randall-- This will not result in a subsequent amendment; this is the amendment to those documents. On your preceding question, considering this proposal you need to go back to the criteria in Title 2004 which is basically the approval criteria for Comp Plan amendments md talks about changes in Cornrnunity Values, etc. What are the existing rules and their effect, why as a cornrnunity we wanted those rules to exist, and then think about the proposed amendments and what they are trying to achieve. Then in your opinion applythose criteria and try to decide for yourself if you feel that it meets those criteria. That is where you need to start; that is what our fmdings are going to be based on. Q Ms. Dorgan -- Thought she had read that other changes would be requirtrl to the Urban Waterfront Plan, etc. When will we see those proposed changes; why are they'maybes,' and why are they not corning to us as part of our review? A Ms. Surber -- At the time she wrote that, she realized a lot that could be hidden in there somewhere; it could be as a result of one of these meetings other things would corne to light. She did not want the Cornrnission to think it had been absolutely exhaustive. However, she and Ande Grahn, the representative, did go through all of the changes she could think of to see if it was achieving what they proposed. Ms. Grahn determined the strikeout and underlined language they had presented was all they had wanted to change. Mr. Randall-- The Urban Waterfront Plan is a planning document. Theycan use it in SEP A, etc. It was implemented regulatorily through Chapter 17.30 that gave the Historic Preservation Cornrnittee their mandatory review power. The guidelines from the Urban Waterfront Plan are incorporated in the 17.30 and say when you review projects the Historic Preservation Cornrnittee will apply guidelines that corne straight out of the Urban Waterfront Plan. HPC does have mandatory review that far. Basically, as you get further away from downtown the guidelines get a lot less detailed and less specific, and may be a reason there may not be need to change it.. Q Ms. Dorgan -- The Urban Waterfront Plan was adopted by reference into the Comp Plan, so all the policies that are in it are operational policies. Ifwe amend the Urban Waèrfront Plan in any way, it is a big policy change. It covers from the wetland in the Boat Haven all the way out to Point Hudson. She was curious about, going back to her earlier question regarding l.a., if you strike the one category and not the other. Before reaching a decision on any of the aspects of these amendments, she wants to know if it applies to the entire Urban Waterfront District, and specifically what the implications would be for policy changes as they relate to Point Hudson. A Mr. Randall-- As I heard your point: evaluate this proposal against the applicable Urban Waterfront Plan policies to make sure this proposal is consistent with the Urban Waterfront Plan, and that changes to the Urban Waterfront Plan aren't necessary to implement 1his proposal? Ms. Dorgan -- Wants to know exactly what they are changing. Does this open up policy changes across the entire district from the wetland all the way. Mr. Randall-- Or is it site specific? Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12,2002/ Page4 · · · Ms. Dorgan -- Did not think it was site specific. If you are changing policy for the Urban Waterfront Plan, you are changing it for the entire area it covers. She asked that they tell her exactly what the ramifications are for any of these amendments, particularly Point Hudson. Mr. Randall -- Other areas including Point Hudson? Ms. Dorgan concurred. Q Mr. Benskin -- Thought he agBerg with Ms. Dorgan on this. This was part of his question about #9 [performance Standard #9, Section 4.106 referenced by Randy Davis, DOE]. It does affect the Urbm Waterfront Plan. Residential and transient accornrnodations really need a definition; if we change that to residential, does that mean throughout the whole urban waterfront? That could open a question as to the whole area including Point Hudson. He said he would have some concerns. If this is a site specific situation only, that is one thing; if it is universal, we need to know that also. Ms. Hersey -- Was under the impression it was site specific. Ms. King -- It makes a change as to what would be alowed in the entire Urban Waterfront District. Q Mr. Berg -- Isn't it correct the change in exemption is for property that is bounded by Water Street, Gaines and Walker? A Ms. Surber -- Concurred and Mr. Berg asked what the exact location was. She said some of the policy applies to the whole urban. . . Q Ms. King -- The exemption applies to this specifically, and other things within the Urban Waterfront 'Special' District. How does that relate to the Urban Waterfront District? A Ms. Surber -- She has Standard #9 and the exceptions; she has a map and crossed out all the ones that apply, outlined the streets, etc. and they will have that. Q Mr. Berg -- Are Gaines and Walk¡::r are next to each other? A Ms. Surber -- She referred him to the Project Vicinity Map. Mr. Randall-- Walker is the street west of the Tides Inn; Scott the next street over; Gaines is two blocks over. Gaines goes by InterWest Bank, makes the left turn and comes back to the Tides Inn, at the corner where the pump station was put in. They are two blocks apart. Mr. Irvin intetjected it was the ferry holding area. Mr. Berg -- does that also describe his property? Mr. Randall-- It encompasses his property. That area goes inland to wherever the end is of the Shoreline Management jurisdiction which would be around the Lighthouse Mall property, basically 200' inland. He thought Mr. Pak's land was the only vacant land in that area. There is a little strip of shoreline, but he did not know who owns it; it would basically be waterward of Water Street as you make the corner beyond Mr. Pak's property. As far as usable land, his land is it pretty much, and then the Lighthouse Mall which is on the other side of Water Street which is developed, potentially could be redeveloped cr added onto. Part of that is probably in the Shorelines jurisdiction. Q Mr. Benskin -- Questioned the potential for this to springboard to other urban areas. If this property is rezoned to allow less than 50% use of the ground floor, residential and al these things, does this set a precedent for this happening in all other Urban Waterfront areas? There has been some talk about Point Hudson. Does this set up the precident for another piece of Urban Waterfront property to ask for the same thing, e.g.,condominiums and whatever I want on the ground floor and get rid of marine uses, and all of that. A Ms. Surber -- She would outline the exemptions from Performance Standard #9. Kellv = Jefferson Transit At 8:05 p.m. Mr. Benskin recused himself from the hearing and the chair called for a brief recess. At 8: 10 p.m. Chair Thayer reconvened the meeting. Ms. Surber gave an overview pointing out on Exhibit 1(,.1, Vicinity and Zoning map, the 6.12 acres of property owned by Jefferson Transit currenty zoned P-I, Public Infrastructure. She stated that Jefferson transit has their bus base on Block 261. In 1999 they proposed to expand that bus base to include a total of 89 parking spaces to the northern half of Block 280 and include McClellan Street Dr which they applied for environmental review and a street vacation. The City did the environmental review, issued an Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) and went through with the street vacation. Exchange for the City giving up the rightof-way of McClellan Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12, 2002/ Page 5 · · · Street, was some property on Block 281, in a steep ravine and listed on City Land Use Maps as potential open space parks. Jefferson Transit subsequently abandoned the bus base expansion and did no clearing or grading for that proposal. Jefferson Transit is now saying they are not going to remain longterm at this site. The current proposal is to rezone Block 280 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 281 with the abutting vacated rights- of-way, to C-II general cornrnercial. Ms. Surber pointed out on the map the C-II zone along both sides of Sims Way. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned single family residential, &1, e.g., Block 279 across the street. She also pointed out an open space overlay that goes through Block 281, in that steep sided lavine. Exhibit K-2, 1994 Zoning, shows Block 280 is in R-I; Block 281 is also in a residential zoning district which changed in 1996-97 with the Comp Plan overhaul and new zoning code and became Public Infrastructure to represent Jefferson Transit. A change was made in 2001, resulting from a request from Frank Vane that some properties be rezoned cornrnercial that were zoned residential. Several had long-term cornrnercial uses and had previously been zoned Cornrnercial. At that time Blocks 278 and 279 were IBted to be revisited for rezoning. Some neighbors were opposed to extending cornrnercial into their neighborhood. Rezoning picked up the existing cornrnercial buildings and basically resolved Mr. Vane's request and the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Randall pointed out it moved the boundary line approximately 75' south. Mr. Kelly's rezone request affects 10 lots, 107.3 acres, is to construct a multi-use cornrnercial building of approximately 20,000 sq. ft. and to develop a parking lot and storage area approximatelyl8,150 sq. ft., the proposed use to be Victorian Hardware, a mail order business and a small retail space. Ms. Surber pointed out that the rezone has to stand on its own. Just because it becomes rezoned does not mean it is absolutely the Kelly's business that goes in there, but it opens it up to whatever uses are allowed within the C-II general commercial zone. The environmental review will be divided into two parts: Phase I Rezone; Phase II Kelly cornrnercial building. With the idea to avoid clearing and grading in the wet season and get a jump start on development, the proposal was submitted along with a Clearing and Grading application and the request that it be processed and issued once the SEP A determination had been made, but before the rezone .had œen done.. Review against the Port Townsend Municipal Code showed the highest numbered permit application, the rezone application, has to be decided first before issuing the lower numbers. The applicant has been informed he cannot clear and grade until & rezone has been decided. Ms. Surber showed sites on Exhibit K-3. She also stated that in the environmental review they are doing a consistency review for all of the plans. One being discussed by the public is the Parks and Open Space Plan and is basically shown on the map as the overlay; targeted spaces if they had the money.. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS: Q Ms. Hersey -- Asked for Ms. Surber to bring forward where infrastructure for the proposal is located. A Ms. Surber -- It is in Hancock Street, but she will provide specifics. Q Ms. Dorgan -- Asked Ms. Surber to bring specific information from the Parks Plan as it relates to neighborhood park planning. A Ms. Surber -- In the forthcoming SEP A she pulled out policies that apply and will ¡rovide any information she finds useful. Q Ms. Dorgan -- Are there links to Larry Scott Memorial Trail in the neighborhood? A Ms. Surber -- Answered affirmatively and said that would be in the Park Plan. Q Ms. Dorgan -- Is there anything in the Gateway Plan? A Ms. Surber -- Said she is going to discuss the applicability of the Gateway Plan with Mr. Randall. Vill. UPCOMING MEETINGS Chair Thayer brought up the issue of dividing amendments to be considered into two different m<>etings, and if deliberation is to be made at the conclusion of Public Testimony for each amendment. Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12,2002/ Page 6 · · · CONSENSUS: It was determined to make Planning Cornrnission deliberation at the conclusion of each individual amendment and divide amendments between two different meetings asfollows: September 26, 2002 October 3, 2002 -- Public Hearing of Suggested Comp Plan Amendments 1-4 Continued Public Hearing of Suggested Comp Plan Amendments 5-8 October 10, 2002 -- October 17, 2002 -- Public Hearing of Site Specific Comp Plan Amendments Continued Public Hearing of Site Specific. Comp Plan Amendments (if needed) October 24, 2002 -- Special meeting to fmalize recornrnendations ~ovember 4, 2002 November 18, 2992 CC Hearing CC (Possible Hearing) Ordinance Adoption IX. COMMUNICA nONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Hersey and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. '/ ~~ heila Avu., MIDule Taker Planning Cornrnission Minutes September 12,2002/ Page7