Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09262002 Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 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, Nancy Dorgan, James Irvin, Alice King, and Michael Hyland. Lyn Hersey and Bernie Arthur were excused. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Dorgan made a motion to accept the agenda without Approval of Minutes; Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- There were none. V. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Scott Maxwell was asked to save his comments on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments until the Open Record Public Hearing during New Business. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none. VII. NEW BUSINESS ODen Record Public Beann!! of!l!£ 1!!!!l Amendments to the Port Townsend ComDrehensive Plan Chair Thayer explained the format for the meeting and called for Ms. Surber to make the Staff Presentation. Ms. Surber explained that tonight they are hearing Amendments #1 through #4. The public hearing will be continued to October 3,2002, to hear Amendments #5 through #8. She stated after their deliberation, the Planning Commission recommendations along with findings and conclusions would be forwarded to the City Council. Amendment #1 involves a rezone for which there an additional eight findings. The public hearing was noticed in the newspaper and also posted on the rezone site of Blocks 170 and 171. All agencies with jurisdiction and parties of record were notified. The environmental review has been completed; the comment appeal period for the determination of non-significance ended on September 5th. There were no comments or appeals to the threshold determination. The record consists of information gathered at meetings of: May 15, 2002 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop May 30, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing August 29,2002 Planning Commission Workshop along with the Staff Report dated September 19th prepared for this meeting of September 26th including new exhibits: Exhibit 3-2 Exhibit 4-1 Exhibit 4-11 PTMC 17.34.020 Permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses Replacement -- Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan relating to Final Urban Growth Area (FUGA) BCD Staff Supported Modifications to (Amendment #4 -- Review and Amend FUGA Language in Comprehensive Plan PTMC Chapter 17.20 Commercial Zoning Districts Exhibit 4-12. AMENDMENT #1 Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 1 . . e Ms. Surber pointed out this suggested rezone includes only those portions lying southerly of Discovery Road under ownership of Mr. Glen Norcross. This proposal to rezone the property from the current R-II single family residential to R-IV multi-family residential and would involve amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as well as the zoning maps. BCD received one letter of opposition from Mr. Scott Maxwell that spoke of both group homes and rezoning of the property. She noted Amendment #7 is the group home amendment and applies to Zones R-I, R-II and R-III, not specifically to R-IV that is to be placed on this property, and definitely not specific to this property. She cautioned not to confuse the two - group homes and the rezone The rationale for BCD recommendation to the requested rezone is that the Comp Plan Housing Element states there is a shortage of land zoned for multi-family use. Although there were considerable upzones during the 1996-97 Comp Plan and zoning process, a lot of the R-III tends to be developed with single-family homes. They are not getting the multi-family density that may have been foreseen. Ms. Surber said Staff walked the property with Mr. Norcross, looking at various city maps and found that R-IV zoning was appropriate. It is located in close proximity to schools and transit services, and conducive to walking and bicycling, things consistent with Policy 7.9 of the Land Use Element for locating multi-family development. BCD Recommendation: Recommend approval of the requested rezone of Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition lying southerly of Discovery Road from R-II to R-IV. Update the acreages by zoning district, listed in Table IV-2 of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the change. For the record. Ms. Surber briefly outlined the Suggested Findings & Conclusions. SU22ested Findin2s & Conclusions: 1) 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. In 1997 Blocks 177 & 178 of the Eisenbeis Addition, located southerly of the proposed rezone property, were down zoned from R-IV to R-III [typo correctedfrom R-II] (Ordinance 2606), resulting in the loss of approximately 2 acres ofland available for multi-family housing. 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid. A shortage of multi- family development and a lack of affordable rentals still exist within the city limits. 3) Provision of a variety of housing types and affordable rentals is a widely held community value. 4) The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation, sewer, and water, and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services, such as police, fire and emergency medical services, park services, and general government services. Blocks 170 & 171 of Eisenbeis Addition are located within Tier 1, "areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with full range of public facilities and utilities". An area of roughly the same size, Blocks 177 and 178, was recently down zoned from R-IV to R-I!. 5) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan which encourage multi-family housing (e.g. Housing Element goals 1, 2, 4; Land Use Element Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.9, and 7.12). 6) The City issued a DNS finding that the proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the city's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 2 · · · 7) The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Blocks 170 & 171 of Eisenbeis Addition are located along a designated arterial and are within Tier 1, "areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities". Proposed multi-family zoning is compatible with surrounding residentially zoned properties and the Grant Street Elementary School. 8) The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term interests of the community in general. A majority of the surrounding land has been developed. Conversion of additional land to multi- family residential within this vicinity would not be contrary to the long-term interests of the community in general. 9) The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections that are the bases of the comprehensive plan. R-IV multifamily zoning within Tier 1 is encouraged by the plan. This up zone would effectively balance the 1997 downzone of Blocks 177 and 178. 10) The proposed action does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. Blocks 170 & 171 of Eisenbeis Addition are located within Tier 1, "areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities". An area of roughly the same size, Blocks 177 and 178, was recently down zoned from R-IV to R-I!. 11) The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA, the adopted countywide planning policy of Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other state or local laws. QUESTIONS Ql STAFF: Q. Ms. Dorgan: "Affordable rentals" referenced in Suggested Findings 2 and 3 -- Are you using that as a redundant phrase, assuming that all rentals in this area are going to be affordable? A. Ms. Surber: Basically multi-family housing tends to be more affordable than rentals of single family homes. At 7: 14 p.m., Chair Thayer opened the hearing for Public Testimony on Amendment #1. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Scott Maxwell, 1510 Logan Street Had come to find out why this change was being suggested. that his property was directly next to Block 170. He stated Discovery Road between Blocks 170 and 171 about 3 years ago sunk because of ground water, one point against putting in extra dwellings, that it may be detrimental to the area. He spoke of the effects of opening the area for existing and additional development.. Mr. Maxwell stated he thinks this is wrong, and to find two other blocks somewhere else. At 7: 15 p.m., Chair Thayer closed the hearing for Public Testimony on Amendment #1 and called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION: Ms. King asked for clarification, if this was requested by the property owner and has nothing to do with GMA or any other governmental intervention. Ms. Surber indicated Mr. Norcross approached BCD with the suggested amendment. Mr.. Hyland asked for explanation from Mr. Norcross. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 3 · · · Mr. Norcross said he had spoken to the issue when it first came up. He explained the situation was through no desire of his own. He has one block ofR-IV. He gave the history and that he had indicated he would develop, the question was what to do with it. He stated Staff said if he has one block R-IV, probably to be consistent they should go with R-IV throughout those blocks. Mr. Norcross said after that meeting he asked for it all to be the same way for his development, and that when Staff walked his property they said it could be R-III -- he did not care, but be consistent. He spoke of the City Council having changed it back to R-I!. He had a house on one site, that when they changed it to R-IV that house fell out of escrow, that City Council acknowledged making a mistake and changed it back to R-I!. He urged that they deal now with what it should be. Let's do all the same; if it is good for City for higher density - fine, but don't keep changing it around. Mr. Hyland said he was confused and asked Mr. Norcross what he wanted. Mr. Norcross answered he has not made up his mind what he wants to do with the property, so it sits undeveloped. Chair Thayer assured Mr. Norcross the Planning Commission has the history and that it is in the record. She indicated having participated in the process, she felt the record was accurate. Mr. Hyland asked Mr. Norcross if one of his considerations was affordable rental housing. Mr. Norcross replied citing many considerations he had given and spoke again of zoning. Mr. Irvin felt the dialogue has been long and adequate between the applicant and Staff, and feels Staff recommendations are good, and he is persuaded by them. MOTION Mr. Byland Approve the rezone in accordance with BCD Staff Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions, correcting the typographical error in Suggested Findings and Conclusions #1 to read ''were down zoned from R-IV to R-ill" SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion Ms. Surber clarified the change from R-IV to R-III referred to in the motion was to correct a typographical error the historical account of neighboring lots. Mr. Randall said for the record Mr. Norcross wanted to make sure his proposal was not being changed. Chair Thayer assured it was not, that it was only to correct the historical record in the findings. Ms. Dorgan and Mr. Hyland spoke in support of the motion. VOTE UNANIMOUS, 7 in favor by roll call vote AMENDMENT #2 Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments Ms. Surber explained the suggested amendments are to revise goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to reflect recent amendments in the Growth Management Act that have taken place since the adoption of our plan. Public comment received: Department of Ecology (DOE) encouraging them to include amendments to stormwater policies. Ms. Surber and Mr. Randall discussed including stormwater policies might better be addressed in the engineering design standards, and that they would ask DOE to give them specifics to address. If comprehensive plan amendments are necessary, they can include in the 2004 update. Ms. Elaine Taylor, DSHS, regarding definitions of certain public facilities. (Memorandum distributed by Ms. Surber at the August 29, 2002 workshop.) She noted these are examples only and do not include a recent amendment stating community transition facilities are essential public facilities. Ms. Surber suggested two alternatives: 1) leave as is ("include but are not limited to"); 2) add to the definition: "The term includes essential public facilities of statewide significance as listed in the RCW as it currently exists or is subsequently amended." BCD has no strong feeling regarding the alternatives for the definition. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 4 · · · BCD Recommendation: Recommend approval of the revisions as shown in Exhibit 2-1. - Add new Policy 1.6 to the Land Use Element to address the frequency of Plan review for conformance under GMA (Exhibit 2-1, page 5). - Add new Policy 2.2 to the Land Use Element to specifically refer to the use of 'best available science' when reviewing and revising the PTMC (Exhibit 2-1, page 6). - Repeal Policy 17.5.3 of the Land Use Element and replace with new policies to clearly reflect that the goals and policies of the city's Shoreline Master Program are to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan while the shoreline use and development regulations are to be considered part of the City's municipal code (Exhibit 2-1, page 8). SU22ested Findin2s & Conclusions: 1) 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. Since adoption of the Plan in 1996, the GMA has been amended in a number of significant respects. Revisions to the Plan are intended to more fully implement the requirements of the Act; 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid. however recent amendments to the GMA constitute new information which was not available nor considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and 3) Compliance with the GMA is a widely held community value. QUESTIONS OF STAFF: Q. Ms. Dorgan questioned not including a reference to GMA Amendment 60.94 dealing with the creation of LAMIRDs, how it would affect our Comp Plan -- about consistency issues that relate to changes in the GMA. One major change in the GMA was 60.94 in 1997. A Mr. Randall replied the entire city must be within an urban growth area. There is no place within a city for a LAMIRD. They felt LAMIRDs is a county issue, and aside from Amendment #4 that has specific references to Glen Cove and LAMIRDS, he thought Mr. Toews felt it was not appropriate to discuss them. Q Ms. Dorgan asked if these were more primary changes? A Mr. Randall indicated that was correct, that these were issues Mr. Toews felt needed to be addressed. Q Ms. Dorgan asked why they had not referenced the Stormwater Manual as a home for the stormwater policies? A Ms. Surber replied it could be the Stormwater Plan. At 7:32 p.m., Chair Thayer opened the hearing for Public Testimony on Amendment #2. There being none she closed Public Testimony and called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION: MOTION Ms. Dorgan Recommend to Council adoption of Amendment #2 in accordance with BCD Staff Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions, SECOND Mr. Berg Discussion Ms. Dorgan asked regarding page 8, 17.6.1 -- consider ". . .incorporating the goals and policies of the SMP"; why not". . .incmporate. . ." She thought that was the point of the GMA amendment, separate out goals and policies in the Comp Plan versus development regulations. Is "consider" an option for us? Mr. Randall thought without State regulations they have the flexibility either way. That is probably the way Staff will recommend. to incorporate the goals and policies in the Comp Plan, or as a identified sub-element of the Comp Plan, and incorporate the regulations into the PTMC. You don't have to do that way. It gives us flexibility; there is no state law now. Ms. Dorgan had thought that was the purpose of this amendment, to separate them out. Ms. Surber felt the difference was that the Shorelines Master Program can be a standalone document that is referenced and incorporated by reference into the Comp Plan versus picking it up and inserting it. Ms. Dorgan asked if they have to do this at this time, if they don't know what they are going to do? Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 5 · Ms. Surber thought it necessary; they are working on phases 2 and 3 of the SMP and it would be good to have the direction in moving ahead, but not lock themselves into anything.. VOTE UNANIMOUS, 7 in favor by roll call vote Ms. Surber asked for clarification -- that this is for changes as shown to Exhibit 2-1? She asked for the feeling on essential public facilities. that it stands as is and is not necessary to change? Consensus was to accept the changes in Exhibit 2-1 as shown.. AMENDMENT fl1. Revise Lot Coverage to P/OS and P-I Districts Ms. Surber explained that revision of lot coverage in P/OS is to address the fact there is an inconsistency between the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. BCD wishes to: - P/OS(B) district -- bring the Zoning Code into conformance with the Comp Plan by requiring 25% maximum lot coverage for the P/OS(B) district. - P-I Zone -- correct inconsistencies between the Comp Plan and the Zoning Code (lot coverage not good in either one). Found through planning efforts for the fire hall and the City Annex, the lot coverage allowances need to be higher. Recommend the P-I District allow for a 3 to 1 ratio when it is within the Historic District, consistent with the C-III Historic Commercial lot coverage requirements, and a 2 to 1 ratio elsewhere, consistent with General Commercial lot coverage.. Exhibit 3-2, PTMC 17.34.020 Permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses, was provided as requested at the workshop. · BCD Recommendation: Recommend Approval of the Revisions as shown in Exhibit 3-1. - Comprehensive Plan, Table IV-I. Lot Coverage in the P-I Zoning District -- Maximum Density or Lot Coverage, P-I. (Change to read) Q. g of e;ross floor area ~ 1 .¡.G g of lot in the Port Townsend Historic District; ~ g of fiOSS floor area ~ 1 g of lot elsewhere MaÐBUHB Lot £&..·erage ef 4!% - Zoning Code, PTMC 17.24.030 Public, Park and Open Space Zoning Districts -- Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements. (Change to read) P-I Public Infrastructure 3 sf of gross floor area per 1 .¡.G sf of lot in the Port Townsend Historic District; ~ g of gross floor area ~ 1 g of lot elsewhere AMEND: Correct typos to Suggested Findings & Conclusions: #1 correct to read. ". . . have not substantially changed. . ." #2 correct to read, ". . . is based are still valid." SU22ested Findin2S & Conclusions: 1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not [as corrected] substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid [as corrected}. However, recent planning efforts, associated with the city hall annex and fire department, have revealed inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code and problems with the bulk and dimensional requirements. These inconsistencies and issues were not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehcnsive plan; and 3) Consistent and practical regulations are widely held community values. The revisions are necessary to facilitate construction of public buildings that will serve the citizens of Port Townsend. OUESTIONS OF STAFF: Q. Ms. Dorgan asked regarding splitting the amendment into two votes. A. Ms. Surber replied Option #2 stated "Recommend approval of limited portions." She thought they could make a motion to split the vote. · Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 6 · · · Q. Ms. King said she was confused about the intent of PI OS (B) uses; it is an open space district but allows such things as community centers and conference centers, offices, government public buildings, and public facilities. She asked is open space or is it not? A. Mr. Randall explained the public zones: - P/OS Zone -- clearly an open space zone, extremely limited lot coverage with buildings and other built environment; - P-I Zone -- typically, very intense urban public zone with such things as City Hall, schools, courthouses. - P/OS(B) - lands that would go either way -- probably further away from the downtown core possibly used as a city shop or city water tank, or a stormwater facility. Q. Ms. King asked when they adopted the Zoning Code why the Planning Commission reduced the lot coverage in this area? Uses listed in the Comp Plan don't seem to bear a lot of relationship to such things as conference centers. Was it maybe when the uses were added. or was it a mistake? A. Mr. Randall thought with the range of uses as now written, it might be a mistake, that either you have to take out some of the uses in P-I and have more P-I zoning spread throughout town, or make it more flexible so some of the more intense use can occur. He thought to correct this would allow the City to do some of the things they have planned to do. Q. Ms. Dorgan asked regarding references to P-I projects such as schools or future city transit/city shop facility in the September 19, 2002 Staff Report. In an earlier workshop she had a question about Exhibit AM-3 regarding the city water tower site. She asked if the city water tower site is the same as the one in P-I referred to in tlle Staff report? Or are they two different zones and two different parcels? A. Mr. Randall noted there had been some discussion about possibly relocating Jefferson Transit, pointing out on a map city owned property, two water tanks at the city reservoir, possibly approaching the lot coverage. The property talked about is the larger piece to the east and possibly consolidating a new facility as that location that would be both Jefferson Transit as well as city shop allowing Jefferson Transit to surplus their property on Sims Way and the City to surplus its current property. They are only discussing now; there is no arterial to get to that property, but it does line up along the north/south arterial planned for quite some time in that area -- thinking into the future. Jefferson Transit is having a lot of difficulty with their current property. It is along Sims Way and doesn't have to be; that is valuable property that could be used for commercial retail space. Q. Ms. Dorgan: The area you were pointing out is 2-3 parcels? Are you saying the water tanks that are there are at the 25% lot coverage for the parcel they sit on? A. Mr. Randall said he was only referring to the parcel they were sitting on. The remaining parcels to the east have no structures on them. Q. Ms. Dorgan: So this would be parcel by parcel like any development? A. Mr. Randall: Exactly. Q. Mr. Berg: If there was a bus facility there and a big outdoor parking lot for buses, would the parking lot be considered lot coverage? A. Mr. Randall: In some zoning codes. You sometimes hear lot coverage used differently. The way the City of Port Townsend uses lot coverage, we have two different categories -- 1) impervious surface; 2) lot coverage. We treat it: 1) impervious surface is all roads, driveways, sidewalks, buildings -- roof areas that are going to run off water; 2) lot coverage is really only structures above ground that can cause a shadow to happen, big, bulky things that make an urban area feel urban. At 7:55 p.m., Chair Thayer opened the hearing for Public Testimony on Amendment #3. There being no public comment, she closed Public Testimony and called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: MOTION Ms. Dorgan Divide the question and examine the P/OS(B) changes separately from the P-I changes SECOND Mr. Berg Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 7 · · · Discussion Mr. Irvin asked Ms. Dorgan if she was wanting to deliberate on both issues tonight? Ms. Dorgan replied she can support one as written, but not the other VOTE UNANIMOUS, 7 in favor by voice vote CORRECTIONS to Suggested Findings & Conclusions to correct typos: : #1 correct to read. ". . . have not substantially changed. . ." #2 correct to read, ". . . is based are still valid." MOTION Mr. Benskin Approve changes in the P/OS(B) district according to Staff recommendations, and corrected Findings and Conclusions SECOND Mr. Irvin Discussion Mr. Berg asked if the Zoning Code doesn't address impervious areas at all? Mr. Randall replied that for the most part that is correct, but there are in some areas references to some zoning districts to open space; open space totally doesn't imply impervious area. In most zones you don't have an open space provision, simply a lot coverage. Mr. Berg: But in P/OS(B) there is an open space provision? Mr. Randall replied there is a greenbelt requirement. It is not one of the zoning districts where we have a percentage of the site must be retained in open space. He believed some of the multi-family or mixed-use districts have some open space requirements. Mr. Berg asked what about P/OS. Mr. Randall replied that none of PI OS, P/OS(B) and P-I have an open space requirement. Mr. Randall said the reason he raised the question and suggested basically the 25% lot coverage area is that currently in the Zoning Code there is no distinction in maximum floor area between the P/OS and P/OS(B) zones -- you have the same limitations in putting up structures. He did not think that was really the intent, when you look at the zoning as well as the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan says 1 sq for 4 sq of lot. He was attempting to have the Zoning Code reflect the Comp Plan and thought the way it was drafted was a mistake. The uses allowed in P/OS(B) were more intense and allow buildings; P/OS maybe only shelters for parks, etc. The current floor area ratio doesn't allow the kinds of buildings that are allowed by the Use Table. Ms. Dorgan noted the Quimper Wildlife Corridor runs right through it, and said it is hard for her to imagine such things as a public RV Park or conference center, community center in that area. If you take 25% of that area pointed out on the map and allow buildings, and start looking at impervious surfaces from parking lots, driveways, and pathways, etc, you have lost the value of the natural landscape and open space that she thinks this zone is all about; 25% for the built aspect, 75% for the natural landscape and open space is the flavor of this zone. She thought 25% in terms of the impact on that kind of parcel, even the one off Howard, is a lot. The stormwater plan is recommending only 40% for the whole town in all zones, e.g., commercial and whatever. Stormwater is a very serious thing. There is not much difference between 25% and 400/0, and especially talking about 45% in an area that is supposed to be primarily natural and open. She said she can't support it with that blank check on impervious surface the way this is written. Mr. Benskin questions the figure 45%. Ms. Dorgan made the correction to 40%, and Mr. Benskin pointed out that 40% is also in UBC. When you get a permit, you can only go 40% lot coverage for impervious surface which includes 25% talked about for the building -- not adding the two together. It is a total, impervious and lot coverage together. Mr. Randall explained that basically when you get to 40% you are required to have an engineered stormwater plan. Often, especially in residential zones, a home owner will specifically avoid that expense. Ms. King said she feels you have moved pretty far away from open space in your stormwater plan when you are up to 40%. Mr. Randall said to remember the proposal is not for 40%, but 1 sf of floor area. Ms. King countered there is no limit on impervious surface. Ms. Thayer noted that in 1996 they were thinking of Levinsky Wetlands as a possibility for new stormwater treatment if they needed more space. Ms. Dorgan found it interesting that the Comp Plan lists two uses for this particular zone, and thinks it is trying to give the message what this zone is all about -- Stormwater and Wastewater facilities. Such things as RV parks, etc. came a year later. She would like to keep the flavor of open space and a district that allows stormwater Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 8 · · · and wastewater, and those kinds of things that are not structures, to the extent possible with this, and questioned the impervious surface that a structure would bring, just 25% in an antenna, or just 25% in an tower. She said that is a lot. She could go along with that, but not when there is no cap on impervious surface, and we don't know what that 25% building might be. She could not support it. Mr. Berg pointed out that it also says that bus facilities are prohibited. The zoning on that would have to change if it is going to be a bus facility. Mr. Randall replied that was correct, that bus and transit storage and maintenance facilities are specifically prohibited in this zone. If you were to establish that, for example next to the water tower, you would need a P-I rezoning to make it occur. Mr. Hyland stated he thought Ms. Dorgan had an excellent point. VOTE PASSED by roll call vote - 4 in favor; Ms. Dorgan, Mr. Byland and Ms. King opposed. Ms. Surber asked if they wanted to prepare a Minority Report. Chair Thayer thought was necessary, especially since City Council was not having a workshop prior to their consideration. Ms. Surber said she was getting a sense for 1) the intent of the P/OS and the P/OS(B) zoning districts, that some of the current uses do not fit the descriptions; 2) limits of impervious surfaces in our zoning code. She informed that in other research she was finding that it was not unusual to find instead of lot coverage, impervious surface limits. She suggested if it is a concern they might recommend impervious surface limits in the future. Ms. Dorgan asked if that could be done for this particular zone, or something you have to globally apply throughout the zoning categories. Mr. Randall said there are instances in the Zoning Code where they have taken one approach in one zoning code and not another. Perhaps if there is justification for it you have a limitation, and since this is the public/open space zone, he felt there perhaps was reason to treat it differently from other zones. Ms. Thayer said to Ms. Dorgan she felt it was a primary example of why Ms. Dorgan was against it. Ms. Dorgan concurred. Ms. Surber asked if they wished her to draft something regarding the fact there is no limit in impervious surfaces. Ms. Dorgan also added, allowed uses in the zone, conditional uses. She gave the example the government office building and the quantity of parking required could be pretty significant. Chair Thayer recollected that the original reason was that they figured in the Winona Wetland, Levinsky, if they did wasterwater treatment, they would have to have some sort of government building to monitor it. Mr. Benskin said that would be done on a conditional use permit and that would all come to review anyway, so there is a safeguard there. Ms. Dorgan replied that if there are not criteria in conditional use permits, there really are not many safeguards. Minority Reoort Ms. Surber said will address impervious surfaces and allowed uses Mr. Berg said he voted in favor of the motion because he thought the Zoning Code and the Comp Plan should be consistent, but he supports Ms. Dorgan's concerns and thinks changes in the Use Table for that zone would be appropriate, and requirements for the open space zones would be appropriate. Mr. Hyland added he didn't see the sense of having the 3rd public district, that he thinks P/OS(B) opens up a whole can of worms. Mr. Benskin commented he agrees with Mr. Berg. He voted for it for the same reasons and has concerns along those lines too, but to bring it into consistency they need to do this as a first step. Then do other things they need to address as separate issues. Ms. Surber said she would draft a report and bring something back to the special meeting. MOTION: Mr. Berg Recommend adoption of changes to the P-I zoning district according to Staff recommendations, and corrected Findings and Conclusions SECOND Ms. Dorgan VOTE UNANIMOUS, 7 in favor by roll call vote AMENDMENT #4 Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Randall asked for consideration of Exhibit 4-11, the corrected version for Amendment #4. For the record he quickly outlined the amendment noting the Comprehensive Plans for both the City and County had conflicting planning terms: FUGA: The City Plan refers to the conceptual Final Urban Growth Area which is not really the final Urban Growth Area. The boundary for the FUGA is referred to on the official Comp Plan Land Use Map and extends Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 9 · · · well beyond the official UGA that was established by the County, actually the City Limits. PUGA in the County Plan. He pointed out on the map the area called the Provisional Urban Growth Area, a planning term recognizing that both the City and County were looking at this area as a possible extension of the City's UGA, or perhaps a County standalone UGA. LAMIRD: Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development. MID: Major Industrial Development Mr. Randall explained that since 1998, the County recognized Glen Cove to be a LAMIRD. At the time the County adopted their Comprehensive Plan they didn't identify Glen Cove as a UGA -- either part of the Port Townsend UGA or a standalone UGA, yet the City still has language in our Comp Plan which refers to the FUGA. He noted that last year after a close vote, the City Council rejected an amendment to remove the FUGA language from our Comp Plan. He indicated the amendment had other language that referred to MIDs which was passed by the Council, complicating the problem. He said the current version, Exhibit 4-11, replaced 4-1· of October of 200 1. Changes in Exhibit 4-11: - Identified MID language passed by Council; - Updated dates from 2001 to 2002; - Changed references to the Glen Cove area as the Glen Cove LAMIRD to recognize Glen Cove already was a LAMIRD. Mr. Randall quickly gave an overview of the nine points in the Staff Report this amendment will accomplish and pointed out that if the amendment passes the C-IV commercial district would be eliminated. He reported that in updating this, he tried to incorporate Mr. John Lockwood's recommendations from last year to eliminate references to the Glen Cove area and replace them with Glen Cove LAMIRD, but in quickly getting the material together he missed a couple. He referenced Exhibit 4-11 and asked for changes to: - Page 4 -- line 8, M-I - Light Manufacturing: change from Glen Cove area to Glen Cove LAMIRD - Page 4 -- line 16, M-III - Heavy Manufacturing: change from Glen Cove area to Glen Cove LAMIRD - Page 8 --line 4, *'Ie: change from Glen Cove area to Glen Cove LAMIRD - Page 11 -- Footnote 1 -- Delete entire footnote Mr. Irvin questioned Page 11, Line 40 regarding the water system serving the Glen Cove area. Mr. Randall felt that should be unchanged, pointing out areas of service to more than the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Diagram of the Glen Cove Water System was entered into the record as Exhibit 4-13. BCD Recommendation: A) Adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in suggested amendment #4 (Replacement Exhibit 4-1) with modifications. These suggested modifications are reflected in Exhibit 4-11 and are summarized as follows: 1) Replace references to "as of the time of this writing (2001)," with, "as of the time of this writing (2002)." 2) Replace references to 5-year comprehensive plan update set to occur in 2002, with 7-year comprehensive plan update set to occur by 2003/2004. 3) Recognize that the city has acquired the Glen Cove water system from the PUD. B) Adopt revisions to Title 17, Zoning, PTMC, as shown on Exhibit 4-12, attached. These revisions delete reference to the FUGA and the C-IV Regional District. Staff Findin2s & Conclusions: 1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The conceptual Final Urban Growth Area is no longer appropriate given advancements by the County since 1996. When the County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August of 1998, the final urban growth area of Port Townsend remained at the city limits and did not expand into the Glen Cove FUGA. The City limits define the Port Townsend UGA. The city's 1996 comprehensive plan, called for additional analysis of the conceptual urban growth boundary. The County has continued to analyze the Glen Cove area to determine its appropriate land use designation. The most recent study released by the County, Glen Cove Land Use Operations: A Strategic Analysis by Earth Tech in September 2001, recommends designation of a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). LAMlRDs are a relatively new type ofland use designation added to the GMA in 1995. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 / Page 10 · · · The proposed amendatory language addresses the need to delete conceptual Final Urban Growth Area language from the Plan and addresses more recent developments by Jefferson County (designation of Glen Cove as a LAMIRD, progress towards UGA designation in other parts of the Jefferson County). 2) Assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive Plan is based are still valid. Port Townsend continues to be the urban center for eastern Jefferson County. 3) City records pertaining to the initial adoption of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan show that the city staff and planning commissioners were concerned over the lack of public involvement in the issue of Glen Cove and an expanded UGA. In the last two years, the city has received testimony opposing a commercially oriented Glen Cove UGA. Mr. Randall pointed out that Staff does recommend approval of the modifications to the Comprehensive Plan. Language is very out of date, and it is consistent with good planning to first seek to intensify our uses within the city before we seek to expand beyond the City Limits. He reported that lately they have seen activity in the upper Sims Way area, in the M-C properties, in putting some of the really important traffic signaling on Sims Way that needs to happen before some of that land is developable. He said that continuing to focus on Glen Cove is distracting to some of the very important issues the City needs to focus on within the City Limits. Staff recommendation is to support this or some modification of the language proposed. . OUESTIONS OF STAFF: Q. Mr. Benskin complimented Staff of their job of redoing this amendment and asked as the County develops its plan for Glen Cove and finalizes what their LAMIRD is going to be, what are we going to have to do to bring the language back into compliance with county changes? A. Mr. Randall thought they would not need to make further changes; that is why he took out the one footnote. It doesn't reflect specifically to Glen Cove boundaries, just Glen Cove LAMIRD; it supports the City's current position with the County that those uses should be light industrial in nature, and any commercial uses should be accessory. He said they have stayed pretty generic and have not identified all the bulk and dimensional issues, in city correspondence. At 8:25 p.m., Chair Thayer opened the hearing for Public Testimony on Amendment #4. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Mr. Lockwood said he thought it was an excellent amendment and asked if the Commission had questions of him as a representative of the original proponents. He spoke to Mr. Benskin's comments on LAMIRDS and the UGA, that both creations don't need to be blest or codified in our Comp Plan; they are enabled and specific options in the State WACs and GMA. The County has all these tools at their disposal. He said they are required to cooperate with the City as we are with them, but we are not required to guess what they are doing. . At 8:29 p.m., Chair Thayer closed the hearing for Public Testimony on Amendment #4 and called for Planning Commission deliberation. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION: Ms. Dorgan said she had many notes and asked how they should proceed through the long and detailed amendment. There was discussion how to proceed. Ms. Dorgan replied one thing that particularly struck her this time was the two manufacturing zones in our Comp Plan that aren't within the City Limits. She said when the PLC prepared its amendment, they let them go because they dealt with manufacturing, which they think is a really good thing, but in looking at it again, how this amendment is crafted and what it is doing to the Comp Plan to bring it up to date, there is a real problem with M-I and M-III. She said to remember this language went back to 1994, not knowing what the County Comp Plan was going to be, looking to that area to the south and saying what we thought would be good. To leave M-I and M-III the way are worded even with the revisions, she sees as a problem Ms. King said she did not understand why they were leaving things like "these land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove LAMIRD". Ms. Dorgan concurred and said that it is an industrial LAMIRD. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 11 · Ms. King said she would make that deletion and asked if there was any M-III anywhere in the City. Ms. Dorgan indicated there is not, nor is there an M-I; we have an MIC. Exhibit 4-11 was discussed for changes: Ms. Dorgan pointed out that MIC bottom of Page 3 is our zone. Top of Page 4 describes a zone, M-I, not within the City Limits, same as with M-III. It is odd that in Glen Cove you have two LAMIRDs, Light Industrial and Heavy Manufacturing. The language in both of these, even as amended, does not fit. Ms. King agreed and asked if she could move to strike those paragraphs? Chair Thayer suggested they go through that and take a show of hands on individual changes, then vote as a whole document. Ms. Dorgan said there is a global change that is really required. M-I and M-III show up in several different lists and tables, scattered throughout. Mr. Randall answered a question about M-I that the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan refer to M-I zoning as being possible for land uses like the Port Townsend Business Park. He said right now the M-I and M-III exist in the Zoning Code, but nowhere on land within the city, not yet designated on any property. Ms. King said she could leave them in there with striking the sentence she referenced concerning LAMIRD. Chair Thayer asked if they eliminate these, are there other places they would have to change. There was a short discussion regarding the process and Chair Thayer called for a motion. MOTION SECOND Ms. Dorgan Eliminate Zones M-I and M-m from Exhibit 4-11 Ms. King Discussion Mr. Berg said he hopes these modifications to the Comprehensive Plan pass and he does not want to jeopardize it by eliminating these codes, that he likes Ms. King's suggestion better to delete the sentences referring to Glen Cove and not eliminate these zones now. Maybe suggest Staff looking to delete those zones at a separate time. · Mr. Benskin agreed. VOTE Ms. Dorgan and Ms. King withdrew the motion and second MOTION Ms. King Strike the last half of M-I and end with, "No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this designation" and strike the remaining; MIC delete the last sentence; M-m end with ". . . areas within the current City limits." SECOND Ms. Dorgan Discussion: Ms. Dorgan felt this was a good direction. She indicated the remainder could easily be cleaned up in the 2004 general review. Ms. King suggested an amendment that was accepted by Ms. Dorgan. AMENDED MOTION:. Strike the last half of M-I and end with, "No areas of town are currently proposed to receive this designation" and strike the remaining; MIC delete the last sentence; M-m end with ".. . areas within the current City limits."; Page 8, eliminate footnote ** and renumber the remaining. VOTE UNANIMOUS, 7 in favor by show ofthe hand Ms. King asked regarding Page 2, line 42, "planning area". Ms. Dorgan replied she thought that language would properly reflect the work done in the draft EIS which is part of the Comp Plan and is still relevant. Ms. Dorgan suggested designating two LAMIRDS on Page 1. She withdrew her suggestion. Mr. Hyland liked Mr. Benskin's and Ms. Dorgan's statement that it could be changed in 2004 and made a motion to approve as amended. · Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 I Page 12 · · · AMENDMENTS: Exhibit 4-11: BCD Staff SUDPorted Modifications to (Amendment #4 : Review and Amend FUGA Lan2Ua2e in ComDrehensive Plan) Page 4 - MIC Li2bt Manufacturin2 & Commercial: Eliminate the entire last sentence. Page 4 - M-I Li2bt Manufacturio2: Conclude witb tbe last sentence to read - "No areas of town are currently proposed to receive tbis designation." Page 4 - M:m : Beavv Manufacturin2: Conclude witb changes to tbe last two sentences to read - "This designation bas not been applied to any areas within the current City Limits. An examDle includes the QI.m ~ LAMmD." Page 8 - Table IV-2 -- Eliminate Footnote U and renumber the remaining. Amendment suggested in Mr. Randall's report Page 11 - Footnote 1: Delete (Not necessary) MOTION Mr. Byland Approve Exhibit 4-11 as amended and in accordance witb BCD Staff Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions SECOND Mr. Irvin Discussion Ms. King questioned Page 18 the mill zoned "resource-related", but determined to leave it unchanged. VOTE UNANIMOUS, 7 in favor by roll call vote Ms. King said she had additional findings on Amendment #4. Mr. Randall said they could add them if she wanted to submit them for discussion in the document presented to the Commission on October 24. Mr. Hyland expressed disappointment at the lack of public participation, that it appears nobody cares, but that is not the case. Chair Thayer said she would hope there would be more at the City Council, that they tend to get more participation. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 3: Continuation of September 26 public hearing (Amendments 5-8) October 10 Planning Commission Hearing on Formal Amendments October 24 Planning Commission Special Meeting to finalize Recommendations November 4 City Council Hearing November 18 City Council (possible Hearing) Ordinance Adoption Chair Thayer thanked Staff and commented that they appreciate all of their work that went into this. Mr. Benskin expressed curiosity as to how much money is put forth in this process. Mr. Randall replied that the major part of the year this is what Ms. Surber does. Ms. Thayer commented this why they are proposing to do this every other year. Mr. Irvin noted he will be absent but asked if he could provide comments. Mr. Randall replied if he provided written comments to Staff and asked that they be read into the record, they would include them in Commission packets. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. At 8:50 p.m. the meeting was recessed to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. October 3, 2002, in the City Council Chambers to hear 2002 Suggested Amendments #5 through #8 to the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002/ Page 13 · · · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Planning Commission Open Record Public Hearing 2002 Comp Plan Amendments 1-4 September 26. 2002 Date: Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No ~/';'¡fL1f- 01 C( x ct'-f Ì; I ? -Ie' L ð f"{v¡1 J)'. Ií " ~ /1í1 .L ò \!.- L i-J ð (', J ¡ r:;: / /) /1IoJf:j Fh jJ V C/ !P