The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08142003 Min · · · I. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING August 14,2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to continue the open record public hearing from July 31, 2003 on the Tree City USAlLandmark Tree Ordinance and to conduct a workshop on the 2003 proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, JeffKelety, Alice King, and Jim Irvin; Lyn Hersey arrived at 7:05 p.m. Also present were BCD Director Jeff Randall and Senior Planner Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Kelety seconded. All were in favor. Ms. Berg made a motion to approve the minutes of July 24, 2003 as written; Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. VI. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continuation, Public Hearing: Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance Mr. Randall discussed the Revised Draft Tree City USAlLandmark Tree Ordinance, noting he and the Public Works Director had not been able to meet until earlier that week due to their involvement at Aldrich's fIre site. Mr. Randall, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Parks Department manager Steve Corra, City Engineer Dave Peterson and representatives of the tree protection citizen advisory committee (Forest Shomer, Don Haviland and George Bush) met and concluded that the draft ordinance should go forward, but in a minimized format. Mr. Randall pointed out key draft amendments retained in Chapter 12.24 and the new Chapter 2.71 establishing a citizen advisory committee allowing Port Townsend to obtain and maintain "Tree City U.S.A." designation and functions of the committee. He noted the existing code was left the same. They felt the existing code needs improvement, but they can keep operating, and the committee can assist in making changes. He reported the Public Works Director was uncomfortable with impacts on staff in the original draft. Staff recommends passing the recommended amendments and allowing the new tree committee to provide assistance to the Public Works Department in drafting any additional needed changes to the city code. Planning Commissioners pointed out discrepancies and asked for an amendment to the Revised Draft Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance. Change 12.24.050.F.3. last sentence to read: "The covenant and designation shall be effective from the date of recording until such time as approval has been granted bv the public works director for the cutting of the tree." AMENDMENT: Planning Commission Page I August 14,2003 · · · Change 12.24.060.A. to read: "Landmark Tree Cutting ReQuirements." Change 12.24.060.A.2. to read: "Maior pruning or removal oflandrnark trees requires approval by the public works director. A requestto conduct. . .." Change Page 1 to read, "Sections: 12.24.060 Maior Pruninl!: or Removal of Landmark trees." MOTION Mr. Kelety Recommend City Council Approve the Revised Draft Tree City USA/Landmark Tree Ordinance as Amended SECOND Mr. Berg VOTE PASSED 5 in favor by Roll Call Vote; Councilmembers Hersey, Arthur and Irvin opposed At 7:24 p.rn. Chair Thayer closed the public hear' g on the Draft Tree City USA/ Landmark Tree Ordinance. ~~ sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Page 2 August 14,2003 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS August 14, 2003 Chair Thayer continued the meeting with New Business to consider the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Surber noted that all proposed amendments are site specifIc and therefore are quasi-judicial. She noted the fourth, Green/Hunt (Dr. Green & Dorothy Hunt) LUP#03-025, is on hold and not being discussed at this meeting, but that the cumulative effects of all four should be considered. She distributed copies of and discussed required Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions and criteria regarding site specifIc requests. She went on to explain that all amendments have ongoing SEPA Reviews, and that Determinations of Non-SignifIcance have been issued and will conclude August 21,2003. She reported that one neighbor, Ms. Pat Scott, had asked the meaning of "significant," its defInition in the SEPA Threshold Determination. Ms. Scott was in attendance and Ms. Surber defIned it as a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality, not often quantifIable; it involves the physical setting as well as the magnitude and duration of the impact. She said you have to take into account, where is the proposal, what is the context of the surrounding area, etc. She told Ms. Scott she hoped that helped. Ms. Surber explained Commission options were to: I) Approve; 2) Approve a portion; or 3) Deny. She discussed each proposal. Commissioners' questions will be brought for discussion at the public hearing in September. Chair Thayer reminded these are quasi-judicial matters and discussion should be appropriate to that. 1) Kah Tai Amendment (Quasi-Judicial) - LUP#03-031 Proponent: City of Port Townsend, BCD Ms. Surber used overheads and pointed out areas in question. She noted support letters received. She answered Mr. Irvin that the Shoreline Conservancy is around the perimeter of the lake. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR MATERIAL: Ms. Surber will either provide the following additional information/material requested or answer questions (Ql - QIO) at the public hearing scheduled for September. Ql Mr. Benskin: There is no Environmental Checklist. Ms. Surber explained that it is to a certain extent summarized in the threshold determination; she can provide that information. Mr. Benskin expressed concern regarding the quality of environment and some areas being brown zones, and asked if this property is involved in that. Ms. Surbeneplied she knew of some contaminated soils in the area, but did not specifIcally look at that for this downzone. Mr. Benson was wondering regarding public use in park space. Ms. Surber said she would check into that. Mr. Berg asked if it would have to be cleaned up, if the public used it for a facility. Ms. Surber indicated they could not get into that discussion until the public hearing. 2) Citv-owned Lots on Block 52 Amendment (Quasi-Judicial) - LUP#03-032 Proponent: City of Port Townsend, BCD Ms. Surber noted nonwater-oriented uses in Block 52, a skateboard park and 48 parking spaces (including 5 RV parking spaces) that are more closely linked to the civic district. Lot 4 is under-developed and covered with blackberry bushes. Public Works Director Ken Clow has indicated that regardless of the skateboard park the property would be desirable as nonwater-oriented. Q2 Mr. Kelety: Could there be other action if the only consideration is the skateboard park? Ms. Surber will reply at the hearing. Planning Commission Page 3 August 14,2003 · · · Q3 Mr. Irvin: Is any of this property showing in the Point Hudson long-range planning? Ms. Surber replied this is City property. Ms. Hersey suggested she might have to recuse herself from hearing this amendment due to her involvement with the Parks and Recreation Board and their interest in the skateboard park. Q4 Mr. Arthur: Asked the reasoning involving the civic and Point Hudson districts. The research does not reflect the history of why that piece of property is were it is and what the shorelines designation is. Just because it isn't being used, in somebody's viewpoint doesn't necessarily have an effect, or maybe it does, on that zoning. We do not have that information. Ms. Surber was not sure she could fmd documents, but will attempt. Q5 Mr. Berg: Asked regarding a different use oflot 4 in the parking lot and why they are all being lumped together in this and proposed to be changed because of their existing use. 3) Carlson Amendment (Quasi-Judicial) - LUP#03-033 Proponent: City of Port Townsend, BCD Ms. Surber pointed out that the property owners have not designated any other proposed uses. She noted both police and fIre facilities would be allowed under both zone designations, but this change would give more flexibility regarding their setback requirements. She noted 5 comment letters addressing non-quantifiable impacts; e.g., esthetics, changes in height, noise, and character, and that it was a matter of perception. She stated the primary reason for the BCD proposal was for consistency in such things as set backs with C-III zoning. Q6 Mr. Arthur: Asked the reason for C-III rather than C-II. Ms. Surber will respond at the hearing. Mr. Randall answered Mr. Kelety's question regarding this being generated by BCD that he contacted the owners about their non-conforming uses and about the fIre station, and the owners consented to the change in zoning. Mr. Kelety asked if the consistency was for the benefit of downstream development. Mr. Randall explained that the fITe department's planning already included existing setback requirements. Mr. Kelety again pursued the question. Mr. Randall replied it would be possible, but their plans were already being made, and it was less of a driving issue. Q7 Ms. Thayer: Asked for review of the records of a short plat on this property in the 90's. Q8 Mr. Berg: Asked for zoning prior to the zoning change in 1997 Ms. Surber will provide.. Green/Hunt (Dr. Green & Dorothv Hunt) LUP#03-025 - on hold Ms. Surber said she was hoping this would come before them before the public hearing. She noted Dr. Green had wanted to sell, but it was impossible with the hospital commercial designation. There was a connection made to an Eagle's nest, that a downzone would be more compatible. Dr. Green was encouraged to work with the Department ofFish and Wildlife, since the city cannot deny reasonable use. He requested it be put on hold for more information. Q9 Ms. Hersey: Asked regarding the real estate listing. Ms. Surber to check and report back. Mr. Randall asked that Ms. Hersey and Ms. Thayer clarify their roles. It was noted Ms. Hersey is not in the real estate office listing the property; Ms. Thayer reported she was not the listing agent, and if there were signs on the property, it was an error and they should be removed. Their office has no listing for the property. Neither of them had been the listing agent. QI0Mr. Irvin: Asked for clarifIcation regarding prior staff correspondence regarding the police department noted in one comment letter signed by four different parties. Ms. Surber will provide. Planning Commission Page 4 August 14, 2003 · · · Chair Thayer noted that any Commissioner patient/client of Dr. Carlson should declare that at the public hearing Ms. Surber pointed out a public hearing on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments has been noticed for September II, 2003. Since at least fIve Commissioners would be unavailable on that date, not leaving a quorum, it was determined to reschedule and renotice the hearing for either Tuesday, September 16th or Thursday September 18th depending upon the availability of the facilities. Ms. Surber noted they may need to plan for a follow up meeting, and that the material needs to go forward to City Council by the end of September. Ms. Hersey suggested that people not in attendance at a frrst meeting might hear the tape recording of that meeting and participate in the next meeting. Ms. Surber will accept further questions bye-mail. Chair Thayer pointed out such e-mail should not be addressed to other Commissioners. IX UPCOMING MEETINGS August 28, 2003 Canceled A briefmg by Mr. Randy Kline regarding the Tri Area will be incorporated into a later meeting. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Ms. Hersey. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8: 10 p.rn. //? . C~/~:2- - Cindy Thaye~ harr _-:Jlf/4- ~~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Page 5 August 14,2003