Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071411CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session the 14th day of July 2011 in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Chair Julian Ray presiding. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Julian Ray, Cate Comerford, Jerauld Fry, Sarah Bowman, and Steven Emery with Monica Mick - Hager, and Gee Heckscher excused. Staff members present were Development Services Department Director Rick Sepler, and Deputy Clerk Erin Lundgren. CHANGES TO AGENDA Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve the agenda with the following correction: under 'New Business, item 2" the word "Ranier" will be changed to read "Rainier. "Jerauld Fry seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 5 -0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve the minutes of May 26, 2011 as amended (page 1, under "Approval of Minutes" the word "insure" will be changed to read "ensure'). Sarah Bowman seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 5 -0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON - FOR ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA) There were no public comments. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 1 of 7 NEW BUSINESS Study Session on Critical Area Ordinance revisions Development Services Department Director Rick Sepler presented a staff report dated June 28, 2011 regarding amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Critical Areas Ordinance. The following exhibits were also provided: A) a draft ordinance adopting certain procedural amendments to the Shoreline Master Program and certain amendments to the narrative text and tables of Chapter 19.05 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) "Critical Areas" B) Director's Interpretation C) Steep Slope Related Definitions D) Email dated June 17, 2011 to Planning Manager Judy Surber from Hugh Shipman, Washington State Department of Ecology, regarding code language help E) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Species Status Definitions F) 2011 Critical Areas Ordinance Determination of Nonsignificance, adoption of existing environmental documents and SEPA addendum G) Scenario drawings of shoreline buffers /setbacks based on existing code and proposed code changes He explained that the draft ordinance outlines the proposed amendments in sections 1 -15 and contains the "rationale" for each revision (the rationale is informational only and will not be included in the final version of the ordinance). Most are minor revisions to resolve inconsistencies or make clarifications. More substantive is section 9 which deals with Flood Damage Prevention and the mandate to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and section 14 which relates to buffer and setback requirements. Specifically, section 9 corrects inconsistencies and reflects the overlap with Title 16 Flood Damage Prevention and the mandate to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There have been ongoing issues between the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which regulates frequently flooded areas in communities, and the ESA. There is concern that the protections provided by the NFIP are not adequate to protect the various animals, plants and other species protected by the ESA. This issue has Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 2 of 7 been adjudicated in court at various succeeding levels. Based on the outcome of the litigation the City is mandated by the end of the year to amend our local floodplain management ordinances that will allow consistency of review. This will be done by using one of the following three approaches: 1) adopt the Model Ordinance; 2) amend City regulations to meet the Biological Opinion's criteria; or 3) show compliance with ESA on a permit by permit basis. Some communities are concerned about approach #1 because they find the model ordinance to be fairly stringent compared to existing regulations. Only 16 parcels in the City (highlighted on the map included in "Exhibit F ") are impacted by this issue. Due to the limited number of properties affected, the City is leaning toward options 2 and 3, but more heavily toward option 3. City staff believe they can identify site specific mitigations for these few parcels. Mr. Sepler noted that this issue is not being considered by the Planning Commission tonight, but will be scheduled for discussion and decision at a future meeting. Section 14 relates to the equitable application of buffer and setback requirements for infill development and for single lots whether platted or unplatted. Historical patterns in shoreline development have been established over time. Those patterns used to be memorialized in terms of setback from the bluff. The efficacy of bluff setbacks is to make sure in the event of an earthquake that houses are still standing. Typically, a 45 degree angle setback would be required for sand bluffs. Essentially, the basic safety standard is that the setback must equal the distance of the vertical rise of the bluff. Enforcing new regulations has presented a challenge because for many years people have built adjacent to bluffs without regard for this basic setback standard. People have argued that the new setback requirements are a "financial taking" and Courts have favorably viewed that argument, saying that people have to acknowledge the risk. Existing City regulations allow for a variance from the required setback contingent upon the property owner signing a form releasing the City from any liability and acknowledging and assuming the risk of building closer to a bluff than would be practicable in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster. The City is trying to be fair and equitable while balancing private property rights and still preserving environmental protections using best available science to prevent any adverse effect. After reviewing setback scenarios for platted and unplatted property under the existing code versus the proposed code, he stated that this is a fairness issue and the State Department of Ecology is supportive of this amendment and all the other amendments as well. Tonight staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission on whether to proceed with a public hearing on this ordinance. There was consensus to proceed with a public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 3 of 7 In answer to questions posed from Commissioner Emery and Chairman Ray, Mr. Sepler stated that working definitions will be established and presented to the Commission for approval by October. Tonight staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission on whether to proceed with a public hearing on this ordinance. Commissioner Bowman expressed her appreciation to staff for the time spent preparing the ordinance in such detail and including an explanation of the rationale for each section. She questioned the term " Infill Development" and how the definition might impact setbacks? Mr. Sepler replied that the term is defined in the Comprehensive Plan and is used to refer to property with established development patterns. Staff is trying to avoid the use of infill as a way of skirting strict application of the rules. Commissioner Bowman asked if an infill project proposed within a single - family residential area would be restricted to a certain size and configuration based on the definition? Mr. Sepler explained that there is no minimum density requirement except for property that is zoned R -4. None of these 16 vacant parcels are zoned R -4. After further discussion of zoning requirements, Mr. Sepler stated there are no concerns that increasing the setback will affect density. Update on Howard /Rainier Street Corridor Mr. Sepler reviewed the following materials: 1) Memorandum dated July 7, 2011 from Mr. Sepler to the Planning Commission regarding an update on Howard /Rainier Street Corridor; 2) Technical Memorandum dated June 14, 2011 from Read Stapleton, AICP, BergerABAM to Mr. Sepler and Samantha Trone, City of Port Townsend Development Review Engineer regarding methods to allow and manage reduced parking counts; 3) Memorandum dated June 16, 2011 from Tanja Wilcox, J.A. Brennan Associates to Mr. Sepler and Ms. Trone regarding design concepts /guildelines for the Howard Street extension project; and 4) Six graphics of the Howard Street extension design concept dated June 17, 2011. He noted that during the Planning Commission's study session held on May 26, 2011 staff was directed to research additional information focusing on the following areas: 1) market assessment and feasibility; 2) design standards; 3) permitted uses; and 4) articulating the vision of the corridor. It is important to get an assessment of the economic data in order to get a better handle on what is likely to occur and what needs to occur to more closely align land uses with those needs. The results of the economic study /report conducted by Spinnaker Strategies was completed and submitted to the City in June. Staff reviewed the report and found the "Gap Analysis" had been omitted. The report has been returned to the consultant for completion and it is anticipated that a finished draft will be returned to the City later this month. The report will contain sales tax and business and occupation (B &O) tax data for Port Townsend and the data will be Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 4 of 7 compared to typical allowed uses from other communities. Assumimg that our community spends, on average, the same amount as other communities, we should be able to find gaps in certain areas or areas that are underserved. The report will help in determining what types of uses could be allowed along Howard Street. Additionally, it could change the allowable size and configuration of buildings. Coupled with the Spinnaker report in terms of market feasibility, is the ongoing economic work with Jefferson County and the Port of Port Townsend. Economic studies were previously conducted by two economists: Greg Easton who reviewed the light industrial and commercial demands in both the City and County; and Eric Hovee who is working to assess a "snapshot' of our community. Mr. Sepler anticipates having the Spinnaker report available to the Planning Commission in August and he hopes to schedule Planning Commission discussions with both Mr. Easton and Mr. Hovee. In terms of design standards there has been some progress as shown on the graphics and discussed in the memorandum from Tanja Wilcox of J,A. Brennan Associates. Design concepts were developed for buffers in the following areas: between multi - family residential and mixed use commercial development; screening of outdoor refuse, recycling and mechanical structures; internal parking lots (off- street parking); trail nodes; and public park/plaza areas. The design concepts along with Planning Commission comments will lead to staff preparing code language. The memorandum from BergerABAM addresses off - street parking and describes different approaches. Staff will be advocating for a parking scheme because strictly following the existing parking code would be a fairly parking- dominant environment which seems counter to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has done some work on network circulation for non - motorized trails and paths. While the code addresses the regional trails and sidewalks, language will need to be added to address internal circulation to link pedestrians to amenities through the larger blocks. Draft design graphics of the site were reviewed which show circulation network connections. In conclusion, Mr. Sepler stated that in terms of permitted uses and articulating a vision for the corridor, he believes it is appropriate to do further research on economics and demographics. The Comprehensive Plan includes the concept of a walkable community center serving these neighborhoods, however, what is needed and what uses might be allowed still needs to be determined and will aid in articulating a vision for the corridor. Commissioner Fry stated that this is an opportunity to address parking Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 5 of 7 issues that affect other areas of Port Townsend as well. In response to a question posed from Commissioner Bowman, Mr. Sepler explained the overlay district and codification. Commissioner Comerford had a positive reaction to the graphics. She likes the open fence and planting areas because it creates a backyard for the multi - family residential area. Additionally, the circulation sidewalks at the traffic circle help to tie the multi - family residential area into the business district. She asked about bollards being used as part of the flexible parking concept? Mr. Sepler replied they are investigating a curbless road section where the only way to separate the traffic and parking from pedestrians is with the use of bollards. It also provides greater flexibility for sidewalk uses. Chairman Ray talked about traffic flow and patterns. He discussed a mall /shopping community in Sedona, Arizona that is very architecturally attractive and designed more like a village. It has proven to be very successful because it has the feeling of an adventure and encourages discovery and exploration. The design graphics presented for the Howard Street extension also have a parklike and community feel to them. It isn't just right angles and antiseptic paths. Mr. Sepler mentioned Freemont as being another area that was developed using creative designs. He noted that we must be mindful not to be too antiseptic in design. Commissioner Bowman commented on how aesthetically appealing the properties are at the Kingston Ferry due to the established setbacks. She stated that while the graphics contain a lot of detail, they are still very parking oriented. The design concept showing the rear of the building and service area screening is disappointing to her because there is nothing there for pedestrians. She would like to see what kind of street types are envisioned and what parts of the code need to be changed. Mr. Sepler reviewed the next steps in the process. A graphic of primary and secondary street sections will also show the cross sections. After the economic information is reviewed and uses have been clarified, it will be known what changes need to be made to the code to implement those uses. A final draft ordinance will be prepared for review and a public hearing will be conducted by the Planning Commission. OLD BUSINESS None Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 6 of 7 UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Sepler explained the review process for the Parks Plan and stated that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. regarding the 2011 amendmends to the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Jerauld Fry moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Cate Comerford seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 5 -0 by voice vote. Attest: Planning Commission Chair City Clerk's O ice Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2011 Page 7 of 7