Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120811CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session the 8th day of December 2011 in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Vice -Chair Jerauld Fry presiding. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Commissioners present at roll call were Monica Mick - Hager, Cate Comerford, Jerauld Fry, Gee Heckscher, Sarah Bowman, and Steven Emery with Julian Ray excused. Staff members present were Development Services Department Director Rick Sepler, Senior Planner /Planning Manager Judy Surber, and Deputy Clerk Erin Lundgren. CHANGES TO AGENDA Motion: Gee Heckscher moved to approve the agenda. Cate Comerford seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6 -0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 2011. Gee Heckscher seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6 -0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON - FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING RE: 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - GROUP I Vice -Chair Fry explained the public hearing procedures and then introduced Senior Planner /Planning Manager Judy Surber who reviewed the 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Ms. Surber explained that there are a total of 11 Comprehensive Plan amendments on the docket for 2011. Due to the complexity and number of amendments, they were divided into two groups (Group I and Group II). The hearing tonight is to take public testimony on the following six amendments which make up Group I. These amendments have been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and a "Threshold Determination - Determination of Non - Significance" was issued on November 23, 2011 by Development Services Department Director Rick Sepler as the SEPA Responsible Official. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, the 15 day comment period was extended to 21 days. Public notice Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 1 of 9 included postings for the site - specific properties and mailings to property owners within 300 feet of property that is subject to a potential rezone. The SEPA checklist and Determination of Non - Significance has also been posted on the City website. Any SEPA appeal would be considered by the City Council in conjunction with the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Ms. Surber noted that the Planning Commission held informational meetings on the Comprehensive Plan amendments on October 13th and November 3rd, 2011. Nomura Rezone (LUP11 -025) Ms. Surber explained that this proposed amendment is to transpose the existing R -II (single - family residential) zoning and the R -III (multi - family residential) zoning designation of the property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of F Street and San Juan Avenue. As shown on the exhibits, the proposed amendment will put the higher density zoning closer to mixed -use zoning and put the lower density zoning adjacent to similarly zoned property. The properties located at all four corners of that intersection are zoned mixed -use. It is the vision of the Comprehensive Plan to have "mixed use/ walkable" neighborhoods throughout the City. By providing higher density multi - family residential zoning closer to mixed -use zoning, it is hoped that it will increase the likelihood that the intersection will be developed in the future. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. Draft findings and conclusions are included in the staff report on page 6. Ms. Surber received only one telephone call inquiring about this proposal. No written comments have been received. Cherry Street Rezone (LUP11 -026) Ms. Surber explained that this proposed amendment is to rezone City -owned property from P /OS (Parks and Open Space) to R -II (single - family) which will make the zoning of the property consistent with the zoning of adjacent properties. The property is located adjacent to Grace Lutheran Church across the street from the Golf Course. She reviewed the exhibits and noted that this property has been identified by the City Council as a potentially suitable site for affordable housing. She explained further that certain portions of this property were zoned P /OS partly because of a mapping error and partly because a portion of the property is part of the larger golf course parcel (zoned P /OS), but is divided by Cherry Street. While it would not make sense to construct a house on this specific property, changing the zoning designation would help with density on other portions of the property. As previously requested by the Commission, additional exhibits (1.25 and 1.2.G) are included which show the site infrastructure and non - motorized transportation plans Staff recommends approval of the proposal. Draft findings and conclusions are included in the staff report on page 11. Written comments received are included in exhibit 1.2.C. Beech Street Rezone (LUP11 -027) Ms. Surber explained that this proposal is broader than one piece of property, because it is a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Specifically, this Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 2 of 9 proposal will allow alternative zoning desginations to be applied to City -owned properties. The alternative zoning designation would become active if the City were to surplus the property in the future. This would also allow surrounding property owners to know the potential use of the property. She noted that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required for the City to designate the alternative site specific zoning. The City -owned property subject to this proposal consists of .88 acres and has been identified by the City Council as potentially suitable for affordable housing. It is currently zoned P -1 (Public /Infrastructure) and is surrounded by properties which are zoned R -II (single - family residential). The proposal is to is to create an alternative zoning designation and designate this property R -II (single - family residential) which would become effective if the land were surplused or leased. Written comments are shown in exhibit 1.3.0 and three additional written comments recently received were provided to the Commission. Ms. Surber noted that some of the comments note potential future issues with stormwater drainage, traffic circulation and traffic safety that would need to be addressed if the property were developed. However, the Determination of Non - Significance at this level during the Comprehensive Plan analysis is only focused on the non - project action of rezoning the property. The current P -1 designation of the property allows the following uses: community center, community garden, museum, fairgrounds, assembly hall, bus and transit storage, school, government offices, etc. Uses allowed under the proposed alternative R -II zoning designation are more limited and include: childcare, home occupations, and accessory dwelling units. After comparing the differences in building restrictions between the P -1 and R -11, Ms. Surber stated that overall, the uses allowed for P -1 designated property are more intense than the uses allowed for R -11 designed property. The issues brought up in the comment letters would be reviewed during the next level of analysis that would occur when there is an actual application for single - family development. Whether or not it would be subject to review under SEPA or the Critical Areas ordinance would depend on the application. Currently, there are no pending development proposals. A map and aerial photo of the property were presented. Staff recommends approval of both the text amendments and the alternative zoning designation of R -II for the Beech Street property. The text amendments are shown in the staff report. Draft findings and conclusions are also included in the staff report on page 17. Emissions Policy Ms. Surber explained that this proposal is to reflect the City's and County's adopted resolution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to incorporate the goals into the Comprehensive Plan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Emery at the meeting held on October 13, 2011 regarding a ban on yard burning, Ms. Surber replied that yard burning is not allowed within the City limits because the City is desingated as an Urban Growth Area and as of January 1, 2007, the Washington State Legislature banned burning in all Urban Growth Areas. Staff recommends approval of the draft language shown in the staff report. There are only three criteria under which this amendment must be reviewed because it is not site- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 3 of 9 specific. The draft findings and conclusions are also included in the staff report on page 24. Housing Action Plan and Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN) Committee Policy Ms. Surber explained that this proposed amendment is to update the Comprehensive Plan with the Housing Action Plan narrative. Staff recommends approval of this amendment. Draft findings and conclusions are included in the staff report on page 28. Public- Private Partnerships /Public Development Authority Ms. Surber explained that this proposal is to expand policy and strategies in the Comprehensive Plan to include public - private partnerships and Public Development Authorities as a tool for expanding affordable housing and as a means to initiate mixed - use /redevelopment projects. Staff recommends approval of this amendment. Draft findings and conclusions are included in the staff report on page 35. Public Testimony Vice -Chair Fry opened the hearing for public testimony. Daniel Barnes of Port Townsend submitted written comments and spoke against the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -027, Beech Street Rezone. He stated that he owns a home located above the Beech Street property which is being proposed as a possible site for affordable housing. The property is 'locked -in" until one of the streets is developed. He is not sure if the street could be vacated because it would eliminate access to another homeowner's property. Some of his elderly neighbors could not be here to testify tonight, but have expressed concern with this proposal and the changes that could affect their property. In reviewing the 48 -page checklist report, it does not address the issues related to the property. There is no mention of the large trees on the property. One end of the property is not developable due to the City's required setbacks. How can the City claim it will use the SEPA report to address these issues in the future, when the City Council has exempted developments of nine or less units from SEPA review? It seems fallacious or purposeful falsification. By default, or by design, any plan structured on the 48 -page checklist report has to be considered inherently flawed and he hopes the Commission will reject this proposal. John Mericle of Port Townsend submitted written comments and spoke against the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -027, Beech Street Rezone. He owns property located at the northern boundary of the Beech Street property which the City is proposing to rezone from "Public /Infrastructure" to "Single- Family Residential." It is appropriate to remember that the guidelines in the municipal code for amendments of this nature, specifically call for early and continuous public involvement. Yet, the most important aspect of the comprehensive plan amendments regarding Beech Street; "the Determination of Environmental Non - Significance," has already been made. In May 2011, a hearing was held by the City Council regarding this very same property, and in light of the facts Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 4 of 9 presented by the Beech Street neighbors at that time, both in writing and at the hearing, the developer of the proposed affordable housing project, whose good faith was never questioned by anyone, withdrew the offer. The reason it was withdrawn was because it was clear to the developer that they had not been fully aware of the enormous costs and potential liabilities that could be incurred as the result of a residential development in that location. He described the Beech Street property in his own words as being very steeply sloped (impassable by car in the snow), heavily wooded (containing 88 mature trees, 58 of which have diameters of at least 24 inches, and therefore must be given high priority retention under the municipal code. Yet, even with its large stand of timber the Beech Street property is typically water - logged and directly contiguous to its downslope is the "Froggy Bottoms neighborhood and wetlands. Beech Street is a significant part of what makes "Froggy Bottoms" a wetland. The testimony provided at the City Council hearing in May, as well as the written submissions which can be found in the City's files, all attest to that fact. He added that he sent a letter to the City Council on December 7, 2011 which was provided to the Planning Commission for the hearing tonight. He asked that the Comission give careful consideration to his letter and all the letters which have been written by individuals in the Beech Street neighborhood. He added that he is not suggesting the City drop its consideration of doing anything with the Beech Street property. He is suggesting perhaps consideration of selling the residential development rights on the Beech Street property to a developer of affordable housing for use on another property that is not in an evironmentally critical area, as suggested by City Manager David Timmons at the City Council meeting held in May 2011. That is a win /win situation. Beech Street will continue to protect the downslope neighborhood and "Froggy Bottoms ", and the development of affordable housing will be furthered thereby and the City Treasury will benefit. If there is no ordinance that will allow it, let's get one. City staff says the permitting process can be used to address these problems. If that is the case, then there would be no need for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) which provides important environmental protections. In conclusion, he asked that the Development Services Department withdraw further consideration of the Determination of Non- Significance for Beech Street and that it be done swiftly to avoid the need for the neighbors to file an appeal to the City Council. Barbara Sjoholm of Port Townsend submitted written comments and spoke against the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -027, Beech Street Rezone. She lives approximately one block away from the proposed site. While she appreciates staff's presentation and the need for affordable housing, the neighbors in this area are not "NIMBY's" (Not in My Backyard), they are concerned with the environmental and traffic issues associated with this proposal. It is unfortunate that the City is moving forward with the rezone without doing an Environmental Impact Statement. Individivals who own property in the area know that it is very damp already. The neighbors directly below the hillside report standing water in their yard and the low -lying lots are also inclined to dampness. The streets in this area are heavily pot -holed and are constantly needing to be filled, due to the water seeping down the hill. If the trees on the Beech Street property were to be logged in order to develop the property, flooding could be expected to occur in the yards of the neighbors located downhill. Additionally, the trees and the land of the hillside parcel are habitat for a variety of animals, including those which pass through from Fort Worden to "Froggy Bottoms." Building multiple- housing units on the Beech Street property will destroy the habitat for animals and make for unsafe flooding conditions for Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 5 of 9 nearby property owners. The City has given no real reason for its decision that no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary. She has looked at the environmental checklist used to give the City a waiver and finds it unconvincing. Mr. Mericle and his wife have done an incredible job of reviewing the environmental checklist point -by- point. She also emphasized that "P" Street is very narrow and steep and does not have any sidewalks or lighting. As shown on the map, there is a blind corner as it branches into Cedar Street. Children going to and from Blue Heron Middle School walk up the center of "P" Street because there are no sidewalks. They do this in all kinds of weather and all kinds of light conditions, so drivers must be very careful not to run into one of these children. It is hard to see what kind of measures a developer could take that would make this more safe. As far as she can see, the City is not actually addressing these reasonable concerns about what effect there could be with increased traffic in an already congested and hazardous area. She is sure that many parents of children that walk this route are not yet aware of the idea that the City might be building in that location and they might be opposed once they find out and realize that the safety of their children is at stake. She thinks many of the neighbors attended the City Council meeting in May to try to cover a number of different issues, however they were united in their observations that environmental and traffic issues are really key. The neighbors are not protesting affordable housing, they are instead, suggesting the City develop properties that are more suitable for multiple- housing units. Samuel Shusterman of Port Townsend spoke in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -026, Cherry Street Rezone. He owns property nearby and wants to lend his support as an advocate of low- income housing. Anything the Planning Commission can do to allow this property to be rezoned so it can be surplused for future development will be appreciated. He noted that he is member of the Peninsula Housing Authority. On behalf of the Board, he expressed interest in working with City staff on promoting low - income housing and working to develop this property. Jamie Maciejewski of Port Townsend, and Director of Habitat for Humanity of East Jefferson County, spoke in favor of both Comprehensive Plan amendments #LUP11 -026, Cherry Street Rezone, and #LUP11 -027, Beech Street Rezone. She appreciates that these two rezones have been brought forward which will allow residential (R -II) housing. It is worthwhile to look at what is possible for affordable housing in the future. She noted that there is no specific proposal at this time. The scope of development of either the Cherry Street or Beech Street properties is probably more than Habitat for Humanity would take on, however, it is worth discussing futher. She thinks Mr. Timmons' suggestion about the potential to swap the development rights of the Beech Street property with another piece of property is interesting, however, she wonders whether residential housing rights can be swapped if the property is not zoned as having residential housing rights. Melinda Szatlocky of Port Angeles and Program Director of Homeward Bound (a Community Land Trust serving both Jefferson and Clallam Counties) spoke in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -026, Cherry Street Rezone. One concern that has repeatedly come up is the possibility of having to move a significant amount of infrastructure. She pointed out that any time there is development of this magnitude, infrastructure has to be installed or moved and the developer covers the cost. Approving this rezone will allow them to use these identified surplus properties. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Charlene Buckley of Port Townsend spoke against the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -027, Beech Street Rezone. She identified an area on the map which is a reserve for at least 15 flocks of geese that come through twice a year. This area is home to ducks, birds, coyotes and deer. Parents come with their children and spend time talking about the wildlife that live there. This is a wooded area of old growth trees that is inhabited by many types of wildlife. The neighborhood is very child oriented and children are constantly walking through the nearby streets. She suggested that the Commission drive through the area to see how steep the passage is on the streets. She lives seven houses down from the Beech Street property and her yard is wet throughout the year. At times there are canals on both sides of the road. This proposal affects more properties than are shown on the map. She is an advocate for affordable housing, but it needs to be balanced with protecting the environment. She wants the Planning Commission to understand what is really at stake and she encouraged them to spend some time there. Corena Stern of Port Townsend spoke against the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -027, Beech Street Rezone. Her family lives adjacent to the Beech Street property and her primary concern is with stormwater drainage. There are catch basins in the area which get blocked and cause flooding issues. Essentially, all the trees on the slope prevent additional water from automatically running down into the wetlands. Her neighbor has a barn with a well pump attached to it because of the water which flows down onto the property. The water pools on certain property and some lots are so damp that it is questionable if they can even be developed. She has a "walk -out basement' house and she is concerned that her house will be at risk of water damage if there is development on the Beech Street property and the trees are removed. She also submitted a letter in May to the City expressing these concerns. The other issue is related to safety. Many people have talked about the steepness of the street, but there is also a blind corner on one of the streets where there was a head -on collision this past summer involving a neighbor and someone passing through the neighborhood. It is a dangerous area in terms of adding more traffic and there are no sidewalks along the streets. In closing, she noted that there are also catch basins along San Juan as that area is also a wetland. The entire area serves a public purpose strictly in terms of stormwater retainage. Teri Nomura of Port Townsend spoke in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment #LUP11 -025, Nomura Property Rezone. This rezone was overlooked at the time the southwest corner property located at F Street and San Juan Avenue was rezoned in 2007. It makes sense to have more dense zoning next to commercial zoning. She stated that businesses sometimes fail in an economic downturn. If a commercial area is established, we want that commercial area to thrive. A more dense area with more people will support a commercial area. She hopes that someday this area will develop into a neighborhood node and will be successfully utilized by the people who live there. Development Services Department Director Rick Sepler stated that all comments will be reviewed by staff. He noted that staff also shares concerns with the neighbors about appropriate development as they are the agency charged with ensuring that offsite adverse impacts do not occur. He acknowledged that all of the parcels being considered for affordable housing are difficult parcels to develop. All the parcels have been constrained due to configuration, slope, difficult access, lack of untilities or too many utilities. These Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 7 of 9 parcels have been vacant for many years for a reason. Nonetheless, these parcels were identified by the City Council as potential sites for affordable housing and staff must evaluate them fairly and provide the Planning Commission with information to make a recommendation to the City Council on the use of these parcels that is in the best interest of the public. He noted that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was done for both the Beech Street and Cherry Street properties. The EIS was prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and it assessed all of the zoning within the City, including the zoning of the subject properties. In the case of Beech Street, the uses allowed under the zoning being proposed (R -II) are less intense than those allowed under the current zoning (P -1) and would have less of an environmental impact. The prior EIS would be adopted by reference in the checklist and the determination, which is subject to appeal, was the basis for the determination. He noted that his department addresses property without SEPA on a daily basis. He feels confident that under existing regulations they can deal with most impacts that are not extraordinary. Impacts that are extraordinary would be reviewed under SEPA, but that does not mean the development will proceed. In conclusion, he noted that if there is a modification to staff's recommendation, it will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting scheduled for deliberation and decision. Ms. Surber added that in addition to the required mailings and postings, staff has provided page on the City's website that specifically addresses the Comprehensive Plan update. Materials available on the website include the Planning Commission's meeting materials, SEPA Checklist and SEPA Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). She also noted that due to the DNS being issued right before the Thanksgiving holiday, the 15 day comment period was extended to 21 days. The deadline for submitting comments is December 14, 2011. Staff will respond to the public comments that will be included in the final determination that will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review at the continued hearing on January 12, 2012. Clarifying questions were answered by staff. Hearing no further testimony, Vice - Chairman Fry explained that the hearing will be continued to January 12, 2012 to take testimony on the remaining proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments (Group 11). UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. UPCOMING MEETINGS Thursday, January 12, 2012 - Continuation of Public Hearing re: 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Group II: Kah Tai Lagoon Park Policy (LUP11 -015), Amendments to Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan (LUP11 -034, adding policies and clarifying language LUP11 -055, etc.) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 8 of 9 ADJOURN Motion: Gee Heckscher moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6 -0 by voice vote. Attest: City Clerk's OWce 0 Steven Emery .Planning Commissioyz -tea /u. J E_, -K. �jW f" Y v i C 1!--[ Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 2011 Page 9 of 9