Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081204 Ag Min . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building 6:30 pm (Note change in time & location) August 12, 2004 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes V. Unfinished Business VII. New Business Open Record Public Hearing Proposed Text Amendments relating to Fort Worden State Park, LUP04-019 1. Presentation by Eric Toews 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Open Record Public Hearing Proposed Text Amendments relating to 220d Street & Wilson, LUP04-021 4. Presentation by Eric Toews 5. Public Testimony 6. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Op~n Record Public Hearing Proposed Legislative Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, L UP04-095 7. Presentation by Eric Toews 8. Public Testimony 9. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VI. Upcoming Meetings: August 26, 2004 VII. Communications VIII. Adjournment . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Planning Commission Public Hearing. Proposed Text Amendments to Comp Plan & Municipal Code August 12. 2004 Date: Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No :J-eJ<-( £L- ÎJ¿-n ~""l...:',J /- / (/ -22 Ji,Jf X (./ " ~ /11 q-¿-(h ~~/¿ /2 / <:;" ~ -? J '7:-/1. ';/V ¿.t---. 6~ '> <;'1 p¿ Ctt5Z:L/U(^-' " " i.J , Y~>-ttL)r9'~6€Ã.~l;{ Þ.1 Ie> -" 7 , . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 12,2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Berg called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. in the Pope Marine Building. Building. II. ROLLCALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Alee King, Jim Irvin, George Randels, Liesl Slabaugh and Steven Emery; Cindy Thayer and Jeff Kelety were excused. Also present was Development Services Department (DSD)Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall and Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, Consultant for the Comprehensive Plan Update. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels made a motion to accept the agenda as changed to reverse the order and conduct the public hearing for the park at 22nd and Wilson Streets to precede the public hearing for the Fort Worden State Park; Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- There were none V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VI. NEW BUSINESS OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING -- Proposed Text Amendments relating to 22nd Street and Wilson, LUP04-021 At 6:40 p.m. Chair Berg opened the public hearing on the park at 22nd and Wilson Streets and read the rules of conduct. He asked if any Commissioner had a disclosure to make. Ms. Hersey disclosed she had been on the Parks Board when this park was first discussed. Ms. Slabaugh stated for the record, as a member of the Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board she was involved in discussion regarding the proposal of a trail which was recommended to go to de Parks Board since that trail was not in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Ms. Slabaugh declared she had no fmancial or property interests. It was determined neither Commissioner had sufficient involvement to recuse herself. Chair Berg called forany objections; there were none. Chair Berg stated the purpose of this hearing is for the Planning Commission to hear and consider pertinent information and take action on the proposed text amendments relating to 22nd Street and Wilson Street. Mr. TotWS clarified it is a site-specific land use map redesignation and rezoning. Mr. Jeff Randall, Long Range Planning Director, turned the Staff Presentation over to Mr. Eric Toews, consultant for the City on these issues. Mr. Toews explained that this proposal was docketed as part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code update. This is a site-specific, quasi-judicial rezone that started with the property transfers and street vacation approved by the City Council late January 2004 under City Ordnance 2849. The property is currently developed as park and open space. Through the operation of Ordinance 2849 the City has, in effect, accepted responsibility and ownership for the park that is already in existence. With this proposal they are attempting to correct an anomaly existing between the actual ownership and use of the property. Zoning is currently R-II, single family residential up to 8 d.u. per acre. The proposal is to change zoning to reflect the use and protect the property over the Img-term as park and open space (P/OS). The PIOS designation under the City's Comp Plan and Zoning Code is applied to city, county or state owned park, open space and recreational facilities throughout the city. It is believed this amendment is necessaryto reflect the facts on the ground and commitments previously made by the City under Ordinance 2849. Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page 1 . . . Chair Berg asked if there had been any written materials submitted or that anyone wished to submit. Mr. Toews noted a letter submitted in advance and distributed at the workshop on July 29th. Chair Berg asked if the letter was in support of the zoning. Mr. Toews concurred and indicated it was also clarifying an issue relating to the Environmental Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). He had pointed out at the workshop that some of the language in the SEP A documentation seemed to suggest they were talking about the prospective future establishment of a public park, rather than what they were in fact talking about, a pcrk that is in existence owned by the City and established by Ordinance 2849. At 6:50 p.m. Mr. Berg opened the hearing for public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Mr. Joshua Bennun, 1014 - 22nd Street Mr. Bennun thanked the Commission for changing theschedule to accommodate them. He indicated he was speaking on his own behalf and his neighborhood group of 32 people stating that City Attorney Watts has the list of those 32 people He submitted 4. quick update on QJdl. neif!hborhood"Bakerview" Docket Park.f2L the Planniml Commission Ql1 AUflust 12 2004 which was entered into the record as Exhibit C and distributed to Planning Commissioners. Pictures of the park and a survey map showing the proposed rezoning were circulated later. Mr. Bennun stated that on or around June 2003, their group applied for creation of a local path over public land in their area, and in January 2004, the City Council approved unanimously a resolution, 2849. He went on to say, "We approved the vacation of private place and creation ofthe 9000 square feet neighborhood pocket park." He made it clear that from their point of view, people who live there, the vacation of the street was conditional on a signed and recorded agreement between the neighbors, the City and all the partes. Everyone has signed the document, and it is a legally binding document. He indicated rezoning the park from R-II to open space wasn't what they had fust wanted. It was to preserve it for the future, to keep someone with an idea from buying it, 57/10 years from now. He was at the Parks Board last week and found that Chetzemoka Park is not entirely classified P/OS which he said is illegal, and asked how you call inconsistency. The agreement signed by Mayor Robinson and City Manager Timmons woulcbe submitted to the Planning Commission for rezone. Mr. Bennun said the park exists; it was created in January. He circulated pictures of the park and a survey map showing the proposed rezoning. He indicated the Planning Commission should not be invdved in when the park is installed; that, 1) the park exists, and 2) they were given the go-ahead from the City and proceeded to work on it in March 2004. They created a lawn area for strolling. There is a sign welcoming visitors to the park and indica:ing to some developers this not for them to bid on. There is a trail consistent with the plan and they have a sign saying this is a public traIl. They planted 34 different plants, but one died (now they have 33). They refurbished an old picnic table and took a bench from the bottom of the lagoon and reconditioned it. He said these things did not cost a penny. A total of $547 was raised from the neighbors, and they also secured donations. This is a neighborhood project that did not cost the City anything; they are watering the plants themselves. They do not want the City to enter into any agreement with the neighborhood, a latecomer paying $10,000 to become part of it. They are watering the plants themselves; it is better to spend $300 ofneighborhoal money than to give somebody $10,000. He said since May 2004 everything is fme. They are in a maintenance mode, maybe just doing a weekly mowing, and that is all there is to it. Except for adding a bit of statuary there they will not undertake any m~r addition this year. As of now, the park is used by the neighbors and occasional visitors. It is a little oasis of greenery in the middle of the neighborhood It is maintained; they pledge to maintain it. Mr. Bennun said the park is a reality. He thanked the Planning Commission and asked that they please make sure to formalize it, and put their stamp it so it will become a reality for years to come. Chair Berg asked Matthew Dillon if he had anything to add. Mr. Dillon stated everything had been covered. He asked if Staff had any response or comment. There being none he called for comments from the Planning Commission. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS: Q Ms. Hersey: Is the bench you recovered, the wooden bench? A Mr. Bennun: That is correct. This was recovered by Mr. Steve Corra from the Parks Department It was in abad situation, but his friends refurbished it. Now small children are sitting on it. Planning Commission Page 2 August 12, 2004 . . . Q A Mr. Emery: Is that a new carving? Mr. Bennun: The carving. . . no it is not. There being no other testimony, at 7:00 p.m. Chair Berg closed the public testimony of this hearing. He called for any Planning Commission deliberation and said it is in order to take action or postpone. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Emery stated this is a positive way to get neighborhood parks. He felt it was a great job with both Staff and the neighborhood. He hopes more neighborhoods take this step. Mr. Toews told Commissioners they have before them some draft fmdings, conclušons and a recommendation for their consideration. He explained those sent previously by 6mail were related to the legislative plan and code amendments. There are two additional proposed transmittals; one relates to this proposed rezone, LUP04-021. It was determined to finalize action on the public hearings as each is concluded. Chair Berg read the Transmittal synopsis for LUP04-021 and asked for Commissioners to peruse the document. He then explained this goes through history of the developmmt of the park, through the consistency of the redesignation with the Comp Plan, Growth Management Act, etc. and comes to the conclusion as stated with the recommendation to adopt the map redesignation and rezone. Chair Berg stated they could recommend these fmdings and conclusions. Mr. Toews noted corrections. CORRECTIONS: (By consensus) · Finding #5: Change date to August 12,2004. · Findings #8 & #14: Allow Staff to clarifylchange square footage of property transfers as shown on the City-owned map and in the text of Ordinance 2849. · Add Finding #20: Incorporate by reference the legal description of the area contained in Ordinance 2849. MOTION Mr. Randels Accept Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation as corrected, forward to City Council and recommend approval to adopt the proposed Wilson & 22nd Street Map Redesignation and Rezone (LUP04-021) SECOND Ms. Slabaugh Discussion: Ms. Hersey asked Staff if in case somewhere down the line in the coming years and all the neighbors are gone, would the City take this over as part of the parks maintenance? Right now they are taking care of it, but long-term? Does there need to be reference to that? Mr. Toews replied he thought that is not the question this evening; establishment of the park was already accomplished by Council action January 2004. We are really correcting an inconsistency between the facts on the ground and City's land use and zoning maps. Mr. Berg indicated all they are doing here is the rezone. VOTE Passed unanimously by roll call vote; 7 in favor Chair Berg thanked the participants. He reminded them this is a recommendation to City Council, and Council still has to vote on it. Exhibit A Exhibit B Map of Wilson/22nd St Pocket Park Rezone Letter.received July 29, 2004 by Jeff Randall/Eric Toews from Joshua Bennun and a group of neighbors re: Rezone of the Bakerview Pocket Park area at 22nd/Wilson -¿quick update on QJdl. neif!hborhood "Bakerview" pocket ParkfslL the Planning Commission meeting on August 1.2. 2004 from Mr. Bennun Exhibit C At 7: 10 p.m. Chair Berg opened the public hearing for the Fort Worden State Park. He suspended reading of the rules of conduct with consent of the one person present who had not heard them at the beginning of the meeting. Planning Commission Page 3 August 12, 2004 . OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING -- Proposed Text Amendments relating to Fort Worden State Park, LUP04-019 In the Staff Presentation Mr. Toews reminded that this proposed amendment was not subject to the City's annual review and amendment cycle. It was specifiœlly not docketed by the Council because there was concern it was needed sooner, that it might delay things procedurally if it were processed as part of the annual review amendment. This process is possible independent of that annual process because the ¡roposed amendments do not create any inconsistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; goals, policies, narrative or land use map. They are zoning code text amendments only. This essentially seeks to clarify the defmition of conference center containedin Section 17.08.020 PTMC, to add a definition of educational institution, and to revisit and modify some of the use classifications set forth within Park and Open Space (P/OS) zoning district in Table 17.24.020 PTMC. In essence this proposal would take a number of uses that are treated under the current code, either as conditional or prohibited, and create an exception for the Fort Worden State Park and Conference Center. It would make those uses either permitted outright or conditionally permitted, eg., museums, minor recycling facilities, educational institutions, cemeteries and crematoria, and conference centers. Mr. Toews stated that all of those, with the exception of educational institutions and cemeteries, would not now be treated as permitted uses. He said during discussion at the July 29th workshop, there was concern that some of these uses, in particular educational institutions and cemeteries, were uses the City may wish to retain some expanded review authority over by the conditional use permit. Therefore, this revised table reflects changes as discussed at that workshop. Chair Berg called for public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -- There was none. PUBLIC DISCUSSION & STAFF RESPONSE . Ms. Kate Burke, Fort Worden State Park Manager, was present and contributed to the discussion. Chair Berg asked Ms. Burke if the State Parks office is in support of these changes, or if it mattered one way or another? Ms. Burke was not sure if they had received any of the material and stated she had not forwarded it on to them. She thought they would probably leave it to her discretion as to whether or not these things should be changed, that they do not out there day-to-day know what is going on. Mr. Toews reported there were two comment letters received by Commissioners via e-mail. They were entered into the record as exhibits: I) Exhibit A -- letter from Department of Ecology regarding the SEP A review; 2) Exhibit B -- comment letter, relating to Fort Worden State Park and Conference Certer, though not relating directly to the proposed amendment. It was a comment advocating more camp sites reserved exclusively for area residents. Ms. Slabaugh asked if Ms. Burke had been sent that letter. Mr. Toews replied he had extra copies, but thought they did not relate at all to the substance of the proposed amendment. They were perhaps useful comments for State Parks to factor in to its own plans regarding campsite facilities at the Fort, but they did not pertain to any of the suggested amendments to Title 17. Chair Berg clarified, this may be a good suggestion, but it doesn't impact what we are talking about tonight. Mr. Toews concurred. . Mr. Randall explained there are a couple of key reasons this amendment is on the table: I) they fet zoning needed some refmement to actually reflect the uses occurring at Fort Worden; 2) the issue of encouraging universities and schools of higher education in Port Townsend. Obvious and logical, for a college to be created, purchase land and build a facility; absent that, they need to look for existing facilities. Fort Worden State Park is one of the logiCal places. There was quite a bit of discussion at the workshop about the appropriateness of schools, or schools of higher education. At that time they talked a bit about the uses listed in the table and discovered that institutions, educational did not have a defmition in our current code. They found it came the prior zoning code that did have a definition. They resurrected the defmition from be prior zoning code, and it is now being presented. At the workshop there was considerable concern about all sorts of schools being relocated from somewhere else in town and being placed at Fort Worden -- high schools, junior highs, grade schools, etc. This defmition is limited to colleges, junior colleges or universities supported by private or public funds. . . . as approved by the State Board of Education. It specifically precludes preschools, elementary, junior and senior high schools, trade and conmercial Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page4 · · · schools. Mr. Randall reported he had discussed the outcome of the workshop with Ms. Burke, and she has some opinions. A lot of this has been driven by the need to look at possible places for Peninsula or other colleges and the suitability of Fort Worden and its existing buildings. He explained the choices: Conditional use .!M now drafted): . New building -- if Peninsula College or some other college wanted to locate at Fort Worden and build a new building, they would be required to go throughSEP A environmental review and a public hearing through the Hearings Examiner. . Existing building -- the current code treats conditional uses in existing buildings as a less stringent review, an administrative review with some public notice. Staff writesthe determination, and unless appealed it does not go a public hearing, a little quicker process. Permitted use: . Existing space -- basically evaluated for accessibility; building code, parking code, etc. Presumed to be okay, obtain permits needed for occupancy. . New building -- would trigger public review process; SEPA review, allow review of transportation, parking, etc. Ms. Burke questioned why they had felt Peninsula should have a conditional use at Fort Worden. She answered Mr~ Irvin, "As opposed to permitted." Chair Berg asked if she was wondering why they felt that way. Ms. Burke concurred and asked how they got lumped in with what they were saying, high schools, etc. Mr. Toews clarified there are two terms in Table 17.24.020 relating to this discussion: 1) Institutions, educational; 2) Schools, public and private. The discussion he recalled from the July 29th workshop was to allow the ability for institutions to locate at the Fort subject to certain conditions and to a broader public review process, that they didn't necessarily want to encourage elementary and preschool education there. As a result they left schools, public or private, as a prohibited use; and listed institutions, educational, as a conditional use consistent with more suggestions. Chair Berg added his recollection, the way it was proposed last time, any kind if school was proposed to be a permitted use. They were wondering about the appropriateness of siting a public junior high school, or something like that, at Fort Worden, and why would they want to make that a permitted use. At 7:25 p.m. Chair Berg closed Staff Response. He asked for clarifying questions from the Planning Commission; there being none he called for Planning Commission discussion,or action. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OUESTIONS/COMMENTS -- Q Ms. King: Was concerned about the changes, e.g, educational institutions. She wondered about something like the Marine Science Center's proposed discovery lab; they are fund raising. She did not know where that fit in, but saw it more as an educational, loosely defmed institution, than anything else. Mr. Emery: An educational event, per se? Ms. King: Not an event. It's going to be classes, etc. A Mr. Toews: Thought one of the issues is where conference center begins and ends. The definition of conference center is purposely broad and includes under its umbrella all sorts of educational activities that are not of permanent character, like a state-mandated curriculum. Mr. Randels: Like Centrum. Mr. Toews: He expected such uses would defmitely fall with the conference center, but it is admittedly a very broad definition. It is a facility used for seminars, conventions, symposiums and similar uses. Q Ms. King: Do offices also come under conference center? Centrum has an office; would that also come under conference center? Mr. Kelety had said only government offices were allowed. She wondered about things like Centrum wanting to move their office to mother building. It is kind of lose, but she wanted to make sure they weren't having any unintended consequences. Ms. Hersey: Are offices mentioned? A Mr. Toews: Government offices are. Q Ms. King: The Marine Science Center has an administrative office at Fort Worden. A Mr. Toews: The definition of Conference Center is broad, and he thinks to the extent they become more and more speCific about calling out uses and activities that are on the ground now, they run the risk of not being a1!ie Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page 5 · · · to anticipate all the range of uses and activities that could fall under that conference center umbrella in the future. He thought similar uses give the director considerable flexibility in applying and interpreting the code here without providing so much authority. Ms. King: She just wanted to make sure they didn't end up prohibited or conditional in some kind of inadvertent way. Mr. Irvin: Mr. Toews addressed his comment and he rather considered this a "what if' exercise-- what if they put in a Peninsula College? what if they put in a government office? what if they do this? He was pleased with the broad way in which this is addressed, and thought is his recollection of their discussion of this, Mr. Kelety in particular, who is not here, had some problem and wanted to put in conditional use rather than permitted outright for things like schools or colleges or whatever. He thought the changes made still don't damage the concept, that we can't anticipate everything that is going to go out tha-e, so why try to constrain it based on existing uses. He had no problems with the way it has been modified. . Mr. Emery added clarification of what he thought an educational institution generally means. Usually it is a credited institution that offers course credits for degrees, or similar to that. Educational outreach programs usually do not give you a credit for college, although something may come up where you would tie in with the Marine Science Center where they could do some study out there. He dtl not believe that an educational institution would be related to educational outreach programs. You would have to have a curriculum, and degrees and credits to be an educational institution. Mr. Toews thought Mr. Emery's comments consistmt with the suggested defmition that was drawn from the old Title 17. Q Ms. Hersey: You said you didn't want private colleges or private institutions; they had to be public. A Mr. Berg: That isn't said. . Mr. Toews: Clarified, there are two different types of educational institutions specifically called out in the use table: 1) Schools, public or private institutions which are not college level and above. Those are currently prohibited. As the table is revised based on August 29th comments, the prolDSal is to continue to treat those as prohibited. He answered Ms. Hersey, that is under college level. 2) Educational institutions. It doesn't matter whether they are public or private if they are supported by public or private funds, tuitions, contributions, endowments, giving advanced academic instruction as approved by the State Board of Education or by a recognized crediting agency. It specifically excludes preschools, elementary, junior and senior high schools, trade and commercial schools. Q Ms. Hersey: If the Running Start program wants to move out to the Fort they can't? A Mr. Toews: It is prohibited. Q Ms. Hersey: If the Copper Canyon Press wanted to start a school? A Mr. Toews: That is currently a legal non-conforming use. Ms. Hersey: We need to think about Running Start. A lot of the Peninsula College classes are Running Start; high school kids going up there. Mr. Emery: Running Start students are gaining college credit within college facilities. Ms. Hersey: But they are still high school kids. Mr. Emery: But they are taking college level courses. They would be considered college students who are in high school. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Following up on Copper Canyon Press being a legal non-conforming use. Does that mean non-profits in general are not permitted? Those that are there are grandfathered in? A Mr. Toews: No. Non-profits are not called out specifically in the use table. Uses that aren't identified are generally treated as prohibited. Copper Canyon Press, printing press, is an industrial use. Ms. Slabaugh made the correction that it is a publishing house, not a printer. Mr. Toews: Commercial/light industrial. They don't have an actual press there Ms. Slabaugh: Although they are non-profit? Mr. Berg: That is still a commercial use. Mr. Toews concurred. Mr. Toews: In crafting these suggested amendments, they were not trying to look at all the possible uses and put an additional bunch of uses in the existing table. They were 100kiIg at what was already on the books and Planning Commission Minutes, August 12, 2004 I Page6 · · · identifying what they thought to be inconsistencies with the narrative text, goals and policies within the adopted comprehensive plan. It was just an oversight at the time of initial zoning code adoption. They wererlt looking to address every conceivable use, but to look at the uses already called out and revisit the way they were classified. Q Ms. Hersey: Is Peninsula College for kids who haven't graduated from high school? Do they give GEDs? Mr. Toews concurred. Ms. Hersey: Do they go to Peninsula College to get GEDs? Mr. Toews concurred. Ms. Hersey: You would have high school kids going to get a high school degree? A Mr. Toews: Provided by an educational institution giving academic instructim as approved by the State Board of Education. Q Mr. Irvin to Mrs. Burke: Because there is so much interest in what could be put out there, what kind of guidelines has the state provided, written or otherwise; these are the "shalls" or the "shall rots." Or do you have such a thing? A Ms. Burke: To a degree, because it is a historical site. It is very limited as to what they can do to the buildings or to the grounds because they have to maintain the historical designation and the period designaed. The likelihood of additional buildings or additions onto historical buildings is highly unlikely. They follow the Secretary of Interior and State Historical Preservation principles of historic preservation; that is one thing they don't like to see. Q Ms. Slabaugh: With the chain of authority, if someone came, e.g. Peninsula College, and wanted to locate a college out there; you have existing guidelines from the state, and we are discussing zoning guidelines in the municipal code. How do those two interface; what is the process? A Mr. Randall: They are really separate. Because the State Park is its own National Landmark Historic District, they regulate that. The city also has the second National Landmark Historic District whichincludes downtown and most of uptown. It is a federal listing, a federal recognition. Federal permits need to go through special reviews. The state also includes their own review for activities in their district. The city has imposed a special review for commercial projects in their district, not residential. How it applies to zoning, they are totally separate. Like overlapping issues, the State Parks regulates their own standards for the preservation of their historic buildings; the City regulates the uses that occur in Fort Worden State Park. Whether it is the state, or a private person leasing from the state, they must comply with our zoning just as the Port must comply with our zoning, and just as a private party must. Everybody does. They arereally two separate issues. Q Mr. Irvin: Wouldn't it be similar to the process used on the Commons? A Mr. Randall: The Commons went through a conditional use permit. They went through what is called a major conditional use permit because they built a new building and went through a public hearing. That also went through SEP A, State Environmental Policy Act. Ms. Burke added, they come to them and start a process of talking. They see if it is a good fit for what they are doing out there, if it is the direction they are going in. Simultaneously they are also working with the city to see if it is something that if it is a conditional permitted use, they are getting the correct permits from the city. It is like they are on a parallel course, as long as they say "yes" it is a good fit for Fort Worden. Mr. Randall: If the state doesn't approve a project, even if it's permitted or conditional, it doesn't happen. You need property owner consent to come to the city to apply for permits. On the other hand, the state could say this is great, we want to lease to you; if it's not permitted it stops. You can't have it if it conflicts with city code. It needs both, b¡lsically, but if you don't have property owner approval, it doesn't matter;you're not getting city approval. They can work at the same time, if the state says it's fme they will sign off on the property owner consent. Q Mr. Berg: Asked if they don't need the level of worry that was happening at our last worlshop, like suddenly half of Fort Worden is going to get covered by a new cemetery? We don't have to worry about the fact that it would be permitted, because the State Parks would have to approve it anyway. A Mr. Randall: That is correct. Chair Berg thought there were issues that have been brought up that were worth discussing a bit more: 1) What level of inclusiveness of educational entities do we want to allow to be permitted at the Fort? How permitted, conditionally? 2) Restrictive language that was put in about offices; it might have gotten a bit too restrictive in order to allow the flexibility that is needed. Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page? · · · Chair Berg said there was a question in his mind if they want to make this a line between high school and college below which things are not allowed. Would it be okay for some kind of high school level educational program to be located there? Is there, in fact, already something like it that doesn't fit the defmition of educational institution, namely the Marine Science Center? The way this is proposed would it make it difficult for the Marine Science Center to occupy a different building, or any changes they want to make and expand, e.g., does there need to be a definition of educational outreach program that would inchde things like the Marine Science Center? Mr. Toews suggested keeping it simple and adding language to the defmition of conference center to include educåtional programs, activities and other similar uses, so that it is still intentionallybroad but casts a little bit broader net with a little bit greater clarity with regard to educational activities in particular. Mr. Berg thought the conference center defmition did not include ongoing things. It seems to include such things as seminars, conventions, symposiums, onß-time or annual things. Mr. Toews replied, if you are talking about regularized course of instruction, public or private, that doesn't meet the defmition of educational institution. High school level course work that was permanently based out there, would clearly be prohibited as it is currently proposed before you; however, if you are talking about the type of activity Ms. King referenced earlier, you could accommodate that very clearly and easily by adding three words to tœ defmition of conference center. In his estimation, it depends on whether or not you are talking about a regularized curriculum. . Ms. Burke asked if it has to be a dedicated space? Mr. Toews replied that was correct. He said that again they are talking about educational activities. Periodic types of things that would happen at the Marine Science Center could fall under the conference center umbrella and happen anywhere in the Fort as a permitted use, the way conference center is currently treated. However, if they are talking about regularized instruction, teaching to a set curriculum, would be permitted under institutions, educational for higher education. Currently as proposed, it would be prohibited as Mr. Berg pointed out for preschool, elemenlary, high school instruction. Mr. Berg asked for example, if a small, private performing arts high school wanted to locate there? Mr. Toews replied it would be prohibited. He asked if they want that to be prohibited? Ms. Hersey replied that no they do not want that. Ms. Burke said most of the times when they have someone who comes in and wants to do things like a 6-weeks seminar on piano lessons, they try to accommodate them, in whatever facility can accommodate them during that period of time. It isonly that course. Even if it is accredited by whatever organization or agency is giving that course, it is still not in a dedicated building; that is why she needs clarification. Mr. Toews wanted to clearly say for the record, he believes that would bepermitted under conference centers. If they are talking about a school with dedicated space operating 9 months or more out of the year, if it's below college level, it is clearly prohibited. They could treat preschool, elementary and high school level hstruction the same as higher educational institutions, if you want to. He explained that it is a policy call, and in treating them both either permitted or both conditional, you are creating a tremendous amount of additional flexibility for State Parks to determine what can or can't happen at Fort Worden. Ms. Hersey did not want to limit it to just colleges. She wanted to go all the way down to elementary schools. She did not know why they would want to stop it there; it may never be anything that iffieeded, but why . have to come back through the whole process with any value that came through the door ftom high school on down and have to wait another year to go through this process to revamp it. She thought it made no sense and could not imagine there would be anything bad by dropping it down to kindergarten. She also wanted to know if the YMCA were to go outthere, how would that fit; would they be able to? That is something that has been discussed. She also clarified she is on the YMCA Board. Mr. Randall said he thought Ms. Hersey's disclosure was good. This is a legislative matter, and he did not think she is barred ftom discussion, but it was good to disclose she had an interest in that entity. Ms. Hersey said they have been in somewhat of ad is cuss ion with Fort Worden. Mr. Burke agreed they had discussed it. IIi reviewing this she saw there is provision for recreational facilities; would that be "P" permitted use facilities? Mr. Toews asked, "Facilities?" Ms. Burke concurred. Mr. Berg suggested "Programs." Ms. Hersey asked what if they took over a whole building out there; would that be permitted? Mr. Berg asked if that would be a recreational facility? Mr. Toews explained it is really non-profit administration of programs that occurs at recreational facilities. His sense is that it would be permitted, even though the reference here is to a facility and not a specific use of a facility -- recreation facilities, permitted. Mr. Berg thought it sounded like that. Messrs. Toews and Randall collaborated to address this and concluded that one ofMr. Berg's points was, they rather ratcheted down government offices maybe a little too tightly with changes made after the workshop on August 29. They thought perhaps in addition to permitting asub division of state government, including perhaps special purpo~e districts, and maybe also non-governmental offices for non-profit corporations. That way they would cover the YMCA issue and also do as Ms. Slabaugh raised earlier also. Ms. Slabaugh thmght it seemed also Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page 8 · · · to address what Ms. Hersey brought up, like a suggestion of a dance school or anything for younger kids but run by a non-profit, worked out with the Fort that they can do that on an ongoing basis. It would also fall under that-- it touches on the conference center. Mr. Emery asked if what they recommend today and send on, is cementing forever any possible compatible use that would come up in the future? Mr. Randall replied there is always an option; it doe31't set in concrete and allow us not to ever touch it again. If it's something that isn't part of the Comprehensive Plan, it could be taken up at any time. Mr. Emery asked, so they are not barring the door on any possible future compatible uses at the ¡ark? Mr. Randall said no, but there is a process; it does take time, a minimum of 3 months. Mr. Emery asked if there is any kind of option to that? Mr. Randall replied no, when it comes to land use, that is what it takes. They are trying to look at this, with the Fort, comprehensively in a short period of time, and is why they put the word out to the neighbors. Onè thing to think of, with governmental agencies and possibly also nonprofits, you are a steward. That is State Parks, and they have a stewardship with multiple responsibilities. If you say non-profits, it rather opens the doors wide. At the same time, if you look at it and decide it doesn't fit our program, doesn't fit our buildings, is not compatible with the uses, you have to have a first layer of filter there to help manage the place. That's their jobs; our job is really more community-wide, making more sure they don't allow something that really isn't going to fit. He thinks it is a natural. Mr. Randels suggested they could make CopIXJr Canyon a conforming use, rather than non-conforming; it's a non-profit. Mr. Randall replied they could potentially. Ms. Slabaugh noted that non-profits are not mentioned anywhere. They were not trying to imagine everything that is not in there and ad it. She was not sure she would propose they look at every little thing and try to account for it, but she thought that is a big piece of what especially the Fort tries to find, appropriate collaborations and uses that are compatible. She reiterated tha: is a pretty big piece, that all kinds of educational "stuff' happens, and we have to be non-profit, e.g., funding for higher education from such things as private donations. It is a good thing if you can get all those resources working together. She said she rather echoed what Ms. Hersey is saying, that she would rather not shut the doors, but would rather leave them open, especially when they have a steward they trust. She did not feel they need to be real protective because she did not see the danger lurking getting away with something that would be heinous to the public. Mr. Toews offered specific chanl!es to Exhibit A: Conference Center. Modify and expand the defmition to read: "Conference Center means a facility used for seminars, conventions, symposiums, educational programs and activities and similar uses with meeting rooms, food preparation. . . (the rest to remain unchanged)." Mr. Emery suggested adding cultural, or would that be similar activities? Mr. Toews said it could be educational and cultural programs. · Conference Center. Change definition to read: "Conference Center means a facility used for seminars, conventions, symposiums, educational and cultural programs and activities, and similar uses with meeting rooms, food preparation.. . (the rest to remain unchanged)." · Row 2, Page 3, Column 1 of the table. Change to: Offices, government and nonprofit. . . · Row 2, Page 3, Column 2 of the table. Change to: CexceDt for certain state. local and non-orofit 'offices. which shall be P at Fort Worden (see notes). · Row 2, Page 3, Notes column at far right of the table: Change to: Washine:ton State. Jefferson County. City of Port Townsend. SDecial Pumose District and non-orofit e:overnment offices. . . Mr. Toews again raised the question regarding schools, public or private. Row 4, Page 3 of the table, Schools, public or mivate, -- currently identified as a prohibited (P) use. Does the Planning Commission want to recommend treating that the same way as Institutions, educational, receational? Ms. Hersey asked if that is conditional. Answer, conditional at Fort Worden. Chair Berg call~d for a vote: Treat Schools. Public Q! Private the Same ~ Institutions. Educational VOTE: Six in favor by show of hands; Mr. Irvin opposed Chair'Berg noted the Planning Commission seemed to be in favor. Mr. Toews asked if there was any question on any other uses. He noted that on the table distributed prior to August 2Q cemeteries was changed to a conditional use at that workshop. He asked if that stands? Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page 9 · · · Chair Berg asked if that would pertain to a new cemetery, as clarified, also an expansion of an existing cemetery? Mr. Emery questioned crematoriums, if that should be separated out as not permitted? Mr. Berg's opinion was to leave it as conditional. Mr. Toews pointed out an error in the text where it says permitted rather than conditional. Chair Berg asked Ms. Burke if she had a comment. She thought that aligned with what is out there already; there i~ no intention to expand that at all. Mr. Toews noted as with the Wilson and 22nd Street rezone, they have provided a proposed transmittal regarding these text amendments for Commission review and consideration. Chair Berg read the synopsis and suggested they take a few minutes for a brief look if anyone sees anything worthy of discussion before voting on it. Q Ms. Hersey: Finding 12, have any of our changes changed the SEP A checklist at all, since we are going to include all grades down through elementary? A Mr. Berg: Thought they had just reincluded things that were included in the first place and then taken out. Mr. Toews: Did not think what is being proposed goes beyond the scope of the environmental review. However, it probably would be a good idea to inclu:le a note in the SEPA file to that effect. Q Ms. Hersey. Finding 13, does that need to be changed? A Mr. Toews: Yes; there are a couple of other fmdings from this discussion that also need revision. Q Ms. Hersey: Do we change those now? We will rot see this again before this goes to Council, if we approve it. A Mr. Toews: That is correct Mr. Randels: We could authorize Mr. Berg to approve changes before he signs it. Mr. Toews: Believed he understood the changes that were directed this evenng. There are a few minor syntax changes, and omission of a word in Finding #2 that he will correct. He will correct Finding #5 which does not accurately reflect the discussion tonight and doesn't call out the treatment of uses accurately. Finding #13,the same is true and needs to be corrected to reflect the actions taken this evening. Finding #6, date change. . CORRECTIONS: (By Consensus) -- authorize the following revisions: To Exhibit A '- · Conference Center. Change definition to read: "Conference Center means a facility used for seminars, conventions, symposiums, educational and cultural programs and activities, and similar uses with meeting rooms, food preparation. . . (the rest to remain unchanged)." · Row 2, Page 3, Column 1 of the table. Change to: Offices, government and non-profit. . . · Row 2, Page 3, Column 2 of the table. Change to: C ex cent for certain state. local and non-nrofit offices. which shall be P at Fort Worden (see notes). · Row 2, Page 3, Notes column at far right of the table: Change to: Washin!!ton State. Jefferson Countv. Citv oCPort Townsend. Snecial Purnose District and non-Drofit !!overnment offices... · Row 4, Page 3 of the table, Schools, public or Drivate: -- Change to C, conditional, at Fort Worden · Row 9, Page 3 of the table, Cemeteries, etc.: Change text from permitted to conditional. To the Transmittal-- include minor syntax changes Finding. 2: Word omission Finding 5 Change to accurately reflect tonight's discussion Finding 6 Change date Finding 13 Change to accurately reflect tonight's discussion SEP A file -- Include a note stating that proposed changes do not go beyond the scope of the environmental review. Chait Berg read the Transmittal Conclusion and that by vote they recommend adoption. Th called for a motion. MOTION Ms. Hersey Accept Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation as corrected, to be consistent with tonight's discussion for Proposed Text Amendments relating tò Fort Worden State Park, LUP04-019, forward to City Council and recommend approval. SECOND Mr. Randels Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page 10 · VOTE Passed unanimously by roll call vote; 7 in favor Exhibit A Exhibit B Letter dated August 5, 2004 from the Department of Ecology to Mr. Randall Letter dated August 4, 2004 from Gabriella Ashford to City Comcil Members Chair Berg concluded the public hearing for this matter. He thanked Ms. Burke for her participation and called for a brief break. OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING -- Proposed Legislative Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, LUP04-095 At 8:20 p.m. Chair Berg opened the public hearing and asked for the Staff Presentation.. Mr. Toews made brief remarks saying it is on the record both in written form and orally from the workshop of August 29th. He pointed out the two hrgest items to be considered: · . Title 12, Chapter 12.06, Transportation Concurrency Management. This new chapter is based in some substantial part on a model ordinance from Bonnie Lake, their Transportation Engineer and other members of staff, and our own Public Works staff. They were attempting to fmd a document that would fulfill statutory requirements, implement the Comprehensive Plan and at the same time keep it as simple and basic as possible. A transportation concurrency management ordinance is req1ired to ensure the city transportation facilities do not dip below adopted levels of service standards. This has been on the books as a requirement in both our adopted policies and in state law for many years, one on which the city has not yet taken actbn. For that reason and because of concerns that they would be potentially vulnerable for alleged GMA non-compliance, they have included this new chapter. . . Title 17, Chapter 17.50, Essential Public Facilities. This new chapter clarifies the process and establishes additional review criteria for essential public facilities of statewide or regional significance. After docketed, they started their review thinking they could perhaps incorporate provisions that were more analogous to those used by Jefferson Cbunty in their Unified Development Code, but on closer inspection determined that was unwise. There are many jurisdictions that do regulate essential public facilities. They do not allow such public facilities carte blanche to locate within any zoning district within a municipality. The statute requires that you make provision, not prohibit, such facilities within the jurisdiction. Reviewing the text and tables in Title 17, the City's code did not prohibit them. They did direct where such facilities wwld need to go in certain . instances. The suggested language in 17.50 is intended to provide additional review criteria and process in the event such a facility is applied for by a state, federal or regional agency. Mr. Toews referenced the Proposed Transmittal and said hopefully it fits the bill. Chair Berg asked if there were any public comments. PUBLIC TESTIMONY -- there was none. Chair Berg called for Planning Commission questions and comments. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: · QUESTIONS/COMMENTS -- Q Mr. Irvin: Struggled a little with the format. In the other documents, fmdings and conclusions and recommendation -- the way you presented it historically, the recommendations are before a lot of the fmdings. With some, the samefmding is almost reproduced in more than one item, e.g., the similarity between Items 1 and 11. However, he had no problem with the substance of what was prepared, and he was in agreement with it. An error in numbering was noted-- there were two Items #10 and two #11. Mr. Jrvin: The language is very similar. At fIrst he thought why not combine them, until he essentially got to #8. You are saying, "The Planning Commission specifically fmds that the following proposed amendments. . .'~ He was asked if these fmdings should precede the recommendations, e.g. "recommends the approval of. . ." Planning Commission Minutes, August 12, 2004 I Page 11 · A Mr. Toews: There is a rather general finding about the proposed amendments to the planning code that is necessary to tully comply with the requirerrents ofGMA. Then there are specific findings that call out each of the proposed amendments. Q Mr. Irving: That was what was confusing; it was almostduplication. A Mr. Toews: The point was just to simply call out specifically each of the Plan andCode amendments rather than including just a general reference. Q Mr. Berg: When talking about looking at making the language in 17.50 more similar to the Jefferson County version, were you saying that version in the County Code allows essential plblic facilities to be located anywhere in any zoning, and that we didn't want to do that in the city? A Mr. Toews: It is quite confusing. They are identified as subject to a special use permit; there is narrower language in the text of their code that would purport to allow the County to prohibit them. It's a special use permit process, but it is not entirely clear, exactly, what the end result of that process is. Q Mr. Berg: You felt it was unclear and confusing and therefore you didn't want to dosomething similar? A Mr. Toews: On investigation and looking at other jurisdictions again-- what they understand to be solid ground, an acceptable position to take with regard to essential public facilities. They were not prohibiting them, but they are regulating them, permitted in certain public and infrastructure zones, certain commercial and industrial zones, but not necessarily permitted either by a special use permit or outright in all of the zones jurisdictionwide. Q Mr. Berg: So you basically used other models to emulate, other than the County? A Mr. Toews. Concurred. Q Ms. Slabaugh: To illustrate what we are really talking about here and how to make it more understandable, the federal government might come into the community and lœate something. . considering an essential public facility. A Mr. Toews: They didn't want to find themselves preempted by something. A common example, a new jail facility. This would establish additional notice requirements and review criteria thatthe state, county, or whomever had to go through in siting that facility to ensure they really had identified the best possible place to locate. · Q Mr. Irvin: Noted a typo, Conclusion, line 2 -- change to ". . . adoption of the attached.. ." Asked Mr. Toews ifhe meant anything in particular by the word "expressly" in Findings 14, 16, 18. In most of the findings that is not stated. A Mr. Toews: Wanted to make it really clear. There are findings that apply to certain types of Plan ani Code amendments, and you are expressly fmding that those criteria do not pertain to these Plan and Code amendments. There were also a couple of typos noticed earlier in the week; he has already noted and corrected them in the electronic version of this document. CORRECTIONS: (By Consensus) -- Authorize the following revisions: 1) Findings -- Correct numbering 2) Conclusion, line 2 -- Change to read: "... adoption ofthe attached. . ." 3) Remove all references to August 26 Chair called for a motion. MOTION Mr. Irvin Accept Findings of Facts, Conclusions and Recommendations, corrected to be consistent with tonight's discussion for Proposed Legislative Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, LUP04-095, forward to City Council and recommend approval. SECOND VOTE Mr. Randels Passed unanimously by roll call vote; 7 in favor Chair Berg asked if there were any comments or questions from Staff. At 8:35 p.m. he closed the public hearing. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS September 2,2004 Statutory requirements, Best Available Science 3:00 p.m., location to be announced · Planning Commission Minutes, August 12, 2004 I Page 12 · VIII. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was none IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Randels and second«l by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. . lL[ß.~ Richard Berg, Chair ~tbM Sheila A vis, Minute Taker · · Planning Commission Minutes, August 12,2004 I Page 13