Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022312 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The Port Townsend Planning Commission met in joint session with the Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Tree Committee on the twenty-third day of February 2012 in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Planning Commission Vice Chair Jerauld Fry and Park, Recreation and Tree Committee Chair Matthew Berberich presiding. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Monica Mick-Hager, Cate Comerford, Jerauld Fry, Sarah Bowman, Steven Emery, Matthew Berberich, Rosemary Sikes, Forest Shomer, Daniel Milholland, and Lys Burden with Gee Heckscher excused. Staff members present were Development Services Director Rick Sepler, Planning Manager Judy Surber, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Sepler suggested adding public comment as Item 5 under VI. Motion: Steven Emery moved to add "public comment"as (5) under VI and move "Parks Board and Planning Commission Discussion"to (6). Monica Mick-Hager seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 10-0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Bowman stated she has not had time to read the minutes. Consensus was to delay approval of the minutes for January 12 and January 26 until the next meeting. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Susan Langlois regarding public process and community planning. Julie Jaman regarding the Kah Tai amendment process. Rick Jahnke referred to his recent e-mail which was distributed to participants and addresses the Kah Tai Comprehensive Plan Amendments. David Goldman regarding public process. Nora Regan regarding public participation. Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2012 Page 1 of 5 NEW BUSINESS: Update to the 1999 Parks Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan Introduction and Purpose (Rick Sepler, AICP, Director of Development Services Department, Judy Surber, Planning Manager) Mr. Sepler made remarks in response to the public comment, emphasizing the different roles of staff, the public, and those appointed to make decisions and recommendations. He stated that staff has no preferred outcome, that the process has been extensive, and it is important to have all points of view represented so the Commission can make the best possible decision based on all input. He said that tonight's meeting has been designed to collect public input to help identify key issues and then respectfully consider and discuss them. What is a Parks Plan? - What is the Status of the City's Parks Plan Update? (Judy Surber, Planning Manager) Planning Manager Judy Surber noted that she has taken on the parks plan update process since the departure of Parks and Recreation Director Jeremy Bubnick. She added that many on the Parks Board have experience they have garnered from working with Jeremy and the consultant. She said that the Parks Functional Plan is a planning document that staff utilizes to develop long-range plans and standards for the park system and it is a blueprint for the work plan. She then elaborated on the elements of the plan. She stated that in order to be eligible for grant funds from the RCO, the plan must be acceptable to that agency and that is why the Parks Director worked with a consultant who was experienced in this process to help develop the new draft. She also said that the plan is not a strikeout and underline version because, in addition to changes and updates, much of the information in the plan was moved around and with so many changes, a strikeout and underline version would be too messy to be useful to anyone. The previous update was done in this same manner. Ms. Surber then reviewed the public process chart that was provided as a handout. She elaborated on the subcommittee process. They will review all comment and produce a Draft #3 of the Parks Functional Plan. At this point, the target date for completion is March 19 but she believes that will be a difficult timeline to meet. Facilitated Public Input Based on comments received to date, staff has identified several key issues including: Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Sepler presented a list of key issues based on staff's review of the comment letters that came in and all of the comments received to date. He said it is not exhaustive and that these issues will be considered along with the subtle line in and out changes provided, which are very valuable, and those will be consulted and incorporated page by page. He stated that it is important to understand the key issues and how to solve them. The list developed by staff includes: 1) What is the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Plan; 2) Who is the primary audience/user of the Parks Plan; 3) What is the intended outcome of a Parks Plan; 4) Given the purpose of the plan, how much descriptive text and history should it contain. Based on input from the attendees, the following key issues were added: 5) Consider using the 1999 Plan as the base; 6) Inventory - expand beyond city-owned facilities; 7) Is the functional/classification hierarchy working; 8) How can we ensure long-term protection? Why can't we use the term "in perpetuity"; 9) Compatible uses; 10) More clarity (e.g. intended use of Kah Tai), objectives, purpose, uses, intent; 11) Master plan some parks; 12) Designate a Kah Tai Stewardship Committee to provide guidance on operations and maintenance of the park; 13) Expiration of lease at Kah Tai - encourage land swap - currently the draft is silent. 14) Funding - City budget - where is the source of funding for parks. 15) Be more creative for reducing costs through volunteer programs (e.g. adopt a park, etc.) 16) Volunteerism - city tracks in-kind match, need to mention in the park plan; 17) More process. Discussion continued on several topics, including the following. The need for a good definition of a functional plan. How much descriptive history and text should a functional plan contain. What degree of specificity in terms of timelines and benchmarks for implementation should the plan contain. Does the Plan adequately involve the public in stewardship. Does the plan have a maintenance component. How can the Plan address changing needs. Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2012 Page 3 of 5 How does the 1% for arts program relate to parks. Functional hierarchy and what role do state and county parks within the City have in the parks inventory and plan. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan / Parks Plan relationship, it was noted that the Comprehensive Plan expresses the community's wishes and functional plans adopted by the City should be the more detailed implementation of Comprehensive Plan goals. The overarching policy and the implementing regulations can't be inconsistent. Other issues discussed included linking goals and policies to measurable objectives within the plan. If you have benchmarks and timelines that gives you something to aim for even if they are not met. It is good to have goals but also measurable objectives. The need for good glossary definitions was noted. The Plan tells future Councils and staff some continuity so things are not done contrary to public desire. Comments were made about the importance of plans for posterity and that institutional history should be included in functional plans. It was generally agreed that a functional plan basically provides greater specificity than the Comprehensive Plan and contains objectives that are implementable and measurable and provides guidance for the purpose and intent that is enduring overtime. It was also suggested that a preamble should state that the plan is specifically for community members. Discussion ensued about parks funding and volunteerism in the parks. Parks Board and Planning Commission Discussion Mr. Sepler thanked attendees for their testimony and reminded everyone that the meeting will remain on line so that the entire discussion can be reviewed. Mr. Berberich and Ms. Sikes spoke on behalf of the Parks Board on their process to date. Ms. Sikes noted that Mr. Bubnick did a good job of taking public comment into account and changing the draft plan to respond. Ms. Bowman commented on the need for more definitive guidelines about the purpose of functional plans and the process for updating functional plans. She indicated she would not be willing to go forward on drafting a new plan without knowing the best practices for updating functional plans. There was further discussion regarding scheduling and assignments to the sub- committee. Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2012 Page 4 of 5 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. on motion by Emery, second by Bowman. Attest: Planningtomrra s 47{pair ;Ab City Clerk's Office Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2012 Page 5 of 5