Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011906 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00PM City Hall Annex, 3'd Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH I. Randels, "Resolution" (Proposed Amendments to the Port Townsend Planning Connnission Rules of Procedure) EXH 2. Surber, Table: Comprehensive Long Range Workplan and Tracking (undated draft) EXH 3. Port Townsend Municipal Code, Table 20.04.35, Schedule for Suggested and Formal Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Updates EXH 4. Agenda, Planning Commission, January 19,2006 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Randels. 11. ROLL CALL: Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer, and George Unterseher. Jeff Kelety was excused. Introductions: Before moving on to acceptance of the agenda, Chair Randels explained that in keeping with tradition, he would ask the newest Commissioner, Mr. George Unterseher, to say a few words about himself, his background, and his interest in the Planning Commission. Mr. Unterseher said that he had lived in Port Townsend for three years, and loved living here. He had recently been serving as Project Manager for the T fee House Development, and considered himself to be semi-retired. He described his background as eclectic, having been involved in many different businesses including manufacturing, building, and other areas. Ms. Surber and each of the incumbent Commissioners then foHowed suit with a brief round ofshon self- introductions and background infonnation. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Randels asked if auyone wished to suggest changes to the agenda. Ms. Surber asked if the Commissioners would like a tour of the new facilities. The group then took a brief tOUT of the City Annex third floor, which is the new location for the Long Range Planning, Development Services and Public Works Departments. Following the tour, 11.15. Thayer moved that the agenda be accepted, as amended; Mr. Emery seconded; all were in favor. The agenda lvas approved, as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Review of the draft minutes for December I, 2005 Page 1, item 3, Mr. Emery seconded Page 2, item B 5, ] 51 paragraph: "There were none. " Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19,2006 Page 1 . . . Page 8, paragraph 2, line: reference to PT Retail; Mr. Randels suggested PT Lumber. (Note: PT Retail is the name given to the remodeling of the former PT Lwnber building by the developer, and generally recognized/used by city staff.) Page 8, who is the DSD Director, not so is the.... A1s. Thayer moved that the minutes of December 1 be approved, as amended. Mr. Lizut seconded; all were in favor. Review of the draft minutes for December 8, 2005: Page I, item Ill: Mr. Emery seconded, not accepted.... Page 2, under 2. Housing Needs..., last sentence: related legislative proposals... Page 3, item 8, line 2: change this year to in 2006. Page 5, paragraph beginning Ms. Thayer should read as follows: Ms. Thayer expressed a concern about an apparent communication lapse bet}'peen the Commission and the Council, specifically in the case of the Adult Entertainment proposal. She expressed a concern that, in this case, when the Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to City Council, the city attorney may have left the City Council with the impression that certain issues and ordinance provisions had not been discussed at the Planning Commission level. }Js. Thayer moved that the minutes of December 8 be approved, as amended. J.\1r. Lizut seconded; all were in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS A. General Public Comment - There were no guests present and, therefore, no conunents. B. Election of Officers - Chair Raudels said that iu preparing for the meeting, he had noticed that the Rules of Procedure stated that election of officers should be held iu November of each year. Ms. Thayer recalled that that rule had been amended at some point in the past. Since Mr. Raudels had drafted several rules changes for consideration (EXH. I, Meeting Materials), he suggested that the update of the Rules notebooks be deferred untj] after all the proposed changes had been considered and addressed. ~l1s. Thayer moved that the existing officers, Chair Randels and Vice Chair King, be reelected for an additional year. Mr. Randels said that he was amenable to that, and asked Ms. King for her response. She said that she had been Vice Chair for two years, and that she would like to nominate Ms. Slabaugh. Ms. Thayer withdrew her nomination. Mr. Lizut nominated George Randels as Chair and Liesl Slabaugh as Vice Chair. Ms. Thayer seconded the motion. Mr. Randels asked for any other nominations; there were none. The results of the roll call vote were: six infavor (Capron, Emery, King, Lizut, Thayer, Unterseher), with 2 abstentions (Randels, Slabaugh). The motion passed: 6/0/2. In response to a question from Ms. Thayer regarding the need for a roll call vote, Ms. Surber said that Mr. Watts, City attorney, had verified that secret ballots are not permitted, and that names must be assigned to votes. Mr. Rande1s added that that particular provision was also not in his copy of the Rules and, perhaps, this was an indication of the need for additional Rules amendments. C. Planning Commission: 2005 Wrap Up and 2006 Planning Session (continued) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19,2006 Page 2 . Ms. Surber said that on December 8, the Planning Commission had begun to discuss a transmittal to City COWlcil that would convey recommendations in several areas. One was procedural, relating to the proposal drafted by Chair Randels (Exh. I). Another was possible ways to improve communication between the Planning Commission and City Council. The third was recommendations for prioritizing the work plan for the Planning Commission. At the previous meeting, the list of issnes completed in 2005 had been reviewed, and staff had also led discussion of the list of Comprehensive Plan directives. Ms. Surber said that she planned to get into more detail on the 2006 W orkplan development, if Mr. Randels would like to frrst discuss the proposed procedural changes. Prnposed Changes to the Rules - Mr. Randels distributed copies ofExh. ] and asked that Commissioners consider these before the next meeting. At that time, they could be approved as v.rriUen, or otherwise amended. Ms. Thayer suggested that they be reviewed by the city attorney. Mr. Randels asked Ms. Surber to handle that item with Mr. Watts. Proposed Procedural Changes (Exh. I): . 1. Rule 2.], Meeting schedule, The proposal is to change the standing meeting schedule to 2"d and 4'h Thursdays of the month, instead of the current 2"d and last Thursday of the month. There was apparent agreement, and no further discussion. 2. Rule 12.9, Minority opinion/report - The proposal is to permit a minority opinion of one (or more), in the case of a split vote, to be submitted to City Council. At present, at least two Commissioners are required. Several commissioners expressed preference for maintaining the status quo. Ms. King said that a single dissenting commissioner was still free to communicate with the City Council as a private citizen. There was a brief discussion about the limited options for communicating with the City Council, and the recognition that protocols could change along with the Council membership. The commissioners agreed to consider the matter, at least until the next meeting. 3. Rule 13, Update department name, Building and Community Development (BCD) has been changed to Development Services Department ( DSD), and the Rules should be updated to reflect that. Ms. Surber said that she would have the language reviewed by Mr. Walts, and anticipated that it would take the form of a resolution by City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Randels said that he did not believe such a change required City Council action, noting tliat the existing Rules had been signed by a former Chairperson, Cindy Thayer, i.e. not by the City Councilor mayor. Work plan Development Ms. Surber began by noting that Planning Commissions typically serve two roles: quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. In Port To~nsend, any quasi-judicial proceedings now go through the hearings examiner, rather than the Planning Commission. The primary role of the Planning Commission is quasi- legislative, centered around '-"Titing and maintaining a Comprehensive Plan. This includes developing the plan, monitoring its progress and amending it when necessary. The Municipal Code, Title 20, includes the schedule (Exh.3) and the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan. . In the past, amendments to the Comp Plan were cousidered and allowed annually. The set of applications received by March I would be bundled on one docket, and heard/considered as a package. The approval is a collective approval, ensuring a balanced consideration of all factors. The schedule now reserves certain years for implementation of policies. Implementation steps can take the form of projects, seeking fimding, coordinating with other agencies, or working on sub-area plans. The year 2006 is an implementation year, and 2007 is designated as a mid-cycle assessment year. Formal applications are always accepted, no matter what year it is. For example, a property owner may apply for a rezone, pay the fees, and the applications will be processed in that year. However, suggested amendments that affect the city on a broader scale are only considered by the Planning Conunission in Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2006 Page 3 . Phase I and during the mid,cycle assessment year of each seven,year update. If the city encountered some urgent situation or need, an exception to the schedule would be considered. The Comprehensive pran amendment process involves the Planning Commission's assessment of the Plan. Part of that is monitoring its success. The policies, goals, implementation policies and regulations in the Municipal Code are intended to carry out the directives and create the community vision as stated in the Camp Plan. The assessment is a review that looks at types and rates of change: population gro-wth, any changes in state regulations that necessitate or amendments in the Camp Plan, or new technology opportunities/issues. This would also be the time to look at the community vision, and ask whether or not the community focus, support and priorities are the same as when the Plan was adopted in 1996. Community outreach would be particularly important in this phase, possibly including smaller breakout sessions for neighborhoods and interest groups. Normally, since 2006 is an implementation year, there would be no amendments. However, the Shoreliue Master Plan (SMP) Update has just been completed, and the Comp Plan must be consistent with the SMP. Certain updates to the SMP would require changes to the Comp Plan. Ms. Surber said that those items need to be identified and ready for the Planning Commission by March I, in appropriate format, with strikeout and underline language. Mr. Randels asked if the date was based on the Department of Ecology's (DOE's) expected response to the SMP submitted by the City. Ms. Surber explained that formal applications are due by March I, so suggested amendments should be ready at the same time. She said that the tentative docket would be prepared in advance and await the DOE response expected in April. . Mr. Randels asked where the benchmark process ( listed on page 16 ofExh. 2, under Additional Items) fits in with the overall process and schedule. Ms. Surher said that "benchmark reports! indicators" had been conceived as a mechanism to ensure that the Camp Plan is achieving its goals. She will be meeting with consultant Eric Toews of Cascadia Planning to determine the status of the benchmark process that he had been developing. Mr. Randels recalled that the Planning Commission and the City Council had participated in a prioritizing session with Mr. Toews about two years ago, related to the benchmark process, but did not think it had been finalized. Ms. Surber next explained that she had taken the planning document prepared by Mr. Randall, and converted it to a table in two major sections: Completed items and Ongoing Projects_ The table is a work in progress, and win be expanded to include changes/projects done within the past four years. Ongoing Projects Ms. Surber then walked through the Ongoing Projects list, noting scope, plans, additional status information, significant questions or issues for each project. Her intention was to identify that body of work that has already been committed to, and to indicate the anticipated role of the Planning Commission in them. The ongoing projects of particular interest to the Planning Commission include: Housing Needs Assessment for Port Tuwnsend and East Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Transmittal and Revisions The table includes a list of anticipated Comp Plan amendments Shoreline Comp Plan/Zoning Amendments Transportation Plan Note on WSF Parking: As long as the Washington State Ferry alternative parking and queuing provisions are consistent with zoning, the Planning Commission will not need to be involved in this project. . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19,2006 Page 4 . Comp Plan Directives, Ms. Surber said that in several circumstances, although the Planning Commission would not need to be involved in reviewing design or concept~ they might decide to express opinion as to priority or timing of implementation. The items in this category that may be of particular interest to the Planning Commission include: . Land Use Element Howard StreetIDiscovety Road Master Plan Point Hudson Master Plan ( However, this is now a rather low priority.) Shoreline Element ( listed in Ongoing projects) Housing Element ( Consider these projects after Housing Needs Assessment) Neighborhood Rehabilitation (In 2007, consider sharing Housing Needs Assessment results with neighborhood communities, and obtaining feedback.) Infrastructure to multifamily housing - (In the case of significant implementation difficulty, the Planning Commission may wish to review and consider alternative solutions.) Mr. Randels inquired about a comparison of zoning and infrastructure maps. Ms. Thayer confirmed that that had been done in 1996, when the Plan was developed. Transportation Element LID, Limited Improvement District, (This ties in with the SimsiHoward Street LID project) Economic Development Element College (There was uncertainty about the status ofDNR land swap discussions.) Cultural Tourism (This directive/project requires clarification.) Gateway Development ( High priority; also related to the Sims/Howard St. LID, ete) Port Infrastructure (Grant-funded recent activity and ongoing work will require coordination.) Plans to include the Tide(y) Bowl still pending, due to artist non,responsiveness. (Mr. Emery asked if the concrete scrap next to Pope Marine would be cleaned up; Ms. Surber made note to investigate options.) SMP (Draft) Directive Shoreline Restoration Projects: Create Evaluation Scorecard - (There was a brief discussion about the feasibility, advisability and utility of this item, with somewhat mixed opinions from Commissioners on the likely value of such an effort. Additional Items For Consideration: These are not directed by the Comprehensive Plan but have been mentioned by Council members, Commissioners, or staff as worthy of consideration. . The items in this category that may be of particular interest to the Pla1llling Commission include: Benchmarks Report Neighborhood Input Process ADDs and Tourist Accommodations ( Several specific issues requiring consideration are listed.) Mr. Randels added the issue: " Should developers, as well as owners, be permitted to build an ADU in conjunction with a new single family dwelling, ifhe believes the market will bear it?" Dark Skies Height Kah Tai Master Plan (Chair Randels mentioned that the lease expires in 2012.) Lot standards Strengthen Sub,Division Regulation (added by Mr. Randels) Encourage Planned Unit Developmeuts (added by Mr. Randels) Mr. Untersheher commented that, in his experience with Tree House, he finds the city to be IOvery, very happy with the results of... getting 30 houses in the middle of five acres, but the process of getting to that is extremely difficult", because there are too many unknowns and the rules do not explicitly cover every situation and aspect of such projects. Chair Randels said that that particular project was underway before the Cottage Ordinance existed, and that would have been part of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2006 Page 5 . . . difficulty. After a brief discussion, joined by Ms. Thayer and Ms. Surber, Mr. Raudels suggested that perhaps this aud the preceding topic be joined aud broadened to encompass the entire subdivision process. There was no further discussion. Mansions, and "Tear Down" Restrictions Home Schooling, and relationship to Home Occupation (including class size limitations) Mixed Use Districts Sign Code Update (High priority) Vacation Rentals/transient accommodations. enforcement ( High Priority) Walkable Community Mr. Lizut noted that it would be well to start thinking about this as a long term goal, aud to lay the foundation by clarifying concepts and setting the tone for future progress. Ms. Slabaugh excused herselffrom the meeting at 8:30 PM Other Farmer's Market Relocation Memorial field, Long term viability Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) County/City, Commissioners discussed the value of this particular county initiative which seeks to preserve open space and critical areas by identifying/designating other specific areas for increased density. Mr. Randels said that he would broaden the question: "Do we need development incentives that encourage various end results or conditions? Mr. Lizut spoke in favor of any options, such as TDRs, that can serve as tools to solve particular problems and/or achieve a better overall environment for the community. Ms. Surber noted that this project would be a large undertaking, but if it were coupled with another goal/initiative such as Walkable Community with an appropriate time allocation, it could be a successful undertaking. Washington State Ferries Alternative Terminal Location Ms. Surber noted that WSF will not undertake a relocation effort unless the local jurisdiction initiates. There was a brief discussion about planned maintenance/upgrades, cost sharing, and the need to consider what the current Ferry location contributes to the local economy. Improving Efficiency Ms. Surber pointed out that this is a group of staff projects aimed at simplifying and streamlining existing processes. CAO Procedures Mauual (Stall) CAO Mapping (Stall) Mr. Randels added the Overlay between CAO and Shorelines. Mr. Randels raised the issue of Vacant City-o\Vl1ed Land as one more item that should be considered for the substantive list. That is, conducting a survey/inventory and recommendations for use, disposition or sale, in the long term or temporarily. He mentioned, as example, temporary use of otherwise unused rights of way. Mr. Emery recalled that Jeff Raudall, in connection with the Affordable Housing Committee, had discussed a similar inventory of city,owned non,utility property; anything held for utility trust must remain in that category. Ms. Thayer said that she didn't think there were enough non,utility laud holdiugs to warrant the effort. Mr. Emery stated that he thought that was Mr. Randall's finding, as well. Mr. Randels stated that he believed that if the city wished to sell or dispose of land that is not necessary for utility purposes, they could do so. Ms. Surber added that a surplus list had been generated, so that a mapping of vacant land is available, but was unaware of any recent action on it. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19,2006 Page 6 . . . Mr. Randels recalled that when he served on the Golf Course Task Force, they discovered a piece of valuable land (about 3 acres) in the Golf Course parcel, but located across the street, that was unused except for intermittent church parking. He said that the value of the property would finance a significant amount of capital improvement at the golf course. He said that there may be similar situations with other city holdings, or opportunities to lease rights of way to private citizens. Other commissioners and Ms. Surber pointed out likely complications, and that the city only owns the right to use such property for utilities or for streets. Me Lizut restated the need to at least verify exactly the city-owned acreage that is not otherwise restricted or reserved for utilities. There was agreement to add this item to the list. Ms. Surber then repeated the list of definite major projects: Housing Needs Assessment, Shoreline Master Program finalization, Comprehensive Plan Amendments associated with the SMP. Ms. Thayer said that she would like to move to add the Sign Code, and Mr. Lizut said he seconded that. Chair Randels interjected that there was question as to process: Should the Commission vote by motion and approval on each individual project? He said that perhaps the real question was how the Planning Commission recommendations would be presented to City Council. Ms. Surber noted that it would best to prepare and send the recommendation to City Council before their retreat on February 4,2005. Mr. Lizut suggested a prioritization process that could be handled by e,mail, but Ms. Surber advised that the meeting forum was necessary for that purpose. There was a brief discussion about how many projects could reasonably be included for the year, and about which issues were most important. Ms. Thayer asked for a show of hands by those who considered Sign Code to be a very high priority; at least six out of the seven present were in favor. Similarly, more than a majority thought Mansions were a really high priority. Chair Randels pointed out that he saw the Mansion, Height items as being parts of a group of issues that should be considered together as Land Use, including Subdivisions. Ms. Thayer believed that there should be two or three smaller groupings. Ms. Surber pointed out that the issues could logically grouped under Title 17 ( Single Parcel and ADUs) and Title 18 ( Subdivisions and Lot Standards). After further consideration of scope and timing factors, the commission members agreed to the following list: Ongoing Projects, as listed above Siguage or Sign Code Height, Mansions and View Equity package Subdivision package There was agreement that the transmittal to City Council would focus on Planning Commission work priorities and convey the above recommendations. Chair Randels offered to draft a letter to City Council; Ms. Surber said she would then review it and circulate it to other Commissioners members. Ms Surber will then handle the formal transmittal. She will also update the Workplan document to reflect any changes or additional information from this meeting. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. vm UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19,2006 Page 7 . . . February 9,2006 at 7:00PM, agenda to be determined. IX. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Emery seconded,' all were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM George Randels, Chair 4../4~ Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 19,2006 Page 8