Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030906 Minutes . . . City of Port Townsend PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, March 9, 20067:00 PM City Hall Annex, Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: I. PowerPoint Presentation: Citv of Port Townsend 2006 Work Plans, Highlighting Public Works Issues, March 9, 2006, by Ken Clow 2. Draft Resolutions, proposed amendments to Rules 2.],3.2, 12.9, and ]3 of the Port Townsend Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, from George Randels, March 9,2006 3. Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, March 9, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair George Randels n. ROLL CALL: Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Harriet Capron, Alice King, Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer, and George Unterseher. Steve ErneI)' and Roger Lizut were excused. Ill. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Randels suggested that the presentation by Public Works be moved to the top of the agenda, holding other business until completion of the presentation. There were no objections. IV. NEW BUSINESS: Overview of Public Works Projects - Presentation by Ken Clow and David Peterson Judy Surber, senior planner, noted tllat during preceding Planning Commission work plan sessions, many Public Works Department projects had been mentioned. Chair Randels had asked if Public Works representatives would be willing to share their plans with the Planning Commission. Ken Clow, Director of Public Works, and Dave Peterson, City Engineer, were on hand to present the overview that had recently been given to City Council. Mr. Clow provided copies of the PowerPoint slide presentation, entitled "City of Port Townsend, 2006 Work Plans Highlighting Public Works Issues" ( Exh. I). [Note: Exh.1 documents all major concepts, talking points, and project status covered in the presentation. Accordingly, this portion of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is summarized only.] Mr. Clow explained that this material had been presented to City Council about three weeks earlier by David Timmons, City Manager. He said the intention was to describe the Public Works projects within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and all the infrastructure work going on in the City, past and present. As City Council continues its own planning process, there may be some additional ideas or shifts in priorities. However, he expects the capital projects to remain much as described. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 9, 2006 Page I . The overall functions of Public Works can be broadly categorized under: day to day service demands, capital projects, and policy initiatives. The challenge is maintaining appropriate balance between long term and day to day operations and services. Mr. Clow noted that Port Townsend, despite its small size, is a full service city, and does not partner with county agencies or neighboring communities for a significant portion of its services. There are uneven capacity demands due to seasonal population fluctuations. City finances have not risen at a comparable rate to the service needs. Additionally, the City has had to absorb more than $1,000,000 in expenditures for parks, the jail, and the pool without a comparable growth in new revenue. Growth has come at the expense of capital investment. The bulk of deferred maintenance has occurred in general government facilities and streets. Day to day service demands -The presentation includes a list of Annual Activities, with Public Works activities shown in bold. These are further broken down into: intergovernmental groupslboards/committees, citizen requests, and ongoing management functions such as budgeting, personnel support, IT support, contract performance, records management, etc. Mr. Clow noted that during the course of a year, the Public Works Department (PWD) is working with three budgets: closing out the previous year's budget, developing and managing the current year budget, and preparing for the following year. Capital Projects - Major 2005 carryover projects include: Skate Park, City Hall Restoration, and Fire Station Closeout. A significant set of 2006 commitments (6) includes: Upper Sims WayIHoward Street, Wave Gallel)', Downtown Streetscapes and others. Many of these projects are funded by state and federal grants. Additionally, the plan includes 12 Start Up projects in 2006, which Mr. Clow described in brief. . Capital Improvement Program, Historical View - Mr. Clow briefly reviewed an extensive list of major system accomplishments by categol)', and by year, since 1994: Water System, Wastewater System, Transportation, Stormwater System, Facilities, and Non-Motorized Transportation. Policy Initiatives - Mr. Clow briefly described the status of the list of 2005 Carryover Projects, including the Shoreline Master Plan, Adult Entertainment, and Fire District Consolidation. For 2006, Public Works projects of note are the Water System Plan Update, and Storm Water Plan in 2005, and Transportation Plan, as well as Upper Sims Way Development Policy in 2006. Upper Sims Way/ Howard Street - Following Mr. Clow's overview, David Peterson described the options and plans for the Upper Sims WayIHoward Street project. One of the major goals is to provide an alternate route into and out of Port Townsend. Mr. Peterson distributed two design options for handling ingress and egress traffic to/from Port Townsend. He said that the project is aimed at connecting Upper Sims Way with Discovel)' Road, and at improving the intersection at Sims Way and Howard Street. He noted that decisions about the use of one or more round-abouts, and a traffic light were pending. A transportation finn has been hired to assist in the project, and there will also be an urban design consultant to assist in the visioning and design for this corridor, including sidewalk specifications, street furniture, and lighting, etc. He said that eventually Howard Street would be connected through from Hastings Street to Sims Way. Mr. Randels suggested that the Design Review Committee be included in this project. Mr. Peterson said that they hoped to create a public process that would accommodate all viewpoints, and agreed that the Design Review committee would likely be vel)' helpful here. . Planning Commission MeetingMinutes for March 9, 2006 Page 2 . Questions from the Plannini! Commission: Mr. Unterseher asked for more information on the Transportation Plan. Mr. Clow said that in conjunction with the Transportation Committee, Public Works would be developing an overall Transportation Plan that would include parking, and both non-motorized and motorized transportation. He said that a downtown parking plan had been developed two years ago, and noted the non-motorized plan had been developed sometime ago. The goal is to integrate all related aspects of transportation, including arterial streets, ferries, parking etc. into one plan. Ms. Capron asked about staffing levels. Mr. Clow said that there is a fluctuating pool of about 50 people who work in various capacities: part-time, seasonal, contract basis, or full-time. He praised his staff for their dedication and competence. Ms. Capron asked who would be making the major decisions, i.e. round-abouts?, locations? Mr. Peterson said that City Council would be the ultimate decision makers. The project team will be collecting information (technical, aesthetic, safety, cost, etc.) and making a recommendation. Mr. Clow noted that, in this case, there was no totally clear technical answer; costs, space and projected capacities are about equal for the two major options. Mr. Randels asked about the expected time frame. Mr. Peterson said that the initial concept was to put the intersection in first, but there is the possibility of putting the street in first. Some portion could be in place by next summer (2007). Funding for the design phase will depend on grants or some other special process such as an LID. . Mr. Unterseher asked about assumptions on projected growth. Ms. Surber and several commissioners noted that the Comprehensive Plan had recently been updated with adjusted projections: estimated city population between 13,000 and 14,000, within 20 years, Mr. Unterseher wondered whether there were city/regional plans in place and/or provisions for a rapid shift in demographics, if there should be an influx of retiring "baby boomers". He noted that the price of land and the development of infrastructure would be significant factors. There was a brief discussion as to the likely accuracy of any projections, and several commissioners expressed their satisfaction with the Cornp Plan process. Ms. Surber noted that balance and diversification were ongoing planning goals. She noted the intention of city leaders and planners to avoid becoming strictly a tourism, retirement and healthcare city. . Mr. Randels asked for clarification on LIDs (local improvement district). Ifthat option were pursued, could an LID process pay for the entire project? [A Local Improvement District is a funding mechanism provided in State law that allows property owners to pay for a portion of a capital infrastructure project that will benefit their property. Under state law, the assessment to the property owner for the project cannot exceed the "special benefits" that the property owner receives due to the improvement.] Mr. Clow and Mr. Peterson spoke of the overall expense of the project, estimating about $3,000,000, and the complexity of an LID process. The process would entail hiring an expert to determine the increased value of the surrounding properties based on the improvements made, i.e. the traffic signal, intersection and extension of Howard St. The aggregate increase becomes the pool of money that may be assessed out to the local property owners. The property owners may contest the formation of the LID; 60% opposed can halt the process. If the process proceeds, property owners can still contest the assessments. Another issue is lack of experience among city staff with the LID process. However, it is possible to combine several funding sources or options, so that only a portion of the funds are derived from an LID process. They suggested that it may also be possible to develop an overall plan, but fund and implement in phases. Mr. Peterson said, based on his experience, he Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 9, 2006 Page 3 . . . was confident that if Port Townsend puts the right process in place, and obtains the right input, a good solution will emerge. Mr. Unterseher asked about the size of the Maintenance Facility on Redwood Street, and whether the sale of it could be used to fund facilities improvements. Mr. Clow estilll8ted the size to be about 3 acres. He said that such a strategy would need to be approved by City Council. The commissioners commended Mr. Clow and Mr. Peterson on the Public Works accomplishments, and on the informative presentation. (They were also urged to re-order the red poppy seed mix that was such a hit on the F Street project.) Judy Surber suggested that a tape ofthe presentation be llI8de available to all new City Council, Planning Commission, and staff members. Ms. Slabaugh left the meeting at 8:30 PM, as previously arranged. V. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: There were no corrections to the draft minutes of January 19, 2006. Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes of January ]9, 2006 be approved; Mr. Randels seconded. The minutes were approved, as written, all in favor. VI. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: [There were no guests present, and no public comments.] There was a brief discussion regarding the merits of including a general public comment period for each meeting, with agreement to continue this practice for future meetings. VII. OLD BUSINESS: Recommended Changes to Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Chair Randels explained that he had drafted amendments to the Rules 13 and 12.9, both of which had been discussed at the previous meeting. He had also drafted amendments to Rules 3.2 and 2.1 since documentation to verify these previously adopted changes could not be located. Mr. Randels suggested that Rule 12.9 be deferred until the other three (Rules 13, 3.2, and 2.1) have been adopted. He and Ms. Thayer then suggested that all four rules be held for action at the next meeting on March 30. Ms. King asked if deferring Rule 12.9 would affect the meeting on March 30, and the response was that it would not. Ms. King said that she would like to discuss Rule 12.9. After a brief discussion, she agreed to hold her comments for the March 30 meeting. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS: The next scheduled meeting ofthe Planning Commission will be held on March 30, 2006. Chair Randels brought up the meeting scheduling for April, noting that he had travel plans in mid April. The outcome of the discussion was confirmation of the March 30 meeting, during which Judy Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 9, 2006 Page 4 . . . Surber plans to present the 2006 Docket. If a later or additional meeting date is needed, in April, it will be held on April 6, instead of April 13. (Ms. Thayer said she would not be able to attend on April 6, but did not object to the change in schedule.) IX. COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Randels reported that he and Ms. Thayer had been invited to participate in the application review and interviewing process for the open Planning Director position. A third member of the Planning Commission nJaY be involved, schedule pennitting. He said the City had received nine applications, two of which were local. He described the process and schedule, and noted that interviews would be set up for five of the candidates during the following week. X. ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned; the motion was seeonded by Mr. Unterseher. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8: 41 PM. ~~ Gad Bernhard, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 9, 2006 Page 5