Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042606 MinutesCity of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting Minutes • Wednesday, April 26, 2006 — 7:00 PM Fire Hall Conference Room Meeting Materials: Exh 1. Agenda Exh 2. Surber memo to Planning Commission, "Staff Recommended Comprehensive Plan Amendments" (26 pages), April 19, 2006. Exh 3. Attachment 1 to Exh. 2: Map labeled Possible Rezone — Currently R-11. Exh 4. Attachment 2 to Exh 2: Torres letter to Surber, "Proposed 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update Related to the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal, March 23, 2006. Exh 5. Attachment 3 to Exh 2: Map labeled Revisit R -II Zoning within Shorelines Jurisdiction. Exh 6. Attachment 4 to Exh 2: Map labeled Revisit M-II(A) Overwater. Exh 7. Attachment 5 to Exh 2: Table 17.22.020, Marine -Related and Manufacturing Districts— Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses, pages 17-68, 69, 71, 73, and Insert 2 to 17-71. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 Pm by Chair Randels. it. ROLL CALL: Planning Commission members present were: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Cindy Thayer, and George Unterseher. Liesl Slabaugh was excused. • In response to an inquiry from Mr. Lizut, Char Randels confirmed that Jeff Kelety had resigned from the Planning Commission. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Chair Randels asked if anyone wished to suggest changes to the agenda. Ms. Thayer moved that the agenda be accepted, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Review of the draft minutes of March 9, 2006: Page 1, under Roll Call — Randel; add missing `s" Page 2 -- Upper Sims Way - He said that Howard St. would he connected from Hastings to Sims Way. Chair Randels moved to approve the minutes, as amended- Mr. Lizut seconded. All were in favor. Minutes of March 9, 2006 approved, as amended. Judy Surber asked if the e-mail had been getting through to everyone. Apparently, there were some temporary problems, which have now been resolved. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT — There were no guests present, and therefore, no comments. E that two should be the absolute minimum for what would constitute an official minority report from the Planning Commission. Ms. Thayer said that she agreed with Ms. King. Since there was no further discussion, Chair Randels called for a vote. There were two in favor and five opposed The motion failed 215/0. Rule 12:9: Chair Randels said that he had a different amendment to that same rule, 12.9, which deletes the word `full': To clarify, it is the old rule, retains the two (two person minimum for a minority report), drops full", and changes the departmental designation from BCD to DSD. Chair Randels moved for approval of the change. Mr. Lizut seconded. The vote on this proposal was unanimous, all in favor. The motion passed. 7/0/0. Rule 13: This proposal would update the departmental designation from Building and Community Development (BCD) to Development Services (DSD) in the introductory paragraph of Rule 13 and in the three instances in 13.3 where it applies. Mr. Lizut moved that the change be approved, and Mr. Randels seconded The vote on this proposal was unanimous, all in favor. The motion passed. • 7/0/0. Rule 3.2: This proposal changes the date of election to January. (Although this was thought to have been done in the past, no record of the change could be located.) Mr. Lizut moved that the change be approved, and Mr. Randels seconded Allwere in favor. Motion passed: 7/0/0. Rule 2.1: This changes the Planning Commission regular meetings from the 20d and last to the 2"d and 4'h Thursdays of the month. Mr. Lizut moved and Mr. Randels seconded Motion passed. 71010. • VII. NEW BUSINESS: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Docket Chair Randels asked Judy Surber, Senior Planner, to lead the presentation and discussion. Ms. Surber gave a brief introduction on the Comprehensive Plan update process, particularly for Mr. Unterseher, who had very recently joined the Planning Commission and not been present for previous Comp Plan or SMP Update processes. Introduction — Comprehensive Plan amendments to the text are not done every year. Certain years are designated as Implementation Years, when only formal applications (involving a paid application, e.g. for rezoning of a particular piece of private property) are accepted; these types of applications are always placed on the docket, regardless of the year. However, "suggested amendments" are accepted/considered only in certain years and not others, as outlined in the Code. These amendments are subject to a docketing process. The suggested amendment comes from the public to the Planning Commission, which may docket the item, meaning that it is deemed worthy of consideration in that year. The recommendation to City Council is not an intention to approve; it means it is deserving of consideration at this point in time, given current priorities and conditions. The City Council may then alter or approve the docket. At that point, staff is directed to do the environmental review, additional public notice, and to take the specific amendments through the hearing process to a final decision by City Council in the fall of the year. She said that the Planning Commission would be likely to ask for additional information on certain items as they are being reviewed. • This year, being in a suggested amendment cycle, is somewhat unusual. Staff had suggested amendments due to the recent completion of the SMP update process. That is, some of the language that Make the area along the shore from Boat Haven to City Limits consistent with other over -water zoning. • Chair Randels suggested that the existing M -HA designation there may relate to the historic presence of the Railroad there. Ms. Thayer moved that Items 1— 4 be docketed Mr. Lizat seconded There was no further discussion. All were in favor. Motion passed 71010. Item 5 — Reference N-7. Ms. Surber explained that many of these refer to the fact that the Urban Waterfront Plan (UWP) will be retired, with all relevant sections replaced by the SMP Update. This item would officially retire the U WP. Chau Randels questioned the need to retire the UWP, stating that he felt it contained much that was worthwhile, and fearing that every bit of it may not have been incorporated into the SMP. Ms. Capron asked if the SAG had carefully compared the two plans. Ms. Surber recalled that David Robison, SAG member, has worked as a staff planner when the UWP had been adopted. She also noted that there had been no concerns expressed by current staff when informed that the UWP would be retired. She explained that the UWP had been codified in the Municipal Code under the Historic Design Review sections. She said that after migration of all the policies and regulations, what remained was Appendix G, i.e. Public Access Enhancement Projects. Ms. Thayer suggested that the item be docketed, deferring further evaluation until a later time, and Chair Randels agreed that was appropriate. Items 6, 7, 8 — These refer to simple or basic changes to the Comp Plan to achieve completeness and/or language consistency with the SMP, or to eliminate redundancy. Item 9 — Revision is advised to make Policy 9.10 reflect the limited range of non -water uses for Point Hudson, as it does not currently acknowledge non -water uses at Point Hudson or the Boat Haven. Chair Randels asked if the SMP provisions relevant to Indian Point should be reflected here, or in some other Comp Plan policy. After brief consideration, Ms. Surber said that she would make a note to add a • change to the zoning items list to reflect those provisions, and also recheck for any other needed Comp Plan changes. Item 10 — Modify or delete Policy 9.11 and refer to SMP. No further discussion. Item 11— These are opportunities for achieving consistency with Chapter 4 of the SMP. Of particular note is 17.2; there is an error predating the recent SMP Update, regarding the order of preference that is spelled out by the Shoreline Management Act. The policy should say "Manage shorelines ofstatewide significance according to the order...: ' Mr. Randels asked for clarification of "Public Trust Doctrine principles" in 17.3. Ms. Surber responded that this doctrine is based on English common law that says the public has the right to pass over private property. In the case of shoreline areas that are subject to inundation by tidal influences, the public is to be allowed passage. They may not stop and camp or fish, or dig up clams, for example, but they may pass by. Item 12 — Ms. Surber said that the Ordinance 2539 (adopting of the SMP in 1996) will not be revised, but the fact that the UWP is being retired will be reflected in the new ordinance adopting these Comp Plan changes. Item 13 through 19 — These are sections to be updated to reflect incorporation of the UWP into the SMP, and/or retirement of the UWP. In Item 19, Ms. Surber confirmed, based on Mr. Randels' question, that a new SMP overlay zone incorporates the existing Urban Waterfront District. Item 20 — The revision is to reflect adaptive re -use of the Point Hudson Station buildings. Item 21 — This is to acknowledge that the draft Point Hudson Master Plan was never adopted, and that • references to future Port property planning should be revised. the size of an individual restaurant. This change would now limit the size of one restaurant to 3,500 • square feet, and two restaurants to a total of 5,000 square feet. Ms. Thayer proposed that all of the remaining preceding items be added to the docket. Mr. Randels seconded All were in favor. Motion passed. 7/0/0. VIII. UPCOMING MEETING: Chair Randels reminded that the new schedule is in effect, i.e. second and fourth Thursdays of the month. Ms. Surber said that the schedule for May is uncertain. She mentioned that Mr. Sepler, who was unable to attend this meeting, may have some Transportation issues for the agenda in the near future. Chair Randels said that the next meeting date would be announced when available. Travel plans: Chair Randels said that his travel plans for August have been cancelled. Ms. Thayer said she would absent in June and October; Ms. Capron will be absent in May. IX. COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Seminar -- Ms. Surber had distributed an information sheet on an APA (American Planning Association) short course on Local Planning, in Gig Harbor on Tuesday, May 2, 2006; this session is offered at no charge. This course is recommended for new planners and planning commissioners. Pre -registration is required. Upcoming Award for the SMP -- The APA conference will include an award ceremony in which Ms. Surber and several colleagues including the Port of Port Townsend, Barbara Nightengale, Wayne • Carlson, and Paul Ingram, will receive an award for the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Plan. A presentation to City Council by an APA representative will also be arranged for a later date. DOE Review — Ms. Surber said that the DOE will accept comments now that it has been accepted as a complete package; the formal notice will be coming out very soon. X. ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned, and Mr. Lizut seconded There were no objections. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:26 PM. Zlx7,l' �ce Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder 0