Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072706 Minutes e e e City ofport Townsend Planniog Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, July 27, 2006 --7:00 PM City Hall Annex, Third Floor Conference Room Meetiug Materials: EXH. I Planning Commission Agenda - July 27, 2006 EXH.2 J. Surber, July 20, 2006 Staff Memo reo Land Use Code Text Amendment, Amending Chapter 19.05, Critical Areas, to specifically include and make applicable as part of 19.05 - Critical Areas in the DOE 2005 Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM-WW (2005)), with Attachments 2.A, Draft Ordinance and 2.B, SEP A Addendum. EXH. 3 N. Dorgan, July 27, 2006, Comments to the Planning Commission reo LUP06-095 - Proposed Amendments to PTMC 19.05 Critical Areas Code EXH.4 Guest Sign-In Sheet I. CALI. TO ORDER: Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL: Planning Commission members present were: Harriet Capron, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, and George Unterseher. Steve Emery, Julian Ray, I.iesl Slabaugh, and Cindy Thayer were excused. Staff: Judy Surber was present for the entire meeting. Mr. Sepler attended the portion of the meeting devoted to Upper Sims Way and discussion with consultants John Owen (Partner), Stefani Lakey (Partner) and Brent Huizingh (Associate) of Makers Architecture and Urban Design. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: ChaiT Randels asked if anyone wished to suggest changes to the agenda. There were no changes_ Mr. Randels moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the agenda be approved as written. The agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Review of the draft minutes of June 15, 2006: There was one correction: page 5, to correct the spelling of Mr. Masci's name. Mr. Randels moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the minutes be approved as written. The minutes of the joint CDLU and Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 2006 were approved by the Planning Commission, all in favor. Review of the draft minutes of June 22, 2006: There were no corrections. Mr. Randels moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the minutes for June 22, 2006 be approved as written. The minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 2006 were approved, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBI.IC COMMENT: Chair Randels asked if any member of the audience wished to comment on any matter, prior to opening the New Business portion of the meeting. There were no conunents. VI. NEW BUSINESS: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2006 Page I oflO e e e Public Heariug - Land Use Code Text Amendment, Amending Chapter 19.05 Critical Areas. Proposal is to directly reference DOE 2005 Storm Water Mauagement MauuaJ. Chair Randels read the Rules of Order for public hearings in their entirety. He asked if any Commission members had interests, financial or property to disclose in cOlUlcction with this matter. There were none. Staff Presentation: Ms. Surber began by slating that City Attorney, John Watts had been working on this particular amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). She noted that the ESA (Enviromnentally Sensitive Areas) Ordinance had just been updated in July, 2005 when it had become the CAO. In June of2006, City Council had adopted another ordinance which changed chapter 13.2 of the Municipal Code and specifically requires that development within the City comply with the Department of Ecology (DOE) administered 2005 Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMM). This amendment is to specifically reference this Manual in the CAO. She said that currently the CAO refers one to the Engineering Design Standards and the Engineeriug Design Standards refer to the 2005 Manual. This is a more direct, specific reference to the 2005 SWMM in the CAO, and this is more consistent with the Growth Management Act and the requirement to use Best Available Science (BAS) when dealing with critical areas. Ms. Surher said that, unfortunately, Mr. Watts, the person most familiar with the history of the CAO and the appeal by Nancy Dorgan, is on vacation. She called attention to the communication from Ms. Dorgan (EXH. 3) that had been received via e-mail earlier in the day. Ms. Surber said that since staff had not been able to thoroughly study and consider Ms. Dorgan's comments, she would recommend that the Planning Commission open the hearing and take public testimony during this meeting, but continue the hearing until a later date, giving staff the opportunity to digest the information and respond appropriately. Ms. Surber suggested Thursday, August 3 for the continuation, since the City Council hearing for this topic had already been scheduled and noticed for Monday, August 7, 2006. Chair Randels deferred discussion of the schedule until later in the meeting. Public Testimony: Chair Randels opened the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. There were two citizens who had signed in and wished to speak. Nancv Dorgan. 2137 Washington Street. #7. Port Townsend. WA Ms. Dorgan stated that both the written staff report and the oral staff report contain an interesting distinction. That is, they state that the changes to the Storm Water code 13.32 specifically require development to use the ecology (DOE) manual, whereas the proposal as written and described is to specifically reference the ecology (DOE) manual. She said, "Tome there is a great difference between specifically requiring the use of the Manual and specifically referencing it. In the letter that I e-mailed to all of you this afternoon (and I apologize for you getting it so late -- I'm glad that there may be the possibility of continuing this, so that you have the chance to reaHy think about it; all of this is much more complex than it appears to be in the staff report and in the proposed language.), I sort of go through 8 pages of taking apart the specific references to the ecology manual that are being proposed, and I find fault with them. I'm happy that they are directly referencing the ecology manual, but I fmd fault with the overall proposal in that we are still not there. We are still not getting a critical areas code that simply and directly requires development in, and development impacting, critical areas to use the Best Available Science for storm water management, which the City agrees is the ecology (DOE) manual, the 2005 version. That is what I am trying to get out of this, I am trying to get very clear language." "Page 3 of my letter has an error that I would like to point out before I forget about it. It is on line 5 that starts "'This section does not meet GMA's BAS requirement because it does...". "'Please insert the word not (after the word does); that is the whole point of this. It does not require what I was just saying, i.e. "It does not require that all development in or impacting critical areas comply with BAS storm water Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2006 Page 2 of 10 e e e regulations." "I go on to say that this revision should be the most important focus of the Planning Commission's deliberations and recommendations."" "Rather than going through all the language tonight, it's a lot of talking and technical reading, you can read it...you can read my comments and criticisms. I just ask you in my testimony tonight to ask yourselves whether or not the proposed language does the job; I don't think it does. And I think that we need to fmish this; we have been at this fOT a year and we need to get something that is very clear. The background information which I have provided on page I and top paragraph of page 2, explains a little bit more than the staff report does about just what we are doing with LUP 06-095. And, at the bottom of page 1, I have a web link which is very interesting. It's a western growth court case that came out in December, 2005 that is quite relevant to the issues of this case. And this ruling came out after the Critical Areas code was adopted, and I think if we had had this information last summer, maybe things would have gone a lot differently. But nevertheless, there is the ruling and it is relevant to the case and that is some extra reading I would advise you to do if you decide to continue until next week." "I came tonight, I left a vacation in the San Juans sailing, so that 1 could be here and at least express my interest to you about all of this directly, and be available if there were any questions later during your deliberations. Thank you." Jim Todd, 1515 Fir Street, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Todd said that he had been following "this rather tortuous process about BAS in the Critical Areas area", and that he was very interested in ecological problems, He said that while he did not profess to be an expert, he had followed Ms. Dorgan's arguments, and attended the hearings boards. He said that, as an outsider, it has reaUy made him wonder why something as simple as applying BAS, when it involves critical areas, hadn't been resolved some time ago. He said that he is also concerned that the language should be crystal clear because "the fighting and law suits are usually about something where people can warne." He said that he really supports Ms. Dorgan's attempts "to make it crystal clear, so that we can move on to other problems in the City". Mr. Todd said that he hopes the Planning Commission will give it their consideration, and thanked them for their attention. Chair Randels thanked those who had testified. He asked if there were other comments from the public or questions or comments from the staff or Commission members. There were none. Chair Randels closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Planning Commission Deliberation: After explaining that the options for the Commission were either to discuss taking action or to propose deferring action and, if the latter, to talk about a schedule for doing so, Chair Randels opened the topic for comment. Mr. Lizut said that he believed Mr. Watts would not be returning until mid-August, and would therefore be unavailable for an August 3 continuation. He asked Ms. Surber whether or not Mr. Watts should be present for any conversation, if the Commission decided to defer action. Mr. Randels added that given Mr. Walls deep involvement in this issue he should be given every opportunity to conunent and share his wisdom with the Conunission. He said that he strongly urged the Commission to wait, despite the fact that this topic had already been scheduled and noticed for City Council. He said that if the goal was to pass it on to City Council for August 7, he would prefer to complete business in this meeting rather than call a special meeting for August 3, which would be disruptive to Commissioners' schedules and yet would not have benefit of Mr. Watts participation. Mr. Unterseher asked if there were any permits or applications currently pending approval that would be affected by action or inaction on this ordinance. There was a short delay while Ms. Surber conferred with Mr. Sepler about the schedule. She reported that it was acceptable to hold action until Mr. Watts return. Mr. Randels proposed that the continuation be scheduled for the fourth Thursday, August 24, which would allow the Commission to maintain their normal schedule. Mr. Lizut moved that action on the Critical Areas amendment be deferred until August 24, in conjunction with a request fOr Mr. Watts' ad-vice and/or testimony on the matter. Mr. Randels offered afriendly amendment to the effect that the Commission would also defer Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2006 Page 3 of I 0 e e e and reopen the public hearing on that date. Mr. Lizut accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Randels seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed unanimously: 5/0/0. B. Upper Sims Way Policy and Regulatory Review There was a short break to allow Mr. Sepler and the consultants to join the meeting. Chair Randels then asked Mr. Sepler to introduce the consultants and the Upper Sims agenda item. Mr. Sepler said that Makers team was selected to assist the City with planning for a variety of areas, predominantly the Upper Sims Way project, to address some of the early design issues, and help develop criteria so that we can evaluate reasonable alternatives for the area. He recalled that he had briefed the Planning Conunission on the backgroW1d and planning processes at a previous meeting. In doing so, he said, he had noted that the last focus plan was the Gateway Plan adopted in the early 1990's, and that many circumstances had changed. One of the things that he thought appropriate was to visit this body early in the process. He said that a full public workshop is intended for Upper Sims Way to discuss status, work tbat has heen done to date, and to discuss alternatives for development. The intention for this meeting was to chat informally prior to that meeting about the current status of plans that have been prepared, to discuss their applicability, opportunities the PlaMing Commission may have considered, and also to allow the consultants to ask questions, hear concerns, and assimilate background information. Mr. Sepler said that there was no prepared plan, and thaI this was the first step of the journey, and that there is no solution that has already been crafted. There was a brief round of self-introductions: John Owen (Partner), Stefani Lakey (Partner) and Brent Huizingh (Associate) of Makers Architecture and Urban Design, and each of the Planning Commission members present. Regarding prior experience with Port Townsend, Mr. Owen said that his firm had previously done some work in Point Hudson, and had been involved in the work at Union Wharf Mr. Owen said that until recently he had worked for 6 years with the Seattle Planning Commission. Mr. Owen explained that the team had gone through the Comprehensive Plan and Gateway Plan and pulled out a number of what appeared to be important items. He said that they would like to verifY their asswnptions with the Planning Commission, in that regard. He also noted that Ms. Lakey had done a site planning analysis which they would like to present and discuss. He said that the hope was to have a conversation about this project, in order to understand everyone's thinking about it. He added that they could also consider the schedule, including the public process that Mr. Sepler had been working on. Mr. Owen, using a site diagram, indicated the Upper Sims Way area, pointing out Howard Street and the intersection(s) under discussion. He said thaI their approach, having spoken with City Council and Mr. Sepler, is not so much as to ask about the intersection, but to ask about the area, its potential and expected role for and within the City, and to work backwards from that. If this is the vision for the area, what does that imply for the street? He said that that would be the generalized approach. He said that in looking at what the area should be like, it seemed clear from the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning policies that "this area is a new mixed use center." Noting the C-II MIU zone in brown on the diagram, he said that is was intended to create a focal point for new and emerging neighborhoods, to promote pedestrian-friendly areas, and to promote small-scale shopping. The second thing that the Comp Plan does is to adopt by reference the 1993 Gateway Plan. The third thing the Comp Plan does is to recognize that it (the Sims Way area) is an important part of the City's economic development strategy. A key point was that the Upper Sims area should be vital and active, but also serve the neighborhoods. In reviewing the land use designations, they found that the C- II M/U area should be doing small to moderate scale commercial uses serving local and city-wide markets, plus medium density multi-family residences, and promote neighborhood identity and walkability. This was also heard from City Council this afternoon. The uses allowed are: ground floor community/commercial and upper floor residential, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27,2006 Page 4 of 10 e e e and the maximum R-lII with lots of development capacity in that area. The maximum height was not specified. The C-II zone, the red area. is for uses outside neighborhood and mixed use, a different characteristic; it is for medium scale auto-oriented or other commercial, plus upper story residential. Instead of using FAR (Floor Area Ratio: the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of its site), it establishes a maximum floor area for any building in the district. The maximum height is 35 feet. Chair Randels asked if the consultants charge includes making recommendations for changes to the zoning designations if appropriate. Mr. Owen said that it does, if an issue arises, especially with regard to review and verification of the vision. Me Manufacturing, purple area: includes the industrial park, provides for manufacturing and commercial businesses that do not fit into the manufacturing and light industrial - a kind of hybrid zone. The uses are small scale manufacturing and on-site retailing, which is really what is already there. Height is 35 feet. He said that overall, this provides a mix, and the intention is to go back to the public and decision makers to verifY that this is what people want. To do that, the consultants will generate examples to illustrate and help people uuderstand what this means and how the area will evolve. He said that assuming that that vision can be conveyed and assimilated, the next step would be to revisit the zoning and capital infrastructure to make that happen. He said they also plan to work with the major property owner, First Western, to find out what they need to do development that the City would embrace. Fortunately, instead of doing a lot of market analysis and trying to guess what people want up there, the property owners will have that sense as we go through the process. Regarding the Gateway Plan, he said it has a set of goals that are very congruent with the Comp Plan and there is fairly high consistency with the zoning ordinances. He pointed out that it talks about the overall Gateway as you come into town, with the corridors of wooden areas, districts of commercial areas and rooms within the districts; the area under discussion is a room. He said that the Plan captures quite well, and begins to build on, the sense of entrance and sequence as one drives into town. He pointed out that the Plan identifies corridors as the natural areas, and that is where the topography changes, while the flat areas are where district.;;. and rooms and the development takes place. He cited various ways in which the Plan nicely explains and describes the long term vision. He said his general impression is that, with the Planning Commission's agreement, it might be well to stretch the guidelines somewhat in terms of size, height and use - to look somewhat beyond the current constraints to pursue something a little more intense, a little more diverse, a little more congruent with some of the guidelines in the Gateway Plan. Mr. Owen then asked for questions or comments. Mr. Randels suggested that the area diagram that had been prepared might be too narrow or limited in scope, especially considering the intention to work from '"'the big picture" downward. Mr. Unterseher, noting that he was a new Commission member, said that he assumed that all of this was connected under the Comprehensive Plan with the Transportation Plan, the Parking (or non-Parking) Plan, etc. - i.e. an overall long term plan. He said that he had never heard the "problem statement". Mr. Seplerreplied that in the adopted Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Howard Street was always identified as the north-south corridor. It was felt that when Howard Street went through, a lot of the undeveloped properties (which are currently developing right now) north of Discovery Bay Road would have direct connection to Sims; there is an opportunity to provide a commercial area that could provide some service. The Comp Plan only has limited discussion about Gateway. It refers to the Gateway area providing '"'needed goods and services for the Port Townsend community in beautiful background buildings." What has happened is that as site specific improvements came on to deal with the extension of Howard Street, an impasse came, i.e. how the intersection of Howard Street and Sims Way would be handled: traffic circle or stop-light. This became rather polarized at the Council level, and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27,2006 Page 5 of 10 e e e eventually came to a halt. He said that, at that time, City Council had taken a strictly technical view, assuming that one or the other solution must be superior. However, technical studies found that both would work (or not work) equally, the implication being that the choice should be made based on the visions and expectations for the area in terms of future development. Mr. Sepler said that the Comp Plan is fairly light in terms of its guidance for how to achieve the high level goals. Similarly, the reason for bringing in urban design consultants is to address this "classic urban design issue" - where you put your uses, in what combination, and how big those uses are will help to define your need. In conjunction with Makers, we have Transpo and W. H. Pacific; these people will help actualize whatever the community decides is the most appropriate way to proceed; we don't know that yet. There will be a public workshop during the second week of September to pick up on where that process stopped last time. The meeting tonight is intended as an opportunity for reviewing background, mutual sharing of questions and answers and voicing/exploring ideas and concerns. Mr. Unterseher added that he had a general concern; based on his experience, "we seem to be extremely process oriented in this to\Vll, and I've never yet, at any meeting, heard anyone start out -with the problem statement. Mr. Sepler said he would attempt to state that. "The City Council has directed staff to review existing policies, to determine which are appropriate or in need- of revision, proposed the revisions, so that the Howard Street corridor can be implemented successfully." And the reason is that they have revised their Transportation Improvement Plan to make the highest priority the implementation of Howard Street. So, the problem statement would he "What are the land uses and roadway configurations that we wish to see?" Mr. Randels said that he had read the Gateway Plan sometime ago, and his recollection was that it was pretty well done. He said that ifhe had to characterize it, he would say it had a suburban focus, and if updated, it may be well to make it more urban. Mr. Lizut noted that policy and implementation are two very different things. He said that what he would like to see is a purely functional statement of requirements, i.e. what needs to be done (without any reference to specific physical entities), before any discussion of how anything is to be done. He said that this is in recognition of the old principle that "form follows function". He said that if the consuhants could provide a functional matrix indicating the set of requirements for transportation, for sewer/waste water management, housing density, business development, land use development, ecology, etc., then a design philosophy could be developed which would drive the design itself. He reminded that this helps to ameliorate the emotional content by allowing the needs, as understood by all, to drive the design and decision-making. Mr. Owen suggested that Ms. Lakey move to the site planning overview. Ms. Lakey said that the team had spent some time with staff, walked the site, and prepared a draft analysis of the conditions to be considered in developing alternatives. She pointed out the Howard Street extension, out to the area that is to be developed into residential, the service areas, and the primary area boundary. She said the flat, open undeveloped area adjacent to Howard Street would be considered high opportunity and would be a primary study area. She also pointed out the Business Park sections, partially developed areas along Sims, and the forested gateway. She said that the draft summarizes their initial ideas, and that they would be happy to take additional suggestions or corrections from the Commissioners. Ms. Capron pointed out particular circle symbols on the diagram, which Ms. Lakey explained could be any manner of traffic management devices, including round-abouts or traffic lights. Ms. Capron noted her preference for round-abouts over other devices. All agreed to the desirability of deferring specific solutions until all fimdamental requirements had been established. Ms. Lakey and Mr. Huizingh asked for other input/suggestions, perhaps uses, services or facilities now missing from Port TO\vnsend. Mr. Sepler added, to clarify, that perhaps there were needs, commercial opportunities, or even housing types that may not even have existed 15 years ago - places where the Gateway Plan misses the mark because it is based on a very different land use assumption than what we are seeing now. Mr. Unterseher asked if there was truly a need for development, and stated that there is a good deal of open commercial space now. He said he was very concerned about adding to already honibJe traffic conditions, getting in and out of tOW'll. Mr. Lizut noted that there is mixed energy among the citizenry regarding the village Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27,2006 Page 6 of 10 e e e concept and multiple mini-shopping locales within the town; centralization versus decentralization. Mr. Owen said that what he had heard from several sources was that the Downtown area no longer fully serves the needs of the local population, and that more services are needed on the upper plateaus closer to residential areas. Population is growing in the western regions, and services are needed within walking distances. Also, there is a lack of housing and housing diversity, particularly affordable housing, so that new housing types are needed. The area Wlder discussion is one place where those things might be appropriately co-located. Mr. Unterseher asked for confirmation that the most available, buildable land in the City is in the western area. Mr. Sepler said that about 300 home sites, single family, coming online there, mostly in the R-III district, although they won't be built to the R-III standard. He said there are two sources of data; active development and housing needs assessment. Studies show that the price of entry for the average family (supported by police, firefighters, teachers or other typical wage-earners) is prohibitive, so that a different housing product is needed. Further, if such housing is located where there are no amenities and/or no incentives, it will not work. However, if there is some vitality provided by some commercial uses, perhaps there is a higher likelihood of success. He said that this might be an opportunity on the Howard Street corridor, if the zoning allows it. "Secondly", he said, "we don't know the appropriate size and scale." '-'What we do know is that our in-migration is increasing; the demographic is people in the last 30 years of their lives, and in the upper third of the income scale which results in displacement of people who already live here. He said that there is a need to look at other opportunities while focusing on this." Mr. Randels said that one issue that is often avoided or is not discussed. We need X but there isn't any demand for X, so it isn't going to happen. This is true for housing, conunercial, even for open space- demand is the economic imperative. He said effort is needed in helping people become aware of this. Mr. Owen said that it is a help that First Western actually does look at those factors. He said he was depending on First Western sharing that information, and that would obviate the need to bring in a hired economist. Mr. Sepler agreed that First Western, which owns property on both sides of the highway, is as tuned in as anyone in the market, and they will tell you what is feasible or not; the intention is to use them as a sounding board. Mr. Owens said that the methodology would be to host the open houses and try to get a sense of what the community would like to see and visualize that and get some buy off on that. At the same time, they would go to First Western and say "Can you do this?' If the answer is no, then he said they would ask what is needed from the City to make it happen: rezoning, 1000 more rooftops, etc. Mr. Randels interjected, saying that another tack would be to ask what compromises the property owner can and will make to make their vision happen. He added that this city or any city in Washington State is not made of money and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future. He said that the thought that the City can come in with subsidies to make something infeasible feasible is a false premise. Mr. Owen and Mr. Randels agreed that there may be non-monetary concessions from the City, such as zoning changes which could achieve win-win results. Mr. Lizut suggested that he would like to see Howard Street in some ways modeled after the Hawthorne district in Portland. He said it had a great array of businesses, yet one block behind there are beautifully kept homes, a brewery; he said !hat, in effect, he would like to see a scaled down pocket neighborhood. Mr. Randels said he would like to see fairly high density in order to allow some open space development elsewhere, traffic concerns not withstanding. He added that in order to have the necessary commercial and industrial development, and jobs, this is the best place to do it. He was in favor or permitting greater height (3 stories) and floor area, and greater density. Ms. Capron said she.would like to see residents have the convenience of walking, biking or a very short car trip to buy a quart of milk. Ms. King said that this is not now a part of town to which she relates. She noted that she likes to be able to walk to Aldridge's from her home. Because she walks to do shopping and errands currently, she never has a reason to travel to the Upper Sims part of town. She said that for residents there, she could see the desirability for their own Aldridge's. Ms. Capron said she agreed. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27,2006 Page 7 of 10 e e e Referring back to the affordable housing issue, Mr. Unterseher asked how it would be possible to restrict the new housing products and neighborhoods to the intended buyers. What would prevent speculators from snatching them up? Mr. Sepler said that there is no one magic bullet, and there may need to be many, many components of the overall strategy. They range from inclusionary zoning, possibly incentive based, to ensuring that there are a variety of housing types: e.g. townhouses, duplex, triplex, and quadraplex. He noted that people will drive in order to live in single family hom~s. However, if enough amenities are provided, as in the Seattle South Lake Union area, they will change housing types. He said that the planners would be proposing a whole suite of recommendations to City Council, including ordinance changes. Ms. Capron recalled the Affordable Housing presentation by Mr. Tom Beckwith, and his description of the Tierra Contenta innovation in Santa Fe. She recalled that by providing a combination of housing types and various attractions and amenities, it succeeded in appealing to a wide range of people with various interests and economic capabilities. Ms. Capron suggested that perhaps a community swimming pool was a good example of a facility lacking in the County that should be considered for the Upper Sims area. Parks, playgrounds or other places for children to play, day care, elder care, theatre space, dog run, shoe repair, dry-cleaners, extension of Mobilis a facilities, and live-work two-story arrangements were mentioned as possible needs. When asked about the strengths and opportunities of the targeted area, Commissioners said that there was an abundance of flat, vacant land. When Howard Street is completed, there will be greatly improved access. Another strength is the proximity to the growing parts of the economy, such as marine trades at the Port. The only weaknesses mentione~ were the current streetscape and the deficiencies of Discovery Road: too narrow; to many curves, no shoulders, and dangerous for biking and walking. Schedule - Mr. Owen suggested a review of the process and schedule. He proposed: 1, a public work session in September, featuring a presentation of background information and collecting feedback on objectives, also moving toward a preferred land use and transportation concept, along with design aspects; 2. briefing of City Council at the end of September or early October; 3. a second public session in the middle of October; and 4. technical wrap up and reporting in late Fall. Mr. Sepler indicated that there should probably be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council after the first public session. By that point, there should be some direction, but not necessarily a recommended alternative. He reminded of the cOIlllection to the Transportation Plan and added that Ken Claw, Director ofPubJic Works, needs to have the plan for Howard Street as soon as possible in order to start implementation in the Spring, 2007. Chair Randels said that he thought the schedule was aggressive, but that he hoped it could be met. He recalled the success of the Charette in 2005, and expressed concern that there might be some fall off in attendance or energy. He suggested that the Makers consultants take that history into consideration in planning the next public session. Mr. Owens, Ms. Lakey and Mr. Huizingh agreed they would use that background work as a starting point and thanked the Commissioners for the meeting. C. Update on Ongoing Planning Process Sims Way -- Mr. Sepler began by stating again that City Council had designated Upper Sims Way as the number one priority, so that staff would be working vel)' hard to use the earliest opportunities to move that proj ect forward. Streetscape Plan -- Mr. Sepler discussed a second opportunity that Makers will also be working on. A federal grant of $430,000 has been received in conjunction with the Maritime Center, some of which is to be used for design and engineering of streetscape improvements from Quincy Street to Point Hudson. This will include a public workshop for community members and property owners. He said that it is hoped that there will be sufficient funds to apply to Madison Street and the frontage of the Maritime Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2006 Page 8 of 10 e e e Center and Pope Marine in this cycle. Additional funds have been applied for and may become available after November. That would be construction dollars to do the balance of the study area and then move to the next phase of downtown. He also mentioned the lFC ?? funding received to deal with shoreline stabilizatiou and the Wave Gallery, where pilings are collapsing. He said that, because of the timing, this becomes a streetscape opportunity to try to advance what happens in the relatively small area behind the police station at the Wave Gallery. Choices are to move it inland entirely, partially or reconstruct it on the site. There is recognition that many of the same people involved in Upper Sims would be needed for Streetscape, so the meetings will be scheduled accordingly. Mr. Lizut asked ifit is possible to include an update of the 12-year old Streetscape Manual in this process. Mr. Sepler said that has been included in the draft scope of work, and HPC will be one of the key groups involved along with Main Street and Maritime Center. Regarding the Uptown area, and partially prompted by reaction to the Rienstra plans, Mr. Sepler spoke of the intention to schedule a Charette to consider location, height, and scale. He said that Makers would be asked to do an analysis of what the existing commercial zoning would allow, specifically a 3- dimensional build-out model of the zoning envelope. Mr. RandeIs expressed his concern that people would retain such a visual in their minds, as if it were an actual design of future development. Mr. SepJer said that there are only 12 undeveloped properties that are likely to be redeveloped, based on values and economics, but that the scope of the study could be discussed further. He said that some of the existing rules are problematic and need to be addressed, and that this is a first step to begin dealing with a commercial zoning issue. He said that the key is to fmd a way of asking and determining what is important to the community, particularly since this is a very fragile area_ Ms. King and Mr. Randels recalled previous public processes directed at the Uptown area that had become very controversial and generated much disagreement and resistance. Mr. Sepler said that partly because of off street parking requirements, the net cost of development was too high for many years. However, the factors and economics have changed, and it is timely to address this now. He asked for help in working out the best process and in facilitating productive community discussion. He said that the workshop would be scheduled for the end of October, if possible. Sign Code Changes - Mr. Sepler said that the CDI.U would begin considering Impact Fees for the first time during their next meeting on August I_The following week, they are scheduled for consideration of a staff repon on Sign Code changes and development of the scope/charge for the citizen Sign Committee being organized. Planning Commission involvement may be initiated later in the process, depending on the eventual recommendations of the Sign Committee and City Council's authorization. Transportation Plan Update - Mr. Sepler stated that the City is required to update its Transportation Plan every five years to ensure continuation of state funding. The Sims Way/Howard Street project is a component of that. Currently, a transportation model (5 to 10 year planning horizon) is under development, and will assume the construction of Howard Street, although it can be toggled off if necessary. He said the model would be based on current traffic counts and level of service statistics. The public outreach originally targeted for the Fall will likely be pushed out until January 2007 due to the overall project workload. Unresolved issues - Mr. Sepler reported that other project matters were not as yet fully defmed: Cottage Housing: Mr. Sepler has not yet followed up with Council to clarify this issue, Code Updates ~ multiple "small fixes" omnibus report on issues, with recommendations for changes, "\\orill be developed; e.g. what does attached mean?; report and hearing target is approximately 90 days. Tear Down Ordinance ~ In response to Mr. Unterseher's question about this, Mr. Sepler said that this issue would likely come up at the Uptown Workshop, and be assigned as a workplan item for the Commission. There was again a brief discussion about priorities; Mr. Sepler indicated that it was necessary to arrange and move forward with the public meetings. Mr. Randels asked about the ADU item from City Council, and Mr. SepIer said he would bring it to the Connnission as soon as possible, but that he did not have a date yet. Mr. Randels asked if the ADU issue should take precedence over the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27,2006 Page 9 of 1 0 e e e Teardowns. Mr. Sepler said that there are an unprecedented number of inquiries each week about the rules for short term residential rentals and accommodations. The consensus seemed to be that the larger issue of transient accommodations was more important than Teardowns~ and should be addressed. Mr. Randels also brought up the enforcement issue. He said he would like to hear from whoever is responsible for enforcement. What is monitored; what tools are presently available and what is used; what tools are needed? Mr. Sepler said thaI the only method is to follow up on complaints. He said he would fit this item in and inform the Commission when it was scheduled. Ms. Surber added that there was also some outstanding work on the SMP Update, and Housing Needs Assessment. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Chair Rande1s and Mr. Sepler agreed that they would meet regarding the schedule and bring that back to the full Commission. Schedules for the public meetings/workshops must be coordinated with various committees and project schedules, as well as the City Council and Planning Commission regular meeting dates. IX. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Surber reported that, according to Jim Johansson of Coastal Geologic Services, several Lincoln Beach homeowners plan to install hard bank rip rap, because the soft bank revetment failed. These would be processed as Shoreline exemptions, and are consistent with the SMP and Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Randels asked if there were any updates from DOE on the SMP Update. Ms. Surber said the public comment period has been closed and she has copies of all comments. She has 45 days to respond. She has met with Jeffery Stewart regarding drafts of the responsiveness sunnnary. She said that there was nothing partjcularly problematic within the responses. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lizut moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mr. Unterseher seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 PM. ~ 0)./ (' {;e/~' '" ,,' ,." ' ,"--.. /' -' iiL -- /- - (.~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27,2006 Page 10 of 10