Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052506 Minutes City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting Minntes Thursday, May 25, 2006 -- 7:00 PM City Hall Annex, Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH. I Planning Commission Agenda - May 25, 2006 EXH. 2 Handout: Upper Sims Way -Implementation Process EXH. 3 Handout: Regulatory Context, Upper Sims Way . EXH. 4 Handout: Gateway Plan (1993) Summary EXH. 5 Scott Sawyer, W &H Pacific, Memorandum to Dave Peterson, Howard Street Design - Charette Notes, dated June 7, 2006 EXH.6 Guest Sign-in Sheet (None) I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Fellow commissioners congratulated Ms. Slabaugh on her recent scholarship award from the AAUW, and commended Mr. Lizut on the success of the 2006 Rhody Festival. II. ROLL CALL: Planning Commission members present were: Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Liesl Slabaugh, and Cindy Thayer. Harriet Capron and George Unterseber were excused. Staff: Mr. Rick Sepler was attending for the first time in his capacity as Planning Director for the City. lll. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Chair Randels asked if anyone wished to suggest changes to the agenda. He said that he had one addition: nomination of a Planning Commissioner to serve as representative to the Sign age Task Force that will be formed by the City Council within the next few weeks. Mr. Sepler added that the expected composition of the new Task Force would be fairly diverse, and would likely also include a business owner, resident, HPC member, etc. Ms. Thayer and Mr. Lizut moved and seconded for the change to the agenda. The agenda was approved, as amended, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Review of the draft minutes of April 26, 2006: There were no corrections. Ms. Thayer moved and Mr. Lizut seconded that the minutes be approved, as written. The minutes of April 26, 2006 were approved, all in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. There were no guests in attendance at this meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS: Update on Upper Sims Way Planning Process Staff Presentation: Mr. Sepler began by noting that this was expected to be the first of several meetings and a continuing dialog addressing the Upper Sims Way area of the City, in terms of both land use and transportation/corridor improvements. During this meeting, he said they would review the planning process, the role of the Planning Commission, and the regulatory base in existing adopted plans, nlltc~: ofl.2 particularly whether or not it is still appropriate in light of circumstances and conditions that might have changed in the intervening years since adoption. Mr. Sepler said that he would describe the overall approach and discuss how the Planning Commission would fit in early in the process. He said that, later in the process, any legislative action that affects land use would be coming before the Planning Commission in a formal way, but that hopefully they would be involved early in fhe process, and continually. Mr. Sepler said, "For the Jack of a better word, I think we use (the term) "truthing"; this is a way oflistening to the approaches, evaluating them and saying if they are on the right path or a divergent vector from the other policy-based materials, our general overall goals, and things like that." In describing the context, he said that the City has a very in-depth fabric of regulations, from the Comprehensive Plan, to the Zoning code, to the Gateway Plan, to the soon to be retired Urban Waterfront Plan, and the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. There is a significant framework already there, and in that body of work, choices have been made. Many of the choices still resonate today, and many would agree about the character of the community, about the qualities, and about what is important. On the other hand, some things have changed, for example demographics and population changes, and minor course corrections and adjustments may be needed to reflect that. He noted that when the Gateway Plan was written in 1992, no one had thought of a round-about as being a potential solution - it is not mentioned there at all. However, it may be appropriate to consider that and other newer ideas and approaches now. Recycling and recycling stations were mentioned as anofher example. The zoning code from 1990 has little mention of recycling collection stations, although now they are quite common. Technology and needs have changed, population has changed, things have developed and periodic updates are necessary. Mr. Sepler said that the City is embarking on a thoroughly ambitious program, and that his specific charge to project manage was fourfold. First, it is to deal with Upper Sims Way, which is City Council's highest priority. This will include: setting forth a process that involves the public meaningfully; bringing forth to the Planning Commission and City Council reasonable choices, enabling them to evaluate, comparatively, and choose from options; and bringing a recommendation to City Council that will achieve the City's goals, as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan and clarified fhrough this process. He noted that the schedule to accomplish this by January was ambitious, but hopefully achievable. The second issue, transportation planning, is equally involved and of longer duration. Between fhe last draft of the transportation element in the Comprehensive plan, which was written in 1997, there have been significant changes in traffic volumes, and in approaches. In this case, the intention is to look at the established policy base and assumptions and verify that the assumptions are still valid. If so, they can be reapplied and the process can be reaffinned. Chair Randels, referring to the mention of traffic volume changes, asked how good the predictions of future volume were, in the prior work. Mr. Sepler replied that in looking at some of the forecasts for level of service, they were successful in some areas and woefully inadequate in others, basically because certain plans were not executed. He said that they had anticipated that the Howard St. corridor would be constructed by now, and that it would relieve the traffic going fhrough Discovery Bay Road. Currently, Discovery Bay Road traffic is higher than anticipated because there is no bypass to avoid some of the north/south traffic. He said that fhe traffic volumes on Sims Way are the most accurate because better data was available for predicting it. Mr. Randels said that he was glad to hear that fhe work done earlier was on point. Mr. Sepler said that he did not fhink there was cause to change our policies dramatically (as in building 4-1ane roads or the like). Rather, he suggested greater emphasis on alternative modes, greater emphasis on non-motorized, providing reasonable choice, and perhaps looking at some innovative interventions and missing links - things that needed to be done. He said one of the key elements in the transportation scheme that will come forward will be some sort of fee dealing with the cumulative impact, and a reasonable funding source to do that. He noted that a transportation consultant would soon be hired to :1 of 12 work on concurrency, the overall transportation plan and on updating the transportation element of the Comp Plan. The transportation element update, in the form of a Comp Plan amendment, will eventually be reviewed by fhe Planning Commission. He briefly described the two other major projects that would proceed with less Planning Commission involvement: the Water System Plan and the Storm Water Management Plan. He said that the Water System Plan, which needs to be updated and finalized, will include mainly corrections and deletions, and might have some minor changes in surface area, which could be controversial. The Storm Water Management project involves planning for and implementing the 2005 state-wide regulations, i.e. The Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington. This encompasses significant changes, compared to fhe 1992 series currently in place. In short, the new regulations ask for consideration ofland in its pre-European development state. In Port Townsend, that was forested, which means fhat on-site needs for detention will be significantly greater. The rationale is to provide detention and release, and hence, water quality improvement. If you are a development proponent and you are trying to make things fit on a site, fhe portion of the square footage that had been about 20% allocated for storm water, becomes about 35%, by the newer regulations. That might have a significant effect in terms of how lots are developed and how densities develop. It also might lead to different approaches that we haven't seen yet, such as vaulting, underground water storage and filtration. Mr. Sepler said that he is a proponent of the new regulations because he believes fhat there is evidence that they will have a positive impact on water quality. Mr. Emery asked if other municipalities had already adopted the 2005 regulations, or if Port Townsend would be among the first. Mr. Sepler said that there are some jurisdictions that have chosen to not adopt because of the increased rigor, and there was a brief discussion as to whether or not this was a viable option long term, since the State can withhold public works funding, and is likely to prevail in a legal battle. Mr. Sepler noted that currently any project that has SEPA is required to design to the 2005 regulations. Under SEPA, it is used as a guideline for mitigation. Once the new regulations are adopted, everyone will be required to design to this higher standard. Mr. Emery asked how it would affect existing structures and systems already in place. Would we have to upgrade fhem? Mr. Sepler said that no, we wouldn't have to upgrade unless or until there were significant changes to that structure - then it would need to meet the new standard. He said, "We believe it has greater efficacy and better water quality; it's been tested, it stands scrutiny. On the other hand, it is a cost, and it does filter down to every home that occurs; you get that passed through. The trade off, as a larger community, is that the benefits of environmental quality and those costs are equally balanced." Mr. Lizut observed that, in his perception, there was a contrast between the Shoreline Master Plan process and the Storm Water project in that the SMP was more emotional than technical, and that the technical data and arguments were more evident for the latter project. Mr. Sepler replied that transportation and storm water plans often turn into strong political issues, very emotional issues, about affordability - 'how much will it cost', 'who is doing what', that sort of thing. He noted that, in our policy base, we talk a lot about some ofthe environmental qualities we think are important and that nearly everyone agrees on the goals. However, when it comes to the specifics, the questions of 'how much is too much' and 'what is the optima] balance between benefit and cost' often surface. Mr. Sepler added that the technical part of the storm water ordinance would not come to the Planning Commission. As an environmental regulation, it will go directly to the City Council. The transportation issues would be considered here because, in the transportation element, the Planning Commission will be considering what is important. Past Councils have made policy decisions indicating that we will not design our roads to peak, that we will deal with a bit of back up for a few months of the year, rather thim build higher capacity 4-lane roads and oversized parking lots. 2006 3 i2 Mr. Lizut followed up on his earlier question, asking ifthere would be engineering/analytical support with numbers to help guide the Commission." Mr. Septer said yes, and hopefully, a model that would assist in making what ifdeterminatious. Mr. Lizut added, "A statistical analysis, based on a model." Mr. Sepler said that Mr. Ken Clow had offered to attend this meeting and that he would be attending on ones that deal with Upper Sims Way and with transportation, to address the technical aspects. The transportation and urban design consultants would be invited to attend, as well. Mr. Sepler referred to EXH. 2 in order to walk through the generic planning process which would be used for Upper Sims Way and the Transportation Plan. In general, we start off with the regulatory background and interviews, where we basically make sure we have all the pieces, i.e. due diligence. What is the context, what is on the books, what do the books say about it - excerpt everything we know about Upper Sims Way, try to get it in one place, and see what the policy base is. We do have an RFQ for Upper Sims Way - it is expected to go out a week from Monday. The utility of having an urban designer is fhe fusion between engineering and architecture, and land use. And we need someone who can be fhe pencil in your hands, and show you what different scenarios could look like, so that you can evaluate them, comparatively. We use our transportation person to say 'what does this mean to you' or 'how long am I going to sit at fhe traffic light'. Or how long will it take me to get fhrough that round- about. Mr. Lizut asked if the consulting contract would be time and materials, or a fIXed price. Mr. Sepler replied that City Council has allowed up to a maximum, and the cost must be negotiated because by state law we have to hire the best person, independent of price. Then the full scope must be negotiated. Tentatively, $40,000 has been budgeted for the process, based on a preliminary scope developed by Mr. Sepler. Mr. Lizut said that he had asked because of concems about if and how the project scope could expand with the introduction of change orders, etc. Mr. Sepler said that he fhought the project would be fairly on point. He said that the role of the Planning Commission would be to evaluate reasonable alternatives, listen to public comment, and get fhe best bid, consistent with our policy base. "And, it may be staffs recommendation, it may be one of the alternatives that we didn't select or it may be a combination thereof. All are perfectJy appropriate." Mr. Sepler said that we are going to work to develop the scope, and would also be working right now with the Transportation Plans and streetscape scope. He reminded that there were monies for downtown streetscape improvements, which would be planned with other projects for greater benefit. He said that while the consultants were in town, they would be asked to assess some of the downtown issues, and that would be a savings. He said that once the consultant is done, the scope would be more fully developed. The Planning Commission would be involved in reviewing the policy base, the Gateway Plan and fhe Comp Plan (see EXH. 3 for abridged version) for all that is related to Upper Sims Way. The commissioners will need to go through the documents, asking questions such as: Is that still true? Are there things we want to add? What are the things that need to be changed? From that, we make a list: identifY early on likely amendments based on circumstances that might have changed, i.e. the important and qualitative issues. He noted that Gateway was never envisioned as an area for people to live, or as a destination. Gateway was an embarrassing corridor that you came through to get into town. He said that people who attended earlier planning meetings and the charette knew they did not want an ugly strip mall, but had not considered its possibilities as a community or neighborhood, but that may be something to consider now. The next step would be to start developing the ideas or notions on the list. He advised that we can't really go into the public meeting and start with a clean slate, because we have a fairly established base. Mr. Sepler said that he already had a list of long term issues/items and also "some good book ends that will help us at the public meeting." These would include: we still want our community to be pedestrian oriented, we still want to preserve the quality of life here, we don't want smoke stack industries, and we'd like to have shopping and housing in close proximity. Within those book ends, there are lots of choices for Upper Sims and Gateway. Moreover, Gateway was a corridor plan; it looked very narrowly n;;: InV along a linear corridor, to try to fix the aesthetics, function, and safety. Since that time, we have learned that we need to look at a broader area, rather than just a linear corridor. You have to think about the land uses around it, because that's what supports the vitality of a corridor. If you're just going to look narrowly on one frontage and one property, which is what we were taught to do and what Gateway did, you might miss some opportunities. Ms. Thayer recalled that earlier planning had encompassed about 200 feet back (from the main corridor). Mr. Sepler said that that is/was about one property length; there are some areas where we have greater guidance. Howard Street wasn't really considered that much, but that might be an opportunity. It is all ColI zoned right now. The questions to be asked are: Is that appropriate, is that what you'd like to have there right now? Is that a chance to have mixed use, perhaps more than ColI? ColI does allow mixed use, multi-family above commercial, are there other uses that might work there? As the surrounding area develops residentially, what shopping facilities would be appropriate? He mentioned that QFC is interested in a new site. Is that the kind of place it should go into? On fhe Howard St. corridor, is that a good fit? Do we want to encourage that kind of use there? Is there a chance for us to get higher densities up there? With those kind of amenities? And do that as a way to deal with some future housing choice? Or should we retain the C-II zoning, because we have other areas in town. He reminded that fhese are all topics for Planning Commission discussion and that would constitute the "lruthing process". He also referred to EXH 5, the most recent summary document that was done about desired outcomes for Upper Sims, based on the May 12,2005 charette. Mr. Randels said that he had attended the charette. Chair Randels asked Mr. Sepler for clarification on the planning model, specifically whether "public workshop" meant that it would be led by the Planning Commission, the City Council, or jointly. Mr. Sepler said that the model was generic: the workshop(s) should be ad-hoc, open to the public, and allow for a free flow of information and ideas. The issue of which group(s) would be associated with the workshop was not decided, and open to discussion. Mr. Sepler added that by making the process as broad and interactive as possible, and by identifying issues early on, they would hope to avoid polarization at the end. He briefly reviewed the steps of the model again, and added the need for coordination with transportation planning, and the practicality of using some sort offorced choice method for efficiency and to maintain focus on the really significant issues and choices. He said that after we have the preferred alternative, we can go to SEPA and do our environmental review on the effect of it although, actually, the environmental effect of traffic will be considered throughout the process. That is probably the most significant; there are some secondary ones, wetland sequences and enviromnental constraints, that may limit some options along the Discovery /Howard Corridor. Mr. Lizut asked specifically, "In the December line on your flowchart, specifying Council review, is fhere an implied block for Planning Commission in there?" Mr, Sepler apologized for the fact that only the City Council is named on fhe chart. He said the Planning Commission would be in fhe loop. Mr. Randels suggested that there had been interest in having more joint sessions, and that it might make sense to have joint sessions in this process. Ms. Slabaugh suggested that the sessions be designed to be more open, participative, and less restrictive than the fonnal public testimony periods of regular business meetings. She asked for more explanation on the forced choice process. Mr. Sepler explained that this is one of several methodologies available that help to identify and record the themes that we all agree on and/or are among a preferred subset. This can include prioritizations, a site planning exercise, and limited voting. He mentioned the need to convey that reasonable people can look at alternative facts and come to different conclusions. Ultimately, Planning Commission makes a recommendation and City Council makes that policy choice. The methodology helps to identify as much area of agreement as we can early on, and to use time and energy productively in arriving at viable and acceptable solutions. He said that with Planning Commissioners' agreement, he would amend the model, and see if the public workshops can be joint workshops, with appropriate public notice to meet legal requirements, and then hold the work sessions with the Planning Commission in attendance. :' of 12 Mr. Randels suggested that the work sessions should be joint City CouncillPlanning Commission ones. Public workshops, however, should be similar to fhe charette, but shorter in duration, with Council and Commission members as equal participants with the members of the public. He said this would be less formal and less intimidating. Mr. Sepler agreed that if officials attend, except for formally opening and closing fhe meeting, the facilitation should be turned over to staff. Further, the public hearing format should be avoided. Council and Commission members should be purposefully dispersed, and participate fully wifhin small group exercises. Retuming to the process model, Mr. Sepler said that this process could be as easily used for the transportation plan or other major projects. Preliminary Discussion of Regulatory Basis and Supporting Assumptions for Upper Sims Way Gateway Plan: In 1989, several graduate students from the University of Washington, including Dave Robison, put on a charette, to deal with Upper Sims Way. City Council had long feJt that Upper Sims Way just didn't fit the character of the community, bofh in its use and its function. There were traffic problems due to cars backing onto Interstate 20 and "a sea of pavement going in", and that was not the kind of image desired by the community. The charette was a well-attended, focused event that served to identifY the functional changes and improvements along the roadway that needed to occur. In cases where perpendicular parking relied on the right of way, the Washington DOT directed the City to maintain open right of way, i.e. put in blank lanes or 3-lane configurations. After the charette, the Council adopted a statement of intent that included functional improvements, aesthetic improvements, and economic improvements. The intention was to have a mOTe effective business district, not just space, structures and businesses that would not fit elsewhere in town. In both the Gateway Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan, the 2020 vision of Port Townsend talks about the Gateway being an economically vibrant place with appealing shops and places of interest that draws people out of their cars. The Gateway Plan addressed how to accomplish that vision. It broke up the SR-20 area from the Ferry Terminal to the outside of town into a series of discrete districts or rooms, and said that these rooms could have specific things that happen in them that might be useful and good. Mr. Sepler said that the most successful thing about the Gateway Plan, in his opinion, was that the northern part of the Gateway forest corridor and the southem part have been preserved. On the southern side it was done through the acquisition of an easement, which protects the trees forever. On the northern side, although there has been some cutting behind them, the Gateway Plan gave the regulatory basis to avoid cutting out to the edge of the highway. In the upper commercial district, the corridor plan specifically talked about a number of intersections and how they could be enhanced or realigned; it also talked about a flex zone, where you had a way of reconfiguring the road way to include bicycle lanes, turn lanes, turn pockets or a center median and a variety of configurations. That was very innovative; the flex zone provided for differences in each of the sections or rooms, allowing for choice of appropriate tools/features for each, as well as nesting them together and smoothly transitioning, e.g. from center median to center tum pocket or 3-lane configuration, without disconnects and friction. Don Stasney and Kiddleson were the transportation engineers and the urban design fIrm responsible. They did such a good job that the W A DOT approved the plan, which was a rare occurrence, and funding was awarded for the project. The City mobilized and project specific designs were initiated, but unexpectedly the funding was lost. The only portion of the project completed was curbing and sidewalk along a portion of Sims Way near First Federal Bank and Dan's Television. Mr. Sepler said that he thought the flex zone configuration would have gone a long way in mitigating some of the functional issues existing today, without getting into a 4-lane configuration for the whole road. However, the timing was wrong, in terms of funding, and the Gateway Project languished. As development and changes occurred over time, opportunities for I) I'^' frontage improvements were not always pursued, for various reasons. He said that today such improvements would be required for any significant construction or reconstruction. Gateway, besides having the corridor plan, also established design guidelines that were to provide some general guidance to avoid having the worst kind of strip or commercial development go in. Certain of these have been incorporated into the C-II commercial guidelines. As you look into fhe C-II design guidelines, you'll see the connection, and some good approaches that came about. But prior to this, there was no design review. There was a point in 1992-3 afterfhe plan was adopted, where HPC review became mandatory and you had to do some design review, after some challenges. The question was whether or not design review should be mandatory on Gateway; City Council said no, we want it to be advisory. Mr. Sepler said he thinks the general consensus was that the Historic District had a very strong basis for review, but Gateway had a lesser one, and this was an experiment to see if voluntary review or SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review could achieve the desired ends. The process was in place, with C,ll design operative. Mr. Randels asked if that has been effective. Mr. Sepler replied fhat that is one of the issues that City Council wishes to investigate, and it is one that the Planning Commission will likely be talking about, as well. Speaking from his fIrm's 5 years of experience with design review administration for the City of Seattle, including reviews of hundreds of cases, Mr. Sepler said that design guidelines will not guarantee a good building. What they will do is prevent an awful building. Chair Randels recalled the Planning Commission's seminar-like discussions on this subject with two or three members of the Design Review Committee, who had attended one of our meetings. Mr. Lizut added that the rear side of the Hollywood Video building had been a particular focus of the discussion. Mr. Randels said that that discussion yielded the same conclusion: design review can help bring about good design, but the consensus was that our present system/regime doesn't do that. Basically, it prevents an awful building; it's defense, rather than offense. He added that some of the suggestions bought forth during that meeting had been adopted. Mr. Sepler said, "Having reviewed many, many projects, good proponents make good projects. We just have to make more good proponents." Mr. Sepler said that Gateway talked about and was predicated on the fact that intersections are where things happen on corridors. It discussed at length that if we can make intersections work better, we can actually use them as the building blocks for economic uses. At a series of key intersections, they investigated realignments or corrections, and potential land use changes. Intersections would have vitality, with stores and points of interest and ease of access with parking between them. He said that some of the elements were quite brilliant, but that some opportunities were lost, including the reroute of the turn onto Sheridan through the Castle Hill shopping center. Howard St. was not really considered much, but it did come back in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Gateway Plan is still available online for download, and that each of the Commissioners should have copies. He asked if each person would review the plan before the next meeting, specifically looking at the examples, approaches and issues raised there. The intention is to save and reinforce where appropriate and to recognize which issues and items are no longer relevant or viable. Four years after adoption of the Gateway Plan, the Comprehensive Plan was developed. There were some minor assumptions on Gateway, but essentially the funding had come and gone. There was still a hope that there would be significant commercial development activity along the Highway 20 corridor, and that it would redevelop over time as the town grew: "Following the Highway 20 Sims Way corridor, a procession of distinctive buildings have been added to Port Townsend's architectural heritage." [Note: This is a direct quote from the Comprehensive Plan, looking backward in 2020.] Mr. Sepler listed some of the buildings that have been added in the interim: Remax Building, bank, antique hardware facility, West Bay Auto (was John's Auto parts), oil change business, and the craft cottage, which has had multiple uses. There was a brief discussion about the ReMax Building. Mr. Sepler noted that scale makes a significant difference and that the City has money under bond for all the 7 landscaping improvements, the street trees, the sidewalks, furniture, all of which will have a great effect on scale. Related to this, Mr. Sepler said those improvements were pending review and decisions for the North-South Corridor/Howard Street spine, identified in the Comp Plan. Originally, the spine -- the Howard Street Corridor, was going all the way out to Cook A venue and it was intended to provide for all the development that was there. The largest concentration ofR-III housing went along Howard Street. If we zoned it C-I1, then possibly that's the place where we would be able to connect to most directly and it would provide that service. And that's the place we would expand services. That's a very strong policy decision that is embedded in the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and one that we are going to look at much, because that was sort of the way it would go. Mr. Randels interjected, "And one, we've just learned, that doesn't support it particularly well by the zoning." Mr. Sepler: One outcome, as you will be hearing from a staff recommended amendment, is that we have a minimum density in our R-III zone, because right now the R-IIl zone is being developed at single-family density, and we are losing that opportunity. So, staff will be bringing forward at the end of summer, a series of (we like to call it an omnibus) different amendments. They are not significant individually; all together there are lots of little changes that will, hopefully, course correct. Ms. Thayer added that before the Comp Plan, there were very few places that were zoned for multi-family. Mr. Sepler said that he thought it was good, a logical assumption, at the time. He said he had spoken with Tim McMann, who was the City attorney at the time. When asked for his thoughts about the plan, he had said that his greatest surprise was that the multifamily corridor along Howard Street didn't develop. He thought that the provision for increased density would lead to that type of development. Ms. Thayer asked why it hadn't. Mr. Randels suggested, "Markets." Mr. Sepler responded with three reasons. First, there are some constraints on land, i.e. a big wetland matrix. He said that he thinks the only way that that corridor would be completed is if the City took the lead to acquire the way around the wetland; some sketches had been done, but other issues intervened. The second is infrastructure. He said that Hamilton Heights brought some in, but there hadn't been a critical mass of other activity. The route and distance to Sims Way is too great. Mr. Randels added that the lack of volume precludes transit; a chicken and egg situation. Ms. Slabaugh brought up the extent of non-motorized trails fhroughout that area. Mr. Sepler recapped what had happened. The Comp Plan recognized the need for a north-south corridor, fhe assumption that it would be Howard Street, and spelled out why it was logical to do the Howard Street alignment. There was the expectation for the contact time pipeline, i.e. it was planned or already in the process of going through that area. The strategy was to provide the zoning as a community and hope it would respond to the concerns that were raised, and that would be the area that growth would be accommodated in. This would spare the Historic district from those changes that we didn't think were appropriate. And, ultimately in the 2020 vision, you'd have some residential population there closely connected to new services, and that's why all that land became C-II. If you go back historically, it wasn't that deep or that extensive, for C-II or mixed use industrial. Ms. Thayer mentioned that the business park was there. Mr. Sepler responded that the business park was built in 1994, that it was in place when the Comp Plan was done, and that they saw it as an opportunity. Mr. Sepler used the wall map to review the factors: We have the legacy of that Comprehensive Plan decision, and we have the corridor, in fheory, with some way of getting around the wetlands in the Ranier corridor. We've got the zoning, that goes in here, for all these properties, and we have all the way up to Hastings, this is all the mixed or higher density residential, ...R-III, with nO infrastructure there. Mr. Randels added, "Also, to the East of Howard is R-I1I." Mr. Sep'er: So, as we come upon its lO-year cycle, the Comp Plan was adopted with some assumptions about the place where we would accommodate growth. Growth is coming out there now, probably not exactly what we envisioned. One of the things we will ask, and transportation will also look at, is whether that corridor is still a valid corridor? It might very well be -- it still has potential; can we still 1\ I~ L achieve the ends that were there? What are the better interventions that you would need to do for more certainty? How would it happen? We can review the impacts of what has been done, in terms of infrastructure. There are some wetlands; the wetlands are largely north of Discovery Bay Road, southerly of Hamilton Heights, westerly of Towne Point, and easterly offhe City's standpipe and reserved area out there. The wetlands are, interestingly, different now than when they were mapped in 1996; we had a recent assessment; they have changed in size and scope, which means that the hydrology is changing in the area. Mr. Randels and Ms. Thayer asked how fhe wetlands had changed. Mr. Sepler responded that they are different, and fhat there are a lot of things that may have contributed to that. He said that all over town, there are changes in the hydrology; as impervious surfaces increase, water is moving in different ways. The city actually completed a trail on the Ranier Street right of way, and that could have been enough to alter the surficial flows. Because there is hard pan only a few feet deep in that area, the water comes down and moves horizontally; compacting the dirt might very well, inadvertently, make a dike. Some say that the water hits fhe trench and goes right along the trench, and that's why its not going forward. That notion was actually offered very recently by consultants. By disturbing the soil and dropping a pipe in, past the hard pan, this has made a great infiltration; the water all migrates into this trench and follows the pipeline. To validate that one would need to locate the low point of the pipeline, which would be somewhere near the paper mill, off Mill Road. Ms. Thayer recalled that the wetlands have changed at Seaview, as well, since the sewer lines were installed there. Mr. Sepler said that development is also a factor, and the fluctuations in rainfall over the past 10- 15 years. In terms of scope, Mr. Sepler advised that some boundaries be set for the Upper Sims Study, and pointed out his suggestion on the map. The boundary streets would be Discovery Road to the north, SR-20 to the south, McPherson to the east and along SR-20 from McPherson to Hancock or Sheridan Street. Continuing wifh the history, Mr. Sepler spoke about the City's interest in developing the Howard Street Corridor as part of the Comp Plan, and the intention to form an LID. The City's interest at this point is to implement the Comp Plan, and the Comp Plan says Howard Street is a corridor. Many people like the idea of a round-about. There was a focused disagreement about what would be the best solution for Howard St. and Sims Way. A technical analysis revealed that two solutions being considered were about equal. Mr. Emery asked if W A DOT had cautioned about how McPherson Street impacts the traffic on Howard Street, because you can have a traffic light at one or fhe other intersections, but not both. Mr. Sepler said that if you do one round-about, you need a second to provide the U-turn motion. Mr. Emery added fhat the feasibility of a round-about going in at McPherson and Sims is a lot worse than at Howard and Sims. Mr. Sepler agreed that that would be among the issues, going forward. Mr. Randels said that although it is a considerable distance, there could be a second one at Sheridan. Resuming the discussion of the history, Mr. Sepler said that the discussion of the LID evolved into an issue of which is the best approach to road/traffic reengineering. He believes, however, that regardless of how the intersection redesign is solved, the real issue is what happens along the corridor. And is there a way of addressing the uses so that we get more than just doing another corridor? Can we make something happen to implement the plan? Should we augment the plan to do that? He stressed the need to define the problem or study area, and pointed that out on the map. Mr. Randels added that he saw the path as going north of Discovery, up Ranier, and then a block east on 20th, where it would hook up with Howard. He said fhat was fhe best way around the wetlands, and that it would be best at this (the other) end, too. Mr. Sepler pointed out that there are pre-applications in for three different developments, and that it is time to delineate the wetland and [md the best route. Ms. Thayer asked who the developers/owners were. , 'c) 12 Mr. Sepler pointed out the Nancy Scott property. Also, TerraLine Development has done an assemblage of a plat, with sixteen 40 X 100 foot lots, which may need to undergo a replat and rededication. He also pointed out another pending project not far away. He said the area is recently acquired, and the City has approached them about acquiring the corner of it for a future realignment there. He restated fhat he believed the build out would occur by its own development, and at reasonable densities, and there could be a market there. Mr. Randels stated that the handle should go all the way to Sheridan, at least as far as what is to be under consideration. Mr. Sepler then suggested that there could be apartments, shopping, and other uses. He asked if the commissioners wished to think about other kinds of uses. Do we want to think about more mixed use kind of thing? For higher densities, do we consider other uses that might be appropriate in that zone, maybe a new zone to deal with it? He said these could be the topics for discussion in the next 8 or 9 months. He mentioned, as a side issue, a planned new one-story building on or near Howard Street, where there is a 60 foot undefined area where two plats do not line up properly. There are multiple ways in which the problem may be resolved. Meanwhile, the City is working with fhe owner to ensure the building location is not too close to the right of way. Mr. Randels noted that iffhe intent were to do a village center concept, mixed use commercial, with housing above, it would be unfortunate to locate the building in the middle of that space. Mr. Sepler said they are hoping to break it into fhree lots, and it is a use that is approved, so they can proceed. However, although they have filed for the permits, they are still working their way fhrough it, and it might be timely for them to participate. They may willingly choose to try some other choices. Returning to the map, he pointed out patches of wetlands, and places where they have appeared and disappeared. He said there were good notes on that from when the City's contact time pipeline was installed. He also pointed out another area where a pre-application was done, seeking a multi- family mixed use location, and said that the applicant had put the project on hold. At this point, Mr. Emery mentioned that a DOT representative had introduced herself at the previous City Council meeting, which included the Ferry Expansion Workshop, and indicated that she would be the point person for upcoming transportation planning. In response to a comment about coordinating several local goverrunents, Mr. Sepler said that the RTPO (Regional Transportation Planning Org.) is the designated group to handle that, and fhat the County would be involved, especially with regard to the intersection at Discovery Bay Road, Mill Road and SR-20. Then, he gave a brief description of another project, the 57 unit development soufh of Towne Point, north of Discovery Bay Road: compact, stand-alone homes; application is pending. He said he pointed it out because, although not all plans are executed, this seems likely to happen. When asked if the owners were the Umatilla Hill developers (Landis and Kimball), he said no, but that the development is similar. Landis and Kimball will be building on San Juan, next to San Juan Commons. And, in response to a question about the Nancy Scott project, he mentioned that Ms. Scott had submitted a pre-application to do a sub-division under existing ordinances, and that she had met with the City twice regarding the project. Mr. Randels asked if, when discussing these higher density projects, the City indicates we are looking for affordability. Mr. Sepler said that according to the housing study, we will get affordability by having different home types, in theory. He said that Nancy Scott had R-m zoning, so it is not as ifthe City is asking someone to put the density where we didn't plan for it. Mr. Lizut advised, "Don't under build." And there was additional follow up discussion about the latest trends in home buying and in vehicle buying, and the relationships of walkability, lawn maintenance, suburbia, downsizing, options versus actual practices, land use and health. There was some agreement that neighborhood groceries would be welcome, and also have a small, but positive impact on the total miles driven. Mr. Sepler concluded that the job of planners is to provide reasonable choices. , !i) !I Mr. Sepler brought the discussion back to the Howard St. corridor. Assuming that we are going to have a built in constituency north of Discovery Bay Road, and that Howard will go through because its in the public interest, should the QFC or the like go there? Is that the kind of thing that you think would be good? Should we have something that's better than Castle Hill? There was a brief discussion attempting to clarifY the particular locations that might be possible, and fhe notion that a suitable model might be found if planners and commissioners believed it was worth pursuing. Mr. Emery mentioned that the new C-Il design code as well as the formula design store ordinance would guide what QFC or other large grocery would look like and probably where it's placed, too; he said it would not be near other formula stores. Mr. Sepler said that yes, there are models where there is fhe shopping center and there is housing, as opposed to where there is shopping and ofher stores, and fhat's the anchor. Ms. Slabaugh brought up the contrasts between the Gateway Plan idea of intersections as the draw, and the idea of grocery stores integrated with the neighborhood. The commissioners cited creative examples of interesting implementations of these concepts in various contexts. Ms. Slabaugh offered that perhaps the Commission could work with the community to develop an appropriate vision. Mr. Sepler said the challenges are: Will it hurt the downtown? Will it displace uses downtown, because that's an established thing, and you are committed to fhe plans that support that, too. There was a brief discussion of possible impacts on downtown stores. Mr. Sepler asked that the commissioners think about these issues and ideas over the coming weeks, and about what is and isn't appropriate. Chair Randels asked if there was anything further on Upper Sims. He said that the group needed to talk about the work plans for the rest of the year, and to address the action item on the agenda. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS: Planning Commission/CDLU Joint Meeting: Mr. Sepler referred to a document from the Council Committee on Community Development and Land Use. He said that he understood fhat fhe Planning Commission had forwarded recommendations for a work plan, that Council reviewed that, and after a series of workshops listed a series of things fhat need to be done. Mr. Randels mentioned that Mr. Sepler may wish to see a copy of the transmittal that had been sent. Mr. Sepler said that City Council had reviewed the work plan and allocated the committee. He said the Council, in lieu of your regular meeting on June 8, would like to see if you are available at 2:00 PM on Thursday, June 15, to meet with the Council Committee, to talk about the prioritized list, and help build the work program. He said the meeting would be with just the CDLU committee, and if a quorum of the Planning Commission would be there, staff would provide notice to the paper. There was a brief discussion concerning the DOE SMP Workshop on June 15. Ms. Thayer said that she would not be in town at that time. [Ms. Thayer asked for the definition of a woonerf, and was told it is a Dutch word for' living street'.J Signage Task Force: Mr. Randels asked about the sign code issue. Mr. Sepler said staff was working on the scoping of that. City Council had identified four issues: neon signs, C-Il area signage and permits, sandwich boards, and HPC Review. Mr. Randels said that height should be among the priorities. II of 12 Mr. Randels asked if anyone wished to volunteer. Mr. Lizut responded that he would like to participate. There were no others. Ms. Thayer moved that Roger Lizut be approved as Planning Commission representative to the Signage Task Force. Mr. Emery seconded. AU were infavor. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sepler had checked to verifY the four priority items from Council, and said he would double check on the height item for Mr. Randels. He explained, also, that sign codes are perhaps the most intensive, in terms of staff involvement, and one of the more difficult ones to do. Therefore, he said, we want to make sure that we define what we are after, early on. Returning to scheduling, Mr. Lizut asked Mr. Sepler if he would reconfigure the initial signage meeting in such a way that there would be no conflict with either the 6/15 CDLU or DOE SMP Meeting. There was a brief discussion of the schedule conflicts, and agreement that staff would try to work that out, considering the planned absences of Mr. Sepler and certain Council members. VIll. COMMUNICATIONS: There were no additional items. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Lizut seconded. AU were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:52 PM. /} ~&~ Gaill3ernhard, Recorder \-linutcs 2006 I' .k 1:'