Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07091996 MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 9, 1996 The City. Council of the City'. of Port Toxvnsend met in workshop session this 9th day of July, '1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch, presiding. Present were Jean Oamfield, Kathryn Jenks, Ian Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted Shoulberg, Dan Harpole. Bill Davidson was excused. Planning StaffDave Robison and Eric Toews were also present and presented discussion items for tonight's meeting. Mr. Robison said, based on some new information, Staff prepared three new policies. The first two are revised policies. He said based on Council's discussions about I week ago, Council decided to delete Policy 8.9 which would allow' the location of regional commercial retailers which fit our countywide or multi-county clientele in the potential UGA. He said there have been some discussions of revisiting Policy 8.9 and its associated Policy under the Land Use Element 16.2.1. He said the new information comes from some discussions with the Utility Committee yesterday'. Shouiberg In May 1995, the Growth Management Steering Committee met to discuss alternatives for Glen Cove. Approximately 60 people attended. County and City Staff had prepared the whole set of alternatives for what Glen Cove would look like. The audience registered their preference and the three members of the City and the three County' Commissioners agreed with the preference. But the preference was designed as a study guide. The preference is to examine what it would look like if Glen Cove was developed this way -- what are the positives, what are the negatives, what are the ramifications. The only thing it is, is a study guide for analysis, and that was going to be done jointly with the City and the County'. So in looking at Policy 8.9, "Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility..." that was the only thing that was added, that was rephrased. The other policy was carte blanch, this is the way it was going to be. He said this gives everybody a little more room for the facts to speak, for themselves, so when they do the analysis they will be able to see if some of the perceptions are correct or incorrect about large scale retailing destroying small downtowns. He said that is why he feels comfortable with Policies 8.9 and 16.2.1. ltarpole Said he had doubts about deleting this because he would rather the City have a voice in the discussion. He said he is not just concerned about the UGA, but about the impact of a commercial, regional retailer anywhere between here and the other side of Chimacum, because of the economic impact on small businesses already established in Port Townsend as well as other places. But one thing he likes about it is having a voice in the discussion; he thinks that does represent the citizens of Port Townsend. He said he personally would like to put it back in. He stated his concern with I6:2.1, to say "totaling approximately 20 acres," so it can't be 20 acres in 2 locations. Jenks Suggested adding wording to 8.9 to basically say "cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing commercial retailers (strike the word regional) in the manufacturing and light industrial UGA zone." Wants to make sure the policy indicates that the emphasis in the UGA is manufacturing and light industrial and that commercial is lesser. · Keith Goal 8 is commercial lands. Goal 9 is manufacturing. · Jenks Does goal 9 and any of the policies under Goal 9 reference the UGA? She said she is just tD'ing to balance, to make sure everywhere the word commercial is used. · Robison Policy 9.10 also suggests that too. · Jenks ' But it doesn't say if additional commercial land is needed. There is no caveat. In terms of what there might or might not be. She said she thinks it was in the original, to make sure manufacturing and light industrial were primary, and that commercial was lesser. · Keith Can you say, after retailers, as a secondary use. · Jenks You could do that. "Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility' of allowing commercial retailers as a secondary use in the manufacturing and light industrial Port Townsend Urban Growth Area." · Robison Don't know if it would really be a secondary use. · Toews Thinks what she is really saying is, allow a limited amount of retail commercial in conjunction with the primary land use which would be light manufacturing. · Jenks "... in conjunction with the primars.' manufacturing and light industrial use in the unincorporated Urban Growth Area." "In conjunction with" makes it work. · Robison What about, "allowing regional commercial retailers in conjunction with industrial and other community serving commercial uses in the unincorporated portion... ' That is really what we are trying to do -- manufacturing and community serving commercial use, with a very small area potentially being identified for regional commercial, up to a total of 20 acres. That was the strategy that the Joint Growth Management Committee endorsed in May 1995. · Perry-ThompsonSaid the words that bother her are "larger scale," in 16.2.1, and she doesn't know how large larger is. She asked if they have any limit to the square lbotage. - Robison It would be limited to approximately 20 acres total. He said you could take out "larger scale" because it is a regional retail use, and it indicates larger scale. MOTION Harpole SECOND Discussion: · Jenks Camfield Adopt Policy 8.9 as revised and stated by Dave Robison -- Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing regional commercial retailers in conjunction with manufacturing uses and community serving commercial uses in the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area. Said she doesn't think they should vote on it until after their meeting on the 15th, and thinks they should think about it and see what happens over the next few ~la~s. She said there are some PUD issues relating to water availability. Camfield Do you want to be a player and want to be invited to the table for discussion? Something like this makes it more likely that we would be a player. Jenks Spoke about.the appeal process and about the City's voice in what goes on right outside purjurisdiction in terms of the appeal process. Questioned if they were to say they are going to cooperate in a commercial venture right outside the City. Limits, and then decide to appeal. Shoulbergls concerned that it predisposes an outcome; otherwise has no problem with it, the momentum. ltarpole Similarly, is the momentum going to be driven as much by the study as by what the market thinks it can do out there? What is going to drive the momentum? Shoulbe~glt is against the law having commercial and manufacturing lands outside of the UGA. The first step is a UGA that becomes Port Townsend UGA that's continuous with the City. He said that he is still quite nervous because of things that would change all this and because of the fi.agility of the local economy. He said he is hoping this is a cautious approach to being able to play but not predisposing the outcome. · ltarpole Said he also had concerns. ,. Jenks Areas of the County are still zoned as commercial, like the whole Chimacum Y Area. If the County defies Growth Management and locates regional commercial uses in a non-UGA, the recourse is to appeal it. She thinks the,,' have to be extremely careful about what they actually do to advocate or deny commercial uses, and make sure they understand what all the ramifications are. Water, not sewer because the'~' can use septic systems, becomes a major issue. - ltarpole Agreed and said he would like to hold the vote and asked that they also vote on 16.2.1 and delete the second phrase that is underlined, "for larger scale regional retail use." He said they need to look at both of those. ,- T°ews Said there won't be an integrated document without lines in and lines out that's ready for mail on Monday. Upon adoption, Staff will transmit to DCTED a copy of the Draft Plan with Council's revisions to the Planning Commission's report, and a draft ordinance that will be in Council packets later in the week that directs BCD Staff to prepare the integrated Comprehensive Plan document that will be widely disseminated to the public within 30 days following formal adoption. MOTION and SECOND WITHDRA~VN · Robison Suggested rephrasing for Policy 8.9, "Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing regional commercial uses, along with the primary light manufacturing uses and associated community serving commercial uses, in the unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area." And likewise on 16.2.1 (approximately 20 acres total) and only delete "larger scale." "Cooperate with Jefferson County to study the possibility of allowing up to 2 locations, i.e., a total of approximately 20 acres for regional retail use within the incorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area." CONSENSUS ,- Jenks Wants to discuss all of the ramifications with the City Attorney,. - · Robison At a Staff level they did discuss this with the City Attorney, but if they wish to discuss this with the City Attorneys we would encourage you to do so. He has reviewed this policy direction. MOTION. SECOND Harpole Approve Policies Robison. Keith 8.9 and 16.2.1 as revised and read by Dave MOTION SECOND VOTE Shoulberg Table the motion. Perry-Thompson UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor MOTION SECOND VOTE · Robison New policy 8.11. Point otr concern is they have secured the 100 foot buffer on the entrance to the forest corridor along that one piece. If they do an upzone in those areas to commercial, there is no guarantee they would have the buffer to carry that out without a good policy direction on the north side of Sims Way and possibly even along Discovery Road. This laV,~vy wvmu $1vc u,cm u,c uncvuvn because they are upzoning this land to allow them to recoup the buffer and protect the small town character of the Forest Corridor which was identified as a high priority, for the communib'. · Harpole Are we specific enough about location? Asked if they want parameters around that in terms of policy language? · Robison Said the Forest Corridor is also defined in the Gateway Development Plan and is adopted by reference bv this Plan, for Sims Way to Howard Street, and is designated and referenced in this Plan, to 7th Street. · Harpole Say, City Limits to Howard on Sims Way. (Discovery) · Jenks Wonder if we should reference possible future annexations. · Robison Could add new 8.11.5. "Coordinate with Jefferson County to... · Jenks "Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend the Forest Corridor at 100 foot depth from the City.' Limits through the proposed unincorporated portion of the Urban Growth Area." Jenks Add new policy 8.11.5, "Coordinate with Jefferson County to extend the 100 foot open space buffer along Sims Way from the City Limits to and through the proposed Urban Growth Area. Harpole UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor Robison Also suggested to also place 8.11.5 in Chapter 5 unincorporated Urban Growth Area under Policy 16.5. MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Add the same policy to 16.5 as 16.5.1, unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Perry-Thompson UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor Harpole Would like to direct Staff to help describe buffer zones on Sims Way and Discovery Road to more clearly delineate their boundaries. 4 Toews Suggested, "As depicted on the Land Use Map, require a 100 foot open space buffer along Sims Way, i.e., SR 20, (from the City Limits to Howard Street) and Discovery Road, i.e., (from the City. Limits to 7th Street) to preserve the FOrest Corridor, etc. 8.11.1 MOTION HARPOLE Add language in Policy 8.11 as read by Eric Toews and amended SECOND JENKS Discussion: · Keith ' Did not think that was what was depicted on the map. · Shoulberg Suggested they make it 50 feet. · Robison Said you could put, "require 50 to 100 foot buffer" depending on use that comes in. MOTION MODllZIED - 50 to 100 foot buffer (Second - agreed) Harpole Jenks Discussion: ,, Jenks Clarified -- Specified the wording of the area, changed buffer from 50 to 100 foot; adopt the policy, including subpolicies. VOTE UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor · Keith Requested correction -- Land Use V-37 Policy 9.10 is under heading, Port Related uses. · Robison Should go to Policy 9.7. · Shouiberg It is Port Related. · Robison Don't think it matters -- that way it relates to all manufacturing uses, not just port related?~ :~ · :. Land Use Map Proposed Changes: Harpole Area #1 PROPOSED: Reduce three blocks in Section I (Holly Orchard) from R-III to R-II. Lower block from R-IV to R-III -- Vacant block below Lawrence Street apartments leave as R-IV MOTION Harpole SECOND Discussion: Shoulberg Reduce 3 blocks lying south of Lawrence Street bounded by Scott and Gaines, Blocks 77, 116,125 Mabel addition-reduce from R-III to R-II. Perry-Thompson Still thinks that is a wonderful space for Multi-Family, for all kinds of reasons. Keith helped her articulate this. Keith There is an MU Center along Kearney right below it. One way_ these centers are going to be economically viable is to have near them dense residential that supplies critical mass of population necessary to make that economically viable. He would like to see, if possible, some designation that would continue to identify this as a good site for multi-family. Can we do something that rather than leaving the zoning as it is indefinitely, continues to identify this as a good site for multi-family in the event that a proposal is presented that makes sensitive use of the land? Discussion ensued. VOTE: Three in Favor. abstained. Three Opposed-Perry-Thompson, Keith, Shoulberg. Mayor MOTION Jenks Amended to read, Designate Blocks 77, 116, 125 of Mabel Addition as R-H and that the Council requires that Planning Commission · reconsider the Multi-Family designation in its first annual Comp Plan amendment following adoption of the development regulations and design standards. SECOND Harpole Amendment Approved (reconsidered changed to required): Jenks and Harpole VOTE UNANIMOUS -- 6 in favor Robison To clarify that last motion - put that as a policy under both housing supply and...? ShoulberodKeith No. Toews It was a motion and vote contingent on providing this direction to the Planning Commission. Robison It would be docketed, for the annual Comp Plan review. MOTION Harpole SECOND Jenks Discussion: - Harpole VOTE Block 169 of Mabel Addition be designated R-III from R-IV. There is an established home with an outbuilding there. There is multi-family opportuni¢' there, and likes the R-III rather than R-Pr' because it doesn't have minimum densi~ requirements. Camfield Thinks that could work well as R-III and could develop. Shoulberg Blocks are so expensive. Think it should stay R-IV. Two in favor. Four Opposed - Camfield, Shoulberg, Keith, Perry-Thompson Area tt4 MOTION Jenks SECOND Discussion: - Jenks VOTE Harpole Do not follow the Planning Commissions recommendations of June 3 and designate Blocks 1,2,3, 15, 16, 17 of the Brakens Addition as R-II. Does not want to upzone; it's a traditional neighborhood. UNANIMOUS -, 6 in favor. 6 Area #5 · Keith This is a little piece of R-III. It's more viable as Neighborhood Serving Commercial with small store. Ne,ct to the fairgrounds. PROPOSED Cd(MU) whole thing included. MOTION SECOND Discussion: ~ Keith Keith Area #5 in its entirety be designated neighborhood serving C-I(MU) Perry-Thompson Rationale - questions if commercial by itself would be viable; if you add residential, would increase that commercial would happen. Toews The Planning Commission was concerned about the density of development in Drainage Basin//4; that the lower densities encouraged through R-I designations in that area would not support a mixed use center. They were in favor, though, of some neighborhood serving retail uses to provide for the residents of the North Beach area. - Keith If population cannot support a mixed use center, it's even less likely to support neighborhood commercial. If stormwater is a problem, it will be a limiting factor in the development. · Shouiberg Rather go to R-III; not enough density to support it. Wait for next year. VOTE U~IANIMOUS -- 6 in favor. Area #8 CONSENSUS -- No change Area #9 · Jenks This is a storm drainage critical drainage corridor issue. PROPOSED: Take the two lots abutting either side of 16th Street and the lots abutting Landes down to the house from R-III and leave in R-II. · Shouiberg Thinks you should leave it. · Harpole Is concerned if you put it back to R-II. - Camfield If all developed singly without drainage review, you would really be in worse shape than leaving it Multi-Family. Evans Property · Harpole Originally designated as manufacturing, the Planning Commission recommendation was to turn it back to R-II, and discussion led them to believe manufacturing was the better way to go. He said there was something in the pipeline; but it's not vested. Keith The Planning Commission's change was based on the understanding that the application was vested. Robison Based on their understanding that the application was vested. Keith But it is not vested; he feels very. strongly they ought to put it back to manufacturing. Robison You should make your recommendation based on whether or not is appropriate as a manufacturing land, but also if they adopt the Comprehensive ?lan, the zoning map is not in effect, and they could become vested prior to that. MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Redesignate the Evans property near the City Limits to MC. Keith UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor. ,. Toews Massey property across from the ferry terminal, where the zoning boundary follows the toe of the bluff. CONSENSUS: No change POS Kah Tai Nature Park -- PUD portion · Toews Has been informed that boundary on the western perimeter is subject to the lease agreement, or subject to the description of the park. · Robison Ifa sale outside of lease, it should be PI. MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Designate the area along Kearney Street owned by the PUD under lease for Kah Tai Nature Park as Parks and Open Space; and to designate the remainder of the property as PI zone. Camfield UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor. MOTION Harpole Make Housing Policy 1.2 conform to the Land Use Map. SECOND Keith Discussion: ,, Toews We'll mn the numbers again through GIS, and conform the policy to reflect what has been designated. VOTE UNANIMOUS - 6 in favor. MOTION SECOND VOTE Shoulberg Redesignate the area north of the Business Park, south of 12th, east of Eddy and west of McPherson to R-IV. DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 9:57 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting. Attest: Julie McCulloch, Mayor Acting City Clerk Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 9