Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05152002 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP OF MAY 15, 2002 The Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special workshop session this fifteenth day of May, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Port Townsend City Council Chambers of City Hall, Planning Commission Chairperson Cindy Thayer presiding. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission members present at roll call were Alice King, Cindy Thayer, Lyn Hersey, Michael Hyland, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, James Irvin, and Nancy Dorgan. Council members present at roll call were Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, and Alan Youse. Joe Finnie and Michelle Sandoval were excused. Freida Fenn and Catharine Robinson arrived late. ACCEPTANCE OFAGENDA The agenda was accepted unanimously by those present. Mr. Benskin suggested invoking the three-minute rule for discussion for the evening due to the amount of material to be covered. There was consensus to accept this suggestion. 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Summary of the Planning Commission's Annual Assessment. Ms. Thayer summarized the Planning Commission's memo dated April 15, 2002 regarding the annual Comprehensive Plan Assessment and highlighted some of the main points of the memo. She noted that the Commission discussed population growth in light of the latest census figures and felt that the City and County should reassess the population distribution either at the time of the 1 O-year Comprehensive Plan update or sooner if necessary. The Planning Commission discussed at length the changes in circumstance since the Comprehensive Plan was first approved, including such events as the reduction in workforce at P.T. Paper Corp, the closing of Port Townsend Lumber, the reversion of Point Hudson to the Port of Port Townsend, expansion of the Food Co-op, and number of new subdivisions within the city. The discussions lead to agreement that the City's focus should be on implementation steps and strategies for those items already in the Comprehensive Plan, with specific emphasis on economic development. The Commission asks that the City Council consider updating the Plan on a schedule less frequent than annually so that the Planning Commission will have more time to work on these implementation strategies. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 1 May 1.5, 2002 Overview of Preliminary Docket Senior Planner Judy Surber stated that tonight's workshop is intended to be an orientation and a time for clarifying questions regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendments which have been proposed. She added that there will be no deliberation or action until the public hearing before the Planning Commission which is currently scheduled for May 30. She said that a public heating before the City Council is not required if the City Council agrees with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations for docketing; with the number of proposed amendments it is felt this is unlikely so a hearing has been scheduled before the council for June 17. Ms. Surber clarified the difference between a formal amendment which is typically site- specific, paid for by applicants, and automatically placed on the docket. In contrast, the suggested amendments must be approved for docketing by the Planning Commission and City Council; those amendments approved for docketing will then be forwarded to the staff for environmental analysis. Formal Amendments The nine suggested amendments are the focus of the workshop, but Ms. Surber touched on the three formal amendments for informational purposes. Those amendments include the following. 1. Port of Port Townsend request to rezone Point Hudson to a new zoning designation - suggested as commercial, light industrial, recreational planned unit development. The applicant has stated the area is not suited for manufacturing and hopes the new zoning designation will recognize the diverse uses in Point Hudson and allow it to become financially self-supporting. Ms. Surber noted that the area is also within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program and those regulations must be considered in addition to the zoning designation. 2. Request for rezoning property at Third and Hancock presently owned by Jefferson Transit which is currently zoned as public infrastructure; proposal is to rezone the lots to C-II, General Commercial. The buyer, Mr. Kelly, proposes to locate a business at the location. 3. Shoreline Master Program amendments for Indian Point to allow greater flexibility for future uses. Ms. Surber noted that there will be much greater discussion and detail after the docketing process is completed. Staff will provide binders to the Commissioners and add information as it is available. She then suggested that the commission and council members ask clarifying questions after each presentation. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 2 May 15, 2002 Suggested Amendment 1: Rezone Blocks 170 and 171 of the Eisenbeis Addition Proponent: Glenn Norcross Staff Recommendation: docket the item. The proponent wishes to rezone the blocks from R-II to R-IV (multifamily). He has stated that he heard concerns from staff, Planning Commission and Council members that the city is deficient in R-IV zoning. (Ms. Fenn arrived at 7:15) Ms. Thayer asked if Mr. Norcross had proposed a rezone from R-IV to R-III in the past. Mr. Randall replied that he believed so but that it was a different piece of property. Ms. Thayer asked how can we justify going back to R-IV on a block of land when it was agreed that it should be stepped down from R-IV to R-III in the past. Mr. Randall stated staff will look at the prior Comprehensive Plan Amendment and report back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Dorgan asked whether, since assisted living units are allowed in the R-IV zone, approval be within the concept of providing more affordable housing. Mr. Randall replied that it depends on what kind of assisted living would be proposed as some are for low income residents, but others are at the market rate. He added that the staff could look at the purpose of the rezone. Ms. Surber stated there is a lack of vacant R-IV land partly because most of the property covered by that zoning designation is located a distance from utility services. This land would be closer to utilities. Ms. Hersey asked about the correlation with R-III and R-II zoning, in light of a discussion the Commission had last year about the type of building that was going on in the R-III zone. Mr. Randall stated that single family residences are permitted in the R-III zone, so you sometimes end up with a situation where single family residences are built in a multi- family zone. In contract, R-IV requires only multi-family buildings. Mr. Hyland asked if staff has an estimate of how much cost the city bears for doing environmental review on suggested amendments. Ms. Surber stated that the fee charged to applicants for formal amendments is approximately $150 for the notice of application and additional notice in the range of $100. Council member Robinson arrived at 7:20 p.m. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 3 May 15, 2002 Ms. Surber noted that this suggested amendment will be treated as a quasi-judicial matter. Suggested Amendment 2: Revise Comprehensive Plan Text to be Consistent with Recent GMA Amendments. Proponent: Building & Community Development Department Staff Recommendation: docket the amendment Ms. Surber introduced Eric Toews of Cascadia Community Planning Services. Mr. Toews has been retained to review the changes to the Growth Management Act as well as Growth Management Hearings Board decisions and make recommendations on needed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. She then introduced Mr. Toews who presented his findings. Mr. Toews noted that the GMA initially required Comprehensive Plans and development regulations to be thoroughly reviewed and revised at least once every five years; per that schedule the deadline for conducting Port Townsend's first review was to be December 2002; the deadline has now been amended to December 1, 2004. The change in deadline somewhat shifts the focus of this year's review as staff had first anticipated a much wider range of amendments (updating Countywide population forecast, updating the planning horizon, etc.). Instead we have an amendment cycle pretty much like other years. The object of Cascadia's review, in conjunction with BCD staff, was to ensure that the goal and policy language reflected in the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with most fully reflects the requirements of the GMA as amended since 1995. He stated that many amendments made by the state legislature don't particularly affect the city - many are related to counties more than cities or would affect development regulations implementing plans rather than plan policy itself. The most significant GMA change which will affect the city's Comprehensive Plan is the requirement of the use of "best available science" in developing plan and regulatory provisions addressing the protection of critical areas (also referred to as "environmentally sensitive areas.") Very few inconsistencies have been identified and in fact none require the city to adopt goal or policy language - instead they highlight areas where the policy language could be enhanced to better reflect the requirements of the GMA. In summary, the changes suggested are: 1) Add new policy 1.6 to the Land Use Element to address the frequency of Plan review for conformance under GMA (reflecting 36.70A. 130); 2) Add new policy 2.2 to the Land Use Element to specifically refer to the use of "best available science" when reviewing and revising the PTMC (reflecting 36.70A. 172); Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 4 May 15, 2002 3) Repeal Policy 17.5.3 of the Land Use Element and replace with new Policies to clearly reflect that the goals and policies of the city's Shoreline Master Program are to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan while the shoreline use and development regulations are to be considered part of the City's municipal code. This will clearly reflect how the city would go about amending the Master Shoreline Program. Mr. Toews stated he will be forwarding a first cut work plan for the process and noted that the 2004 process will involve amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and PTMC and substantial analysis including development of new population numbers and a new planning period; updating existing conditions data for housing, transportation and capital facilities elements and amending the 20-year capital facility and capital improvement plans as well as amendments to the PTMC reflecting the use of"best available science" and potential changes in the Shoreline Master Program. He stated there is significant work ahead which will require much cooperation with Jefferson County. Mr. Masci asked for copies of the relevant statutes. He also requested an update on a legal action regarding the definition of best available science. Mr. Masci asked if the RCW requirement is that cities codify their Shoreline Master Programs. Mr. Toews stated that the Shoreline Master Program is considered an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dorgan stated that the GMA statute isn't that long and it could be a good idea for council members and planning commissioners to have it on hand for reference. Mr. Randall said that staff will produce notebooks with the requested materials. Ms. Dorgan referred to the last page of the 2002 Annual Assessment which states that the city should determine if a public participation element is necessary to be included in the Comprehensive Plan to comply with GMA. She asked if it is Mr. Toews's opinion that it should be in place before 2004. She also asked for an interpretation of the state requirement that a final urban growth area be adopted with the County comprehensive plan. Mr. Toews stated that statutory language does not support a public participation element of a Comprehensive Plan but does clarify the type of public participation required as early, continuous, and with proper notice. There are some policy guidelines within the existing plan but they don't rise to the level of a stand alone element. What is required is early, continuous public participation, not inclusion of any specific policy language in the jurisdiction's plan. Regarding the urban growth boundaries, Mr. Toews stated that they are not static and may be modified to reflect updated population forecasts; for example, it may be determined that a boundary is inadequate to support a population. There is no point at which urban growth boundaries become permanently static. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 5 May 15, 2002 Ms. Hersey noted that the rate of growth is not occurring as rapidly as the 1996 forecast indicated. She asked if GMA requires that we downsize our thought process and re- define what our needs are, then adjust again when the growth occurs. She expressed concern that the city will look at downsizing rather than planning for the future. Mr. Toews stated that he could only give his personal opinion, which is that GMA requires plans be prepared and urban growth boundaries set based on the forecast for the planning period; the fact that rates have slowed somewhat doesn't mean that rate won't materialize during the period. The city is under an onoing charge to plan for the OFM population forecast and that number is still very likely going to go up over the forecast for 2016. Suggested Amendment 3: Revise Lot Coverage and Parks/Open Space Districts Proponent: Building and Community Development Department Staff Recommendation: docket the amendment. Ms. Surber stated that the 1996 Comprehensive plan and 1997 Zoning Code created three public use districts: Park and Open Space (P/OS) zoning district applies to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and public owned or controlled lands; Mixed Public/infrastructure/Open Space (P/OS(B)) district applies to lands used for public utilities facilities and services, i.e. stormwater detention, wastewater treatment facilities; and the Public/Infrastructure (P-I) district applies to lands used for public facilities and services including public utilities, schools, libraries and government buildings. BCD has become aware of inconsistencies in the bulk and dimensional tables of the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan for the P-I and P/OS(B) districts. Recommendation is to modify the zoning code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan standards for the P/OS(B) district to allow a maximum lot coverage of 25%. Recommendation is also to modify the zoning code for the P-I district to increase the floor area ratios to be consistent with the C-III and C-II zoning district standards (depending on whether the P-I zone is in the historic district). These changes will resolve the inconsistency between one document using lot coverage as a measurement and one using floor area ratio; it will also allow appropriate structures to be built in the P/OS(B) zone and in the P-I zone. Amendment 4. Remove FUGA Language from the Comprehensive Plan Proponent: Alice King Staff Recommendation: Either 1) not docket the item or 2) docket the item with limited scope. The amendment is intended to bring the city's Comprehensive Plan into conformance with the county Comprehensive Plan. The city's plan refers to the area as a Final Urban Growth Area, while the county refers to a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 6 May 15, 2002 Development. The key deletions proposed are references to expansion of Port Townsend into Glen Cove, reference to planning for furore annexation of Glen Cove, and references to regional commercial areas. Suggested language is added to support a Glen Cove LAMIRD. Staff has recommended not docketing the item and waiting for the city and county to continue negotiations which will probably result in amendments to the plans either next year or in 2004. Alternatively, the FUGA (Future Urban Growth Area) language could be changed to PUGA (Provisional Urban Growth Area). Ms. Dorgan presented a list of questions to staff just before the meeting. Ms. Surber noted that she has not had time to read the document. Ms. Thayer noted that some questions may be brought up more properly during the deliberative process. Ms. Dorgan preferred to have the questions addressed at this time. The list of questions is incorporated as an attachment to these minutes. Regarding the county planning staff's statement that "provisional" meant "incremental" and that the term tells people things are happening, she asked if Mr. Randall agreed with that statement. Mr. Randall stated that "provisional" is a technical planning term and indicates (as in "provisional UGA") that planning is ongoing. He added his understanding that the current planning regarding the Glen Cove UGA is a two-pronged strategy: in the short term resulting in the expansion of the LAMIRD through a county Comprehensive Plan amendment, and in the long term, addressing whether there should be a Glen Cove Urban Growth Area. He added that the entire process will take longer than this year and that even though the county has suggested the amendment, it is open ended and identifies Glen Cove UGA planning. He said his understanding is that the city and county have draft interlocal agreements regarding the potential joint planning efforts. In response to the question of how does that procedure affect the timing of the city's review of the Glen Cove provisional growth area in our Comp Plan, Mr. Randall said that he does not know the answer but said the county has indicated interest in proceeding properly with the LAMIRD amendment but moving it through more quickly than the other proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. He added that city staff is not working on possible urban growth boundaries at all at this time. Ms. Dorgan next asked when the staff's suggested revised text and rationale will be available as an alternative to the proposed suggested amendment regarding Glen Cove. Mr. Randall stated that it is not intended to imply that staff is going to add an amendment; if docketed, staff may support fewer or different strikeouts/underlines. He added staff would not propose a different map. He noted that when the original Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 7 May 15, 2002 discussion about docketing came before the Planning Commission, the commission voted not to docket the item but did agree that it could be proposed by a single member. Ms. Benskin stated that staff should identify parts of the plan which have already been included through city/county agreements; for example on MIDs (Major Industrial Developments). Staff will include the final city/county interlocal agreement regarding MID policy in the information binders. It was noted that the final version of the agreement should be distributed as the edition in the information was subsequently changed by the city council. This will be provided before the public hearing. Amendment No. 5: Revise Density of R-III and R-IV Zoning Districts Proponent: Ted Shoulberg Staff Recommendation: docket the item. The amendment proposes revising the maximum density for the R-III and R-IV zoning districts to allow calculation of density to be based on either bedrooms or units. Ms. Surber stated that the current density calculation results in a penalty for studio apartments which does not encourage affordable housing. Prior to the 1999 amendments, the code regulated density by units; this was changed to bedrooms in the hope of encouraging and accommodating affordable housing. It was subsequently noted that the calculation can result in lowering the density depending on how many bedrooms are put into the unit. The proposal is a "hybrid" to allow more flexibility for developers who may use either bedrooms or units, whichever gives greater density. Ms. King asked for clarification of "whichever is greater" -why is the phrase needed? Mr. Randall replied that it makes clear there is a choice. Amendment 6: Revise Setbacks/Lot Coverage for Corner Lots Proponent: C.L. Flint Staff Recommendation: Docket and expand Ms. Surber noted the amendment would reduce side-yard setbacks and increase lot coverage in the residential zoning districts; this would result in correction of a perceived penalty to comer lots. Currently comer lots are required to have 5 foot setback from adjacent lots and 10 foot setback from street ROW (right of way). The result would be deletion of the required 1 O-foot side yard setback along street rights of way in the R-I, R- II and R-II zones and reflect a maximum lot coverage of 40% in R-I and R-II zones. Ms. Thayer asked if Mr. Flint were proposing the amendment as a staff member of an individual. Mr. Randall said he was proposing it as an individual. Mr. Benskin asked if lot coverage referred to building footprint or all impervious surface on the lot. Mr. Randall stated it referred to the building footprint. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 8 May 1.5, 2002 Issues were brought up regarding driveways coming in at the side of the house (Ms. Hersey) and relationship to the cottage housing ordinance (Ms. Robinson). There was brief discussion, and Ms. Surber noted that if the amendment is docketed, these components would be analyzed and open to public comment and commission and council discussion. She added that the staff recommendation includes expanding the amendment to consider reducing the 1 O-foot front yard setback requirements as well. Mr. Randall noted that the rights of way are so wide but only partially developed, particularly in the uptown area, that it is a hardship for many home owners to build porches and steps without conditional use permits because they are so close to the undeveloped ROW. Amendment 7. Revise Zoning Use Tables to Allow Group Homes Outright in Certain Zones. Proponent: Building and Community Development Department Staff recommendation: docket the item. Ms. Surber noted the proposal is to amend definitions and use tables in the zoning code to differentiate group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters from residential treatment facilities whose clients may be considered a risk to the public. Group homes for the disabled and emergency shelters would be treated the same as residential structures occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. She stated that currently the zoning code requires a conditional use permit for the siting of group homes; it is possible this is not permitted under the Washington Housing Policy Act. The proposed amendment hopes to resolve the codes current inconsistency with the Housing Policy Act and get to a comfort level where the idea of a group home will not be a perceived threat to the public. Amendment 8. Strike the 50% Rule for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Proponent: Building and Community Development Staff Recommendation: docket the item. Ms. Surber stated that the zoning code currently limits the size of an accessory dwelling unit to less than 50% of the total area of the main residence or 800 square feet, which ever is smaller. The proposal is to eliminate the 50% nde and stay with a maximum size of 800 square feet. The current formula does not work well when the primary residence is small. She added that the maximum lot coverage would remain the underlying rule so all proposals would not be able to have the maximum amount of space if lot coverage restrictions were exceeded. She added that the Comprehensive Plan encourages accessory dwelling units and similar housing types which serve special needs populations in all residential areas. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 9 May 15, 2002 Amendment 9. Delete Portion of Waterwalk from Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Proponent: Sarah Westall Staff recommendation: do not docket as Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary. Ms. Surber noted that the applicant proposed the deleting the "existing trail" designation from the Non-Motorized Plan which shows applicant's private property as a trail. Ms. Westall states that this leads members of the public to believe the trail is a public trail. Ms. Surber stated that a disclaimer in the text of the Plan recognizes that many "existing" trails cross private property and are meant simply to be an inventory of where people travel; private property cannot be designated as public property through inclusion in the plan. Ms. Surber noted that staff does not oppose the revision to the Non-Motorized Plan to remove the designation; however a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary. The amendment to the Non-Motorized Plan can be processed outside the Comprehensive Plan cycle. NEXT MEETING Mr. Randall asked if the Planning Commissioners are comfortable with the next scheduled meeting being the public hearing or if they would prefer another workshop before the public hearing. He clarified that after the public hearing, the Planning Commission would be expected to make recommendations on whether or not to docket each proposed item. He stated that the materials for the meeting would be the same as tonight, with no additional staff report. Staff will provide the other informational items requested by commissioners and council members. Consensus was to schedule the public heating on docketing the Comprehensive Plan amendments on May 30. Ms. Dorgan requested that next year no meetings be scheduled for the same dates as county workshops. ADJOURN The business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Minutes submitted by Para Kolacy, City Clerk Planning Commission Cindy ,~yer, Chair Planning Commission/City Council Joint Workshop Page 10 May 15, 2002