Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022191 Min Ci*ty of Port Towns Planning Commission Z . . Yk 540 Water St., Port 'Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 % Meeting of February 210 1991 I . ROLL CALL Chairman Ron Ko sec called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p.m. other members present were Karen Erickson, Sally. McDole and Jiro Tavernakis-. Lois Sherwood, Jim Roberts and Alan Carman were not present. II, COMMUNICATIONS: A. Current Mail Katherine Johnson stated that the Planning Commission had received a letter from John E. Kumpula of Olympic Spray Service on the topic of pesticides and that the letter was available for the commissioners' s review. The commissioners stated they would like a copy of the letter In their net packet. III, OLD BUSINESS: Gateway Update and Review 1. Staff Presentation Mr. Robison briefly stated the history of the Gateway Plan. Be said the 'program began in 1988 with a design charrette held at Fort orden. He reviewed the context and content of the charrette for the commissioners. Be stated that out of the charrette came. the Port Townsend Gateway Concept Plan. Mr. Robison reviewed some of the successes that arose out of the Gateway Concept Plan: a► blind-person sign, a crosswalk, a reduced speed limit in the Gateway Corridor, and the new proposed sign code. Mr. Robison stated that the Gateway Corridor extends from the entrance sign into town to the ferry terminal, approximately three miles. M . Robison said there are three goals of the Gateway Plan. The first goal is to improve traffic safety. The second goal is to improve street aesthetics. And the third goal is to create a design and marketing workbook that would guide potential developers + 5 in their planning along the corridor. t7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1991 Page, 2 Mr. Robison stated that a further component is to encourage economic vitality for businesses and the community as a whole. The goal, is to try to decrease the amount of "spending leakage" that has been problem in Port Townsend; i.e . locals traveling to Silverdale and Seattle to shop instead of buying locally. Ms. Erickson asked about the parameters of the; Gateway Plan. Mr. Robison stated that property owners within 20O. feet of the center line on either side of SIS 20 aro included. . Robison described the diversity of the 20-member Gateway Steering Committee. Members include cycling enthusiasts, business owners, traffic planners and city and county government workers. Mr, Robison directed the Commission's attention to the Gateway Development Plan. He stated that the Gateway area 'is broken down into districts: the Forest Corridor District, the Upper Commercial District, the S curve District, the Flats District and the Bluff District. � 4 Mr. Robison discussed these districts, as described in the Port Townsend Gateway Draft Development Plan. He also discussed the various "rooms" in the Upper Commercial District and the Flats District. Rooms are further breakdowns within a district and, like the districts themselves, are defined by natural. features, Mr. Robison stated that the Plan and the accompanying traffic analysis study in the back of the Plan have been entirely funded by grants. Mr. Robison went on to discuss chapter three of the Draft Development Plan: The Planning Process. He said the Route Development Plan . 1 recommends signali action, left-hand turn lanes, realignments of intersections and consolidating access points. It also looks at bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Mr. Robison proceeded to take the Commission -through section . 2, the Streetscape Development Plan. Stre tscape. elements may include curbs, driveways, intersections, landscaping, signage and other improvements as suggested in the Plan. Mr, Robison then reviewed section 3 , 3 , Design and Development Guidelines, He said that design and development guidelines are to be tools for the creation of public and private partnerships in realizing the goals of the Plan. He further discussed specific guidelines, as described in the Draft Development Plan. f Planning Commission Minutes o f February 21, 1991 Page, Mr, Robison then went on to review chapter four of the Plan: Description of the Development Plan. He further described each of the districts and listed some recommended improvements for each district, He directed the commissioners to copies of photos of each district which appear in the Plan. The photos include one for each district as they are now, and a second computer-generated photo of what the area would look like after some 'improvements, Ir. Robison then moved to chapter five of the Plan: Design and Development Guidelines. He stated that unlike the design guidelines that came out of the Urban Waterfront Process, which are quite specific dine to the unique character of the historical waterfront, Gateway design guidelines w' ill be far less prescriptive. Rather, the Gateway design guidelines are performance oriented and flexible. Mr, Robison then stated that the guidelines fall under four major themes and issues: 1. Gateway Corridor Concept; 2 . Gateway Corridor Circulation; Gateway Corridor Character; and . Buildings and Site Development. Mr. Robison went on to briefly discuss some of the guidelines that fall under each of the above four themes, as described in the Plan, Mr, Robison hien moved on to the Port Townsend Gateway Pro*ect Implementation and Financing Plan, which, he said, should be reviewed in conjunction with the Draft Development Plan, He said that the Steering Committee wanted an implementation and Financing Plan t o accompany the Draft Development Plan. on February 20, 19 91 the Steering Committee formally recommended adoption of the Port Townsend Gateway Draft Development Plan. The Committee further recommended that the Plan move forward for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 1 Mr, Robison proceeded to review the Implementation and Financing Plan. He said that since many elements of the plan are intended to occur over the next f ive years, action needs to be taken in the near--term to }peep the long-term projects possible. For example, since street realignments are proposed, we must ensure that they will still be possible in five years. Some discussion followed that no one part of the plan was more important than the other. It was also discussed that if funds were to run out that the overall value and content of the plan would remain the same. Some projects may come earlier than others depending on the degree of difficulty of completing the project. One near-term action, Robison said, is to pass a limited access highway ordinance which would help to better control access points along SR 20. Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1991 Page, Mr. Robison also said that a high priority of the Steering Committee is to protect the Forest Corridor, In response to this concern, a tree preservation and landscape development ordinance is proposed as part of the implementation of the: plan. Ms. Erickson said she wondered how the City will be able to protect the Forest Corridor. She said the county has similar ordinances but they are very difficult to enforce. once the trees are cut; they're gone. Mr. Robison said that the Steering Committee is recommending that the City consider property acquisition in this area in addition t adopting the above mentioned ordinance. Acquiring certain properties would ensure the protection of some large trees and buffer zones. Mr. Robison stated that the Steering Committee further recommends mandatory design review and mandatory compliance in the Gateway area. A board similar to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would be created. They recommended that one or two current HFC Commissioners sit on the Gateway design review board. Mr, Robison stated that coordination with the State Department of Transportation will be key since the State must approve all signals. Mr. Robison also stated that the City must demonstrate a commitment to private property owners. The City must be flexible. Mr. Robison further went on to discuss the proposed funding sources. He said possible funding sources include Washington State Department of Transportation grants, private investment, City funding Capital Improvement Program) and perhaps a 1 percent real estate tax. Mr. Robison thea discussed the proposed demonstration projects, which are implementation components of the plan. He said that demonstration projects would be an excellent way to show the community 'hat a difference improvements in the Gateway Corridor could make. He also said that in light of the expense of the Gateway Plan, it would be impossible to immediately implement the plan in its entirety, Mr. Robison said the City could likely receive a significant grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation to do a demonstration project, such as the Kearney St, improvements, The project would show the community that the -Gateway plan can be implemented through community cooperation and diverse funding. 4 Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1991 Page, 5 Mr. Robison stated that another demonstration project would be the "Gateway Plaza, 11 as described in the Plan. He stated that the city has met with all property owners in the area, and the owners have expressed great excitement about the project. The Department of Transportation stated that if there is significant cooperation, the department could possibly put in a left-hand turn lane for access into the plaza. Mr, Robison thea described the Haines Street demonstration pro)ect. This project proposes s ignaliation at Maines and Sims streets and construction of a road through the Safeway parking lot. He said that owners of Safeway are ecstatic about this possibility. Mr. Robison described the fourth proposed demonstration project: the improvement of the Memorial Viewpoint. He said minor enhancements and maintenance by a community group could help make the viewpoint more visible and accessible to locals and to visitors. Mr, Robison' stated the Implementation and Financing Plan is short- term and will be constantly updated and amended, He said the current plan focuses on the next two years. Ms. Erickson asked what percentage of the Plan, would be paid for by property owners. Mr. Robison stated there are too many variables to answer at this time. However, he said he! could estimate that the State would contribute 5- 0 percent, the City 5-10 percent, property owners 5-10 percent and other sources 5-10 percent. He said a working partnership between all these groups would be necessary to successfully implement the plan. Mr. Robison added that many Gateway property owners were in favor of the plan saying it would increase their property value, He also said that 'improvements would attract new community services, having cumulative effect. He said many studies have proven such cumulative effects. Ms. Erickson stated some plans, such as the storm drainage retention fund, have been collected for years and then not implemented. she said she would like to know if there is a plan. Mr. Robison stated that there is such a plan for storm drainage retention. Mr. Robison stated that the Steering Committed strongly recommends that the city council adopt the 1 percent real estate excise tax in the Gateway district to help pay for the project. fly 4 Q ,.* 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1991 Page, Ms, Erickson said she would rather see the entire community help pay for the project, rather than the private property owners. Mr. Robison said the intent of the pian is that everyone must pay proportionate share, proportionate to each person's benefit. Ms. McDole said she thinks the pian is exciting and supports it. Ms. Erickson added that improving streets and walkways would make big difference in the area, Mr. Kosec adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Minutes recorded by Katherine M. Johnson Planning & Building Assistant