HomeMy WebLinkAbout06041996M2[NUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING:
The Draft Land Use Element & Map
JUNE04,1996
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this 4th day of June, 1996,
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch presiding.
Councilmembers present were Dan Harpole, Jean Camfield, Kathryn Jenks, Ted Shoulberg, Diane
Perry-Thompson Ian Keith, and Bill Davidson.
Mayor McCulloch turned the meeting over to Planning StaffDave Robison and Eric Toews. Mr.
Robison noted this as the beginning of the City Council's review of the Comprehensive Plan. He
mentioned Planning Commission Chairperson Lois Sherwood explained the process and public
involvement during last night's City Council Meeting.
Mr. Robison stated they hope to go through e~ch chapter and element of the Plan, page by page over
the next several meetings, then open ~t up to the public hearings for the larger community to
comment on the Plan. He said after that they will go to Council deliberations to further strengthen,
refine and revise the Plan as needed to make it the Plan that will fulfill the community's desires over
the next year at least, hopefully over the next 20 years, and provide a blueprint for the future
development into Port Townsend.
Mr. Robison gave a brief summary of the process over the past couple of years and told Council that
what they have before them is a very tntense effort that reflects quite well the future direction of
Port Townsend. He told of the community dialogue that about 1 year later crafted the Community
Direction Statement, Chapter 3, which is the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan, and said they
will try to bring the Council and commumty back to the Community Direction Statement to ensure
that that Community Direction Statement is indeed what we want to be today, and hopefully look
forward to trying to accomplish and implement that over the next 5, 10, and 20 years. He said they
will be monitoring their progress in meeting the Community Direction Statement on an annual basis.
Mr. Robison turned the discussion over to Mr. Toews to outline differences between the workgroup
recommendation and the re~ision from the Planning Commission in the Land Use and Housing
Element.
LAND USE ELEMENT
Open Spaces & Trails:
· Workgrou_o Recommendation:
Glue that held the Land Use
maintaining Port Townsend's
Interconnected System of Parks, Open Spaces and Trails.
Element together. Identified as one key approach to
small town atmosphere, by providing visual relief from
increased dens,ties over time, by maintaining significant habitat areas and areas with
development constraints.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Retain the key policy recommendation with
revision to definition of Parks & Open Space overlay to specify a work in progress
(conceptual overlay designation at this time). A Functional Plan is to follow to clarify and
define key strategies:
Acquisition of key parcels within the network
Development Incentives to encourage land owners either not to develop at all Within
open space areas or to try to locate development on the periphery of those areas.
Reduction in allowable development densities.
Mixed Use Centers:
· Workgroup Recommendation: Designate four new Mixed Use Centers (MUCs).
Promote pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with shopping opportunities.
,' San Juan and F
,' Hastings & Howard
- Discovery Road
,. Keamey Street
· Planning Commission Recommendation: Retain all four proposed MUCs, with slight
revisions to the boundary of the Discovery Road MUC.
· Two to the north -- neighborhood serving. (Medium density multi-family on upper
story; ground floor, neighborhood commercial.)
· Two to the south -- community serving. (Ground floor commercial, more intense
uses; upper story, higher density multi-family.)
Commercial, Marine-Related & Manufacturing Upzones
· Workgr0up Recommendation: Commercial and Manufacturing upzones in southwest
quadrant with a significant portion between Discovery Road and Sims Way.
· Planning Commission Recommendation: Revised Land Use Map to slightly lower amount
of commercial and manufacturing land.
· Modified boundaries of the Hospital Commercial Zone along Sheridan.
· Removal of land south of Sims Way, in particular the Evans property that is subject
to a vested development application for single family residential use.
(Result, slight decrease in land zoned for commercial and manufacturing purposes.)
· Eliminate Marine-Commercial (C-II(M). Originally adjacent and east of the Boat
Haven. Overly restrictive.
Areas with Significant Development Constraints
· Workgroup Recommendation: Designate Drainage Basins #4(a) and (b) for lower density
residential development (R-I, 1 d.u. per 10,000 square feet) in order to prevent flooding and
expensive public works projects.
· Planning Commission Recommendation: Retain the Low Density Residential (R-I)
designation for Drainage Basins #4(a) and (b), but modify the district boundary to follow
lines capable of legal description.
Mr. Toews said that what this comparison reveals is that the Planning Commission's
recommendations as they relate to the key thrust of the Land Use Element are refinements to those
recommendations, and that is a testament to the good work of the Citizen Workgroups. Mr. Robison
said that was not to say there wasn't a lot of discussion on each of those recommendations. He said
there was a lot of discussion about the viability of Mixed Use Centers and if they truly could work
over the long term, and whether or not they were needed.
Councilmember Shoulberg asked about the minimum population for uses of the Mixed Use Centers.
Mr. Toews said their analysis did not get to that level of detail, but it was clearly a consideration of
the Land Use Workgroup, early on, and one of the reasons they tried to locate the mixed use centers
a minimum of one-half mile street distance from one another to make sure they were viable over
time. He said another thing the workgroup tried very. hard to do was encourage viability within the
goals and policies of Mixed Use Centers to allow a tremendous amount of flexibility in how they
could be developed. If there were not a demand immediately for commercial use in a Mixed Use
Center, the structures could be put to residential use, but in such a way convened to Mixed Use
Centers if the demand were there.
Councilmember Shoulberg said he doesn't think the Mixed Use Center is viable with such a low
population base, that it would hamper a developer and be too expensive to convert the lower floors
with fire codes and other codes different for residential and for commercial. He said he thinks you
should be able to build it if you want to, but he doesn't think it is viable. He said he thinks the
economics is hampering multiple use densities. Mr. Robison said he thought the workgroup had
struggled with that factor in trying to locate those areas that were virtually developed that were at
the crossroads between arterials and collectors. Mr. Shoulberg said the point had been made that
you didn't have to build now, you could convert later but the structure had to be designed with a
commercial downstairs, and that is going to add a huge amount of cost that you cannot amortize
immediately, and it hurts affordable housing if you have to build that way without having the
population base to sustain commercial enterprise. Having to put all the extra cost into building
hurts the people who live in this town, and costs them more to live here.
Mr. Toews noted that example he cited was only one approach, that there is more flexibility than
that. He said the policy does mention that ceiling heights will accommodate commercial
development on the ground floor, but there are also policies that suggest that co-location of
structures side-by-side is also permissible.
Councilmember Keith said it had been said there was a lot of input and asked if they had any input
from anybody who would have operated or would hke to operate this kind of business? He pointed
out the one-half city block on the little area comer of the fairground seemed to him as the most
viable potential for a mixed use center than any other, farthest from and source of services, and there
is greater population than the others. Discussion ensued as to rationale and viability.
Commissioner Enarson answered Mr. Shoulberg's concerns that the Planning Commission grappled
with those same issues about mixed use centers for many hours and came back to the Community
Direction Statement. She said they debated for a long time and came to a point of decision and
moved on. She noted there is ample multi-family housing with better conditions in other areas.
Councilmember Keith said he is not against mixed use centers, but would like flexibility.
Councilmember Jenks asked about decision making and referenced Staff's comments that
recommendations were taken from the Commumty Direchon Statement, the workgroups and public
testimony. She said she wanted to make sure they could reference public testimony during the
discussions in all the meetings. Mr. Robison said there were very comprehensive minutes that
contain dialogue between the Planning Commission, Staff, and anyone who provided public
testimony; they show each motion and the decisions made by the Planning Commission Mr. Toews
said all of the minutes from the Planning Commission hearings, Planning Commission meetings,
and the Joint Workshops back in February would be copied and put into two binders along with
written testimony submitted to the Planmng Commission, as well as correspondence by Staff to the
Planmng Commission. Mr. Robison said the Planning Commission had received 60 or more letters,
and they spent considerable time and addressed every letter as well as comments from workshops.
Councilmember Harpole raised the issue of open space and trails. He said he had respect for the
Planmng Commission but questioned the presentation of the Functional Plan. Mr. Toews pointed
out the Parks & Recreational Plan and Functional Plan are two separate plans. Councilmember
Keith asked with regard to open space what possibilities exist while work is in progress; how long
before incentives could be in place, i.e., would a developer have to cluster in a particular way in a
sensitive area? Mr. Robison said no matter what clustering you do, it is truly a commumty desire.
He spoke about outfight acquisition and said that since the proposed excise tax went down to defeat,
they are trying to bring back 1 percent for open space in Jefferson County, but that is several years
away. He said there is an interim mechanism to try to achieve an open space network.
Mr. Robison said three general meetings are scheduled for Council to look at recommendation made
to them in the revised Draft Plan. He noted they are workshop meetings to help them see what ~s
contained in the Draft Plan with a whole new load of testimony and recommendations. He said
June 24th through July 9th the five meetings scheduled are to cover each element, make motions,
do lines in and lines out, and hopefully adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on July 15th
Councilmember Jenks asked who is keeping track of issues they are raising. It was noted Mr. Toews
will be covering those issues.
Mr. Robison said there is a detailed time line proposed for Council; go through each element and
open up to goals and policies, then the Land Use Map. He said they could discuss this at the June
12th meeting. Councilmember Camfield suggested they go through lines in and lines out, with
maybe rationale by Planning Commission to help Council understand and assist with clarification.
Then go to the Public Hearings and back to individual elements. Mr. Robison said that was their
intention. He said Council has not had the opportunity to read through this material. It would be
better to sit back and read the chapters before they come to other meetings. He said they anticipate
having summary sheets of key recommendations, than lines in and lines out and rationale.
4
Planning Commissioner Enarson said in the Commission's first couple of meetings they were
floundering and she noted the chicken and egg effect. She said going over goals and policies helped
most. They then heard public testimony and went back to deliberations.
Mayor McCulloch asked how to proceed. Mr. Robison said this discussion was a great start. Mr.
Toews noted that Council had not gone through the Planning Commission transmittal and taken the
highlights and key points element by element,
Summary of Key Recommended Revisions & Areas of Concern
Chapter V - The Land UseElement
1. Eliminate the Minimum Densi _ty Requirement for the Medium Density_ Multi-Family District
(R-III):
Mr. Toews noted a surplus on the land us6 map, that it is over the 125 acre target. He said they
were comfortable with that, conditioned on the market response to the R-III and allowing single
family residences.
Discussion ensued regarding the mix o~' single family and multi-family residences and the
flexibility it gives to the developer, ease and benefits of upzoning vs. downzoning. Mr. Toews noted
the Planning Commission also looked at 3 options suggested by Commissioner Boles:
· Phasing some of the proposed zoning utilities
· Incremental rezones
· Rezones on an annual basis at the request of the landowner over time
Councilmember Shoulberg said only time will tell, but he disagrees and suggested performance
based rezones. He said you would have to state there is nothing available. Mr. Robison stated those
criteria will change on a yearly basis and said the way it has been operating currently, they don't find
new rezone applications with multi-family projects. He said hopefully this will help. He said the
Planning Commission will monitor, and that they may have to change in the future.
Mr. Toews said regarding increased land value in a rezone, he had discussed this with the
County Assessor, and that with single to multi-family there is little to modest change in the value
of the land. He said it is significant on vacant residential land rezoned to commercial or industrial.
Mr. Robison noted the caveat: if there is land available. He said a large amount of multi-family
should balance out.
Commission Chair Sherwood said one of the reasons they chose to change the minimum density
was due to testimony from those who prefer flexibility. She said they also wanted to maintain a mix
in housing styles. Commissioner Enarson spoke abut the developer in relation to higher density, and
the public perception in this town that high density equates to a PUD. She said in trying to have a
place this for this, a developer can come in now and doesn't have to wait for a year.
5
2. Eliminate the Marine Commercial District (Cfi(M)) -- adjacent and east of the Boat Haven
Mr. Toews spoke about business owners in that area, that limiting range of potential uses would
heighten ability to lease. He said CII doesn't preclude marine uses, it gives more flexibility.
Commissioner Enarson referenced a comment in the Community Direction Statement defining
Port Townsend as a working waterfront town. She said this is not eliminating a marine accent.
3. Clarify_ the Description 0fthe Park & Open Space Overlay Designation (P/OS(A)):
Mr. Toews said during discussion folks were really unsure what was meant. He said he really
thought it was too restrictive, and said the Planning Commission recommend work/in progress
potential for the future; there is nothing at this time. He said there is nothing mandated for public
access to private land.
Commissioner Welch noted people thought this was going to mean trails on their land.
Councilmember Shoulberg asked City Attorn,ey McMahan if at any point of time can you designate
open space and not be a "taking" issue, i.e., if we develop a corridor, bikes trails, anything, that
would not be a "taking," as a zone? Mr. McMahan replied it would depend on the value, the impact
on the property development. He said this is proposed as an overlay to meet the end goal,
permitting process.
Discussion followed regarding incentives, and funding for open space. Mr. Toews noted that
P/OS(A) is an overlay, and P/OS(B) - Mixed Public/Infrastructure/Open Space is City owned land
and infrastructure. He said it includes parks in the system today.
Chapter VI - The Housing Element
4. Allow Manufactured (i.e., HUD Code) Homes in Single-Family Residential Districts Outside
the National Register Hi~t0ric District:
Commissioner Clifton noted the need for Iow income housing, that there is a huge element of
people who can't find an affordable place to live. Commission Chair Sherwood said this was driven
by goals. She said the new styles of manufactured homes are pleasing and she compared them to
the esthetics of older manufactured homes and the improved durability in the last 10 years - will
it appear to be a sound investment. She said you come to a point, basically people are smart, what
is right for them. She pointed out set back guidelines, health and safety guidelines and allowing
people the integrity of their choices.
Several issues were discussed:
Esthetics:
Councilmember Shoulberg noted modulars are now in single family residential areas and asked,
"Can you tell the difference esthetically with new model [manufactured home]?" He suggested
6
using design standards if the concern is esthetics. Mr. Robison said he could tell the difference.
Councilmember Perry-Thompson said if you regulate design standards for esthetics, don't you
then have to do it with every single place? She spoke of the fairness issue.
Councilmember Harpole compared the appearance of manufactured homes vs. the Eldridge tract
homes. He said he had seen many manufactured homes much more attractive.
Choices:
· Commission Chair Sherwood asked .... Will it appear to be a sound investment? You come
to a point -- basically people are smart. What is right for them? She talked about set back
guidelines, health and safety guidelines, and allowing people the integrity of their choices.
· Councilmember Perry-Thompson said although the Manufactured Homes Association
representative could not tell the difference between the UBC and HUD standards, he did say,
"People have choices."
· Commissioner Enarson said they had received several letters pro and con,..., another concern,
"Of course you should let me have a choice.".... She said they are handled as PUDs; the
community perception of that is this is an elitist town. She said she does not know how many
will be placed because of land costs, but give the community a choice.
RoofPitch:
Mr. Toews noted discussion regarding roof pitch and said that is one method [to regulate] rather
than single out manufactured homes.
Councilmember Keith suggested for any new manufactured, modular, or stick built home, not
to accept over 30% roof pitch. He said that has the advantage of being quantifiable.
Lowers Property_ Values:
Commissioner Enarson said they had received several letters pro and con .... and noted
concern about lowering of property values, strict economy in that extent.
Affordable Housing:
· Councilmember Camfield pointed out the shortage of affordable homing and said she supports
placing them throughout town except in the historic district.
· Commissioner Enarson agreed with Councilmember Camfield.
· Councilmember Jenks raised the affordability issue. She cited a medium cost of $90,000 for a
manufactured home in McBride's proposed Hamilton Heights addition and questioned the
affordability of 30% of monthly median income of $2500 to $8300. She said you could have
custom built for $90,000.
· Councilmember Keith said that was not correct -- that analysis of building cost was a year ago;
it is over that figure at this point.
· Councilmember Jenks said it is not for beauty but for quality, more than built to code. You can
research people going out of this community for affordable housing, that have long lived here
for several generations, rather than to say manufactured homes are affordable.
7
Durability:
· Commission Chair Sherwood said this was goals driven She spoke .... about esthetics of older
manufactured homes, durability within the last 10 years. Will it appear to be a sound
investment? You come to a point -- basically people are smart. What is right for them?..
· Councilmember Jenks said, "How will it last, how do we put into it affordability?" She said it
deteriorates much more readily. She pointed out five realtors are against them and we need to
pay attention. She spoke about design guidelines for quality and suggested working toward
federal grant money, if it is again available to assist people, that it is a social issue.
Councilmember Keith talked about deterioration and durability. He said you can build a stick
house the same as a manufactured home with local materials: 2 x 6's; floor construction; the
same siding as on stick built; roofing.
Modular vs Manufactured Homes:
· Councilmember Shoulberg talked about the cost difference between manufactured and modular
homes.
· Mr. Toews said the square footage is significantly less on a manufactured home.
· Councilmember Shoulberg said the question is not stick and manufactured; it's modular and
manufactured.
UBC/ HUD:
· Councilmember Perry-Thompson said the Manufactured Homes Association representanve
could not give the difference between UBC and HUD codes.
· Commissioner Enarson said they did not hear testimony from builders. She spoke of design
guidelines, and that modulars look identical to manufactured homes. She raised safety issues
in relation to the UBC Code.
· Councilmember Shoulberg said he is still confused as to difference between the UBC and the
HUD.
· Mr. Toews said the UBC postdates adoption of the HUD standard, but the HUD standard has
also undergone changes. He said they are different standards, but it is difficult to say one is
inferior to the other.
· Councilmember Keith said it is a difficult comparison to make. One of the points the
Manufactured Homes Association representative made, they are not engineers. He said if it is
to UBC Code you have to have an engineer's stamp, and it costs more.
· Commissioner Enarson said they did not hear testimony from builders. She spoke of design
guidelines, and that modulars look identical to manufactured homes. She raised safety issues
in relation to the UBC Code.
Councilmember Keith said his idea was not to exclude manufactured housing, only to prevent
grouping manufactured homes all together, all through town. He said this is a stick built town, and
he objects to several blocks of manufactured homes. He suggested for any new manufactured,
modular, or stick built home, not to accept over 30% roof pitch. He said that has the advantage of
being quantifiable.
Councilmember Perry-Thompson pointed to acceptance of ADUs, that there has been less than 1%,
and said typically when the City adopts this it will be the same. She said, "It is a market driven
economy, and we are trying to help a bit." Councilmember Jenks countered about affordable
housing and Councilmember Perry-Thompson said, "This is one option." Commissioner Clifton
said that nobody said that was the only way, but there is a niche, and spoke about diversity.
Commissioner Welch said he agreed, and did not think this was a very fair argument. Mr. Hayden
made reference to the 1% of ADUs, asked if they gave a time frame, and said his concept is we are
an aging socieW.
Councilmember Camfield said another discussion was the mobile home, and mentioned Sea Breeze.
Commissioner Clifton spoke about the old trailers in Victorian Village.
Mr. Toews noted another discussion on Recreational Vehicles and trailer parks and said the
Planning Commission considered a number of options for RV Parks, and in relation to ['LIDs.
Councilmember Shoulberg questioned someone coming to establish an RV park and Mr. Robison
said it could go through a PUD. Mr. Shoulber, g questioned that as affordable housing. Mr. Robi sion
said there are different ways to look at it, that there are adequate provisions to handle that.
Discussion ensued regarding procedures for following meetings. Councilmember Jenks spoke about
heanng all the thought processes, that they had really done a good job. She said that although she
doesn't agree regarding manufactm'ed homes, she is ever so slightly less rigid.
ADJOUP~NMENT
There being no further business, at 9:35 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting.
Julie McCulloch, Mayor
ALtair.
Acting City Clerk
Sheila Avis, Minute Taker