Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06111996 MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING: The Draft Transportation, Capital Facilities & Utilities and Economic Development Elements JUNE ll, 1996 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this 1 lth day of June, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Chair Pro Tem Dan Harpole presiding. Present were Jean Camfield, Kathryn Jenks, Ian Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted Shoulberg and Bill Davidson. Mayor Julie McCulloch was excused, attending an Association of Washington Cities Conference. Also present was A1 Scalf, Jefferson County Planner. Planning StaffDave Robison and Eric Toews were also present and presented discussion items for the meeting. Council decided to complete the discussion on Land Use Element lines-in and lines- out out from the previous meeting. COuncilmember Jenks asked about the Master List of Comment Letters Received on the Port Townsend Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIS from January 10 forward. She asked if there is a way to identify which requests from the subject letters had not been granted, particularly rezones, so they can again be reviewed and given more attention. Mr. Toews said he would identify and highlight those letters. Mr. Davidson asked about a rezone request letter received by Council on June 3. Mr. Toews noted that the request in that June 3rd letter had been considered by the workgroup in summer of 1995, and that the land owners were resubmitting their original request. He also said both the workgroup and the Planning Commission had recommended granting the request in part, and denying it in part. LAND USE ELEMENT Goals and Policies Pages V-I - V-25 Page 18 Councilmember Keith asked about densities and how policies which say "foster" and "encourage,' could be accomplished. Mr. Toews said that the fact the Plan designates land for increased density housing evidenced that the City was attempting to "foster" and "encourage" such development. Councilmember Jenks asked about the potential of a multi-family building, density of 16 d.u. per acre, being built on two blocks. Messrs Robison and Toews discussed how it could be built vertically as well as horizontally, and how hard it would be to fit it into that space. Mr. Toews said a~imum density is required for R-IV but not R-III, and that in R-III the "as built" density combe less than 16 d.u. per acre. Page 21 Councilmember Harpole asked why "nonprofit service uses/organizations" was deleted from "Other Designations." Mr. Toews said it was done to make the P-I Zone solely public use. Goal 1 LAND USE MAP No change. Goal 2 NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS & ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Policy 2.2 Councilmember Harpole asked if the word "historical" should be added to "archaeological properties"? Mr. Toews said the language was taken from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) comments. Policy 2.4 Councilmember Jenks asked about the DNR timber lands. Mr. Robison stated that there are no timber lands of long-term commercial significance within the City. Goal 3 OPEN SPACES & TRAILS Policy 3.13 Councilmember Keith sUggested "off-road vehicles" be removed with the word "equestrian" to be preceded by the word "and." Mr. Toews said the change had been requested by the Parks Commission and they were unwilling to preclude the use of off-road vehicles. Discussion ensued regarding whether off-road vehicles should be removed from the mix, or moved to another place; leaving the concept of design standards and removing the example within the parentheses; reinstating the original wording; or using the wording of both the original and the new and making two separate policies. The issue of definition of off-road vehicles was raised regarding wheel chairs, recreational vehicles, vehicles used for maintenance of trails. MOTION Jenks. To reinstate the original Policy 3.13 and prohibit the use of motorized off- road recreational vehicles on trails. SECOND Keith. Discussion regarding the use of trails by those who are physically challenged. AMENDMENT Jenks. Reword Policy 3.13, "Prohibit the use of motorized off-road recreational vehicles, with the exception of those needed for physically challenged people, on trails designated in the Comprehensive Open Space and Trails Plan," approved by Councilmember Keith VOTE UNANIMOUS by voice vote after further discussion. Mr. Robison said he would define "handicap" and "recreational vehicles" in the glossary rather than having to f'me rune the policies which now include: 3.13 Prohibit the use of motorized off-road recreational vehicles, with the exception of those needed for physically challenged people, on trails designated in the Comprehensive Open Space and Trails Plan. 3.14 Develop and adopt standards regarding trail uses that minimize conflicts between different types of trail users (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians.) 3.15 Provide adequate funding for open space and trails network operation and maintenance. Mr. Robison answered questions regarding funding as noted in Policy 3.15 that it covered maintenance costs and not acquisition. Councilmember Jenks stated the Trails Goals and Policies are really excellent. Councilmember Perry-Thompson's stated she sees Policy 3.15 as altemative modes of transportation and Mr. Robison affirmed with, "absolutely." Goal 4 PARKS & RECREATION Policy 4.8 Councilmember Jenks said she would like to strengthen the wording of Policy 4.8, maybe by changing the word "consider" to "acquire." Councilmember Shoulberg noted Policy 4.2 and said he liked the stricken part of that policy better. Mr. Toews pointed out the Planning Commission recommended deletion of the stricken phrase, because they considered it a given that there would an adopted Capital Facilities and Utilities Element that would establish level of service standards, and we would be living within the financial constraints of that element. Mr. Shoulberg said he wouldn't mind leaving 4.2 the way it is, but would not want to get rid of the word "consider" in 4.8. MOTION Jenks. To change the word "consider" to "acquire" in Policy 4.8. SECOND None MOTION DIES GOAL 5 WATER QUALITY & MANAGEMENT Policy 5.3 Councilmember Jenks questioned the intent of this policy regarding impervious surfaces. Mr. Robison said this policy had been written in response to her concerns expressed in a Planning Commission workshop. Mr. Toews noted it is to reduce the creation of new impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Robison explained that when they go back and do development regulations, they will be looking at flexible parking regulations and probably incentives for reductions of impervious surfaces, etc. Discussion ensued. Councilmember Shoulberg said that Ms. Jenks was trying to get at reduction of the amount of impervious surface, but thinks this policy should be left as it is. Mr. Robison noted this policy concerns Water Quality and the impervious surfaces issues will again be covered under the Transportation Element. Mr. Toews said it is also covered in the Capital Facilities and Utilities under Stormwater, Page VIII-19 Policy 5.3.7 Councilmember Keith pointed out the wording was incorrect. Mr. Toews corrected it by deleting the word "related." Goal 6 AIR QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT Councilmember Shoulberg asked if someone came in for a PUD would these policies apply? Mr. Robison replied they would, but he said a lot of the policies were directed towards City action. He said approximately 50 percent were directed at private or public development. Policy 6.3.4 Councilmember Jenks asked about the legality of yard burning in Port Townsend, and also asked about bum barrels. It was noted that at this time both are allowed. Goal 7 RESIDENTIAL LANDS Policy 7.3 Councilmember Jenks asked the Planning Commission if they had any more comments regarding manufactured homes, where they are allowed in town and under what circumstances? Mr. Robison noted this issue is also addressed in the Housing Element. Revisit. Policy 7.11 Councilmember Jenks asked if the Planning Commission had recommended to delete minimum densities. Mr. Toews said they had for R-m, but not R-IV. Mr. Robison noted this policy also could be rendered moot, because the new designation suggests what they are. Ms. Jenks asked for clarification -- minimum densities are in R-IV only, 17 d.u. per acre. She asked if each acre zoned R-IV has to have 17 units on it, that you cannot have 1, 4 or 8, both were affirmed. After discussion Mr. Robison suggested they revisit this issue. Revisit. (New) Policy 7.15 Councilrnember Keith asked what this policy meant. Mr. Toews said the applicability is now moot and Mr. Robison said they could propose striking that policy. MOTION Keith. Move to strike Policy 7.15. SECOND Camfield VOTE Unanimous by voice vote. Goal 8 COMMERCIAL LANDS Policy 8.8 Councilmember Perry-Thompson said the concept of this policy seemed unfinished, and questioned what is done after it is "identified"? It was pointed out the wording is incorrect, and Mr. Robison said to strike the second "area." Councilmember Shoulberg asked if there is a policy that indicates that commercial, industrial and manufacturing lands identified in the Plan meet the needs of the population growth for the City of Port Townsend? Mr. Robison said there is not a policy, but it is in the discussion of the Land Use Element, the Environment Review. Mr. Shoulberg asked if there wasn't something they might want to include here. Mr. Toews said the Land Use Element narrative does a straight line projection, the current ratio of population to land zoned for commercial and manufacturing uses, and based on that, estimates how much additional land would be needed by the end of the planning period. He said the City meets one and falls short on the other (commercial a-nd manufacturing). The narrative says if you want to achieve this goal and maintain this current ratio, we will have to look to areas beyond the City's corporate limits within the potential unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Mr. Shoulberg asked if there is any requirement for the City to maintain that specific ratio. Mr. Toews answered that there is not, and that it comes down to, as most of these issues do, community desires and preferences. Mr. Shoulberg asked about the impact on the Economic Development Strategy if we did not maintain the existing ratio of commercial and manufacturing land to population ratio. Mr. Toews said that Port Townsend already exceeds the averages of most other cities our size. Policy 8.9 Councilmember Harpole asked if regional commercial retailers would be like WalMart, etc? Mr. Robison said it would be something of that nature and said what this policy says is, if the City and County did have an Urban Growth Area, outside the City Limits, that is where that would possibly be located. Mr. Harpole said that does not say we will encourage such uses, but if we are to locate them anywhere that is where they will be. Mr. Robison stated it is the C-IV Zone. 4 Councilmember Shoulberg said when you have an anchor facility, it isn't the anchor facility as much as the spin off businesses that would compete with, and adversely affect, the downtown. Mr. Robison said this discussion will come up again in the Economic Development Element, and one of the goals of that workgroup was to try to stop the estimated $70 million retail sales leakage out of Jefferson County. Revisit, Mr. Toews pointed out the original recommendation of the Joint Growth Management Committee in May of 1995 was to further pursue the research and possible designation of an unincorporated UGA that included up to two sites for regional retail commercial use and said he thinks what is referenced in the Plan is a total of 23 acres. He noted that was a recommendation that, at least at one time, was endorsed not only by the City's three members on the Joint Growth Management Committee, but also the three County Commissioners. He pointed out that these goals and policies and the recommendations of this Plan that relate to the UGA, really form the City's recommendation to the County for future designation of the UGA. He said if the Councilmembers were uncomfortable with that, he thinks it is appropriate to both revise the goals and policies and also bring it up before the Joint Growth Management Committee explicitly that you have some reservations about the original recommendation of May 1995. Commissioner Jenks raised the question of conflict between a regional commercial center and mixed use centers. She said when they revisit Policy 8.9 she would like to see if they could eliminate the policy entirely. Mr. Robison pointed out the goal of these meetings was not to go through and do fine tuning now, that the goal of these first three meetings is to get through all of the elements so they understand them and the links, or lack of links, between each element so when they take public testimony and move into deliberations they will understand how all the elements are supported by the other elements or stand alone. Goal 9 MANUFACTURING LANDS Policy 9.1 Councilmember Davidson questioned the word"jurisdiction,' regarding the Economic Development Council and the word "entities." A reworded policy will be crafted. Goal 10 MIXED USE CENTERS Policy 10.2.1 Councilmember Shoulberg asked if somebody had said adjacent (vertical or horizontal)? Commissioner Welch said the term ground floor seemed to preclude second floor commercial. Councilmember Harpole suggested omitting "on the ground floors" -- it is horizontal and vertical in 10.5.1. MOTION Harpole. Remove "on the ground floors from 10.2.1." SECOND Shoulberg VOTE By voice vote -- Davidson opposing. 5 Goal 11 Essential Public Facilities Policy 11.3 Councilmember Shoulberg said in legal terms "such as" means that a developer would have to complete walkways, etc. and said he is talldng about the onerous, bureaucratic, cumbersome standards that a poor developer has to comply with. Mr. Robison said essential public facilities are those that are large scale, sometimes prisons, airports, port facilities. Mr. Shoulberg asked why are walkways, benches, etc. required? Mr. Toews said facilities with regional or statewide significance like a college or similar large scale facility, you would really want those included -- bus shelters, benches and adequate parking. Goal 12 Public Facilities & Utilities (Typically City, School District, Port type facilities and utilities.) Policy 12.4 (stricken) Councilmember Keith questioned. Mr. Toews said it was stricken because it was inherently inconsistent with the highly detailed policy regarding wastewater collection and treatment, Policy 18.1 in the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. Mr. Keith said he is thinking of alternative, technologically sophisticated individual waste treatment systems, like composting. Mr. Robison said that particular policy, as he recalls, was proposed by an individual on the [Land Use] citizen workgroup, and based on what the Capital Facilities & Utilities workgroup did, there was an inherent conflict between those two policies. The Planning Commission rectified that inconsistency with the proposed sthke out. He answered Councilmember Camfield's question that it was addressed in the utilities section. Mr. Keith said, however, that it was addressed in terms of allowing septic systems on 1 acre parcels, and he was not talking about that. Mr. Robison said the other aspect of that was having all households of Port Townsend pay for waste treatment plant. Mr. Keith brought up the issue of conservation and said the City as a water utility is conflicted about conservation, and is conflicted about reducing the solid waste going into the treatment plant; on one side you have to pay for it, and the other side... He said he is not sure long-term if it is wise to maximize the mount of waste that goes into system so it does hit the wall in 20 years and we have to build another one. Councilmember Shoulberg brought up an issue raised within "areas not currently served by public systems." Mr. Keith said he struck that in his suggestion and Mr. Shoulberg said there are a lot of areas in the City that are not served by the system, that would be served by the system. Mr. Shoulberg asked if he wants to promote a policy that in areas not served by the system now having individual systems out there, so that the system doesn't get out there? Mr. Keith said he was not sure that is a bad idea, that all this policy says is "consider," and he does not think we should strike the consideration of that. MOTION Keith. Moved to reinstate the wording in original Policy 12.4, "Consider allowing the use of alternative, technologically sophisticated individual waste treatment systems." SECOND Perry-Thompson Discussion: Councilmember Jenks asked if there are irrigation taps. Mr. Wheeler confirmed there are commercial, and public, private taps and said you do not need to worry about it for residential, they are just used for protection. Planning Commissioner Enarson reminded the Council of the need to coordinate with Capital Facilities & Utilities Policy 18.1 and Mr. Wheeler cautioned to be very careful on the wording. 6 VOTE Unanimous by voice vote. Policy 12.4 (new) Councilmember Jenks suggested changing to .... "Provide potable drinking water to be available only through the City's water utility." 12.5.2 MOTION Jenks. Change 12.5.2 to read, "To the extent feasible, Locate critical facilities including emergency services away from soils that are subject to liquefaction during seismic even~.' SECOND Harpole Discussion: Councilmember Keith said he thought we are not allowed to do that. Mr. Robison said under the existing ordinance you cannot locate new critical facilities in areas subject to liquefaction or undue hazards. AMENDMENT: Do not locate critical facilities including emergency services in areas identified as seismic hazards in the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance. VOTE Unanimous by voice vote Goal 13 Citizen Participation & Coordination Councilmember Shoulberg stated we do not have enough, and Mr. Robison said that is why we have this section. Goal 14 Permit Processing Councilmember Keith said a lot in there was moot and asked if it could be stricken. Mr. Robison said that according to GMA it had to be addressed and that much of it predated the Regulatory Reform Act. He said that to be in compliance and it should be left in, and suggested that in the annual review process it could be reviewed and removed. Goal 15 Historic & Cultural Resources Policies 15,1 and 15.3 Councilmember Keith -- Historic Preservation Committee? Policies 15.1 and 15,3 to be reworded. Goal 16 Unincorporated Urban Growth Area Councilmember Shoulberg asked how current this is. Mr. Toews replied that it was current. Mr. Shoulberg said that it should still stand, unless the Council goes after 16.2.1. Policy 16.2.1 To be revisited. Goal 17 Shoreline Management Mr. Robison said Policies Management Act. 17.1 through 17.4 come right out of the Shoreline 7 Policy 17.5.1 Councilmember Jenks asked if they have discovered inconsistencies between the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Robison said the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is much more detailed, so it should prevail. He said this is intended to address conflicts they might get into in development applications between the Urban Waterfront Plan and the SMP. He said this November the Department of Ecology plans to release new Shoreline Management Act rules as well as new State Environmental Policy Act rules, and they will both be changed. It is something both the Planning Commission and City Council will be grappling with in 1997 as part of the larger Regulatory Reform efforts of the State Legislature. Councilmember Jenks asked if they had adopted the Urban Waterfront Plan as part of their Shorelines, and Mr. Robison said what we are trying to is say is the Urban Waterfront Plan is part of this Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Harpole asked if at this point in time the inconsistencies are latent, and that they are not aware of any inconsistencies; Mr. Robison concurred. Chapter V -- Implementation Steps (Land Use Element) Mr. Robison said the now they have goals and policies the Implementation Steps make the Land Use Element achievable. No. 4 Urban Growth Tiers Councilmember Shoulberg asked about approving something within 120 days and it's in a designated tiering area, not subject for infrastructure for another 5 years. Mr. Toews indicated Mr. Shoulberg really talking about dealing with leap flog development under the Regulatory Reform Act, and Mr. Shoulberg asked if it's outside the tiering, the developer pays all? Mr. Toews said, yes, that all the growth tiering policies indicate is that unless specifically identified within the City's Capital Facilities Plan, and the Capital Improvement Program, the City is not going to provide facilities and services outside the growth area. For development to proceed in those areas, the developer will have to provide 100 percent of those facilities. Councilmember Jenks said that with regard to the Implementation Steps and Permitting Processing, she knows we intend to enforce our policies, and wondered if they wanted to put something into the Land Use Element to basically recognize and respect the goals and purposes of the environmental ordinances. That they would be a high priority, and that it be required that the environmental protection ordinances be adhered to in a very stringent manner -- ESA ordinance, SEPA, Shoreline Master Plan, Urban Waterfront Plan -- that every effort is made to make sure they are adhered to and enforced. Mr. Toews said specific reference is made in Policy 2.1, but it references only the ESA chapter of the Municipal Code. Ms. Jenks said it is a piece of what she is trying to say, but with the fast, easy permitting, development in a fair manner, etc., she is trying include that while we are doing those things, we are also recognizing that we have some really good environmental ordinances and we intend to apply them. Mr. Robison said there two ways to do that: they could add to Policy 2.1, "To require protection enhancement and enforcement of environmentally sensitive areas within new developments," and in addition to that write a policy on general enforcement of environmental protection in the permit processing section and bring it back. Ms. Jenks said that is very good, and also to reiterate in the permit processing -- for the general environmental overview ordinances of the town. Rework and bring back. HOUSING ELEMENT Pages VI-1 through VI-23 Introduction and background Page Vl-1 Growth Management Act Requirements Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked in the last sentence, "This policy should be amended..." if that is something thc County has to change. Mr. Toews said it is something that would need to be amended through the Joint Growth Management Committee, by both the County and City representatives. Goal 1 Housing Supply Policy 1.2 Councilmember Jenks said she wants to mark this to come back and see if it should be done incrementally over the next 3 or 4 years in Comp Plan amendments. Mr. Robison said he thought it would be to the City Council's benefit to hear both the perspective of the Citizen's workgroup and the Planning Commission, that it is pretty detailed. He said they would be coming back to the Housing section on June 25th. Revisit. Goal 2 Housing Affordability Councilmember Jenks asked for the defmition of "affordable housing." Mr. Toews said it is on Page 13-1 of the Glossary. Mr. Robison said it is also on Page 12 of this Chapter. Councilmember Perry-Thompson said that came from the RCW and that the fact the County bumped it up to 36% was a personal bias. Mr. Robison said it is the definition adopted by the State. Policy 2.3 Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked who they see doing this? Mr. Robison said it is probably coordination with the County to develop a fair share housing allocation as required by the county-wide planning policies, as well as coordination with the Jefferson County Housing Authority. Ms. Perry-Thompson asked who does he see from the City working on that? Mr. Robison said this would give the policy guidance that someone should be participating. Councilmcmber Harpolc said that had not been determined, just that they need to be doing it. Goal 3 Housing Condition No change. Goal 4 Housing Types Councilmember Jenks asked about discussing manufactured homes and the options brought forward. Planning Commissioner Enarson said that the Planning Commission had not reached a consensus. Mr. Robison suggested the City Council hold their deliberations until after the Public Hearings and several Councilmembers concurred. Policy 4.1.2 Revisit. Deliberation held until after public hearing. Policy 4.2 Councilmember Jenks noted this as a very pro-active approach to housing and related this to the issue of placement of manufactured housing. Discussion followed. 9 Goal 5 Low Income & Special Needs Populations Policy 5.2 Discussion ensued regarding high quality affordable housing in relation to manufactured homes. Policy to be revised, Policy 5,4 Councilmember Perry-Thompson asked why the Planning Commission removed assisted living facilities. Mr. Robison indicated this did not apply to assisted living facilities. Goal 6 Jobs/Housing Balance Policy 6.4 Councilmember Shoulberg noted "coordinate with Jefferson County." Goal 7 Phasing of Housing Growth No change. Goal 8 Permit Processing/Regulatory Reform Policy 8.3 Councilmember Shoulberg asked for rewording. Mr. Robison to craft new language. Strategy for Affordable Housing Discussion ensued regarding Policy 5.2 and providing design standards for affordable housing. It was noted money is available, land is available; the desirability to provide available design standards to make good quality affordable housing was suggested. The idea of community housing was also presented. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (Introduction) Mr. Toews noted the Planning Commission had determined Policy 4.4 erroneously referenced the DOT Design Manual and revised it to reference the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Commissioner Shoulberg said regarding narrow streets, "Show us how to get there." There was discussion regarding development standards, the City setting policy, and legal implications. Discussion took place regarding the Planing Commission cbamge to prioritization of transportation improvements and expenditures, moving projects to correct roadways with high maintenance costs ahead of projects for nonmotorized and transportation demand management techniques. Ms. Sheila Westerman and Mr. JeffHamm from the Transportation Workgroup spoke to the issues: · If all monies are spent on streets the rest may never get done. · The concept of skinny streets and making them safe including Transit and the Fire Department. Planning Commissioner Enarson said Ms. Westerman and Mr. Hamm had excellent points regarding prioritizing but pointed out that the policy reads "roadways with high maintenance costs," She said she realized they are trying to get people out of vehicles. 10 Councilmember Camfield indicated the Parking Code is a start, but stated her concern about the costs people incur in historic rehab and urged that incentives not be given to bare lots. She noted one way you can tilt the balance is with incentives. Councilmember Jenks spoke to the issue of opening streets, paving and maintenance on gravel streets. It was determined to add a meeting date, Tuesday, June 18, 1996, 7:00 p.m. to conclude overview of the remaining material before Public Hearings, June 19 and 20. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 10:15 p.m., Mayor Pro Tern, Harpole adjourned the meeting. Dan Harpole, Ma~vor Pro Tem Attest: Acting City Clerk Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 11