Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06251996 MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSENrD CITY COUIqCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING JUNE25,1996 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this 25th day of June, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch, presiding. Present were Jean Camfield, Kathryn Jenks, Ian Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Ted Shoulberg, Dan Harpole and Bill Davidson. Planning StaffDave Robison and Eric Toews were also present Mr. Toews discussed the Jefferson County Planmng and Building Department letter of June 19, 1996, and follow-up letter of June 24, 1996. He explained the June 19th letter on numerous occasions made reference to the fact that the City of Port Townsend is the County's sole UGA. He said he thinks that is true at this point in time, but that the County-wide plat'ming policies have always indicated fairly clearly Port Townsend is not to be considered as the only urban area in East Jefferson County. He said County-wide Planning Policy 1.4 makes specific reference to the fact that both the Tri Area and Port Ludlow are considered as being characterized by urban growth for the purpose of designating UGAs in the unincorporated County. The population understanding that was recently reached with the County in the spring of this year is clearly predicated on the assumption that Port Townsend will not be the only urban area in East Jefferson County. He said it explicitly assumes that Port Ludlow will either be designated as a Master Planned Resort, a UGA, or other urban planning designation consistent with the GMA; it also acknowledges the fact that the Th-Area will not be designated a UGA upon initial adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan, but that the Count2,' may move toward designation in subsequent amendments to its Comprehensive Plan. He indicated he thinks most of the comments the County had made are within the context of Port Townsend as the only UGA for the County, apparently now and for evermore, and that is not consistent with the County-wide planning policy. He said he knows they have concerns over the designation of UGAs in the unincorporated County, because of their difficulty in designating interim UGAs in the past, and in particular he said he thinks they are concerned with statements made by the Western Board in the Jefferson County U. Loomis decision. He said he thinks at a Staff level, the City Attorney's office would agree with BCD Staff, they have reviewed those opinions carefully and have concluded the impediments to unincorporated UGA designation are largely procedural and not substantive in nature; there is not an absolute bar in anything the Hearings Boards has said to the designation of u~ncorporated UGA~s. Much of the comment is geared toward trying to prod the City toward designating land within the City for regional retailing uses. He said as far as Staff is aware nothing in the County- wide planning policy, in the GMA, the procedural criteria, or in Heatings Board decisions explicitly require any jurisdiction to have specific types of zoning designations, including regional retail. He said many jurisdictions that are also UGAs, have made a conscious choice not to have large scale regional retail and instead have opted to try to provide the same range of goods and services through smaller businesses. He said Staff doesn't know where that requirement to provide regional retailing comes from, and there m-en't any references in the County's letter indicating where such a requirement may be found. He said it also should be noted that the Planmng Commission and Work Groups tried very hard to identify all suitable parcels in-City that were appropriate for commercial and manufacturing use. He said in looking at environmental constraints on the map, at the proximity to major transportation corridors and at the size of the parcels available, he would say a credible job was done to identify areas that were appropriate for commercial and manufacturing zoning. Mr. Toews opened discussion and answered questions: ltarpole Asked where the reference to Chetzemoka Park on page 1 of the June 24 letter came from and how it fit in. Toews He said he assumed it referred to an inventory of park and recreation lands and monuments throughout town. He said it was intended to be an inventory to give as much background information as possible to help the work groups, Planning Commission and Council before getting into the work of developing goals and policies. ltarpole Page 2. The letter says to please clarify and specifically define what constitutes an environmentally clean light manufacturing facility? He asked if there is a definition within the Comp Plan currently or the glossaries of what -we mean by light manufacturing? Toews Said what is meant in the narrative is this general description, and it awaits the development of conditional and prohibited uses in the zoning code to really flesh out what that means. ltarpole Page 3. Population data indicates the City is reducing its share of the overall share of the population 50 to 30 percent? He said the City is currently at approximately 30 percent. Toews The population the City is planning for is one that was is agreed to and allocated to the City by the County. It is less than 50 percent. Keith They are referring to the paragraph labeled Population Changes Over the Past 20 Years. The County's own population has been in decline, and what he thinks they are trying to say is the City's share of population has been declining and the expectation is that trend will be reversed. Toews Said he thinks that is right. The reference on Page 4-58 is to the past 20 years, not to the next 20 years. Keith Said that the first sentence in their comment is that the City has been doing something intentional about it. Toews Made the point that the trend vdll be reversed in terms of the continuing decline of percentage by the City. The population projections indicate clearly the City share is right around 30 percent. If the County proceeds with designation of the Tri Area and Port Ludlow urban growth areas as contemplated under the County-wide planning policy, the rate of capture by urban areas will go up fairly dramatically. He said without reduction in densities and consolidation of existing platted parcels in common ownership that are below the minimum lot size, an almost unending supply of land is available for rural residential development, and it would be very difficult to focus that growth into urban areas and achieve a higher rate of capture. 2 Shoulberg The same paragraph, the last line,..".... County population." Are t_hey talking about the city's commercial acreage increasing? Toews He said he thought that was so, and again pointed out the County-wide planning policies indicate the City will not be only urban area. With a land base to serve 17,000 to 24,000, it would -very hard to argue for a UGA for the Tri Area or for Port Ludlow. · Keith He said that the comments would indicate Port Townsend as a commercial/industrial center surrounded by a bedroom COlranunity, very different fi.om what is visualized. Toews He said it seems to be predicated on the notion of rural activity centers that are mentioned in the initial letter and at other times during City/County discussions. He said this does not seem to recognize the fact that County-wide planning policy indicates that these are being characterized by urban growth and the County has on numerous occasions indicated that they are moving toward UGA designation in the Tri Area, but it will take a period of years to get there, and that Port Ludlow -will also have some form of urban planrdng designation. · Jenks Asked if the questions in the comment letter were just rhetorical questions; some of them are quite specific. Will the City respond to the questions? · Toews He said if directed by the Mayor and Council they would respond, but they were treating this like any other comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan submitted to Council. · Jenks Said there is a joint GMA committee, and asked if it would be worthwhile to reference some of the questions and referring them to that committee: i.e., last page vm-lo Water Service Policies - out-of-City service area; acreage -- IV-32; last bullet on IV-48 Waste water capacity; Transportation; Affordable Housing comments regarding barriers, etc. , Mayor Said a letter went out today from her to the Board of Commissioners, suggested we have meeting of the joint board with a facilitator -- Wells from DCTED to discuss these types of questions. She said the meeting might occur prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, but is not intended to delay adoption of the Plan. · Keith Thinks maybe an item by item response might help with their requests. · ltarpole Agreed, but one of the main points is to decide that the opening paragraph is the county-wide planning policy 1.4. That is the main thing to clear up, up fi.ont. · Shoulberg Does not think they should respond. If they respond, the rest of the letters should be responded to also; should not give preference. A lot of it is requesting information. · Camfield Are we going to treat other agencies the same? Thinks they need to respond similarly as to the other agencies that made corrlments. · ltarpole The City Attorney's office responded to the Port about one issue. · Mayor Not legislative, it was a legal issue. · Toews Most of the State agencies made comments on the draft environmental impact statement that have been responded to in the final environmental impact statement. Those State agencies that commented on the substance of the Plan, goals and policies through DCTED and they forwarded a packet that was considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations. He said as far as he is aware the only substantive comments were received from the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation and DCTED and those were considered by the Planning Commission and included in large part within their recommendations to Council but no response was made to DCTED. 3 · Camfield She said if this had been received in a timely mamaer and had gone to the Planning Commission, it probably would have been dealt with. · Toews Suggested if response is to be developed, perhaps it should focus on the macro issues rather than micro issues and be done through the Joint Growth Management Committee, that these are issues that are likely to come up in their discussion, s anyway. He said if Council has any concern regarding specific comments raised in the June 24th letter, those issues should be resolved to Council's satisfaction. · Mayor She said to keep in mind they still have the options for answering questions through the Joint Growth Management Committee process, but it does not necessarily have to occur prior to the Plan adoption. · Camfield Said she would see if they need clarification. ShoulbergThey need to be more specific in the general comments -- commercial retail balance and the need for regional commercial needs in the letter of June 19th and page 2 of the letter of June 24th. When you answered the comments which I felt were appropriate -- I didn't see any need for Regional Commercial in the City nor do I feel it is going to economically help those existing business in the City to have regional commercial -- do you feel your general answers also answer the specific points on page 2 to your satisfaction? Toews "Yes." The Planning Commission and workgroups were very deliberative in their efforts to identify as many parcels as possible in-City that were located in proximity to regional transportation corridors, that were of suitable size to permit commercial and manufacturing development and that were not constrained by environmentally sensitive areas. He said it was a fairly thorough review that the Planning Commission did as well. Shoulberg All of those criteria and standards and how you did the analysis, was part of the public record? · Toews It is. · Shoulberg So, at anytime during the process they could examine that to see how the decision- making process occurred? Toews They could have participated directly in the public review and comment. · Shoulberg When they took out the Wastewater Disposal Facility, everybody knows that due to public comments and neighborhood concerns, we understood that the Wastewater Facility, even though it was just finished, would not meet the projected demands, way out there, on the 2020 horizon. That is not something that we did not take into account. · Toews He said there is a reference to that fact that additional Wastewater Treatment capacity during the 20 year period within the Environmental Review of the Alternatives chapter, and also a similar reference in the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. Going back to the Cormnercial and Manufacturing land, one of the issues raised was the fact that the City had done a straight line projection of the current ratio of commercial and manufacturing land base to the 1994 population and projected that out to the end of the 20 year period to estimate the additional commercial and manufacturing land that would be needed. When you look at the draft Land Use Map, you find the targets that were identified using that process were achieved with manufacturing land but fell short for commercial land. What the workgroup was made very aware of very early on, was that determining what an appropriate amount of commercial and 4 manufacturing land is for a community is not a science; it's in many respects up to the community to decide for itself what it wants for the future. One thing that is clear is that Port Townsend by most standards has a far greater amount of land designated and zoned for commercial and manufacturing land than most communities. That is excluding the Glen Cove area, looking at only the existing zoning in-City, not the proposed Land Use Map. Many other communities have far less commercial and manufacturing land in relation to their population. The problem that Port Townsend has had historically is that the commercial and manufacturing land that we do have was partially developed with incompatible subordinate uses that have eaten up some of the commercial and manufacturing land. You look at it initially, there is a lot more commercial and manufacturing land in relation to the population than most communities, and it really is a community decision in many respects. How you determine what you need in the future looks scientific with this projection, but that is only to provide some gauge as to what you need in the furore. Shoulberg Transportation, page 3 of June 24th. This is a peninsula; it is limited here. People only come here because they want to be here, not in between places. Said he looks at it as a benefit, not a limitation. Toews Might also be a factor highlighting why it is appropriate to have another UGA in unincorporated Jefferson County, other than the City of Port Townsend. Keith Questioned Page 4, last paragraph. Population projection, source evaluation? ,, Shoulberg Policies VIII.6 and 7. Could not see what the problern was. Toews Our Plan tries to draw a distinction between those facilities and services that will be specifically subject to the City's concurrency requirements and included within the City's concurrency management program and those facilities and services for which the City may set level of service standards which we will try- to achieve and maintain. That is different than being subject to a specific concurrency, water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation within 6 years. The only one mandatory under GMA is transportation within 6 years. · Shoulberg But you would want to do the rest, just as good planning, so the City won't go bankrupt if more people show up and you don't have the sewage facility. I didn't see why this policy needed to be revised to provide clarity. · Toews The Planning Commission's revisions to the policies represent a clarification. Originally the Planning Commission was concerned the policies weren't direct enough in stating what would happen when you had a private development application come through for an area of town that wasn't served with a full range of facilities. How do you review and condition such a proposal to assure that they have those facilities and services that are explicitly required for concurrency; that you review and mitigate them the way you have historically. The revised policy language that the Planning Commission recommended was drawn from the State's subdivision statute as modified by Growth Management Act suggesting that subdivisions must all be reviewed to ensure that appropriate provision has been made for fire and police, for parks and open spaces, etc. That language is based on the POst-GMA subdivision statute. · Camfield They were making this document and did they not go through the changes that had been incorporated? 5 Davidson The June 19th letter says it is from the Planning Commission recommendations, but this says it is from the draft Comprehensive Plan. Toews It appears that most of this is based on the January 10 draft, but clearly the prior letter was focused on the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mayor It does say, "Consistent with our letter to City Council dated June 19, 1996. Said she would assume the intention was they are a matched set. Davidson They refer to things in the letter that are not in the Planning Commission's document. Harpole Recommended to move forward and continue this discussion, the strategy of having this discussion with the group, with the City and the County. Mayor This discussion is to get resolution on your decision of the issues prior to that. That will be outside. Jenks Page 4, Goal 8. The County has sole jurisdictional authority to adopt and implement the portions of the Plan that pertain to unincorporated areas located within the proposed UGA. Is that correct? -- The letter stated that it is their belief that much in the policies should be discussed immediately before Plan adoption. Do we or do we not intend to do that? She said she assumes they are talking about Glen Cove. ShoulbergWe did ask them to comment. That is what the January draft of the Comp Plan was all about. We assisted them until dialogue stopped and we moved forward on what we considered were established. Toews Suggested a bracketed comment acknowledging the fact that the UGA is conceptual at this point in time, that much work needs to be done, the City acknowledges that the County has sole jurisdiction in designating the UGA, etc., and that these policies are intended only to shape the process of UGA designation, and are the first step for the County to consider and deliberate upon in designating the unincorporated UGA boundaries (something to that effect). Then to include that in both the Land Use Element on the UGA policies as well as the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element so nobody makes the mistake of thinking that the City is going to be out there seeking to enforce these policies in an area where we have no jurisdiction. Camfield Maybe include a statement of the fact that since the County's plan in not ready for that kind of work, that the City is looking at doing this in conjunction wiffi the County at the first revision of our Plan. Toews That's a good point. The narratiVe our the Plan states that repeatedly, but it hasn't been included along with the goals and policies, so maybe just to clarify and not mislead anyone, we should include it here as well. Keith Maybe they should also include the fact that some of these goals and policies are based on an agreement that was reached with the County a year ago. He said that the way he reads this, it is their belief that much of the policies should be discussed and implemented immediately, before Plan adoption, that once again they are saying the City should delay their Plan adoption, but saying it more subtly than they did before. He said they need to indicate the first annual revision will accommodate that. Shoulberg He said regarding planning that he thinks it is impossible to implement policies without planning. He said the language is inconsistent. Do they mean we put in sewer lines before we have a Water Master Plan; that is implementing policies. He said he thinks there is some merit to the policy 10.8.10, and said that sentence is a critical element. Developers can 6 never pay the full cost, because they would never be able to build anything. He said that is an interesting point and needs a little more clarification. What they are saying is the town in general should subsidize growth and development, and fiat developers, because they pay the cost of infrastructure, cannot make a profit, thereby raising the cost of their houses. The rest of the market, the rest of the world seems to be able to function that way. He asked why the developers in this town can't do the same thing? Toews Spoke about the areas identified for Multi-Family upzoning. He said one criterion the Plarming Commission applied was proximity to public facilities and services, water, sewer roads as well as proximity to schools and medical facilities. He said these all went into assessing the suitability of these areas for multi-family upzoning. Keith He said reliance on City financing would have an adverse affect on affordability. Toews Indicated the City has done quite a lot in its draft Comprehensive Plan to try to promote affordable housing, not only by incl~easing the diversity of housing types and densities, but also making a very concerted effort through the Land Use Element and the Economic Development Element to provide more land for commercial and manufacturing development, to provide a sound job base over the coming decades and also by highlighting those areas of the local economy we really want to encourage to provide family wage jobs. There is a limit to what government can do. Steve Hayden's letter of June 24th Jenks Paragraphs 3 and 4, market factor comment~ Is he correct, the Growth Management Hearings Board said would question anything over 25% as a market factor, and also is he correct in saying approximately 400% over a 20 year period? Toews McMahan indicated last night, the Market Factor Rule that was developed by the Hearings Board was to be applied in the context of expanding UGAs. You probably don't want to go beyond that 25% market factor in providing a surplus of land, if you intend to expand into the Glen Cove area. He said we are looking at multi-family residential land, and as far as he knows, none of the Hearings Board decisions relate directly to and indicate a community can't decide, in the context of expanding a UGA, to have a significant additional amount of multi- family land. Also the 400% excess was identified as a need over a 20 year period, what was done was a straight line projection of the existing multi-family zoned land in relation to population as compared to what we would need at the end of the 20-year planning period if we wanted to maintain the current ratio. The Housing workgroup recognized it's a lousy situation today, and if we' re not going to do anything more than perpetuate the current trend, we' re going to lave a shortage of multi-family housing and a shortage of affordable housing at the end of the 20 year planning period as well. , Harpole In 2016, there will be 4-1/2, almost 5, times as much multi-family as now with that projection. ,, Keith Background on 193 acres -- there is not enough available, so to project that ratio into the future would be getting deeper into the hole. The idea was to start out by designating what would be a reasonable amount right now for the current population, and using that as a basis for the projection. He said a lot of it is already built, and said he doesn't think Steve's analysis is correct. 7 · Shoulberg There is glut ofrental property, not a shortage. Don't think we need this amount of land - if the market isn't there. · Harpole Do you think more jobs will change rental inflation? Shoulberg He said the shortage is not there, but he may be shortsighted. Toews Robison has said there is significant interest in developers looking for land for multi- family development. Constructing assisted living facilities, not necessarily multi-family apartrnents. · Shoulberg Do you think Steve is afraid of changing the character of town? · Jenks I think he is responding as an informed participant with GMA, etc. · Shoulberg I think that he is correct in the sense that we can define the character of our community. · Toews One thing suggested in the Environmental Review is that the no action alternative will also change the character. · Jenks Good point. She discussed lot consolidation. She said that after doing lot consolidation process, they can revisit multi-family and high density and how they should be developing. · Shoulberg Lot consolidation should not affect our Land Use Plan. · Toews You have an effective downzone and lot consolidation already in drainage basin 4 A and B with the RI designation. In areas with ancient platted lots that are in common ownership, those areas would now be required to satisfy the City's existing subdivision regulation. The City would continue to encourage individuals to go through a Planned Unit Development process that can take maximum advantage of the site and deviate from the regimented lot by lot configuration of single family residences. He said he doesn't think it necessarily reduces the number of dwelling units that would potentially go in those areas, but it shapes the form and character of the development to ensure that it satisfies existing City subdivision standards and is perhaps done in a more environmentally sensitive way. · Shoulberg Lot consolidation would be downzoning, but based on the intrinsic characteristics of land, the neighborhood, of the goals and policies of the Comp Plan. Lot consolidation can become an important pohcy tool, but it would be downzoning with planning guidelines in effect. · Jenks It could reform where we might want to configure multi-family densities, not really the amount of multi-family land. Something might develop in some parts of town where we might want multi-family, where we don't have it. PUD Letter of 6/20. Jim Parker · Harpole Asked for the following clarification: Long-term lease of parcels, or lots within that property through 2012. It would be a similar strategy as with the Port for the City Attorney, that if at 2011 the PUD does not want to renegotiate, we would look into a rezone, potentially. We would look at rezoning it away from what its current use is or leaving it as it is. What triggers the request for a rezone, is it the expired lease? That particular piece they had in question, we do not underlease until 2012? · Jenks Six lots, the part that is closest, down to the lagoon, a lot of the environmentally sensitive area. 8 ShoulbergIt doesn't matter if we had a lease or not. What do we feel the land should be used for? It doesn't matter who leases it. What the Port is saying to us is that they feel with our legislative role we should zone it something else. We have the fight to disagree with them. Toews Do need to identify specifically which of those lots on the north and western portion of their ownership are subject to the lease. He said he believes the draft Land Use Map shows their entire ownership lies within the PI designation and the similar Port-owned parcels on that side of the lagoon were given the P/OS (parks and open space) designation because of the existing lease. He said at a minimum they should differentiate between those that are subject to the lease and apply a P/OS to those and retain the PI (public) designation to the portion of PUD property lying outside the Kah Tai Nature Park. He said he talked with Jim Parker last week and Toews understood what they want is that portion that is not subject to any lease other than PI so they can sell. There is adjacent CII, general commercial zone to the south, and an adjacent CI]H, hospital commercial to the north. The Planning Commission recommendation was for PI for the entirety of the parcel. Harpole Also thought it should be part P/OS, park and open space. We have a lease on part P/OS. Shoulberg Asked if PI means public facilities, why Kah Tai Lagoon Toews Public use - government administrative offices and structures. He answered that yes they are showing that fight around Kah Tai Lagoon. Shoulberg Why did the Planning Commission want development next to Kah Tai Lagoon? Toews The Land Use Map use and process throughout was to try to retain as many existing land use designations as possible and not propose wholesale changes everywhere. The changes in that area that were recommended were to reflect the current use of the property -- the Kah Tai Nature Park is park and open space. Elsewhere in the City the attempt was to identify all publicly owned parks. Shoulberg He spoke of the nature of park and the relationship between marsh lands, the uplands, the grassy uplands, and the visual perspective and ecological perspective of the entire Kah Tai Nature Park. He said that relationship should not be challenged, because it does not bode well for the community. By leaving it in PI, you are definitely challenging the visual and ecological relationship and the potential destruction of the habitat. The whole area down to the bank should be in P/OS regardless of the ownership. Jenks Respectfully suggest there are other parcels they need to discuss in that context and that they take this under advisement for discussion as they start working on the Land Use Map. Camfield If you use that criterion, the back part of Blue Heron School, now a drainage corridor, is public ownership and not park and open space -- the part they don't have control over, ShoulbergYou have to make that differentiation and leave ownership out this discussion - it is not relevant to what is going on here. DAVIDSON-LAND USE MAP Davidson said he thinks about the work that went into the Land Use Map they have now was substantial on the part of the workgroups, the Planning Commission and the public and came up 9 with a Land Use Map that was good, very good. He said he is not saying it can't stand some tweaking and refining, but he is pretty reluctant to support any large changes to it, that it would jeopardize accomplishing this in a reasonable amount of time. Jenks What would you consider tweeking as apposed to large scale? Davidson Maybe some of the things we are talking about in open space. Multi-family, we will have the ability to look at once per year. If the market is not there, year by year they can make whatever changes they need to reduce the amount of land that gets zoned Multi-Family. Perry-Thompson Are you talking about the new definition of Multi-family, which would be more than fourplex? Davidson Talking about Rm and RIV. He said he is undecided about RIII as to whether or not it should have minimum density. If they have too much already, then they will have a surplus. If there is not a great need, he is uncertain at this point. The Housing group had good rationale, if they have more than they need, they can take care of at some point in the future. Jenks If they reinstituted minimum densities, would you then think there should be more changes to RIII designation a 9alu/acre, or 16 or whatever? · l)avidson If they put more density into the 9du/acre and it Cams out that none are built at that density for whatever reason, he said they have a choice to either remove the minimum density or redesignate some of the Rm. · ShoulbergDo you think our discussions are inconsistent or emphasizing a different perspective? · Davidson Emphasizing a different perspective. MULTI-FAMILY ZONE · Perry-Thompson If they have Rm with no minimum density, she thinks it gives more flexibility. You wouldn't have to change any of the other zones, because you have more room for Single Family, and you also have ample room for Multi-Family. She would concur with the Planning Commission. · Jenks And do you think the reverse, if they have minimum density they have to make more substantial map changes? · Perry-Thompson Said she thinks that's possible. · Harpole Spoke about the criteria of the Proposed Multi-Family Suitability Assessment, the matrix the Planning Commission worked with. He said there are a lot of substantial and pretty important criteria there. He said the Council is charged with looking at affordable housing needs, look at the desire to keep our small town character, look at opportunities for economic opportunity. He said he thinks their challenge is to try to bring some balance to all those different issues. He said he wished another criterion had been added, perhaps # 12 -- How does this relate to small town character? He said # 1, which is basically the Holly Orchard Area, got a very high rating. He said he probably would have agreed with or been close to all those numbers, but if they had asked the question about small town character, preserving the character of Port To-,~x~send, he probably would have put a negative 10 on that, and knocked 10 points off from it, because to him it represents an element of jeopardizing small town character. He said his concern with that criterion, is whether it meets the Community Direction Statement or 10 whether it more specifically meets the Multi-Family designation. He said it meets the latter as it was intended to do. He said he feels Council's challenge is to the overall Community Direction Statement criteria. He said that is his problem with some of the particular Multi- Family RIII and RIV zones. He said he feels because of where they are in terms of their greater impact, whether increased transportation vehicles into the area or site line degradation, etc. and all the comments the public made, a number of these sites directly challenge the Community Direction Statement. ,, Toews He said he thinks one of things that has been clear throughout the process from the very beginning, is what an illusive concept community character really is. He said in some sense the Multi-Family upzones were really intended to help preserve the community character by focusing growth in certain areas of town and preserving the more pastoral character of the city in largely undeveloped areas. He said you will have a change in neighborhood character wherever you introduce higher densities. If change from the present is one of the major criteria, then he thinks it's going to be difficult to fi_nd undeveloped areas that are largely unpopulated today, and not located in proximity to existing infrastructure for Multi-Family upzones. · Perry-Thompson She said their workgroup decided they could not define character, but they looked at things that came out of the coffee hours and right at the top was always diversity. The charming little neighborhoods we have that are so diverse. She said that in that case she totally disagrees with the assessment of Multi-Family upzone changing the quality of neighborhoods. She said it is going to have somewhat of an impact, but it's also going to help maintain diversity. She said according to those priorities she could look at the Holly Orchard and say it's O.K. to put an apartment house there. · Davidson Said the public testimony last Tue~lay painted a picture that-was pretty negative, and that could possibly take away from the small town characteristics we are all concerned about. It is conceivable to him there could be a Multi-Family development up there that could be very attractive and certainly not detract from that feeling. · Keith Said you do not even notice a lot of non-conforming Multi-Family housing. He said another criterion he would add is that parcels for Multi-Family not be larger than 2 acres or so and scattered more than they are now. · Shoulberg Are we on track with the process? Toews Discussed the analysis the Planning Commission used in reviewing the Multi-Family areas proposed on the original january 10 Land Use Map~ including 11 criteria. The thrust of the criteria was: find areas in town that were largely undeveloped; located in major transportation corridors and infrastructure; located close to areas that were currently or in the future centers for employment; close to goods and services; and also that the areas be scattered as much as possible throughout town; that these Multi-Family areas be located in areas of town that are desirable, rather than as stated in the Comp Plan video, out of sight/out of mind, but integrate them into the rest of the community. Some rated lower by those criteria and those that rated the lowest had substantial existing development on them. He said there were four weighted criteria: # 1-- proximity to commercial services; #2 -- close to community services (schools, medical facilities, or community center);//3 - close to open space and parks;//4 -- located near existing or potential employment areas. They discussed the weighting process. Vacant undeveloped 11 land was a # 1 criterion. Perry-Thompson Vacant undeveloped land, are you talking about places small enough like the Holly Orchard, not just out in the NW Quadrant. Toews affirmed. Shoulberg Said he would rate views as negative. If you have views and water, you will go to condos rather than Multi-Family. Such an amenity is worth so much money, that you are going to change the nature of the pricing structure. Harpole Said it was so whether a view from the parcel, or at the parcel. Toews The idea was mixing housing types and densities promoting more affordable housing opportunities, but it is not the sole criterion. He said many jurisdictions throughout the State are identifying areas that are highly desirable for high density development, that may not result in Section 8 housing units, but are nevertheless an important part of the overall housing mix. Shoulberg Even a block is too great to create the concept of diversity. Block ownership will not give you the visual perspective - you will still get the effect of enclosed Multi-Family. It becomes economically unfeasible to rnix Single Family ownership with Multi-Family rental structures. Harpole Said one other thing he saw, another part of our reality, is that we are this dead-end town. Camfield At the end of the deadend road. Harpole Impact of Multi-Family is greater when it is further in town, primarily with regard to transportation issues. Separate from the Holly Orchard, say Area II, the further Multi-Family moves out on the peninsula, the greater the impact of those vehicles and those people on the greater community. They may be closer to the retail core downtown, but that is fairly limited in terms of employment. In order to enhance our affordable housing, we need to enhance quality job opportunities. He indicated this has come up again and again in Comp Plan discussions. The further from the outskirts the more impact on the community character. Perry-Thompson We are also going to promote public transportation, and one of the things about being close to town is you have access to public transportation. Harpole He said he is completely for supporting public transportation, transit and walking, but questions how fast that is going to happen. Perry-Thompson If we don't do anything; retired people with money will drive the market up. Harpole Doesn't think all criteria are here for the placement of Multi-Family, and said he wants something in there about small town character. Perry-ThompsonSome priorities came out under the umbrella of small town character and one of them was diversity; one of them was a walkable community. She said if they put Multi- Family into an existing neighborhood that has all the amenities around it, train them to get on the bus - we can make it happen. The character based on the priorities she has seen means that; all those things. Harpole Said the reverse is if they are going to take away some of the most prime and important "pastoral" settings for the purpose of diversity; where are the trade offs? He said he is saying he doesn't think the criteria are complete. They may be complete for the placement of Multi-Family housing, but not complete when you are looking at the full Comp Plan. 12 ,, Toews It appears that much of this is focused on by the comments made by Holly Orchard neighbors about community character. Regarding views, they mentioned in their comments the impact of the views of the courthouse as you drive into tom. One thing that was talked about with the Planning Commission was the notion of adding another criterion relating to maintaining view corridors. He suggested adding a criterion regarding maintaining lines of sight to elements that really define the community, the courthouse being one of them, and adding the criterion and re-rating these to see how they would fall out. He pointed out that the existing zoning allows for a level development that will change community character. Having 30' tall homes in the Holly Orchard which would be permissible now under current zoning, and would also dramatically affect community character. · Harpole Said that doesn't change the argument with RIII. · Keith RIII as currently proposed, the maximum height 35' is not a big thing. · Jenks Talked about vacant land criteria. She asked if they are encouraging transportation, encouraging diversity throughout the town, why are there no Multi-Family designations in the northwest quadrant; there are roads there and there are busses that go almost to the northwest quadrant. She said it is her opinion that when you are developing new areas, and the west quadrant is developing, that is less disruptive (defined as change to status quo), that there is less change to the status quo being newly developed than introducing multi-family designations into a 75 to 100 year old neighborhood. That criteria for her would be one in which she would comfortably agree to develop Multi-Family densities in these newer neighborhoods which would be less disruptive. She said if they need a total acreage of Multi-Family densities, the option is not just to remove, to move. · Perry-Thompson To where? · Jenks She said there is a gigantic area -- Cook Avenue. · Perry-Thompson Was infill part of our discussion? · Keith Impacts on infrastructure? More on storm drainage. , Toews space and · Harpole - Toews Said #10 is not more than 50%. Weighted with higher densities placement. Open parks. Look at goals and policies in Land Use Element, basis for criteria. Namoura open space -- RIII is a few blocks away, San Juan and F. Potential Public Facilities Site; drainage issues. Suggested at Staff level to come back with Community Character and review upzones. · Perry-Thompson Would like to have ideas presented also put into that. · ltarpole Definition--have a sense of it, but hard to define. Promote view corridors. Holly Orchard--do we have to upzone this much property? RIII and RIV is not necessarily affordable housing; may be high cost condos depending on densities. Camfield A lot of things we are talking about now -- feel of the community when you come in. Those were all considered by the Planning Commission, not upzoning for affordable, higher density. Community character; does it mean what it looks like before I came to town? Jenks Low income. We are not creating any low income, affordable housing. · Camfield Anything that will fit on that property; it is not what it costs. · Jenks I hope we create some low income. , Camfield But we do not have that choice. Anything that is allowed in there can come in there. 13 Toews Goals and policies for the market to function for low to moderate housing. a whole array of approaches to provide more affordable housing. Perry-Thompson Camfield is saying we are opening up these possibilities. There is , Davidson How are you going to arrive at a conclusion. Are you going to vote? , Mayor Take a vote. Need to check with McMahan, how to handle. · Toews Any lines in and lines out should be at a regular meeting. ,, Keith Can we vote on something to put on the agenda? · Toews Preliminary vote? , Harpole Toews · Harpole Mayor · Toews Davidson Shoulberg Land Use MaP and Rm and RIV If we want to reinstate minimum densities in RIII. What materials can Staff provide. Criteria--blank matrix and weight on own? Don't know you can give us anything at this point. Where are assumptions? On first page. I can still vote -- on the 15th. There being no t~arther business, at 9:51 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting. Julie McCulloch, Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 14