Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07081996 MINI,WES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL COMPREItENSIVE PLAN SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 8, 1996 The City Council of the City of Port Towmsend met in workshop session this 8th day of July, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Itall, Mayor Julie McCulloch, presiding. Present were Jean Ca3nfield, Kathryn Jenks, Ian Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson, Dan Harpole. Bill Davidson and Ted Shoulberg were excused. Planning Staff Dave Robison, Eric Toews were also present and presented discussion items for tonight's meeting. HOUSING ELEMENT VI-pages 1-23 No comment. Perry-Thompson (Informational question.) There is a disparity on page VI-l, last sentence regarding gross income. Robison The CounCwdde Planning Policy needs to be changed. That is something we should bring back to the Joint Growth Management Committee at its next meeting, an amendment to the Count~wvide Planning Policy. Housing Supply Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 through 1.3 Pliy~ 0 C ~.,~ ,- Harpole The total acreage needs to be kept open for discussion (clear up with Land Use Map). Could change if it goes below 125 acres. , Jenks The actual recommendation was for 176 acres. , Keith Two things, at least 125 acres vacant; the other is not all vacant. Policy 1.3 Perry-Thompson This is important if they want to make changes. Housing Affordability Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 through 2.6 No comment. . Housing Condition Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 through 3.2 No comment. Housing Types Goal 1 and Policies 4.1 through 4.5 4.1.2 MOTION SECOND VOTE HARPOLE Revise Policy 1.1.2 to reflect the same language as developed for the Land Use Element regarding Manufactured Homes KEITH Four in favor - JENKS opposed Low Income & Special Needs Populations Goal 5 and Policies 5.1 through 5.4 Robison Lines-in/Lines-out draft #3 of July 2nd, you revised Policy 5.2 to encourage the developing of new innovative and high quality rent assisted housing by aggressively pursuing grant fund, State funds, donations fi.om private individuals and organizations, public revenue sources, and other available financing. (Strike multi-family and add innovative and high quality.) Jobs/Housing Balance Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 through 6.4 No comment. Phasing of Housing Growth Goal 7 and Policies 7.1 thrOugh 7,3 ~ Robison Policy 7.1 was changed by the Planning Commission. ,. Perry-Thompson Underlined again higher density residential development ..... Permit Processing/Regulatory Reform Goal 8 and Policies 8.1 through 8.4 Robison Reminded Council that they had proposed striking out the Planning Commission Policy 8.3 and replacing it with a new policy. Strategy ~ Robison On pages 29 and 30 you will find the Affordable Housing Strategy for Port Townsend. It is really intended to be used more as a policy direction _or_strategy to assist affordable housing developers obtaining loans. Camfield Is this going to be included? Robison Included in the Plan, yes. It is a strategy, not a policy. Mayor. Reiterated for the audience, Policy 4. i.2, the phrase, "to amend the zoning code to alloxv manufactured homes," which means the,, can be put on all single family lots in all residential zones, except in National Reg/ster Historic District. The language that was approved by the Council in the Land Use Element was, "provided that they comply with Washin~on State Energy Code or its equivalent." MOTION SECOND VOTE Harpole Approve the Housing Element Lines in and Lines Out in the Planning Commission Draft #3 of 7/2/96 amended by Council revisions this evening. Camfield UNANIMOUS -- 5 in favor GENERAL COMMENTS on the Land Use Map: Camfield #9 Multi-Family (l.andes west of Claridge Court)_ Area of wash-out from Sheridan into drainage swale. Multi-Family in I,and [Jse on Landes -- may want to discuss. Harpole Multi-Family, how it affects streets in Port Townsend Thinks affordable housing will be meffhrough ADUs, some manufactured homes, and duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes as much, if not more, than through some of the rezones. Coming back to the map, he generally agrees with the strate~es that were set, could have been refined more. Personally feels that the amount orR-Ill and R-I¥ is more than we need at this juncture. Suggested reducing R-III by 20% and R-IV by 10%. The marketplace will be a big determinant, ls concerned that some of the rezones will force a demand on infrastructure that they won't be able to meet in a cost effective manner, or timelv manner. Mixed use centers are a ereat concept; as thev develop, multi- mil3, will shape around them. He urged the Council to balance all of these needs and to thin,~ about those factors outside their policy and planning decision-making that could affect the outcome here. · Camfield If there is no minimum on R-III, will it mitigate the amount of land that is designated? itarpole Some, but not enough. · Camfield Of the 176 acres, how much is vacant? · Toews Vacant? 99 acres of R-III and 14 a~res of R-IV. ,, Harpole Even with ADUs, duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes and manufactured homes, it is still a bit too much ora move in this direction. ,, Jenks On the map, there are few parcels in entire~ that are vacant~ Most of them have something going on in the parcels. Do they need to determine the parcels as-they are numbered on the map or redefine the boundaries? · Keith RespOnded to Harpole; the load on infrastructure -- for given number of units - should be lower for multi-family. Elimination of minimum density makes a big difference in the impact and leaves the marketplace free to deal xvith it. There is aveD, high likelihood it will develop as single family which will result in more multi-family mixed in with single family, rather than large multi-family parcels separately. We should resist temptation to pare back too much, because much will be built to single family and be lost to multi-family. Camfield Feels a lot like Keith. It will find its level. Probably more R-III will be developed into small duplexes/fourplexes maybe mixed in with the single family. ,. Perry-Thompson Agreed with both of them. · Jenks Building duplexes/tr/plexes/fourplexes (with land restr/ctions) an?~'here in town, the carrying capacity of the land will have major impacts to neighborhoods. Neighbors own an integral part of their neighborhood. We should try to disrupt neighborhoods as little as possible. There is a lot that could be developed and designated. She agrees with Harpole. Preserve a certain amount of dignity. First responsibility, is to people who live here and maintain the perfection of living here. Sees some specific areas on the Land Use Map she would like addressed. ,- Camfield If you took a parcel and decided you were not going to change it to what it was on the Land Use Map, what then would it be, what it was to start with? ,, Robison You can change to whatever you wish. ('Even to make new designations.) It might be simpler to revert to the old designation. ,, Toews You try to find the new designation that mostly approximates what it was originally. LAND USE MAP Robison suggested sitting around the map. · Jenks Cailahan -- Commercial rezone by Safeway -- peach colored house. Planning Commission didn't make a lot of change. · Toews The Planning Commission recommended denial without prejudice; held the door open to a subsequent specific rezone request as part of the annual review. Primary reasons for denial were access concerns. Robison Single family - not sure what it would be. Narrow alley meant to serve single family residence. Stormwater, problems. ,. Camfieid Sympathetic, but better on an individual basis. Jenks Just wanted to make sure it didn't get missed. Robison This was a tough decision that the Planning Commission made. There are some good arguments for including it in a commercial designation. The Planning Commission recommended that they come back with a rezone. · Camfield As an individual those issues will be addressed where they might not otherwise. ~ Jenks Area//4. PROPOSED Remove R-H designation from the area west of San Juan, and south of 49th bordered by fairground. Over the weekend she spoke to a property owner who is also a contractor about multi-family in that part of town. He thought it was a great idea. Have had one testimOny from a property owner, Etta, who owns two acres -- the long parcel. (Toews: the parcel to south?) She has a 4 stormwater detention pond; her neighbor has stormwater detention pond. There are some serious infrastructure stormwater issues. Dave Robison said they have to alter and do some piping, which doesn't seem to make much sense in an area where they are trying to follow a natural drainage systems approach. People in this part of town love the rural setting. Would like to leave one lot (north and west) as multi-family and eliminate the rest. Harpole Had concerns as well with traffic. We are putting offthe east/west collector issue until after we adopt the Plan. The roads going in and out of the area are pretty limited. Granted, we are l~lanning to upgrade San Juan, but that's another 15 months from now. He has paramount concerns with transportation/traffic issues in that area all the way out to Cook, transportation/traffic issues. Would to like to see some downsizing. Camfield It has a lot already. · Robison When you look at multi-family and stormwater issues, remember that multi-family can sometimes can offer a better way to deal with stormwater. ~ Jenks Addressing impervious surface, though, if we are going to do natural systems drainage, if that's our policy, seems to me not to do it. · Perry-Thompson-- Increase in impervious surface is also a problem. Address roads. Schools and public recreation are pluses. · Keith Area tt5. Little piece of R-III next to the fairgrounds is more economically viable as Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use Center with a small store. PROPOSED C-I(MU) whole thing be included. · Keith Population is not very dense out there; part of that is going to be R-I, and if you have a little store there, it's going to help. · Toews The feeling was that Area//4 was on the very' western perimeter of the drainage basin. In conversations with the Public Works department, there was the belief that it made sense to retain that designation. It could be piped; you could have something other than a natural drainage system in that area. An engineered system could support multi-family in Area //4. ,, Harpole Holly orchard Area 111. PROPOSED There are two R-IV blocks -- I am suggesting the one below the Lawrence Street apartments, or Walker (I am not sure what it is called now) block go to R-III and the three blocks go back to the previous designation. (Three redesignate as R-II on Land Use Map. One Block redesignate as R-III. Leave R-IV alone; already developed.) ,, Toews Clarification -- The three blocks south of Lawrence were recommended by the Planning Commission for an R-III designation; the blocks to the north wexe_recommended as R-IV. The entirety was originally recommended as R-IV. · Harpole Does not describe the whole site; parts of that site he thinks are great for multi-family designation. Other parts he is really troubled by. One of the things that affects his decision on this is the fact that they have heard from approximately 65 to 75 percent of the neighbors that would be directly impacted by R-III designation for the Holly Orchard area, and have pretty resoundingly heard against. We have heard in earlier changes tonight that if someone wants to change and has good cause for it, they can go through and make that change happen. This change creates the most controversy around the issue of community character. · Jenks If he wanted to sell and come in for a rezone during the yearly amendment, he could. ,. ltarpole A valid voice from the neighborhood. · Toews The current zone is R-II under the existing code which is medium density, single family. R-II under the new designation would be 5,000 square feet and would allow duplexes?triplexes/fourplexes, so it would be the designation closest to the existing R-II. · Perry-Thompson There is a lot of concern to be left as open space. · ltarpole The preference in testimony was open space; if the owner wants to come in to include that. · Camfield What do the owners say? · Keith They did not want it designated as open space. · Toews Recollection from the testimony was that some in the neighborhood were attempting to make it open space. There is a letter on file to the Planning Commission from the Kerchers, owners of the txvo southerly blocks of Area #1, indicating opposition to both open space designation and expressing their satisfaction with the multi-family upzone. Nothing has been received from them since then. · Jenks It was on the neighborhood wish list -- open space; but would remain the same for now. · Perry-Ihompson People in need of low income housing need to have the same things enjoyed by the neighborhood today: Keith Area #2. Eliminated. Toews Planning Commission in its recommendation viewed that as having transportation, erosion and storm water control problems. · Keith Area #8. (The north half of that is now gone.) · Toews The Unitarian Church being built on it now. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to retain an R-III designation for the entirety of #8, and they were not aware of the fact that the Unitarian Church was permitted on the northerly block. · Robison Churches (M2 not allowed -- and we don't have any.) , Mayor Area #8 needs a vote. · Toews You are only voting on the changes to the Planning Commission's recommended Land Use Map. Camfield Area #9. · Camfield Why was this identified as not likely to redevelop? · Jenks We need to take those out. On the Land Use Map, there is a green cross hatch that is actually your drainage corridor, over the top of the yellow; down to 6th is another one. · Robison 16th Street is not proposed to be opened. · Jenks That is where we were talking about. At the very least we ought to get rid of the multi-family'that is underneath that. ~ ltarpole At this point in time we are not doing the overlay. · Jenks 16th Street has stormwater problems. · Camfield There are large lots out there -- 30 feet wide. · Robison Clarification: The open space with cross hatches, they carded through and broke that high c~ensity develoPment -- the reason is to provide drainage swales and separation between the high density to keep it clear for drainage, etc. · Jenks Suggested taking 16th street out from R-III. You could do the half block north toward 19th. , Camfield Triangle-- · Jenks The area along Landes is very steep, has nothing on it, and provides a lot of potential for stormwater retention as everything comes down the hill. If it weren't built on it would be a natural area and would mitigate the area. PROPOSED: Take off of section of block that abuts 16th on both ends; the area along Landes leave as R-I, and leave the top bit and back bit as Multi-Family. · Camfield Area #11. Two parcels. , Toews Thomas Street is the western perimeter -- the eastern perimeter on the southeast comer goes one half block east of Rosecrans. The northern-most block is bounded by 4th Street. · Camfieid Thomas Street west half southeast comer of Rosecrans and eastern limit Thomas and westem abuts business park, north limit 6th, south 8th. She said she basically has no problems with either one of those. · Itarpole Doesn't either. · Perry-Thompson Area #6. Yesberger · Toews The Planning Commission recommended it be removed, so the only remaining portion is the area outside the Yesberger ownership that is in proximity to the mixed use center at the intersection of San Juan and F. · Jenks Did the Planning Commission change this because of Yesberger's request? · Toews Yes, and they were of the opinion there was more multi-family than necessary to support the mixed use center at the intersection of San Juan and F. · Jenks · Jenks · Robison · Harpole · Keith placel Area #3. NO CHANGE Good for multi-family along San Juan -- unplatted. May not go to affordable housing. ~. It is consistent with the element's strategy. If one goal is to have a mixture, that is a large piece of multi-family in a very good Would rather see it more broken up. 7 * Perry-Thompson Were t~ing to avoid block, after block. That size might, encourage .... , Jenks When you take out minimum densi~', it will allow market driven diversi~. · Keith Duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes don't do much for your affordable housing. , Jenks Assume people will come every year and ask for upzones. · Robison Any upzones would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · Camfiek[ Area/47. · Jenks One ownership parcel. · Harpole At R-III, I'm not inclined to change it. · Perry-Thompson In the Castelano property. · Keith How many acres - 6.8 and more across the street (total 14) vacant 10. Say that is 8 acres, 124 units maximum. ,, Harpole Likes keeping the block together. Market will drive that. R-m -- NO CHANGE · Keith · Keith · Harpole · Jenks · Harpole Area tt15. What is the status? Let the market be creative with areas # 10 - # 15. Still would like to put some multi-family into the Northwest Quadrant. The East/West collector intersection, may draw that. Harpole Are there any other issues on Land Use Map? It's the last big task for us. Tomorrow night we can explain and vote. Camfield Process-- can the Mayor vote on a "tie:° · jenks Robison · Jenks Robison Keith from Bryon Eisenbeis. Downtown area. The Port doesn't change. Does the Port property include the urban wetland? That stretch of property at Port, open space? Courthouse - County asking to be changed to Public, if we don't change now. Letter Letter from 1994, workgroup and Planning Commission changed. · Harpole Robison · Keith Evans Property R-I. Applicant went through Planning Commission and also PUD, but has not vested. I would like to put it back in, as M/C. 8 DISCUSSION. Manufacturin~Commercial (MC) · Toews PUDs will no longer be as broad. For example, a manufacturing PUD cannot be done in residential area. · Harpole If Glen Cove is designated as a UGA, we could come back in and make residential. · Robison This is one parcel that is good for manufacturing. It is not very. good for residential. Keith Ferry landing--Massey · Robison ' The zone boundary, as proposed, follows the face of the bluff. There are three applications for that site, but they are waiting for the Comp Plan to be adopted. · Harpole Process question -- When the Comp Plan is adopted, is the revised Land Use Map adopted concurrently? Toews The zoning changes will not occur concurrently because the necessary text amendments are not done. ,. Keith Is fish processing allowed? · Robison It is a water oriented use and is appropriate. There being no further business, at 9:30 p.m., Mayor McCulloch adjourned the meeting. Julie McCulloch, Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 9