HomeMy WebLinkAbout12112002CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF DECEMBER 11, 2002
The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in special session this eleventh day of
December, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Kees
Kolff presiding.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present at roll call were Freida Fenn, Joe Finnie, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci,
Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval and Alan Youse. Staff members present were City
Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, BCD Director Jeff Randall, and Senior
Planner Judy Surber.
SEPA APPEAL AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONE FOR
THE KELLY-JEFFERSON TRANSIT APPLICATION LUP02-046
Mayor Kolff declared the public hearing open, giving rules of order. Each person will be given
up to 3 minutes to address the Council; the appellants and applicant will be allowed 30 to 45
minutes. He called for City Attorney Watts to swear in all who had signed in and wished to
testify.
Mayor Kolff explained this hearing is quasi-judicial in nature, and therefore the Appearance of
Fairness and Conflict of Interest rules apply. He said quasi-judicial actions are defined to be
actions of the Council which determine legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties in a
hearing. The public hearing must be fair in three respects: form, substance and appearance.
Mayor Kolff asked City Attorney Watts to summarize his memorandum to Council concerning
the Appearance of Fairness. In Mr. Watt's memorandum dated December 6, 2002, also
distributed to the applicant's attorney, appellant's attorney, and other parties last week, he quoted
from a Washington Court of Appeals decision,
"The doctrine does not require a showing that actual influence was exerted to bring about the
decision made, but only that some interest may have substantially influenced a board or
commission member." In his explanation he said even if a councilmember has an open mind, or
not prejudged the issue and is prepared to make a decision based on the fact in the record, if there
is an appearance of partiality or bias under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, the
councilmember would be required not to participate.
Mr. Watts said this issue arose some months ago concerning Councilmembers Fenn and
Robinson because they voted on a matter as City Council representatives at the Transit Board,
participating in a decision to surplus property and enter into a purchase and sales agreement with
the applicant. It could appear they have prejudged the rezone issue by participating in the
decision to surplus the property, regardless of how they voted on that surplus. Mr. Watts
concluded this was an appearance of fairness issue that would require them to be disqualified as
decision makers in this proceeding. He reviewed his decision with Municipal Research and
Service Center (MRSC) Staff Attorney Pam James who agreed the participation of
Councilmembers Fenn and Robinson as Council representatives in a decision at the Transit
Board disqualified them.
Mr. Watts discussed further concerns with Ms. James at MRSC regarding:
Councilmember Sandoval's husband being on the EDC executive board, as well as an
officer. Mr. Watts suggested to Ms. Sandoval the issue of appearance of fairness might come up,
and she might consider not participating based upon the appearance that her vote might in some
way be viewed as being based on her husband's participation at EDC. EDC has supported the
rezone application from the beginning. He in no way suggested Ms. Sandoval would in fact vote
based on her husband's activity at EDC, but that the appearance could be there. Ms. James
advised and concluded there is no case law or legal basis to require Ms. Sandoval to recuse or
disqualify herself.
Councilmember Masci served as City Council representative to the Transit Board in 2001.
Mr. Watts had been provided some Transit Board minutes from August 2001 that indicated Mr.
Masci had made comments indicating he favored the City and Transit explore co-location of
Transit facilities with city shop facilities at some point in the future. This was before there was a
purchase offer for the Transit property and before any decision by Transit to surplus any portion
of their property. He agreed with Ms. James' opinion, that connection is too remote to create an
appearance of fairness violation. There is no legal disqualification that applies to
Councilmember Masci.
State law on the Appearance of Fairness, states if no objection is made to a councilmember's
participation following disclosure of matters that might create an appearance issue, the objection
to appearance of fairness violation cannot be asserted later in any subsequent legal or
administrative proceeding.
Mr. Watts' memorandum made the following points:
He suggested all councilmembers appear tonight so these could be openly discussed at this
hearing with all councilmembers present, so that issues can be dealt with in an open manner
according to whether or not there are any objections made to any councilmember's participation.
Even though there is no legal basis for disqualification of certain councilmembers, or even if
no objection is made to a councilmember's participation, a councilmember could choose to
disqualify themselves, could choose not to participate in the decision. That is based upon a
councilmember's personal decision, just simply making a personal decision to stay away from
the issue entirely. If a councilmember so chooses, there is no requirement to participate, no
Council rule or State law that requires a councilmember to participate in a matter that comes
before the council and a councilmember cannot be made to attend or stay at a meeting.
Mayor Kolff said all Councilmembers, including the Mayor, should now give consideration as to
whether they have: 1) a demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any parties to the
proceedings; 2) a direct or indirect monetary interest in the outcome of the proceedings; 3) a
prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record; or, 4) ex parte contact with any
individual, excluding administrative staff, with regard to the issue prior to the hearing. He asked
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page2 December 11, 2002
if any councilmember has and disclosure of appearance of fairness or conflict of interest.
Mr. Masci stated the issue raised about his being on Transit and discussing co-location of city
and Transit facilities occurred August 21,2001 when Transit was discussing co-location with the
City. In his knowledge at that time, Mr. Kelly did not exist. Subsequent to that when he was
mayor, he received a call from Mr. Kelly expressing an interest in relocating in Port Townsend.
He gave Mr. Kelly the telephone number of the City Manager whom he contacted. Mr. Masci
has had no further contact with Mr. Kelly. As discussed with Mr. Watts, so they could have
public disclosure here, his disclosure is that he has had no contacts with Mr. Kelly other than the
unrelatedness of the Transit issue, and his prior contact as Mayor.
Ms. Robinson disclosed that as a City representative she is on the Jefferson County Transit
Authority Board and did, in fact, vote on the question of surplusing and selling property to Mr.
Kelly, last spring and again earlier this month when the issue came up before Transit the second
time because the original agreement had expired. She is part of that Board which is part of the
rezone application.
She has also had ex parte conversations: 1) Right after the vote in the spring, she had a
discussion with Paula Mackrow about the sale of the property. At that time she told Ms.
Mackrow she would probably have to recuse herself from anything that happened at the City
level on this, if it got that far, because of her participation on the Transit Board. Subsequent to
that, they both contacted the City Attorney; there was an e-mail that is a matter of public record.
2) More recently approximately within the last 2 weeks, she had a phone call from Nora Regan
asking about the grounds of her recusal. Her reason was participation at Transit. Ms. Regan
then asked the City Attorney's position, and she directed Ms. Regan to the City Attorney for his
opinion on that. 3) She also received a telephone message from Paula Mackrow recently; part of
the message was about an experience she had with Transit, information that doesn't have to do
with this. The other part was wanting to talk. Ms. Robinson returned the phone message saying
she would take the information about her experience with Transit back to the Transit Board, and
anything else she didn't think they should talk about at this time.
Ms. Robinson's personal feeling is she should recuse herself from this hearing, because of
her participation on the Jefferson Transit Authority Board. That is what she wished to do.
Michelle Sandoval said she is a member of EDC, her husband is on the Executive Board and is
an officer. Yesterday she was doing real estate business, called John L. Scott, and a couple of
realtors there started to engage in a conversation about it. She told them she could not talk about
it as it was quasi-judicial; also, the same at the last EDC meeting with an EDC member, stating
she was not allowed to talk it. She received one phone call from someone in the neighborhood
and stated the same thing. She hasn't engaged in conversation as much as stating it was quasi-
judicial. The one time they did talk about the actual Kelly building was at a C-II Design
Standard meeting that she reported to Mr. Watts. It was with Ms. Jean Walat as staff. They
were talking about a specific building requirement, and as they have been doing the entire time
with the C-II design standards, taking field trips, looking at buildings and coming back and
giving consideration to what the design standards would affect, etc. One day they were talking
about modulation, etc. The Kelly building came up. They didn't talk about it in the context of
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 3 December ! 1, 2002
rezoning or not, but talked about it in the context of a design. Both she and Jean Walat talked to
Mr. Watts about that after they realized they could have possibly stepped over a line on that.
Freida Fenn said she also served as one of the five members on the Transit Board, three County
Commissioners and two appointed City representatives. The issue of surplusing property came
up early in the year with an unsolicited request. It hadn't been on the Board's agenda; they dealt
with it. She said they had no legal advice at that time, she was new to the Board and she
participated in those decisions not knowing it could disqualify her from participating in City
decisions. Subsequently, she got advice from the City Attorney that having taken a vote on the
Transit Board and again recently taking another, raised the appearance of fairness.
She said she is recusing herself tonight, feeling very clearly that people in the public could
feel she had already stated positions by those votes. Since Mr. Watts told her she couldn't
participate, she then twice called Ms. Pam James, MRSC. In her first conversation Ms. James
was very clear that this was the case. Had she known, she would have much preferred to recuse
herself from the Transit votes and participate as a City Councilor, as she was elected by the
citizens to participate in this body and appointed to go to the Transit Board to participate.
She felt very clear about not participating tonight, and she said she would leave.
Mayor Kolff asked that she wait until they finish this discussion..
Other disclosures of Economic Development Council membership:
Joe Finnie a member for about 7 years; 3 or 4 years ago on the Executive Committee. He has
not been a particularly active member the last several years and has not been involved in
meetings in which the Kelly proposal was discussed, debated, or voted on. He feels his EDC
relationship is remote and would not disqualify him from voting on this matter tonight.
Kees Kolff a member.
Mayor Kolff also disclosed he believes in the last several months, several people have
approached him very casually making comments about this issue; he has made it clear each time
he could not discuss it. On one occasion while bicycling, he ran across Paula Mackrow and Lyle
Weyhmiller and asked what they were doing. They commented they were doing work on this
particular issue; he again made it clear he could not discuss it.
Mr. Watts explained he reviewed with MRSC the matter of whether membership in an entity
such as EDC serves to disqualify a decision maker based on the appearance of fairness. There is
no legal basis to apply the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine based upon membership alone in an
organization. That was the opinion he gave at the Planning Commission level when one member
there indicated he was a member of EDC. The same advice would apply here. Membership in
EDC is not a basis for disqualification based on the appearance of fairness; however,
membership as a board member is a basis for disqualification under certain legal cases, which is
also the opinion of MRSC. Membership alone -- not enough; membership on a board can be the
basis for disqualification.
Mr. Watts then asked for the record whether or not the decision makers who indicated they are
going to participate are in a position to make a fair and impartial decision based on the facts and
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 4 December 11, 2002
Catharine
the record in this proceeding.. This would not apply Councilmembers Fenn and Robinson.
Councilmembers Kolff, Sandoval, and Masci responded, "Yes." Mr. Watts said Mr. Finnie had
already indicated he is in that position, and Mr. Youse has not raised any issues and does not
need to be asked.
Ms. Sandoval asked Mr. Watts if her fellow councilors would have the opportunity to vocalize
any concern they may have with regard to her disclosure or the appearance of fairness he raised.
Mr. Watts replied they can if they choose and the Council or Mayor permits. If they choose to.
they can make a comment. He said that in his view they do not have standing to make an
objection, because the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is for the benefit of the parties to the
proceeding, which would be the applicant and the appellant. Mayor Kolff then asked Mr. Watts
if the parties involved have no objection to Councilors Fenn and Robinson participating, would
he still recommend they recuse themselves or wait and hear whether or not there is any objection
from anyone with regards to their participation.
Mr. Watts replied if they choose to follow through with their statements, that is the end of the
matter, that his comments are based upon legal principles, not upon what he believes should be
good policy or a good basis for decision making. He is trying to make sure the decision is
legally within the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, because a violation of that could serve to
allow any decision made by the Council invalidated. He agreed with Mayor Kolff that is only if
there is an objection by the party involved.
Ms. Fenn said she intends to recuse herself whether or not anyone objects to her participation.
She felt that was a moot point for her, that it is a decision she needs to make based on the facts as
she sees them. Ms. Robinson concurred, that it was the same for her also.
Mr. Youse objected saying that is a problem for him, if everyone recuses themselves --just the
four councilors or the minimum. He did not know how that is addressed legally; we are an
incredibly small town where it seems you know everyone you see. MRSC and the Appearance
of Fairness, these remote associations are remote, even though they seem very apparent. But
what can you do if there is a legal reason that has been documented for someone to recuse.
Mayor Kolff explained as he understands it, there is really no way they can force anyone to
participate, even though they would like them to stay. Councilmembers Fenn and Robinson left
the meeting. Mayor Kolff asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to his or any
of the remaining councilmembers participating in these proceedings. There being no objections,
he continued by giving the purpose of this hearing and the order of business, first considering the
SEPA appeal and then the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. He called for the Staff
Presentation.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Judy Surber, Staff Planner
The purpose tonight is to review the Kelly-Jefferson Transit application, a rather complicated
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 5 December 11, 2002
matter with a lot of history. She gave an overview of the project beginning with the application.
Basically, Jefferson Transit and Mr. Ken Kelly submitted an application earlier this year that
involved two phases.
Phase 1 addresses the zoning of the property. She showed an exhibit showing the project
vicinity, south of Sims Way off Hancock Street, specifically block 280 and lots 1 and 2 of block
281. Currently the entire area that is zoned PI public infrastructure is owned by Jefferson Transit
who has voted to surplus a portion of their property, outlined on the exhibit; the application came
with a request for a rezone to C-II general commercial. It involves 10 lots, an area roughly 1.73
acres in size. A comprehensive plan amendment and rezone are required for such a request
because both the land use map that is adopted with the Comp Plan and the official zoning map
would get changed if approved. There would first be a decision on the rezone to C-II general
commercial. Typically rezones allow any use that is permitted by the new zone, or the C-II.
Phase 2. In this case, there was also an application for a site specific project. She displayed
an overhead showing Phase 2 of the project saying if the rezone is approved, Mr. Kelly would
proceed with development of a commercial proposed to be 20,000 square feet in size; a parking
lot and storage area about 18,150 square feet in size; access point onto Hancock Street, as shown;
and a buffer to be retained along 3rd Street, 25 foot in width, from the project southerly
boundary. The proposed specific business is the mail order distribution and sale of vintage
hardware. Mr. Kelly does most of his business through catalog sales, but he would have a small
retail area within the building.
Staff started the review with their usual SEPA, environmental review, and issued a Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on September 25th. That MDNS covered both
phases 1 and 2 of the project. They received an appeal from Friends of the Comp Plan leaving
them with two actions for the Council tonight: 1) look at the SEPA document and decide whether
or not the appeal should be upheld, whether the SEPA document did indeed cover all the
required information and should be approved as is, or if there are mitigation measures you feel
should be added to the SEPA; 2) look at merits of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezone. Subsequent permits for actual construction of the site are processed through the Building
and Community Development department and would not be coming back for any additional
review by the Council.
Background:
Ms. Surber displayed an overhead showing excerpts from a Planning Commission annual
review earlier this year. (Exhibit Council 1 -- Excerpts from the Planning Commission annual
Comprehensive Plan Assessment):
Growth within the city has been slower than projected by the Comp Plan, 1.3 to 1.6 %
rather than 2% suggested in the Comp Plan.
Although there appears to be adequate vacant land in all zoning categories to accommodate
future anticipated growth, the city should evaluate the availability of *infrastructure to vacant
lands zoned for manufacturing, commercial and multi-family and seek to improve the
availability of the key infrastructure.
The city should focus on implementation steps and strategies outlined in the Comp Plan with
specific emphasis on economic development; job creation and retention; and, affordable
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 6 December 11, 2002
housing.
*Ms. Surber displayed an overhead showing the infrastructure referenced. Mr. Ken Clow from
Public Works gave her a general overview of the lack of infrastructure along the Sims Way
corridor saying south of Sims Way and west of McClellan Street, which she pointed out,.is
lacking in fire flows. The area west of Cliff Street out to the city limits, zoned C-II and also
industrial uses, is also lacking in sewer. The Planning Commission was making the
recommendation that perhaps they were not seeing development in commercial and light
manufacturing because the areas zoned for those uses are lacking in infrastructure.
The site. She pointed to blocks 260 and 261 and said in 1975 zoning in that area showed
those northern two blocks as commercial; however the two blocks 280 and 281 to the south, now
owned by Jefferson Transit, were zoned residential. In 1991 Jefferson Transit purchased that
property. In 1994 there were additional changes in zoning, and at that time there was an R-III
and R-I zone applied to the southern blocks, both residential. The R-III zoning on 281 is actually
multi-family residential. The zoning was again changed in 1996-1997. The entire site owned by
Jefferson Transit at time, four blocks (260, 261,280, 281) was zoned to PI public infrastructure.
She answered Ms. Sandoval's question, that it was during the Comp Plan process.
In 1991 an application was received from Jefferson Transit, who at that time was considering
a partnership with the school district to have their bus facilities shared. The application was for
vacation of McClellan, generally from 4th Street down to 3rd, and for expansion of the bus base
to approximately 89 parking spaces. A portion of the project site being considered tonight, the
Transit-Kelly block 280, was encumbered by that 1991 application. Exhibit K-3 shows the
parking lots came down into block 280. Jefferson Transit later decided to abandon the expansion
of the bus facility, but did go through with the street vacation. She pointed out on Exhibit K-4
that although it is not shown, McClellan Street was vacated all the way to 3rd Street and had
already been vacated up to Sims Way. The exhibit shows there are vacations of 4th Street and
McClellan Street, in the project vicinity.
As part of that street vacation there was a land swap; she pointed out lots 5 through 8 along
the westerly boundary of block 281 that Jefferson Transit deeded to the city in exchange for the
vacation of McClellan Street. The city was interested in having that area because it is within a
critical drainage corridor, it is a very steep ravine There were also restrictive covenants that
were a condition of that street vacation. As a follow up, if they do approve the rezone, they will
have to address the restrictive covenants as well.
There was another rezone in 2001. Mr. Frank Vane came in with a proposal saying there
were mapping errors in 1996-1997. There are several commercial buildings on blocks 278 and
279 of Eisenbeis Addition. Since BCD only does a brief overview of a suggested amendment at
the docketing stage, to ensure they were covering all of the area involving the commercial
buildings Mr. Vane claimed to be on these two blocks, BCD noticed it as a possible rezone of
portions of blocks 278 and 279, when actually Mr. Vane was more specific on certain buildings.
The 2001 rezone caught those commercial buildings that pre-existed the 1996-1997 Comp Plan,
appearing to be accidentally zoned residential, and put them back into the C-II zone. The only
piece of property that was not an existing commercial building that was picked up in that rezone
was 330 Hancock Street, across from Jefferson Transit, property owned by Ms. Luz Loch who
was in favor of zoning it commercial and stated during the testimony that she always thought it
was commercial. It was included in that 2001 rezone.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 7 December 11, 2002
Ms. Sandoval referred to Exhibit K-27, and asked the addresses of those rezoned properties. Ms.
Surber replied 334 and 337 Sherman Street, and 330 Hancock Street. She also verified that the
southern portion of those blocks was not rezoned. Ms. Surber noted the Loomponics building
and the old drivers license building owned by the Amels were also picked up. She affirmed Ms.
Sandoval's question that buildings on the south side are residential R-II. Ms. Surber referenced
it as Exhibit KV-1.
Ms. Surber said the current application was submitted on April 30, 2002. In response to the
pending SEPA notice, they received four letters in opposition to the project and at least 14 more
followed the issuance of the MDNS, threshold determination (Exhibits K-17 and K-22).
Generally comments focused on impacts to the neighborhood including traffic, noise, light and
impacts to the general character of the neighborhood. They did their best to map out the
responses, red dots showing those in opposition and green dot on Ms. Loch's property, 330
Hancock Street, in favor of the project (Exhibit K-27). She said the appellants had indicted some
of those letters may have come from people owning more property in that area, but BCD based
this solely on the address of the letter. They also received about the same, about 14 letters in
support, (included in Exhibits K-17 and K-22). The focus of most of those support letters was
economic development and jobs.
The appeal submitted by Friends of the Comp Plan Lyle Weyhmiller and Nora Regan is
included as K- 18. The appellants brought up the point they felt BCD had not properly addressed
the comprehensive plan and rezone, so shortly afterwards on October 14, BCD issued an
addendum to clarify that Phase I of the project is indeed a comprehensive plan amendment and a
rezone, and that it as all covered in the original SEPA document. A final MDNS was issued
November 14, 2002.
The three main arguments submitted with the appeal: Appeal document 17, 18, 19 (Addressed in
Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions)
Contention that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone and subsequent
commercial grading and development will have a probable significant adverse
environmental impact. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show specifically what that
environmental impact is.
Procedures used to process the MDNS and MDNS appeal are flawed. (They were basically
getting at the point of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezone.) BCD clarified in
their addendum.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone are not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. An analysis in the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance specifically addresses the consistency of the proposed Comp Plan amendment
and rezone with applicable city plans and policies and is also addressed by the Planning
Commission in their Findings of Fact and Conclusions. There were several key policies
discussed during the Planning Commission hearings; it appears there were arguments on both
sides. She displayed an overhead of what she thought to be the most controversial: Land Use
Element -- Policy 8.4, "Where possible allow the Gateway commercial corridor to be
increased in depth to enable development of integrated commercial projects which depart
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 8 December 11, 2002
from commercial strip development, prohibit the expansion of such areas where it would
significantly diminish the livability or viability of an adjoining neighborhood." A few key
words came out during the Planning Commission meeting, i.e., integrated commercial. She
pointed out areas and said that basically, integrated addressed more how the commercial
areas and other areas if zoned commercial in the future relate to one another. The existing
site plan showed the parking lot would come out to the south and that the building was
oriented toward the street. They argued that is not integrated development, not relating to
any other commercial development in the area; it will be addressed later through an
alternative site plan. Economic Development Element -- There are several policies
addressing the support of diversified manufacturing in small businesses. Policy 4.7, One key
thing, catalog sales are specifically encouraged by the Comp Plan. Policy 9.4, Commercial
and manufacturing zoning, encourages infill of commercial and manufacturing zones before
considering the expansion or creation of new zones. Encourage is a guideline, not
mandatory, but a key policy that needs to be considered in this review. Policy 9.5, "Provide
effective separation of conflicting land uses through buffering, setbacks, zone uses allowed in
transition zones." These are things that can be reflected mostly by the design of a project
itself rather than through a rezone. Policy 9.3, "Expand existing commercial and
manufacturing zones only after assessing and mitigating adverse environmental impacts."
Staff contends the MDNS did just that.
More key issues arose during the Planning Commission hearings:
Is a traffic study required by the engineering design standards for the proposed Kelly
project? The engineering design standards state that a traffic may be required if a development
is going to generate 20 or more trips in the peak hours in the peak direction. The project's 25
employee trips could possibly meet that threshold; however, based on results of a traffic study
done with the Jefferson Transit base expansion in 1999 which had a higher daily volume, it was
felt a new traffic study would not find any new impacts that had not already been addressed.
in the manufacturing zone unless the product has been manufactured onsite. C-II zone is
appropriate.
Concerns that Pl zoning should be preserved even if Transit relocates. The City Attorney
says this could constitute a takings under the law because the uses allowed in P! are so limited.
Mr. Watts can address that further if needed. The issue here tonight is whether or not to approve
the pending application proposing a rezone from PI to C-II. Before starting the SEPA review,
Ms. Surber called Ms. Barbara Ritchie, zoning authority with the Department of Ecology, asking
if she was correct in her analysis and approach to the analysis of a rezone. Ms. Ritchie explained
that when you are making an environmental review for rezones, you look at the range of possible
uses under the existing zoning versus the range of possible uses under the proposed zoning, and
determine whether there is in fact a significant increase in intensity or potential impacts between
the two zoning changes. It is not like parks to restaurant, but all the ranges of possible PI uses
and all the ranges of C-II uses that have to be looked at. In the MDNS, they reviewed the fact
that under PI there are several uses that are heavily intense uses, all the way from park, open
space, to bus base expansions, stadiums. That is a huge range. C-II general commercial is more
generally restaurants, grocery stores, lube/oil/filter. The MDNS concluded that strictly changing
zones from PI to C-II, there was no significant impact based on the range of uses allowed under
each zoning district.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 9 December I 1, 2002
Is this the
Is there a change in circumstances that would justify the rezone? Transit decision to surplus
the property was the changed circumstance.
Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing are included in Council packets, dated
October 10, November 21, and November 26. They were continued a few times due to the
appeal and then due to the amount of public testimony. The Planning Commission voted to deny
the SEPA appeal and to uphold the determination made by the SEPA Responsible Official. The
vote was 4 in favor, 2 opposed and 1 abstaining.
The Commission further recommended that the Council add several mitigation measures by a
vote of 5-1-1. They include mitigation measures intended to address bulk and scale of the
structure. They voted for a height restriction of 30 feet, consistent with the R-II height
restriction. Ms. Surber distributed a handout with bulk and height requirements for PI, C-ii, R-
II; suggested restrictions to SEPA showing the bulk height requirements for the existing PI
zoning, the C-II zone; a column for R-II, single family residential zone which is to the south and
east of the project; and in the last column restrictions that Planning Commission suggests be
added to the SEPA document. This handout became Exhibit K-31. They also recommended a
minimum setback of 10 feet along Hancock Street, again consistent with the 10 foot setback
requirement of the residential zone. The southerly side of the building shall be modulated as
defined in the C-II design standards at a minimum of 50 foot intervals. The applicant shall plant
site-obscuring trees along the east side of the structure, the Hancock Street side. All were to help
address comments received on bulk, scale and character.
To address potential adverse impacts associated with traffic, the Planning Commission
recommends a No Right Turn sign be installed at the parking lot exit, and signage indicating No
Commercial Traffic Beyond this Point installed on Hancock Street. A No Protest Agreement for
future formation of an Local Improvement District (LID) to signalize the Sims and Hancock
intersection.
One mitigation that is a little different -- zoning shall revert to PI if Mr. Kelly's building is
not constructed within 5 years in substantial conformance with the conceptual site plans. That is
a bit different because as she said before if you simply rezone a piece of property, it normally
means any use allowed under that new, C-II zone, could then follow on that property. Here, the
Planning Commission recommends the rezone be tied to the Kelly project, and if he does not
construct that building within 5 years, the zoning revert to PI.
Ms. Surber made a distribution which was later entered into the record as Exhibit K-32. She
said to correct a mistake she made, her thanks to Ms. Grahn for pointing out to her the tiny
checkmark on the Public Works requirements she didn't pick up, staff has a recommendation
that an additional mitigation measure be added, "Public Works requires a No Protest Agreement
for regional stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment systems because the current system
is inadequate. Ms. Surber noted this No Protest Agreement is spelled out in Municipal Code
13.01.130.e.
The Planning Commission voted 4-2-1 to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment
rezone. They again tied it to the Kelly project, to revert in 5 years if Mr. Kelly does not build his
commercial building.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, staff again met with the applicant and the
applicant's design representative. They tried to further address public comment they heard
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 10 December 1I, 2002
during Planning Commission. An alternative site plan was developed. Mr. Kelly has agreed to
the new alternative site plan, if Council should decide they want to take this route. She
distributed the alternative site plan, entered into the record as Exhibit K-33. The original site
plan was attachment B to Exhibit K-6.
This alternative tries to address Policy 8.4, integrated commercial development. The
building and the parking have been flipped-flopped on the site, putting the building southerly on
the site towards 3rd Street, but keeping that 25 foot green belt buffer as previously shown on the
original site plan. The parking lot now exits across from commercial zoning that exists on the
block to the east. The previous site plan had the parking exiting across from residential zones to
the block to the east. This site plan also shows the frontage of the building turned in for any
future possibilities for integrated commercial development and shared parking arrangement with
the block to the north where the bus base currently exists, if it should indeed be vacated by
Jefferson Transit and become commercial in the future.
This site plan shows, as Ms. Grahn wanted pointed out, the portion of vacated 4th Street that
Jefferson Transit would be using while they continue to occupy the bus base. When they vacate,
that would revert to Mr. Kelly's use.
She pointed out lots 1 and 2 in the ravine proposed to be dedicated to the city. Along
Hancock Street it incorporates Planning Commission's additional recommendations: 10 foot
setback from Hancock Street; site obscuring trees all along the eastern street frontage. Building
height, as Planning Commission recommended, would be 30 feet. Ms. Surber answered Mr.
Finnie that yes, the illustration would then show two rows of trees as opposed to the one row of
trees in the original SEPA filing. She said there was no 10 foot setback in the original site plan.
Ms. Surber said Public Works has reviewed this alternative site plan, and their requirements
should it be approved. They were entered into the record as Exhibit K-34. She said in general
those requirements involve improvements of Hancock Street from the project entrance north to
Sims Way. In the original site plan, frontage of the project site basically between the entrance on
Hancock to 3rd Street was going to be improved. In this case, from the entrance north to Sims
Way in front of the Transit base would be improved. The road improvement would include a
right hand turn, and left hand or straight through exit onto Sims Way. That would better address
traffic at that intersection.
Mr. Watts addressed the Mayor saying for purposes of the record the Public Works
memorandum dated December 10th should be marked K-34 and become part of the record.
Ms. Surber noted curb and gutter improvements are recommended in that area north to Sims
Way. Normally sidewalks are encouraged along a commercial frontage. In this case it could
either be a sidewalk maintained by the city, or if preferred by the neighbors could possibly a
Mats-Mats quarry meandering pathway, and in that Mr. Kelly would have to take on the
maintenance. She clarified for Mr. Kolffthat would be located on Hancock Street south to 3rd
within the city right-of-way. Because Mats-Mats needs maintenance, the Public Works
Department said that would be alright as long as the applicant is willing take care of that.
The idea for the area of Hancock Street between 3rd Street and the project entrance was to
keep the improvements minimal, basically in response to what they heard during the Planning
Commission hearing. There are a couple of options: 1) they could overlay the existing width of
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 11 December l 1, 2002
the street, south to 3rd Street; or 2) there could be a No Protest Agreement for future formation
of an LID, if that portion of the street is not improved. Additionally, the Public Works
Department recommends that to discourage traffic coming down Hancock Street, some signage
be added that notifies you are coming into a residential neighborhood, or include some traffic
calming devices.
Ms. Surber said that in general you have the Planning Commission recommendation, and that
Staff recommends a bit of massaging of that recommendation: 1) Foremost, that rather than the
conceptual site plan being approved as part of the rezone, this alternative site plan be substituted
as they feel it better addresses the concerns they have heard and also Policy 8.4 of the Land Use
Element; 2) Public Works requirements in Exhibit K-34 be attached as conditions; 3) a No
Protest Agreement for regional stormwater improvements, Exhibit K-32, that she had overlooked
be included as a condition.
Mr. Watts again addressed Mayor Kolff identifying exhibits Ms. Surber handed out and entering
them into the record as:
Exhibit K-31 Comparison of Bulk, Height and Density Requirements
Exhibit K-32 A portion of Development Requirements regarding Erosion and Sediment
Exhibit K-33 New Site Plan
Exhibit K-34 Public Works Memorandum, dated October 10, 2002
Mayor Kolff then called for the applicant's presentation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Ken Kelly, American Home Supply, San Jose and hopefully Port Townsend
He has owned a house in Port Townsend for approximately 1 year, fell in love with it after
searching for the last 4 years, because they want to move. He is married, has two daughters and
would like to raise them in a small town atmosphere like where he grew up. After looking at
many towns in California, he finally took the advice of friends in Port Townsend and came to
take a look. He got hooked and then came looking for a business.
He thought we should be together, because for 25 years he has been helping to restore
Victorian homes. He is hoping to do a good job on antiques; Victorian homes; they have helped
museums; helped antique offices restore after hack jobs. They are an ambiance kind of
company. They don't just sell products on a shelf. They go in, look and see how they can help
restore it to what it was in Victorian times. He emphasized that is their ambiance. He said Port
Townsend and they match; if they can't be in Port Townsend they would have to find another
place just like Port Townsend because this is what they do well. They think they would suit the
atmosphere here because they would add something to the dimension of Port Townsend, i.e.,
they can help restore it. They have helped restore the Moody house, the Adams house and the
Saunders house having hardware and things in all three locations, among other smaller
restoration projects.
Mr. Kelly said the business is about the most tmobtrusive business you could have in Port
Townsend. They are a mail order company, and their main salesman is right here [his catalog].
When they do a printing, they send out about 200,000 catalogs and give them out in good
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 12 December 11, 2002
numbers at their shows across the country for rehab fairs and restoration shows, hardware shows
He said this is their salesman, their retail sales floor, and they make their living from a catalog.
They don't have foot traffic, car traffic; they have mail and UPS. When UPS leaves at 3:00 p.m..
their day is over, that is their sales, their merchandise out the door, what everybody has gone flat
out all day to accomplish -- those mail orders. One UPS a day, and an occasional customer.
They have a showroom for educational purposes and to help their employees answer detailed
questions for their telephone customers who may be ordering from thousands of mile away. It is
really easy to run to a display room, look at the product, measure and quickly get an answer, get
back to the phone and take an order.
The showroom is more for them than for other people, ambiance-related. They have people
who occasionally fly in with their architects to do business. They expect to have the ambiance of
a Victorian showroom in a relaxed setting in a special place. They don't expect to go to
industrial zones; they expect someplace that fits their idea of relaxed atmosphere, hence the
Transit site appealed to them. He said when those people come to them, they are looking to
restore maybe four or five floors of a Victorian. They bring their architect; they sit down for 2
and 3 hours and go over with them about how they can do this. It takes time and is a slow
process, and is ambiance-related. Where they choose to locate the business is key for them,
because those big sales can keep five or six men busy for 2 or 3 months. He reemphasized,
location is a critical thing for them; they can't just be anywhere.
He stressed two things: 1) They are low impact. They have no pollution; they are a quiet
company and even recycle cardboard and foam materials to keep it out of landfills. They have
virtually no traffic; one UPS truck per day; they have had three shipments inward so far this year,
the last in September and are about to have another in January. -- no semi's, no trucks, no
nothing. Their hours are 8:00 to 5:00, five days a week. No 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock cocktail parties
as alluded previously; they have very scheduled hours, are very quiet. They just do their job;
when UPS is done they are almost done, They go back, look at shelves, check inventory and do
things for the next day's work. 2) Perhaps one of the most important, jobs. At the end of 2
years, they will provide a minimum of 20 living wage jobs to the people of Port Townsend. He
asked why 2 years, answering it is a simple matter of trying to learn 2,000 products and 250
lights. It is a long process and takes a lot of education and training. They start with a nucleus
and work up; they hope to exceed that amount. Right now in California they are spread among
five locations; it is very hard to control, very unwieldy. It started like a garage business and
expanded into another unit, then another, on and on. They would like to consolidate, become
more efficient, more organized so they can take time and release their jobs to Port Townsend
people. He reiterated they think they are good for Port Townsend.
Mr. Kelly said they are always willing to look at alternatives. This is the second, and in line
with everything that has been said so far. They try very hard to work with the community, don't
yell, scream and pound the floor to get their own way. They try to listen, to adapt and change
and be a member of the community; that is what they like to do. He said if they are approved, he
would love to come here, help out with the employment problem and enjoy the lifestyle in Port
Townsend.
Mr. Guy Hupy, 812 Franklin Street
Designer assisting with the conceptual site plans on this project since early spring.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 13 December 11, 2002
He worked with Mr. Kelly early on to develop a plan for this property. Through assistance
with city staff and the design standards they came up with the original conceptual plan. He went
on to discuss elements that precipitated a change to the plan. It was a process that he and staff
worked through without Mr. Kelly's input; he was in California. As with everything on this
project Mr. Kelly has been agreeable to every condition, change or request made of him.
He showed what they have done to reduce the scale of the building making it into an L-shape
instead of a linear building. It is a little more expensive to build, but it reduces the maximum
length of any one side to 150 feet. He heard very clearly in public testimony concern for this
commercial type structure fronting the residential neighborhood. That was a legitimate concern,
both from the traffic perspectives and issues like glare and the feeling of commercial. He said
originally the design standards pointed them in the direction of fronting the main street. The
concept of having an integrated project for future development gave the opportunity to turn the
face of the building north toward Sims and eliminate the glare from showroom windows being a
potential problem for the residential neighborhood. He thought that was important to do.
This redesign was precipitated by conditions placed it on it by the Planning Commission, and
using that information and those conditions they were amenable to meeting the residential
requirements for setbacks and heights. That wasn't a problem. By using that extra 10 foot of
setback and turning the building, they didn't have to have any openings or glass in the area
across from the residential neighborhood. That allowed for a deeper and denser buffer planting
along that area with the addition of evergreens along the building as well as the street trees, so
you get a winter/summer denser buffering from the neighborhood. They also included
modulation as required to that face of the building through the use of pilasters every 25 feet
which will be a portion of the actual structure. There won't be any long planes, the longest is 23
feet.
In addition to some of those improvements, mostly it takes all the of driving off of the area
around Hancock Street in from the north end and around the back of the building. One thing he
has always thought ideal about this sites, it has some of the best natural buffering of any of the
transitional zones in town, on two sides the ravine and the wooded area along the dead-end 3rd
Street. By screening the remaining side to the residential area, it focuses all the uses inside the
property, so it is virtually not noticeable from the community around it. He hoped that addressed
most of their concerns. They have already spelled out how they are going to meet stormwater
requirements through the engineering done this summer.
This process went through a neighborhood meeting in August where they presented the
proposal to people in the neighborhood, announcing it through mailings and to the newspaper.
They had a turn out of people. Residents who came from the Hancock Street area seemed
favorable at that meeting; they didn't get the input at that time that would have led them to
redesign it prior to the Planning Commission meeting. They have heard a lot of input from the
neighbors since then, and they will continue to do whatever they can to meet those requirements
and keep the residential neighborhood with its residential flavor and the commercial elements
focused up toward Sims Way.
Mayor Kolffthen called for the Appellant's presentation.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing)
Page 14 December 11, 2002
Mr. Lyle Weyhmiller, 1405 3rd Street
Representing friends of the Comp Plan.
Lives 300 feet from the Transit property. He has been a long time resident of 3rd Street
coming here with 2-year-old Otto, and 3-year-old Cassie. Cassie is now in college and Otto is
graduated from high school this year. He described the area showing pictures taken by his
neighbor, Mr. Jim Lamb. The neighborhood's uniqueness comes from the mix of ages, sizes,
styles and affordability of the homes. Some date back to the 1920's and have often been handed
down to the next generation rather than being sold out of the family. Real estate values have
grown consistently; new homes are built and older ones remodeled. Large trees, large lots and at
least nine new large homes have been built since 1996.
This is their fourth involvement with rezones. In 1988 a request for apartments on 3rd and
Sherman was denied. In 1991 an apartment on 3rd and Grant was requested and denied. The
Comp Plan adopted in 1996 included additional commercial and multi-family residential zoning
to reduce the pressure to rezone neighborhoods like theirs. In 2001 the Comp Plan was tested
with a request to change the zoning on 3rd Street to C-II. The City Council said no to
commercial zoning fronting on 3rd Street; they said they liked straight lines. This is not a
straight line; it zags down into a residential area. Just last year the city said no to commercial
zoning south of4th Street. This project includes commercial activity south of 4th Street. He
said commercial zoning does not belong in their neighborhood.
Tonight you have the Kelly rezone in front of you. The building is way too big for the
neighborhood. The businesses behind Sims Way frontage are truly small local businesses. The
Loompanics building is located in a single story residence. The Amel building is multi-story and
contains apartments. The small scale businesses in the first block off Sims Way serve as a buffer
from the Sims Way traffic. This project isn't integrated with the surroundings; it does not create
a good transition with the neighborhood. Look at the Safeway building, then picture a 20K
square foot building, almost half the size of our newly remodeled super Safeway store. The
average 3rd and Hancock residence is located on a 50 x 100 foot lot
Why has Mr. Kelly not applied to build his business in the business park or a commercial
area? This rezone will likely result in making the nearest residences less desirable as a personal
home investment, and more desirable as another request for C-II zoning. Invasion of commercial
zoning into a residential area can result in homes becoming less desirable as an investment, and
therefore the neighborhood becomes less stable over time.
Mr. Weyhmiller met with Mr. Turissini last week. He said Transit has always been a good
neighbor in their neighborhood, that their decision to surplus the property has been driven by the
desire of Mr. Kelly to buy the property, not by the long range plan of the Transit Board. There
are many options yet to discuss. He said public property belongs to the public. It is important
that the neighborhood be included in the development of the neighborhood. Neighbors voices
have not been heard in the Transit Board decisions. The citizens of Port Townsend fully expect
the Comp Plan to protect the character of this neighborhood, as it would all other neighborhoods.
Most important, the city should continue to protect established residential neighborhoods on both
sides of 3rd Street..
He said to please remember that Jefferson Transit and Mr. Kelly have other options. The
neighbors do not. Please think of the families here tonight. He hopes his few words of concern
help make the right decisions so that 3rd and Hancock Street can be left alone, free of
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 15 December 11, 2002
commercial intrusion.
Ms. Ande Grahn, 1033 Lawrence Street
Olympic Peninsula Planning
Explained she has 9 years experience working as a planner in the State of Washington. Her
daughter and Mr. Weyhmiller's daughter went to high school together.
Ms. Grahn said the decision to be made tonight is not about politics, not about PLC, not
about MOCCA. This is a decision about the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, about fairness
to neighborhoods, and about addressing the problems relating to economic development in this
community in a comprehensive manner rather than as a series of expensive spot zones that
benefit individuals without regard to the community.
She began her discussion displaying Exhibit A-12, and said when we hear talk about the
messages being sent to business owners, about how friendly or not friendly Port Townsend is, we
also need to talk about all the other messages being sent. Comprehensive planning says, if it
says commercial or light industrial on the map it means commercial businesses are welcome; if it
says residential it's a place to live, raise families or enjoy your retirement. City Council has
repeatedly determined 3rd Street is not a place for commercial businesses. Mr. Weyhmiller
mentioned the Vane and Amel rezones along 3rd Street. The Council said no to development
along 3rd Street when Mr. Vane came; they did grant him his rezone, as well as pick up the
drivers license building -- existing commercial businesses. When that proposal was heard, other
owners came and requested commercial zoning as well. City Council discussed it and said that
no they are not going to bring commercial zoning down to 3rd Street. She said if you look at the
pictures in the packet that show 3rd Street, that street has no curbs, no gutters, no sidewalks.
Public Works has identified it has no stormwater. It's not a commercial street; it's a little almost
gravel street, supports and is the entrance to a really nice neighborhood of small homes.
The Planning Commission's annual assessment, which is part of the record, indicates there is
adequate commercial and light industrial property available in the City of Port Townsend. That
was a decision they reviewed in April, is a decision this Council has reviewed, and when you
adopt your Comprehensive Plan amendment, you are going to adopt those findings as part of that
packet. Comprehensive Plan amendments are proposed to address deficiencies. If there is a
good reason that vacant zoned commercial and light industrial don't meet Mr. Kelly's needs,
let's hear what those problems are. Let's suggest Comprehensive Plan amendments that
encourage and support development in those areas that are already zoned for commercial and
light development. Why aren't we developing those properties? Why are they vacant -- 36
acres, and only one acre has been developed?
She showed on the map Mr. Kelly's proposed project, all the buildings. She pointed out and
said it also shows the business park, and there are only a few buildings. It is all undeveloped.
Mr. Kelly says he needs to be in C-II because his business is retail, but then tells us it is not
really retail, not like customers come there and shop, but like people come to see a showroom.
She said either it's retail and it is going to have an impact on this street when people come to his
hardware store in his retail showroom, or it's not retail and just a demonstration room, and then it
can be in the business park. She pointed to all the property that was undeveloped. They have
heard the city planner say there is no infrastructure in this area, but Mr. Kelly is going to build a
business. Businesses put in infrastructure and share it in the creation of a business in an area that
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 16 December 11, 2002
encourages other business to come forward. She pointed it out and said when you put
infrastructure improvements in this area that is a spot zone, you are not supporting any future
businesses being established in the community. You are supporting one business, but you are
not saying put some infrastructure in here and maybe some other people will come up and join
him. You are not saying this is commercial, C-II. If he wants the hardware store and the retail
traffic, what is wrong with all these big empty properties; they are huge, C-II properties.
The city is on record with the Glen Cove talks indicating there is adequate commercial lands
already existing in the city and county. In addition, at Glen Cove you talked about design
standards for buildings in light industrial zones. She reminded that the design standards that the
city encouraged the county to adopt included a maximum building size of 20K square feet,
similar to this building. This building is the maximum building size you recommended building
at the Glen Cove industrial park. This is a huge building to put in someone's neighborhood, a
metal sided building. The Planning Commission did a really nice job of looking at our requests
that there be additional SEPA mitigations. They recommended some modulation, turned the
building around, tried to get some more buffering. She said this is work that should have been
done at the staff level, and is what led them to appeal the SEPA determination.
They would like them to continue to address those issues, but they are not here to talk about
that, but to ask them to deny this rezone. This is a building that doesn't belong in a residential
neighborhood; it's too big, 20K feet is too big. She said it's not clear whether there is going to
be a hardware store there in his retail showroom space, not clear how many traffic and
transportation trips there are going to be; we don't have enough information. It isn't clear that it
shouldn't be land that is zoned commercial so that it helps support other businesses.
Mr. Kelly and the City have proposed some improvements to the water system that are going
to be shared 50/50. She asked if those improvements shouldn't be put, not in a residential area
where they are not required for further development, but in the areas of vacant land she pointed
to. If the city is going to sponsor, encourage development, shouldn't they do it where there will
be add on businesses where other people will benefit from those improvements?
She trusted Council has reviewed the record, a long record, but because this is an open record
hearing, she has to include a lot of this information in the record again. She said this is complex
and the neighbors have a lot of concerns. They don't have unlimited time, and just because she
doesn't touch on an issue they have previously submitted to the record, doesn't mean it isn't an
issue that is important to them, and doesn't mean it's not an issue they want them to consider.
They want them to consider the entire record and all their testimony before the Planning
Commission.
Traffic assessment for the project has not been consistent with the engineering design
standards manual adopted by the Council and used by Public Works to review every other
project. In particular, adoption by reference ofa 5 to 6 year old traffic report for a radically
different project, which included no look at trips during the summer time. They were looking at
school buses that left the bus station at 6:00 a'.m. That was the traffic assessment that was
adopted by reference. This is not adequate. Your codes say a traffic assessment is required.
Because we don't have a clear picture of whether or not there is going to be retail there,
whether or not a hardware store -- she thought someone has some pictures of Mr. Kelly's
hardware store in San Jose. It is a hardware store; it has lights, windows, product, parking
spaces in front. When people come down 3rd Street, where will they turn? With the traffic so
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 17 December 11, 2002
bad are they going to go down and drive up 3rd Street? She said they don't know because they
don't really understand what kind of traffic this project is going to generate. Until they
understand that they don't think they can make a good decision. If you locate the project
somewhere already zoned for commercial, your Comp Plan has already addressed those issues,
has mitigated them, established an assessment that it is a good place for that kind of business..
There are unresolved issues associated with the 1998 McClellan Street vacation. She pointed
out where 4th Street was vacated; McClellan Street vacated as part of a Transit request to expand
their facilities, a SEPA determination was done. Some required mitigations included giving
away the city right-of-way, that Transit gave the city some property down in the ravine -- there
was no money exchanged, a pretty good exchange. When the city assessed the environmental
impacts of that revision they entered into a No-Protest Agreement, fair share, with Transit for a
future LID for a traffic light at Sims Way. We all understand the many trips, and fair share onto
Hancock is going to be pretty small; but it is a contribution; an important thing to remember.
They are not sure what has happened to those SEPA mitigations, and not sure whether they are
being conveyed with these parcels since the majority of McClellan Street is being conveyed,
whether or not the Transit Board, the Public Authority and the public are going to end up picking
up the costs for those unresolved mitigations, or that No-Protest, rather than the business owner,
if he is actually going to generate the trips.
She was glad they got back into the record her concern regarding the Public Works
conference brought up by Ms. Surber. The staff has been in a hurry to provide a supportive
business climate. She asserted they have gotten a lot of pressure from the EDC and from the
Chamber of Commerce. When Mr. Hupy says there was a party or a conference for the
neighbors, actually none of the neighbors knew about it; they weren't there. The people who
were there that were so supportive were EDC and Chamber of Commerce members. If you
check the record and ask these folks as they testify, she thought they would find they weren't
there. They want to support economic development, but in a way that it is not on the backs of
one particular neighborhood.
They are going to be asked to vacate a required covenant that was a condition of the street
vacation, which granted city right-of-way. We just need to know whether or not the city granted
that street vacation to the Transit Authority Board for their proposed expansion or for the Transit
Authority to then sell that property. Street right-of-way is the public interest that was granted.
Ms. Grahn said that because they are not really appealing the SEPA anymore here, they got
their hearing in front of the Planning Commission who addressed a lot of their concerns, they
had some further SEPA issues and noted the C-II and PI issue brought up by Ms. Surber. She
said it is not an adequate argument once you are looking at the rezone; it may be when talking
about the adequacy of the SEPA rezone, but remember it is not a rezone criteria. Also, the
timeline of the proposal. Jefferson Transit is currently engaged in a long range planning process.
She claimed that surplusing this property has not been recommended in tasks 1 through 4 of their
draft plan. The decision to surplus the property was motivated by Mr. Kelly's desire to buy it;
they can document this through the time of what is happening. This desire has pushed the
Transit Authority process all along resulting in less than usual notice of public meetings, a
decision to surplus that didn't include a thorough discussion of the best uses of the property, or a
request to other agencies to determine if they needed it. Insufficient, or barely sufficient notices
have been consistent because they have this real estate thing that is driving the process, as
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 18 December 11, 2002
opposed to Transit's long range planning process which is another year or two out. She said
Transit is exploring a variety of options and their future plans are not dependent upon the
approval of this sale; they didn't go looking for this buyer. Don't make this decision because
you are doing Transit a favor; this is a request by Mr. Kelly.
Ms. Grahn said the decision to rezone the property is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and
must meet the required 11 criteria. She asked that they refer to the Planning Commission
meeting minutes, that Ms. Alice King noted she could not find these criteria have been met. The
Staff and Planning Commission Findings directly contradict the approval criteria. She referred
to her previously submitted Exhibit a-10 which included an analysis of why those criteria haven't
been met, saying it won't be difficult for staff to prepare findings in support of denying this
project. She distributed copies which were entered into the record as Exhibit a-20; stating the
written record includes adequate thorough analysis of the following criteria:
a. Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment, or in the area where the
amendment is proposed, substantially changed? There have been no changes in this
neighborhood other than Mr. Kelly's desire to buy this property instead of another property that
is already zoned commercial. There still exists adequate lands as identified in the Comp Plan
and by the Planning Commission annual assessment that you have already considered, Glen
Cove. She pointed out and referred to only one acre, and saying to look at all this commercial
land, all this mixed industrial land; nothing has changed. There is no need to do more
commercial land; let's address why existing commercial land isn't desirable to Mr. Kelly and
why he doesn't want to locate there rather than creating a spot rezone.
B. Are the assumptions upon which the Port Townsend Comp Plan is based no longer valid?
The Comp Plan assumptions are valid. It has been noted growth has been slower than assumed
thereby necessitating less acreage. There is an excess of vacant commercial and manufacturing
lands. In previous requests to amend the Comp Plan the Council found the assumptions were
valid and denied commercial rezones in the neighborhood. She said when they considered Mr.
Vane's and the Amel proposal they found it was correct to fix those places already commercial,
that had commercial properties; but it wasn't necessary to zone additional commercial land in
that neighborhood.
C. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held community values? This is a
policy to maintain and improve the character and livability of neighborhoods. She knows that as
a whole there is concern about the lack of jobs, but this project in this location does not provide
jobs that couldn't be provided for if the project were developed on land already fbr commercial
uses. This doesn't make jobs out of nothing; you could make them somewhere else in town.
Throughout town neighbors are requesting enforcement of home businesses located in
established neighborhoods; they don't want houses next door to them turned into doctors offices,
or small clinics. They don't believe the community is clamoring to include 20K square foot
metal, straight sided buildings in residential neighborhoods. She asked to imagine it; this is not a
wood-frame building; this is a shed. The precedent created by saying that PI is equivalent to C-
II, if you follow that kind of logic, could allow this kind of development on F Street if the school
surpluses their ball fields; on San Juan if the city were to surplus their regional stormwater
facilities; or Chinese Gardens if the State Parks decided they aren't required for recreation.
D. Does the proposed amendment meet concurrency requirements? Transit is on the record
that they are concerned about turn movements at Hancock and Sims. The retail storeroom of
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 19 December 11, 2002
undetermined square footage could attract an unknown amount of commercial retail traffic. We
don't know if concurrency requirements will be affected. You don't have enough information to
make this finding.
E. The proposed amendment is consistent with goals, policies and objectives od'the Port
Townsend Comp Plan. This is a big one. Comp Plan Policy 8.4 expressly prohibits expansion of
commercial development into areas where it would significantly diminish the livability and
viability of the adjoining neighborhood. She thinks the concern you are going to hear from the
neighbors tonight, that you have heard in their letters to you, indicates they are concerned about
this. She does not know how you determine diminished livability except to listen to the people
in those established neighborhoods. The Council has already found commercial zoning on 3rd
Street would diminish the livability of that neighborhood. Their attorney at the Planning
Commission meeting used the words, "arbitrary and capricious." Non-attorney land use planners
don't use those type of words, but as a professional land use planner, she would think that to find
this now, a year later, would be inconsistent. Nothing has changed. Land Use Policy 7.1 requires
that neighborhoods be preserved; Land Use Policy 7.8 encourages neighborhoods; Land Use
Policy 7.14, discourages conversion of residential areas to non-residential areas. She pointed out
property that was originally zoned residential prior to the Comp Plan acknowledging Transit as
public infrastructure, and said if Transit doesn't need the property, let it revert to R-II; she was
sure they could sell it as R-II. Land Use Policy 8.3 requires that the city encourage commercial
zones on arterials. This rezone violates this policy; the project is not on an arterial. Sims Way is
an arterial; this project is on Hancock Street. Transportation Policy 1.1 calls for keeping
commercial traffic away from residential neighborhoods. Finally, but not exclusively,
Economic Development Policy 9.4 requires that the city encourage development in existing
commercial and manufacturing zones before consideration of new commercial and
manufacturing zones. You have to make a finding and adopt an ordinance that says this
requested rezone is consistent with that policy.
F. Have the proposed amendment's probable significant adverse impacts been addressed?.
We don't know because the study hasn't been done..
G. Are the subject parcels physically suitable? She said, not really. It's huge; it's not in
scale with the neighborhood.
H. Will the proposed amendment create pressure to change a land use designation of other
properties? That is why these neighbors are here, why Mr. Weyhmiller spent so much money.
She pointed it out and said they were afraid if you made this parcel commercial, that next year or
two all the rest will come back in and say they could, and now we want commercial property too.
She said they believe they could make a finding. You can't say it won't create pressure; you're
going to see those neighbors in here who want to sell their property as commercial.
I. Would the proposed action materially affect the land use and growth projections which
are the basis of the Comp Plan? The land use projections say there is adequate commercial land.
You've just allotted more commercial lands out in Glen Cove.
J. Would the proposed action materially affect the adequacy and availability of urban
facilities? They believe it would. By encouraging and permitting commercial development on
the available vacant commercial lands makes those properties more desirable. Owners share
infrastructure costs. Allowing Mr. Kelly to locate in this residential area does not permit
creating new vital commercial centers with shared infrastructure. It isn't good planning; it
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 20 December 11, 2002
doesn't solve the bigger problems. In addition the city will be paying for half of his water
structure, and nobody is going to get benefit from that.
K. Is the proposed amendment consistent with GMA and with other applicable laws? She
said this last one is really important. The promises of GMA and of comprehensive planning is
that there will be certainty. Certainty, that if you locate your development in the areas identified
in the comprehensive plan -- urban development in urban areas, rural and resource lands outside
of urban areas, commercial development in commercially zoned areas, and residential in
residential areas, that the environmental review has been addressed by the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Grahn said this project is so difficult and so contentious because Mr. Kelly does not have
the assurances provided by the comprehensive plan. He is asking to amend the plan; therefore,
the highest scrutiny is required, the closest reading of the approval criteria, the most sincere
effort to meet the intention of those adopted goals and policies. That is the promise of
comprehensive planning and of amending the comprehensive plan. This building is 20K square
feet. It doesn't belong in a residential area.
At 8:42 p.m. Mayor Kolff called for a break. Following a brief break the Mayor reconvened the
meeting and asked if there were any written materials submitted or that anyone wished to submit
without speaking. The Clerk reminded the Mayor he had a package of written e-mails on his
desk received since issuance of Council packets and today; she had received nothing else. Mr.
Watts clarified the package referred to by the Clerk included a cover memo from the Clerk to the
City Council dated December 16th which was then entered into the record as Exhibit K-35.
Mayor Kolff called for public comment and explained it would be appreciated if comments could
be shorter than 3 minutes due to the large number of people wishing to speak and the agenda
items to be covered.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Testimony in Favor:
Mr. James Fritz, Off Cape George Road
He is mildly in favor because he has a lot of friends in Port Townsend desperately needing
work, artists and musicians. To rent an apartment takes $600 - $700, $1000 with utilities. We
need jobs. He did not know if this is the right location, but if we want people to locate in
industrial areas, let's build the infrastructure so they can. He knows of other companies that
have wanted to find a location and couldn't because fire mains, etc. were not in. We need to start
worrying about the infrastructure and making things attractive for people For 6 years he has
heard if you want to move a business to Jefferson County, you should set up in Port Townsend.
Now we have a Victorian hardware store, and people are saying they don't want it. You can't set
up in other places because the infrastructure isn't there. He said we have to get our act together.
Mr. Charlie Arthur, 427 Adelma Beach
Was not here to argue, but speaking as someone in the 30 something bracket, we need work
for young people, for families and for living wage jobs. If this is something that is going to
provide that, if it's not at this property the city should do what they can to make it easier for them
or expedite the process somehow so they can provide some jobs for us. They are obviously
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 21 December 11, 2002
willing and want to move here. His family moved here before he was born because this was a
conducive area to start a business, and he has been told it was a positive place to start a business.
He was born and raised here.
This Council and other facets of the government are here to pave the way for these things to
be done correctly to everyone's advantage. There is a block somewhere with economic
development, and jobs aren't being created, especially jobs that can provide for people who want
the very basic things in life. He wants City Council to their part, do the right thing, to do
everything possible to make this a town for living; it's not a museum. He was born here because
his family moved here to work. He wants to do the same thing with his family, and wants to see
other members of his family able to do that as well. Do the right thing. You are going to know
when it's right; years from now you will be able to see the positive results.
Mr. Vern Garrison, Port Townsend
Under the current zoning, the PI zoning of this property, a building or development can be
built at 50 foot height; 0 setback; for the following uses: community centers; community
supported agriculture; community gardens; fairgrounds; cemeteries; parks; recreational areas. It
goes on, even allowing the current use, bus facility. Under the PI zoning a building of
considerably bigger bulk and dimension could be built and proposed by Transit, and it's allowed.
He thought the proposed comp plan zoning changes were better for the neighborhood in that the
known outcome is a building that has already been mitigated, the design scrutinized and buffers
laid out in concern for the neighborhood. It turns out to be a beneficial project.
Benefits are that Transit will end up with a matching grant if the sale goes through; we will
reap retail tax revenues for the city; property tax revenues; and 15 to 20 living wage jobs. How
can we purport to be a livable community without a living wage job, without being able to make
a living? We are losing our young people; young families can't live here; his daughter is
moving. More and more grandparents have to travel to see their grandchildren, because their
children can't live here.
The proponent is proposing a benign, non-manufacturing use; low traffic volume; as said
before, a smaller scale building that would have been allowed. It appears to be the highest and
best use for the greater common good. There have been compensatory mitigations put on this
application, and it sounds like all the makings for a justifiable change in zoning and allow for
this to occur.
Mr. David Wren
Twenty years he identified this area as a very pleasant town and designed his life so he could
move here a couple of years later. He has four children, three he planned to have locate here.
Subsequently, he realized there was no chance of them locating here; two of them are in Seattle.
We have a serious problem. It' s a pollution problem. He showed a picture of one of his
grandchildren, saying his wife drives over there to see them twice a week; does most of her
shopping there too, so a lot of sales tax gets lost. They are not rocket scientists; they could get a
job here -- that is all they are making now, family-wage jobs, if you had family-wage jobs here.
He said he has another son he had hoped might come when Phil Spesser was trying to get an
okay to set up a research lab in a Victorian, and again you couldn't do it. So, his son is in
Colorado. Nothing ever seems to be buildable here, if it's anything to do with a j ob.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 22 December 11, 2002
Showing their picture, he said these are nice looking grandchildren; they would look good in
Port Townsend schools. He understands Port Townsend school enrollment is plummeting
because there are no family wage jobs. He said he is not going to produce any children, and
looking around he doesn't see many people that are. Unless you bring in jobs, what to you have?
He goes to Safeway; he is depressed, they look worse than he does.
He said nothing is ever good enough in this place to bring in a job. He knows places that
have left; a close friend had a flower business and little by little it became too unfriendly; they
went out in the unincorporated areas. You are supposed to do something to help people build
businesses; they aren't bad. He would like his grandchildren to live here. He has four lots
contiguous to his house; he is going to put them on the market.
Mr. Douwe Rienstra, Physician
Made the point that if people don't have work they are not healthy -- no jobs people get sick.
Ms. Grahn made some good points about the Comp Plan that he won't argue with, but he thinks
as a commtmity we have to decide are we going to go by these ideals as how we should have it,
or are we willing to pay taxes so we can put in infrastructure and business can go into the
commercial areas or the industrial zone, or what are we going to do? There have to be sacrifices
made; he thinks we need to start making them so we can get off the dime and get moving. You
all are nodding your heads, but in his time here he sees people, it's in their back yard and they
are interested and then later it's a dead issue, not so important any more. He was hoping they all
do the right thing here, so that the community dreams can be fulfilled, not just in the way
everything looks, but in the way people have work and they are happy.
Mr. A1 Frank, Port Townsend
Said he had a couple of clarifying questions about the appellant Nora Regan. He asked if she
is the same Nora Regan who appears on the PLC website as a steering committee member?
Mayor Kolff asked Mr. Watts if those types of comments were appropriate in this hearing.
Mr. Watts replied he was not sure where he was going, but he told Mr. Frank it would be best if
he tried to direct his comments toward the application and whether or not the application meets
the criteria of the comprehensive plan amendment.
Mr. Frank continued by saying the PLC website says the PLC encourages smart growth
living wage jobs and locally owned businesses. He found it ironic we are even here tonight. It
appears we are witnessing a smart growth advocate fighting smart growth. Over the past 3 years
he has read hundreds of articles in websites regarding smart growth. Many warn of activists who
clearly cross the line to no-growth. He believed that is what is going on here by any reasonable
standard. It can have an elitist devastating impact on a community and its working middle class.
He cited a Housing and Community Development website that says smart growth encourages
reinvestment and infill development within existing urban areas.
In the beginning the most active proponents of smart growth were environmental activists
and no-growth advocates carrying on the legacy of growth management. In most parts of the
country these groups still lead the movement. Smart growth requires denser, more compact
development. If inadequately planned, smart growth can lead to genderfication, as already
pointed out, and negative impacts on low income and minority populations in distressed
communities. (In other words race and class discrimination.) It also leads to excessive real
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 23 December 11, 2002
estate inflation and unaffordability for the working middle class. He said just recently we paid
$50K for a demographic study that somehow got buried by this Council that clearly shows the
writing on the wall for our community.
He said they have an opportunity to put untaxed land on the tax roles, create desperately
needed jobs, infilling near infrastructure, etc., etc., yet we have a last minute appeal that seems to
throw in everything, probably hoping Mr. Kelly will go away. Smart growth doesn't work if you
pick and choose only certain aspects. That's called no-growth. What is being proposed here is
smart growth.
Ms. Leola Armstrong, Port Townsend
Has lived her close to 8 years. She said at their earlier meeting this week she heard a lot
about entrepreneurial efforts. That pleased her; she hoped that same attitude would carry over
tonight. It is incomprehensible to her that you could possibly turn down Mr. Kelly's request, if
only to improve the tax base in Jefferson County. She said at their last meeting they
complimented entrepreneurial people and even provided a $15K dole for the farmers market and
crafter people; so why on earth would you even think twice about not allowing Mr. Kelly to
bring his business to Port Townsend.
Mr. Jerry Kania, Port Townsend
Has been here about 3 years. When he first moved here, all he heard was no drug stores,
there goes a lumber yard, and other businesses disappearing. We now have a gentleman who
would like to bring a business here that will support about 80 people -- 20 jobs X 4, 80 people.
We are fast becoming a municipality for the preservation of poverty. We must have jobs in this
town to keep the young people here. He has a 13 year old granddaughter who is already saying
she doesn't want to stay here, there is no place to work. She's right.
We are looking at a rezoning for a business that's non-polluting, very little traffic, and we are
refusing it if we don't rezone. He has also understood that the Transit company will get a 4-1
ratio for a grant for all the money that is put in by Mr. Kelly. He asked, why not take advantage
of that? He goes to Sequim to go swimming because Jefferson County can't afford a facility like
Sequim. Why is that? The reason is the tax base. We must keep the young people in Port
Townsend. Let's give the people of Port Townsend jobs and dignity, not welfare.
Mr. Herb Herrington, 905 Franklin
Is in support of the new facility. He believes it will be very good for the city, will bring
things to the city and some new life. If the Council were to approve this, it would make a lot of
people wake up and believe you are really looking after the future. The previous speakers have
all mentioned the loss of jobs, the lack of any kind of activity in that direction. He said he can
appreciate as a neighbor of this area that they would be concerned about that.
They live in a house built in 1898, are two blocks away from the uptown area and they
wondered how difficult that would be to live with because they lived in a quiet neighborhood
before. He said it is not difficult to live with; you grow with it; you enjoy it; you enjoy its
facilities. He wanted to encourage them; there is life in the future for them, and it will be okay.
Ms. Ann Avary, Director of Jefferson County EDC
On behalf of the EDC she spoke in support of this rezone. September 2001 EDC began
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 24 December ! 1, 2002
working with Mr. Kelly in his desire to relocate his business. During this process, Mr. Kelly
considered other communities as well. The EDC played a role in an overall team effort in Mr.
Kelly's ultimate decision to bring his business to Port Townsend.
The EDC is mindful of the needs and concerns of the community; they too are part of the
community. To this end the EDC cohosted a neighborhood open house to present this project
August of last year. They worked diligently to comply with the spirit and intent of the city's
comprehensive plan. This project has several positive economic impacts for the city of Port
Townsend and Jefferson County as well, nearly $1.2 million in new investment -- 20 new jobs
over a 2 year period, greater diversification of our economic base and our tax base. Port
Townsend has a qualified work force for this project. Mr. Kelly trains his own employees and
has not once asked for any assistance with regard to any specialized training requirements; in
fact, Mr. Kelly has never once asked for any kind of concession; he has complied with every
request that has been made of him to date.
Ms. Avary felt she had to respond to two comments, simply for purposes of clarification. At
no time has the EDC staff, any member of the EDC Board, or any member of the EDC applied
any pressure to city staff for this or any project at any time. They fully recognize and support the
process that is place and have worked diligently to adhere to that process. Regarding the open
house in August, the EDC sent announcements to the neighborhood, and in fact sent event
announcements to homes outside the required notification border. In addition, the EDC placed a
notice in The Port ToWnsend and Jefferson County Leader prior to the open house which
encouraged any member of the community to attend this open house and review the project. She
said they would be happy to provide the Council with a list of addresses to whom they sent the
announcements and a copy of their notification in The Port Townsend and Jefferson County
Leader.
Mr. Lloyd Cahoon, President of EDC
He urged them to use a little perspective. The city of Port Townsend is an urban growth area.
That urban growth area has obligations, in his opinion; obligations that people depend on and
trust you to fulfill in terms of helping to stimulate economic development. Not only does that
economic development trust apply to the city, it applies to the county from the city
Comprehensive Plan
The economic development strategy envisions Port Townsend as the center of Eastern
Jefferson County's economy and employment with the diversity of commercial and industrial
activities thriving and providing economic opportunities for residents. He said to the Council
that in fact, the city, including yourselves, have resisted county efforts to establish those kinds of
activities outside the city for over 6 years. There was a huge amount of trust placed by certain of
us of the city and by the county that the city of Port Townsend will do what it can to help
stimulate economic growth. Unfortunately, sometimes that responsibility causes you to make
choices, and that's obviously in front of you today. It is true there is a greater good, as some
other speakers have mentioned. We do need jobs and sometimes not every requirement can be
satisfied.
From the State Program of the Office of Community Development, there is an advisory that
has been around for years that economic needs play a major role in communities, set urban
growth area boundaries, establish commercial and industrial use areas and identify infrastructure
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 25 December l 1, 2002
needs. He said you have heard those three concepts related to each other tonight: 1) it's
essential that we have boundaries, you are one by law; 2) we establish commercial and industrial
areas, you know that; 3) that they be established consistent within an urban growth area with
those infrastructure facilities that are in place, one of the reasons why this particular facility or
site is an attractive one for Mr. Kelly. He urged they consider that big picture in terms of their
responsibility, the city's responsibility, to both the county and the citizens of Port Townsend,
because it's real.
He asked that they not lose Mr. Kelly or his business. He has done everything, has endured
everything, has responded to everything that he has been asked to do. He has modified his plan
at least twice, and yet from what you hear from the appellant you almost say, let's dump him.
Clearly this is a person who has simple objectives, not a Hooters, not a hardware store; it's a
commercial distribution Center. That's what it is, nothing more or nothing less. He said he
thinks we need to look at that, be realistic and force ourselves to be honest about it.
Mr. Mark Jochems, County resident, owner of a Port Townsend business
Ms. Avary, EDC, and Shirley Rudolph who is about to speak, have pretty much
demonstrated that the Transit property is the only suitable property for Mr. Kelly's needs. There
have been many references tonight to using some other commercial property in this town; it will
be demonstrated that there is a shortage of usable commercially zoned land. The problem with
the present land is the lack of infrastructure.
This Council has historically burdened developers with all the infrastructure cost. Other
cities in western Washington share in that infrastructure cost; in some cases cities are offering
tax incentives to businesses willing to relocate. Competition is very heavy in neighboring
counties to attract new businesses. The EDC receives inquiries on a weekly basis; he has served
on the Board for 7 years. During that he has seen many projects have a promising start only to
fail before completion. The majority of the time it is infrastructure costs that cause these
failures, This is the condition that is created and maintained here. Your goal of having a
sustainable economy has been met. By all appearances, it is a dead economy when you consider
the net loss of 125 jobs just this year.
Mr. Kelly is already 18 months into this process in order to appear before this Council
tonight. His demonstrated patience for our process is far beyond what most people can tolerate.
Voting for this project tonight has an additional benefit to Jefferson Transit and their passengers.
The money from this sale can be used to obtain matching funds from the government to be used
for their expansion.
This Council during the course of this year has created new layers of bureaucracy with the
express purpose of discouraging economic growth. He referred to the Glen Cove process, the
noise ordinance, and the tree ordinance. When you consider the unofficial vision statement, the
pledge of allegiance fiasco, the nuclear arms initiate and the alliance with One World
Government, we are a source of humor to the legislative bodies in Olympia. How can we ask
them for money when they view us as economically incompetent. The taxpayers of this city and
the county need to understand that not only is there nothing happening to create jobs, it is costing
large sums of money on staff time and appeals to keep these jobs from happening. Additionally,
you are not expanding your tax base. This equals lose/lose for the taxpayers.
The PLC and Friends of the Comp Plan are one and the same. State law allows those
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 26 December 11, 2002
responsible to hide behind their organizations without identifying themselves. He encouraged
those organizations to publish a list of their members names, so the rest of us can identify who is
responsible. Here is what we do know, Friends of the Comp Plan have a lawyer by the name of
Gerald Steele appealing the Kelly-Transit rezone.
Mr. Ken McBride
Summary of written statement made by Mr. Vern Garrison
He addressed that we have a chance to have a small, clean, quiet business located in Port
Townsend creating 15 to 20 jobs. He summarizes saying he hopes you use good common sense
in voting yes, by recognizing the benefit this business will bring to Port Townsend and realize
that the EDC, the city staff, the Planning Commission, the Chamber of Commerce and a large
group of citizens support this rezone.
Ms. Sharon Davenhauer
Native bom Port Townsendite, going back a long time. Her kids were born here, went to
school here; she graduated from Port Townsend High School. She is one of those people many
are talking about that had to leave Port Townsend because there were no jobs.
She pled with them to give Mr. Kelly some great consideration in what he is trying to do for
the community. She could only see many benefits. She has seen lots of changes in the years she
has been here, everywhere from the military when it shut down and the rehab center that went
out. She asked that they do what is right.
Shirley Rudolph, Port Townsend
Realtor representing Mr. Kelly
Hoped Council members would do the right thing for the many people they represent in this
community and grant the rezone of this property. Mr. Kelly has spent the last 1-1/2 years since
summer 2001 in an exhaustive search for property that would fit his basic requirements for
relocating his very appropriate business to Port Townsend. He does not require prime retail Sims
Way frontage and does not want to be in a light industrial park. His business clientele are
Victorian owners and merchants; therefore, there is only one piece of property that is for sale of
the size (1-1/2 acres), topography, location and infrastructure that fits. They have had an
accepted offer with the Transit Board since February 2002. Mr. Kelly has shown his desire to be
part of and work with the community through what has been an exceedingly long process since
February. Many others would have moved on by now. In all that time, including the large open
house with a presentation from the city this summer, there was there a negative statement until
the appeal was filed at the 12th hour.
In making this decision Council represents the general taxpayer in this community who
through their taxes funds economic development to the city, state and federal government; those
taxpayers who fund, and many riders of Jefferson Transit who will benefit from Jefferson
Transit's ability to obtain a grant of $4 for every $1 from the sale for a more efficient, safe and
productive facility and jobs -- all those folks who wish to work here locally and do not derive
income from elsewhere. Your recent town meeting with about 300 attendees resoundingly in a
non-partisan way sent the message we need stable jobs. In a time when companies are
downsizing locally, we cannot send the perfect business away. This is truly a situation that if
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 27 December 11, 2002
this business cannot locate here, nobody can.
The property's present use of the public facility would allow a building or buildings in excess
of the square footage that is proposed by Mr. Kelly. This rezone is about a private business
located on this property rather than a public entity. The issue is not what can be put on the
property, that is now able to be put on the property; the issue is between private and public use.
If you do not approve this project, you will be ignoring all the effort, work, money to pay staffs;
the support of the EDC, Chamber of Commerce, city staff, and city Planning Commission
dedicated to this over the last year. The EDC receives over $100K annually from the federal,
state, county, and city to provide services for economic development and has just completed a
grant for $50K in an effort to provide stability, retention and expansion of existing jobs and
provide new jobs to replace lost jobs for a healthy economy, part of a healthy environment. Jobs
in this community are difficult to produce.
Ms. Lyn Hersey, 827 57th Street
As a Planning Commissioner regarding the SEPA review she said in looking at that piece of
property, this is not spot rezoning but looking at best/worst scenarios for public infrastructure
(PI), and C-II. With PI there could be a 50 foot building right across the street from these
neighbors and no design standards review for any buildings that are going to be built. If rezoned
to C-II the height goes down to 35 feet and there are design standard reviews.
The Planning Commission listened to the citizens and neighbors of the community. They
took further measures: building height reduced to 30 feet; added a 10 foot building setback;
added some type of building modulation every 50 feet, and buffering; asked for traffic signage so
commercial traffic would not come into the community; and asked for 10 foot trees in front of
the property. At that time the building was designed with the glass facing the street; now, with
the new design it is no longer facing the street, but they still have trees, not only evergreens but
also deciduous. She thought the best was they tied the rezone to this business; if it doesn't go, it
doesn't stay C-II, doesn't become anything like strip malls, but goes back to P-I. They tried to
work well with the neighbors and make a win-win situation for Council to consider tonight.
Additionally, a gentleman from Jefferson Transit testified before the Planning Commission
that if they cannot sell Jefferson Transit they will probably proceed, which means adding two
buildings. She said they have a choice of 50 feet with the possibility of something bigger than
this project. The annual assessment for the 5-year Comp Plan also asks for jobs improvement
She said we are an Urban Growth Area, mixed use, and in the Comp Plan puts commercial into
residential areas. She thinks is a good win-win situation.
Mr. Tony Couto
Said as a general contractor, when Port Townsend Lumber left, everyone wondered where
they were going to get their wood and materials and ended up in Hadlock, at Carls and all the
way into Silverdale. Any new jobs or any possibilities of bringing new revenue is greatly
appreciated in this town; a lot of people are looking forward for good wage jobs.
He said regarding 3rd Street, he used to commute for long distances when he worked at
Boeing, having a manufacturer easy to get to and to find a good paying job is great. You
wouldn't have to waste gas; you can just walk to it.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 28 December 11, 2002
Mr. Don Fristo, Towne Point, Port Townsend
Thought it is important to note he has not met or spoken to Mr. Kelly up to this point. He
said 125 net lost jobs is amazing and thought this is a chance for Council to help stop the
bleeding, to show they are willing to take that necessary step to ensure the future of the city.
He also has a daughter who had to move clear across the country, and whom along with his
grandson he is missing a great deal. It is all because we don't have jobs here.
This plan is reasonable, fits the site, fits the commercial area around it; this plan brings jobs.
Growth doesn't get a whole lot smarter than that.
Mr. Tim Caldwell, Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce
Clarified a former comment that the Chamber had pressured city staff on this project saying
that is not the case. The Chamber's letter to the Planning Commission which is on record
actually applauded the process, that although long, it was transparent, open to the public, and the
scrutiny was intense.
Speaking as a member of the Jefferson Transit Citizen Advisory Committee, he said he was
directed by that committee to come tonight and state for the record their support for the rezone of
the Transit surplus property. The committee sees that as a wonderful opportunity for Transit to
partner with other public entities to build an expanded facility at another site. The committee
believes that Mr. Kelly's business relocation would be very beneficial to the Transit's basically
short term project within the next 3 years.
Testimony in Opposition:
Ms. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend
Supports the SEPA appeal and denial of the rezone. She noted a couple of dissimilarities in
Hayden vs. Port Townsend referenced in the record for this rezone, why the State Supreme Court
upheld that first Kah Tai rezone and determined it wasn't a spot rezone because there was
industrial zoning across the street in the Port. She stated that certainly is not the case up on
residential 3rd Street across from the Kelly rezone. The court also determined that because our
downtown had an historic designation where things could not be torn down, there wasn't a big
enough parcel there for a big, modem Safeway. She thought it odd that the rest of the city limits
wasn't mentioned, and stated that lack of available commercial land is hardly a condition to
justify this Kelly rezone.
The applicant says this is the only place in town he wants for his business which is quite
another issue. It is already firmly in the record that adequate amounts of other appropriately
zoned opportunities currently exist; even the EDC has given testimony that there are vacant sites
available for Kelly's business. She declared he is proposing exactly the kind of industrial
building and operation that belongs in our business park, saying apparently that location is not
good enough for him -- that's his business choice. This community has already made choices
clearly stated in Comprehensive Plan policies intended to protect the livability of our
neighborhoods and to shape the appropriate development of our commercial zones. This rezone
proposal violates those policies and thereby violates our abiding commtmity values.
Ms. Dorgan said regarding the SEPA appeal, traffic is clearly the biggest impact that has not
been adequately reviewed. She referenced Mr. Kelly's statement about the UPS truck arriving
once a day. She said it is hardly reassuring and spoke of his testimony concerning few retail
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 29 December 11, 2002
customers, asking if they thought it is really going to be the same in this Victorian mecca of Port
Townsend with its endless stream of tourists. We can expect substantial retail advertising for
this business in our local newspapers and especially festival flyers that are read by thousands of
out-of-town visitors. She said people will come; cars will come, and a lot of them drive straight
down 3rd Street where children without a nearby park won't be able to ride their bikes.
Mr. Chris D'Andrea
Thought he was one of the few attendees who lives on Hancock Street. He introduced his
daughter saying this is why he is here. He does not want her to grow up next to a big warehouse
like that. He really agreed on the need for jobs and thinks we need to look at the lack of
infrastructure. He asked if they bring Mr. Kelly in to this one property, what about all the other
people; they have nowhere to go? He asked why don't we look at that and form a game plan for
maybe putting some infrastructure for zoned commercial spots?
He thought it naive to say nobody is going to drive down 3rd; he lives on the comer of 3rd
and Hancock and his daughter plays there. If you put a business there, people are going to drive
past his place all the time. He wants her to inherit the house from him, to grow up safe. All
these people in their neighborhood every day take their kids for walks and walk their dogs.
Glen Cove and the place where the drivers license has relocated are appropriate places, but
Mr. Kelly stated that's not the proper ambiance for his customers. He said to look at his
daughter; that is what he worries about every day, is why he cares about this. It is her life; he
wants her to grow up in Port Townsend where he was bom and graduated from high school. The
reason he loves Port Townsend is that it's small, because you can walk the neighborhoods ~-
industrial is in industrial and neighborhoods are in neighborhoods. He suggested asking the man
that lived uptown if he would like that shop uptown; would that be a great place to live. He
didn't think so. He thought it naive to say this is worth it.
He liked the fact Mr. Kelly has done everything he needed to, and he thinks we should
welcome him into our town, but not in his little girl's backyard. He said he could throw a rock
from his front door to the door of his building. There are going to be a lot people. Jefferson
Transit -- those are people that own houses here. Is Mr. Kelly going to singlehandedly train 20
people from Port Townsend; no he is going to bring people from his other business. Sure there
will be a few local people, but he did not believe we are going to have 20 jobs in 2 years.
He could not see sacrificing his daughter's happiness for Mr. Kelly's greed.
Mr. James Lamb, 215 Sherman Street
Although he has owned property here for only a few months, he is not a newcomer to Port
Townsend. He has family here and has been here many times over the last 30 years.
Speaking from a personal and public point of view, rezoning this land to accommodate a
commercial structure of this size 100 yards from his house is a little discomforting to him. The
question keeps repeating itself in his mind, why is this the only piece of property Mr. Kelly can
use for this development? He does not quite understand how they can have 37-38 acres of
commercially zoned property available for sale in this town, and yet this one piece of property is
the only one that can work for him. It sounds like a very self-interested concept. He urged
Council to vote against the rezone and comply with the community development concepts that
have been expressed tonight.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 30 December 11, 2002
Mr. Jeff Kelety, 419 Benson Street
He counted himself among the obviously many supporters in attendance for Mr. Kelly and
relocating his business to Port Townsend. The one thing confusing him is with 36 acres of
commercially zoned land available in Port Townsend, Mr. Kelly doesn't want one of those. As
asked before, he again asked, why? the only question that matters here tonight. What is the
compelling reason to provide hirn with public property for private use?
Mr. Kelly has alluded the site is appropriate because of its ambiance. His architect said it has
the best natural bufferage of any property he has reviewed. He thought Ms. Rudolph was more
forthcoming, saying it was a lack of infrastructure in the other available properties. That is not a
matter of ambiance; not a matter of bufferage, but pure and simple a matter of economics, the
bottom line.
He applauded Mr. Kelly trying to get the best possible deal. As the Transit property has the
necessary infrastructure and is offered at below-market value, Mr. Kelly has indeed identified the
best possible property for his pocketbook. Therefore, here we are looking to change the
community's Comprehensive Plan because Mr. Kelly is looking for a really good deal Mr.
Kelety said that is not enough and asked if there will be fewer jobs here in town if Mr. Kelly
locates his facility just up the street? Of course not, so why not look to a solution that permits
Mr. Kelly to purchase some of the other already zoned commercial property.
He declared money is the issue. Other Sims Way property might go for as much as double
the $150K price tag of the Transit Authority property. He called it a subsidy and said if Mr.
Kelly got a good price of already zoned commercial land, he'll go there. So let's do that; if that
is so important to us to bring this particular company to Port Townsend. Let's not do it on the
backs of a neighborhood. Let's get Mr. Kelly to an already commercially zoned piece of
property. If there is not infrastructure on there; let's get it on there.
Ms. Linda Atkins, 312 Hancock
Lives directly across the street from the proposed project, comer of 3rd and Hancock. She
would love to be supporting Mr. Kelly's project. She came to Port Townsend for a job; she
enumerated her various jobs, and that her husband had been working in construction for a dozen
years, in and out of Port Townsend and Seattle. She moved away from her parents and came for
a job; her daughter moved to Bellingham for a job. We do that in this country; that is not an
abnormal completely abhorrent element in our culture. She is all for jobs, all for economic
development, and has no desire whatsoever to dump this project.
The fact is that this land is zoned for public infrastructure. When the Transit chose to expand
their facilities, she supported that. She believes it is important for all of us to take some
responsibility for public facilities and public needs in our neighborhoods, and she would support
that again. Being across the street she realizes there can be some things that would be zoned for
public facility use that would not necessarily be as appealing as this particular project.
She feels as a citizen it is important to take responsibility for public infrastructure needs.
There are other public needs -- police, fire; there are no parks or playfields on this side Sims
anywhere along the way. Children play in the streets; she is perfectly to have them playing in
the streets, but thinks there is a of lack of safety. At this point there is not a lot of through traffic
in their neighborhood so there is not a lot of risk.
She asked at what point will the issues around general commercial zoning be addressed? a
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 31 December l 1, 2002
lot of planning, effort and public process went into the development of the Comprehensive Plan
and the placement of commercial areas. If there needs to be infrastructure built in those areas,
she thinks they really need to work hard at doing that, that it is critical in order to support long
range commercial viability of this area. She believes that this type of spot rezone is very poor
planning. She thought the Planning Commission did an admirable job of trying to address the
issues, but their proposal to limit this rezone to this specific project is unrealistic. She thinks
they all have to acknowledge that if this project is built, and he leaves in 1 year, 2 or 5 years --
they have no guarantee to keep him here. When he goes to sell that property it would be a
takings to limit him. She declared that once it is C-II, it is C-II.
Mr. Pete Langley, 11 Crutcher Road
Owner, Port Townsend Foundry
In the interest of fairness divulged he is a fire fighter for the city. He is a member of EDC
and for 20 years has been a registered manufacturer in this town, having considerable product
throughout the town He raised problem issues regarding jobs saying we can't continue this loss,
and issues regarding environmental pollution. He also raised other issues:
Fire flow -- both proposals have very significant impact. Looking at it through the eyes of
firefighter volunteers, going to put a fire out in that warehouse, in that residential district, you are
going to have a serious problem; we don't want another Coos Bay.
Economic base -- Goal 4. Create and enhance local manufacturing and commercial
businesses to bring in small commercial activities and/or small businesses that fit. You need to
nurture business from within. You don't necessarily have to ask for 20K square feet to create
these jobs; you need to support hands-on. Make these kids work with their hands, be proud of
what they do, and they will stay in our community. He suggested the "greatest generation"
exploited the resources of this community; we saw them leave. The one good thing we still have
here is what is left of the paper mill. Unfortunately, some people have said they don't like the
smell of that money, and should maybe change their location. He is offended because he works
for that paper mill and works very hard to make them viable, including work on their pollution
control. He said he thinks Council should consider this from the standpoint of manufacturers.
Ms. Kathy Pool, 806 Foster Street
Does not live in that neighborhood, but visits friends there. She has also been asking why is
this the only suitable piece of property when there is so much commercial property available. Is
it the cost of the property? What does comparable property cost on the other side of the street?
She moved here in 1976, and Port Townsend really hasn't changed that much. She had to
leave here, but she would come back her to live; jobs weren't available and they scratched for a
living back then. What has changed is that a lot of people have moved here since 1976.
She lives in a neighborhood where a PI piece of property has been put on the surplus list.
She does not want to hear that piece of property is considered for a rezone because somebody
wants to buy it. She doesn't want it to come in the back door and is totally uncomfortable with
how this whole thing came about. She heard this has been a transparent process. She was not
sure, and called for transparency with all involved. She felt they shouldn't take action because
someone from out of town wants to buy our property. She said she would love for Mr. Kelly to
be here, that he knows what an awesome place this is to live. She felt there was a part of him
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 32 December 11, 2002
that must be listening, that we are not at all saying go away.
Ms. Nora Regan, 1331 Olympic Street
This is about process. She urged them to think twice about this convenient real estate
arrangement. Until it is rezoned, the Transit property belongs to the public, and they have been
offered little public input or scrutiny regarding this deal that clearly closes Transit options,
There should have been well advertised public hearings encouraging community-wide
involvement to determine the best use of this public property. She urged they uphold the City
Comprehensive Plan and help Mr. Kelly relocate in an appropriately zoned area. a spot rezone
erodes our Comprehensive Plan and sets a precedent for potential commercial sprawl into
residential areas. She asked that they consider and discuss this specific Comprehensive Plan
criteria for rezone approval and appropriately deny this rezone.
Mr. Arne Hanson, 1331 Olympic
Mr. Hanson raised questions: 1) Need clarification on revenue the city would receive from
this business he understands is an intemet type business. Do they pay sales taxes? 2) Are the
mitigations the Planning Commission required mandatory? Is there follow up to make sure they
comply with these mitigation requirements? 3) Twenty family wage jobs. We need that, but
what kind of money is a family wage job? Is there follow up to assure that indeed is going to
happen when the business starts?
He asked Mr. Frank to refrain from derogatory comments about his wife as in several public
forums. Wishes he would stick to issues and facts.
He urged Council to vote no on the Transit rezone proposal, to keep the Transit land as a
community resource finding it hard to understand why agencies like the unemployment office is
moving out of town, and health and human services is in a major shopping center. The Transit
property currently zoned public infrastructure is the logical location for community service
agencies, a shopping center and a business park should be the logical home for successful
businesses like Mr. Kelly's.
When Jefferson Transit moves out the Transit building itself and the yard to the side should
continue to serve the community, a greenbelt behind the building designating the area as a
gateway to the Larry Scott Trail would be a nice addition. Port Townsend's parks and trails
represent the legacy of prior generations' dedication to the community. Rather than selling off
the Transit, a community asset, or forcing citizens to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys our
leaders should wisely plan having this strategic site continue serving people of Port Townsend.
Mr. Roy Parkinson, 130 Hancock Street
Has lived there since he bought the house in about 1985. The area has been rezoned quite a
few times. He is not opposed to Mr. Kelly starting a business, a lot of jobs have left town, but it
should be done where it is supposed to be zoned. Maybe they need infrastructure in that zone. It
is hard to get businesses started with things like the various permits. He hopes they can put it
together, but not in his neighborhood.. It is a nice neighborhood where they all like living. He
has nothing against Mr. Kelly or against his starting a business, but he shouldn't offend the
neighbors. He told them they wouldn't want him to build a big warehouse in their back yard.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 33 December 11, 2002
Mr. Joe Breskin, 512 U Street
Has been here for a long time and was responsible for much of the development of the Comp,
working with both the City and County and watching the process. One really important thing
from his point of view is that public infrastructure designation of this particular property
happened on ownership, not use, as a matter of convenience to the city to come up with a balance
of properties needed for their Comp Plan.
It worked very well for that, but that didn't involve a public process where it was rezoned
through this kind of episode. In that context, that time, one thing he was doing for the city as a
consultant was building tools for analysis. The tools were a basis for budgets of the capital
facilities plans, public works and planning budgets. One condition in those days, 28% for the
planning budget was paid out of public works, so public process that went into public
infrastructure projects was already paid for. Approximately 30% of the total capital expense for
capital projects was budgeted to public process. It completely misses the point when they equate
C-II with public infrastructure simply because they have congruent use tables. The reason they
promise public infrastructure projects, the ability to build out to property lines, is because they
need it as a community. That is a very different issue when they know they are doing it because
it is a public project, doing it with the full understanding they are going through the most onerous
and exhausting public process. It is a completely different arrangement than saying because
these uses are the same, these properties are the same.
He was basically the person who grew Phil Spesser's business into something that needed to
expand. They lost that one because they wanted an old B&B that had been on the block for sale
for a very long time, a project where they wanted to recycle an existing conditional use permit
for a lower impact use, for an intemet business.
He understands this, but it is clear to him that public infrastructure doesn't automatically turn
into C-II without a lot of process.
Ms. Janet Welch, County resident
Heard a number of project proponents speak about the economic climate, and spoke to the
same as an opponent. Everyone in the room would favor an improved business climate in this
town. The question for consideration is how. One option would be for EDC, the staff and
community members to spend hundreds or thousands hours addressing the problems with
infrastructure and other issues. Another option, for those same people to ignore the actual
problems and apply their expertise instead.
We are no closer to addressing or solving the real problems of economic climate in this
community. Your vote to permit this rezone will reward people's diligent efforts to dodge the
problems, not resolve them. Your vote in favor of this rezone will create opportunities, for
business owners like Mr. Kelly to hang out on a hope and a prayer for a rezone or other promises
that may not be assured. Your vote tells them that this is your best solution, a process which
everybody agrees has been grueling, uncertain, expensive and time consuming for all people
involved. Your vote in favor of this rezone not only condemns business owners to this hellish
process, it condemns neighborhoods to the uncertainty of neighborhood risk. Mr. Kelly said at
the Planning Commission hearing he relocated here because of the quality of the community, but
your vote in favor of the rezone would undermine the protection that stable zoning provides to
that community. Your action tonight creates or perpetuates our economic climate. You have a
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 34 December 1 l, 2002
choice; you can do much better than to condemn this community, residents, and business owners
to the uncertain future that would come by approving this rezone. Please deny it.
Ms. Gabriella Ashford, 175 Grant Street
Lives three houses down from Grant Street and 3rd. Like her whole neighborhood, she has
concerns about her 1-1/2 year old growing up in a high traffic neighborhood. She is fairly
convinced that if this goes to commercial, that all the other undeveloped lots along 3rd Street
will also go commercial. She can't see any reason they wouldn't try to push to make 3rd Street a
commercial zone.
She made several suggestions to EDC. Ever since P.T. Lumber closed, every business she
does the books for has suffered. Henery Hardware is a zoo. They talked about the community
coming together and making something work, she can't understand why Henery Hardware isn't
moving over to the P.T. Lumber building and a business like this moving into the Henery
Hardware location. She thinks there are more solutions than the one we are looking at and would
like to step up to the EDC head seat just for one day, just to go through a hundred other solutions
like that. The Boat School in the Glen Cove area is another beautiful location for a business like
this. She could not really understand why that wouldn't work, other than maybe those locations
cost a lot more money. Port Angeles gave a super effort to make sure that multi-million dollar
boat company came there as opposed to Anacortes. Our community can come together and bring
him here in the right location, but she just does not feel that location is right
The Nesting Bird Yurt came here with great promises of living wage jobs and basically got saved
by local businesses who bought them out; they failed. She wondered what would happen to this
public infrastructure location, given away like this, if he goes under -- a really big issue.
She is a 30 something year old and has a child. She works for several companies; she makes
Port Townsend work for her. She has a living wage job, paid something where she feels she can
live in Port Townsend, but has to make do by spreading herself out. She thinks other young
people can do that too.
Ms. Paula Mackrow
Has lived in town 19-1/2 years; her children have also gone all the way through school here.
They can't wait to get out because they know this is a great place to live, but don't know why.
They are going to go check it out, and they are going to come back. Like already said, they are
going to create their own place here in town, create their own living wage jobs the way she did
during the last 8 years, and the way Ms. Grahn did when she also came here as a single mom.
They hope some of their kids can continue commercial fishing, another industry driven out of
this town by upscale clientele that comes with a lot of the retirement community
She noted for the record, Shirley Rudolph's mention that the city made a presentation at the
EDC tea party/open house, and Ann Avary that they were all invited. She said most of them did
not attend, either because they were still working, were fishing in Alaska or were concerned the
scope was not to discuss the viability or the reasonableness of the project but to introduce the
project as a done deal, to say why it was going to be here, and how good it was. City staff made
a presentation. Mr. Kelly told them in conversation that city staff had said they would see this
rezoned; that has made them extremely nervous and forced them to immediately spend a credible
about of money to counteract paid staff actions. There is no Seattle based community that is
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 35 December 11, 2002
trying to kill Port Townsend's viability through the Growth Management Act as has been alluded
to in several public statements.
She also suggested that perhaps what Mr. Kelly is finding in the ambiance he is seeking, is
the ambiance of their neighborhood. Maybe that is what he likes best about that parcel. She
asked that they look at the differences in a commercial, retail, warehousing, shipping, industry-
type business from their neighborhood, and that ambiance needs to be created through some
other means. Shop hoped in their deliberations Council would discuss the 11 criteria for rezones,
only mentioned in the entire Planning Commission record by Ms. Alice King. That is very
important.
There being no other public comment, Mayor Kolff called for response to anything brought out
during public comment. It was determined to limit responses to 5 minutes.
RESPONSE FROM APPLICANTS
Mr. Richard Shaneyfelt, 1101 Cherry
Attorney for Mr. Kelly
He asked for clarification from Ms. Grahn, if he heard her say the appellant was dropping
their appeal of the' Determination of Non-Significance.
Ms. Grahn replied that they were content with the work of the Planning Commission and
were impressed, and that they addressed some of their concerns.
Mr. Shaneyfelt thanked Ms. Grahn for her clarification and began his response by saying that
it is important to remember, and it has been said, Jefferson Transit is the co-applicant on this
application to rezone this PI property, essentially the one block after the giveaway to the city --
the part of the valley. Block 280 is essentially all that is going to be used by the applicant for
this building. We are talking about one block. He said somebody mentioned a stone's throw,
and if he had a better arm he could throw a stone from this property and hit Sims Way. This is
close to Gateway, and close to a major arterial feeding our community. It is designed so that the
ingress and egress will be even closer to the Gateway, to Sims Way, and will share an ingress
and egress on Hancock with whatever goes into that area that Jefferson Transit presently
occupies.
He did not know whether it has been said, but it is pretty clear to everyone that there will be a
rezone. That property is not going to stay PI, the reason being that Jefferson Transit has other
plans, and there really isn't apparently anyone who is going to be using it as any kind of PI
space. It doesn't fit; no one has come forward to use it. If this doesn't pass today, you are going
to be finding someone else back here again asking for a rezone. He respectfully submitted they
are not going to find anybody coming asking for a residential rezone. This is not property that
really makes sense as a residential area. It is within a stone's throw of Sims Way; it has an
orientation that actually fits the Gateway Plan, in that it is not a curb front, not another curb cut
on Sims Way; we have a business that is back off the frontage that is low impact, low volume
traffic business that feeds through one ingress/egress point that will share with the Jefferson
Transit space when it turns into something else, will feed onto Sims Way. If this were located in
the industrial park across the street, it would be the same traffic impact; there is no real change.
In fact, when you look at the PI designation, as your hard working Planning Commission did,
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 36 December 11, 2002
and you look at the C-II designation, this is a reasonable, rational change in use, a similar impact
and should be supported.
It is not supported by a small portion of the community of Port Townsend. It is supported by
the community, the City of Port Townsend. The question to Council is do you serve a handful of
people in this community, or do you serve Port Townsend. When you look at what this
community needs, and when you look at the hard work of the staff who put together, looked at
the issues of spot zoning, at the issues of do we need an environmental checklist, do we need this
applicant to spend thousand of dollars to rezone one block, a stone's throw from Sims Way, this
EIS appeal is ridiculous. Staff found it ridiculous, the Planning Commission found it ridiculous.
He respectfully submitted they follow in their hard, thoughtful task.
On the issue of the rezone, when you look at words spoken earlier and referenced by Ms.
Grahn, "arbitrary and capricious." He did not know how anyone could say what this city staff
and your Planning Commission did was arbitrary and capricious. It is a use that is compatible
from PI to C-II, one block effectively being changed. What's going to happen with the
automatic valley verge and the other sheltering impacts limited by what is being proposed, we
are going to have a situation where this use is actually going to be preferable to many of the uses
that could come into this property if the Kelly rezone is not supported. If it is supported, it will
take up enough of the space here, that when the Transit space changes they will be a compatible,
low impact set of uses that really will not impinge on this neighborhood. The fact that we have
one block being changed, does not mean that a residential area is being changed. There is no
rezone of any residential property occurring here.
RESPONSE FROM APPELLANTS
Ms. Ande Grahn
Asked the residents of the neighborhood to stand, and said Mr. Frank suggested these people
were elitists, that this was an elitist action. This is an automobile mechanic, bookkeeper, county
worker, fisherman, arts organizer, park worker. These are working class people; this is a
working class neighborhood. She gave further rebuttal to public comment:
The Comp Plan change is better for the neighborhood. Felt Mr. Garrison had overstepped his
bounds; these people don't think it is better for their neighborhood.
Ms. Armstrong's comment the tax base would increase with commercial zoning. Building
on commercial property currently being taxed as vacant would probably also increase the tax
base.
Uptown is a pleasant place. It has businesses you can walk to, that serve the local
community. Neighbors on 3rd street aren't walking over to buy Victorian hardware.
Arbitrary and Capricious. Reminded the record of the previous Council decision on the C-II
rezones in that neighborhood talked about one block deep. One block deep is the limit along
Sims Way, so it is not arbitrary and capricious; it is inconsistent with your previous decisions
that you fotmd consistent with the Comp Plan.
Comment by Mr. Cahoon about urban growth area, that commercial distribution centers
belong in commercial areas. They agree; there are a lot of commercial zones, pointing out all the
purple mixed-commercial, light industrial. That should be a good place.
The empty lumber store mentioned by several people. Wouldn't it be nice to have this
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 3 7 December 11, 2002
business, the storefront in the lumber store? Why haven't they looked at that. That is the
gateway to our Victorian town. That is a good idea.
The 4 to 1 money for Transit. She wants everyone to note there is nothing in the record
about 4 to 1 money. We don't have a documented grant application or even a mention of the
name of the program. We have rumor of 4 to 1 money. Recent conversations they have had
with Mr. Turissini indicate he is looking at moving down to the park and ride and doing some
other things, and he would be really happy to keep the property. He did not initiate the
surplusing. The offer from Mr. Kelly is what initiated the surplusing. If you want to consider
this 4 to 1 money, she asked they find out what it is.
Mr. Langley spoke about China. The most important thing for her about China is these are
packing boxes type jobs -- good jobs, but she could not imagine they are getting house loan types
of jobs. They are not manufacturing jobs, why he doesn't need to be in a manufacturing zone.
Friends of the Comp Plan. She pointed out Mr. Weyhmiller who is a Friend of the Comp
Plan. Nora Regan gave him some advice and agreed to join the appeal. Ms. Grahn was hired to
help them. It is not Thousand Friends of Washington; it's just that she said it is not consistent
with the Comp Plan. This is a Comp Plan amendment, not just a rezone, not just a project.
SEPA appeal: They do not feel the original SEPA determination on this project was
adequate; they don't believe the finding the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in
the environmental review is adequate and don't believe the traffic issues have been addressed.
They haven't even begun to look stormwater and other things tonight. The SEPA review was
not adequate, and their opinion has not changed on that. They did congratulate the Planning
Commission on their work and taking a look at those issues.
Mr. Lyle Weyhmiller
a quick reminder that starting from last year the Council said no to C-II commercial zoning
fronting on 3rd Street. He thanked Mr. Masci for his helpfulness on that. Council also said they
like straight lines. This was not a straight line; pointing it out on the map he said it zagged down
into a residential area.
He had a little conversation with Mr. Turissini, Transit Manager, who assured them firmly
that if they did build on the property, the buildings would not exceed 18 feet, that he could never
imagine going anywhere near 50 feet. They now have about 18 feet, and that is all they needed
to get their vehicles in and out.
He asked to grant them a Christmas gift with a vote against the rezone; let their neighborhood
put this behind them and live in peace, free of commercial intrusion.
RESPONSE FROM STAFF
Ms. Judy Surber, Staff Planner Issues addressed:
Spot zoning. Staff can safely say this is not a spot zone. She pointed out commercial zoning
across the street from lot 1 of the proposed rezone area. Again, the PI zone is similar in intensity
of use.
Water improvements being made as part of the Kelly project would also serve to improve fire
flow in the immediate area. It is a low pressure zone currently, but by adjusting a water valve to
the north and increasing the pressure for the Kelly project, it would also increase fire flow for the
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 38 December 11, 2002
neighborhood.
Size of building. Rezone from PI to C-II. PI district would allow a building of a similar size
and as mentioned by several would allow a 50 foot height rather than the reduced height of 30
feet that Planning Commission has assigned.
McClellan Street 1998 vacation and SEPA requirements tied to it. a no protest for
signalization for an LID for Sims. Planning Commission added that recommended change to the
SEPA conditions.
Policy discouraging change of residential land to commercial use. Mr. Shaneyfelt replied this
is PI zone changing to C-II, not residential.
Pressure of additional rezones in the area: Planning Commissions Findings recognized there
is a probability if Jefferson Transit relocates as they indicated, quite likely they will apply for
rezones of the remainder of their PI properties. In that regard they recognized there is
probability of future rezones in the vicinity; however, they did not feel, and Planning
Commission agreed, that there was not a high likelihood of additional commercial rezoning of
residentially zoned properties in the neighborhood. Her recollection of the Vane rezone, there
was one property owner in a single family home at the intersection of 3rd Street and Sherman
that wanted commercial zoning. During Council hearings, after hearing public testimony from
his neighbors, he withdrew his support before a decision was made by Council. There was only
one property owner at that time seeking commercial zoning.
Approval criteria: Planning Commission did address each of the approval criteria necessary
for a rezone. It took 5 pages, discussion starting on page 7 of Planning Commission Findings
and Conclusions. She briefly discussed: 1) Have circumstances related to the proposed
amendment substantially changed? PI zone property being surplused by Jefferson Transit
constitutes a changed circumstance. 2) Are the assumptions upon which the Plan was based no
longer valid? When the Plan designated this as PI property, it was because Jefferson Transit
owns it and they have a bus base at this location. It is a special case, because this PI zoning is
now being requested to be changed to C-II specifically because it is being surplused to a private
individual. 3) Does the current amendment reflect current widely held community values? The
Planning Commission recognized there was opposition to this project; however, on the whole
they found the proposal did reflect widely held community values including the need for
economic development and the creation of jobs. 4) Does the proposed amendment meet
concurrency requirements? Phase I, PI rezone to C-II, it was found does meet requirements
because the range of uses in the two different districts are similar in intensity. For the specific
Kelly project, Public Works addressed concurrency. The project is within Tier 1 where
infrastructure is concentrated. 5) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the goals and
policies and objectives of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan? It is consistent. Several
were noted in Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions including the following:
Economic Policy 4.6 To promote businesses which access their markets and suppliers through
telecommunications, and available shipping; Policy 4.7 Small scale clean industry (specifically
noting catalog sales). 6) Have the proposed amendments probable and significant adverse
impacts been analyzed? Yes, in the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. None were
identified that were not mitigated in the original SEPA with additional conditions placed by
Planning Commission, the added No Protest agreement for regional stormwater and Public
Works requirements for the alternative site plan, should you choose to go that route. 7) Are the
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 39 December 1 I, 2002
subject parcels physically suitable for the requested designation? It was determined early on
that lots 1 and 2 of block 281 that are the ravine are not suitable for commercial development.
That is when they approached Mr. Kelly to look at options, and why proposed it stay as PI and
be transferred to the city. Block 280, remainder of the property, is suitable; it is fairly flat and
infrastructure can be provided. 8) Will the proposed amendment create a pressure to change the
land use designation of other properties? It addressed that if they relocate, Transit may seek a
rezone for the remainder of their property. 9) Would the proposed action materially affkct the
land use and growth projections which are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan? There is no
evidence that it would. 10) Would the proposed action materially affect the adequacy or
availability of urban facilities and services in the overall area of the city? Rezone from PI to C-
II, similar to intensity of use. 11) Is the proposed amendment consistent with GMA? Consistent
with GMA's directive to provide commercial development within an urban growth area.
Mayor Kolff noted the lateness of the hour. a break was called for. When Mayor Kolff
reconvened, proceeding with the meeting was discussed. Ms. Sandoval did not think it was fair
to go on beyond 11:30 p.m. She asked this be put on the table, not wanting to risk not being
clear minded. It was determined to meet 6:00 p.m. Monday previous to the Council meeting if
not finished in time. Mayor Kolff called for Council questions.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Finnie: Regarding traffic flow and an appellant statement the last study was done 5-½
years ago, and representation we need a more recent assessment. Is that true and what is BCD's
perspective on traffic consequences, are they going to be manageable? Thinks he is going to
need to be convinced.
Ms. Surber: The Jefferson Transit bus expansion had significantly more average daily trips
than the Kelly checklist showed; BCD made the judgment call that they could use the previous
traffic report. The previous mitigation measures attached to the Jefferson Transit bus base were
basically the improvements to the Sims Way intersection that would be part of the alternative
plan they showed tonight, and also the no protest agreement for signalization if an LID is formed
in the future. The same mitigation measures would get carried over.
Mr. Randall: BCD asked Public Works directly a couple of times in response to questions the
appellants raised about the traffic study. One issue, does this project require a traffic study.
Engineering design standards don't say requires, but we may require it. They specifically asked
Public Works who responded with a memo saying why they did not feel one was required, also
identifying that a lot of the traffic on Sims Way is existing and not associated with this project.
In Public Works opinion, mitigation imposed was adequate to deal with the project's impacts.
Mr. Finnie: Also during testimony before the Planning Commission and again tonight, there
was some concern with the consequence of traffic in the residential areas, i.e., simply because
they can, turning onto Hancock and wandering through the residential district. How are we
going to manage that? Understands signage, but can you give a more substantive response?
Mr. Randall: Using the overhead of the revised site plan as discussed with the applicant and
Public Works, said basically the initial mitigation for this project's transportation impacts is
going to be the no protest agreement, etc. He pointed to frontage improvements along a portion
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 40 December 11, 2002
of Hancock Street explaining that was with the old design rather than having the changed
approach with the building above. With the revision, instead of doing the transportation
improvements he pointed to, they would be moved above connecting from Sims Way down
through the road approach. Transportation improvements basically would call for a commercial
street section he pointed to, with future sidewalks on both sides. The applicant would be
responsible for the pavement and curb to curb inside the curbs which would be appropriate,
pointing out where there is commercial and PI which basically has the same street section as
commercial. He showed that south from this point the road would be narrowed with the curb
narrowing the street and in addition to signage, traffic calming would be appropriate there.
Normally, traffic calming is determined on the site with the thought to see what is appropriate.
That could involve neighbors, the appellants, everybody to determine what is appropriate in this
situation. The city engineer, off the top of his head, thought something like a traffic island.
From that point south the road could either stay the same if neighbors feel their road fits their
residential character, or that a very narrow pavement overlay would be preferable. Either is an
option with this alternative
Mr. Finnie: Could you put up more stop signs, have a special mph rating for that area? Could
you provide some adequate protection for that?
Mr. Randall: There are other alternatives possible. He is not a traffic engineer, but one thing
he has heard is that stop signs are not necessarily the way to address traffic. The other
alternatives basically identify the commercial area and is where commercial traffic should be.
Mr. Finnie: On the unresolved McClellan Street vacation, the no protest agreement on the
LID, there was reference to a traffic light. Starting with McClellan Street, what agreements have
been reached on McClellan Street as a part of this proposition, and is their a future for a traffic
light somewhere on Sims Way as related to this proposal?
Ms. Surber: The vacation of McClellan Street was part of the application by Jefferson Transit
for the bus base expansion. In the MDNS addressing both the vacation of McClellan Street and
the bus base expansion, mitigation measures specifically identify the mitigation tied to the street
vacation and the mitigation tied to the parking lot. The mitigation measures that were specific to
traffic and general circulation where the no protest agreement specifically came up, is a no
protest to a future LID signalization at Sims and Hancock, and there is no set timeframe for when
that would happen.
Mr. Masci: Knows this street well. Where is the middle of the street if it's widened? You
can't turn left out of Transit unless you drive across those timbers on the lawn of 404. Where is
the width coming from? Clarified he is saying Hancock Street is inadequate for car traffic now,
where are the property line boundaries and how is the street going to be widened to
accommodate anything?.
Mr. Randall: The existing surface street may be inadequate width for the commercial street
standard, but there is adequate right-of-way to build the appropriate street standard. There may
be timbers or other private improvements that are encroaching upon the street right-of-way that
would need to be relocated to allow the appropriate street section to be built.
Mr. Masci: What is the actual width of Hancock Street supposed to be -- 33, 44, 66?
Mr. Randall: The right-of-way is 67 feet. Centerline is 33-1/2 feet.
Mr. Kolff: What is the current width of the pavement there?
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 41 December 1 I, 2002
Mr. Randall: It varies; at Sims Way it is much wider. On the overlay, it is fairly broad; there
it may be close to 30 feet for a very short way. He guessed that most of the property is probably
between 12 and 16 feet wide -- very narrow.
Ms. Sandoval: Given this is only a portion of the PI property that is being considered for
rezoning, there is assumption that blocks 261,260 and the remaining portion of 281 will be C-II?
Ms. Surber: Since Jefferson Transit has indicated they are relocating, which would then lead
to a surplus of their property, given the location on Sims Way and the surrounding C-II general
commercial uses, it is likely that would be a request.
Mr. Randall: Unless it is acquired by another public entity, that is the logical alternative.
Ms. Sandoval: Thought it was Mr. Shaneyfelt who said something about no other public
entity wanted this. Has there been an open and public process for surplusing of specific PI
property? Have there been ads, an actual process for that?
Mr. Watts: That is an issue that is really not before the Council tonight; whether or not
Transit has followed whatever processes they should follow, or engaged in a process that
satisfies the public is not the City Council's decision to determine, whether or not that process
was adequate or legal. That is up to Transit. At this juncture they have a private buyer wanting
to buy a portion of their property; the issue before the Council is whether or not the land use
should go to C-II. At some point in the future another land use decision may come before the
Council in respect to the balance of the property.
Mr. Randall: Mr. Turissini with Transit did make a statement in the record before the
Planning Commission that they did follow the appropriate procedures to surplus the property.
Ms. Finnie: Which property?
Mr. Randall: The property that Mr. Kelly has made an offer on.
Mr. Finnie: So there is no process underway to request surplusing any other portion of the PI
property?
Mr. Randall: Could not comment; he was not aware of the facts on that.
Ms. Sandoval: There seems to be a presupposition about the remaining blocks she was trying
to come to grips with.
Mr. Kolff: It has been referred to several times that the city will be involved in costs for
upgrading certain utilities here. Do we have some idea what those costs would be?
Mr. Randall: Could give an approximate based on his involvement at one of the early
development review meetings, the thought last spring, with Public Works regarding this project.
Ms. Surber talked a little bit about it. There is currently a water pressure problem in this
neighborhood. This site has a street in front of it; it has water and sewer, but there are some
pressure problems with water that there. We budget every year a certain amount to deal with
infrastructure with new development, and when there is an existing inadequacy in the
infrastructure that was really our responsibility. In this case, a certain amount of this low
pressure is the city's responsibility. He thought there was a pump in the range of $5000 that is
required. He does not know how much of that cost is being shared by the city, if it' s half or
something less, but there is some financial involvement. To the best of his knowledge it is on the
range of something like that $5000 or less. He believes that is the only issue where they have
looked at sharing costs.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 42 December 11, 2002
Mr. Youse: It has been referred to that possibly fire would be a nightmare there. Are there
any differences in the fire codes between this project or a C-II project and public infrastructure?
Mr. Randall: Spoke to the level of his knowledge, that as far as building code goes and fire
suppression systems, etc. required with construction, they are highly dependent upon the use and
storage of materials in a building. Because the C-II and PI have such a wide range of uses, it is
hard to give a very accurate answer, but on the whole, the uses allowed in each zone are similar.
Similarly, testimony or evidence they had given to them by the City Fire Department, Fire
Marshall Aumock indicated that at least through SEPA there weren't environmental impacts in
the fire that wouldn't be dealt with in the normal application of building and fire codes in the
normal infrastructure required. BCD doesn't have evidence of fire hazard here that isn't going to
be dealt with by application of the normal codes.
Mayor Kolff asked for clarification, that if they close public testimony tonight Council would
still have an opportunity to ask questions of staff?. Mr. Watts indicated in reference to the
hearing script, there is opportunity for staff to make a final comment on the eve of decision,
which is different than Council continuing to ask staff questions. The script is set up so that if
questions go to staff or any member of the public, there is follow-up opportunity for clarification,
should any member of the public wish to clarify a response that has been given. Mr. Finnie
asked if they go through that process and get down to Council debate, Council discussion, will
they not still have opportunity to ask questions of staff in their normal course of business? Mr.
Watts replied they have the opportunity, if they are technical questions to help fashion a result, or
a motion, if it's a simple kind of factual clarification that can be quickly answered. The problem,
if it gets into an interpretive situation, there should be opportunity for the appellant to clarify or
add to that response.
Mr. Masci: Had confusion with the two site plans, Plans a and B -- Plan B, Exhibit K-33, as
opposed to the sub-Exhibit B to K-6. Is Mr. Kelly now proposing K-33, withdrawing Exhibit B
to K-6; or if we don't like K-6, K-33 is a fall back?
Mr. Randall: The applicant, Mr. Kelly, has submitted Exhibit K-33 as an alternative which
they feel better responds to city policies as well as to the issues brought up by the appellants and
the neighbors. He believes they are saying this is their preferred alternative.
Mr. Masci: Operating on K-33, he addressed Mr. Hupy, that the frontage on Hancock Street
on Alternative B, now that is what we are going to discuss, he sees an existing 25 foot green belt
to what appears to be the property line on the south side, so on the east Hancock Street side,
there is a 10 foot that has trees in it, and another strip before the sidewalk strip and then a curb
strip. What is the total width of that from building wall to the curb, about 25 feet?
Mr. Hupy: About 25 feet; there is an additional 15 to 18 feet of sidewalk; the street tree area
which would traditionally be a parking strip; the actual parking off street on a narrow street,
which there won't be on this project, then the actual street pavement. On the existing project the
way pavement sits now is about 18 feet in addition to the 10 feet they will be meeting with the
residential setbacks.
Mr. Masci: Somewhere between 25-28 feet?
Mr. Hupy: Correct.
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 43 December 11, 2002
Mr. Masci: So on street parking, which is now off street, goes up to the Transit border?
Mr. Hupy: Correct.
Mr. Masci: How many parking slots?
Mr. Hupy: Drew in an example that exceeds what is required for this project. This is a
conceptual plan and there will be a sharing of that space with parking Transit is using now and
wants to continue to use.
Mr. Masci: Roughly 30?
Mr. Hupy: Correct
Mr. Masci: On the back side, on the ravine, is that your intention for employee parking,
public parking or what?
Mr. Hupy: That would be employee parking. There is also a requirement in the design
standards that all services be behind the building, so there would probably be a dumpster back
there. The loading dock areas would also be located towards the rear of the building.
Ms. Sandoval: Was somewhat confused if this is light industrial or commercial; it didn't
sound like it was necessarily either. Where can a warehouse be located?
Mr. Randall: If strictly a warehouse, it would probably be allowed in the MC zone or the
business park.. However, in this case because the warehouse is really accessory; maybe not
walk-in sales primarily, but catalog sales which classifies as either retail or wholesale sales. Mr.
Kelly's business is retail. In looking through the code the only two districts it would be allowed
would be C-II or potentially the business park. BCD hasn't looked at the business park
covenants and restrictions in detail regarding retail square footage. It was never proposed, and
not analyzed. He said potentially the business park and definitely C-II, but definitely not MC
because MC only allows retail sales if the products are manufactured on the site, which in this
case they are not. He said all the references to the purple zone, they can't go there. Ms. Sandoval: So this is not wholesaling?
Mr. Randall: Retail catalog sales, primarily, or call-in/walk-in sales. Mr. Kelly has indicated
his business is predominantly through catalog sales and distribution.
Ms. Sandoval: What does staff define as integrated or integrated commercial?
Ms. Surber: It's if a commercial development is relating to other commercial development
within the area, or other potential commercial development in the area. It is a Gateway policy
that affords for integrated commercial development and is one of the reasons they have worked
on an alternative plan with the applicant, because the original plan did not integrate well with the
remainder of the Jefferson Transit land that could potentially be rezoned C-II in the future, nor
did it relate as well to the commercial zoning that exists on the opposite side of Hancock Street.
The old plan had its traffic coming further down across from residential. The new plan pushes it
further north, which is now across from commercial zoning.
Mr. Randall: The first plan basically had its back to Transit. He thought the appellant made a
good case that the first one was not meeting the integrated commercial concept. The applicant's
designer looked at this and came up with the alternative plan which creates the possibility tora
single integrated project between Mr. Kelly's potential site and Transit, or separate businesses
that were related to each other; worked together; shared parking; shared access and relates to the
property across the street which has an old gas station with dug up gas tanks that is prime for
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 44 December 11, 2002
redevelopment.
Ms. Sandoval: So it's basically a relationship to other commercially zoned properties?
Mr. Randall: And sharing of facilities including parking, joint transportation facilities, etc.
They are both oriented to Hancock Street. Neither one of these sites would be allowed to have
its own access onto Sims because of controlled access points; they would have to use the
Hancock Street so they are trying to collect their traffic in the same area off Hancock Street and
share parking and orient toward each other.
Ms. Sandoval: Currently, is this site not used at all by Transit?
Mr. Randall: It's vacant property; he believed they have an old bus parked out there, except
for the north 30 feet which is used for parking. They have their pavement which extends 30 feet
onto this property and park their buses along the north line of this property, south line of their
property. There are some light poles there.
Mr. Kolff: Asked Mr. Breskin to comment on differences in uses going from PI to C-II, since
he was involved in that early on.
Mr. Breskin: Thought what they need to understand is, that during the period when the Comp
Plan was being developed, the city ran under a different set of rules, a different Council and even
a different form of government. What was happening at that point when the city was figuring
out different scenarios which ultimately became adopted as these maps, different kinds of land
were being zoned quite suddenly in the course of adopting the Comp Plan maps, and they were
designated as part of that process. In this case, residential or undeveloped residential which
happened to belong to Transit was then zoned public infrastructure without going through the
kind of process than it would if it had gone to C-II at that point. There would have been a
process where residential would have gone through a fairly serious SEPA process at which point
the residential use table would have been comparable to the C-II. That is what would have had
to be mitigated as opposed to this where we are saying, use table of what's allowed in public
infrastructure, maps I to ! to C-II, and therefore mitigation isn't required. It is a completely
enormous step.
Mr. Finnie: If you read the Planning Commission open record hearings, there was a fair
amount of concern advanced by appellants as to whether or not the plan presented for approval to
BCD reflected an integrated commercial planning process. Since we have been referring in the
text of the Planning Commission hearings, is there anywhere in our municipal code or in our
Comprehensive Plan a working definition of this matter? Mr. Randall: No
Mr. Finnie: It might be a good idea if we had one. For planning purposes here, it seems
reasonable to expect we would need to be asking if this proposal reflects consideration given to
campus partners on that parcel, across Sims Way and across Hancock Street and the block closer,
and to make sure we have asked ourselves if we are using infrastructure resources and city
resources as efficiently as we can. The question, are we?
Mr. Randall: As previously discussed, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding what will
happen to Jefferson Transit and their current facility if they sell this. There has been some
testimony that they would seek to move elsewhere, and some testimony that they won't.
Regardless, going back to the preferred second alternative, the design the applicant has submitted
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 45 December 11, 2002
does the best to plan for that uncertain future. Basically, it creates opportunities for joint access
to Hancock Street, joint parking, joint large vehicle turnaround and orients in a consistent
manner with that. Without knowing that future, it does the best it can.
Ms. Sandoval: Regarding the arguments raised by the appellant, SEPA appeal, page 7 #8. It
says a statement of error about how it was noticed. When you re-released an addendum on
October 14th was that purely for clarification?
Mr. Randall: Correct. It wasn't clear to staff either what the appellant was claiming there.
But just to make sure procedurally they had covered their bases. He thinks she was referencing
the claim they hadn't properly noticed this as both a Comp Plan amendment and a rezone, but in
Port Townsend all rezones are Comp Plan amendments. The sole intent of that addendum was to
clarify they were covering the Comp Plan amendment and the rezone.
Mayor Kolffnoted it is 11:35 p.m. and asked if Council has more questions and needs to give
people an opportunity to respond or should they at this point continue this on Monday and keep
the pubic testimony open? Mr. Finnie said he is prepared to vote on this matter. Mr. Randall
explained that if they do decide they need to continue, Mr. Kelly cannot be here on Monday. He
has requested that if you have questions of him, you ask them now. It was determined to ask
questions of anyone not able to attend Monday night, give opportunity for anyone who can't to
respond to questions, and continue to Monday for a few more questions and deliberation. Mayor
Kolff asked if there are any questions of Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Finney: Planning Commission minutes of November 21 st, the issue surfaced as to
whether or not, in fact, there was the prospect of 20 fte or family-wage type jobs within a 2 year
period, question as to a visit made to your facilities in San Jose. Wanted to know straight from
Mr. Kelly, is this going to happen?
Mr. Kelly: The visitor looked at two men working at one location and assumed that was the
whole program. He saw them working, but did he see the office staff?, see telephonists? see the
telephones? see the person on the road doing shows? see the other two locations? did they go to
the shop? No they didn't; they saw two men working at one place and assumed that was the
whole program; and I was where? my wife where? my sister where? the office staff where? He
didn't see those people. They brought them all up to Port Townsend to meet them at the EDC
mixer at the airport; all happen to be the board of directors.
At this very point they are in a process of cutting back. They have been looking for the place
to go for 4 years. They have known when they stop business there they are going to have all that
government paperwork, and have been tapering back.. They don't do plaster work any more;
don't do medallions, don't do moldings; have cut back shows to 2 a year instead of 13; don't go
out to promote the products like they used to. They are pulling in their horns, so now they are
down to about 11 employees. They rent temps because that is the best way to go in their area
When they come up here they can open it up again. He said 20 because he doesn't think that
is unreasonable, going from 11 to 20. He really hopes more but does not want to exaggerate.
Mayor Kolff asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Kelly. There was no response and he
then asked if there was anyone who could not be here Monday starting at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Kolff
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 46 December 11, 2002
asked if anyone cared for clarification of any questions raised by Cotmcil, not to bring in new
information but to clarify.
Ms. Grahn asked permission clarify a couple of questions.
Traffic impact study. K-12 is in Council packets. Page 1 the project description says it is
talking about school buses; page 5 of 25, para 4, "... in order to evaluate the impact of school
buses.., also the impact at Sims and Hancock only; "page 21 of 25, P.M. traffic peaks.
Transit expansion: Is it on record? This is a document published by Transit, a draft Task
Report, part of their long range comprehensive planning. It is not part or the record; she could
pass it on to staff or you could request they obtain it for you. It doesn't indicate at all that they
sell their property, and it's not what's on the table.
Process: a variety of things. Several times they missed their full 10 days, only had 6 days to
accommodate the process. Won't say their process was wrong, but it wasn't great. They were
driven by the request to sell the property, not by a desire to surplus.
"Integrated development" definition comes from the Gateway Plan. Integrated development,
a nice way for big box retail strip malls, an anchor store and a bunch of stores around them. She
did not think they were fully there yet.
SEPA addendum. The reason they complained and hired an attorney is that nowhere in
noticing the rezone and the comp plan amendment did staff make a finding with regard to final
EIS on the comprehensive plan which would be the justification for the level of SEPA review
they had done. Had they mentioned it was consistent with the EIS and it was being reviewed
under that, it would have been fine, but they didn't. Yes, it was procedural, but there was a good
legal reason, and is why you have comp plans.
Ms. Rudolph responded regarding her involvement with the process. When they submitted the
offer they waited approximately 90 days to get response from Transit. It was quite a long time;
she did fax a copy of the offer to their attorney.
Mayor Kolff closed public testimony, subject to any questions that may come up Monday night.
Questions from Council coming up Monday night will be addressed to those in attendance with a
limited opportunity to respond.
Mr. Masci made the motion to postpone the meeting until 6:00 p.m. Monday, keeping public
testimony open solely for the purpose of Council being able to further ask questions of those in
attendance and receive clarification of the same. Ms. Sandoval seconded; all were in favor.
At 11:45 p.m. Mayor Kolff declared the meeting continued to Monday, December 16, 2002 at
6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers.
Minutes transcribed by Sheila Avis
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy, CMC, City Clerk
City Council Special Meeting (Public Hearing) Page 47 December 11, 2002