Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10252001 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 6:00 pm October 25,2001 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Unfinished Business V. New Business Open Record Public Hearing 1. BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #6, Resolve Zoning of US West Facility on Lawrence Street B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 2. BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #7, Resolve Zoning of Abundant Life, Discover Road B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 3. BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #8, Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action 4. BCD Staff presentation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: A. Amendment #9, Height of Northwest Maritime Center B. Public Comment C. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Upcoming Meetings: October 30,2001, Special meeting to finalize Findings & Conclusions and Minutes of October 25 VI. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 25, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chainnan Lany Harbison called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Bernie Arthur,Jim Irvin, and Lyn Hersey. Jerry Spieckerman and Frank Benskin were excused. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall and Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA There was consensus to approve as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- There were none V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS -- Open record public hearing for Amendments #6, 7, 8, and 9 Chair Harbison opened the public hearing and turned discussion over to BCD Staff. 1. Amendment #6 : Resolve Zonin!!: of US West Facilitv -º!! Lawrence Street Ms. Surber gave the background and presented Staff Recommendations referenced in Staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 17, 2001 for October 25 Hearing. She pointed out be current zoning is C-III, Historic Commercial. Being most closely defmed as a public utility and not listed in the tables, it is considered a non-conforming use and cannot be expanded or substantially improved. Staff recommendation, aided in great part by representatives of U.S. West, was to better define this telephone exchange, rather than the broad defmition of public utility, and to permit it outright in the GIll zoning district. With the tighter definition of telephone exchange and the fact thá this use has been found compatible in that area to date, Staff recommended leaving the zoning C-III and to include telephone exchange in the Use Table as a permitted use. Ms. Surber withheld reviewing the drafted Finding and Conclusions until the Conmission concurred in doing that. She pointed out that on all of the items tonight, since they are site specific even though suggested amendments, they are being treated as somewhat Quas~judicial in case the rezones are appealed. Mr. Randall added that the US West property is not actually a Comprehensive Plan amendment, it was docketed as such in case it was recommended the site be rezoned which would have to be done through the Comp Plan amendment cycle. If the Planning Commission recommends atext amendment, adding the definition of telephone exchange, that would go forward as an amendment to the municipal code. He explained this is particularly timely since Qwest is planning an expansion of this facility, and at present cannot do so becauseit is an unclassified use. Qwest needs the additional capacity to provide room for other telephone companies, as required by law to provide space for competitors, as well improvements to their own facilities. Mr. Arthur asked the zoning for the fire sbtion, right across the street. Mr. Randall responded, public inftastructure (P-I). Mr. Harbison opened the meeting to public testimony. There being none, he then closed public testimony and called for Planning Commission discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Irvin stated that the Staff recommendation makes sense. Ms. Hersey concurred. MOTION Mr. Arthur Approve changes to the Use Table adding telephone exchanges to the matrix in Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 October 25, 2001 · · · zones C-II, CII-H and C-III Discussion: Mr. Arthur questioned including any zones other than GIll. Mr. Randall said all Qwest requested at this time is C- III. Ms. Surber said they are permitted in every commercial zone, except neighborhood commercial, because that zone is only about 4 acres total throughout the city. SECOND Mr. Irvin VOTE UNANIMOUS - 4 IN FAVOR BY VOICE VOTE Chair Harbison asked regarding Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Surber suggested revisiting them. 2. Amendment #7 : Resolve Zonin!!: of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discovery Road Ms. Surber noted the site is Discovery and 27th street next to the cemeteries and is currently leased by Abundant Life Seed Foundation and comprises about 2.5 acres. She pointed out on an overhead agricultural buildings used by Abundant Lift; and other public zoned areas -- cemeteries and land owned by the County, currently vacant. She explained that usually public zoning is reserved for properties under public ownership or occupied by some kind of public utilities. However, this property is under private ownership and the public zoning has been on this property for over 15 years, which was brought to Staffs attention this year. Initially, the property owner and the lease holder, Abundant Life, requested a rezone giving Staff a list of activities Abundant Life wishes to do on the property. They want to expand their existing operation to include some apprentice housing, educational classrooms within the existing buildings, also move their offices there and maybe expand their retail blSiness on the site. Currently, there are several nonconforming uses on the site, even aside from Abundant Life, outlined in the newest letter from Mr. Gariss, October 24,2001 (Exhibit K-4), including boat building, artist studio, storage for personal property, etc. According to the letter from Mr. Gariss, he has now changed his thinking and requests the property to be left P-I. However, since the public zone is not appropriate for private ownership and the adjoining property under private ownership is zoned R-II, single family residential, Staff recommends that the property be rezoned R-II, better accommodating Abundant Life should they decide to stay there. It would not really change the grandfathered status of the uses that are currently on the site. Even if the Planning Commission doesn't agree with rezoning the property, Staff encourages that text amendments go forward. Text amendments would include a slight modification to the existing defmition of "Community supported agriculture;' and a new definition for "Community agriculture center' (Exhibit K-3). Ms. Surber explained the current defmition "Community supported agriculturè' is allowed in R-I and R-II zones. The proposed expansion to that definition would allow farmer/apprentice housing md educational offerings involving up to 10 nonresidents, not more than one time per week, which is consistent with the home occupations code. The new defmition "Community agriculture center' is more intense but would require a conditional use permit unœr Staffs recommendation and would receive extra scrutiny and review. Ms. Surber pointed out the two different aspects of this amendment-- 1) zoning, whether Mr. Gariss' property changes its zoning from P-I to the recommended R-II, and 2) text amendments which would allow "Community agriculture center' in the residential R-I and R-II, and the expanded definition of "Community supported agriculture." The text amendments would include the tables attached to Exhibit IÇ3. (Exhibit K-3 was broken into K-3A, defmitions; and K-3B Use Table for Residential Zoning.) Mr. Randall stated that City Council and the City have basically had a policy of not rezoning land against property owner's wishes, and he said BCD defmitely respects Mr. Gariss' wishes. He said they will answer any questions related to the rezoning, and he was sure the property owner would wish to have some comments. He said to the Commission, whether or not you choose to recommend the land be rezoned to RII, we hope you do proceed with considering the text amendment changes, because, even though they would not apply to the Abundant Life Seed Foundation on this site, we feel they would be beneficial to other similar uses that may occur in the city, e.g., Community supported agriculture, organic farming, things that are popular in town and could be taken advantage of on other R-II properties. Ms. Surber added that she talked to Jack Westerman regarding how rezoning would affect the taxes on the property. He currently looks at it as a single-family residential property. If more houses were to be built, that would change the assessment; for the most part he doesn't see a substantial change whether it is P-I or R-II. Chair Harbison restated the two matters before 1he Planning Commission. He then opened the meeting to public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 25,2001 · · · Mr. Will Gariss, 411 Discovery Rd, Port Townsend Mr. Gariss clarified that Abundant Life gardens approximately 1 acre in the front of the buildings he pointed out on the map stating the barns are used for various purposes, one of which Abundant Life has been using, and there is a greenhouse attachment to one building. He has worked out a land utilization agreement with Abundant Life, assuring them that they can garden there for the next 20 years, if they so choose. He and his family prefer that the ground itself be organic gardening, whatever you want to call it. This was the first State certified organic seed farm in the State of Washington, and they were able to show that at least as far back as through 1929 no chemicals had ever been applied on that land; he said if s kind of amazing. He said fertilization always came from the chickens. That is the background of why they want to retain it. His hesitation in rezoning, he hæn't been quite sure with the other uses going on in those buildings, but the Staff has assured him that grandfathering doesn't matter. (Mr. Randall answered his question, he was correct, that actually, if any of those uses wanted to expand in any way, itwould be more beneficial for them to be in the R-II zone, but if they don't expand, the grandfathering is neutral regardless of what zone they are in.) Mr. Gariss said that is one of his principal concerns. Mr. Gariss praised Staff for their work on 1his project and apologized for the complications. He respects the position of the Planning Department relative to not being private ownership. He said he leaves it to the judgment of the Planning Commission, but he would like to see Abundant Life be ableto develop a community agricultural center and they would be welcome there. Ms. Elsa Goltz, 624 Lincoln, Port Townsend, Chair of Abundant Life Seed Foundation She said, basically, the Planning Department has done an excellent job of outlining what theyneed to have, the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to do pretty much everything they have going, plus expanding, if possible. She said she is going to support that, and would answer any questions of the Seed Foundation. . She went on to say, she thinks this City allowing this community agriculture center would be setting a precedent and something other cities might want to look at and copy. She understood in other areas it is very difficult for an operation like the Seed Foundation within the City lirrits. She also thought you could put restrictions, e.g., noise and odor no more than other residential areas, off street parking, meeting organic farming standards and using least impact methods, impacts to the soil, water and air. They do all digging of this acre bed by hand; there is no motorized. Every community needs its own seed growing area because seed develops differently wherever you grow and propagate it .in every community. She said she thinks we could be a model; we are a model and it could be even more of a model with this particular zoning, conditional use. Mr. Dana Roberts, 438 220d Street, Port Townsend He said before drafting these comments he reviewed the record to understand the causes for and likely consequences of their entering cur Comp Plan in full force. He supports the proposals to improve the designations and the situation at Abundant Life (Amendment #7). This property long before Abundant Line began its careful stewardship of the garden space, has been a welcome presence in its neighborhood as a working open space. Increasingly, it is an important reminder that life, even in a GMA urban growth area, depends on edible plants. Preserving truly life-sustaining edibles is much of what Abundant Life is all about. The very act itself is educational; the Foundation seeks to do more, and I support it. He said, Commissioners, this is a real homegrown in Port Townsend Foundation with worldwide connection. It warrants public support and encouragement. Clarifying zoning, provilions that govern this site, will assist Abundant Life to expand and enhance its program. Doing that should help keep it an asset to its surroundings and a good neighbor to the many persons who have moved nearby over the years since the egg ranch began ealier in the last century. He said he had a linked point to emphasize an addition. The background ofland uses such as this in Port Townsend is one more uncompleted planning task, yet ifs still timely now and in the future when our next of possible public hazards might even involve food. Whether for freshness, awareness of how its gown, or who is involved in the process, ensuring even a limited supply oflocally farmed food, or seeds to grow it, is a step toward a healthier and less worried city. Comp Plan Policies 2.3, and 2.3.1 reveal the absence ofa right to farm ordinance and speak to the merit of its adoption. He heartily supports such an ordinance, if you choose to embark on that effort. In that regard, he also supports a transfer of development rights (TDR) program that strongly opposes limiting of any TDR to only permit its operation where the unused development credits (land use, density, dimensions or whatever), are actually converted to rebuild improvements. He believes the option mustalso be available for owners to donate unused development rights to any legitimate interests, such as a park agency, development bank, open space, or wildlife Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 25,2001 · trust, or even our own Land Trust. He thanked Commissioners for their consideration and hoped trey could pass that. · Mr. Tom Sehulster. 2705 Landes, Port Townsend Lives across the street from Abundant Life He said he speaks of Abundant Life as opposed to a piece of zoned property or land use issue. Ifs a unique thing in this neighborhood; it is the reason we live where we live. We looked out of the window and saw the scarecrow out in the field and said, "Hey, this is the place." We have a great deal of interaction with the people across the street. We watch the interns come and go, md we watch the crowds of people come for the lectures and tours through the gardens, and we watch the neighborhood kids come down and walk through and ask questions and look at things and just frolic through the place. This is a place; it's not a zone; it's not a document -- it's a place. It's a unique place in this town, and he thinks we have to be very careful in this day and age. He has lived in New York and has lived in San Francisco, and in Southern California, and he has watched the fruit trees disappear, and watched the parks get crowded to the point where there was nothing but shadow, and he has watched the crowding, and the traffic and those kinds of things. He said we can live with all that -- you are all planners and I am an architect -- we can live with all those things with breathing space, and this is one of those things he sees as a breathing space. Ifs even more than a park, because it's an educational place. He said every time he walks through, he fmds something different. Everytling he walks through, some things are different; it's a wonderful organic thing; other than organic farming, its an organic entity. He said when he caught wind of the possibility of this being rezoned for housing and the rationale and arithmetic that goes with it; he's done all this, he looked and said, "Whoa." He was a little nervous watching this kind of thing happen here because he knows what happens with property. Commercial pressure happens; you say, no, you are going to take care of these people-- we are going to accommodate this in this zone. We have to do more than accommodate things; we have to implement them; we have to encourage them; we have to fmd a method by which places like this can flourish and be sustained. The R-II zone is a frightening thing to him because it portends commercial pressure. At some point someone is going to say, "Hey, I've got a great idea;" and it's gone -- snuffed out. What he is asking is take a look and see how you can accommodate this without designating som other kind of thing to it. It's a scary specter. There being no other public testimony, Chair Harbison closed public testimony on Amendment #7 and opened it for Commission discussion. · PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Ms. Hersey: Ifwe didn't change the zoning, and they were grandfathered, that would mean they could not then put on that space a school or . . . Mr. Surber: They couldn't change their existing operation. Ms. Hersey: So, they would be limited in not doing that? Ms. Surber: Correct. She didn't know how much. One of the neighbors testified there some tours and educational that goes on; she did not know much. They would have to document how much is going on and make sure it is not too substantial a change. Mr. Gariss: Asked to respond. The educational aspect has been going on since he bought the farm in 1971. . . Mr. Hersey: Ifwe were to not rezone, is that going to hurt Abundant Lifès opportunity to do what they want to do? Ms. Surber: Said she would have to have. .. They have been wanting to purchase the property; they were the ones who put forward their wish list and we were trying to accommodate that. If they dont get that wish list, whether or not they will continue to operate there, she did not know. Chair Harbison: Asked Ms. Golts if she had a response. Ms. Golts: Would it change? What we are doing right now, we have upwards to 2-3 interns staying at the farm during summer months. Ms. Hersey: She knows they want to do other things. She wants to get Ms. Golts needs, but she wants to get Mr. Gariss' too. She asked Ms. Golts how much more do we need to go so you can get all your wish list? Ifwe didn't rezone it, would you still be able to . . . Ms. Golts: The wish list is in the Conditional Use Permit. That would satisfy the wish list. At this point, right now, as of today, we are not going to be buying it; the farm is not for sale. So we worlt then be putting a lot of money into putting an office there, unless we can work out some sortof arrangement so that we as a Foundation are Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 25,2001 · · · secure. She said they have not worked on that yet, they are just dealing with the fact they are not going to be able to buy it, so they have put everything on hold as far as moving the office there. The wishlist is entirely in that Conditional Use. Mr. Arthur: Asked, is it still your intent to purchase the property? Ms. Golts.: As a Seed Foundation, we would like to have lon~term security in a piece of property, whether ifs a purchase or whether a long-term kind of arrangement. We would appreciate purchase; she thought that would be the best solution for them. Mr. Arthur: Ifwe were to rezone this piece of property, it doesn't necessarily mean you would be there? Ms. Golts: We're there. Chair Harbison: If I understand, there is the intent that they are going to remain. Ms. Golts: The intent is that we are going to remain there, yes. Mr. Arthur: Said he was just trying to clear up in their minds the discussion as to whether or not we rezore based on Abundant Life's needs and vision. He asked, it might not be in that location if we make the other amendments to the matrix for R-II? Ms. Golts: She said she thought that could be correct. Their intent, however, is to stay right where they are Mr. Harbison: Questioned Staff -- The fact that this is private ownership, and the zoning is inappropriate, what impact is that? How does that affect the zoning? There's no other impact other than it's inappropriate zoning? Ms. Surber: Replied, she supposed there isn't as much impact, because the uses are all grandfathered, whether it remains P-I or it's rezoned R-II. Mr. Randall: Typically, the problem will come when Abundant Life is the tenant there or the new owner, whoever it is, wants do something and the zoning doesn't allow it -- something new; add a new structure; add a new use; change the use. There's a community garden use allowed in P.I; in all other aspects, he feels P-I is inappropriate for this property. While R-II does have some elements that could be seen as incompatible with the use that has gone on there, e.g., residential development on 5,000 sq.ft. lots, as Mr. Roberts hinted there are mechanisms whereby you can permanently assure that the property will be used for this type of activity. You can sell a conservation easement to an outfit like the Land Trust and say you are selling them most of the development rights; the owner basically gets a tax write-off for that change in value, and keeping the ability to do x, y and z things, including farming and maybe for limited office space. Predominately this is going to be an open space; that probably would satisfy their criteria to gain some compensation in the terms of tax credits and assure that this property would not be developed ina residential kind of manner. He answered Ms. Hersey that idea applies to R-II, because you can't do residential in P-I anyway. It first came to his attention when Abundant Life was talking about expanding a little, getting a little more formal, have sane nicer facilities for the following things-- they looked at zoning and found they were in the P-I zone and they could not approve any of those things. It is kind of similar to what the US West problem is; there is nothing in their zone that allows themto do what they do, although it is easier for U.S. West because it is not unusual to see utilities in the P-I zone. These kinds of uses are not applicable for P-I. He said he guessed they are still recommending the rezone and text amendments, and recomlrending that the owner work with the tenants, and maybe an outfit like Land Trust to permanently lock this up. He said they totally agree, this is a great activity and use in Port Townsend. He thinks it is one of the things that makes Port Townsend unique Originally, GMA said long-term commercial significant agriculture shouldn't happen in urban growth areas. Planning and our understanding of what makes communities. . . A sustainable development idea means we need places to play; we need our open spaces; we need places to stick our fingers in the dirt and grow some food. Ifwe can do that in a community setting, where we are doing it with other people, thats even better. I think those uses are wonderful, and I think our City's tolerance and encouragement of community agriculture will be picked up by other communities, as pointed out. Mr. Harbison: So, there are mechanisms in place that would protect the property against any perceived risk of changing the zone? Mr, Arthur: Only if the landowner wanted to do that. Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Harbison: Ifhe took advantage of that, there are mechanisms in place that would address perceived risk in change in zone? Mr. Arthur: Is there an option to add to the matrix for uses allowable in P-I.? Mr. Randall: It's difficult to do that and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The defmition ofP-I, "This district occurs on land to provide public utilities, facilities and services. Allowed uses include schools, libraries, public utilities and government buildings." You would have to stretch it pretty far out of shape. Mr. Arthur: . . . Mr. Randall: Not a good fit. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 25, 2001 · · · Ms. Hersey: You said schools. What if somehow they were to become an official school? Mr. Randall: He guessed you could encourage them to do that, but thought there was an easier fit than trying to force the P-I into something it isn't. The other thing is that we want to encourage other folks to do this. If you look at our zoning map, P-I only exists where we have existing utilities. The only reason it is here is because they thought the cemetery was twice as big as it actually was. Roll covers vast areas of town. That way we would encourage this type of activity to occur elsewhere and not require a rezone to get here. Mr. Arthur: Staffs recommendation is to rezone to R-II and change the Use Tables in R-II to accommodate it. Mr. Randall Concurred and indicated their understanding is that Mr. Gariss is O.K. with that based on his comments tonight. But again, if Mr. Gariss is uncomfortable with that, he thinks the City policy has been not to rezone land if the owner is not comfortable with it. He did not know whether or not hès totally comfortable with it at this point. Ms. Hersey: Can he get a Conditional Use Permit under P-I to continue what is going on there? Mr. Randall: Not the way the code is currently written. Ms. Hersey: But ifhe established a school there he could. Mr. Irvin: It's grandfathered; you can't expand the use. Ms. Hersey: But if they set an official school, he could use the property as a school-- you read school.. Mr. Randall: He read, "Schools, public" are permitted. What he was reading was the defmition of public infrastructure. The actual Use Table reads a little differently. It has "Institutions, educationar' as a permitted use. "Community gardens' is listed as a permitted use." Ms. Surber added -- but not defined. Ms. Hersey: Ifwe defmed it in the ordinance, would that accommodate it? Ms. Surber: From a review of other codes, this Community garden is like pea patches where people come in and rent the space. Mr. Harbison: That is inconsistent. Mr. Randall: He felt if they do that, they could solve this problem, maybe, but he did not think theywere encouraging this thing to happen elsewhere in town. He thinks they are missing part of benefits. Mr. Arthur: Staffs suggestion was to make those additional uses in R-II conditional? Mr. Randall: Only the Community Agriculture Center, because itinvolves retail sales and more intensive use in the ground. R-II already is very tolerant oflots of agriculture uses: Collingwood farm is basically outright because community supported agriculture is permitted outright. When you get into educational fiitilities and some of the other things that are pretty different from what you see in a residential district, we suggest making it a conditional use permit. It might have a little more traffic than your typical uses. Again, depending on site, it could be perfect, it could be a great thing, but we suggest a conditional use permit just to make sure that whatever the project, it would be a little higher level of review than just permit it outright. Mr. Arthur: Would we be voting to allow a conditional use µ::rmit for Abundant Life on this property at the same time, or would they have to go through this same thing all over again? Mr. Randall: Not this same thing, this is a Comp Plan amendment. They would go through a public hearing through the Hearings Examiner to establish it. Again, they can continue what they are doing as a grandfathered use. If they wanted to build new structures and do something that is very different and expand beyond what they are doing now, that would require a conditional use permit Ms. Surber: She also noted that in the table Staff recommended not only as Conditional Use Permit but Residential Bulk, Dimensional and Density requirements would be the same as the underlying zoning. Community agriculture centers are limited to locations fronting onto principal arterials, collectors and minor arterials streets. All office and retail uses shall be secondary to the agriculture component. Chair Harbison pointed out that public testimony was closed, but he asked Mr. Gariss ifhe had mything he wanted to add for clarification. Mr. Gariss: The Commercial resale aspect has been that Abundant Life sells some seeds, primarily. They are not a commercial activity. They are a foundation and are supported by catalogs, web for distributionoftheir . .. He said the retail sales aspect of it has blown a little bit out of proportion. They take the seeds; they don't sell vegetables. Ms. Hersey: What is your feeling about the zoning? What would you like to see done with your property? Mr. Gariss: It has been suggested he could put in covenants. That limits what his future generations can do with it, and if they have an emergency, then the property is devalued. He cited an example that if one of them got cancer and their medical expenses were not covered, this would be a resource. If it is tied up in a covenant, or a Land Trust, it is not available to them. Their wishes are, all being in good health, that it stay right as it is, organic Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 25,2001 · · · farming. Ms. Hersey: What do you feel about R-II? Mr. Gariss: Does not like the aspect of the potential economic pressures to sell it. He has had enough problems with that himself, because he does get knocks on the door, people wanting to buy it. Discovery Bay apartment facility was first designed for there, but fortunately they were able to get out of that one. To answer his question, for his personal satisfaction if it were tied in public zoning, but we have these uses, that would be the ideal solution, rather than going into R-II. Mr. Randall: One more point, this is kind of an odd solution. Another possibility would be to add them to both zones -- add the community agriculture center to the P-I zone and add it to the R-II zone too. That is a possibility; but thinks that is a weird fit. He hqJes nobody looks at the Comp Plan too closely. That would be an option, to put it in both. City Attorney Watts: He's talking about the language. Mr. Randall: Explained that rather than making a text amendment to the RII zone, adding Community Agriculture Centers in the P-I, in the same manner as a conditional use. Mr. Arthur: Then we wouldn't have to rezone this property? Mr. Randall: No, we wouldn't need to. He and Ms. Surber were just quickly looking, one of the defmitions she provided you in Exhibit K-3, was a definition of Community Supported Agriculture which was is currently in the zoning code, and the amendment proposed adding language that would say,"A community supported operation; we offer farmer apprentice housing in keeping with ba¡e densities of the underlying zoning district. Limited instruction up to 10 nonresidents not more than one time per week may be conducted on the site:' He said that quickly glancing through this that actually is in our zoning code it is not listed as apermitted use anywhere. One of the things they should do tonìght also is add Community supported agriculture to the Use Tables. Chair Harbison: So, that would be Exhibit K-3B. Mr. Randall: On Exhibit K-3B, it would be added to the table. He thought the idea would be add it permitted outright in R-I and R-II, and could actually be added (not on the table you have), but there is use called Crop or Tree Farming -- no retail sales, is permitted in those. He said they could give it its own category and call it permitted in R-I and R-II. Chair Harbison: So that would be Community Supported Agriculture permitted in RI and R-II. Mr. Randall: Said it is listed, but rather hidden. It says, "Crop or Tree Farming with Community Agricultural Sales. He said he guessed it was there, so they do not need to change that. Mr. Arthur: So, we can add these to the Use Tables for P-I, R-I and R-II, and then not rezone property. He asked if that was satisfactory? O.K. Mr. Irvin: This has come around full circle. If they leave it P-I and Abundant Life wants to expand, increase or add, are we back to square one? Mr. Randall: They would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, just as it would be if they were RII. The only thing, P-I -- he hasn't looked at the Bulk and Dimensional Table-- it might have some weird setbacks or something. It might have some oddities to it because ifs P-I. It doesn'(allow residential, but it's built into the definition. It would still come under the defmition of Community AgriŒllture Center -- internships are allowed. Ms. Surber: Per the density of the underlying zone, 17-78.4. Mr. Randall: P-I -- minimum lot size, none; rear and front setbacks. .. There is one of the problems with the P-I zone -- the R-II zone has special setbacks for agriculture buildings, livestock, etc.. P-I doesn't have that. We are trying to work with the applicant, but again, it shows that the rest of the title doesrlt work very well for this. Ms. Hersey: How many other pieces are there out trere that are ever likely to come up with this? Mr. Randall: Said in P-I he did not think there were any. Ms. Hersey: So, we are really trying to accommodate just one piece of property and we dorlt have to go any farther than that. Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Arthur: Said that's O.K. Ms. Surber: This is new; they are making it up on the spot. A couple of things that concern her are that they haven't given it much thought at the Stafflevel-- have they adequately. . . Ms. Hersey: Would you feel comfcrtable with SEPA review at this point? Recommendations that go back to Staff, the recommendation oflooking at putting it into P-I? Mr. Randall: We might have to back up and do a little review, more SEPA review too. For the timing of the Comp Plan amendments, you could recommend that the changes to RII go forward to Council, and changes to P-I may require some additional SEP A review. We could adopt those as code amendments a little later. Mr. Arthur: There is more SEPA impact to changing these Use Tables in R-II than there ever would be to that one piece that is already being used. All this is doing is allowing the uses to continue that are already there. Whafs Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 25,2001 · · · the impact? The only impact we're preventing is that it could be converted to residential. Ms. Surber: They have analyzed the impacts for R-II, pending notice and that sort of thing. She is not saying that there's any impact that will come up, but we didn't even think about it. One of the exercises of going through SEP A is going through the SEP A checklist and that is when you might see there is an impact, maybe there isrlt. She was just saying this is something they thought of on the spot, and she is not feeling comfortable that they have done the background work for you. If you feel comfortable, that is your decision. Ms. Hersey: Ifwe ask Staff for some more recommendation, would that mean they would have to wait a year? Mr. Randall: They wouldn't have to wait a year. A text amendment can be done anytime; we try to batch tkm with the Comp Plan amendments if we can. This could be done later. He said to Mr. Arthur he has a concern with the one part about the definition that refers to, "farmer apprentice housing in keeping with base densities in the underlying zoning district." You can't have any in the underlying district in P-I, so you lose the residential component in P-I, unless we totally modify, and they do have to back up and start over a little bit with that. Ms. Surber: She was not sure you wouldn't have to change the definition in P-I, in both the Comp Plan and the zoning code too. It is a new animal; ifs not in the public zoning. Mr. Arthur: So, when we vote here, ifs a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Arthur suggested until1hat time Staff could do some homework and then the City Council could be guided by that direction if we choose, whether or not it's allowable. Council at that time could decide to rezone to R-II. Mr. Randall: Concurred and said they could even qualify i~ e.g., recommend changes be made to the R-II district as proposed and we recommend the site not be zoned P-I if it is determined that similar uses can be added to the P-I zone. Something like that; you can make it a conditional recommendation, so that tie City Council could understand what your intent was and Staff could explain it more before the City Council Mr. Arthur: From the testimony of the public and from the property owner, it seems to him that most people would like to maintain that property in its present use. He said he's not too naive to believe that it couldn't be converted to residential, if it were R- II. Because they testified that they wanted to maintain it the way it is, he would prefer they attempt to continue it like it is and allow for uses to go on there that are presently requested and needed. He said he did not know when they changed P-I to not allow residential. It used to be O.K. in P-I. Chair Harbison asked Mr. Arthur if he would like to put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Arthur attempted to make the following motion which was then broken into four separate motions for clarification. Approve Exhibit K-3A; and add the uses to the Use Table for P-I, R-I, R-II where needed;, that the community agricultural center beconditional-- all other uses conditional in P-I; property if requested to be rezoned in P-I, and if not requested in R-II. The following motions were for clarification: MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Arthur Approve Exhibit K-3A Ms. Hersey UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor MOTION Mr. Arthur Add to the Use Table, Community Agriculture Center as a CUP in R-I and R-II districts as shown on Exhibit K3B SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor MOTION Ms. Hersey Add Community Agriculture Center as a conditional use in the P-I Zone, and Community Supported Agriculture as a permitted use in the P-I zone in the Zoning Table SECOND Mr. Arthur VOTE UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor MOTION Mr. Arthur The property not be rezoned from P-I unless the uses just voted cannot be applied in P-I; otherwise that it be rezoned to R-II SECOND Mr. Irvin Discussion: Ms. Hersey said she is not comfortable with that because she would really rather not go to RII. VOTE 3 IN FAVOR, MS. HERSEY OPPOSED Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 25,2001 · · · 33. Amendment #8 : Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279. Eisenbeis Addition Ms. Surber stated that Blocks 278 and 279, Eisenbeis Addition are south of S.R. 20 bordered by Hancock and Hendricks and Sherman. The Comprehensive Plan attempted to ftx discrepancies in 1996, but some of the commercial property was put into a residential zone at that time. She explained Mr. Vane, owner of a frameshop business, requested zoning be revisited for Blocks 278 & 279 (Amendment #8). BCD sent out public notice to the property owners in a 300-foot mailing radius. She informed the audience that comment letters received from property owners in the area, and other materials, were included in Planning Commission packets for previous workshop meetings. Responses were, for the most part, from people bordering the area, she pointed out on the map, who did not want to see those areas rezoned. However, several of the property owners in those two blocks did want their properties rezoned to Commercial, reflected in the table (Exhibit G-18). Discussion included the following wishes. Ms. Surber pointed out on the map: Loch property: Requested property rezoned; her property was split in half by the rezone in 1996. When she purchased the property it was her understanding it was commercial; parts were restored andother parts were not. Don's Automotive Care: is in a commercial zone. Loompanics Books: is not now commercial (commercial business in existence prior to the 1996 change). Ms. Surber stated that when she was in the field she was informed Loompanicswishes to be rezoned commercial. Amell property: Opposite side of Sherman Street. (Old DMV Office; has been commercial for a long time.) Vane property: Commercial-- Mr. Vane would like commercial. Trudell property: No response from calls and letters. Undersized piece of property currently vacant-- used to access Mr. Vane's property. Staff recommended rezone to C-II. Thompson residence: Heard in field would like rezoned to Commercial. More Amell property: Hasn't changed -- Two lots already commercial; would like other two commercial. Staff recommendation: Exhibit G-18 as modified below: Pretty consistent with, if it was a commercial business and zoned commercial prior to 1996. (Staff did not split lots in half.) Trudel-- Block 278, Lot 7, S Y2. Rezone to C-II Mr. Randall indicated the Staff recommendation is based on desires of the property owners balanced by apparent uses, trying to have a line as logical as possible with current activities. They dorit recommend going with the Amell's request to rezone their vacant land since it jogs out quite a ways. He said it is quite possible in revisiting the Comprehensive Plan next year in the 5 - year Comp Plan update, it might be appropriate to upzone some of these properties to possibly R-III, but they don't want to jump that far ahead. Ms. Surber unveiled new maps with the S.R. 20 overlay and discussed them in relation to the Staff Recommendation. Chair Harbison opened the meeting to public testimony. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. JeffThompsoº, 308 Sherman Street, Port Townsend Said he was accompanied by his wife, Nancy; and son, Cody. He pointed out on the map where they live. They also own a business; he corrected for the record that Mr. Vane doesn't own the picture framing business, he sold it to the Thompsons approximately 2 Y2 years ago. It is a business that has been in Port Townsend for 26 years, in that location for 15 years. He asked this Commission to consider their request to rezone, and read his letter oftestimony requesting their house, located at 308 Sherman Street, be rezoned to C-II, General Commercial (Exhibit K-6). "The reason for this request is to provide an option for relocating our business, Port Townsend Art & Frame (formerly Vane Custom Framing) from its present location at 334 Sherman Street to the house at 308 Sherman Street. The building where the business is now and the house are next door to each other, and the house is the only residence in that block [on that side of the street] of ccmmercial buildings. As matters stand at the moment, we plan to keep the business where it is [and indeed, we signed a new lease in April]. However, if in the future we lose [for some reason] our lease and cannot find a suitable retail space in which to elocate we would need somewhere to move the business. [This is an ideal location, because our customers are used to coming to this area, and we dorit Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 25,2001 · · · feel like this is going to impact the neighborhood in any way.] 'We believe Port Townsend would benefit from adding to the scarce supply of retail space not located in high- rent, tourist-supported downtown. Indeed, retail space is so hard to fmd that if in a year and a half our lease is not renewed and we cannot fmd appropriate, affordable space to move ilto, our business, and which has thrived in Port Townsend for twenty-six years and provided employment for many people, might be forced to close. [We could not afford to move it downtown, and he does not think they want to anyway.] 'When it was proposed 1hat the entirety of the two blocks, 278 & 279, be rezoned, some of our neighbors objected. We are asking for only our house to be rezoned. Concerned about our neighbors' worries, we consulted local realtor, Kenny Speer, of Coldwell Banker about what impæt moving our business into the house might have on the neighborhood. [He gave his permission to use his comments tonight in this letter.] We explained to him that we have an average of [maybe] three truck deliveries a week and perhaps three to four cust(Jl1ers a day, people who are all locals, as no tourists come to our shop. Since the business is already in the neighborhood there would be no increase in traffic. There is adequate off-street parking in front as well as parking for six cars behind the home in a groveled area screened from the street by evergreen trees. In the realtors opinion, there would be no negative impact on the neighborhood by moving the business fifty feet into the house. He also assured us that if the property was rezoned it would be extremely unlikely for a chai~store like Taco Bell or Jiffy Lube, businesses which require high-visibility locations, to move onto it, which was another neighbor concern. Mr. Speer also reminded me that even with the current zoning the neighbors ale not protected from an unsightly or in other ways unpleasant home business, if someone chose to do such a thing with the property. 'We can understand why some of our neighbors object. Any change is worrisome, and it is very easy just to say no. They fear their property values may go down. We believe that in this instance change will benefit the neighborhood. The neighbors have already seen the neglected property we purchased two years ago continually improved, extending to a major restoration of the {Xterior begun this summer. Ifwe were indeed to locate our business in the house we would escalate the improvements and make the property the gem of the neighborhood, thus increasing everyone's property values. 'Please consider the rezoning of this property. Not only would creating this retail space be an asset to Port Townsend and an attractive addition to its neighborhood, but it would also insure the survival of one of Port Townsend's long-standing businesses. Thank yoU" Chair Harbison asked if there was any further public testimony. PLANNING COMMISSION OUESTIONS: Mr. Harbison: He questioned Staff, the Baker and Durall properties show no response from them. Are the owners residents there? Ms. Surber did not know. Audience: Yes. Mr. Harbison: There were Staff efforts to see if there was a preference on the part of those owners? Ms. Surber: They received at least two written requests for response. Mr. Harbison: What was the thinking in leaving the Thompson property, 308 Sherman, RII? Ms. Surber: Because historically it was not zoned commercial and it is currently a weUestablished single- family residence. Mr. Randall: To clarify for Planning Commission options, he requested to question Mr. Thompson; If you were to move your business from your current spot into the place where you now live, would you plan to continue living there, or would you probably move and fmd another home? Mr. Thompson: Replied, that no they would have to move. . . Mr. Randall: Said the reason he asked is the other criteria that Mr. Thompson identified regarding the number of vehicle trips, etc. which would qualify the business as a Home Occupation; however, moving out of the home the way the code is currently written, would not qualify the home as a H(Jl1e Occupation. As you remember, the City Council referred to a Citizen's Advisory Committee the issue of expanding Home Occupations through a conditional use permit process or other process. One of the issues they will be looking at is perhaps creating anew type of use that did not require the owner to live in the home to have a business like this. So, this business in all other aspects, would qualify for a Home Occupation. Even if you found that it should remain a residential zone, there may be relief coming to the Thompson's in the form of that amendment; it is just something to consider. Mr. Arthur: When you asked these people about the rezone, did you specifically ask them about both blocks, or did you just ask about their own personal piece of property? . Ms. Surber: Replied that the notice was broad; it was for all of the blocks. Mr. Arthur: So, if! said I wanted to leave it as R-II, they way you asked the question, it would have meant you Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 25, 2001 · · · wanted to leave both blocks R-II? Ms. Surber: She said no, that the responses she was getting in writing or verbally were specific to their own personal property. Mr. Arthur: Said that basically the way he reads this that block with Mr. ThompsoIÌs property, the Amells, and all that, none of those people requested it to stay R-II? Ms. Surber: They all requested commercial. Mr. Arthur: That whole block? Ms. Surber replied, yes. Mr. Arthur asked if across the street next to the bookstore, or whatever that is, from there down, those people requested tlBt it remain R-II? Ms. Surber: She said they heard nothing. She pointed out activity associated with one building and also some newer homes. Mr. Arthur: Is there a reason why part of the block couldn't be C-I, neighborhood commercial? Mr. Randall: BCD didn't evaluate that; it wasn't proposed. What they were looking at was a direct result of Mr. Vane's request that the site be rezoned. One of the reasons they are recommending these other sites not be rezoned C-II is because it would immediately make their homes nonconforming as to use. Currently, singlefamily residences that are not associated with an adjacent business are not permitted in the GII zone. Mr. Harbison: How would that affect Mr. Thompson? Mr. Randall: Because he is operating a business next door across the street [he was corrected that it wasn't next door], there is an intervening ownership; so technically, it would be a nonconforming use. He said he has done an interpretation for a gentleman who had a business across the sœet from his home and wanted to expand and build a garage. He interpreted the code to say he had a residence associated with the business. He was not sure how he would interpret an intervening ownership. Ms. Hersey: Would they have to leave their home ifwe rezoned it? Mr. Randall: They would not have to leave their home; it would be a nonconforming use. They would not be able to expand the home for residential purposes. Mr. Harbison: There is a structure on the Trudel property. Ms. Surber: Said when she was in the field she did not see any structure, but she was just looking at the map; it looked like there is something there. Mr. Randall: Affirmed, there is no structure on the Trudel property. Mr. Harbison: And there was no response on that me? Mr. Surber: She said she did actually try to call because of the fact the Thompson's wanted commercial and they were vacant. . . Mr. Harbison: And the three Amell properties are vacant and request commercial. Mr. Randall: Affirmed. Chair Harbison called for Planning Commission discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION Ms. Hersey: Will Mr. Trudel's taxes go up if you rezone it commercial? Ms. Surber: She called Mr. Westerman today. If there were a residence that's within a commercial zone, there would be some different criteria. If it is vacant land that goes from residential to commercial, then it is valued higher. If there is a residence on a property that is a commercial zone, even if that meets his. . ., what would the value of this be, residence and the land together? It comes up $100. Then he looks at a vacant commercial land, and usually takes the higher of the two. He said it is case-by-case, all kinds of factors that go into it. Mr. Irvin: Asked that they tell him agan why they are recommending leaving the Thompson property, last one on the list, R-II and also the one Amell. Ms. Surber: She said, here again looking at the historical zoning, and see that these properties were residential, even before 1996, this is residential use and has been. Mr. Randall: Asked about Block 277, as far as the use of that building? Ms. Surber said they did not look at 277. He said if you are surrounded on three sides by residential. . . Mr. Irvin: The rationale was they were deleted because that is what they were historically? Mr. Randall: And also because if you extended that down you would have commercial surrounded on three sides by residential. Mr. Irvin: You would make a little jog. But, in fact, functionally it wouldbe the right jog if those two properties were zoned with that block. Mr. Randall: Said it is a judgment call. It is awkward splitting a block zoning-wise. In this case, properties along S.R. 20 have all been commercial, and commercial development. A ld of these were built as houses and have Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 25,2001 · · · rather evolved over time into businesses. It is almost like they are a little of a buffer; they dorlt necessarily look really commercial, but they act commercial. The are still a better neighbor probably than theadjacent residences than a purpose-built commercial building. If you look up and down S.R. 20, especially on that side of the street, that is rather how that development has worked. He thinks it looks fairly good from the neighborhood; it gives them a little cushion, even though they are commercial businesses, they are in a residential sized and designed building. Ms. Hersey: Asked concerning nearby areas and pointed out how those correlated. Mr. Randall: As you go further west -- south of the commercial is normal-type family. He said when they recently did rezone from multi-family to single family, a block that was totally developed with houses and zoned commercial, MC, we rezoned back to R-III where single family residences are allowed. Another cption for areas like this is to zone them multi-family as a buffer for the single family. Chair Harbison closed Planning Commission Discussion. Ms. Hersey: Said she not know until they hear from Trudel, about reasoning these commercial. Mr. Randall: Said they did everything they could, phoned and wrote. Ms. Hersey: Then why would we want to rezone it, if not Thompson? You are recommending Trudel too. Ms. Surber: Because of its association per Mr. Vane with the commercial buildings. To get tothe building in back, they have to cross Mr. Trudel's property. It is an undersized lot, so it would be difficult to build a single family home on that lot. Put a small commercial business, or use this for parking for an adjacent commercial. Chair Harbison said there are two options and a motion to recommend Exhibit G 18 as it stands, that reflects the change in the Thompson property or another motion. MOTION Mr. Irvin Recommend we adopt Exhibit G-18 modified to include the Thompson property as rezoned to C-II Discussion: Mr. Randall asked ifhe wanted to include the Amell property also. Mr. Irvin asked since there is not second ifhe could amend his motion? Chair Harbison granted his request. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Irvin Recommend we adopt Exhibit G-18 modified to include the Thompson property as rezoned to C-II and move Amell lots 3 & 4 to C-II SECOND Mr. Arthur Discussion: As requested by Ms. Hersey, Ms. Surber pointed out on the map which residents did not want to rezone. Chair Harbison called on Ms. Nancy Thompson for clarification. She said Ms. Amell was really worried they would do something on that property, which she pointed out on the map. She agreed with Mr. Randall that she might be more concerned about a commercially lookirg building going in there. Ms. Surber said for the record Ms. Thompson was pointing to Block 275, vacant lots. VOTE UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor Chair Harbison called for a break and at 8:20 p.m. reconvened the meeting for the public hearing on the Northwest Maritime Center Formal Height Amendment 4. Formal Amendment -- Northwest Maritime Center Hei!!:ht Amendment Ms. Surber pointed out this is the only formal Comprehensive Plan amendment requested this year and is a proposal to change the existing 30' height restriction to 40'. The Comp Plan amendment is necessary as the Northwest Maritime Center (NWMC) proposes amendments to the Special Height Overlay District and not a variance. She explained if this proposal falls through, Mr. Robison has indcated that since NWMC has obtained non-profit funds they would have to sell to another non-profit. She further stated that the height limit is low for this area, and under the Shorelines Master Program would be allowed. Mr. Randall noted the project doesn't proceed with building permits until other things are involved; currently NWMC and the Historical Preservation Society (HPC) are in the process of preapplication conferences. He showed projected designs and said he thought NWMC had done a nice job oflistening to input from HPC and also citizens. Mr. Randall indicated HPC felt the building should say something regarding its function, what is going on inside, and since this is a maritime center, they should look at maritime related buildings that exit and have existed in the past. The buildings are large in size and scale. He made comparisons to the Sail Loft at Point Hudson and the Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 25,2001 · · · old DeLeo building where Harborside Inn now stands, and he noted the width of the DeLeo building. The NWMC struggled with the fact that the functions require certain sizes. The proposed building is wide, has two stories, and it could have resulted in a single high pitched roof, very high and bulky. The DeLeo building had two high points with clear high windows that brcke up and created a unique and interesting architectural detail and had a lot of function; it brought natural light down as well as leaving more light, air and open space, sunshine that came down into the street and was less imposing. The architects reft:cted that in this design and came back to the HPC with some of these design changes, including a tower to reflect a sail loft idea and take advantage of some of the incredible views. This design is conceptual. HPC still needs to approve a formal design, but has indicated they are pleased with the reflection of other historical buildings in town and has urged NWMC to proceed even though the proposed building height exceeds the height limitations. The goal is public access, visually as well as actual acc~s to the waterfront, which would be accomplished with open space and corridors. The building reflects the historical aspect in its materials and design as required by the Urban Waterfront Plan. Mr. Randall pointed out the confusion in interpreting \\hich guidelines apply. He has concluded that you should read the map that is pertinent to the project and interpret it according to the assigned program, in this case the Civic District governed by policies in the Shorelines Master Program. It includes iloreline policies, how you should treat the shoreline, your environment, materials that go into shoreline improvements, uses, etc. The map that goes with the guidelines, talks about building materials, how buildings should be compatible. In the Civic DiSrict, City Hall is the key driver, look to City Hall for materials (using brick), be respectful of City Hall. HPC struggled with those guidelines and the differing ones in the Point Hudson Marina District and determined the NWMC site has very little to do with the Civic District -- it draws more from Point Hudson, even though ifs not really Point Hudson district either. It has its own history; it used to be an old oil terminal. It has a great dock, probably the only dock in town that can work for schomers and other boats that need deep water. HPC concluded, look to it for what it's going to be. It's going to be a maritime related building--look to maritime related structures. Mr. Randall said in this town maritime related structures are not hlilt of brick, and weren't; they were built of wood. That was the origin of their design cues. Ms. Surber reminded that the proposed amendment is strictly to raise the building height limit from 30' to 40 and has nothing to do with the project itself. Other comments regarding such things as parking should be kept out of the discussions. Mr. Randall urged the Commission to keep that in context. He said if the project goes forward there will be a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit that goes wib the project. With that permit, at that time, the applicant needs to show exact specifications for what they are going to build-- how tall it's going to be; how big; the square footage for uses; what the parking is going to be; what they are going to dowith the dock, etc. At this point, the designs they have are a little more conceptual in nature, because all they are asking for is a height amendment. That level of detail is appropriate at this time, but at the same time he thinks it is fair for the rommittee, the citizens and audience to comment on the proposed size and scale of this building and how it relates to the height limit as it is currently. He said in the past they've dealt with height overlays, and he cited issues that dealt with giving tre Port some flexibility. He encouraged the Commission to think about alternatives, if they have some problem feeling uncomfortable with the whole 40' idea. Maybe the property owner can talk about height limitations if the property were sold; or we have the ability to talk about a certain percentage of the property exceeding the height. We have a lot of other tools, but it is appropriate to talk about this project in relation to height. Chair Harbison opened the meeting to public testimony, and do:: to the size of the audience limited each testimony to 3 minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT Proponent: Mr. Dave Robison, Northwest Maritime Center, P.O. Box 18, Port Townsend Expanded on the Staff presentation and gave some history-- The design began earlier this year in January. They put together a design team of key stakeholder groups that would be involved in putting on programs in any future facility at the Thomas Oil site. They invited the design team representatives from those key stakeholders: City, Pm, Wooden Boat Foundation, Boat School, and Historical Society. Before they began any discussions with the architectural team, they invited in other representatives from the community as a whole. They spent halfday workshops with a variety of non-profit groups that had a stake in educational and cultural activities in Port Townsend, e.g., the Chamber of Commerce, Marine Science Center, Main Street Program, Film Festival, Centrum and a variety of other non-profits that provide educational, cultural and Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 25,2001 · · · community events. They also brought in for the educational part: Port Townsend School District, WSU, Peninsula College and some maritime businesses from Point Hudson, as they feel they need to really build a facility that is compatible with the future of Point Hudson -- the Dive Shop at the Boat Haven, Kayak Port Townsend, Puget Sound Express, among others. They were trying to get the information to design a facility that would meet the longterm needs of the community. They really see this as a community-driven project. What they heard back from all of those organizations was flexibility; put in some meeting rooms downtown. Originally, they were thinking of a facility of approximately 15,000 sq.ft., but based on all of the competing needs they œard from the community, from organizations, that group, as well as meeting rooms there was need for flexibility so we can grow into the facility. So, they began playing with how to provide all those functions the community wanted and still maintain somtDf the guiding principals of the Maritime Center: 1) Foster shoreline public access; 2) Reconstruct the dock that would be available for a variety of water programs; 3) Try to reserve some public space, so there is a meeting center right on the beach. It was determined they should have two buildings. When they started looking at two buildings with a 30' high, they were really talking about a two-story building. Mr. Robison pointed it out, and said what they have essentially is two buildings, and as Mr. Randall covered in detail they went through a variety of options starting as a 30' flat roof. They heard from the HPC that they really shouldn't have a flat roof, that it needed to be more in keeping with the future of the Point Hudson District. They tried to build a facility that minimizes its footprint, minimizes its bulk and scale issues so it doesrlt go too high and really provides a lot of open space out in front. Mr. Robinson submitted to the Planning Commission, the actual square footages which would be in buildings and public access improvements, which is one of the critical things. He said for the audience to know, the building before improvements is 14,000 sq.ft. Mr. Randall noted the submittal would be entered into the record as Exhibit K-10. He pointed out the public comments area in front of the two buildings and the public access walkways stating they are nearly 19,000 sq. ft. Footage breakdown: Upland portion of the site: about 30% for building Public open space: about 60% There is a variety of beach area and public access tidelands that would be dedicated to the city in public access. So the majority, over 60% of the site, would be dedicated to public access. Mr. Robinson explained that to really put together a facility that accomplishes the goal of dedicated public access and view corridors, the design has been done in a way with public access walkways and balconies on the 2nd floor to really take advantage of Port Townsend Bay. Again, the location is very unique in larger Rlget Sound. We have almost 20,000 sq. ft. community waterfront, public outdoor space, nestled between the Port of Port Townsend Community Walkway and the deep draft dock in Port Townsend Bay. He indicated that is one of the real drivers that gave then the planning parameters of the facility. He briefly discussed what the height really is at the site. He said to remember they are at a conceptual level of design and will be working at this for the next 6 months of design, that one of the things they are rally asking for is design flexibility; they could probably do a 30' foot level there, but they are not going to be able to incorporate all of the HPC recommendations or the design features that makes this a building that really fits the site transitioninginto the Point Hudson District. He pointed out a building, stating the eave line of the Maritime Heritage and Resource Building is at 28'. The actual peaks of the roof, the glass monitor which is a design feature and doesrlt have functional space, is 40.' Measuring the height under the Port Townsend code, you would take the average between the eave and the peak, it is 34' height. Conversely, if you look at the Maritime Education Building, the one eave is 28' and the peak would be 39' -- average 33.5'. If you look at the other end, the peak with the design element similar to the Sail Loft approximately 150' to the north, the peak at the top of the clear story of the little glass tower is 44!- average height 36.' He reiterated this is conceptual. Trey are trying to integrate the competing demands of function with good design in providing a really nice gateway to the Point Hudson District. At the workshop meeting the Planning Commission requested they take three photos and try to superimpose the building on the actual site. He showed three slides in response to the request that was entered into the record as photographs (Exhibits 7, 8, & 9). (Exhibit 7) From the Bluff Sail Loft to the left (65' height without railing at the top); SwanHotel (56' height); City Hall to the right (39.5'); American Legion..lfyou were to superimpose a 30' height limit on the Thomas Oil site, you would get a sense of what the height limit would look like from the bluff. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 25,2001 · The 30' building (height) envelqJe (only filmed out to the proposed building) -- that box would be much greater if it went all the way to the shoreline (meaning the developable space). The impact could be much greater because they are only covering 40% of envelope portion of the site, Mile 60% is open space. (Exhibit 8) From the Swan Hotel -- (What the facility will look like from the top of the bluff.) The 30' building (height) envelope (just for the two buildings as per this design)-- the 30' . . . would stretch way OÚ into the water if they were to take it through the whole site. If it were just for the 30', what the twestory block would look like with the design features that are being proposed. They feel the modulation helps make the functioning of the building \\{)rk better in terms of natural sunlight, ventilation; it works better for the function of the building and adds a very interesting design element in transition into Point Hudson (Exhibit 9) Water Street Actual height 36 feet under PTMC. From 1he middle of Water Street in front of City Hall. American Legion on the left; Swan Hotel (56'); across the street, existing conditions of the building; Kayak Port Townsend. If they were to overlay the 30' height envelope, and you were to fill that in,it would be a pretty big blank wall. If you were to superimpose the facility, it is a big building. It will be a fairly landmark building; but it does accomplish all of the community needs to really create a waterfront community center fitting Port TOWBend's maritime heritage and all the groups that would like to put on educational and cultural programs within the downtown. Again, from this angle, the actual height as measured under the building code is 36'. Mr. Randall added one thing that came out during the HPC review is that an applicant is always asked to provide historical photos of what occurred on the site. The HPC will also sometimes bring that forward. He explained the site wasn't always as it looks. There was a mill in Point Hudson that was a sizeable building at one time and also buildings directly across the street from City Hall, where the park currently is located. There were some boat building facilities, some hardware storage facilities-- there used to be a row of very large buiklings right · down the waterfront in this area of Port Townsend. The history of what was there is very interesting. Mr. Robison pointed out a building, saying they did look at the orientation in the historic downtown-- that building follows the orientation in the Historic District. He pointed out another building, saying it is supposed to the former location of the Quimper . . .basically a woodshop that made all the sashes and doors in Port Townsend right around the turn of the century. That warehousewoodshop was 55' wide and 175'. The other building was 55' wide and 110'. COMMISSION QUESTIONS: · Ms. Hersey: How tall is the oil storage. . . where they were there? Mr. Crockett from the audience replied as requested by Mr. Robison: .... they were pretty tall. Mr. Arthur: Are you planning to build this entire complex all at once? Mr. Robison: In phases. 1) Site clean up next spring; 2) Reconstruction of the dock next summer (if federal permit is secured); 3) Building the facility-- for ADA reasons need to be built together (one elevator to serve both buildings, trying to minimize the cost of building). Mr. Arthur: When you have drawn this plan, this is fairly completed long range, not like tomorrows finished project -- Mr. Robison: If fund raising goes as planned, given the national economy and things outside their control, they would like to begin construction Spring 2003, opening the facility early Summer 2004. Mr. Arthur: When you remove the soil, I assume you are going to m some clean up in there. Mr. Robison replied that is correct. Mr. Arthur asked if the structure they have drawn in all the plans is based on street level today? Mr. Robison: One condition of the clean up -- because the water table is so low and some of the soil contamination goes all the way to the water table we excavate the dirty soil, truck it offsite, backfill that soil to the existing condition, then add ai' - 2' soil cap. Essentially the way these buildings have been designed, again we are at a conceptual level of design, it would be for street level grade. There is a gradual slope to the beach, and we will be adding clean fill to make that a flat surface, and it will still slope very gradually to the beach. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 October 25,2001 · · · Mr. Arthur: With the cap and everything, ends up you're at street level. Mr. Robison: At street level-- the height is 36' off street level as opposed to 30'. Mr. Harbison: To clarify, when you talk about height, you are talking about Uniform Building Code height? Mr. Robison: Correct -- The actual peaks, 40'; 39'; 44'. Ms. Hersey: The project across street has the potential of going how high? Mr. Robison: The Swan Hotel is 56 feet; the Sail 10ft 55 feet. Ms. Hersey: How much higher would it be if you have the opportunity to takethe bungalows higher? Mr. Finnie: 34 feet Mr. Joe Finnie, 536 Clay Street, Private Citizen and City Council Member Mr. Finnie is a sitting member of the Port Townsend City Council. He told the Planning Commission they need to be aware that he has advised the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Mayor that he will recuse himself from aU Council discussions and votes for the Maritime Center for the rest of his term Mr. Finnie said he was here as a citizen and he read into the record some ofhs comments (Exhibit K-ll). Subject: NW Maritime Center request to amend maximum height limitation "My family owns and operates the Swan Hotel located at 216-222 Monroe at the intersection of Water Street. Our hotel and property are located directly across Water Street from the proposed building site under discussion this evening. For the record, all of the Swan Hotel's existing units and presumably any additional suites and cottages added in the future will overlook the land owned by the NWMC. 'We have reviewed the proposal ofNWMC and the responses of other citizens and for the record, we encourage the Planning Commission to approve the request of the NWMC to amend the maximum height limitation on Block 4 of the Original Townsite from 30 to 40 feet. 'Our rationale is that the change of height limitation is needed to insure that the future facility has the flexibility to incorporate the design elements necessary to meet its mission and to provide a gateway to Point Hudson. 'My family acquired the Swm Hotel land, buildings and goodwill in 1996. The property occupies two lots on Block 45 of the Original Townsite of the City of Port Townsend, and consists of six buildings including four one story cottages and the main hotel building which includes a fill basement two levels of decked suites and a two story Penthouse, topped by a widows walk. This main hotel building was built as a conforming and vested structure meeting Commercial Zone Bulk, Dimensional and Density requirement ofPT Municipal Code whiœ specified a maximum Building Height of 50 feet ~he mathematicalformulafor 50' -- the widow's walk is actually 6' in addition to that.] 'In our assessment of the business risk associated with the purchase of the Swan property we were made aware of prior actions of the PT Planning Commission, and the PT City Council, that had consequential adverse impacts on the future growth and development potential of the Swan Hotel. 'Of particular significance was the June 6, 1990 so called "Midnight Moratorium" special meeting of the PT City Council called to "stop inappropriate development of the Thomas Oil Propertÿ'. As I now understand the product of that meeting, three actions were taken; 1. The CC imposed a six-month moratorium on all development in the Downtavn Historic District. 2. An extensive planning process was initiated, leading to the 3. December 4, 1990, adoption of the Urban Waterfront Master plan (UWP) which itself established the following 'Mandatory review by HPC using the design guidelines ofU\W for development and existing structural enhancements. 'Building height limits based on the pyramidal height overlay that resulted in down zoning the Thomas Oil suite from 50 to 30 feet and incidentally the Swan hotel property from 50 to 34 feet, and 'Initiated a planning process to resolve issues related to the future of Point Hudson and specifically the Thomas Oil property that resulted among several recommendations that the city purchase the property to insure public access and appropriate use. [He would come back to that point. Why am I saying that? One, I wanted to let you know I am credentialed to sit before you because I did my business case analysis when we bought this property, but more importantly to remind the Planning Commission members of one of the outcomes of the J 990 adoption of the Urban Waterfront Plan, a vision that this property could be used to ensure public access and appropriate public use. With that in mind, we reviewed, I took the time to review, the Maritime Center's proposal, and I even read the response of the other citizens, and lfelt some of those responses were quite appropriate. I am encouraging the Planning Commission to Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 October 25,2001 · · · approve the request of the Maritime Center to amend the maximum height limitations from 30' to 40.' Bottom line reason behind it is to ensure that this change in height limitation is needed to ensure the facility has the flexibility to incorporate the design elements needed so that it meets its mission.] 'One of the policies of the Shoreline Master Plan of 1992 established additional restrictions on use of property in the Civic District (and possibly the Point Hudson District) including elimination of condos and hotels in some sub-districts, and certain other restrictions on use. 'The PT Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1996 adopted by reference the UWP and because the UWP has height limits in the plan, it (UWP) becomes a planning document (as opposed to a height variance)?' Mr.1-ªITY Crockett, 153 McCurdy Point Rd, Port Townsend Private Citizen, Executive Director, Port of Port Townsend Ever since he became involved with the Port, and the Maritime Center project came about, they have been literally locked up with it to make sure this proceeded smoothly and with the desire that they wante<bring it to fruition and "be all that it can be" -- if he could borrow a phrase from his former life. He sat on the architectural review committee. The Port served as the government sponsor for the Department of Ecology funding for the environmental asæssment and cleanup that has already been described. The intent in the Comprehensive Plan that they are going do for Point Hudson this coming year, 2002, they intend to do whatever is possible to make Point Hudson integrate with the Maritime Center, espeåally the jetty, the walkway that the Maritime Center is going to start. They are going to pick up that architectural design, continue a boardwalk, if you will, a walkway around the marina; increase the public access-- he told Mr. Randall before their intent is to make every linear foot or beach at Point Hudson, public access that will all flow into the Maritime Center. He thinks that's the intent of the Shoreline Plan the City had from its inception. There is a lot of function this building is going to serve from conference facilities, educational facilities, the demonstration facility -- there is an enormous amount of effort trying to be crammed into a relatively small space; 14,000 sq.ft. is not a lot of building. They need all the flexibility they can get. He spoke in favor of the change from 30' to 40', hoped they put this through and passed it on to City Council. He added, one thing he noticed in the letter from Niki Clark, and he quoted from the second paragraph, it speaks of the ". . ."Platypus" situation where, if the project at hand fails to materialize, other structures could be built to the amended maximum height with minimal revieW:' She is speaking about almost 3 years ago when they changed the height limit at the Boat Haven. That \\oaS done specifically so other people could build additional buildings. It was a 5 acre area and has nothing to do with this type of situation. He just wanted to make sure that was clear. He hoped they would approve this and pass it on to City Council. Mr. David Stuart, 1215 Monroe, Port Townsend He said Mr. Randall started his comments by saying, "How does this building speak to you?' To him it says, "Massive, gigantic, out of place, warehouse, industrial, manufacturing?' He said when he sees that picture and he thinks about walking down Water Street, to him what you are seeing is a complete change in character of that part of town right now. He quoted from Niki Clark's letter, because he agrees with her very strongly, "I feel the scale of the proposed buildings, located on the waterfront, would negatively alter the character of our townscape. Arguments that other buildings far back from the waterfront (the Swan Hotel, the Sail Loft) already exceed the 30 ft. height limitation are not justification for approving another excessively tall building directly on the waterfront, especially at this end of town where the scale of structures should be grading into compatibility with the lower buildings of historic Point Hudson. Given the current configuration of our townscape, I recommend that the NMC buildings proposed for construction not exceed the 30 ft. height limitation." He agreed with that. She further said, "Not only would these buildings, if constructed as planned, alter the preferred pattern described by the "pyramidal city form;' further shifting the emphasis of the waterfront from the towrls historic center to modern architectural features on the east side (as have the condos and motels on the west side), but it would exceed the preænt height (39.5 ft.) of the historic City Hall. . . " He was confused by what Ms. Surber said when she began. She made it sound like having tall buildings would actually compliment the pyramidal plan, but to him it is just the opposite. He didnot understand how you could say, having a taller building at the end . . . Ms. Surber clarified that she started out by saying it starts 50' in the center and tapers off on either side. She noted that on the One side it is 37 feet." "Mr. Stuart inteIjected that it is quite close to the bluff -- almost against the bluff at that end of town, whereas at this end of town it is quite a distance from the bluff) Mr. Stuart went on to say, he wouldn't be opposed to a taller structure if would be, like one tower, -- or talking Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 October 25,2001 · about how tall are the old oil tanks. They were several single cylinders. What we are looking at here covers virtually all of the [Monroe Street side] and almost all of the [Monroe Street side] of that height. Its not just a few tower type structures -- it's a continual wall. When a person walks down Water Street and comes up against that, he thinks they are going to be quite shocked if this were allowed to go. He said he hopes they keep that in mind and not approve bis height change. Mr. Dana Roberts, 438 - 220d Street, Port Townsend Supported the amendment to 40' max. He said he does this because he believes the Center, so long as it follows the currently conceived workaday design demonstrated thus far, will be m ornament to that end of town, that because that unornamented character and traditionally functional structure complex will be reflective of the working waterfront that our history has lost. Thus, it is an effective, and in his mind a visually considerat neighbor, to the 1892 City Hall even if that facility, which we might all hope for, is reborn in full Victorian splendor right up to its 4th floor peaked roof. The Maritime Center, to him, thus is supportive of the pyramidal Municipal Center concept-- the Urban Waterfront and design Plan. Of course, the project should get careful and thorough scrutiny by the Historic Review Board. He said this recommendation of approval should not be conditioned by awaiting a brand new, oldtime City Hall, even thought we might all hope that we can bring it about. · Mr. Mike Kennª, Port Townsend Ancient, but still standing past member of the City Council, from 1979 - 1991. He was also the Chairman of the Urban Waterfront Plan. He said that if you ever decide toread the Urban Waterfront Plan, and humorously said he is sure they all have, it is interesting because the termination of this project really began at that time. It is very clear that the intent of this keystone piece of property-- they were never able to reach closure with the community before that; it was a wonderful opportunity for them to create a vision for the future that still lives and shall hopefully manifest itself. Mr. Kenna explained the intent was exactly what they see right here today. It's an absolute miracle that it came about that way, but it is a keystone for the Marina District as well as for the downtown. The idea of and fruitful nature of all of this -- it is hard to believe how it has come about; if s just part of the fabric of this town and it can only be through discussion like this and the clear thoughtfulness of the Planning Commission to hopefully concur to agree with the Staff and approve the height to 40'. Mr. Jon Shelton, 650 Hudson Place, Port Townsend In the absence and at the request of Bob Sokol, Mr. Shelton read Mr. Sokol's letter, entered into the record as (Exhibit K-12). "I will be unable to attend the October 25 hearing on the Northwest Maritime Center (NWMC) Comp Plan amendment so I am submitting my peoonal comments in writing. I have been a supporter of the NWMC since its inception and fully support the amendment that they have proposed. 'The NWMC, formerly the Thomas Oil Property, has had a varied past in City planning and zoning. The property was an industrial/commercial type of use and originally and logically put in the Point Hudson district in the Urban Waterfront Plan. When it was discovered that something of a Point Hudson type of use could be developed, the boundary line ran down Monroe Stretí and into Port Townsend Bay was redrawn to go easterly down Water Street and then into the bay which moved the property into the Civic District. 'A key requirement of the Civic District is that City Hall be the dominant feature in that district which reSllted in a virtually unsaleable piece of property which the City declared as the highest priority for purchase as city park land. Since that time the city has bought additional parkland but not the former Thomas Oil property. Fortunately the NWMC came along and purchased the property, and now we have asuperb use of the land that will be of enormous public benefit. 'City Hall, when restored, will certainly extend above 40 feet and still be the highest building in the Civic District. However, the most dominant building in the vicinity of the NWMC is actually the Swan Hotel. That building is in excess of 40 feet and towers far above all of the nearby buildings including the sail lofts tower and the American Legion. 'I fully support the adoption of the NWMC proposed Comp Plan amendment and, if it is in the purview of the Planning Commission, would support returning the boundary between the Civic and Point Hudson Districts back to its original location which would place NWMC in the Point Hudson District. Sincerely, Bob Sokol" · Ms. Sheila Westerman, 652 - 56th Street, Port Townsend Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 October 25,2001 · · · Was a member of the City Council with Mike Kenna when these regulations were drafted. She wanted to share the intentions behind these regulations, which was specifically to pDhibit massively large structures that covered the entire footprint of the property and raised three to four stories in the air, effectively blocking off the public from the shoreline. The city at one point tried to purchase this property in conjunction \\ith the Port and was unable to do so. She agreed with Mr. Kenna it is nothing short of a miracle that we have a nonprofit that is proposing to put a structure on this facility that will benefit every single person sitting in this room at some point in tæ future that harks back to the DeLeo building, from which she used to go and buy hardware when she first moved to Port Townsend. She was very sorry it torn down. She feels the structure provides a beautiful between Point Hudson and the Historic Distict and that the design has taken cues from so many well-intended and very talented people in this community. She is very grateful that were all willing to spend their time to go to these halfday meetings so we could come up with a plan that would serve everyone, and actually boats to be built for demonstration projects in that building. She encouraged the Planning Commission to support this amendment and to recognize how important this is for the community to move forward. Ms. Jean Camfielg, 538 Calhoun Street, Port Townsend One of the ancient City Councilmembers whot served on that same Council with Mike Kenna and Sheila Westerman. At the time that process went through, the things (you have probably seen this) that came forward that were proposed for that property, as Ms. Westerman said, took the entire footprint of that property. There was nothing left of that property that was going to be public access; it took every square inch of it. There were several proposals. The reason that whole process started was the public outcry of, "Our waterfront is gone; we have no waterfront left. We will not be able to be on that beach as we have been historically;' Those of you who have been around for a while remember how tall those oil structures were;much higher than this will be. They went through a tremendous public process, and the public said to them they want to be able to get their beaches; they want to have public access; they want not to be shut off from their waterfront. As Mr. Kenna and M. Westerman said, if they could have probably sat down and designed something the public wanted, and that they dreamed of at that time, it would have been this project. This project gives something to everyone; it is a community space again; it is public access. Everyone in Port Townsend will benefit by this. With the Port property coming back into the public process, too, it has the potential for that whole area being compatible and related to our maritime past. She really encouraged the Planning CommBsion to pass this amendment and to change from 30' to 40'. Mr. David King, 1005 Fir, Port Townsend Member of the Board, Northwest Maritime Center; Chief Financial Office, Townsend Bay Marine, at the other end of town; has been a director and board member for Wooden Boat School, for the Wooden Boat Foundation and was on the design committee before this Maritime Center. He wanted to quickly discuss a bit of evolution of the design. They were acutely aware of their position with respect throughout the town when they started. The original layout of the design had the bshape; (he pointed out the locations of the original L' s) when they fIrst looked at it. They thought of themselves as part of downtown, and somehow were talking of managing the transition œtween Point Hudson and downtown. One of their early revelations was turning it the 90 degrees and opening up the area of the beach, and the jetty and becoming more a part of the Point Hudson area. The other part was the revelation you have already spdœn of, where they went to the HPC with the preliminary design -- where the building (he pointed out) is pretty much where it is now. The Resource Building was more of a downtown building, character..... They were encouraged by HPC to go ahead and emlrace the fact this is a Maritime Center and part of the maritime heritage. He encouraged them to look at this not as the end of Water Street. This is the beginning of Water Street-- the end of the water and the beginning of the land. If this place is developed and utilized properly, people will discover Port Townsend in both directions. They will come down Water Street going through the main access created for the area and will discover our water heritage through the Maritime Center. They will also dscover Port Townsend through the Maritime Center coming by water. That will be the consequence of having this facility, the developing facility and redevelopment of Point Hudson in this area. Mr. King said he has been in marine trades in this town sincethe 1970s. It is extremely important to him. This is one of the key elements of reclaiming the Port in Port Townsend. He said he thinks this will work for us forever. Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 October 25,2001 · · · Ms. Norma Owsley. 914 N Street, Port Townsend Was also a member of that same City Council when those regulations were drawn up She also worked at Thomas Oil, down in that office for 20 years, now Puget Sound Express, and that, frankly, she is thrilled at this design. She sat in on many presentations by the Nothwest Maritime Center and knows what they went through to get a design that was right for the property. She thinks what they came up with is wonderful. Those peaks -- it's not solid at the 40' height, as you know. They did go to the Historic Preservatim Committee, worked with them, and took their recommendations into effect when they drew this and changed it many times. She thinks what is so good is that it opens up that space to the public. She used to think of it as her private beach down there -- but to have it open for the whole public; the way the design opens it up. The best thing, the dock is going to be used; she never thought it would be. You know how hard it is to keep a dock viable nowadays; we used to have docks all along the waterfront This one this way -- that dock is going to be available to be used. She thinks that is one of the best things. Another thing, she does not think it detracts from City Hall at all. City Hall has that park across there that needs that open space, that will always be there. This is going to draw people down to that end of town, which it didrlt before. Even with Point Hudson down there, it didn't. This is a site that will draw people to that whole area down there, instead of the other end of town, open it all up. She thinks that is wonderful. She urged the Commission to go on with the 40' recommendation. She expressed appreciation for their patience. Mr. James A. Jacobson, 705 R Street, Port Townsend -- President, Board of Trustees, Wooden Boat Foundation This is truly an exciting concept. He has watched this intensive planning process evolve over the last months with a great deal of input for the community and from all of the players Mr. Robison mentioned. His concern is, as a member of the Wooden Board Foundation Board and as an occupant of this facility, in proposing and operating programs for our youth and our community, as beautiful as this and even though it is a conceptual design, this has to work. It has to be able to functionally house the kinds of programs and the operations that are envisioned for the community in terms as water access, onthe-water programs, etc. He said having said that, stating his concern for the function that has to be housed here, he really urged the Planning Commission to propose to the City Council and support the recommended amendment that provides the flexibility to continue with the design process to make sure this wonderful conceptreallv works. Ms. Carol Hasse, Owner of Port Townsend Sails, occupant of the Sail Loft She could echo the sentiments of almost every speaker here this evening in saying what a grand project she thinks this, but, that while she wasn't on the City Council, she was quite involved with this great idea. . . She went to say she just returned from the East Coast, Bristol, Rhode Island, which is the home of. ... .. ., a beautiful, charming little town that has, much to her amazement, very similar buildings to what is being proposed here, that are part of the . . . Museum, that original building site. .. She also visited Newport where the International Boat School of Restoration is and stood on a platform overlooking the restoration of wooden boats, similar to what is proposed here. Her heart swelled with pride, thinking we can be doing, hopefully will be doing, something like this in our community in the future. She spoke in favor of raising the height for this particular piece of property. Ms. Hollv Mavshark, P.O. Box 100, Chimacum, Business Owner, Holly's Flowers, downtown Port Townswd On the Board of the Maritime Center. She said it has been an amazing process. The design has come out in such a wonderful way, so many people included in it, and so much work going into every facet of it. There will always be issues in every projet, but this has so much going for it. It will just be another great gem . . . She asked for the Commission to support the amendment. Ms. Lisa Vizzin, 1201 Weson Street Port Townsend Has a marine business with her family at the other end of town, Port Townsend Rigging. Last year they built the building at that end of town. .. It istit as tall or as big as the Maritime Center would be; it is 5,600 sq. ft. and houses three very small marine-trades businesses -- and it isn't big enough. If it needed to have a boat inside the building, which it does not, it would need to be much wider and much taller. As a practical person, she urged the Commission to understand, that to make this building work, it needs to have a volume to accommodate its uses. It lBs been designed, conceptually designed, to be as fitting with its use and as beautiful for its use as the people who designed it could hope for. Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 October 25,2001 · She urged Commission's support. Mr. Pete Helsell, 4531 S. Discovery Road, Port Townsend Port Townsend resident, and staff member of Northwest Maritime Center Said it goes without saying, he is very much in support of this request for the height amendment. His staff position for the Northwest Maritime Center is Capital Campaign Manager. From his perspectile in that capacity he thinks he is pretty well tuned in to the community support and the level of community support that exists for this project. He said they have heard overwhelming support here tonight from various members of the community, and from his perspective they have incredibly overwhelming support in this community for this project. He asked, why are they supportive -- because from the start they were part of the community design process and they know the benefit this facility provides to them, to everyone in this community, and they know this design incorporates their wishes. In response to the one negative voice, he said when he talks about the old fuel tanks not being as massive or as horrible as this structure is, from his recollection 1hey were not single towers; they had a big wooden walkway, he believed, that extended the height of the towers and width of those tanks. To him that was a much more unsightly picture than what they are looking at here. He, like others, thanked Commission for their time and listening to his comments. He encouraged them to support this proposal. Mr. David Stuart -- (spoke again, for clarification) There has been a lot of positive comment about the Northwest Maritime Center. He thinks the concept theyare talking about, what they want to do for the town, is outstanding. He is very supportive of what they say they would like to do -- except for the size of the complex. He did not think they need buildings this massive to accomplish what they want to 00. He also wanted to clear up the last comment. He did not mean to say he liked looking at the oil tanks. What he was trying to convey was, you have a long length of building at a significantly high height. The oil tanks, although they may have been crnnected by a walkway, were interspersed. They were not a solid mass. He did not find them · more attractive. He hoped no one thought that. At 9:30 p.m. Chair Harbison closed public testimony on Amendment #9 and opened Commission Discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: · Chair Harbison asked if any of them had questions of either members of the public or Staff. Mr. Irvin: Asked of Staff regarding the comment, getting it back into the Point Hudson District-- what does that involve? Mr. Randall: His interpretation is, one map does show it inthe Point Hudson District-- the Urban Waterfront Plan. The other map, adopted as part of the Shoreline Master Program, shows it as Civic District. Since that would require an amendment to the Shoreliœ Master Program, he did not believe they could do that at this time, but he did not think that was necessary, because the Civic District references in the Shoreline Master Plan are really reflective of the same policies that apply to the whole Urban Waterfront District. He reiterated he did not think it was a necessity at this point. He said they are in the first stage of amending this, but it will take a couple of years to do it. It is a good point; he did not think it would affect the design or the gúdelines that are applied to this project because those things come from this Plan which shows them in the Point Hudson District. Mr. Arthur: Said he was not on the City Council, but said he knows why all this happened; he was involved in trying to stop it from happening then, and is still a little bit miffed about why it happened. But on the other hand, he thinks this project is really what so many people have talked about-- their vision, and their dream, etc. So, he goes along with the use of the property in this particular way. He expressed concern about the letters they received that are concerned about the height. They received not just one, but several. He remembered in the discussions that made this little jog in the Civic District, that manypeople came forward, just like this group here, and said, the height of those buildings-- we've got to protect the views from Morgan Hill, from Sarnmamish Slough, from everywhere else. That was part of the discussion that went on; he did not think that had changed any. He thinks there are some people out there still that have concerns about the bulk and scale of this particular project, and the height. The gentleman that did discuss that is one of the few that came, but there were some letters that we read. They should discuss what is the appropriate height. If there is a change-- Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 October 25,2001 · · · whether 40 feet, whether you can trust if that design you see in front of you is going to be the fmal, fmaJ.- that it isn't going to be 40 feet, because the way they calwlate the height it could still end up being 55 feet high. We just have to think about what we want to see there, what we think people want to see there in the future. He was concerned about raising the entire height over the whole piece of property, rot that he would say they couldn't change their minds later, but this is the concept; ifs not the fmal design. Having built those, having built buildings that were 24' on the sidewall, putting lots of boats inside and walking around. . . So, once you mrt going up higher, i.e., the Fleet building -- that's a nice facility, but that building is actually closer to 50' the way you measure a building. It's a very useful building-- and it may be we think some of those buildings in the facility would be better suited having it higher than 40' permitted height. He said he is not sure that he is convinced we shouldn't put some restrictions on percentage of buildings that go over a certain height, or that a certain section of the property could be a certain height, other sections would be lower. He said they could draw that line anywhere they want it. It has happened before. He said taking his past irritation out of his comments, he really believes that there are people in the community that don't want to see those buildings the full height, and we should listen to them also, even though they are not here, consider their issues and their concerns. Maybe there is another way to do it, other than what we have been presented with here. Chair Harbison explained the Commission for their workshop several weeks ago received those letters and that input. Ms. Hersey: Spoke of the first presentation where they showed what this conceptual idea was going to be, and discussed then as they did tonight, clarifying he reasons why they came to that height-- the purpose of it being able to go inside the building, also have some meeting rooms on top. She asked if they could get a little more clarification as to why they didn't need to go up any higher, or why they netded to go up to 40 feet? Chair Harbison called on Mr. Robison to respond. Mr. Robison: Thought it was important to realize that the actual height of the building to its eave is 28'. He said you could have a flat roof over it at 30', but the desßn elements that are really important to make it work, to be as fully integrated into the Point Hudson District is one of the major objectives of this design. Functionally, they also heard that it would work better if they had these pop-ups; we are not going up to 40' these are pop-ups that go up to 40' but it's not the whole section of the building. Chair Harbison asked Mr. Robison to speak to the use of the building as related to the height of the building. Mr. Robison: The raise of height, the pop-up is for natural ventihition, natural sunlight to keep the cost down on long-term operation and maintenance, as well as a function of. . . on this particular building. He pointed to the other building and stated that up here it is much more a worNng boat repair facility, and, again, it is largely a design element that allows natural ventilation coming in. What they have there is a boat building bay that is about 30' wide and 90' long, but the truss is about 18'. To get the slope in the roof, andto put the glass story on, so you get the natural light going all the way into the boat building area, is one of the design features that really necessitates the height. Mr. David King, (made clarification) One of the design features in this luilding, he pointed it out and said these areas can be configured flexibly; each can be partitioned off, or can opened up and be used as a continuous space. The dividing walls go up into the clear story area. That is one of the reasons. Ms. Hersey: Would you ever have a reason to go up any further? Mr. David King: No. This is a boat shop; we need space for boats -- designed, the main bay, and the rest. . . Member of Audience: It's only one building though, for building boats, not the whole conplex, right? Mr. King: That's correct. Member of Audience: So, the whole complex area. . .? Mr. King: Said he is only speaking for the design of the one he wanted to clarify. Mr. Arthur: Asked Mr. King to point out that building. Mr. King: Pointed to it and said, these rooms can be configured as one long area or divided up into separate areas for workshop, educational programs, part of the conference center. He said one of the things you dorlt see Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 October 25,2001 · · · from the way this has been presented is the walkVlaY -- the walkway that goes between the buildings that links the buildings down here, down the building and across. He showed the view from the water and said, one of the things that links the element's design together is what you will mostly see when youare using the facilities, this walkway. The flexibility of the design allows us to stage events, or programs, or conferences by utilizing portions of this building, or. He indicated where he is going to spend most of his time is looking at things goingon down below. That is how the place is going to be, so that it can host a variety of activities that the community is interested in. Mr. Robison: To reiterate one more point he thought was important, when they went to HPC this had a flat roof (he pointed it out). It was about 31' - 32' and the reason functionally for that was they needed meeting rooms with high ceilings. When you have a meeting room where you might have 150 people, you need to have a ceiling that is something like that because of the depth of the meeting room. They knew they were exceeding the height limit of 30' by probably 2', because we were still looking at that conceptual design. Then HPC said not to do a flat roof because it doesn't really fit into the tradition of a warehouse building or a maritime building, and you want to have a gable roof. What they came up with was a compromise that really reflects historic maritime buildings, not only in Port Townsend but in the Northwest, a partially gabled roof with these pop-ups. So, it is not a very massive roof structure. Mr. Harbison: Asked (in a different drawing), what other functions does that height serve in the construction area? For example, what is he seeing off the beam-- What is the intent of the block and tackle? Mr. King: Replied it would be on the lift up on the lower bay. Mr. Robison: There is a crane to bring boats into this. Mr. Harbison: And the block and tackle is to lift Mr. King: Follows up into. . . Mr. Randall: Can be raised right up into there, and used for display. . . Mr. Harbison: That is part of the function of the height. Mr. Robison: One thing, this can be utilized by the Wooden Boat Foundation for some of their hands-on youth mentorship. The idea is to be able to pick up a small boat and put it in the classroom area. Mr. Harbison: So, that is a part of the function of the height, that portion of the building? Member of Audience: That is the one building, right? Mr. Harbison. Replied, yes, just for the process here. He said that is also his question, but it is not appropriate from the audience. Mr. Harbison said if he understands, yes, this is the construction building. Mr. Robison: Said this is the Maritime Education Building, the one closest to the Point Hudson marina; the other building is what they call Maritime Heritage and Resource Building. Mr. Harbison: The Maritime Heritage and Resource Building does not have boat construction in it? Mr. Robison: It does not have boat construction, but it does have a fairly high ceiling forcommunity meetings. That is one of its functions. Mr. Arthur: Asked Mr. Robison, if part of the driver for you all to be looking at this height thing was discussions with the HPC? Mr. Robison said that was correct. Mr. Arthur asked, so you found it aœquate in your initial plan to have 31' on those buildings closest to Monroe Street? Mr. Robison: Replied that their original designs for this building had a flat roof; 32'. Mr. Arthur: So, that was working for your plan? Mr. Robison: It was working from a functional point of view, but it didn't incorporate some of the design elements, and when they began to really look at making it compatible and integrating it with the other building, based on the input from HPC they realized that a gabled roofwib the pop-ups, or the clear stories, was a better course of action, that they found by doing some investigation there were additional benefits in terms of natural sunlight, ventilation, and those kind of things. Mr. Arthur: So, if the public and other people might be concerned if they raised the height limit to 40' on the whole piece of property, that somewhere in these public meetings you are having, design meetings, etc., HPC might decide to raise the buildings even higher than they are in this presentáion. Mr. Robison: Said he understands your concern. While this is conceptual, they have invested a lot of money in this design, and they are ready to go into schematic design to make it work. Mr. Hersey: She asked for clarification so they could get a feeling of, if there was any reason why they needed go any higher-- putting on a third story, or whatever. Mr. Robison: We are building a two-story building, and trying to make sure it is fully integrated with the design as recommended by HPC. Mr. Arthur: He thinks he understands how you can build buildings around those measurements. He said the point he is getting at is we have heard from people tonight who are all in favor of this project, and he is happy the project is going in; he likes the project himself. The point he is trying to make, there are other people in the Planning Commission Minutes Page 23 October 25,2001 · · · community who have voiced over time concerns about bulk and scale. He said what comes to mind is that maybe the HPC has one idea, and the people in the commurity have two or three other ideas. So, can we incorporate this one, or should we be harmful enough to your project to say keep the height at 35' on part of it. It seemed to him that when he reads their numbers that you are really only asking for 34' in hat building. Mr. Robison: Again, the way you measure under the Port Townsend code, from the peak is 39', take the difference between that and the 28', split it and the average is 36'. Mr. Arthur: You need 36'? Mr. Robison: For this building. This is conceptual level, then you go schematic level. It may go up some; it may go down some, it's not going up 5' or 10'. One of our architects is here and I could ask if he concurs on that. Likewise on this building, the only thing that really intrudes pastthe 40' height limit is the little tower, and that was a design feature to try to be more compatible with the Sail Loft. Mr. Irvin: Said he is comfortable with the proposed height change for a couple of reasons: 1) as Ms. Surber described, it's not out of character with the overall plan. . . and the buildings in that area; he thought they talked about that in the previous workshop; 2) also, because we are talking about 1.4 acres, and as it has been presented here, it looks like no more than 25 or 30 pelCent of the 1.4 is going to be scribeable to the building footprint. When you take the architectural style of the building, even the lighted top areas are the only ones that are going to be exceeding that 30 or 35' height limit. He said he is very comfortable with the recommendation. Ms. Hersey: She said she thinks this is a great thing, and she is really proud to be on a Planning Commission that -- She said she wants to make a recommendation. MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Hersey Recommend they approve this amendment to raise the height from 30 to 40 feet Mr. Irvin Unanimous, 4 in favor Ms. Surber asked Mr. Robison to bring the exact exhibits to Council, and, if he could, let her know how they relate to the applications. Anything that wasn't in the original application, ifhe could provide her with a copy. Chair Harbison asked what other pieces there are, the Findings and Conclusions from this evening. Mr. Randall indicated the Planning Commission has acted upon all the amendments. At the last meting you decided to have that hearing continue until the 30th to finalize the Findings and Conclusions from those items. Ms. Surber stated that with both Staff Reports she has given the Planning Commission she has provided BCD's Recommendation and suggested Findings and Conclusions. She said that hopefully they had a chance to review those. For those where Staff and the Planning Commission were in agreement, she thinks they should go ahead and look at those Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Surber said she had a housekeeping item-- She would like to hear a motion to change Table 4-2, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, to reflect acreage changes they made with the recommended zoning changes (Exhibit K-2). Mr. Randall said this would merely be a motion to have that table reflect the rezone changes. MOTION Mr. Irvin Recommend City Council Change Table 4-2 (Exhibit K-2) to reflect and be consistent with rezone changes SECOND Ms. Hersey Discussion: Mr. Arthur questioned if they had changed P-I. Mr. Randall said they made a recommendation to Council, not to change that one. Ms. Surber said it would not be as shown here, but that you are recommending Council to change that table. VOTE UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor Chair Harbison asked if they were going to address Findings and Conclusions for all issues on the 30th? Ms. Surber said they would like to go through Findings and Conclusions from tonight. Mr. Irvin asked if they wanted them to point out where they disagree with Staff. Mr. Surler concurred. Mr. Randall explained it is so they can modify them and have them ready for vote and signature October 30th. Ms. Surber indicated they are based exactly on the code criteria. Planning Commission Minutes Page 24 October 25,2001 · · · Amendment #6 -- Resolve Zoning of US West Facility on Lawrence Street Findings and Conclusions MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Arthur Approve the Findings and Conclusions for Amendment #6 as presented. Mr. Irvin UNANIMOUS, 4 in favor Amendment #7 = Resolve Zoning Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discovery Findings and Conclusions Mr. Irvin questioned Tier 1. Mr. Randall said Tier 1 means it is an area that is closest to existing water, sewer and street facilities. Mr. Irvin asked if it was on the overlay they were shown. Mr. Randall replied, no am he pointed out the approximate location. Mr. Irvin then asked regarding the word"immitigablè' in Paragraph f. Ms. Hersey asked the defmition oflow-density in Paragraph e. Ms. Surber replied R-I and R-II. Ms. Hersey asked what if a barn wanted to go in right next to an R-II. Does that mean you wouldn't want it or allow it? It was pointed out this is an existing policy, not something they are creating. Mr. Randall said in Roll it wouldn't be allowed but adjacent would be fine. Ms. Surber asked why wouldn't they allow it in R-III. Mr. Randall replied they do not want their multi-family eaten up with farms. It was determined to hold the motion for more work on these recommendations, findings and conclusions. MOTION, Amendment #7 -- WITHHELD UNTIL IO/30th Amendment #8 = Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279. Eisenbeis Addition Findings and Conclusions Added Thompson and Amell. Bullet I, last line -- change requires to requested MOTION, Amendment #8 - WITHHELD UNTIL I0/30th Formal Amendment -- Northwest Maritime Center Height Amendment Findings and Conclusions MOTION Mr. Irvin Accept as presented SECOND Ms. Hersey Discussion. Mr. Randall answered Ms. Hersey, that the Urban Waterfront Plan applies. The height overlay appears in the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Zoning Code and they will fix both of those if the Council decides in favor. VOTE UNANIMOUS 4, IN FAVOR Ms. Surber stated that on the 30th they will have to bring Findings and Conclusions for Amendments #7 and #8, and also for #3, #4 and #5. Mr. Randall said ideally they will plan to have the ftxes made, and whatever minutes are ready by Monday, and have Commissioners pick up packets at BCD. There was· discussion regarding the schedule for minutes and future neetings. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 30,2001, 7:00 p.m. -- to complete actions and approve minutes VIII. COMMUNICA nONS -- there were none. Planning Commission Minutes Page 25 October 25, 2001 . . - IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Hersey and seconded by Mr. Irvin. Allwere in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10: 1 0 p.m. The meeting was continued to October 30, 2001, 7:00 p.m. to fmalize Findings and Conclusions on Amendments #7 and #8. EXHffiITS FROM THIS MEETING: Amendment #6 -- Zoning of US West Land Use Map -- Acreage Within Each Land Designation Amendment #7 -- Abundant Life, Defmitions Proposed Amended Use Table 17.16.020, Residential Zoning Districts Letter from Willared 1. Gariss regarding Amendment #7, October 24,2001 Letter from Dr. Niki R. Clark, October 10,2001 Letter from Jeff Thompson regarding Amendment #8, Exhibit K-l Exhibit K-2 Exhibit K-3A Exhibit K-3B Exhibit K-4 Exhibit K-5 Exhibit K-6 Exhibit K-7 Exhibit K-8 Photographs Northwest Maritime Center Exhibit K-9 Exhibit K-10Measurements Northwest Maritime Center Exhibit K-ll Letter of testimony, Joseph Finnie, October 25,2001 Exhibit K-12 Letter of testimony, Robert Sokol, October 23,2001 Planning Commission Minutes Page 26 October 25,2001 · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Port Townsend Planning Commission Purpose: Open Record Public Hearing: Comp Plan Amendments: #6, #7, #8, and #9 Date: October 25,2001 Name (please print) Address Testimon ? Yes No i¿)í L L. 0;1-111$> /(¿¿ - ....., ..J æ r¡NtJ II::::- Á~L7LO I<ow '2. -z.. z.c:; t-.J. s (p)\\ <:, w~ v · Larr- C/'~c'¡e~ .. be) lis v- ~ V / I / (....-- ~ ~ · . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Amendments: Date: Port Townsend Planning Commission Open Record Public Hearing: Comp Plan #6. #7. #8. and #9 October 25. 2001 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No --J.~~~ ,A J Pr~~'\ LPS- í2 ¥r Pc ,;K ,,( lilz:. /l;dr.,¿/ <'¡~J , .(: ~.I' ¡Z¿ / { · · · City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development W aterman- Katz. Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 October 17, 2001 for October 25 Hearing ~ Port Townsend Planning Commission \ Jeff Randall, BCD Director ; Judy Surber, Senior Planner Subject: 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update - Staff Recommendations (Part II) Date: To: From: **Quasi-judicial Amendments** Information provided he¡:ein supplements the materials provided for the workshops held on August 9th, September 20th and September 27th. Please bring all the materials with you to the hearing. Amendment #6 - Resolve Zonin2 of US West Facilitv on Lawrence Street Description of the Suggested Amendment: The US West Facility on Lawrence Street is defined as a "Public Utility" under the definitions provided in Chapter 17.08 of the PTMC. Prior to the adoption of the 1997 zoning code, public utilities were permitted outright in all zoning designations. With adoption of the new Plan and zoning code, the site was zoned C-III, Historic Commercial (Exhibit G, 4A) and public utilities were not listed within the use tables. Uses not specifically identified in the tables are prohibited; thus, the US West facility is considered a legal, nonconforming use. A revision to the zoning and/or land use tables will be necessary to allow improvements and/or expansion of the facility. BCD Recommendation: Keep the C-III zoning and define the use as a Telephone Exchange Amend the PTMC, Section 17.08.060, Definitions (page 17-32.2), as depicted on Exhibit K-l. Add telephone exchange to Table 17.20.020, Commercial Zoning Districts -, Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses as a permitted use within the C-II, C-II (H), C-III zoning districts (Exhibit K-1, Table 17.20.020 as amended). DiscussionlRationale: The use is not well defined in our code. Currently, the best fit that we have is "Public Utility". This is an extremely broad definition. The applicant's suggested definition; "telephone exchange", more accurately describes the use. Telephone exchange facilities should be added to the table and allowed in all commercial districts save the C- I, Neighborhood Commercial district that contains less than three acres. BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 2 · Current zoning of the site is suitable. The US West/Qwest facility is compatible with the current C-III zoning district and adjacent R-II zoning district. It is neither necessary nor desirable to insert a P-I zoning district on this parcel. Suggested Findings & Conclusions: a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, however, b. New information has been made available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. Specifically, it has been brought to the city's attention that adoption of the 1997 zoning code rendered the US West facility a legal non-conforming use; and c. The proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values in that it provides for the location of telephone exchange facilities that provide a public servIce. · d. The proposal meets concurrency requirements and would not result in probable significant adverse impacts to infrastructure or place a burden upon service capabilities. The proposal will bring an existing facility into conformance with the zoning code and allow for similar uses in the commercial zoning districts. Telephone exchanges do not place a high demand on infrastructure or services. e. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. For example, the amendment is consistent with the goal to provide adequate public services and utilities to address current needs and growth and development (Goal 12 of the Land Use Element and Goal 1 of the Capital Facilities Element). f. Commercial Districts are suitable locations for siting of telephone exchanges. These districts are located in areas of higher intensity land uses and accommodate similar public uses (e.g. municipal improvements, minor recycling facilities). g. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term interests of the community in general. Providing for telephone exchanges is a necessary step in ensuring that public utilities exist to meet existing and planned growth. · h. The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, which are the bases of the comprehensive plan and would not materially affect the BCD Recommendation (Part II) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 3 · adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. The proposal is a step towards ensuring that adequate services are provided to meet projected growth and planned land uses. i. The city is required by GMA to address location of public utilities. Capital facilities and utilities represent the infrastructure, or foundation, of a community and are integral to accommodating growth. Amendment #7 Resolve Zonin2 of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discoverv Description of the Suggested Amendment: Abundant Life Seed Foundation leases 2.5 acres of land off Discovery Road that is currently zoned P-I, Public Infrastructure (Exhibit G-6). The property, owned by Mr. William Gariss, has been zoned P-I (Public· Infrastructure) for over 15 years (Exhibit G-7, Zoning 1984-1996). Prior to adoption of the 1997 zoning code, crop and tree farming including the sale of products raised on the premises was permitted in the P- I zoning district. Under the 1997 zoning code, the use was no longer permitted in the P- I zoning district. The P-I zoning district is typically applied to land under public ownership, which is used to provide public utilities, facilities, and services. The subject property is in private ownership and cannot be used for public purposes without the City exercising its power of eminent domain. · Abundant Life would like to have the zoning and/or use tables amended to allow agricultural uses as well as classroom, office space, and housing for farm workers/apprentices (Exhibit G, 8). BCD Recommendation: Amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps to rezone the following properties to R-II: 2.5- acre Abundant Life property (Tax parcel 45) and abutting Tax Parcel 5 to the north (Tax parcel 5 is a .54 acre strip ofland owned by Jefferson County, currently used as the 27th Street right-of-way). This zoning district allows housing, community supported agriculture and concession stands as permitted uses. Amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Table IV-I, Land Use Designations-Suggested Uses, Densities & building Heights, to reflect the change in P-I and R-II acreages (Exhibit K-2). Amend the municipal code definition of "community supported agriculture" to allow educational offerings and farmer/apprentice housing and add a definition for "community agricultural center"(See Exhibit K-3). Add "community agricultural center" to Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses, as a Conditional Use in the R-I and R-II zoning districts (Exhibit K-3). · DiscussionlRationale In regards to the rezone, given that the land is held in private ownership and no public service is based on the site, the existing P-I zoning district is not appropriate. The proposed R-II zoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning and uses and best meets the needs stated by the current tenant of the land (i.e., Abundant Life). BCD Recommendation (Part ll) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 4 · A farm ordinance overlay was not used due to the recent Supreme Court Decision, City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. In that case, the Court held that the City could not designate agricultural land within a UGA unless it first enacts a transfer of development program (TDR) (or purchase of development rights as per RCW 35.70A060(A)). We do have policy that would allow the city to use TDRs to protect natural resources: Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element: Protect natural resource lands, archaeological properties, and environmentally sensitive areas through public and private initiatives, such as: open space tax incentives; cluster development; PUDs; transfer or purchase of development rights; public land acquisition; dedication of City owned tracts and street rights of way; conservation easements; landowner compacts; soliciting donations of land; down zoning; limiting the amount of lot coverage; and best management practices in development. · However, we do not currently have a TDR program adopted in our Municipal Code. The Commission could recommend that adoption of a TDR program be pursued. Since policy already exists within the Comprehensive Plan, the process could take place outside ofthe annual comprehensive plan update. Drafting of a TDR ordinance would involve identification of receiving zones, areas that would be eligible to receive the transfer. SEP A review of the TDR ordinance would be required. The task would require significant time investment on the part of BCD staff and the Planning Commission. Proposed revisions to the PTMC text (i.e., amendments to the definitions) are intended to support continuation offarming in Port Townsend and promote farms as a community resource. This proposal is consistent with the Community Direction Statement, which emphasizes "a small town atmosphere and a strong sense of community". Suggested Findings & Conclusions: a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; and assumptions upon which the Port Townsend comprehensive plan is based are still valid, however, b. New information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. It has been brought to the city's attention that privately held land has been zoned "public". Furthermore, adoption of the 1997 zoning code rendered the existing use of the site as legal non-conforming. · c. The proposed amendment reflects current widely held community values. This proposal is consistent with the Community Direction Statement, which emphasizes "a small town atmosphere and a strong sense of community". BCD Recommendation (part II) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 5 · d. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation, sewer, and water, and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services, such as police, fire and emergency medical services, park services, and general government services. The proposed rezone involves approximately 2.5 acres ofland within Tier 1 of an urban growth area. e. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan; specifically, Policy 2.3 of the Land Use Element which reads "Continue to encourage agricultural uses in the least developed portions of town by allowing certain agricultural uses outright in low-density residential areas. Specify allowable agricultural uses in revisions to the zoning code. " · f. The proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the city's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. The intent of the proposed text amendments is to allow the continuation of agricultural uses in the low-density residential zones. Rezoning of the 2.5-acre parcel could, however, allow for up to 21 new residences. Even with a 21-unit development, significant immitigable impacts are not anticipated. The site is located within Tier 1 of an urban growth area where infrastructure and services are concentrated. It is a relatively flat site unencumbered by environmentally sensitive areas. In regards to transportation, the site fronts Discovery Road, a major collector. g. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. See finding f, above. h. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term interests of the community in general. The P-I zoning district is typically only applied to land under public ownership, which is used to provide public utilities, facilities, and services. The subject property is in private ownership and cannot be used for public purposes without the City exercising its power of eminent domain. The proposed R-II zoning is consistent with that of adjacent properties to the north and east. Additional P-I zoning to the south is appropriate given its current use as cemetery. Land zoned P-I to the west is under County ownership. · I. The proposed action does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, which are the bases of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning of the 2.5 acre Abundant BCD Recommendation (part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 6 · Life parcel could, allow for up to 21 new residences. Twenty-one residences would not be expected to materially affect the land use and growth projections of the plan. J. Rezoning the Abundant Life parcel would not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall area of the city. The area to be rezoned involves approximately 2.5 acres that could be developed with approximately 21 residences. The site is located in Tier 1 where urban facilities and services are concentrated. k. No provisions 0 the GMA or County -wide Planning Policy conflict with the proposed rezoning of this privately held parcel from P-I, public infrastructure, to R- II, single-family residential. Amendment #8 - Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279. Eisenbeis Addition Description of the Suggested Amendment: The proposal involves a possible rezone of one or more of the fourteen lots in blocks 278 & 279 of Eisenbeis Addition. The site is generally located between Sims Way & Third Street and between Hancock and Hendricks Streets (Exhibit G-I0). Currently the area is zoned R-II, single-family residential. Prior to the 1996 land use and zoning changes associated with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, portions of the site were zoned commercial (Exhibit G-l1). The proposal is to revisit the zoning, and where · appropriate, rezoning parcels C- II, General Commercial. There are several structures on these two blocks that have long housed businesses (Loompanics, old driver's license office, and the frame shop all on Sherman Street). BCD Recommendation Amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps to rezone the following properties to C-II Lot s 7 and 8 of Block 278 and the south ~ of vacated 4th Street Lot 1 of Block 279 and the south ~ of vacated 4th Street Lot 8 of Block 279 and the south ~ of vacated 4th Street (Please refer to Exhibits G-l 0, 11; and 18 as revised October 16, 2001, copy attached). A large color copy of the proposed zoning will be available at the Hearing. Amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Table IV-I, Land Use Designations- 5'uggested Uses, Densities & building Heights, to reflect the change in P-I and R-II acreages (Exhibit K-2). · DiscussionlRationale · South ~ of Lot 7, Block 278 - This vacant lot is bordered by existing businesses to the north and C-II property to the east. The parcel is less than 5, 000 square feet in size and therefore, does not meet the minimum lot size for the C-II zoning district nor the R-II zoning districts (i.e., it is less than 5,000 square feet). The BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 7 . owner of the commercial buildings to the north, states that the lot is used to access his buildings. · Lot 8, Block 278 and the south 1;2 of vacated 4th Street; and the north 1;2 of Lot 7- These parcels were zoned C-II prior to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Structures on-site are commercial in nature and have been operated as businesses since before 1996. The parcels directly abut C-II zoning to the north and east. Both property owners have requires C-II zoning (Amell and Vane). · Lot 1 of Block 279 and the south 1;2 of vacated 4th Street - This parcel was zoned C-II prior to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. A business, Loompanics, had been established prior to 1996 and continues to be in operation. It is adjacent to the C- II zone. A representative of the business stated that they wish to have the property zoned C- II. · Lot 8 of Block 279 and the south Yz of vacated 4th Street - This parcel was split- zoned prior to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan (S 1;2 of vacated 4th and N Ih of Lot 8 were zoned C-II; and the S 1;2 of Lot 8 was zoned R-II). It directly abuts the C-II zone to the north and an existing business (Loompanics) to the east. The owner, Ms. Loch would like to see the parcel zoned C-II (Exhibit G-19). . Staff does not recommend extending the C- II zoning further south, due to the presence of an established single-family residential neighborhood. Owners of these residences have expressed opposition to rezoning of Blocks 278 & 279 (Exhibit G-12). Suggested Findings and Conclusions: a. Circumstances related to the use of the land have not changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the assumptions upon which the Plan are based are still valid; however, b. Existing land uses may not have been identified during the comprehensive rezone of the city and thus, the fact that businesses exist on portions of Blocks 278 and 279 may present new information, which was not previously considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. c. The community values consistency between zoning and existing uses which were legally established. Amending the zoning is appropriate and necessary to eliminate the conflict between the zoning and existing commercial uses, which encumber the majority of the lots proposed for rezoning. e d. The proposed rezone affects a limited area, the majority of which is already developed with commercial businesses. Infrastructure to the lots already exists and BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 8 · thus, the proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation, sewer, and water, and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services. e. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the various elements of the Port Townsend comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan strives to provide adequate commercial land and to serve community needs (Land Use Goal 8). The Sims Way Corridor is identified as an appropriate location for locating commercial businesses. The proposal is in keeping with the policy direction to depart from "strip-commercial" development by increasing the depth of the corridor (Land Use Policy 8.4). f. The proposed rezone will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the city's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned urban facilities or service capabilities. The proposed rezone will accommodate existing businesses and allow for limited expansion of commercial uses in Tier 1 of the city. · g. The subject properties are physically suitable for the requested zoning and anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The lots are virtually flat and ITont developed streets with infrastructure. Land uses in the immediate vicinity include a mix of commercial and residential. A transit base is located across Hancock Street to the west. h. The proposed amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The fact that several businesses were established on these blocks prior to the 1996 rezone to R-II presents a unique circumstance. 1. Rezoning the parcels to accommodate the existing uses does not materially affect the land use and growth projections, which are the bases of the comprehensive plan. h. Providing for commercial and business operations within the city is consistent with the GMA and adopted countywide planning policy of Jefferson County. · Formal Amendment - Northwest Maritime Center Hei2ht Amendment Description of the Proposal: Locally known as the Thomas Oil site, the property is bound by Monroe Street to the west, Water Street to the north, Point Hudson Marina to the east, and Port Townsend Bay to the south. Legally it can be described as a portion of Block 4 of the Original Townsite to the City of Port Townsend together with associated tidelands of the first class. The site is about 1.4 acres in size. BCD Recommendation (part II) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 9 · The Northwest Maritime Center (NWMC) proposes amendments to the text of the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan (adopted and incorporated by reference within the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan) and the text of Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC), Title 17 PTMC, "Zoning," (Chapter 17.28, "Special Height Overlay District." Specifically, the proposal is to change the existing 30' height restriction to 40'. The requested amendments, if approved, would provide greater design flexibility for a future . site-specific development proposal by the NWMC. No formal development application is pending before the City, and the timing of such an application is uncertain at this time. However, it is anticipated that remedial efforts to clean up contaminated soils on the site (i.e., the site was a petroleum bulk storage facility for some 60 years) could be initiated during the fall of 2001. The NWMC recognizes that any future project actions that require issuance ofa city license or permit and which are not categorically exempt under Chapter 197 -11-800 WAC will require project-level SEP A review and threshold determination. BCD Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to raise the height limit from 30 to 40 feet. · Urban Waterfront Plan provisions that would require amendment include the following: 1. Figure 4.a, "Official Height Overlay Map - Special Design Review Overlay District," on page 22 of the plan; 2. Appendix AI, "Design Guidelines," Guideline 1.3, "Pyramidal City Form," on page 62 of the plan; and 3. Appendix B.1, "Implementation," Figure 6.a, "Special Overlay Design Review District," on page 108 of the plan. Additionally, Chapter 17.28 PTMC, "Special Height Overlay District," Section 17.28.030, "Development Standards" would also require amendment. See Exhibit G, Attachment (14) for strikeout and underline language. DiscussionlRationale The existing height limit is the lowest in the district and is lower than that which is otherwise permitted by the Shoreline Master Program. The requested amendments, if approved, would provide greater design flexibility for a future site-specific development proposal by the NWMC. Ample opportunity would be available for review of future building design. Project-level development will be subject to SEP A analysis and the maximum floor area ratio specified in Chapter 17.20 of the PTMC (i.e., 3 square foot of gross floor area to one square foot oflot area). The project will also be reviewed under the city's Shoreline Master Program, the Waterfront Design Guidelines (Chapter 17.30 PTMC) and the Design Review regulations contained in Chapter 17.80 PTMC. · Suggested Findings and Conclusions: a. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have substantially changed since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of Plan adoption, the property was in BCD Recommendation (Part II) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 10 · private ownership, with acquisition of the property by the City deemed essential to maintaining and enhancing the future character of the urban waterfront (see Urban Waterfront Plan, page 104). Moreover, at the time of Plan adoption, it was the goal of the City to establish an "educationally-oriented working seaport that enhances and preserves the marine trades.... [and to J encourage the development of additional marine uses and educational facilities..." (See Urban Waterfront Plan, page 53). The vision expressed in the Plan has now become a reality, with acquisition of the Thomas Oil property by the Northwest Maritime Center (NWMC) in 2000. Although the City did not acquire the property as originally envisioned in the Plan, the City has played a key role in supporting the efforts of the NWMC, a Washington 501(C)(3) nonprofit corporation, to purchase, clean-up previously contaminated soil, and develop the property for broadly public and quasi-public uses. b. New Information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or subsequent annual amendments. Specifically, the property has been purchased by the NWMC for the purpose of developing the site for year-round public benefit. The fact that the development objectives of the NWMC are broadly consistent with, and implement the Plan (i.e., to develop the site in a manner that maintains and enhances the unique character of the urban waterrront) is also information that was unavailable at the time of either the Urban Waterfront Plan (1990) or the Comprehensive Plan (1996) · adoption. c. The proposed amendment would enable the NWMC to move ahead with a project that has thus far received broad community support. This community support is demonstrated by the more than $600,000 raised locally for site acquisition, as well as assistance provided by a diverse array of partner organizations, including: City of Port Townsend; Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building; Port of Port Townsend; Wooden Boat Foundation; Jefferson County Historic Society; and Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce. It should also be stressed that amendment to the current height overlay would facilitate a project that is otherwise consistent with the vision and goals of the Urban Waterfront Plan. Specifically, the amendment would permit the establishment of an "educationally oriented working seaport that enhances and preserves the marine trades" (see Urban Waterfront Plan, page 53). d. The proposed amendment, as a modification to a specific height regulation applied only to the ownership parcel in question, would in no way affect the range and intensity of uses occurring on the property. Consequently, the proposed amendment would have no impact whatever upon city concurrency requirements. · e. The proposed amendment will facilitate a project that, in essence, is a partial step towards Plan implementation. For example, the Urban Waterfront Plan contains numerous goals and policies calling for publicly accessible, educational and maritime related uses at the · · · BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 11 Thomas Oil site (e.g., Policy #2, page 23; Community Goal #2, page 39; etc.). The Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining a connection to our maritime past (Goal 15, page IV-31) and strengthening the marine trades economy (Goal 3, page VIII-4). f. The proposed plan and code amendments would in no way alter the range and intensity of land uses allowed on the site and would therefore not result in any impacts greater than already anticipated and planned for under the existing C-III zoning. It should also be noted that although the proposed amendment is related to a future site-specific proposal, no specific project is being forwarded at this time. The proposed amendment itself will not generate any impacts to existing city services and inftastructure, and will pose no environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. g. The proposed amendment to the height limitation on the Thomas Oil property would not change the existing land use designation, and thus would not alter the anticipated land use of the site or surrounding properties. h. The proposed amendment would not create pressures to modify land use designations or height restrictions on other properties. The proposal can be distinguished from potential future height overlay amendment requests because this proposal affects the outermost edge of the special height overlay on a block that has the lowest height restriction in the overlay. The proposal is intended to give design flexibility for a project, which implements adopted policy direction regarding the Thomas Oil site that was identified as a critical piece of urban waterfront property. 1. The proposed height overlay amendment would have no bearing upon the extent of existing land use designations and zoning districts, and would therefore not affect previous land use and growth projections. J. The proposed amendment to the height overlay is unrelated to the adequacy and availability of urban services because no change to the existing land use designation and zoning is proposed. k. The proposal would facilitate a higher quality design for future development of a NWMC that implements adopted policies regarding waternont revitalization, retention of marine trades, and enhancing historical and cultural amenities that foster greater understanding and connections to Port Townsend's heritage. No provisions of the GMA or the CWPP conflict with the proposal. · · · BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 200 I Exhibit B - DNS for NWMC Exhibit C Planning Commission Packet, August 9 Workshop (Amendment #1) Exhibit 1 Excerpts from Zoning Code Exhibit 2 Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 3 Use table for the Residential Zoning Districts with proposed revisions. Exhibit D Planning Commission Minutes, August 9,2001 Workshop Exhibit E Planning Commission Packet September 20, Workshop (Amendments #4 & 5, FUGA) 1 ) Year 2001 Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendments RE: Glen Cove 2) 2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3) Jefferson County Viewpoint - Urban Growth Area Update 4) Excerpt from RCW Section 36.70A.070 Re: Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) 5) Taking the Mystery Out of Economic Development 6) Glen Cove Land Use Options: A Strategic Analysis, prepared for Jefferson County by EarthTech, September 2001 Exhibit F Planning Commission Minutes of September 20,2001, Workshop Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop (Amendments #3, 6, 7, 8 and 9) Amendment #3 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 RCW 36.70A.365 Excerpts from County-wide Planning Polices (CWPP) and the County's Comprehensive Plan (Policy LPN 11.1) Draft MID Permit Process Amendment #6 Exhibit 4A- Zoning of US West Exhibit 4B A- US West, Public Comment Exhibit 5 - Photographs of US West and Surrounding Area BCD Recommendation (Part II) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 13 · · Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K · Exhibit L Amendment #7 Exhibit 6 - Current Zoning of Abundant Life Zoning Exhibit 7 ~ Historical Zoning of Abundant Life Zoning (1984-1996 Exhibit 8 - Materials submitted by Abundant Life Exhibit 9 - Photographs of Abundant Life and Surrounding Area Amendment #8 Exhibit 10 - Blocks 278 & 279, Location and Current Zoning Exhibit 11 - Blocks 278 & 279, Historic Zoning Exhibit 12 - Blocks 278 & 279, Public Comment Letters Exhibit 13 - Photographs Northwest Maritime Center, Formal Amendment Exhibit 14 Northwest Maritime Application for Formal Amendment Exhibit 15 NWMC, Public Comment Letters Exhibit 16 Special Height Overlay, Figure 4a of the Urban Waterfront Plan Additional Materials Received at the Workshop Exhibit 17 Drat MID Ordinance dated 9/21/01 Exhibit 18 Table Listing Information Blocks 278&279 (Rev. 10/16/01) Exhibit 19 Comment Letter from Luz Lock re: Blocks 278&279 Eisenbeis Exhibit 20 Existing Building Heights Near Northwest Maritime Center site Exhibit 21 Rationale for Height Limitation submitted by NWMC Planning Commission Minutes, September 27,2001 Workshop Planning Commission Packet, October 17 Hearing (Amendments 1-5) Exhibit 1 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #1 Exhibit 2 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #2 Exhibit 3 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #3 Exhibit 4 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #5 Planning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 Hearing (Note: Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #4 is included in Exhibit E, 2) Planning Commission Packet, October 25 th Hearing (Amendments 6 - 9) Exhibit 1 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #6 Exhibit 2 - Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Table IV-I, Land Use Designations-Suggested Uses, Densities & building Heights, with proposed amendments. Exhibit 3 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #7 Planning Commission Minutes, October 25,2001 Hearing · · · BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 14 LIST OF EXHmITS BY AMENDMENT Amendment #1 - Clarify Definitions ofUnitlBedroom and Various Housing Types Exhibit A - MDNS for Camp Plan 2001 Exhibit C Planning Commission Packet, August 9 Workshop Exhibit 1 Excerpts from Zoning Code Exhibit 2 Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 3 Use table for the Residential Zoning Districts with proposed reVISIOns. Planning Commission Minutes, August 9, 200 1 Workshop Planning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 Hearing Exhibit 1 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #1 Exhibit D Exhibit I Exhibit J Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 200 I Amendment #2 - Revise Goals & Policies, which Imply a Specific Utility Provider Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit I Planning Commission Packet, October 17 Hearing Exhibit 2 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #2 Exhibit J Planning Commission Minutes, October 17,2001 Hearing Amendment #3 Add Policy re: Major Industrial Developments Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop Exhibit 1 RCW 36.70A.365 Exhibit 2 Excerpts from County-wide Planning Polices (CWPP) and the County's Comprehensive Plan (Policy LPN 11.1) Draft MID Permit Process Drat MID Ordinance dated 9/21/01 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 17 Exhibit H Exhibit I Planning Commission Minutes, September 27, 200 1 Workshop Planning Commission Packet, October 17 Hearing Exhibit 3 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #3 Planning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 Hearing Exhibit J Amendment #4 Remove FUGA Language from Comprehensive Plan Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit E Planning Commission Packet September 20, Workshop I) Year 2001 Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendments RE: Glen Cove 2) 2001 PLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3) Jefferson County Viewpoint - Urban Growth Area Update BCD Recommendation (Part 11) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 15 · 4) 5) 6) Excerpt from RCW Section 36.70A070 Re: Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) Taking the Mystery Out of Economic Development Glen Cove Land Use Options: A Strategic Analysis, prepared for Jefferson County by EarthTech, September 2001 Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2001, Workshop Planning Commission Minutes, October 17,2001 Hearing Exhibit F Exhibit J Amendment #5 Review and Amend FUGA Language in Comprehensive Plan Same as listed above for Amendment #4 plus Exhibit I Planning Commission Packet, October 17 Hearing Exhibit 4 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #5 · Amendment #6 Resolve Zoning of US West Facility on Lawrence Street Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop Exhibit 4A- Zoning of US West Exhibit 4B A- US West, Public Comment Exhibit 5 - Photographs of US West and Surrounding Area Exhibit H Planning Commission Minutes, September 27,2001 Workshop Exhibit K Planning Commission Packet, October 25,2001 Hearing Exhibit 1 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #6 Exhibit L Planning Commission Minutes, October 25,2001 Hearing Amendment #7 Resolve Zoning of Abundant Life Seed Foundation on Discovery Road Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop Exhibit 6 - Current Zoning of Abundant Life Zoning Exhibit 7 - Historical Zoning of Abundant Life Zoning (1984-1996 Exhibit 8 - Materials submitted by Abundant Life Exhibit 9 - Photographs of Abundant Life and Surrounding Area Exhibit H Planning Commission Minutes, September 27,2001 Workshop Exhibit K Planning Commission Packet, October 25 th Hearing Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Table IV-I, Land Use Designations-Suggested Uses, Densities & building Heights, with proposed amendments. Exhibit 3 - Suggested Amendatory Language for Amendment #7 Exhibit L Planning Commission Minutes, October 25,2001 Hearing · Amendment #8 Rezone Portions of Blocks 278 & 279, Eisenbeis Addition Exhibit A - MDNS for Comp Plan 2001 Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop Exhibit 10 - Blocks 278 & 279, Location and Current Zoning · · · BCD Recommendation (Part II) 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update October 25, 2001 Page 16 Exhibit 11 - Blocks 278 & 279, Historic Zoning Exhibit 12 - Blocks 278 & 279, Public Comment Letters Exhibit 13 - Photographs Exhibit 18 - Table of Information on Blocks 278&279 Eisenbeis (Revised 10/16/01) Exhibit 19 Comment Letter from Luz Lock re: Blocks 278&279 Eisenbeis Exhibit H Planning Commission Minutes, September 27, 200 1 Workshop Exhibit K Planning Commission Packet, October 25 th Hearing Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Table IV-I, Land Use Designations-Suggested Uses, Densities & building Heights, with proposed amendments. Exhibit L Planning Commission Minutes, October 25,2001 Hearing Amendment #9 Height Limitation on Block 4 of the Original Townsite, submitted by Northwest Maritime Center Exhibit B - DNS for NWMC Exhibit G Planning Commission Packet, September 27 Workshop Exhibit 14 Northwest Maritime Application for Formal Amendment Exhibit 15 NWMC, Public Comment Letters Exhibit 16 Special Height Overlay, Figure 4a of the Urban Waterfront Plan Exhibit 20 Existing Building Heights Near Northwest Maritime Center site Exhibit 21 Rationale for Height Limitation submitted by NWMC Exhibit H Planning Commission Minutes, September 27, 2001 Workshop Exhibit K Planning Commission Packet, October 25 th Hearing Exhibit L Planning Commission Minutes, October 25,2001 Hearing . . e z o ¡:: Õ o c:( UJ ¡¡¡ m z w U) ¡¡¡ c 0 :0:: n:I 't:S 0 C 0 CI) a:1 E E 0 u CI) - 0::: ï ï I ï I I I - 0 0 d: ï 0 ï I ï 0 I I I 0 0 U ï 0 0 c::: 0 c::: c::: c::: 0 0 0 c::: 0 0 0 c::: - - If) If) - If) If) If) - If) If) If) - - - If) CI) CI) n:I n:I CI) n:I n:I n:I CI) C\ C\ C\ CI) CI) CI) C\ c:: c:: CI) CI) c:: CI) CI) CI) c:: CI) CI) CI) c:: c:: c:: CI) 0 0 > > 0 > > > 0 > > > 0 0 0 > N N C\ C\ N C\ C\ C\ N C\ C\ C\ N N N C\ CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) c::: c::: ....I ....I c::: ....I ....I ....I c::: ....I ....I ....I c::: c::: c::: ....I 1f)1ij ~ ~ ~ CI) ....... ....... C ~ 0 0 c::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () ~~ ....... ....... c:: ... c:: c:: 0 CI) "5 .r= If) ~ ~ ëU CI) CI) Q) If) ~ c:: >- CI) Q) Q) Q) Q) a. c u ~ 0 .r= ..:oc: ~ E E E E c:: c:: "C E ~ 0 0 CI) J: u C\ :::J C\ C\ 2 ....I ....I U5 - 0 a:1 C « « « « > > 0 0 « 0 I- .r= I- CI) 0 0 0 0 en c::: c::: c::: c::: 0 c::: c::: c::: 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 « c::: ;:) > CI) c c::: 0 0 N "It .. c::: c::: c::: c::: c::: c::: c::: c::: c::: 0 N oð c::: c::: c::: c::: c ('I) I!! - 0 If) ... ...J - ~ 0 0 ....I CI) c::: c 0 0 "It N 0 c::: c::: c::: 0 c::: c::: c::: 0 0 "I oð 0 0 a:::: a:::: (Ø - ('I) ø 0 If) ø ...J - 0 .... ...J .r= u - Ll> ~ - C\ 0 "It co > "I U "It ..- "I U C\ $: - C\ õ g (j') z > ..- "It- "It Z ..- co "It > ....I oð ..- oð oð 0 I I oð 0 oð C/) oð ~ 10 0 ...¡ co "I "I co 1.0 c; ~ I'- If) ..- 0'> "I ('I) co ..- I'- If) If) co I'- I'- I'- If) ..- ..- - - - I'- - - - - - "I - - - "I - - - CI C/)a:i C/) 0 0 ON 0 0 0 0 0 ('I) 0 0 0('1) 0 0 0 CI) ....I ....I ....1('1) ...J ...J ...J ....I ...J CO ...J ....I ...JCO ....I ....I ....I ...J - Õ ('I) -('I) -CO _"I -CO -"It -I'- _ 10 _10 -"It -"I -"I a:i'8; -CO -I'- - ('I) ~....Ig 0'>0 0'>0 0'>0 0'> "It 0'>0 0'> 0 0'>0 COO CO 0'> COO COO COO CO 0 COO 1'-0'> .....0'> I'- 0'> 1'-0'> 1'-0'> I'- 0'> I'- 0'> I'-CO I'- _ ..... CO I'- W I'- - I'- W I'- CO I'-CO N~I'- "I..... NCO "II'- "I _ "II'- "I I'- "II'- "II'- "I .r= "II'- "II'- "ILl> "I..... "I I'- "II'- ..:oc:"...N ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc:- ..:oc:N ..:oc: "I ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc: - ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc:N ..:oc:N gz~ u('l) u('l) u('l) uC/) u('l) U ('I) u('l) u('l) U "It u('l) u('l) gC/) u('l) u('l) u('l) OCO OCO OW o or. OW 0 CO OCO OCO o ~ OCO OCO OW OW OW OOoð'8; -"It - "It -"It 00;; -"It 00 "It -"It -"It _ 0 -"It -"It 00 - -"It - "It -"It ceO'> ceO'> ceo> ceo> 0> ceo> ceO'> ceQ.. ceo> ceO'> 0 ceo> ceo> ceo> en - CI) en ..:oc: ..:oc: ..:oc: ..:oc: c:: c:: c:: CI) c:: c:: c:: c:: I!! u u u u C\ C\ C\ ~ C\ C\ C\ C\ - 't:S 8 0 0 8 E E E (j') E ~ If) If) E E E 't:S U U ~ 'E ~ ..:oc: ..:oc: ~ c:: ~ < c:: c:: c:: c:: CI) CI) CI) CI) u u u CI) CI) C\ CI) C\ C\ C\ C\ or. or. or. ('I) .s:: '£:: '£:: '£:: .s:: .s:: E .s:: oS J: J: J: J: .(j') (j') (j') 0 (j') "C "C "C (j') (j') (j') ü) 0 0 0 "I I'- 10 0'> ..- 0 c:: c:: c:: "It "It CI) CO ('I) ('I) "I "... ('I) ..- 0 10 ('I) CI) CI) CI) ('I) ('I) .r= 0 ('I) ('I) ('I) ('I) ('I) ('I) ('I) ..- ('I) J: J: J: ('I) ('I) C/) ('I) or ..... N oð 00 ..... N U) ~ o o ...I m I- tf) ã5 - ::c - >< \ w --J} - ~ Q) ¡¡:: ...... c 0 - CD ~ ...... - 0 ro .c '0 L- OJ Q) (/) "5 > OJ et:: · · · EXHmITK-1 Amendment #6 - Resolve Zoning of US West Facility on Lawrence Street I. Amend the PTMC, Section 17.08.060, Definitions (page 17-32.2), as depicted "Tavern" means a building where beer and/or wine is served to the public, which holds a Class "A" or "B" license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board. Telecommunication Facilities. Reserved. "Telephone Exchange" means a facility containing a central system that establishes connections between individual telephones. "Temporary building or structure" means a building or structure not having or requiring permanent attachment to the ground or to other structures. II. Amendments to Table 17.20.020, Commercial Zoning Districts -, Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses to add telephone exchange as a permitted use within the C- III zoning district Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; H = Subject to conditional use requirements for historic structures; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT C-I C-II C-II(H) C-III C-IV APPLICABLE REGULA TIONS/NOTES Printing, commercial X P X P X Same as above. Radio and television X P X P X Same as above. studios (including recording studios) Schools, commercial X P X P X Same as above. Service stations, C P X X X Same as above. automotive and marine Servicing of personal P P X P X Same as above. apparel and equipment Small appliance repair X P X P X Same as above. shops Truck, trailer and X P X X X Same as above. recreational vehicle rental PUBLIC FACILITY USES Electrical distribution X C X X X Same as above. substations Municipal improvements P P P P P Same as above. · · · Municipal improvements P P P P P Same as above. Offices, government X P P P X Same as above. Recycling facilities, P P P P P Same as above. minor Stormwater retention, P P P P P Same as above. detention, and treatment facilities Telephone exchange X P P P P Same as above. TEMPORARY USES Contractor offices P P P P P Chapter 17.60 PTMC, Temporary Uses; and PTMC 17.20.030, Commercial bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Christmas tree sales P P P P P Same as above. Carnivals/circuses P P P P P Same as above. Outdoor art and craft P P P P P Same as above. sales Parking lot/sidewalk P P P P P Same as above. sales Rummage sales P P P P P Same as above. · · · TABLE IV-2: THE LAND USE MAP -ACREAGE WITHIN EACH LAND USE DESIGNATION* LAND USE LAND AREA LAND AREA IN ACRES DESIGNATION IN ACRES Less Platted Rights of Way and Marinas R-I 748 523 R-II ~.a \~V" ~$~S- ...- I R-III . 227 155 R-IV 30 18 R-PUD 59 52 C-I/MU 19 14 C-II/MU 22 15 MU-PUD 0 0 C-I 3 2 C-II ~ \'-i-a ~ crs C-II(H) 17 11 C-III 47 25 C-IV** 0 0 CM-PUD 35 26 MlC 43 43 M-I** 0 0 M-II( A) Boat Haven 93 44 M-IIŒ) Point Hudson 24 12 M-m** a a P/OS 613 479 P/OSfA)*** N/A N/A P/OS(B) 90 86 P-I ~? 111 ~ J43 * Totals include lands within the Port Townsend City limits only. ** These land use designations could be applied to portions of the Glen Cove area, if a FUGA larger than the Port Townsend City limits is designated. *** This designation is intended only to depict, at a concentual level, areas that could be valuable if maintained as open spaces. Considerable work must be completed before the boundaries of this conceptual overlay district can be detailed, and before specific steps can be undertaken to implement the concept Consequently,acreage totals are ofmarginal usefulness at this point in time. [Ord. 2716 § 3.1, 1999; Ord. 2670 § 1.5,2, 1998; Ord. 2606 § 1,2, 1997; Ord. 2571 § 3, 1997; Ord. 2539, 1996] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-DECEMBER, 1999 EXHIBIT I Jj-d LAND USE ELEMENT IV-IS · · · EXHffiIT K-3 Amendment #7, Abundant Life I. Amend the PTMC, Section 17.08.020, Definitions (page 17-10), as depicted: 17.08.020 A through D. "Committee, historic preservation" means the Port Townsend historic preservation committee established by Port Townsend Ordinance No. 2035, as hereafter amended, and codified in Chapter 2.72 PTMC. "Community agriculture center- " means an agricultural operation which includes growing, processing, retail sales, office space, instructional activities and farmer/apprentice housing in keeping with the base densities of the underlying zoning district. "Community center" means a place, structure, area, or other facility used for and providing social, fraternal, religious, and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community. "Community clubhouse" means a privately owned structure in which inhabitants of a neighborhood or subdivision or members of a neighborhood association gather for meetings and other activities. "Community event sign" means an informational or directional sign pertaining exclusively to a specific upcoming event sponsored by a governmental entity or nonprofit organization. "Community supported agriculture" means the direct sale of agricultural produce grown on the site to persons who have contracted for periodic pickup or delivery of such produce, excluding sales from a concession stand. A community supported agriculture operation may offer farmer/apprentice housing in keeping with the base densities of the underlying zoning district. Limited instructional activities (i. e., involving up to 10 nonresidents, not more than one time per week) may be conducted on site. "Compatible use" means a use that is capable of existing in harmony with other uses situated in its immediate vicinity. . . . . . . . . . · II. Amend Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses of the PTMC as shown: Table 17.16.020 Residential Zoning Districts - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses · I Key to table: P = Permitted outright; C = Subject to a conditional use permit; X = Prohibited; N/A = Not applicable DISTRICT R-I R-II R-III R-IV APPLICABLE REGULA TIONS/NOTES Residential treatment C C C C "Group homes" are considered an "essential public facilities including group facility" under RCW 36.70A.200; ". . . their siting homes for the disabled cannot be precluded by development regulations. . ."; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Townhouses or rowhouses X X P P Ch. 17.36 PTMC, Multifamily Residential (zero lot lines) Development Standards; andPTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. COMMERCIAL USES Bed and breakfast inns C C C C PTMC 17 .16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Child day care centers, child C C C C Ch. 17.52 PTMC, Day Care Facilities; and PTMC day care facilities, and 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density preschools requirements. Family day care homes P P P P Same as above. Home occupations P P P P Ch. 17.56 PTMC, Home Occupations; and PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Tourist homes C C C C PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. ACCESSORY USES Accessory buildings and P P P P PTMC J7.,J.9.,.Ç!3.Q, Residential bulk and dimensional accessory structures requirements. Fuel oil and kerosene P P P P Such containers require a permit and inspection containers pursuant to Ch. 16.04 PTMC, Building Code, may only be permitted for domestic heating purposes, must be located aboveground, and may not exceed 750 gallons' capacity. Garages, private residential P P P P PTMC 17 .16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. · · AGRICULTURAL USES Barns P C X X PTMC 17.16.030, Residential bulk, dimensional and density requirements. Community agriculture ç ç X X PTMC 17.84. Conditional Uses; PTMC 17.16.030. center Residential bulk. dimensional. and density requirements; community agricultural centers are limited to locations fronting onto principal arterial. collector. and minor arterial streets. All office and retail uses shall be secondary to the agricultural component of the center. · ·