"4; \.,;<,"-I ~ ';1_,.(, Staff: Community Development Director Tim McHarg and Associate Planner David Lee. ,3,l. ;y\_.v A '~

Transcription

1 ,3,l. ;y\_.v A '~ CITYor NEWCASTLE y A "4; PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING MINUTES \.,;<,"-I MARCH 20, 2013 ~ ';1_,.(, _ NEWCASTLECITYHALL NEWCASTLEWAY, SUITE200 NEWCASTLE,WA Thefollowing is not a verbatim transcript. An audio recording ofthe meeting is available. REGULARPLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALLTO ORDER Chair John Drescher called the meeting of the Newcastle Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Associate Planner David Lee conducted roll call. The following Newcastle officials and staff were present: Planning Commission: Commission Chair John Drescher, Vice Chair Allen Dauterman and Commissioners Tom Magers, Elizabeth Thompson (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Rob Lemmon, Karin Blakley and Jon Simpson (arrived at 7:03 p.m.) Staff: Community Development Director Tim McHarg and Associate Planner David Lee FLAGSALUTE Commissioner Dauterman led the flag salute. PUBLICCOMMENT No public comment was available. COMMISSIONERCOMMENTS Commissioner Blakley invited Commissioners to a Newcastle Chamber of Commerce event at City Hallthe following evening from 6 to 7:30. REPORTS Commission Chair Drescher provided an update on what occurred at the last regular City Council meeting. The Council approved the Planning Commission's work plan for He said Deputy Mayor Lisa Jensen mentioned the idea of changing the name of the periodic update process to something like Newcastle 2035, which might generate more public interest. Councilmembers agreed with Commissioner Blakley s comments about adding volunteerism to the vision statement, but also wanted to add language about how Newcastle is a contract PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2013 Page 1 of 6

2 city. Discussion about when the Commission would present a recommendation to the Council also took place at the Council meeting. Chair Drescher proposed that the Commission attempt to finish the draft by the end of 2014, so the Council will have additional review time in Community Development Director McHarg reported that the Council has adopted a revised Parks, Trails and Recreation element ofthe Comprehensive Plan and an updated 20-year Capital Facilities Program (CFP).The CFP is used to formulate the City's six yearcapital Investment Program. Mr. McHarg said recently there has been a significant uptick in development activities. The Council last night approved a final plat. In response activity, both in single-family residential permits issued and commercial McHarg said there is a map posted on the City's website listing active projects. to a question from the Commission, Mr. APPROVAL OF FINALAGENDA Planning Commission Chair Drescher discussed possible removal of approval of final agenda from the meeting agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Lemmon and seconded by Commissioner Simpson to remove the item. Commissioner Magers said this is a part of the Council meeting agenda, and provides Commissioners with an opportunity to add something that is important to the agenda. Commissioner Lemmon withdrew the motion, and Commissioner Simpson concurred. The Planning Commission approved the final agenda by consent. REVIEWOF MINUTES Commissioner Magers noted a misspelling of his name on page four of five. Chair Drescher said in the first paragraph of page three, in the second line, the word effective should be added between the words with and planning. He also stated that the first sentence in the third paragraph on this page starting with the word housing doesn't make sense. Removing the first two sentences of this paragraph and starting the paragraph with the sentence beginning with The City..." would be the appropriate correction. MOTION: Planning Commissioner Jon Simpson moved to approve the minutes as amended. Planning Commissioner Magers seconded. VOTE: 7 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions. Motion carried. Commissioners approved minutes from the February 20, 2013, meeting. GENERALBUSINESS Review of Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement and DraftWork Scope for 2015 Update Associate Planner David Lee reviewed discussion that occurred at the recent joint meeting of the Commission and the City Council. A majority of the Council expressed support for a scope of work that does not go beyond requirements listed in the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) update checklist. The agreed with the direction of changes for the draft vision statement. Councilmembers provided some feedback on the vision statement by suggesting "pock marked be removed and language regarding volunteering and the contract PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2013 Page 2 of 6

3 of the City be added. Monthly Council updates on the status of the Comprehensive Plan revision work should be sufficient unless there is a controversial issue. Mr. Lee said that this evening Commissioners should reach consensus on: the number of meetings expected, how much involvement the Commission would like in public participation efforts, and how much time will be spent on particular subjects and which will be a priority. The Commission should work on organizing and prioritizing the scope of work, particularly the DOC checklist. nature Chair Drescher commented that there are 14 different subject areas, and the subject areas can be organized into seven or eight groups. Commissioner Simpson commented that he thought an approach discussed by Mayor Rich Crispo at the joint meeting, reviewing the Comprehensive Plan at an ever digressing level of detail, would be effective. Chair Drescher suggested that the Commission perform an initial review of the 14 points, formulate a consensus on the level of work and number of work hours and complete the total scope of work. At the next level, the Commission could look at sections that can be worked together and further define the work scope. Commissioner Lemmon suggested that some of the items may need more preparation than others, so structuring the order of how items are reviewed would ensure the Commission is ready for each one. A good cursory wa k through could be effective. Public involvement is a common thread, Commissioner Thompson said. Making decisions on public involvement early in the process would be effective, Commissioner Blakley said. Planning Director McHarg discussed possible contractor involvement and how much funding is available. The City has budgeted $20,000 for the update, and no state funding is currently available. Three areas may need contractor involvement, he said, including mapping, transportation planning and critical area science. In thinking of sequencing the update, contractor work could be packaged together and placed toward the end of the process. Critical areas and transportation likelywill take the most time. Commissioner Blakley discussed the possibility of rebranding the update to create public interest. She said she has seen this done during updates undertaken by other area cities. The Council seemed to give only one directive, Chair Drescher commented, which was adding vo unteerism to the vision document. Removing the term pock marked was a change the Commission approved, Mr. Magers said. Commissioners discussed how the vision statement of "volunteerism. should be worded in the absence of the term pock marked and how to word the addition Following discussion, by consent the Commission decided to replace pock marked with including considerable green space, and added "Newcastle recognizes the importance of volunteerism and encourages it among its citizens to the draft vision statement. The Commission discussed the Council's request to add "contract city back into the vision statement. Commissioners said adding wording about fiscal responsibility, or managing the City's resources in a responsible manner, would encompass more of the possible future conditions at the City and provide flexibility. By consent the Commission decided to recommend removal of the term "contract city from the draft vision statement. By consent the Commission decided to aim to complete the Comprehensive Plan revision recommendation by December Commissioners then reviewed each of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan update. Director McHarg said the land use element is the core of the work to which the other elements are related. Land use as a topic can be made more engaging to the public by focusing on land use issues that may be important to them, rather than on PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2013 Page 3 of6

4 regulatory requirements. For example, Lake Boren is a distinguishing feature of the community, and there may be opportunities to create more public access. At some point there is a likelihood that the community commercial centers will redevelop, and the public s preference for that area is likely to be a key issue. Other important issues might be ways to allow parcels of a certain size to have attached housing, or creative ways to maximize densities on constrained properties while protecting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Engaging people in what the laws mean to them will be a good public involvement strategy. Commissioner Simpson agreed that how to incentivize the use of accessory dwelling units will be something to consider. The housing element should be a relatively simple update, Mr. McHarg said. A Regional Coalition for Affordable Housing (ARCH)will provide assistance regarding Growth Management Act (GMA) housing targets and what the Commission should focus on in this section. Housing will have some repercussions for land use. Newcastle is in a unique position in regards to the capitalfacilities plan, because it does not own and operate utilities. Primarily Newcastle will be looking at streets, parks and storm water facilities. Changes to the land use element will affect the capital facilities element. In response to a question from Commissioner Lemmon, Mr. McHarg said the City is in a positive position in regards to surface water facility maintenance, and the Public Works Director can provide more information. Traffic calming activities might be an area to examine. When reviewing the utilities element, the City will work with Coal Creek Utility District, Puget Sound Energy and other companies to coordinate efforts. Work in this element primarily involves coordination. Newcastle can be proactive in looking at ways to accommodate or encourage the use of sustainable energy, Commissioner Lemmon said. Sustainability is an important issue that can be discussed, Mr. McHarg agreed. In regard to the transportation element, Newcastle has a good transportation plan in place. The City may want to consider how to encourage a more sustainable transportation system and bicycle linkages. Commissioner Magers said there are four new work requirements under this element, and it will require outside assistanceto gather data. Starting this element sooner might be effective. Commissioners will need to identify key issues prior to a consultant starting work, Mr. McHarg said. The only major land use change that will significantly impact traffic is development of the Mutual Materials property. Development in Renton and Bellevue also will affect traffic in Newcastle to a significant degree, Commissioner Blakley commented. Coordinating early on with these cities and leveraging data they may have available would be a good strategy. Newcastle could also use data prepared by Mutual Materials developers, Commissioner Lemmon said. Work involved with provisionsfor siting ofessentialpublicfacilities will be minimal, Director McHarg said. Consistency will be an important focus throughout the process. Newcastle's Comprehensive Plan will have to be consistent with King County's policies as well as the state GMA. Newcastle will need to coordinate with the Puget Sound Regional Council and planning efforts of other adjacent cities. Public participation is another process wide consideration. Commissioner Dauterman emphasized the importance of consistency throughout the City's own Comprehensive Plan and other City plans. Following the update, the Comprehensive Plan can be used to bring consistency to other City plans and policies such as the Lake Boren Master Plan and the NonMotorized Transportation Plan, Mr. McHarg said. Plans for implementation should also be considered. PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2013 Page 4 of 6

5 The Commission discussed work involved with updating the development regulations designating and protecting critical areas. Mr. McHarg said updating this section is likely the biggest task with the greatest potential for litigation. The City should go about it in a logical, methodical way with a great deal of input from the development community. Commissioner Simpson cautioned that "best available science can be slanted in favor of a particular agenda. Remaining objective and apolitical will be important. Mr. McHarg said updating zoning regulations will be straightforward. Subdivision regulations willtake some additional work. Commissioner Lemmon asked about the possibility of development that is of greater height, such as the Talus development in lssaquah. Mr. McHarg said staff could provide some information about options for infill properties. Planning Director McHarg said concurrency, impactfee and trafficdemand regulations and work involved with essential pub/icfaci/ity regulations will not take a great deal of time. Review of general regulations is a concept that weaves through the entire process. Changes should not go against other existing laws. Chair Drescher recapped views on work load involved with each update element. Big work items include transportation, land use and critical areas; items considered medium are housing, capital facilities plan, consistency, public participation and subdivision regulations; and small items are the utilities element, provisions for siting essential public facilities, zoning regulations, concurrency, management be grouped together impact fee and traffic demand regulations, essential public facility regulations and general regulations. Some of these areas can and reviewed concurrently. Commissioner Thompson suggested that the Commission could begin working on some of the minor areas while preparations for dealing with the larger items are made. It makes sense to begin working on the public participation piece first, Commissioner Blakley commented, because there are some upcoming City events that the Commission could use to gather public input. Commissioners agreed they would use the time prior to the next meeting to become educated about some of the issues. Mr. McHarg said he would find more information on contractor selection process requirements. PUBLICCOMMENT No public comment was available. PLANNINGCALENDARREVIEW The next regular Planning Commission meeting willbe held Wednesday, April 17, 2013, starting at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Planning Commissioner seconded. Allen Dauterman moved to adjourn. Planning Commissioner Simpson VOTE: 5 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions. Motion carried. PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2013 Page 5 of6

6 8:59 p.m. The meeting was adjourned. &IL7u;&K cmi on, City Cler? PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETING March 20, 2013 Page 6 of 6