Loading...
03/03/2003 - Work Study - MinutesPort Orchard, Washington March 3, 2003 Council of the City of Port Orchard, Washington was called to order by Mayor Weatherill at 7:35 P.M., in a Joint Special Study Session with the Port Orchard Planning Commission. The Joint Study Session was held in City Council Chambers, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, Washington. Council members present: Todd Cramer, Ron Rider, Carolyn Powers, Rick Wyatt, Robert Geiger, and John Clauson. Councilmember Don Morrison excused. Planning Commission members present: John Heather, Annette Stewart, Kim Ruona, Fred Chang, Tadina Crouch, Rita Dilenno, Gil Michael, and Stephanie Bailey Staff present: City Attorney Combs, City Engineer Curies, City Planner Wenman, City Clerk Parks. Mayor Weatherill welcomed those present and requested City Engineer Curies review the purpose of the joint meeting. City Engineer Curies clarified the purpose of this Study Session is to provide the City Council and Planning Commission an opportunity get to know each other better; to discuss community planning issues; and to clarify the roles of the Council and Commission. City Attorney Combs reviewed the Regulatory Reform Act and its effect on the land use hearings process. He focused on the public meeting vs. the public hearing process within the Grow1h Management Act (GMA) requirements. Attorney Combs explained that when Regulatory Reform Act was passed by the state legislature in 1995, the Revised Coded of Washington was changed to allow only one public record hearing. Prior to 1995, cities could hold as many public hearings as they wanted, before the City Council and/or the Planning Commission. The formal "public open record hearing" is where evidence is submitted and testimony is given, which will form the actual record to be considered in the decision making process. Attorney Combs reiterated that there can only be one "public open record hearing". Councilman Wyatt commented that historically the Planning Commission has been a recommending body. Councilman Clauson questioned the difference in the type of information that can be brought out at a public meeting versus a public hearing. Attorney Combs responded by reading the definitions of a "public hearing" and a " public meeting" contained in RCW36. 708.020 (3) and (5). 3) "Open record hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the local government to conduct such hearings, that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to a local government's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record pre-decision hearing." An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record pre-decision hearing has been held on the project permit. (5) "P!!blic meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review or architectural control board meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a seeping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or March 3, 2003 Page 2 of 5 recommendation may be included in the local government's project permit application file. Attorney Combs stated it is important for the Planning Commission to clearly inform the audience what the process is and clarify when the official record of testimony and evidence, which will be used to make the decision, is created. Councilwoman Powers asked what are the current public notice requirements. City Planner Rob Wenman stated that the city's zoning ordinance requires notice be given to all property owners within 300 feet of a proposed land use action and a legal notice be published in the newspaper a minimum of 1 0 days prior to the public meeting and the public hearing. Councilman Clauson asked if the Planning Commission could informally gather information and forward it to the Council to be entered into the record. Councilman Rider suggested the public be given a fact sheet on the city's land use application process. Councilman Geiger questioned whether the Planning Commission could hold pre-information meetings before the official public hearing to gather information. Councilwoman Powers asked if the Council could talk with Planning Commission members to get information. City Attorney Combs responded to Council members questions by stating, on any quasi-judicial matter, Council members cannot speak with anyone regarding that matter prior to the official "public hearing", Only facts, evidence, and testimony submitted during the public hearing can be considered in the decision making process. If a Council member discusses a pending matter with anyone outside of the public open record hearing, they could be considered prejudice and not be able to participate in the hearing. Councilman Cramer noted that while the Council cannot hold pre-information meetings, they can continue a public open record hearing, to allow more opportunity for testimony and evidence to be gathered. Attorney Combs confirmed that the Planning Commission could hold a series of informational "share-etts" to educate the public during the "public meeting" process, then forward their recommendation and concerns to the Council for use during the open record hearing. The concerns should be forwarded as a list of comments or concerns, not as facts, findings, or conclusions. He noted that if the Council has questions on the Planning Commission's concerns or recommendation the Council can ask for clarification of those statements. However, he cautioned the Council not to enter into a dialogue to discuss the project The public hearing process is the time for the project proponents, citizens, or other interested parties to present testimony or evidence to form the "record". Following the close of the public open record hearing the Council then uses that "record" as a basis for their decision. Planning Commission Crouch discussed the need for the Planning Commission to make clear findings and questioned if the Commission could take a break after they close the public meeting to work on the wording of their recommendation/comments/concerns that will be forwarded to the City CounciL She also asked for suggestions how to clearly formulate wording-what to put into a finding and recommendation. Attorney Combs suggested the Commission think about what they are trying to convey and put it into writing. March 3, 2003 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Michael clarified that the current process to forward a recommendation to the City Council is that after a public meeting, staff prepares a draft Planning Commission Resolution documenting the Commissions findings, facts, and conclusions, along with proposed conditions of approval. After the Resolution is drafted the Chair of the Commission signs the Resolution and it is forwarded to the Council. Mr. Michael voiced concern that the Commission as a whole does not have an opportunity to review the draft Resolution for quality assurance and that it accurately expressed the Commissioner's opinion. Councilman Clauson stated he reads the Commission minutes to see what discussion has taken place. He noted that sometimes Planning Commission meeting minutes and Council meeting minutes may refiect limited discussion or no discussion on a specific motion. Commissioner Dilenno stated that the Planning Commission goes through a process to develop findings, facts, and conclusions with recommended conditions of approval and when the City Council holds the public hearing it seems that the Planning Commissions work is not considered. Attorney Combs reminded everyone that the Planning Commission has a very important role and purpose as an advisory body. While at times it may seem like they are being seconded guessed, he clarified they should try to not take it personal if the Council makes a decision different than their recommendation. If the Planning ·Commission is holding a public meeting they should not make findings, facts, conclusions or propose conditions of approval. The Commission should make recommendations with suggestions of what areas or concerns they have or state what they don't like about a project. The Council can use the suggestions to help them focus on specific areas to obtain more information during the public hearing. Attorney Combs advised Planning Commission members to not get hung up on the "legal wording". Commissioner Michael asked if a proposed project requires multiple actions, such as a comprehensive plan amendment and a zone reclassification can the two applications be considered separately or must they be considered together. Attorney Combs clarified that multiple actions can be held as separate actions. The comprehensive plan amendment would come first and then the rezone application could be considered as site specific. Legally you can do them together or require them to be presented as separate actions. It is a Council decision on which process is used to consider land use applications Commissioner Michaels asked if multiple actions are presented together could the Planning Commission make a recommendation to deny one and approve the other. Attorney Combs responded yes, if a permitted use is allowed under a comprehensive plan designation, an application for that use does not always have to be allowed. He cautioned the Commission on the importance of communicating the logic of why they are making a specific recommendation. Commissioner Dilenno asked if the Planning Commission is holding the public hearing should they include their logic in the form of findings, facts, and conclusions in a recommendation. Attorney Combs stated the Planning Commission could hold the public hearing to create the record by gathering testimony, information and evidence to forward to the City Council. The City Council would take the record created by the Planning Commission and formulate findings, facts, and conclusions. City Engineer Curies suggested the City Council clarify which body is holding the formal public hearing. Under the City's current Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission holds a public meeting to review and discuss a proposed project then they forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial. The City Council holds a public hearing and makes the final decision on the application. March 3, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Michaels reiterated the suggestion that a statement or fact sheet outlining the process be created to communicate what will happen, what the purpose of each phase of the process is, and who will make the final decision. Councilman Rider asked if the Planning Commission finds that a project is not in compliance with an ordinance should they include this in their recommendation. Attorney Combs confirmed the Planning Commission could include a statement of concern drawing the Council's attention to the potential of non- compliance. Councilwoman Powers addressed the Confiict of Interest/Appearance of Fairness Doctrine by asking if a Planning Commission member lives within 300 feet of a project and must step down during their public meeting could the commissioner later as a private citizen give testimony to the Council at the public hearing on that project. Attorney Combs clarified that if the Planning Commissioner participates as part of the Planning Commission body, they give up their right as a private citizen on quasi-judicial matters before the Commission or Council on that matter. Commissioner Dilenno questioned whether there would be a benefit for a member of the City Council to be a member of the Planning Commission. Attorney Combs stated that this question has been an ongoing legal debate. He stated that if a Council member were an ex-officio member and held the position because of their being on the City Council, their vote would not count for a quorum. Also if a Council member sat on the Planning Commission when a matter was heard in public meeting, they would have to excuse themselves from their quasi-judicial position at the Council's public open record hearing. Commissioner Michaels questioned if it is legal for the Council to allow a Planning Commission member or interested citizen to serve on council committees. Attorney Combs stated that the council's committees are council committees because they are made up of Council members. Non-council members can attend as a liaison to report back to another interested group such as the Planning Commission. Committee meetings are subject to the open public meetings act when they "act on behalf of the governing body'' by making recommendations for specific actions, unless they are meeting on a matter that is eligible for an Executive Session. He further noted that most council committee meetings are set during a Council meeting, which would satisfy the public notice requirement. The Clerk should be informed as to date/time/place of all committee meetings and staff should provide information as required to any party requesting to be informed when a certain topic or committee is meeting. Commissioner Crouch suggested a vision for Port Orchard be developed and urged everyone to consider specific areas before they just look at the big picture. Councilman Geiger stated a vision has not been established, but he knew what he did not want. He doesn't want to see wall-to-wall apartments or multi story buildings surrounding the City. He would like to see the City maintain the vision of what you see from the water and from the shoreline, at this time, remain for the future. After much discussion, the consensus of elected and appointed officials was that the City should: • have a diversity of cost level of housing balancing the city's low income housing with median and upper income homes; • be pedestrian friendly-not car oriented; • have uniformity with structures that fit visually with the rest of their area/neighborhood. March 3, 2003 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Dilenno suggested the need for design standards clarifying vision for neighborhoods/areas. She stated the Planning Commission has heard a presentation on how the City of Redmond has established design standards and worked with developers to make their city building friendly. Councilman Rider stated that the Growth Management Committee is looking at design standards. Councilman Clauson agreed that there are areas within Port Orchard that are unique and supported preservation of the uniqueness of our community. Commissioner Michaels asked if the way to start considering design standards is to look at the comprehensive plan and rank criteria for neighborhood character. Attorney Combs confirmed that using the comprehensive plan is a way to accomplish the goal and expressed standards must be clearly defined. Under the comprehensive plan each designation is a maximum density potential. A designation does not give absolute rights if the project does not fit other established criteria. Commissioner Michaels asked if the Planning Commission could have the task of revising the comprehensive plan to include design standards as a project. Attorney Combs cautioned everyone that a comprehensive plan rev1s1on is a staff intensive project and before the city undertakes a major change, staffing should be considered. Councilman Clauson commented that addressing sections of the comprehensive plan or individual areas one at a time could lessen staff impact. He agreed that there are many issues pending which must be addressed by staff. Councilman Geiger suggested that a comprehensive plan update is a guess for the future and should be updated on a regular basis as the reality of the future is seen. He stated that two issues should be included, the percentage of impervious surfaces and volume control. Mayor Weatherill asked for last comments from Commissioners and Council members. Commissioner Crouch stated she thought this study session was productive and suggested the Commission and Council meet again in approximately three months. Commissioner Chang agreed with Commissioner Crouch's suggestion and also asked for clarification of the public meeting and public hearing responsibilities. Councilman Rider suggested the comprehensive plan be reviewed for suggestions of what areas/sections should be addressed first. nil adjourned the Study Session at 9:37 P.~ ~ Leslie J. Weatherill, Mayor