Members Roger Horn, Chair Amy Tousley, Vice Chair Mark Derricott Paul Ingman Carol Law Larry Leveen Tom Muller James Reddick Rob Richards Jeanne Marie Thomas Richard Wolf

Planning Commission Special Meeting

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 City Hall, Council Chambers

601 4th Avenue East Olympia, Washington

AGENDA

1. Call to Order 6:30 p.m. A. Roll Call B. Acceptance of Agenda C. Announcements

2. Public Communications (for items not on the agenda) 6:40 p.m. 3. Deliberation – Shoreline Master Program Update: 6:50 p.m. Chapter 4, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations – Building Heights Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner

4. Evaluation of Meeting/Other Thoughts 9:20 p.m. 5. Adjournment 9:40 p.m. Enclosures: Staff Report – Shoreline Master Program Update

The listed times for each agenda item are approximate only. If you need special accommodations to participate in this meeting, call (360) 753-8314 by 10:00 a.m. three days prior to the meeting

and ask for the ADA Coordinator.

Hearing-impaired individuals may call the Washington State Relay Service by dialing 711 or 1-800-833-6384 and ask to be connected to the phone number listed

above, or call the City of Olympia’s TTY phone number at (360) 753-8270.

Planning Commission Deliberation Process

Purpose: This process is intended to provide a general framework to guide the Planning Commission in its decision-making but is not intended to be overly rigid. Deviations to this process may occur from time to time.

Step 1 Information phase - Gather information regarding the proposal:

• Staff presentation and Q&A on the proposal,

• Gather information from the public through public testimony (if appropriate),

• Close public testimony,

• Staff follow-up on questions generated from public testimony or staff report.

Step 2 Discussion phase - Potential effects of proposal – both positive and negative: • Start with a free form discussion and evaluation of proposal- both pros and cons,

• Weigh policy/code change against Comprehensive Plan policies and goals,

• Following free form discussion, formally go around the table and have each commission member state their position on the proposal (~2 minutes each),

• Follow-up among commission members – Q&A on viewpoints,

• Request staff to provide their perspective on any issues raised (as appropriate),

• Close discussion phase. Step 3 Decision phase - Formulate a recommendation:

• Chair will begin with a restatement of the staff recommendation.

• Is there a motion to approve policy as presented by staff? If yes, motion is made and vote is taken. If motion succeeds, recommendation is made.

• If no motion to recommend as presented by staff or if motion fails, is there an alternate recommendation? If yes, open floor to discussion of motion. Discussion should generally follow format in Step 2. Commission should consider if motion is significantly different from the original proposal, and if so, whether additional public testimony should be taken. Repeat this process as necessary to develop a recommendation.

• Successful motion will generally be captured in the minutes and transmitted to the Council in this manner. Where desired by the majority, a recommendation may be forwarded in letter format.

• Provide opportunity for dissenting opinions to be stated – minority report.

• If no motion is successful, deliberation ends and no recommendation is made.

COUNCIL STUDY SESSION

COMMITTEE DATE_________

AGENDA ITEM ________

Shoreline Master Program Update – Staff Report OPC 01/25/2012 – Special Meeting Page 1 of 2

OLYMPIA PLANNING COMMISSION Olympia, Washington

January 25, 2012

Shoreline Master Program Update Deliberations

DIRECTOR’S Conduct deliberations on the Draft Shoreline Master Program RECOMMENDATION: with emphasis on Chapter 6, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations – Building Heights. STAFF CONTACT: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner

Community Planning and Development, 360.753.8048 ORIGINATED BY: Community Planning and Development PRESENTERS AND OTHERS NOTIFIED: Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: None BUDGET IMPACT/ SOURCE OF FUNDS: NA PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC REVIEW: - On January 4, 2010, Planning Commission Briefing – overview and schedule of

Shoreline Master Program Update - January 14, January 21, February 10, and February 24, 2010 Series of public

meetings - March and September 2010, Series of Planning Commission Shoreline

Committee meetings between Planning Commission - April 19, May 3, May 17, June 21, October 18, and November 1, 2010,

Briefings - November 15, 2010, and January 10, 2011, Public hearings - Deliberations on January 10 and 12, 2011; February 2, 7, and 28, 2011;

March 7, 21, and 23, 2011; April 4, 6, 18, and 20, 2011; May 2, 4, 16, and 25, 2011; June 6 and 8, 2011; July 18, 2011; August 1, 15, and 29, 2011; September 19, 2011; October 3, 5, 17, 19, and 24, 2011; November 7, 9, 19, 21, and 30, 2011; December 5 and 10, 2011; January 9 and 11, 2012

BACKGROUND: At the January 9, 2012, meeting the Commission finished reviewing revisions to Chapter 5 (with the exception of Section 5.10 – View Protection).

Deliberations

At the January 11, 2012, meeting the Commission discussed view protection and approaches for establishing building heights. Discussion on heights will continue at the upcoming meeting.

Shoreline Master Program Update – Staff Report OPC 01/25/2011 – Special Meeting Page 2 of 2

ANALYSIS: The Shoreline Subcommittee developed three approaches for the Commission’s consideration:

1. Retain existing regulations: See excerpt from Views and Heights briefing

paper for summary of existing regulations (attached to 12/19/11 staff report). In general, building heights are limited to 35’, but could be taller if views are not obstructed. Commercial, industrial and mixed use structures could be constructed to heights allowed under zoning.

2. Support proposed heights on Table 6.2A of the Draft SMP: Building heights vary depending on use and shoreline environment designation. Residential structures would be capped at 35’, but could be taller if views are not obstructed. Commercial, industrial, and mixed use structures in the Urban Intensity shoreline environment could be 42’ tall within the first 100’ from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and up to 65’ tall if more than 100’ from the OHWM (see Attachment 2).

3. Use height limitations established in the Shoreline Management Act, which would cap all building heights to 35’ unless where views are not obstructed as allowed by statute:

RCW 90.58.320, Height Limitation Respecting Permits – No permit shall be issues pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.

The Commission discussed an alternative approach using building profiles as the basis for determining building heights along key site corridors. Visual analysis was not scoped for the SMP update because it is not a required by Ecology, and analysis of visual impacts will occur at the time of land use application where impacts can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The schedule is an important consideration – only four meetings remain between now and the end of March for the Commission to wrap up deliberations and finalize a recommendation to the City Council. Given this constraint and the considerations noted above, the Commission should take a vote on one of the three approaches outlined above.

OPTIONS: NA