HomeMy WebLinkAbout091307• City of Port Townsend
Planning Commission Meeting
September 13, 2007 7:00 PM
City Hall -Third Floor Conference Room
Meeting Materials:
EXH 1 A. Nelson, J. Surber, S. Wassmer, Staff Memo re: PTMC Code Amendments -Third
Workshop, September 7, 2007
EXH lA Home Occupation Table Research Table
EXH 1B Child Care Proposed Amendments
EXH 2 Agenda, Planning Commission Meeting, September 13, 2007
L CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Liesl Slabaugh called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.
II. ROLL CALL:
The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Jerry
Fry, Alice King, Julian Ray, and Liesl Slabaugh
• Bill LeMaster and George Unterseher were excused.
Staff: Judy Surber and Suzanne Wassmer were present.
III. AGENDA:
Julian Ray moved to accept the agenda; Liesl Slabaugh seconded. The motion to approve the
agenda, as written, was approved all in favor.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Correction: Page 6, paragraph 3 -- Add "walkable community" after goals...
Minutes of August 9, 2007: Steve Emery moved and Jerry Fry seconded that the minutes of
August 9, 2007 be approved, as amended. The motion passed, all in favor.
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None)
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
a. PTMC Code Revisions -Workshop III- (Child Care, Home Occupation)
(Judy Surber, Senior Planner)
Home OccuRation
Planning Commission September 13, 2007 Page 1 of 7
• Judy Surber reminded that when Alyse Nelson was hired, the idea was to pick the "low hanging
fruit" of potential code revisions and to deal with relatively straight forward, low resource issues.
Home occupation and child care were not originally on the list, and have required more time to
develop. She said that Alyse Nelson had done an excellent job of going through the codes of
various Washington cities, which are presented in EXH. 1 A. She noted that most cities have the
same types of criteria, (trips, number of clients, etc.) despite the difficulty to enforce because
these are the factors which can have negative impact on the neighborhood.
Harriett Capron said there seemed to be two angles from which to view the problem: knowing
there is a problem and having an effective response to it. She asked if there was someone on
staff who is designated to enforce these rules. Judy Surber said that Development Services
Department has been working on designating a person for code enforcement and there has also
been some discussion that the Police Department may have some role in code enforcement. The
issue has not been fully worked out and the process is still primarily complaint based.
She said they had included in the proposal a new checkpoint in the annual renewal of a business
license to verify that volumes or conditions of business activity were still under the thresholds
allowed. (This was modeled after Issaquah.)
Staff Report (EXH. 1). Judy Surber walked through the key points, including the issues and
suggestions raised at the last meeting. The staff agrees with the need for public notice. She said
that in reviewing the Type Its on file, they found that it would be more important to do the
mailed notice than to publish the notice in the newspaper. The suggestion (on page 6) is to
change Type Its to mailed notice with the exceptions being: short sub-divisions, R-II cottage
housing developments, Type Its that require SEPA review, and a shoreline permit. For the
exceptions, the published notice would be continued and the mailing notice (300 feet) done as
well.
Julian Ray said that web site publishing along with much other City information had been
discussed as a way to augment the other notifications. Chair Slabaugh said she did not recall that
conversation, but the idea could be considered. Mr. Ray said the GUI (graphical user interface)
would not be very difficult, and that this may be a good use of web technology if the culture for
maintaining and using it could be established. This would be an alternative to making maps and
other reference documentation available for citizens to view at the front desk or the like. Ms.
Surber said she would speak with Leonard Yarberry, Director of Development Services. She
said that CHET, the permit tracking system, is to be made available for people to check the status
of their permit applications, but she did not know of other plans. (Mr. Ray noted that the school
district had just completed a survey which indicated that. 74% of Port Townsend residents have
Internet access.)
Chair Slabaugh advised that staff should complete their presentation before the Commission
pursued these tangential topics. Judy Surber said she would follow up with department
management on the notion to use web technology more generally.
Judy Surber referred to an earlier meeting when Rick Sepler described a model where an
applicant submitted for a Type II, with public notice, where the director could bump it to a Type
III if there were a significant number of comments and challenges from the public. One issue is
that an applicant pays for Type II, and then may need to pay additionally to go through the Type
III process, depending on the input from neighbors. Other jurisdictions did not use that model,
• but adapted the tiered model of Exempt, Minor and Major, which staff has recommended.
Planning Commission September I3, Z007 Page 2 of 7
Ms. Surber referred to the suggestions that had been made by the Commissioners on page 2. She
• said that staff was fairly certain these had been addressed in the recommendations which follow
on page 3.
Number of Employees -Staff looked at the ways requests or applications seemed to clump
together. There were those with little or no visibility, characterized by no non-resident
employees and no discernible extra trips. That is, a neighbor may not even notice that the home
business exists. That would be a simple process of a Type I.
The question is how to you break down the trips, because the impact will be greater in some
neighborhoods than in others. Staff did not think that relatively undeveloped neighborhoods
should have more leniency in terms of impacts, assuming that the neighborhood will fill out over
time. However, consideration could be made for whether the location is on a local street or
developed collector arterial, where heavier traffic patterns are the norm. Therefore the impact of
trips would not be as discernible to a neighbor.
She said the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Manual was used to set the threshold for number
of trips. The figures were adjusted in consideration that Port Townsend has two people per
average household, not three. This resulted in the average number of trips per day per household
to be 8 one way trips, or 4 round trips. The table shows allowed trips in the Exempt, Minor and
Major categories. She said that controlling the number of cars could be easier than number of
trips but that other cities use number of trips. If the location is on a collector or arterial, more
trips are allowed. This is reflected in the Permit Administration table.
Parking - Ms. Surber explained the rationale for the staff recommendations, which is
documented in the memo. For Minor, no additional parking would be allowed. For Major, from
zero to three spaces could be required on site depending what is available on the street frontage,
how many employees, etc., on a case by case basis. Recently revised ADU parking requirements
served as a model, with regard to development of on street parking. Business related vehicle
rules are outlined, as well.
Outside Storage -Many jurisdictions do not allow this at all. The question of outside art displays
is resolved by prohibiting it. She reviewed the criteria that would place a business into the
Exempt, Minor and Major categories for this factor.
Mr. Ray raised the issue of signage, and its relationship to other factors.
Ms. Surber pointed out a typographical error on page 5: Under Type II a.) instructional classes,
" 2 vehicle trips should be changed to 4". The result is 2 cars. Under b.0 on a collector arterial,
it should say no more than 8. In the next column, Major a.) should be 6 instead of 3, and b.)
should be 10 instead of 5 vehicle trips. The most allowed with a CUP on a major
arterial/collector, is a class with no more than 5 cars at one time or 10 round trips in a day.
She also discussed the recommendations for Instructional Classes and the proposed limit on size
in square feet of floor space. In all other cities, 500 square feet was the limit. The building code
says that if you add more than 500 square feet, this changes the occupancy/construction
requirements.
Ms. Surber noted that some jurisdictions are even more complex. Puyallup employs a formula
that accounts for three factors, lot area; street type and zoning, in addition to the other typical
characteristics.
Planning Commission September Y3, 2007 Page 3 of 7
With regard to the concern raised by Alice King about the owner of the residence being the
licensed person, staff would require that the dwelling be the primary residence of the principle
practitioner /business owner; the dwelling and/or the business may be rented or owned.
After covering the recommendations, Ms. Surber asked if there were questions and/or further
direction. "Should staff be looking at more extensively at codes?" She noted that SEPA review
would be required once the basic framework is agreed upon.
Harriet Capron asked for verification that a Type III is a conditional use permit/process, and if
that meant that anon-supportive neighbor can stop the approval. Judy Surber confirmed that it is
conditional, but that denial of the application would require showing that the criteria could not be
met. She explained that the direction had been to have the criteria for Home Occupation plus the
CUP criteria. However, the net effect is redundancy. Therefore, Ms. Surber is suggesting that
the CUP criteria should be augmented to include the special Home Occupation factors.
Ms. Capron described the scenario of a neighbor who strongly disapproves of a proposed
business, and asked what process the neighbor would follow. Ms. Surber said that the neighbor
would need to review the criteria for approval and show how the project would not meet that
criteria, i.e. that which is outlined in the staff memo and had just been discussed. She noted that
even if a factor is not specifically listed as a criterion, if it can be shown that a project would
detract from the neighborhood, or be detrimental in some other way, a neighbor could bring that
to bear on the decision.
Ms. Capron asked if much contention is expected, or if neighbors usually abide these situations.
Judy Surber said that her only concern is related to the restrictions on the number of trips. She
• said that staff believed them to be reasonable from the point of view of neighbors, and that they
are consistent with standards in other cities. However, from the standpoint of a business
practitioner and what is currently going on in Port Townsend, she said she did not know what
might be considered reasonable or practical. Alice King said she also wondered if a music
instructor, for example, could reasonably work within those guidelines. She noted that aside
from vehicle trips that would be a very non-obtrusive business.
Chair Slabaugh brought up round trips and the example of a parent dropping off her/his child for
a lesson, leaving and returning an hour later to pick him/her up. She wished to verify that that
would be 4 trips or 2 round trips for one lesson. Or, if the parent waits, then a car is parked for
an hour. She said perhaps the criteria should be stated in terms of round trips.
Julian Ray noted that staff had done very well in organizing the criteria and pulling these issues
together. He said that he agreed with Ms. Slabaugh's point that having 3 students a day would
place someone in the Major category, because of trips, even if totally unobtrusive otherwise. He
brought up the issue of enforcement. Chair Slabaugh asked if the typical piano teacher would
even file for a home occupation business license. It was agreed that these criteria are to have
tools in place for that rare example where there is negative impact and legitimate complaints
from neighbors. Suzanne Wassmer noted the example of a start up yoga instructor who currently
meets the criteria but may exceed the threshold as the practice expands. Commissioners
preferred to have the capability of differentiating between pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle trips as
away to accommodate more students or clients. All agreed that electric cars are "vehicles".
Ms. Surber said that incorporating this feedback from the Planning Commission, she would
initiate the SEPA process.
Mr. Ray asked how difficult it would be to conduct a survey regarding number of trips. Ms.
Surber said she intended to make calls and attempt to get responses from some businesses.
Planning Commission September 13, 2007 Page 4 of7
There was also clarification that the total trips allowed per household equals the base of 8 plus
the "additional" trips attributable to the business. Ms. Capron asked how effective the business
license follow up call is in identifying those who should be applying for Home Occupation status
and at which level. Suzarme Wassmer said she is contacting new businesses, but does not
necessarily have full information on those who have registered years ago.
Ms. Surber asked if all were in agreement that a limousine or taxi should be treated differently
than a typical sedan with a logo on it. After a brief discussion, Mr. Ray said he thought it should
be based on discernable impact to the neighborhood. There was a brief discussion considering
whether or not other vehicle categories, such as State vehicle classifications based on weight, or
"commercial vehicle" were applicable. Chair Slabaugh said that the average number of vehicles
per household were important. She said that if a vehicle is only used for business as in the case
of a limousine or taxi, that impacts the neighborhood more than just another car. Ms. Surber
said that she would try to flesh that out a bit more.
Ms. Capron asked if the cost of various licenses had been firmed up since the last meeting.
Suzanne Wassmer said that eliminating the newspaper notice of the Minor category would reduce
the cost of the Minor by $150. She said the Type II Minor would be about $267 and the type III
would be $417.50 plus actual Hearings Examiner fees ($500 estimate).
Judy Surber conveyed regrets from Alyse Nelson that she could not attend this meeting. She said
Alyse expected to attend the Hearing on this matter, if at all possible.
Child Care
• Judy Surber said there were a number of similarities between Home Occupation and Child Care
issues in a residential neighborhood. She noted that there had not been as many revisions to
Child Care as to Home Occupation. The staff had considered the different levels of child care
further. One of the unusual aspects is that a family child care center is licensed by the State, but
a pre-school is not licensed by the State. The notion of having a more stringent permitting
process was considered for pre-schools. However, it was found that, per the WACS, if the City
requests the State to be involved, they will review the facility with the same requirements, and
certify the pre-school.
The staff then decided to change wording according to the WACS to family home childcare,
meaning 12 or fewer children in the home of the provider. This would be allowed outright,
subject to some code requirements, in residential, commercial and mixed use zoning districts.
Adding a provision to disallow required playground structures in the front yard setback is under
consideration. The code currently places no restriction on the number of day cares in a multi-
family structure, but it may be self-limiting.
At the next level of in home pre-schools, 12 or fewer, there would be the same requirement to
have licensing by the State. Alyse Nelson has a few questions into the State and is awaiting a
reply to confirm the drop off/loading and parking requirements.
At the next level of Child Day Care Centers and Pre-Schools, larger stand alone businesses not
in home, facilities would be permitted outright in the mixed use districts, and conditional in R-III
and R-IV, and C-I. They would be prohibited in an R-I and R-II zone. She pointed out that R-III
is actually being built out as single family at this point, and perhaps these centers should be
• prohibited there as well. However, a Comp plan amendment is under consideration that would
force building to a minimum density in R-III. She asked Commissioners to think about that in
particular. It would also be conditional in a manufacturing district, i.e. allowed if licensed by the
state.
Planning Commission September 13, 2007 Page 5 of 7
She explained the applicability of the Type II (Administrative with notice) to existing structures
versus the conditional use permit needed for new construction or new addition to existing
structures.
She described the final category as a middle ground. The reason for consideration of in home
child day care centers and pre-schools with 13 or children is because this type can be licensed.
The Department of Early Learning will license this type of facility but requires building to a
different occupancy. This a dual use structure where the child care or school area is separate
from the living quarters. She said that there is one instance in Port Townsend, Castle Hill that
has been in existence for 20 years. This is a bi-level residence in the Upttown area, with separate
access to a day light basement on the ground level, with living quarters on the upper level. Ms.
Surber suggested that the concept is viable for future possible uses and examined to ensure that
the neighborhood is protected. Ms. Slabaugh asked for clarification on where Castle Hill fits,
since it has 12 or fewer at a time but has two classes per day; Ms. Surber said that she would
need to check on that. As apre-school, it is now exempt from licensing.
Julian Ray noted that the number of trips per day for two classes of twelve could potentially be
24 x 2 round trips or 96 single trips per day. For all other factors, he is comfortable with State
standards, but is concerned about the traffic/trip impact on the neighborhood. As a way to deal
with it, Ms. Surber suggested that trips be more restricted on local roads than on major arterials.
However, Ms. Slabaugh pointed out that that many, including herself, would prefer a
neighborhood day care to be located off a major arterial.
Chair Slabaugh said that child care is a public good and should be encouraged. She said she was
supportive of having licensing requirements that ensure safety and healthy conditions. However,
she was not in favor of City code changes that made it more difficult for child care centers
compared to other businesses, such as not allowing them in C-I and/or manufacturing zones.
There was a brief discussion about the limited C-I areas; the location of Provisions was one. The
area at San Juan and F Street was identified as C-1, neighborhood commercial, and under review
for rezone as C-I, M/U to make it consistent with the other side of the road.
Jerry Fry said he had not seen yet in Port Townsend, a cottage development where the central
meeting hall is sued for child care for the residents. Judy Surber confirmed that that can be done
here through a PUD (planned use development). Mr. Emery said that Rosewind already has one.
Ms. Surber says that the State also allows conversion of a single family home into a day care
center, although it is quite expensive and can be disruptive to a neighborhood, so the staff is not
recommending that.
Ms. Surber asked for direction on the limits for 12 and under and 13 or over facilities. She asked
if those limits should be per day or per class, for example. Mr. Ray restated that the
infrastructure and traffic cost was high above the limit of 12 per day, but that he did not have an
answer. Ms. Capron wondered if day care facilities could survive financially with 12 /13 or less
children per day. Ms. Surber reminded that the trip issue applies only to residential, not to
commercial areas. The Commissioners generally agreed that 12 children/students should be the
maximum for a residential area. Ms. King noted that the existing facilities would be
grandfathered, regardless.
Mr. Emery questioned the instance of a large property on Discovery or more generally a large
• property with plenty of land, adequate setback and driveways, etc. Could this be a suitable type
of place? In addressing the specific case on Discovery Road, Mr. Ray said that that visibility is
limited and that he believed it would be a very poor choice for this type of facility.
Planning Commission September Y3, 2007 Page 6 of 7
Ms. Surber summarized the new recommendation to be "12 or fewer children per day" and that
the existing Castle Hill facility would be allowed, through a grandfather clause. The last
category will be eliminated.
VII. NEW BUSINESS: (None)
VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS:
• Thursday, September 27, 2007: Sign Code Revision Briefing (R. Sepler and S. Wassmer)
Suzanne Wassmer noted that the last meeting of the Sign Code subcommittee would beheld on
September 19 at 4:00 PM; Roger Lizut had been the Planning Commission representative. Other
Commissioners are invited to attend, if convenient.
• Thursday, October 11, 2007: Tentative -Public Hearing -Omnibus PTMC Revisions
After a brief discussion on whether this should be the first of multiple hearings, dealing only with
the simplest and most straight forward of the Code Revisions, staff and Commissioners decided
to postpone the Hearing until SEPA and all other preparatory work is complete; date to be
determined. The meeting is not cancelled; another work topic will be scheduled.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Surber gave a brief update on the work in progress for her, which included the HAPN
(Housing Action Plan Network) Committee and upcoming Public Hearings; the upcoming
Energy Committee meetings on exploration of alternative energy sources/management options;
and the Global Climate Change Committee, which is being done jointly with the County,
focusing initially on an Emissions inventory.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
Julian Ray moved for adjournment and Steve Emery seconded; all were in favor. Chair Slabaugh
adjourned the meeting at 8:22 PM.
Lie abaugh, Chair
Gail ernhard, Recorder
•
Planning Commission September 13, 2007 Page 7 of 7