Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071207• City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall -Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH 5. Agenda for July 12, 2007 EXH. 1. J. Surber & A. Nelson, Suggested Code Amendments -Development Regulations "Running List, June 29, 2007 EXH 2. J. Surber & A. Nelson, Suggested Code Amendments in Bill Format ,July 9, 2007 EXH 3. J. Surber & A. Nelson, Attachments to EXH 2 (7 pages), July 9, 2007 EXH A. R. Sepler, Proposed Uptown C-III Residential Parking Requirements, July 6, 2007 EXH B. R. Sepler, Draft Ordinance: Establishing an Off Street Parking Requirement for Residential Uses in the C-III Portions of the Uptown National Landmark Historic District; undated, for discussion on June 12, 2007 (should be July 12, 2007) EXH 4. D. Timmons, Memorandum to City Council re: Lots of Record Process -Referral to Planning Commission, June 26, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Lizut called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. • II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, Liesl SIabaugh and George Unterseher Bill LeMaster and Julian Ray were excused. III. AGENDA Mr. Sepler suggested that Item b. be moved to the top of the agenda to allow Ms. Nelson to leave after that business was concluded. Chair Lizut asked if there were any other suggested changes to the agenda. There were none. The agenda was approved, as amended. N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lizut suggested that in reviewing the minutes, each Commissioner and staff person should utilize the "Find" feature of Word to locate and review his or her own comments. In this way, the entire document is covered and the time required for each person is minimized. June 28, 2007: Mr. Emery noted that he was not present for the approval of the agenda for this meeting and had not seconded the motion to approve it. [Recorder's note: a review of the notes and recording revealed that Mr. Lizut had seconded the motion, and that change has been made for the final version of the June 28 minutes.] Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 1 of 8 Steve Emery moved and Liesl Slabaugh seconded that the minutes of June 28, 2007 be approved, as amended. The motion passed, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: b. PTMC Code Revisions Workshop (Alyse Nelson) Rick Sepler recalled that the Planning Commission had reviewed a list of proposed amendments at the previous meeting. There are 24 proposed amendments summarized in Exhibits 1 - 3. He said that with feedback and clear direction from the Planning Commission this evening, staff would anticipate holding the public hearing in August on them. Of the 24, the Title 20 amendments (dealing with fees or process under the province of the City Council) are included as a courtesy to allow for questions or comments from the Commission. He then turned the presentation over to Alyse Nelson. [Richard and Kristin Berg arrived at 7:08 PM, and Chair Lizut verified that Mr. Berg had no general public comment, but wished to comment about a specific proposed code revision during that portion of the meeting.] Alyse Nelson first explained the exhibits, and distributed paper copies of Exhibits that had been e-mailed previously. EXH 1. is the running list with all amendments, and EXH 2. is the suggested bill format for those that are being moving forward at this time. EXH 3. is the set of attachments for tables that fall within EXH 2. Ms. Nelson noted that at the last meeting, it was decided that the numbering of the running list should start with the High/High priority items. She explained that most of the items are high priority and low time investment. Chair Lizut reminded that this meeting was a workshop only, and that no decisions on language or otherwise would be made in this meeting. The first item on the list Homeless Shelter is a high priority, high time investment that the Planning commission decided to move forward with at this time. The items 2 through 8 are not being addressed at this time. Item 9 begins the High priority/low time investment list. Item 1 -the intention is to provide for a definition of Homeless Shelter in the code, and identify districts where this could be a conditional use. Chair Lizut asked if it was correct to assume that C-III specifically relates to the Legion Hall. There was clarification from Mr. Sepler that duration means how long a person may stay there. Item 9 - (See EXH. 3 for bill format changes) The intention is to provide clarification of how many dwelling units are allowed per lot in single family zones. Mr. Sepler noted the instance where an applicant intended to build four homes on one undivided parcel of 4 lots. This revision is to clarify that each single family house must be on its own lot. Ifmulti-family, that is mute. Item 10 -The purpose is to add fees into the section of the PTMC related to the Shoreline Master Program code. Item 11 -This adds a mailing requirement to the Type II application notice, i.e. notice to adjoining property owners within 300 feet. In response to Mr. Unterseher's question as to Planning Commission July 72, 2007 Page 2 of 8 whether 300 feet is adequate, Mr. Sepler said that was standard within the State. Ms. Nelson said the language was largely based on the language for Type III. Item 12 -Since mailing will now be a requirement for Type II applications, the SMP no longer needs to include this additional information about mailing. This change eliminates the redundancy. Item 13 -This adds better language to applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments, to ensure that the application deals with the heart of the issue, i.e. the density proposed and impact on infrastructure. Item 14 -This appears in EXH 3, page 2; it allows more height to make commercial development more feasible. Mr. Sepler noted the example of the McCairn building on Sheridan Street, where the ground floor is constrained in height. For medical and other uses, it is not possible to accommodate the required utilities and systems. By requiring minimum height and ground floor (from 10 to 12 feet), the height of the building must also be adjusted (to 40 feet). Item 15 -This is the same change as item 14, but within the SMP regulations. Item 16 -This is the same change as item 14, allowing the height increase in C-Il and C-III. Mr. Unterseher verified with Mr_ Sepler that this refers not to finished ceiling but to the structural ceiling. Item 17 -This adds a phrase, when dealing with bonus density, to clarify the procedure for fractional dwelling unit calculations. In response to Chair Lizut's question about the current scheme, Mr. Sepler noted that the current 20% seems to be inadequate because it is not being taken advantage o£ He suggested that perhaps that aspect should be revisited later. Item 18 -This provides for reference within the multi-family residential section to the very specific lighting standards that fall within the mixed use section of the code, except for item 6 which is applicable to commercial development but not residential. Item 19 -This is to add more flexibility to the minor variance process, as well as more explicit criteria. Currently, the differences in criteria between a variance and a minor variance are minimal. Ms. Nelson said that the definition of a minor variance has been augmented, and added approval criteria for minor variances. Mr. Sepler said that the intent is not to replace the variance itself, but to allow consideration of the way in which this community was platted. He said there are areas that are characterized by non-conformance; because of the survey methods employed there are numbers of parcels that are fractionally smaller than what should be there. This change provides a degree of latitude to address those situations, where the criteria would otherwise not be met. Richard Berg added that he wished to present an example and speak in favor of the code change. He introduced himself as an architect, resident of uptown Port Townsend, and former Chair of the Planning Commission. He said that he and his wife, Kristin, had purchased a piece of property across the street from his home that is comprised of two lots plus 10 feet of another lot (110 x 120 feet or 13, 200 square feet); it is the site of one small house built in the 1950s. He said their intention had been to be in a position to determine how the property would be developed, rather than leave that to someone else. Their preference is to build a cottage development. However, the minimum size is four cottages and one-third of a block, i.e, 13,333 square feet; therefore, the property is 133 square feet too small. Currently, lot area is not one of the items that can be dealt with through the minor variance process, i.e. one cannot obtain a minor variance for Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 3 of 8 lot area. He said that he believes a four cottage infill in that part of Uptown would be positive for the town, providing housing diversity and smaller units for a more affordable price. Currently, this cannot be done without going through a major variance process, which is would be costly in terms of time and money. He encouraged the Commission to approve this change because it would have benefits for the town, for those trying to do infill projects, and for staff. Mr. Unterseher asked Mr. Sepler why lot size was not originally accommodated by the minor variance process. Mr. Sepler said that he believed it was an inadvertent omission, not a deliberate one. He said staff was asking for (up to) 20% because it would facilitate moving forward in appropriate areas, not allow unreasonable jamming in of additional units. Mr. Berg said the existing house was moved from elsewhere and placed 12 feet from the street right of way, although it is about 30 feet from the actual street. In order to put a porch on the house, because of the 10 foot setback, they had applied for a minor variance and were granted an additional foot (10 %) to build a three foot porch. He said they would have preferred 20%, which would have allowed a four foot porch. Ms. Slabaugh mentioned that Jeff Randall had recently proposed a change in the setback regulations that would apply to that type of situation. She also asked if the proposed changes, as worded, would burden the staff with interpretation problems. Mr. Sepler said that he believed that the definitions and processes were such that application by staff could be readily handled. In response to a comment from Ms. Capron in support of affordable and/or low income housing, Mr. Berg clarified that his goal was not to build low income housing; rather, the units would be "more affordable" because of smaller size. That is, they would be 1,000 - 1,200 square foot market rate houses. Mr. Sepler explained the schedule for the list of proposed changes, noting that the Planning Commission hearing would be targeted for the first meeting of August, with movement on to City Council in September. Item 20 -This adds language to clarify that surveys are required and must be done by licensed surveyor, which is common practice in most jurisdictions. Item 21 -This removes the requirement for building envelopes on final short plats, although they will be used on preliminary plat maps, both for preliminary and short plats. Item 22 -Deletes language referring to the requirement for title company certification for securityinterests. Answering the question raised at the last meeting, Ms. Nelson said that state law does not require the language and the City does not hold applicants to this process. Item 23 -This revision is to correct code language to refer to the "preliminary plat map'', not the "short plat map". Item 24 - As in item 21, this removes the requirement for building envelopes on final plats. It also adds language as shown in order to meet the state statute. Item 25 -Introduces the optional DNS SEPA process into the PTMC. This is beneficial when planning under the GMA as it makes for consolidated review and more efficient permit processing. Mr. Sepler said DNS's are rare, and apply only to certain kinds of situations. Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 4 of 8 • Item 26 -This provides clarification regarding maximum density within the CAO; for sites having a confirmed critical area, the associated buffers must be included as well as the critical area itself. Item 27 -This refers to CAO geologically hazardous areas. Language changes are intended to add clarity and greater internal consistency. Item 28 -This is intended to provide consistency between the CAO and the SMP by adding steep slope regulation language to the CAO from the SMP. Item 29 -This is to ensure that short subdivisions that involve vacations will require a Type III land use decision process through the hearings examiner. Item 30 -This adds shoreline permits into the code, so that they are referenced to the SMP code. Item 31 -This adds shoreline management permits to tables in the PTMC. Ms. Nelson referred to EXH 3, item 31 on pages 4 and 5, which adds language to clarify the types of permits being addressed by Type IIIs and also adding a clarifying footnote to Table 2 about the process. There was a brief discussion about which items would be covered in the hearing process. Mr. Sepler said that there was a potential for introducing parking requirements for C-III in the uptown district, which may necessitate multiple hearings. He said that the Commissioners could decide to take public testimony on the entire list or break it into sections with testimony after each section. Ms. Capron commented that most of the code changes were at such a low level of detail that it was difficult for those who did not work with these issues everyday to evaluate them. Mr. Sepler said that the staff tries to point out the substantive items and explain the rationale for proposed changes. He noted that this set was perfunctory because staff had selected the easiest and most straight forward items to do first. The next tier will have more value decisions. Mr. Sepler then clarified that it was considered best to process this set of changes before moving on to more complex items. However, he added that there is always the possibility that testimony will add information will influence the direction onany item. Ms. Nelson added that if Commissioners would like to have more contextual information for any item, she could provide that. a. Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Ordinance -Status Report (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Emery moved and Mr. Unterseher seconded that the public hearing for the Howard/Ranier Street Overlay District Ordinance (carried over from a previous meeting) be closed. The motion was approved, all in favor. Mr. Sepler then briefed the Commission on what had transpired with regard to the nursing facility plans since the last hearing. He said that two days before the first hearing, there had been high confidence that the nursing facility development would proceed. However, for a variety of reasons, the proponent firm has chosen not to proceed.. Mr. Sepler explained that the first plan which had been viewed by the Commission, showing commercial sites, setback for the building, etc, had been prepared by their architect, and was consistent with the City's goals for the area. • However, the Chair of the corporation was dissatisfied with that plan, and brought in another architect to incorporate several additional elements for "operational efficiency". For example, they wished to have a single nursing station as a hub for several patient wings. Ultimately, Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 5 of 8 despite efforts by the City to accommodate, the CEO chose to halt the process. He noted that the second hearing had been postponed in order to continue working through the issues with the second architect and determine the list of changes that may need to be made. He listed the issues of which the City must be mindful, at this point. First, funding for Howard Street will be almost entirely through an LID (local improvement district) and property owners are essential to it. Zoning alone may not achieve all the purposes identified by the community; the City is actively engaged with several adjacent property owners to seek firmer commitment for construction of mixed use consistent with the proposed ordinance. If there is interest, minor adjustments may be in order to make particular properties work, in terms of size/area etc. Ms. King relayed some information from an acquaintance who works at Kah Tai. Apparently, staff had been told that the City made it too difficult and placed too many roadblocks in the path. Mr. Sepler and Commissioners reviewed the two-story requirement. He said that the first concept sketch had a separate building that the corporation would either build or sell the pads, and the nursing facility would be sited behind. Since that was not agreeable to them, other possibilities were offered, but the two-story building on Howard Street remained a critical factor. Mr. Unterseher noted that HCA (Hospital Corporation of America) is also based in Tennessee and "that model has been completely debunked" (centralized nursing station hub). Mr. Sepler said that he would seek to return to the Commission with an alternative scheme that would achieve the same purposes. He noted that atwo-story office building with commercial on the ground floor could be a satisfactory alternative. Mr. Emery asked if the option of the nursing facility should be left in the ordinance and there was agreement that the issue should be considered later when other options, including a supermarket facility, have been more fully explored. Chair Lizut said that he had been requested to appear before the Community Development Land Use sub-committee of the City Council. Current members are Michelle Sandoval, Catherine Robinson and George Randels. He said that the status of the Howard/Ranier matter had been mentioned and concerns had been raised about the urgency of codifying the regulations that support the overall vision, rather than allow urban sprawl. The Planning Commission had been urged to be proactive in their recommendations to City Council. He noted that other work such as the code changes and other matters could easily overtake matters of long range significance; therefore, staff and Commissioners should try to find the optimal balance. Mr. Sepler noted that the work plan derived at the beginning of the year was being followed. However, the mixed use issue has been raised several times, and needs to be addressed. He said that the Commissioners need to hear staff s best assessment of why current mixed use zones are not working and decide whether to create more of them or make other changes. Chair Lizut requested that Mr. Sepler provide a document that lists the issues, options and trade-offs. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler said he would draft a white paper on mixed use areas, history, status, issues and options. He said he would list assumptions and conclusions. He noted that providing infrastructure was a very key issue. Ms. Slabaugh added that, at minimum, additional areas may need to be rezoned in order to protect them from sprawl, even if the entire solution is not available immediately. Mr. Lizut summarized the first step as developing a short, coherent, understandable statement that defines the parameters and can be used as a basis for discussion. Mr. Sepler noted that this item is on the Planning Commission work plan, but had not yet received attention. He said he would attempt to provide a draft prior to the next meeting. • Mr. Lizut noted that there were two New Business items on the agenda. Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 6 of 8 • VII. NEW BUSINESS Uptown C-III Residential Parking Requirements -Workshop on Draft Ordinance (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler noted that the public hearing for this item would probably be the same day as the other code revisions. He recalled that the parking requirement for C-III was extinguished based on the rationale that removal of the off street parking requirement would promote greater housing density. An unintended consequence in the uptown area was the possibility of building to the full envelope. The application for a particular building prompted the realization of how large such a building could be, and there was negative public reaction to that. A series of community charettes were held, with the outcome being a preference for balance and the decision to study the issue further. City Council then formed two committees; the interim control will expire on August 20. Since the committees have not yet been able to transact their assigned business due to scheduling problems, Mr. Sepler said it was advisable in the meantime to make the current controls permanent. This would provide one off street space for each residential unit (instead of the 1.5 spaces required previously.) The long term approach would likely provide either fee in lieu, reserve fund or some other means of dealing with area wide issues, such as curb and gutter, bike barn, enhanced transit service, etc. Mr. Sepler referred to the staff memo and draft ordinance (EXH A and B). The sole purpose of the ordinance would be to reintroduce the off street parking requirement, one per unit, exactly as in the interim control. • The public hearing would be scheduled for the first Planning Commission meeting in August on August 9. He said he hoped that the City Council would approve, on August 6, a very brief extension in order to allow the process to proceed with the public hearing process. Mr. Emery recalled that when the parking requirement was removed originally, the Commission had been told that this would help to make housing more affordable in the very few locations where it applied. He wondered if there would be a way to "forgive" a parking space for provision of affordable housing in mixed use locations. Mr. Sepler said that was a valid bonus option for consideration. He noted that he believed that the original framers had been more focused on the downtown area, and not on the uptown developable sites. Mr. Emery said he would prefer to see some sort of parking incentive for mixed income housing. Mr. Sepler noted that George Randels had been the Planning Commission representative to the parking committee until assuming his City Council seat; there is now a need to fill that position. Mr. Lizut suggested that Mr. Emery re-raise that issue during the hearing and/or committee process. Lots of Record Process Referral to Planning Commission (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler noted that this item was an addition to the written agenda that has arisen at the City Council meeting on Monday, July 9. The background is provided in EXH 4, a memo from David Timmons to City Council. Mr. Sepler said that at the suggestion of Councilor Randels, City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the lots of record process for possible • adjustments, due to concerns raised by community members. He said that he and John Watts were gathering a series of alternatives for the Commission to be presented at a workshop. He said that the material maybe available for distribution a bit prior to the July 26 meeting. He Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 7 of 8 offered the option of holding the July 26 meeting for that purpose or canceling the meeting. Ms. Capron said she would not be able to attend the July 26 meeting, if held. Mr. Lizut asked if there was a notice requirement and Mr. Sepler said it was a workshop only. Ms. Capron moved that the Lots of Record workshop be postponed until August 9 and that the July 26 meeting be cancelled. Mr. Emery seconded the motion. The motion was approved, all in favor. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS July 26, 2007 -Meeting Cancelled August 9, 2007 - PTMC Code Revisions Public Hearing and Lots of Record Workshop IX. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Lizut explained that he had fully intended to serve out his position as Chair at least until his term on the Planning Commission expired, and possibly a renewed term as well. However, due to unexpected personal issues, he would be relocating to Walla Walla, WA within two to three months. He expressed his satisfaction with the work of the Planning Commission, and his appreciation to staff and Planning Commission members. He apologized for not being able to continue with the Commission as planned. He suggested that, since Liesl Slabaugh had agreed to remain as Vice Chair only through December 2007, a double election be held for both Chair and Chair, as soon as appropriate. Chair Lizut recalled the recent excellent work done by the Commission on the Shoreline Master Plan, the formula store ordinance, and the adult entertainment ordinance, as examples. Commissioners and staff expressed their regret that Chair Lizut would be leaving but wished him well in this move. There was a brief discussion about the vacancies on the Commission and the need to find good replacements as soon as possible. Ms. Slabaugh urged Mr. Lizut to communicate directly with Mayor Welch regarding the need to fill vacant Planning Commission positions. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mr. Lizut seconded. Chair Lizut adjourned the meeting at 8:28 PM. Liesl Slabaugh for Roger Lizut, Chair ~"~ Gail ernhard, Recorder • Planning Commission July 12, 2007 Page 8 of 8