Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062807City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall -Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Agenda for June 28, 2007 EXH 2. R. Sepler, Memo to Planning Commission, Re: Howard/Ranier Overlay District, June 28, 2007 EXH 3. J. Surber, Staff Memo Re: Remand Item #3 of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Docket, June 21, 2007 EXH 4. J. Surber & A. Nelson, Memo re: PTMC Code Amendments, June 21, 2007 EXH 5. Staff, Suggested Code Amendments Matrix, revised June 9, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Lizut called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery (arrived at 7:04 PM), Bill LeMaster, Roger Lizut, Julian Ray and Liesl Slabaugh. Alice King and George Unterseher were excused. III. AGENDA Chair Lizut noted that agendas were available along with other meeting materials. He asked if there were any suggested changes to the agenda. There were none. Mr. Ray moved for acceptance of the agenda and Mr. Emery seconded. The agenda was approved, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 7, 2007 : page 2, examine changed to examiner May 31, 2007: There were no corrections. Julian Ray moved and Bill LeMaster seconded that the minutes of June 7, 2007 be approved as amended, and the minutes of May 3I, 2007 be approved as written. The motion passed, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None} Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 1 of 7 . VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a. Continued Public Hearing (from May 31, 2007): Rezone and Draft Howard /Rapier Street Corridor Overlay District Ordinance -- Cancelled There was a brief discussion about the reason for the postponement of the continued public hearing. Chair Lizut said he had just learned that the health care firm had withdrawn their plan for the Upper Sims area. He read from EXH 2, Rick Sepler's memo to the Planning Commission, "Staff will be evaluating the implications of this development and will brief the Commission about possible next steps at the July 12 meeting." b. Remand of Item #3 of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Docket -Reaffirm original recommendation or move to reopen the hearing on a date certain. Judy Surber, Senior Planner, introduced the topic. She said that this item was part of the 2006 Docket, which included about 40 items. The Planning Commission had made their recommendation, which was forwarded to the City Council. During the City Council hearing, Councilor Robinson had raised a question about the topography of the McFarland property which lies along the stretch of shoreline bluff that was considered for down-zoning from R-II, 5000 square foot lot sizes, to R-I. Ms. Surber referred to the map in EXH. 3, staff memo. She recalled that during the SMP Update process it had seemed odd that there was higher density zoning on the bluff face than on the uplands area, and that appeared to be a mapping error. It also appeared, initially, that the R-II zoning of block 50 and lot 1 of block 39 were in error. This was the basis for revisiting the R-II zoning. Eric Toews, representing the property owner, Susan McFarland, had history and knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan 1996 process and recalled the rationale for this block being R-II. That was based on the drainage basins, which are shown in exhibit #4 (map) of the staff memo, EXH. 3. Drainage area 4 was proposed for down-zoning to a 10,000 square foot lot size because of storm water concerns and soil conditions, whereas basin 1 was to be left at the 5,000 square foot zoning. It was clear through Mr. Toews history that it was not an error that block 50 was zoned R-II. Councilor George Randels, former Chair of the Planning Commission, had noted that the information presented to the City Council had more specific information on the topography than that seen by the Planning Commission, and suggested that it be remanded back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission can either reaffirm the original recommendation, or if a change is appropriate, the public hearing would need to be reopened at a date certain. The date of July 26 has been suggested, which would allow for the public notice requirement to be fulfilled. Having worked with Mr. Toews, the staff recommends that, for consistency, the majority of the strip along the northern shoreline be down-zoned to R-I. Lots 3-7 that are clearly encumbered by a shoreline marine bluff and fall within the shorelines jurisdiction, and are designated as Natural, should also be down-zoned to R-I. For lots that are farther out and have buildable area outside of shorelines jurisdiction, the zoning can remain R-II. Therefore, the staff recommendation would be for a change in the original recommendation, and to reopen the hearing. She noted that Eric Toews, who was present, would return for a hearing if scheduled. Julian Ray commented that the demarcation line appears to fall between lot 2 and a portion of lot 1. He asked for the rationale in allowing them to remain R-II. Ms. Surber explained that the (red) line in question is the marine management bluff zone, which comes from the CAO. The • 200 foot shorelines jurisdiction goes from the ordinary high water mark inward. In response to a follow up question, she said the red line does hit lots 1 and 2, but it the zoning does roughly follow the red 100 foot offset line. However, given the original rationale regarding the soils and Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 2 of 7 • drainage basin, they had worked out with Mr. Toews that lots 3 through 7 could be down-zoned, but lots 1 and 2 could remain. This would also help if a future developer wished to do a PUD with clustering, thereby allowing a few additional units. Chair Lizut asked where such a potential PUD would be sited, and would that include lots 1 and 2. Ms. Surber said that a PUD could encumber the entire block or portions thereof, as long as it met the minimum area for PUD formation. Chair Lizut asked what the difference in PUD potential would be between the original recommendation and the new staff recommendation. Ms. Surber said that the number of units would be slightly less in the latter case. Mr. Lizut said he would assume that meant a slight economic impact as well. Chair Lizut asked if Mr. Toews had any comment. Mr. Toews said that he had not intended to speak, but that his client supports the staff recommendation. Chair Lizut asked if Commissioners had comment, questions or recommendations. Mr. Emery moved that the hearing be reopened to consider the revised recommendation. Mr. Ray seconded. Ms. Slabaugh asked if undertaking that process would commit the Commission to any particular recommendation. She was assured by Ms. Surber and others that reopening the hearing allowed the Commission the options of changing, in any way, or retaining the original recommendation. The motion was approved, all in favor. Chair Lizut again noted that the hearing would be held on July 26, and Mr. Toews left the meeting at 7:15 PM. Ms. Surber requested that Commissioners retain their paper packets for that hearing. • Chair Lizut asked Ms. Surber if the red line shown on the map was essentially the same as the shoreline jurisdiction line. Ms. Surber said that it was close, but not exactly the same, and could be added. Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful to see that 200 foot offset on the map. There was a question about why the 50 foot line was included. Ms. Surber said that means that a site specific geotechnical report is required for a building permit beyond that line. Bill LeMaster asked if there was any other existing R-II property in the larger context area for this item. Ms. Surber said that since the map shows the zoning, she would add that to the legend. Mr. Ray asked if Ms. Surber had easy access to a topological map for the area, and Ms. Surber said that she could provide both 2 foot and 10 foot versions. VII. NEW BUSINESS PTMC Code Revisions -Staff presentation followed by general discussion (Judy Surber, Senior Planner and Alyce Nelson, Contract Planner) Judy Surber introduced Alyce Nelson, who has been retained to assist with the Code Revisions. She explained that in the course of their work staff creates running lists of issues or items that they would like to address and see changed. Periodically, this list is reviewed and prioritized in consideration of available resources. She referred to the staff memo (EXH. 4) and Suggested Code Amendments matrix (EXH. 5), which shows the candidate list prioritized by importance or significance, and showing the estimated time resources required. • She noted that there are 23 items deemed high priority (1) and low resources (3). Alyce has begun to work on that set of items. She noted that there are a total of 40 items on the list; completion will depend on the actual time and resources as staff works through the list. Ms. Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Surber noted that several are very high in resources, but considered so important that Ms. Nelson will continue to research them. One is the Homeless Shelter. Another is Home Occupations, for which staff recommends a tiering scheme for permits which matches the intensity of the home occupation. Some applications would qualify for a simple written exemption. Some, of mid level impact, would involve a Type I Administrative Review. For major home occupations, where there are up to three non-resident employees and/or threshold number of clients and deliveries/day, a Type II with public notice would be required. Mr. Emery how businesses such as Mary Kay representatives would be handled. Judy Surber said that staff has considered many scenarios, but planning has not progressed to the point of classifying every conceivable instance as yet. She said those are the types of things that would be addressed. Ms. Surber said she had asked Alyse Nelson to walk through the matrix for the items she is working on. She asked Commissioners to ask questions or to note any items that they believe should be moved up or down on the priority list, or appears to be more complex or resource intensive. Descriptions and rationale are generally part of the matrix; any additional comments from staff are summarized below. Item 1 -Clarify the process that needs to be followed in the case of building two houses on one undivided lot. Item 2 -This adds fees for certain types of permits. Ms. Nelson noted that some had already been completed by staff. Item 3 -This would amend the notification process for a Type II application. Adjacent property owners should receive a mailed notice, in addition to posting on site and possibly replace • newspaper notification. Options will be explored. Item 4 -Make the mailing of SMP permits consistent with SMP Code. Item 5 -Rewording of one paragraph to more appropriately emphasize the rezoning, infrastructure and density implications, rather than the specific project. The emphasis should be on the general implications of the rezone, and not the specific project. Item 6, 7, and 8 -All of these relate to a greater ground floor ceiling height to better accommodate heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Item 9 -This is intended to clarify the procedure for determining number of units for PUDs when there is a fractional dwelling unit resulting from a bonus density calculation. Item 10 -Augment/amend the multifamily residential development standards to refer to or include the lighting specifications now found in 17.44.180. Make consistent with SEPA. The intention is allow the standards for lighting to be easily found. Item 11 -This is the Home Occupation item mentioned earlier and will address appropriate notice to neighbors and the public in general. Item 12 -The Minor Variance section should be amended to allow greater flexibility in modifying bulk, dimension and density requirements for existing and proposed buildings. Work will include research into practices by other jurisdictions. Item 13 -Surveys are required, not "maybe required"; language will be amended. Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Item 14 -This is about eliminating the need to show the building envelopes. In response to a request from Harriet Capron, Ms. Surber explained that during asub-division, there is a need to show lot lines, but not necessarily to show the potential building envelope on the official record that is recorded at the Court House; this can be misunderstood as the official building plan. The building envelope must appear on the site plan map for building permit approval, however. Item I S -This is a minor revision to the language under Short Subdivisions. Chair Lizut reminded at this point that the specifics for each item could be addressed at the workshop on July 12; this walk through is a strategic view only. Item 16 -Wording change from "short" to "preliminary" for clarification. Item 17 -Refers to changes to building envelope requirements for short plats. Item 18 -This would amend the SEPA regulations to allow the option DNS process defined in WAC 197-11-355. This would allow a speedier process for SEPA non-exemptions with no impact. Item 19, 20, 21 -Judy Surber said that the CAO could be made more clear in several sections, including very minor word "tweeking" in some cases. The intention is to proceed with the quick fixes in the first phase with Ms. Nelson's help, and to follow up at a later date on the more substantive items. Item 22 -This would clarify permit processing for short plats that involve vacations, i.e. making • them Type III to be heard by the Hearings Examiner. Item 23, 24 -These deal with permit applications and adding references to where various permits fall. Ms. Nelson explained that the remainder of the items are expected to require medium to high resources, and have not been as fully explored as yet. Item 25 -This deals with drafting code definitions for elderly housing and updating use tables to include elderly housing more specifically. Item 26 -This relates to the process for recognition of lots of record (LOR). Judy Surber explained that if one owns lots that were created before modern sub-division laws (1937), platted lots may be located in inaccessible or literally unusable places, where provision of infrastructure is extremely problematic or impossible. If one applies to have property certified as a lot of record, there is a City process that will verify buildable area and minimum area on your lot. If the property does not meet those requirements, the owner maybe required to combine lots to meet the requirements or go through asub-division process. She said Rick Sepler has had experience with other jurisdictions leading to his recommendations for changes to the LOR process. Item 27 -The Tree Conservation Ordinance is complex and in need of some reorganization and readability changes. After consulting with the Tree Committee on certain issues which will clearly take considerable time and resources, the staff intends to develop an informational brochure for the public, as an interim step. Item 28, 38, 39 -The intention is to clarify temporary use and provide consistency in the code. Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Item 29 -Deals with homeless shelters, which was mentioned earlier. Item 30 -This deals with SEPA regulations and categorical exemptions. It will involve research into other jurisdictions, and amendments as necessary. Chair Lizut Item 31 - No additional information; see matrix. Item 32 - No additional information; see matrix. Item 33 - Clarification is needed for drive-through businesses, whether they are financial institutions, or pharmacies, etc. and how that relates to zoning. Item 34 -This item recognizes the need to regulate the age of mobile homes moving into mobile home parks, and to research the practices of other jurisdictions. Item 35 -This is the first of the low priority items. The matrix shows text to be added under Lot Line Adjustments. Item 36 -The matrix shows text to be added under Exemptions and Special Provision regarding noise from construction activity. Item 37 -This is simply a correction of a reference. Item 38, 39 -These were covered earlier, with item 28. Item 40 -This item would evaluate/implement changes to sanctions, fines, and citations as a means of enforcement and deterrence. Chair Lizut reminded that suggestions for changes in priorities should be e-mailed to Judy Surber in advance of the July 14 meeting, including the Homeless Shelter and the Home Occupation issues. Judy Surber said that the next matrix from Alyse Nelson will show specific proposed changes in strikeout and underline format. Hamet Capron requested hard copies of the revised matrix. Mr. Ray suggested distributing the material in PDF format. There was a brief review of the bill format to be provided, and the timing of the distribution of the new draft. The materials are due out to Commissioners 5 days in advance of the meeting. Judy Surber recommended that Commissioners familiarize themselves with searching the PTMC online via the City website, which is a great tool for navigating and locating items within the code. Bill LeMaster asked for an explanation of the priority scheme and how the matrix was derived. Ms. Nelson and Ms. Surber explained that staff had first sorted the list by priority, i.e. how big of a problem or how common a problem, and then by how much time the investigation and resolution was expected to take. Mr. LeMaster also asked what would be necessary to allow the Planning Commission to look at the entire list of uses and prohibited uses in C-II, MU. Chair Lizut explained that a work program is generated by City Council which is forwarded to staff for translation into actionable items for the Planning Commission. Any citizen may contact Councilors to suggest issues that need to be addressed. Ms. Slabaugh said she thought that what Mr. LeMaster was referring to was separate from the Code Amendments on the table. Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 6 of 7 Mr. LeMaster said that he questioned certain uses in C-IUMU independent of the Howard Street Overlay. He noted that the baseline documents for permitted uses were fundamental to other decision processes and questioned how could they be reviewed and possibly amended. Judy Surber restated the two key questions as: "How do the use permissions and restrictions get generated?" and "How can they be changed?" She said the generation is through the Comprehensive Plan Update and is at a general level. The specifics are worked out and delineated in the zoning and use tables. This is where the rules appear about uses that are permitted outright and those that are conditional. Then, when new or previously uncategorized or defined uses arise, such as Homeless Shelter, the zoning district descriptions are examined to determine where that use would fit and tables are amended based on that. Additionally, she addressed the question of how the Planning Commission makes suggestions to revisit a particular district such as C-IUMU, and look at the mix of uses comprehensively. She said that may be best done as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process. The Planning Commission is charged with the mid-cycle assessment or 7 year update assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. At those points, the Commission determines whether circumstances have changed such that issues need to be revisited, or has what was envisioned not unfolding as expected. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to BoCC and request that those items be tasked to the Commission for this year's work plan. She said the 2007 mid-cycle assessment has been delayed because of other issues and projects. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS July 12, 2007 -PTMC Code Revisions Workshop July 26, 2007 -PTMC Code Revisions Public Hearing (tentative) IX. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Emery apologized for arriving a few minutes late. Chair Lizut reminded Commissioners to forward their comments or suggestions regarding the Code Amendment matrix priorities to Judy Surber as soon as possible. The bill format will be made available at least several days in advance of the next meeting on July 12. IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mr. Emery seconded. Chair Lizut adjourned the meeting at 8:05 PM. 1 c~~~Gv~c/ ~-' i Gatl Bernhard, Recorder Roger Lizut, Chair I n` ~.Q.9..~ ~~~- ~© Planning Commission June 28, 2007 Page 7 of 7