Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051007CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF May 10, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH. 1 Agenda, Planning Commmission Meeting, May 10, 2007 EXH. 2 J. Randall, Letter to Planning Commission, Suggested Code Amendment, Residential Setback Adjustments, March 1, 2007 EXH. 3 J. Randall, Attachment A to EXH. 2, Proposed text of PTMC Chapter 17.82, March 1, 2007 EXH. 4 Upper Sims Howard/Ranier Overlay District Ordinance, revised May 10, 2007 EXH. 5 Barbed Wire Ordinance I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lizut called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Bill LeMaster (arrived at 7:20 PM), Roger Lizut, Julian Ray, and George Unterseher. City Councilor George Randels was present for the farewell reception in his honor. Liesl Slabaugh was excused. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Roger Lizut noted that the minutes for Apri126 had been received, but were not on the agenda. George Unterseher suggested that those minutes be postponed. There was no objection. Mr. Lizut also referred to agenda item IV. Election of Vice Chair, asking for clarification on protocol. That is, did he need to be confirmed as Chair and successor to George Randels? Mr. Sepler said that Mr. Lizut, as Vice Chair, had de facto become Chair when Mr. Randels had taken his City Council seat. N. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Regarding the open Vice Chair position, Char Lizut reported that had a recommendation. Because Ms. Slabaugh was experienced as Vice Chair and would reach the end of her Planning Commission term at the end of 2007, he had asked if she would resume the position of Vice Chair until December 31, 2007. This would facilitate the transition phase, including the acclimation of two new members, and a new Vice Chair could be elected upon expiration of her term. Ms. Slabaugh had agreed, provided the majority of members were in agreement. Therefore, Mr. Lizut nominated Ms. Slabaugh for Vice Chair. All were in favor, and Ms. Slabaugh was confirmed as Vice Chair. • He also mentioned that he had asked Mr. Randels to urge the Mayor and City Council to expedite in any way possible filling of the pen seat on the Planning Commission. Planning Commission May 10, 2007 Page 1 of 7 V. RECESS: RECEPTION FOR FORMER CHAIR GEORGE RANDELS • Chair Lizut thanked Councilor George Randels for his outstanding service and contribution as Planning Commission Chair. He announced a briefrecess to give Commissioners and staff the opportunity to express their congratulations and wish Mr. Randels well in his Council position. Refreshments were provided by Harriet Capron, Bill LeMaster, and planning staff. Mr. Randels said that serving on the Planning Commission had been a highlight of his life. He expressed his appreciation to everyone with whom he had worked. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrections to the minutes of April 12, 2007: Chair Lizut provided an e-mail from George Randels with the following corrections: Page 4, item 6 - "The actual C-III (Historic Commercial) zoning has a 50 foot height limit." Page 4, bottom of page: Delete Jeff Randall from list; this is covered later, on page 6. Page 5: Correction of word from "is" to "in". Page 8: Slight rewording in Wise Rezone paragraph -delete "do not''. Page 10: "intersection's"; "raised regarding the...", not "raised on..." Mr. Emery moved and Mr. Unterseher seconded for approval of the April l2, 2007 minutes, as amended. Motion to approve the minutes passed, all in favor. VII. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIlI NEW BUSINESS Residential Setback Adjustments Ordinance -Discussion (Rick Sepler, Planning Director). Jeff Randall will assist in the presentation of this draft Ordinance. Paper copies of the existing ordinance and proposed changes were available, in addition to the electronic copies e-mailed previously; EXH. 2 and 3. Jeff Randall began by briefly reviewing the background, including highlights from the earlier workshop on this subject. He referred to his experience, as Planning Director, with permit processing and the many valid reasons and designs encountered that were not permitted because they did not meet the setback standards. He said that in his opinion, some of the most attractive streets in towns had small -lots and homes situated close to the property line with minimal setbacks. He said that he believed there should be a process, other than a variance, that would allow smaller setbacks in appropriate situations. He said variances do not work because allowing a variance involves finding something wrong with the land; that is, "identifying something that prevents this owner from doing what every one else can do". Non-conforming structure rules allow a house to be fixed up, maintained and even replaced if destroyed by fire, but does not allow it to be expanded into the setback area. The proposed reduced setback standard contains some design review elements that allow reduced setbacks with provisions for friendly streetscape features. Mr. Randall suggested that he lead the Commissioners in a walk through the proposed ordinance and the options with each issue, with opportunities for questions throughout. He explained that he had drafted a new chapter for the PTMC called Residential Setback Adjustments. The first section describes the purpose, which is to deal with local access streets. A Iocal access street is a street in the Uptown, except for Lawrence St. Monroe Street is a "local collector". All over Planning Commission May 10, 2007 Page 2 of 7 town the street width or right of way is 60 feet; in the uptown the typical standard is 73 feet. This ordinance would apply to an uptown Iot on a local access street with a right of way of at Ieast 60 • feet. Scope -This would apply to all residential zoning districts from R-I, low density, to R-N, high density. He said these are the districts he considered a problem. In many of the commercial districts, such as the historic commercial district, there are already zero setbacks. In response to a question, he said he was not intending to limit the applicability to historic districts. Permit Public Notice -The application submittal process is standard. There is a typographical error on line 39: Type II should be Type 1. The Type I permit process is an administrative process. It allows staff to look at an application and determine if there is approval criteria; there is no public notice; there is a standard fee of $75. The applicant would come into the City offices, show plans, pay the fee, and staff would write a decision. He noted that, actually, this should probably be a Type IA permit, which is listed as Option 1. This means that if staff denies the permit the applicant can appeal to the hearings examiner. Type I does not have an administrative appeal process. (Mr. Randall referred to the summary matrix, Residential Setback Adjustments. He said that the $175 fee should have been $75 under Option A.) Type II (with public notice) is the next step up; he did not draft this ordinance as a Type II. He explained that this type of setback is not a setback from a neighbor's property, but rather from the street or right of way. Chair Lizut commented that the essence of the proposal is found on page 1: "New construction on infill lots can appear to be disconnected and out of character with their neighboring buildings by excessive setback standards." Mr. LeMaster asked how this would affect other non-uptown residential districts. Mr. Randall expounded upon the examples of Umatilla Hill, the west side of San Juan and the east side of Discovery Road. Mr. Sepler cited examples in Seattle, where if a certain percentage of the properties on a block do it, then you can do it. One special case would be if a view would be blocked by application of the decreased setback. Alice King asked if there is consideration of a corner lot at the intersection of two local access streets where the view of the street maybe blocked. Mr. Randall recalled that the City has a sight distance triangle of 20 X 20 or 30 X 30 feet. He agreed that that issue should be addressed by the proposal. Approval Criteria - It was agreed that the sight distance triangle provision should be added in this section. Mr. Ray asked why properties on arterial roads should not be included. There was a brief discussion about whether or not it may be preferable to use the house as buffer, in effect, on busy streets and to have more private, quiet space at the rear or behind the house. Ms. Capron noted that fumes from vehicles can be a serious problem in homes adjacent to busy roadways. There was a brief discussion on how the fume problem could be avoided through house and landscape design techniques. Mr. Sepler said that he believed that the idea would be workable in most areas of town, except at the shoreline where view is a major consideration. Mr. Randall then discussed some of the streetscape friendly features that might be employed (17.082.500, C.). Mr. Sepler suggested that the percentage of window to wall be employed as one performance standard, and that the house be characterized by modulations, windows and fenestration similar to other facades of the house. Mr. Randall discussed garages, and clarified that there was no proposed exception to the existing garage setback rule. He also reviewed the intention regarding street utilities, trees and shoreline sight views. • Residential Setback Adjustment and Extension of Time -There was no additional discussion on these boilerplate items. Planning Commission May 10, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Building, land use and development fees - On page 4, Line 5, the reference to Type II should be changed to Type I, ($75). • Project permit application framework Table - At the bottom of page 6, the reference to Type I should be Type IA, which allows for some administrative appeal. Mr. Sepler noted that Planning Commission has no province with regard to fees, but may make a recommendation. The entire proposal would be forwarded to City Council as a draft. Mr. Randall said that he would be pleased to continue to work with staff, take photos and to help refine the proposal, as appropriate. Chair Lizut reviewed the series of next steps. He asked Mr. Randall to provide the next revision and forward it to Mr. Sepler. Mr. Sepler said that he could schedule a hearing concurrent with the Upper Sims Way hearing. 1VIr. LeMaster pointed out that certain neighborhoods or areas have distinctive characters, and in the absence of an overarching goal of achieving full build out everywhere, he would prefer to see those unique characters maintained. Mr. Sepler said that he did not see this proposal as a density increaser, per se. He said that if it is a concern that building sizes would increase, it would be possible to maintain the same maximum building size regardless of placement on the property. Mr. Unterseher noted that many people have found the feel of the Tree House development to be appealing because of the proximity of houses to the street. Mr. Emery added that he endorsed this proposal because it would allow more space and options for ADUs. Mr. Ray noted that there were at least two different goals being discussed: feeling/aesthetics/appeal and density. Mr. LeMaster pointed out that in some neighborhoods, which are already implemented with large setbacks, changing the code may result in more "mixed" neighborhoods and actually detract from their existing character. Mr. Ray spoke in favor of promoting the "close to the street" ideal, rather than protecting what might be considered the "suburban (house in the middle of the lot)" model. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler said that the way to document that notion would be to add more performance standards describing what we are trying to achieve. Mr. Unterseher summarized that the desired ends are more flexibility for home owners to expand as well as to keep in character with the neighborhood, and to provide more options for ADU placement on an existing lot. Mr. Randall and Mr. Sepler agreed that they had clear direction and would draft the next version. He said a hearing would be scheduled at either one of the next two meetings, as possible. Chair Lizut thanked Mr. Randall for taking the time to draft and present this proposal. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Howard/Ranier Street Comdor Overlay District -Update (Rick Sepler, Planning Director, and Judy Surber, Senior Planner Mr. Sepler offered extra paper copies of the revised draft ordinance, EXH. 4, which had been e- mailed earlier. He said he would go through the underlined and strike-out updates. Should the Planning Commission agree at the end of the session that the document is ready, a public hearing will be scheduled for May 24, with newspaper notification. Page 3, line 33 -Additional language to clarify the housing/neighborhood characteristics. Page 3, line 42 -Map added as exhibit/attachment. Ms. Capron asked for more information and was shown the Overlay boundaries on the wall map. Mr. Sepler noted that although the map Planning Commission May 10, 2007 Page 4 of 7 does not show the final alignment of Howard/Ranier, the border line will be within 100 feet of the center line of the street, however that works out. • Page 5-6, Table.- Elimination of frontage along primary streets; maximum of 120,000 square feet for nursing home and 40,000 square feet for maximum multifamily residential floor space; maximum housing density changed to 24 units per 40,000 square feet; minimum average housing density for multi-family residential was changed to 16 units per 40,000 square feet area; clarification on minimum open space and tree conservation; and footnote clarification on maximum building height. 17.xx.80 Modification of Permitted Size --Bonus Densities - Mr. Sepler noted that after previous discussions and additional research, the draft had been clarified to stress the language of "affordable housing", rather than low income or very low income. Ms. King referred to the discussions of previous meetings, noting that she had a different recollection of the outcome of those discussions. A discussion about the differences in meaning for affordable housing and low income ensued. Ms. King did not believe the terms should be used interchangeably. She also noted that the intent should be clarified, and the choice of terms would be more obvious. Mr. Sepler said that the consultant estimated that perhaps about 10 units of affordable housing would be gained by the bonus provisions. Bili LeMaster summarized what he believed were the key elements being sought for the Overlay area. He noted that workers would be needed, and that those service workers would be low income. Therefore, he believed low income was the more and accurate term. Ms. King noted that paragraphs A., B., C. and D. apply to low income housing but that the term "affordable" was confusing the intention. Mr. Unterseher noted that there is significantly more "affordable" housing available now, than low income. Ms. King added that the bonus should be based on the provision of low income housing, but that the document refers to it as "affordable". Mr. Sepler noted that this is (also} PUD language and needs to be altered in a way that fits the PUD, as well. He said he would adjust the text to covey that the developer will receive greater bonus for serving low income populations than for "affordable" units, but both are desired. Mr. Sepler noted that it is easiest to capitalize very low income housing because of federal assistance. Mr. Ray said it would be helpful to clarify that this is a tier system where bonuses are correlated with the provision of housing ranging from affordable to low income to very low income. Mr. Lizut suggested a more direct presentation or reference to the official definitions, and it was agreed that footnotes would be the best means. Page 8 -The term of 20 years replaces 40 years; the consultant will discuss, in the bonus study, the variable value that arises from this. There was a brief discussion about this change, and all agreed it was an appropriate change. Page 8, line 13-14 -Awnings, canopies clarification. There was no discussion. Page 8, line 16 - Mr. Ray suggested that "Dawn to dusk'' should be a minimum, to show that the hours of operation or access are not limited by the ordinance. Page 8, line 24 -There is clarification on plaza dimensions; all were agreed. Page 8, line 35 -Size of childcare facility was eliminated. Page 8 and 9: Incentive for early development - Mr. Sepler explained that the study has shown that the nursing and assisted living facility will be enough to help start up the area. This was based on new valuation information about the potential LID (Limited Improvement District). Since the nursing facility is such a huge contributor to both the street and the intersection, that Planning Commission May 10, 2007 Page 5 of 7 infrastructure would be adequate jump start. An additional 60,000 square foot mixed use bonus area appears to be unnecessary. • There was a brief discussion as to how such a large building will be compartmented for residential use, and be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. Mr. LeMaster asked how much different the design be assisted living would be from residential. Mr. Sepler said the Planning Commission would be reviewing the ordinance to expand the definitions of Care Facilities. The model for this and similar facilities must be further developed. Currently there is not really a way, by code, of permitting an assisted living facility in Port Townsend, at this time. Mr. Sepler discussed several issues. He said that the traffic is less for an assisted living facility than for a nursing home, which is characterized by a higher volume of visitors. Additionally, there will be about 90 employees who will arrive and depart throughout a typical day, and make use of local shops and restaurants. Page 9, line 12 -The amendment to the Land Use Map would be done as part of the Ordinance. The motion to Council for the rezone would be done separately. Having concluded the review, Mr. Sepler said that unless there were objections, he would schedule the Ordinance hearing for May 24. [Following the meeting, Mr. Sepler determined that, due to newspaper notice cycles, the hearing could not be scheduled for May 24, and would take place on May 31 instead.] b. Barbed Wire Ordinance -Discussion Mr. Sepler distributed paper copies of the Ordinance. He described the issue: barbed wire has • been used in various locations inside the City historically. There have been some incidents where fences in disrepair have caused minor injury or inconvenience on public trails. The issues for decision are whether or not its use should be continued/allowed, and any associated changes to the code. The ordinance as proposed would prevent new use of barbed wire for fencing or other purposes, including repair of existing fences. Chair Lizut asked how much land within the City is zoned for agricultural use. Mr. Sepler said there was zero agricultural acreage. There is land that allows agriculture, but none that is zoned strictly for that purpose. Mr. Unterseher asked if this is a real issue. There was some discussion about the amount of barbed wire throughout the town. Several commissioners noted that this was not a major issue. Mr. LeMaster said he was not in favor of the proposed ordinance because of the expense to property owners. He said there is civil recourse if someone is wronged or harmed by barbed wire fencing. He said he would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that no action be taken. Mr. Ray said that the "legacy barbed wire" is pervasive, but that his sampling of citizen reaction led him to believe that most people do not consider it to be a major safety issue worthy of new regulation. Mr. Emery asked for consideration of a middle ground. He suggested that the viable fencing systems be grandfathered, and that where wire is in disrepair, responsible parties be encouraged to replace it with safe fencing. Mr. Unterseher suggested that a better compromise would be to prohibit new barbed wire fences. It was agreed that the trend was away from this type of fence regardless. Mr. Sepler suggested that a hearing be held, and the Planning Commission could then recommend approval or denial, based on the testimony. He said that it may be best to have the hearing to get a sense of public opinion. Is it important and is there discord or general agreement on the subject? There was a brief discussion to clarify the purpose of a hearing. The choices would be to go forward with the current draft, or to propose a new one. After a brief discussion, Planning Commission May 70, 2007 Page 6 of 7 it was agreed to hold the hearing based on the current draft passed to the Planning Commission from City Council. • X UPCOMING MEETINGS May 31, 2007 -Public Heating on Rezone and Draft Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Ordinances XL COMMUNICATIONS City Council Upper Sims Transportation Plan Workshop on Monday, May 14 -There was a brief announcement and discussion about this workshop. Mr. Lizut said that he planned to attend. Mr. Sepler noted that there is usually no opportunity for testimony at workshops, but in this case, testimony would be heard. There will be a follow up meeting in June. Possible Joint Meeting of City and County Planning Commissions -Discussion Chair Lizut raised the idea from George Randels of having a joint meeting with the County Planning Commission. The purpose would be to become acquainted and to build a relationship that may serve both groups well in the future. He and Mr. Sepler noted that there are several areas where collaboration maybe appropriate and quite useful. Chair Lizut suggested taking the step of inviting the County Planning Commission to a joint meeting; Mr. Sepler could make contact with his County counterpart to explore that idea. Mr. Sepler suggested that the CTED meeting in July may be a convenient place to begin. Planning Commission Neighborhood Specific Meetings -George Randels had also suggested that some meetings be held in other locations in order to get out into the community and to hear from neighborhood groups and residents on the specific issues that are important to them. Commissioners were generally in favor of both ideas. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved and Mr. Unterseher seconded that the meeting be adjourned. All were in favor. Chair Lizut adjourned the meeting at 8:55 PM. Roger Lizut, air ~~' ~ i ~~~~-l .~-- Gail Bernhard, Recorder • Planning Commission May 10, 2007 Page 7 of 7