Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032207CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF March 22, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH. 1 Agenda, March 22, 2007 EXH. 2 DSD Staff Report, Briefing on Implementation of Tree Conservation Ordinance, Chapter 19.06 PTMC, Issues and Options, March 22, 2007 EXH. 3 Guest List, March 22, 2007 EXH. 4 J. Surber, Revised draft excerpt - Microbreweries EXH. 5 Revised Planning Commission Minutes -February CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher Hamet Capron was excused. Guests: Tree Committee representatives George Bush, Richard Hefley and David Staff: Judy Surber, John McDonagh, Jan Hopfenbeck and Alyse Nelson (contractor). III. AGENDA Chair Randels proposed that the approval of minutes and the Comprehensive Plan item be moved to after the Tree Ordinance item. _ , Mr. Emery moved to approve the agenda, as amended, and Ms. King seconded. The revised agenda was approved, all in favor. IV. NEW BUSINESS Tree Ordinance Implementation (Chapter 19.06 PTMC) -- Presentation and Discussion (John McDonagh, Jan Hopfenbeck, Judy Surber and Alyse Nelson) Judy Surber distributed copies of the staff report, which had been e-mailed previously. She noted that the intent of the Tree Ordinance was not an issue. The objective is to clarify some procedural issues that have arisen as staff has attempted to implement the ordinance. This staff report outlines the issues and concerns that have been raised by staff and citizens with regard to implementation. She pointed out the issue and concern column, a discussion outlining the details and some alternative approaches for staff to investigate further. She noted that members of the Tree Committee had been invited to attend this meeting and to assist in working out the code language as this process continues. The intention is to brief the Planning Commission and determine whether there are other approaches and other issues not previously identified that should be investigated. • Ms. Surber introduced John McDonagh and Jan Hopfenbeck of the Development Services Department, and members of the Tree Committee: George Bush, Richard Hefley and Dave Keeler. P-anning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7 March 22, 2007 John McDonagh noted that the table in the staff report (EXH. 2) had been compiled by staff and should be • considered a starting point for discussion. He stressed that the staff acknowledges the merit of the Tree Ordinance and the intentions behind it. He said that staff is finding that the "town is getting busier"; there are many properties with trees that are being proposed for development. Therefore, the application of the Tree Ordinance is an important daily operational issue. He noted that the organization and certain cumbersome passages can be clarified and improved. Mr. McDonagh stressed that the intention for this meeting was informational, and that setting of priorities was entirely at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonagh pointed. out, with due respect to the original authors and reviewers, that the ordinance, as written, is very complex overall and does not lend itself to easy access and reference. He noted that it is difficult to readily determine "what is exempt, what applies, and where does this flow, naturally?" Jan Hopfenbeck added that the citizenry is also supportive of the intention and purpose of the ordinance. However, the document does not flow well, and that contributes to misunderstandings. She said that clarification and simplification is needed. Mr. McDonagh noted that simple reorganization may greatly improve the ordinance. He cited the example of forced protection and forced practices -which are applicable to properties of certain acreage. DNR (Department of Natural Resources), who administers at the state level was attempting to pass on responsibility for administration to local jurisdictions. There are whole sections in the code that are no longer applicable; they were written at a time of uncertainty with regard to responsibility and accountability. He said that it was time for revision, after working with and applying the ordinance for several years. Mr. Bush asked if the staff had been in contact with the DNR to verify that they had passed off responsibility for administration. Mr. McDonagh responded that, in his opinion, the DNR has considered the City to be responsible since the time when the ordinance was adopted. There was a brief discussion about FPAs (forestry permits), class IV conversions, conversion of property to urban uses, non-funded mandates, etc. Ms. Hopfenbeck noted that there are comments from the citizenry about trees that are not protected, but which they believe should be protected. Mr. Bush noted that historically there was interest in protecting heritage trees, but that the City had delayed with the expectation of dealing with those trees later. Mr. Bush noted that the time had arrived to deal with those trees. Mr. McDonagh added that most of the participation in heritage tree protection in other cities is voluntary. Ms. Surber said that one of the ideas raised in staff discussions was to develop a "tree ordinance lite" to be applied where there is less than 40,000 square feet of land. Possibly only the trees that are very large in diameter would be protected. Had something akin to this been in place, it may have protected some of the trees in the uptown area that were cut down recently (to the dismay of many citizens). She said that this was not aimed at a whole new heritage tree ordinance but possibly as a subset to the existing ordinance that would protect older, larger trees. Mr. Bush added that there may be other criteria, in addition to diameter, that should be considered, such as type of tree or unusual shape, etc. Ms. Hopfenbeck said that the City of Seattle uses criteria such as rarity, historical significance, and other special considerations. There was a brief discussion about the Tree of Heaven, its unique history, the Monterrey Cypress trees that are the largest in the State, and the fir tree at the Old English Inn that actually triggered the ordinance. Mr. McDonagh mentioned the logging application on the west end of town on commercial property; he said that principles now embodied in the ordinance, such as buffers and square footage, were first applied there prior to the ordinance. Mr. McDonagh resumed the walk through of the table items (EXH. 2). Chair Randels asked who would be responsible for editing and reorganizing the document. Ms. Surber said that Alyse Nelson had been retained to • help with that rewrite. Mr. Bush asked that the Tree Committee be given an opportunity to review any changes. Mr. McDonagh said that was a given, and that the Tree Committee would consider any changes before bringing the document back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 March 22, 2007 Item 2 -Civil engineers: There was a brief discussion about civil engineers and the variation in experience • and competence in this group with regard to tree conservation. Staff noted that some civil engineers have training and expertise in this field and others do not. Options include no change, creating a roster of qualified consultants, providing additional guidance on qualifications, and broadening the qualifications. Item 3 - Lots of Record review: Mr. McDonagh explained that when the town was pre-platted many years ago, it was done without regard to the actual topography and in some cases by people who never physically viewed the land. In 1997, under the GMA, it was specified that owners of nine or fewer lots did not have to go through a subdivision process for certification; lots do not have to be contiguous. Ms. Hopfenbeck said that in some cases, developers use or misuse the lots of record rules to avoid subdivision process and/or application of the tree ordinance. Although SEPA can be used as an alternative tool to force development of a tree conservation plan, this is not the most efficient approach. Mr. Unterseher asked for clarification on which tree practices are voluntary. Mr. Bush explained that protection of heritage trees is voluntary, but that the tree ordinance rules are mandatory. Item 4 -Thresholds: There was discussion about the size thresholds for residential tree removal exemptions, and required tree conservation plans. The key issue is whether thresholds are appropriate and if this can be simplified. Mr. Randels offered the suggestion to define two or more lots as a subdivision, which might have applicability beyond the tree ordinance, as well. Item 5 -Credits for retaining trees in right of way: Mr. McDonagh explained that the ordinance is ambiguous with regard to trees in the right of way. Rules for newly planted versus retained trees, as well as the general rules applying to the right of way, were discussed. He and Ms. Hopfenbeck explained the relationship to the engineering design standards, which do encourage the preservation of trees in the right of way. In general, staff considers the location of trees when granting permits for construction in the right of way, and when making decisions about shifting the path or boundaries of the right of way. They advised reconsideration of this credit, providing that it cannot be used as a way to avoid other requirements. Staff was in support of Item 6 -Minimum tree density requirements in R-I and R-II: Mr. McDonagh explained tree unit credits, and how they are used to determine tree density. He noted that depending on the location, meeting the density requirements may conflict with views as seen from neighboring properties. He discussed the alternative plan provisions and suggested that either the density requirements should be reduced or the alternative conservation plan component may need to be modified or enhanced. He cited several examples where the current ordinance seems inappropriate and not sufficiently flexible to accomplish the desired ends. Mr. Bush pointed out the "one tree per 1,000 square feet" requirement is actually lower than for other cities, such as Olympia. Mr. Randels questioned whether there should be different standards in R-I and R-II, since there would be more space for trees in R-I. Mr. McDonagh said the concept of "departures from standards" is an accepted practice; however, there may need to be additional provisions for departures. clarifying the purpose and overall objectives, and of flexibility in determining the optimal solution for a particular development site. There was discussion about "saving the biggest and the best" as an absolute rule versus a more comprehensive and holistic approach to long term conservation. It was recognized that allowing more flexibility should possibly be tied to defining the qualifications for tree specialists. Item 7 -Allowing tree removal prior to issuance of the underlying permit: Jan Hopfenbeck said that early tree removal is often a way for developers to optimize their schedules, and not necessarily an attempt to get around the requirements. Currently, even if exempt from tree conservation planning (under 40,000 square feet), they are not allowed to remove trees until a building permit is approved. She said the question to consider is: "From a procedural standpoint, how better can we ensure that clearing and grading is done only as part of an approved development plan, and yet reasonably accommodate the developer?" There was discussion about the distinctions in the code about the size of the property, and whether or not the property was already developed • with a house on it. If the latter, the property owner was given latitude to cut or preserve or plant trees. If not already developed, then either an approved clearing/grading permit or building permit is required. There was general acknowledgement that there are implementation and enforcement problems with the code, as now Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 March 22, 2007 written, but that crafting more effective rules will also be difficult. Mr. Unterseher said that the intentions may • need to be expanded and clarified. Item 8 -Fee in lieu: Currently, the code is not specific with regard to fee determination. There was discussion about the factors to be considered, and how this would work. To date, this buy out has not been used. Jan Hopfenbeck pointed out that if such fees are collected, the State requires the City to have a plan for the collected fees (Urban Forestry account), and to comply with limitations on when and how it is used, etc. Item 9 -Penalty provisions: Chapter20.10 penalties allow for a fine of up to $100 per day. The current provisions are not based on the value, number, or size of the trees lost. They do not provide for replacement of the lost trees. Chair Randels advocated much higher penalties that would serve as deterrents. Mr. McDonagh added that more severe consequences for deliberate or accidental disregard or destruction of high value trees should be considered. There was a brief discussion about how individual trees are appraised, and examples of current values for large diameter trees were mentioned. Mr. Hefley said that there are formulas, based on the size, type and condition, used by insurance companies to value trees. Jan Hopfenbeck noted that there is no way to recover the true value of certain heritage trees, if they are cut down. She reported discovering an unusual tree during a site visit recently, and learning that the Land Trust had determined that it was a 500 year old tree. She noted that. preserving such trees such as that and the Tree of Heaven should have a very high priority in all circumstances. Item 10 -Landscaping: John McDonagh noted that despite the complexity and sophistication of the PTMC in general, there is no landscaping code per se. The only landscaping requirements are in the Parking chapter. He suggested that perhaps there should be a Tree Ordinance Lite for smaller projects (two lots), and full application for larger projects. As there is more commercial and residential development, there should be landscaping code that is akin to the Tree Ordinance, possibly structured in tiers related to the size and type of project. Mr. Lizut asked where street trees are addressed. Mr. McDonagh said that is in the engineering • design standards, and includes the type of street trees permitted. He added that the Tree Ordinance refers to a proscribed list of city- approved trees. Mr. Hefley noted that the Tree Committee had prepared such a list and believed that it was being used by Public Works. It was noted that both a Street Tree list and Non-street tree list should be maintained for the City. Item 11 -Regulation of solar arrays and wind generators: Jan Hopfenbeck noted that if there is intention to develop alternative tree conservation planning, as where solar energy is to be utilized, there should be applicable processes and requirements. She referred to a site where there is intention to design in solar energy. Without a standing landscape ordinance and feasible alternative tree planning, the staff is left without tools to guide them. Mr. McDonagh cited the 8-lot short plat example on Woodland Ave. He said that the current guidelines would require 45 40-foot tall trees at maturity, or 90 20-foot trees. He explained that the City is interested in arriving at some alternative arrangements that would amount to the equivalent of that requirement. Mr. Bush noted that the total configuration of trees was more important than, and preferable to, an even distribution of trees over the entire property area. Chair Randels pointed out that if part of the purpose of the tree ordinance is environmental responsibility, then there should be some accommodation for other environmentally responsible practices, such as the use of solar energy, wind power generation, etc. There was some discussion about the need to measure the ecological impacts of projects overall, not just in terms of tree credits. Mr. Unterseher asked about qualified arborists, citing the example of the Treehouse development. He reported receiving conflicting advice from different tree specialists. Mr. McDonagh said that the code provides that once the tree plan is in place, the 5,000 square foot property owner can maintain that property in any way they wish. Therefore, in this case, the homeowners association must make a decision which best fits the overall neighborhood. Jan Hopfenbeck pointed out such advice dichotomies occur with engineers and wetlands specialists, as well. • Judy Surber said she would like to recap the discussion. The other approaches mentioned were: Item 6 - develop a different standard for R-I and R-II; and Planning Commission Meeting. Page 4 of 7 March 22, 2007 Item 9 -assess and apply penalties based on the timber value; require planting of two trees 15 feet tall or greater for each tree removed; Two additional issues mentioned were: landscaping standards to help guide alternative plans and a possible lower standard for tree planting if solar energy or wind energy is part of the same project. Mr. Randels clarified that his suggestion was to institute a carbon based scheme, which would require establishment of measurement and assessment techniques. Mr. McDonagh noted that any such implementation would perhaps need to be recorded as part of the title records. Chair Randels returned to the issue of abuse of the Lots of Record process. He asked if staff had spoken with legal counsel about ways to prevent this practice. John McDonagh said that the fractured lot patterns of Port Townsend lend themselves to this problem. Lowering the threshold for Lots of Record from nine to three or four lots would be one possible remedy. Chair Randels said that the matter should be addressed in as timely a fashion as possible, since it was a clear abuse, and not in keeping with the intention of the Lots of Record provisions. Mr. Emery asked how many lots of record existed. Staff responded that the number of platted lots was very high, possibly 40,000; John McDonagh said the exact number was recorded in the Comprehensive Plan. In recalling the background, he said that the City had not wished to recognize all of these lots, but also did not wish to penalize those people who owned three or four. He said that most of the problems are associated with storm water, which is not being addressed as it should be. Judy Surber suggested that in terms of next steps, Ms. Nelson would look at the organization and clarif cation of the Tree Ordinance code. After that, the issues could be prioritized and dealt with step-wise, as time and resources permit. Mr. Bush thanked the Planning Commission for inviting him, Mr. Hefley and Mr. Keeler to the meeting. The three Tree Committee representatives left the meeting at the conclusion of the Tree Ordinance topic. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of February 22, 2007 Page 3: ... public use or traded, not trades; ratio not ration Page 5: those forty units for ... (delete in) Mr. Ray moved and Mr. Liznt seconded that the minutes be approved, as amended. Minutes of February 22, 2007 were approved, as amended, all in favor. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan (Judy Surber) Judy Surber said that she would step through the material that would be forwarded on to City Council from the Planning Commission. She said the table of recommendations (e-mailed earlier} had been re-titled; all edits from the Planning Commission had been incorporated, and the last column had been merged with another column. She distributed copies of the transmittal letter. She said that I. Environmental Review And Associated Public Comment covers the SEPA review and had been taken directly from the staff report. The next section, II. Planning Commission Review, covers the public hearing and testimony. She said that Commissioners may wish to review III. Findings and Conclusions and Recommendations of the Planning Commission, more closely. Much of the language is taken from chapter 20.04 PTMC. Page 1 -Chair Randels referred to the first paragraph, line 2, requesting that "recommendation" be changed to recommendations. Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 March 22, 2007 • Page Z -Council, capitalized; Item 3 -sentence must be completed; Item 2 -capitalize Planning Commission Page 3 - at the last sentence of the carryover paragraph. ...area, to reduce potential adverse impacts from development. Also, Item 2 should be underlined. In No.8, amendments With the above changes, Chair Randels moved that the transmittal and recommendations be approved; Mr. Lizut seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor. Ms. Surber said there was one more item to cover, i.e., the language on the microbrewery. (EXH. 4) She distributed a handout with highlighted changes. Mr. Lizut recalled that Mr. Randels had suggested that adequate square footage be left available for any potential third brewery. to be able to start up in town. He asked Mr. Randels if he felt that had been achieved in this document. Mr. Randels said the concept had been to allow the potential for competition, but not to disallow further expansion by the existing business. There was a brief discussion about the l 5,000 square feet total in the Boat Haven. Mr. Randels recalled that the change made by the Planning Commission was to designate asub-maximum of 12,000 square feet above which a conditional use permit is required. He said the intention was to place a psychological barrier on monopolizing the space. Ms. Surber said she would locate the documents from the previous meeting on this subject. Mr. Unterseher asked if storage space in another location should be included in the total. It was agreed that if the space is in the same zone that it must be included. [There was a brief interlude while waiting for materials -see Other Business below.] • Ms. Surber returned to the meeting with documents from the previous meeting. Reading from the staff memorandum, she read "The staff recommends a cumulative limitation of 15,000 square feet within the district as a whole." Commissioners agreed that that statement should be added to the proposed draft. Mr. Ray asked if clarification was also needed on the term "floor space". Ms. Surber suggested the term "gross square footage of the microbrewery". Mr. Randels said that to him that means "every square foot under roof'. Any leased parking space or outside storage would not be included. Mr. Randels suggested that one sentence be added at the beginning, stating that the cumulative gross square footage allowed for microbreweries is 15,000 square feet. After a brief discussion, the commissioners agreed on the following concept: For any one business, a conditional use permit is required for any square footage over 12,000 square feet. Ms. Surber verified the following text: "If the total of microbrewery floor space for a single business is less than or equal to 12,000 square, it is a permitted use. If greater than 12,000 square feet, it is a conditional use." "The cumulative gross square footage for microbreweries in the district is limited to 15,000 square feet." Ms. Surber said that she had also made the correction requested to the minutes of February 15, 200'7 and provided copies for re-review. Ms. Surber read her rewording of the paragraph on page 8 and top of page 9. The Commissioners approved the rewording of the paragraph. Mx Emery moved that the minutes of February I S, 2007 be approved, as amended. Mr. Lizut seconded, and the minutes were approved, all in favor. • VII. OTHER BUSINESS In connection with the open City Council position, Chair Randels and Ms. Slabaugh raised the issue of possible changes to the Planning Commission structure. Ms. Slabaugh, as Vice Chair, said that she was not Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 March 22, 2007 interested in assuming the position of Chairperson in the event George Randels is appointed to City Council and resigns from the Planning Commission. She said that she was planning to resign as Vice-Chair to clear the . way, in effect, for other members. It was agreed that that business should be added to the agenda for the next meeting. Ms. Surber announced that the Shoreline Master Program hard copies would be available in the following week, and would also be available on the website. All of the Commissioners present said they would make use of the web version, and did not see an immediate need for a hard copy. Ms. Slabaugh asked if there was any news on the Transportation Plan decision, and Ms. Surber said that she did not have any new information. VIlI. UPCOMING MEETINGS April 12, 2007: Comp Plan Amendments for 2007 - Ms. Surber explained that ten amendments have come in for the 2007 docket. Two of them are formal amendments, and two are pending decisions from the proponents. The formal amendments would be placed on the docket without discussion, but the suggested amendments would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. An option is to docket some or all of them on a long timeline to befit into the schedule as resources permit. Upper Sims Way maybe on the agenda for April 12, depending on the progress of certain related projects. IX. ADJOURNMENT • Roger Lizut moved and Liesl Slabaugh seconded that the meeting be adjourned; all were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM L~?~~~c~'/N~~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder r1 LJ Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 March 22, 2007