Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042210CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, Apri122, 2010 6:30 PM I. Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, Apri122, 2010 EXH 2. R. Sepler, Memorandum to Planning Commission: Issues Associated with Fences, Wa11s, Arbors and Hedges, April 15, 2010 EXH 2A Bulk, Dimensional, and General Requirement EXH 2B PTMC Table 17.16.030, Residential Zoning Districts -Bulk, Dimensional, and Density Requirements EXH 2C PTMC Chapter 17.68 -Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges, Page 17 -113 EXH 2D Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges -Information Sheet EXH 3 G. Heckscher, E-Mail to Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER Chair Ray called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. II. ROLL CALL III. IV A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerauld Fry, Monica Mick-Hager, Julian Ray (Chair). Excused: Gee Heckscher [William LeMaster has resigned, effective .] ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Sepler requested the addition of a Calendar item to the agenda. Mr. Fry moved for acceptance of the agenda, as amended; Ms. Mick-Hager seconded. The agenda was approved, as amended, all in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Emery suggested that approval of the minutes for February 25 and March 10 be postponed due to the absence of Mr. Heckscher; there was no objection. Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: None VI. OLD BUSINESS Update on Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinances Mr. Sepler reported on the results of the City Council meeting of April 18, 2010; Mr. Ray had also attended that meeting. In addition to an extensive staff presentation on the complex Bulk, Scale and Teardowns proposals, there were comments by members of the public. Mr. Sepler said that while there are many possible alternative solutions, staff had attempted to present a complete set of facts and five different ways to address issues and problems. He said it remains to be determined whether to redo the entire maintenance code or selected portions of it. City Council did not choose to have the first reading of these proposed changes, but continued the meeting, "unspecific" as to date; the next meeting on this subject may not occur until June. Mr. Sepler reported that there were several members of the public who spoke in support, and one individual who spoke in opposition. Mazcy Jaffee expressed the same concerns to City Council as she had in prior Planning Commission meetings. Chair Ray said he believed that her specific concerns had already been addressed. Mr. Sepler said that staff shares her concerns that any system adopted should not be able to be used punitively by neighbors or anyone else. Mr. Sepler said that there were a number of questions, mostly having to do with where things are located, and that he did not recall any substantive concerns. Chair Ray had attended the City Council workshop and commented on the excellent presentation by Mr. Sepler, Mr. Watts and Mr. McDonagh. He said that in his recollection there were some questions with regard to how demolition by neglect might affect secondary homes. Mr. Sepler agreed that one approach would be to cull the list of secondary homes further, since some of them just barely qualified as "contributing". Ms. Mick-Hager said she agreed that it may be well to keep the categories tight. Mr. Sepler noted that the Washington Tmst and State Office of Archeology had endorsed the proposed methodology and he would not want to pursue changes that may affect those independent endorsements. There was a brief discussion regazding application of different standards/definitions for demolition by neglect, depending on the historic designations. It was noted that if the maintenance code is met, all contributing homes can qualify for modifications. Mr. Ray noted that the main goal of a demolition by neglect ordinance is to avoid the need to invoke it. Mr. Sepler and Mr. Ray recapped the testimonies, including those of Pat Durbin, who was in favor of the proposed regulations, and Marcy Jaffee, who was opposed to the proposed regulations. Mr. Sepler said that, in any case, there would be a minimum of two more City Council hearings on this topic. If City Council so directs, staff will bring any further issues back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. Planning Commission Page 2 of S VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion: Issues associated with Chapter 17.68 PTMC -Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges (Rick Sepler, DSD Planning Director) Fences Mr. Sepler introduced information on two subjects, fences and vegetative growth serving as fences and hedges. He summarized the information provided in EXH 2 (Sepler memorandum to Planning Commission, April 15, 2010), including a brief overview of relevant code since 1971. He discussed the concepts of public, semi-public, private and semi-private space as they have evolved over time. He said that municipal code was modified over time to allow fences that exceeded 5 feet (up to 8 feet), but required them to be 51 % transparent. Recently, in Port Townsend, there has been a proliferation of high front yard fences, primarily erected for the purpose of keeping out deer. He said there is a need to review regulations to determine if regulatory changes for fences or hedges are warranted. Mr. Sepler requested that the Planning Commission explore the issues offences and indicate what should be proposed, and then to discuss hedge heights. Mr. Fry stated that he did not see any reason to allow fences greater than 4 feet high in front yards. He cited examples of drivers stopping to take photos of deer in yards, and noted that deer wandering about the town are amactive to tourists. Mr. Emery stated that fencing to protect gardens is a legitimate function, and that the challenge is to accommodate aesthetic considerations, as well. He said that most deer fences he has seen, e.g. 4" wire grid with wood posts, are not visually intrusive. However, he was concerned that specifications for a high percentage of openness could lead to more chain link fences. Ms. Mick-Hager pointed out that chain link fencing is very expensive, and is seldom used in residential neighborhoods. She said that cedar posts and farm wire are relatively inexpensive, attractive and can be self-installed by most gardeners. Ms. Mick-Hager suggested a requirement for 51 % openness regardless of the height. (Current regulations indicate that the bottom 4 feet can be solid but above 4 feet must be 51 %open.) Or, for 8 foot fences, the entire fence must be at ]east 51 % open. Mr. Fry referred to Mr. Heckscher's comments (EXH 3) about the views from angles other than directly facing the fence, and about lattice designs; the actual blockage of mang of these types are only about 20-30%. He suggested that perhaps some variation of the current specifications, e.g. 20% open above 4 feet, would be appropriate. There was additional discussion regarding assumptions about properties as private, public or proportions of both, and how this varies significantly from region to region. The legal implications and notions of property line delimiters were also discussed. Mr. Ray Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 suggested a principle of "do no harm". Ms. Mick-Hager said, as a landscaper, she sees fencing as primarily functional, and not solely as artwork, although it should not be unpleasing to the eye. Mr. Fry sees all but very open fences as walls. Commissioners explored ways of expressing appropriate parameters: specifying percentage of openness; height limitations; temporary (for the growing season) versus permanent structures; and materials. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that to keep out deer, 6 feet is inadequate; 8 feet height is necessary. There was acknowledgement that a set of requirements could be established that allow a balance of "deer protection" and visual accessibility, particularly to the front yard. Mr. Sepler noted that photographs of what is and what is not appropriate can be included in the code, for greater clarity. There was a discussion regarding the relationship of simplicity in the guidelines to enforcement. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that as a home owner and business person, she had not been aware of the building permit requirement and cost for building a fence. Mr. Sepler said that the cost is a percentage of the total cost of the fence, and that there may be a minimum charge. He noted that the permiUcharge only applies to fences above 6 feet, to cover the safety risks; this is taken from the IBC (International Building Code) regulations. Mr. Sepler recapped the sense of the Commission: Fences up to 8 feet in height maybe allowed, given a high percentage of openness/translucence. The posts will not be regulated; there will be a minimum distance between posts. There will be examples of appropriate materials and styles. He said he would develop a draft ordinance and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Shrubs and Hedges Mr. Sepler said that hedges within the front setback area had been regulated since at least the early 1990s, but that has changed. He said the code is not cleaz. For example, "none of the height limits established in this section shall apply to hedges, including any closely planted trees and vegetation..."; there is then a valid exception cited for safety considerations. He referred to additional materials on the safety issue; these standards are rigorously enforced. Mr. Sepler noted that obstructions in the site triangle are regularly cut down. On the other hand, "hedge vegetation has no height limit unless in a sight triangle or otherwise a traffic or safety hazazd." Several examples sited in Port Townsend were mentioned. Mr. Ray questioned whether individual trees that obstruct the view of a yard or house from the street would fall under hedge/vegetation regulations. He suggested that this would likely become ambiguous and unenforceable over time. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that the power utility routinely monitors and trims trees to maintain space around electrical lines. She also noted that the City should not be involved in regulating what property owners plant and for what purpose. Planning Commission Page 9 of 8 There was agreement that the City does vigorously enforce restrictions on plantings in the right of way. There was also agreement that it is not advisable or feasible to regulate vegetation on private property, except for safety reasons. There was a brief discussion about the differences between Port Townsend and Port Gamble, which has faz greater restrictions with regard to landscaping, fences and other structures affecting the look and feel of the community. Mr. Sepler said he would draft a Planning Commission recommendation regarding hedges, explaining why a hedge is not considered a fence, and the anticipated difficulties of regulation and enforcement. He said that Mr. Heckscher would have an opportunity to express his opinions when he returns. 2. Briefing: Proposed City/County/Port Economic Strategy (Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director) Mr. Sepler presented a planning model that would be reviewed and hopefully approved by the Chairs of the BOCC, the Port and the Mayor of Port Townsend on Apri123. The scheme is a proposed vehicle for al] three jurisdictions to work together on developing a viable economic strategy. He projected the diagram for shazed viewing and walked through the assumptions and processes. The intent is to come to a joint understanding of strengths, potential for growth, and shortfalls, and to figure out where in the City/County/Port to locate and implement those things. He pointed out that there are three tracks with varying degrees of participation, involvement and research. There must also be a common set of facts for all three entities as foundation. One track is an elected working group comprised of one elected official from each jurisdiction. The second track consists of elected officials, consultant and staff, and the third track is the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC): appointees of 3 Council members, 3 County Commissioners, 1 Port Commissioner and a representative from the UGA. The assumption is that the JGMSC is briefed and can make comment but is not a decision making body. The process is designed so that there is a good way to get community input (shown in creme color). The process is segmented into major phases: Pre-planning; Reseazch/analysis; and Review/Adoption. At the present, the process is at the point of developing an Inter-local Agreement and refining the scope, i.e. the purpose of the Apri123 meeting. Then the scope and timeline will be presented to each of the bodies for approval, and will include public input. The hope is that all three jurisdictions will pay one-third of the cost and agree to staff this. Planning Commission Page 5 of B From that base, there will be a JGMSC community event where there can be feedback from the public. Mr. Sepler noted the experience and credentials of the consultant, Eric Hovee, who has worked with small communities including Ashland, Oregon, which is analogous to Port Townsend in many ways. The consultant will assist with research, sifting data and exploring options with the JGMSC. Mr. Sepler mentioned the "old" model of preparing infrastructure and expecting people to come, bringing factories and workers with them. He said that is not likely to work here. Two deliverables will be a draft Economic Direction Statement and draft Strategy and Limitation Policies. There will be a set of meetings attended by the Chairs of each jurisdiction and a focus group gathered by Team Jefferson. He said that he hopes the Planning Commission will be represented. Focus groups have some advantages over public meetings for certain functions, such as generating and exploring ideas, and comparing perspectives. At the end of the process, the drafts will brought back to the JGMSC and public. The last phase is public review, adoption and implementation. This will involve a joint workshop, in a very large venue, where there is full opportunity for public comment, and iterations of revisions, additions and deletions, which will again be reviewed by the three elected officials and through public process. The final milestone will be independent public process and adoption by the three jurisdictions. Mr. Sepler briefly summarized the timeline which assumes convening a focus group by July. The town meeting scheduled for May 20 on Economic Development and the PDA is an independent event but can inform this process. He requested that Planning Commission attend and assist with both the May 6 and May 20 meetings. He noted that this process will allow the three jurisdictions to present a common face in negotiations with prospective businesses and developers, and greatly improve the likelihood of locating businesses where they best fit, can best thrive, and can best serve the community. A topic that may arise at the May 20 meeting is bringing broadband facilities/services not only as far as Port Hadlock, which is funded, but all the way to Port Townsend, which is not funded. There was a brief discussion about the growing number of academics, small and home businesses that would benefit from that eventuality. Mr. Fry noted that all three jurisdictions need to promote this as a response to the need for greater efficiency. Mr. Sepler said that there can be refocusing on economic development as moving hand in hand with greater quality of life and culture. He said all of the steps already taken and in process to preserve historic buildings, downtown improvements, eta line up to give high quality of life, which is a major determinant of economic development. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that Ashland is a real example of this model, where there is huge support for culture and art within the community. Mr. Fry Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 spoke of the shift in direction that Ashland had made in the past when Medford basically won over as the warehousing center along I-5 in that region. There was agreement that the three jurisdictions will need to educate/convince the community with the facts, to convey how quality of life is actually nurtured/ preserved, and to cleazly explain the strategy and how it will work. There was further discussion about Ashland today, its history and origins, and its similarities and differences to Port Townsend and the Quimper Peninsula. Mr. Fry mentioned the idea that the art community here could work more collectively to the advantage of all. Mr. Sepler said he would send out a link to the Ashland Study. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Sepler requested assistance from the Planning Commission at the May 6 meeting on the Fire District issue. There will be four different choices considered: 1. Maintain the status quo, which will mean a renegotiatiori of rates with the Fire District, i.e. a sizable increase; 2. a levy ]id; 3. annexation by Fire District, with resulting property tax increases and internal City allocation adjustments; 4. formation of a regional Fire District, and development of a 20 year plan. In the last case, each of the jurisdictions has representation, which is not the case with item 3. During this meeting, the facts will be presented and feedback collected from participants. Ms. Mick-Hager suggested that history and background be presented. Mr. Sepler said that David Timmons and Bill Beasley will present the history and current issues regarding Fire and Rescue. There will be small group break outs with facilitators to guide discussion and obtain feedback. Commissioners are asked to arrive at 6:00 PM on both May 6 and May 20; an e-mail will follow. The May 13 regular Planning Commission meeting is cancelled. May 2Q 2010: Town Meeting on Economic Development May 27, 2010: Critical Areas Ordinance Waivers; Howard Street Overlay IX. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Ray reported that he had been attending County Planning Commission meetings to acquaint himself with their process and issues. He said he has been warmly welcomed and will share information in both directions in the coming months. The County Planning Commission is currently working hard on their Comp Plan update, particularly transportation and centers of commerce alternatives. He foresees some joint meetings and visits from the counterpart Chair, Peter Downey. Mr. Sepler added that joint participation in the focus groups discussed above would also provide similaz opportunities. Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 In response to an inquiry from Mr. Fry, Mr. Sepler said that several applications for the two vacant Planning Commission seats had been received. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved and Ms. Mick-Hager moved to adjourn. Chair Ray adjourned the meeting at 8:OO PM. Julian Ray, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder P/arming Commission Page 8 of 8