The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About031110CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, March 11, 2010 EXH 2 J. Surber, Memo to Planning Cormmission -Draft Code Revision Ordinances: Title 9, 17, 18 and 20 Revisions and Clarifications, Mazch 2, 2010 EXH 2A Attachment to EXH 2: Summary Table EXH 2B Attachment to EXH 2: Draft Ordinance (Revised) EXH 2C Attachment to EXH 2: Draft Findings and Conclusions EXH 3 90 Day Schedule Worksheet -Key Topics (Mar -May 2010) CALL TO ORDER Chair Julian Ray called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:45 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Gee Heckscher, Monica Mick-Hager and Julian Ray. Commissioners Jerry Fry and Bill LeMaster were excused. Staff: Judy Surber, Planning Manager III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda; Ms. Mick-Hager seconded. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Review of the minutes of the previous meeting was postponed. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Planning Commission Page 1 of 4 VI. OLD BUSINESS Update - Concerning permit requirements for small wind energy systems (SHB 1008) -Judy Surber, Planning Manager Ms. Surber reported that the process at the State level is ongoing. At the CDLU meeting eazlier in the day, staff was requested to convene the Alternative Electricity Management Committee and develop draft recommendations. This will be discussed with the HPC (Historic Preservation Committee), which will address any modifications specific to the historic district. VII. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing: 2009 Development Regulation Amendments, Port Townsend Municipal Code -Judy Surber, Planning Manager Ms. Surber explained that each yeaz, staff bundles a list of code "housekeeping items" to be considered for code amendments. At an earlier workshop in December, there were certain procedural items [hat have since been transferred to a group of items that will be handled separately by City Attorney Watts and City Council. The current list to be considered by the Planning Commission numbers thirteen. The SEPA environmental review has been completed; there were no comments received. The required 60 day review with CTED has also been done; they granted an expedited review and there were also no comments. The next step is to conduct this hearing and forwazd recommendations to City Council for final action, tentatively scheduled for April 5. Ms. Surber pointed out an error on the draft ordinance, and stated that she would correct that for the final draft. On page 11, Section 8 she pointed out that the strike-out and underlined text is all new language; she will remove the strike-outs and underline all in items 2 and 3. In addition, on the last page, the paragraph of strike-out language will be removed - it is part of procedural code sent to John Watts for inclusion in his revisions. Chair Ray and Ms. Surber mentioned that a few minor style and typographical changes would be made by staff for the final version. She offered to walk through the summary table or to simply respond to questions. Mr. Emery referred to an a-mail he had sent out on March 10 concerning the number of stories pemutted in C-II and C-IIII. He recalled that in the workshop, Mr. Sepler had stated that clarifying language pertaining to this table (page 10) would be inserted to prevent building four stories within the envelope as it had been defined. Mr. Emery said that the essence of his e-mail was a suggestion to allow a bonus fourth story under certain conditions: a good design that Fits within the envelope; has a green roof; and is used for affordable housing. He said that situation could be handled via a departure or exception, and that staff may need to explore further if such an exception is viable. Ms. Mick-Hager said that although she is not a trained designer, she likes and supports the idea. She affirmed that it is an appropriate role for the Planning Commission to seek ways to provide and support affordable housing; otherwise, service people will be unable to live in this town. She said she was in favor of asking staff to determine if this is a viable idea. Mr. Heckscher said that he also agrees in principle, and questioned whether or not it is legally possible to single out a particulaz type of housing for this special treatment. P/arming Commission Page 2 of 4 Chair Ray said he also agreed with the principle and the possible merit, but suggested that the Planning Commission move forward on the Omnibus now and follow up on Mr. Emery's idea at a later date. Ms. Surber said that it would be possible to hold item 7 or allow it to go forward as is, with a recommendation that it be explored further per Mr. Emery's idea in a future ordinance. She said that she had spoken with Mr. Sepler, and the latter option was consistent with his recommendation. He had said that bonus densities for affordable housing was already on the slate for investigation and this could be included under incentives. Mr. Emery said he was amenable to that approach, and he did not believe it necessary to hold that item. Ms. Mick-Hager requested clarification on next steps. Ms. Surber said that staff could add an item to the findings, conclusions and recommendations that would accompany this ordinance indicating Planning Commissions concerns and desire to come back to this item. She said the existing work plan lists bonus densities as part of Phase 2. Mr. Heckscher spoke in favor of considering this item with bonus densities as a package. Mr. Ray inquired why micro-distillery, micro-brewery and micro-winery were broken out distinctively instead of treated collectively under one term. Ms. Surber said that originally micro- winerieswere considered in the code. It was then called to staff s attention that micro-distilleries should also be defined and considered. After a brief discussion about the differences in processes and possible regulatory options, it was agreed that this level of differentiation should be retained. There were no further questions from the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Emery moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the 2009 proposed 13 amendments to Title 9, Peace Morals and Safety; Title 17, Zoning; and Title 18, Land Division of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, and that the issues of bonus density and affordable housing be further explored as soon as work plans permit. Ms. Mick-Hager seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Surber said that she would incorporate language into the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations for Chair Ray's review and signature; make the appropriate changes to the draft ordinance as discussed; and forward all to City Council for the April 5 Hearing. VIA. UPCOMING MEETINGS Ms. Surber distributed copies of a 90 day schedule -Key Topics (EXH. 3). She noted that due to the busy City Council schedule, certain Planning Commission meetings would be cancelled: March 25, April 8 and on May 6 Planning Commission is encouraged to attend the Town Meeting The topic for the April 22 Planning Commission will be Fencing. Ms. Surber mentioned the growing number of homeowner plans for deer fences, and the need to correct some inconsistencies and gaps in the regulations. Consideration of CAO waivers is scheduled for May 13. An Update on the Howard Street Overlay will be the next topic, possibly on May 27. Ms. Surber briefly reviewed the planned topics for other bodies: PDA, Town Hall meetings and the JGMSC. P/arming Commission Page 3 of 4 Ö«´·¿² Î¿§ô Ý¸¿·® ñÙ¿·´ Þ»®²¸¿®¼ Ù¿·´ Þ»®²¸¿®¼ô Î»½±®¼»®