Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061010CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, June 10, 2010 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, June 10, 2010 EXH 2 R. Sepler, Memorandum to Planning Commission: Fence Height and Transparency, June 7, 2010, with attachments EXH 3 April 22 Planning Commission Meeting packet materials CALL TO ORDER Chair Ray called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Sarah Bowman, Steve Emery, Gerald Fry, Gee Heckscher, Monica Mick-Hager, Julian Ray (Chair). III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda Mr. Fry seconded. The agenda was approved, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 27, 2010 - Mr. Emery moved for approval of the minutes for May 27, Mr. Heckscher seconded. The minutes of May 27 were approved, as written. April 22, 2010 -Spelling of Port Gamble was noted. Mr. Heckscher moved for approval of the minutes for April 22; Mr. Emery seconded. The minutes of April 22, 2010 were approved, as amended. March 11, 2010 - Mr. Emery moved for approval of the minutes for March 11, Mr. Heckscher seconded. The minutes of March 11 were approved, as written. (Mr. Fry abstained.) February 25, 2010 - Mr. Emery moved for approval of the minutes for February 25, Mr. Fry seconded. The minutes of February 25 were approved, as written. Page 1 of 6 V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: None VI. OLD BUSINESS Discussion: Proposed Revisions Chapter 17.68 PTMC -Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges (Rick Sepler, DSD Planning Director) Mr. Sepler listed the packet items that had been mailed earlier in the week. This material expands on the prior memo from April 22 and addresses the fence heights issue. City Council has requested that the Planning Commission consider this matter. There is an increasing trend toward growing one's own food and to erect fences high enough to keep out deer. Staff suggests that while an 8 foot fence may be accommodated in certain cases, erecting such a fence around the entire perimeter of a property is not the solution. The challenge for the Planning Commission is to find the best solution with reasonable flexibility. Mr. Sepler said that the current zoning code regarding fences is somewhat convoluted. He reviewed the 51 % permeability requirement, noting that there had already been considerable discussion on that. There are two recommended approaches: 1. placement offences at the building line, with the front set back area open to view. He referred to EXH 2, page 4, Illustration #1, showing shaded areas where a fence would not be allowed. He acknowledged that the sun lit areas best for growing are not always in the back or sides of the lot; this is covered by illustration 2, where a small fenced garden could be allowed in the front of the lot/house. He pointed photos of fencing on pages 10-11. There was discussion acknowledging that deer population control by the City is not one of the solutions under consideration. The second alternative is to not allow fences over 6 feet tall in setback areas (Illustration 3 -shaded areas). In either case, staff recommends that for any fences over 6 feet, a building permit will be required. However, the material must be highly permeable at that height. Otherwise, it could lead to walling off the street and defeat the intent of the Comp Plan for the uptown areas. He mentioned how that would conflict with "eyes on the street" and environmental design concepts. Mr. Heckscher noted that the standard lattice work, at 25% permeability, does not meet the 51 % requirement. Mr. Sepler said that would be addressed. Mr. Sepler noted that these options were intended as a basis for discussion and could be modified by the Planning Commission. He also noted that he was not in favor of 8 foot solid fences even in a back yard area. He also pointed out that the photo showing a fence built higher than the permit specifications. There was a brief discussion about security fence exceptions in P1 zones. There was also discussion about enforcement based on complaints and the issue of fairness. There was a question and clarification that foliage and hedges are not part of this recommendation. Page 2 of 6 Ms. Bowman inquired about current rules and practices. Mr. Sepler said that fences under 6 feet high are exempted from building permits. He noted that calls are frequently received about fences being built in the right of way. A site visit is made and, if appropriate, work is stopped, and there is a letter of follow up citing the code violation, with 14 days to remedy. If not corrected, a second letter warns that fines and penalties will be initiated if the situation is not remedied in 14 more days. Ultimately, unpaid fines and penalties will lead to attaching the land to abate the problem. Ms. Bowman noted a concern that the new requirements might lead to too much uniformity and that the uniqueness of Port Townsend would be compromised. She asked to what extent there would be regulation of specific materials. She also wondered about the resources available for enforcement. She suggested that a permit be required for fences over 4 feet and that there be a design review process. She noted that the intended reason or use for the fence must be known and taken into consideration. Mr. Ray noted that the challenge for any legislation is to be broad enough to allow interpretation but clear enough to allow uniformity and fairness - to be removed from subjectivity. Ms. Bowman noted that if resources are not applied up front, then the enforcement burden increases. She asked if proceeds from permits could fund a position or partial position. She spoke in favor of requiring permits for fences over four feet since these are the structures that are in public view. Mr. Sepler said that in the past the code had addressed fences over 4 feet in the front of a property and 6 feet at the back, but had been changed over time. He noted that design reviews are perceived as somewhat burdensome and subjective. He said that one variation would be to offer a set of standard choices and to provide for design review for exceptions. Mr. Ray questioned the need to regulate materials, preferring to focus on function, e.g. height and permeability/opacity. Mr. Fry said that a combination of the two above approaches should be considered. There was a brief discussion about the photo examples and the issue of setbacks. In response to a question about historic homes, Mr. Sepler said that an ordinance is pending before City Council that will make anything requiring a building permit subject to design review for secondary, primary and pivotal homes. Mr. Heckscher asked about the number of fence permits processed per year. Mr. Sepler estimated about 50, but noted many are for commercial uses. In response to another question, he said the height is measured to the highest point of the structure. Mr. Ray then suggested a tiered or graduated structure: e.g. Up to 4 feet - 50% translucent; 4-6 feet - 80% translucent; over 6 feet - 99% translucent. He said this would address the view through, the functionality of keeping out deer, and should still be aesthetically acceptable. There was support for that idea from several other Commissioners. Mr. Heckscher noted that approach can also promote a horizontal element that eases the intense vertical emphasis of high fences. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that the revision draft still refers to Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges. Mr. Sepler explained that was the Chapter title and that he would find the appropriate section -this will not apply to hedges. Page 3 of 6 Mr. Emery brought up noise abatement. He asked if an exception could exist for a noise abatement fence -for example, to reduce traffic noise. There were comments about the hilly topography, and the fact that it is quite difficult to create an effective sound block. It was noted that a standard variance could be used to address the rare exception. Mr. Fry mentioned several examples of attractive fences in town that would not fit with the proposed translucency requirements, i.e. certain Japanese style fences. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that that type offence, over 6 feet, is extremely expensive and the cost would be prohibitive for most people. Based on the above recommendations, Mr. Sepler said that he would clarify the descriptions/ specifications and would include a graphic in the code for the next meeting. There was a brief discussion about restrictions on placement of fences. It was agreed that seasonal plants growing higher than 6 feet tall (on temporary supporting framework or trellises) are not considered fencing and would not be subject to enforcement. After weighing the alternatives, and in consideration of 50' x 100' lots, Commissioners agreed that there should be no additional setback requirements. Ms. Mick-Hager suggested a higher ratio of permeability than what had been proposed. Mr. Sepler said he assumed 75% above 6 feet. Mr. Ray suggested adding standard definitions of opacity and permeability, etc. After further discussion about translucence/permeability, Mr. Sepler said he would development examples of various options and performance standards, with photos. Ms. Bowman was concerned that the additional layers of regulation would place undue restrictions, particularly on artisans; she did not see the need to change from "predominantly open". She stated that the proposed changes did not solve the real problems. Mr. Sepler said that the intent is to address the proliferation of very tall fences, i.e. greater than 6 feet. After further discussion about actual examples, several Commissioners agreed that the new regulations requiring a high degree of permeability would achieve most of the objectives. Ms. Bowman requested clarification on the reasons that City Council had requested that the Planning Commission review this matter. Mr. Sepler said that they directed that the language be cleaned up, and that their concerns about the proliferation of tall fences be addressed in some manner. Mr. Sepler restated that he would prepare a new draft with clear examples and bring it back to the Planning Commission for further review. 2. Update: Proposed Critical Area Ordinance Revisions Mr. Sepler gave a brief update on the CAO Revisions item, which had been tentatively scheduled for this meeting. He said that, rather than make minor amendments, there would need to be a much more detailed review of the Critical Areas code. Page 4 of 6 Mr. Emery inquired about the reasons for the revisions. Mr. Sepler said that staff does not see the need for some of the currently required administrative processes. He said that in certain cases, there seems to be no need for notice to title etc. -there seems to be no public purpose. Staff would like to make procedures more lenient. Ms. Surber is in the process of contacting other jurisdictions to determine their policies and practices. The maps in use were never as precise as the CAO concepts. The result is that restrictions are being placed on land that actually does not match the defined CA characteristics. The City is seeking the latitude to avoid that if it is shown that the land is not subject to the rules. He said the situation is exacerbated by the fact that DOE, through the courts, is entitled to review a wide range of cases, although they only have jurisdiction over 200 feet from the shoreline. Mr. Sepler said that staff would schedule this item in the future, possibly within the next two meetings. VII. NEW BUSINESS (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS June 24, 2010 Community Meeting (Blue Heron Middle School) Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Mr. Sepler invited Planning Commissioners to attend the Community Meeting and cancel the regular Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, June 24 at 6:00 PM. Concurrently, there will be an LTAC (Lodging Tax Advisory Committee) subcommittee meeting in City Council chambers related to enforcement of transient accommodation regulations; Commissioners are also invited. July 8, 2010 - Workshop: Howard Street Corridor Overlay Mr. Sepler suggested that the Planning Commission meet at City Council chambers, then drive out to the Howard Street area for a site visit. In response to a question, Mr. Sepler noted that DOE has contested certain of the City's wetland designations, and those issues must be worked out before the street work proceeds. Mr. Fry moved to cancel the June 24 meeting and Mr. Emery seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Heckscher stated that he will be unable to attend the July 8 meeting. IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) Page 5 of 6 X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved to adjourn and Ms. Mick-Hager seconded. Chair Ray adjourned the meeting at 7: 47 PM. • f Julian Ray, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Page 6 of 6