Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072210CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:30 PM I. Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda/Notice, July 22, 2010 EXH 2 R. Sepler & S. Wassmer, Memorandum to Planning Commission: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to PTMC Chapter 17.68, Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges, July 16, 2010 with Attachment A, Potential Revisions to the Chapter CALL TO ORDER Chair Ray called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. II. ROLL CALL III. IV V VI A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Sarah Bowman, Gerald Fry, Gee Heckscher and Julian Ray (Chair). Steve Emery and Monica Mick-Hager were excused. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA The agenda was approved, all in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 10, 2010 - A correction was noted on page 3: "over 6 feet - 99% translucent." Mr. Fry moved for approval of the June IO minutes, as amended; Mr. Heckscher seconded. The minutes of June 10 were approved, as amended, all in favor. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: None (There were no members of the public attending.) OLD BUSINESS Public Hearing: Proposed Revisions, Chapter 17.68 PTMC -Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges - (Suzanne Wassmer, DSD/Land Use Development Specialist) Chair Ray noted the absence of any members of the public for this hearing. After a brief discussion about process options, he closed the Public Comment portion of the hearing. It was noted that there would be opportunity for public input again when the matter goes before the City Council. Chair Ray then called for a brief break in order to change seating for Commissioners and staff. Page 1 of 6 Meeting materials had been distributed electronically prior to the meeting; additional paper copies were available. Suzanne Wassmer noted that the new materials state "no less than 50% open", while the earlier version stated "no less than 51 %"; she inquired as to the degree of specificity intended by the Commissioners. She said she had provided photographs as illustrations. She noted one example of a fence being "fixed" by removal of every other board in order to provide 50% transparency or openness. Mr. Sepler suggested that Ms. Wassmer step through the presentation before attempting to clarify that particular point. Ms. Wassmer pointed out the proposed changes that had been made PTMC 17.68. 1. Section 17.68.50: "Fences, walls, hedges and arbors that create hazards" has been re-titled "Potential safety hazards". 2. Section 17.68.10: Under Purpose, she pointed out the addition of the phrases "to ensure the streetscape is enhanced from such installation" and "and improving the image and appeal of the community" and pointed out punctuation corrections. 3. 17.68. 020: addition of "lot line" to the reference on pertinent definitions. 4. 17.68.030: Under General Requirements, a table has been developed to present limitations and exceptions that apply depending on location. It was acknowledged that such presentations are more easily referenced and understood by the public, even though the table is redundant of information in the text that follows. Ms. Bowman suggested that the Location column of the table could be improved by the use of graphics instead of lengthy text descriptions of types of locations. Commissioners noted that graphics may be appropriate for ahand-out or summary for applicants, rather than or in addition to making such a change in the code. Mr. Sepler indicated that an easy to read hand-out could be placed on the web in addition to the actual code. Mr. Ray pointed out that additional diligence and administrative overhead is required to keep hand-outs in synch with code. Ms. Bowman inquired as to the reasons for inclusion of rules in 17.68.040 related to barbed wire. It was explained that the Planning Commission had been asked to consider regulation of the use of barbed wire in the past. With regard to transparency, Ms. Bowman asked what materials would be suitable so as to allow for a high degree of transparency for the highest portions of a fence (over 6 feet). Wire, string, rope, fishing net, and thin bamboo were mentioned. Since no supporting beam is permitted across the top of a fence, a light weight and self supporting material is necessary. (See page 3: "Any portion between six and eight feet in height shall be up to 90 % open and constructed of wire, fine mesh, string or monofilament without a top member." Ms. Bowman questioned whether the specificity of this section does in fact support and enforce the stated Purpose of the fencing. She said that she had observed the lack of finish to some of the actual fences that have been erected. She wonders if the code language is too proscriptive, or whether it could allow more creative (and more aesthetically pleasing) solutions using a greater diversity of materials. Mr. Sepler provided an update from the most recent City Council meeting: Historic homes that require building permits are subject to design review, which would include fences; anon-historic home would not require design review. He also recalled from the previous Planning Commission meeting that Commissioners believed the eclectic nature of fences was in keeping with the character of the community. He said that he preferred when front yard fence height limits were 4 feet and had reluctantly accepted 6 feet. He said that the compromise for extending up to 8 feet to meet functional needs was to require a high degree of transparency and the least amount of structural materials. Page2of6 After further discussion, Chair Ray suggested that it would be unwise to try to regulate matters of taste. He said that it may be possible to rephrase certain text so as to suggest the types of fencing materials rather than proscribe or limit them. Others agreed that the use of suggestive phrasing, "such as" or "such as ,but not limited to" rather than "shall be" would be appropriate. Mr. Fry questioned whether the drawings were consistent with the text in the proposed code. Mr. Sepler and Ms. Wassmer agreed to adjust the wording to eliminate ambiguity. Troublesome points mentioned were use of the word "perpendicular" and finding a way to define the intention of 50 % transparency. Pre-constructed lattice panels were discussed; the proposed code indicates that these are often only 25% open. Pre-existing panels will be grandfathered in, and can be repaired, but new installations will not be permitted. In response to a question about the existing code, Ms. Wassmer pointed out the text that states "any portion of the structure above 4 feet shall be predominantly open, such that there is free circulation and passage of light". Regarding enforcement, Mr. Sepler said that if there is a complaint, staff would measure the amount of openness and enforce according to the code. He pointed out that, in actuality, this ordinance is intended to provide better guidance and to deal with 8 foot fences, making tall fences as unobtrusive as possible. In response to a question, it was noted that arbors can be as tall as 10 feet; hedges are not regulated with regard to height unless located in a clear vision area. Arbors and hedges are defined in a special section of the code. There was additional discussion about the particular difficulty of monitoring and enforcing regulations for living plants that continue to grow and change over time, or to make distinctions based on types of plant life such as bamboo, laurel or seasonal vines. However, it was agreed that safety was a key factor that should not be compromised. Regulations must address and be enforced in cases where vegetation or structures on private property block any portion of the site triangle. Mr. Sepler said that could be done through zoning regulation changes. In response to a question, he said the dimensions for the site triangle are taken from the engineering design standards. He and Ms. Wassmer mentioned cases where the street (or rolling surface) abuts or goes over the property line. Mr. Heckscher expressed concern that since no permit is required for a fence up to six feet in height, someone without knowledge of the regulations might build a solid six foot high fence, thereby necessitating the City to take action to take it down. Mr. Sepler said that the requirements would be included in the Builder's Guide. Ms. Wassmer mentioned a "fence handout" from another jurisdiction where a prospective fence builder must sign the form avowing that he/she has read and understands the regulations. Mr. Fry suggested that a permit should be required for a fence over four feet high abutting aright-of--way. This would also apply within the setback area, e.g. 10 feet in the R-II zone. After further discussion, considering the current low frequency of problems, it was agreed that the instructional material and staff advice would be sufficient in the great majority of cases. Ms. Bowman requested clarification on why City Council had instructed the Planning Commission to review this issue. Mr. Sepler said that there had been concern about the walling off of properties and the impact on the community, particularly for historic properties. There was acknowledgement that although 8 foot fences may be a necessary compromise to keep out deer, the design must be carefully restricted. Page 3 of 6 Mr. Sepler indicated that based on the preceding discussion, staff would return on August 5 with a revised ordinance. Chair Ray recapped the changes: change language to indicate 50% transparency; any portion of the fence between 6 and 8 feet high shall be 90% open and shall be constructed of materials such as ........, but not limited to; and inclusion of language about the site triangle engineering standards including "edge of pavement or rolling surface"; and modification of the illustration. Ms. Bowman suggested an addition to language under Prohibitions regarding structures in the right-of--way, in order to provide consistency between the text and the chart. After further discussion, Mr. Sepler said it would be useful to clarify in the handout what is allowed and not allowed in the right-of--way. Ms. Wassmer described an example where an applicant wished to build a fence within 5 feet of a garage, not a "dwelling unit". Commissioners agreed the term in the code should be changed to "structure". There was further discussion regarding Table 17.16.030 and the allowance of 8 foot fences in side and rear yards. Commissioners affirmed that for any lot line not abutting a public right-of--way, the maximum height is 8 feet. Chair Ray continued the hearing, date specific to August 5, 2010. (Suzanne Wassmer left the meeting at 7:45 PM.) VII. NEW BUSINESS Workshop: Land Use Approaches for the Howard Street Corridor and Upper Sims Way (Rick Sepler, DSD/ Planning Director) Mr. Sepler said that the next major project for the City will be to obtain transportation improvement funding to complete the Howard Street Corridor, from the new roundabout up to Discovery Road. City Council authorized the purchase of land on July 19 toward the assembly of the wetland mitigation area needed for the realignment. Funds are already allocated in the capital budget for sewer and water infrastructure. In response to a question from Mr. Heckscher, Mr. Sepler said this is eventually paid by new connection fees. He also confirmed that after 15 years, the connection fees no longer apply. In this case, the City will attempt to incentivize development because it is in the public interest and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. It is the last commercially zoned land in the City. He recalled that the entire Upper Sims Way was at no cost to the City. It is believed to be worth the risk to bootstrap this portion to get things moving. In looking at the opportunity, the Planning Commission has been tasked to determine whether uses could be established there, with appropriate performance standards, which might encourage development sooner. Bonus densities are unlikely to work in present market conditions. There is a significant problem with retail leakage; there are many products/goods that cannot be obtained here. There are types of potential business that would not harm other parts of the community. There maybe certain design modifications that would allow certain needed uses in the HowardlSims area. All of these issues and factors must be explored. Commissioners briefly reviewed the size of the area under consideration. With regard to funding, Mr. Sepler said that Page 4 of 6 the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) has encouraged the City to consider this as the second phase. Ms. Bowman inquired as to the source of community needs information. Mr. Sepler mentioned leakage studies and simply the common consensus that there are many gaps, inconsistent supplies and few choices for many types of merchandise here. Mr. Sepler described an approach that includes: considering what should happen in the overlay district; defining the zoning requirements; eliminating the building size limitation and replacing it with appropriate design guidelines; and considering quotas for particular components. Ms. Bowman noted that neighborhood development/ integration of big box stores can be done well, particularly in conjunction with TOD (transit oriented development). There was agreement that a balance must be found without making the process and requirements onerous for developers. In responding to a question about the history of these issues, Mr. Sepler explained how the formula store ordinance had come about. He stressed that the major underlying motivation is community development, and not commercial tax revenues. He provided copies of the previously developed Howard Street Comdor draft ordinance, noting it was abonus-based scheme. Ms. Bowman initiated a discussion about demographics. There was a brief review of demographic information and assumptions; 2010 census data will be incorporated when it becomes available. She urged the Commission to explore how the Howard St., Sims Way, Business Park, Hospital areas and housing will tie together over the next 20 years. Mr. Sepler reviewed the assumptions regarding mixed use, incentivization and the specific companies who can serve as "anchors" and are willing to locate in this community -pharmacies, Fred Meyer, etc. Chair Ray expressed his preference for revisiting the "formula store" ordinance in planning for the Howard Street corridor. Mr. Fry recapped his experience with planning in Folsom, California ten years ago. Population has grown from 20,000 to 70,000 in 20 years, largely due to the development of an Intel plant and installation of a fiber optics infrastructure. He said the intention to have residential apartments above retail in a very large shopping center was thwarted by the inability to get insurance for the retail units with residential above. This led to changes in the plan, and the shopping center was then built in the next town. Mr. Ray mentioned the lack of success with mixed use in 3uanita, WA because of noise issues. Mr. Sepler said he was less in favor of the overlunder mixed use model than with multiple uses on the same site. There was further discussion acknowledging that the type of housing suitable for young urban professionals, who spend little time at home, may not meet the needs of families and older people. Mr. Ray urged seeking ways to create living wage jobs, rather than only focusing on creating cheaper and cheaper housing. Mr. Sepler said that it seems apparent that a broader suite of uses must be allowed in order to have development. There was agreement that a combination of strategies must be pursued, particularly discerning a workable balance regarding uses and maintaining the character and spirit of the community. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 5, 2010 -Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions Chapter 17.68 PTMC and Workshop on Land Use Approaches for Howard Street Corridor and Upper Sims Way August 19, 2010 --Cancelled Page 5 of 6 September 9, 2010 -Maximum Residential Building Size (Subsequently cancelled) IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Ray adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM Julian Ray, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Page 6 of 6