Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10171996 Min Ag . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Special Public Hearing October 17, 1996 I. ROLL CALL II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail III. OLD BUSINESS A. Revision to the parking Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion B. Revision to Fences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion . C. Revision to Home Occupation Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 24, 1996 Planning Commission special meeting to consider the public testimony and formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations for a decision by City Council regarding parking, fences and hedges, and home occupation ordinances. Amendment to Rosewind PUDA. October 31, 1996 Planning Commission Workshop on Phase I Development Regulations (if needed) . VI. ADJOURN ¥'o. . ..",".,.-,_,.",~ .....,.""'_ ~.. ~ .;."V' .. . . . -~; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting October 17, 1996 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Pro Tern Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Linda Clifton, Mark Welch, and John Boles. Karen Erickson and Lois Sherwood were excused. Staff members present were Dave Robison, and Eric Toews. II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail Toews confirmed communication in Planning Commission packets: 10/16/96 letter from the Chamber of Commerce; 10/16/96 letter from Kathleen Cox; 10/14/96 letter from Myron Offstein; 10/11/96 letter from Liz Smith; 10/8/96 letter from Gaither and Bonnie Baker related to the SEPA review addressed to Dave Robison and a separate letter dated 10/7/96 addressed to the Planning Commission; Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation regarding the SEP A review; a No Comment form from John Nichols from the Department of Transportation. Ill. OLD BUSINESS The agenda was revised to include Staff reports on the three code revisions in one presentation and to hold Planning Commission deliberations until the October 24th meeting. Toews gave an overview of the three code revisions being considered at this time. He said the impetus came from City Council at their retreat where they identified the need for an immediate fix of these three codes. He said it is important that this be viewed as an interim step with all three codes to be modified over the next 5 to 8 months. He stated the purpose tonight is to review the Planning Commission drafts and receive testimony. He indicated the drafts have gone through SEP A review and BCD Director Dave Robison affirmed the determination of non- significance. After Planning Commission review of the testimony on October 24, the drafts will go to City Council for their Public Hearing November 4 and their consideration of testimony November 18. Toews then gave a summary and the key rationale of each of the three codes. Enarson asked with the short turnaround time if comments from this hearing could be available by next week. The minute taker affirmed they would be ready. Chair Thayer opened the meeting to public testimony. ;., . . . \~ Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 2 A. Revision to the Parking Code Liz Smith, Historic Preservation Commission Recommended freedom from the parking requirements just for downtown historic buildings vs. other downtown structures, to allow historic buildings to better be enhanced to attract tourist trade. Joe Finnie (submitted a letter to Planning Commission) He and his wife are owner/operators of Bishop Victorian Hotel and Swan Hotel, both in the Downtown Historic District. He strongly supports what was presented at earlier meetings as Option 2 (Historic Structures Exempt plus Exemption Thresholds). He said they are seeking HPC approval to replace and expand the old Swan office innkeeper suite which would replace the old trailer and result in an additional four rental units, for a total of 13 rental units. He said there is not sufficient space to support parking, and absent parking relief, they will not be able to expand. He strongly supports tonight's draft Parking Code Revision and hopes it is implemented. Barbara Blowers, Port Townsend Real Estate Broker She said she had opposed the original parking ordinance because of Port Townsend's historic nature, and it seemed an ordinance that restricted development of historic buildings in the historic district was the opposite of trying to maintain Port Townsend as a viable economic community. She cited the loss of a sale of two historic buildings last year because the parking ordinance as written required 37 parking spaces for that sale. She said she is a member of a national group called the Waterfront Center that promotes urban waterfront redevelopment in old communities that are on the waterfront, all around the country. She said Port Townsend is well known throughout the nation, and people cannot believe the parking ordinance. She said the City shouldn't have any parking requirements, and she doesn't think there should be any parking lines and allow people to park as close together as possible. Tim Lambert He is glad to see a shift in a more liveable place. He said it is important to feel the creating presence as the town changes. He thinks the idea of parking lines is a very pertinent point. He spoke about the Park and Ride and the need for a large amount of purpose to get people to want to turn and park there. He said one way is to enjoy the ride into town with a trolley or terrific event, until it makes it an entertainment event. He suggested the land opposite the ferry exit as a good place for a several story parking system, if it is viable. He said the City should look at what citizens want, rather than asking people downtown. . . . '-.. ~ Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 3 B. Revision to Fences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code Forest Shomer He said he was confused by the drawing depicting clear vision. He asked regarding a hedge vs. hedgerow. He spoke of the most important things to him: safety issues, enforcement of traffic laws -- not making more laws. He said not every intersection in town is uniform; not every intersection needs to have a bevel cut from it, taking off space from somebody's yard and saying to them they cannot do certain things on their property beyond that line, unless it is clearly a safety problem. He said we can't protect ourselves from ourselves by writing more ordinances, and said he feels speed limits and not making full stops are the safety issues. He said if you bevel an exposed slope, and you mow into that, someone can fall in. He would like to see a definition of hedgerow (native planting -- not planted by human beings, not about people's choices in landscaping) in the ordinance and said he is arguing against uniformity. David Peterson, Citizen He stated concern for the 8' height requirement for hedges, but was encouraged that is was improving from the 6' height requirement. He said he would like to see all restrictions removed from hedges and hedgerows. He asked if we really want them trimmed? Who is going to trim them? Who is going to asked for them to be trimmed? When do you get a variance for them? He circulated pictures illustrating what he liked. The pictures were entered as Exhibit 1. He suggested possibly concentrating on fences and arbors and those things, and let the greenery flourish where it's going to and let people decide on their own hedges. John Hulburd, Umatilla and San Juan He spoke about the road noise since Blue Heron School opened and used hay bales to enclose his property. He said as he built the enclosure he made sure there was still a sight line. He said he had read about the 3' height limitation, but his experience around town was that was not enforced at all, so he wasn't sure how high he could go, and kept going a little higher. He said finally Code Enforcement Officer C.L. Flint came by and said his fence was too high. Hulburd said he is glad to see the ordinance changed and thinks it's going in the right direction. He said, however, that from what he reads straw bails fit right in between a fence and a hedge; they are indeed a living thing but are artificially placed there. He said he wants to comply, but wants to use the bails for a sound barrier. He indicated he is confused about the Clear Vision Area. He said he drove around town and within an hour noted 71 violations to the present ordinance, sight line violations - five in areas that are very dangerous. He said he wants enforcement, but suggested it might work on a site specific basis; he does not want it too lenient nor too strict. He said he does not know how to address that in writing ordinances, but urged the City to build a little more sophistication in the language of the ordinance. He asked how he can find out if he is }C.. . . . ~ .,' Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 4 compliance. Chair Thayer, said he could find out when and if the ordinance is passed. Charles Simpson, Operations Manager, Port Townsend Public Works He had a letter from Public Works Director and the Public Works Department concerning the Clear Vision Area which will be entered as an exhibit. He relayed concerns regarding the Commission's elimination of the most permissive option, the definition of Clear Vision Area as measured from the road edge. He said Public Works has serious reservations about the current proposal to measure the Clear Vision Area down the edge of the right-of-way lines. He said first they have no idea where the right-of-way lines are without a survey; second if they actually clear the whole area to the standard of 30' down the road edge, it may be very intrusive into people's yards. He said their crews have been using 30' down the road edge, and in general have found very good cooperation on the part of the residents at the intersections and have found the standards generally provide adequate lines of sight. He indicated Public Works is in the process of developing a set of design standards for the City. One of the items they are working on is defining a Clear Vision Area. He said they have been considering a standard of 30' measured from the road edge and they have informally adopted this as their criteria. They suggested the ordinance might merely refer to the Public Works design standards for Clear Vision Area dimensions. He said the one they are currently using is attached to the letter. He showed a drawing of"F" and Cherry Streets and pointed out discrepancies in measuring. He said he feels it is important to take the measurement from the road's edge. Enarson asked how you would define the lines on a gravel road. Mr. Simpson replied if it is too restrictive, it would be a nightmare. He said it is different if it is a safety matter. Katherine Jenks, As a Citizen She said she was a member for a few years of the Tree and Brushing Committee which was established in 1991 in order to deal with citizen complaints with the City streets. She gave an historical fact that one reason the City cuts the roadside vegetation is it does not spray with herbicides, a decision made in the late '70s. She suggested the Planning Commission consider dealing with the hedges issue separately from the fences issue, and said the ordinance is much easier to understand if you are dealing with built structures than naturally growing. She asked what is a hedge and what are trees; how long is a hedge; what is partially sight obscuring and what is totally sight obscuring? How do you maintain it? She spoke to the issue of grandfathering, that the City will have to mediate between somebody who feels unfairly treated and all the other non-conforming uses they see. She asked how do you know when to grandfather; how do you know when it was planted? She spoke about side hedges and setbacks and hedges for privacy. She saíd hedges are for privacy from within, and so far as they are public safety issues they need to be addressed rigorously, and so far as they are neighborhood issues she would like to hope we can work together as neighbors without too much regulation. _.. .._,...._._____..s-. _ '. . . . \.; Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 5 Liz Smith (submitted a letter) She said something new is happening in town and referred to partly or totally sight obscuring houses being built. She said it used to be we would go to one window to see a view; now houses are being built 30' tall with views from many windows. She said to put up 8' greenery for privacy, won't do it. She said they would like to have their neighborhood liveable and not obstruct views. She said she would be very careful to say what you can plant on your own property to give an illusion of privacy. She stated she felt grandfathering would be a headache. Tim Lambert Agreed to all the lenient things said tonight. He said you can't police every comer. He talked about "F" and Cherry Streets, and begged not to cut down that 1 00 year old tree. He indicated if you had a lump in road, to stop traffic it would impact it. He said he is delighted they can have an 8' fence. He spoke about his strawbale fence being a weather barrier. Kelley Kantzman Has a licensed day care on Umatilla. She said she currently recommends a 4' fence, but a wanted 6' on Umatilla for safety of her day care, but could not afford to request a variance. She said she likes the idea of a site specific basis and is glad to see some changes. Enarson asked Staff for clarification of grandfathering of this proposed ordinance. She asked if the City would be required to come in at each intersection that is developed and clear the vegetation per the proposed ordinance. She also asked if every landowner would be required to make sure their land met the qualifications of the ordinance, or is this going to be something that once it's enacted it takes as of the time forward, and everything prior to that or naturally existing would be grandfathered? Toews replied in the current draft form it is an ordinance of general applicability. It has no specific grandfathering provision. It could very likely result in complaints that would spur enforcement actions regarding fences and hedges planted or constructed prior to the passage of the ordinance. Robison spoke about the three levels of priority of the Code Enforcement program: #1 Safety; #2 City Complaints; #3 Appeals. Thayer said this still will be an ordinance. Toews asked if the Planning Commission had correspondence from Kathleen Cox regarding Fences and Hedges. Barbara Blowers Said she thinks this conversation was bizarre. She spoke about homes being built to the edge of streets in Victorian communities on the East Coast, that people stop, look around the homes and then proceed. - -~_..- ..,.-,.".-- -: . " Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 6 Forest Shomer Spoke about a nuisance ordinance enacted in 1986 that they do not enforce, and he is glad. He said in 1988 he was a consultant to the City as a forester on specific corners regarding hedges and trees and still has a file. He said to take issues as they come up is less expensive dealing with the 71 intersections cited, for example. He said he would like to see working with homeowners to come up with a solution. Linda Clifton She asked for Forest Shomer's definition of hedge vs. hedgerow. He replied that a good hedge is pruned; a hedgerow is not pruned. Linda asked the difference about a tree hedge. Forest said a shrub would be intermediate; a tree has a single stem; a shrub has many stems and would not be over 20' tall. Linda asked about a row of cypress. Forest asked if it is Port Orford Cedar and said you can call it a hedge if it is shaped, etc. He asked is it providing shelter for animals? Tim Lambert Spoke about sets of rules and cited the problem of the City cutting more grass than required. He spoke about Code Enforcement rules being empowering and the need to be polite. John Hulburd Referred to the trip of71 discrepancies regarding clear vision areas and asked regarding compliance for light poles and telephone poles, signs, etc. Chair Thayer said there is a sign ordinanc.e. Mr. Hulburd said he would like to see something in the ordinance. c. Revision to Home Occupation Code Gaither Baker (submitted letter) He said the new city code revision has considerable impact on neighborhoods and the neighborhood characteristic. He made reference to the employee who came for breakfast at 5:30 a.m. and he asked how they can enforce to 9:00 p.m. He said normal hours are 8:00 to 5:00, and he asked why the home occupation had extended hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He said the present còde should remain as is, that this is a serious impact on city residents. He suggested the City consider majoring on the citizens of our community and not to special interests. Forest Shomer Has had a licensed home occupation since 1992. He said he thinks this revision has expanded too far. He spoke of the contradiction, 50% "greater" or "less." It was noted that had been corrected. He said if it is larger than that, it should be in a commercial area. He spoke about parking on the street; hours of 7:00 to 7:00 if upheld; three non-residents employees -- and said that extends too far. ,~ . . . . . Meeting of: Purpose: Date: - 51()/f/S Name (please printl Address y ~/1... 53~ ?l or K 7~t4 FtlZ l \1. V'¥Y\4í\ V\J1- Y. ? . x t ~ ~ ¡IT ? I ¡....-- -- .;'.it;'