The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09261996 Min Ag . . .. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Workshop Meeting September 26, 1996 I. ROLL CALL IT. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 12, 1996 ITI. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINFSS A. Revision to the Parking Code 1. Stafr Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion 3. Public Question Period Revision to Fences, Walls, Hedges & Arbors Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion 3. Public Question Period Revision to Home Occupation Code 1. Staff Report, (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion 3. Public Question Period B. C. V. NEW BUSINFSS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings Sq>tember 26, 1996 Workshop on Phase I Development Regulations (parking, fences & hedges, home occupations) Octo~r 10, 1996 Assisted Living Concepts, PUD/Conditional Use Permit #LUP96-00040 (Welch/Boles) October 17, 1996 Special Hearing on Phase I Development Regulations (parking, fences & hedges, home occupations) October 24, 1996 Special Meeting to formulate fmdings and conclusions and recommendations for a decision by City Council regarding parking, fences and hedges, home occupations VIT. ADJOURN · · · e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting September 26, 1996 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Linda Clifton, Karen Erickson and John Boles. Mark Welch, and Cindy Thayer absent. Staff members present were Eric Toews and Tim McMahan II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of9/12/96, as corrected was made by Boles and seconded by Enarson. Al1 were in favor. ilI. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Appeal (Tim McMahan) Discussed the appeal petition served to the City on September 13, 1996. He said the appe~l was written very broadly and does not reference anything in the record or in the Comprehensive Plan. He said this is becoming a typical part of the Growth Management Act across the State and that the Board is upholding approximately 80 percent of the appeals. He noted a pre-hearing conference on October 15 concluding with a hearing in December and indicated they are handling the process in-house and not hiring outside lawyers. B. Special Land Use Law Training for Planning Commission, City Council and staff, on October 14, 1996 (Tim McMahan) McMahan stated the need to keep on top of the issues and pointed out that the Washington State Insurance Authority has proclaimed that damage claims from jurisdictions that have claims examiners are low, and those using a council quite high. They are proposing to either go to Claims Examiners or have the training. The Insurance Authority will be bringing in top notch trainers and are also bringing in their claims officers to be trained; they are paying 100 percent of the cost of training. Mark Welch will video the session. Erickson she will not be available, but asked for literature. · · · e e Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1996 Page Two Toews said tonight's meeting is to narrow the range of options. He gave the Schedule for Code adoption: · 10/17/96 Planning Commission Public Hearing · 10/24/96 Planning Commission Special Workshop, recommendations and findings to City Council · 11/04/96 City Council Public Hearing (Likely) · 11/18/96 City Council changes and tentative adoption · 11/25196 Effective (Likely) Responsible Official for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A), BCD Director Dave Robison, issued a SEP A Threshold Determination on these Phase I development regulations and issued a Determination of Non significance. The to-day comment period begins September 25, 1996 where people can review the checklist and the determination made. C. Revision to the Parkin:: Code 1. Staff Report (Eric Toews) Discussed the three options. Toews noted this Parking Code is a quick fix within the Historic Structures to address citizen complaints and Council direction. Other issues were raised and Toews stated Phase II will go beyond this quick fix. 2. Commission Discussion Option 1 Erickson: If you do non-historic structures, wait and do all commercial at once. Enarson: We are talking about Historic District. Don't know why we should wait. Erickson: Everyone else has to wait. Boles: Has a problem with options. Is concerned for residential areas. Would go with Option 1; applies with both uptown and downtown. Dr. Scharf would be exempted. Erickson--Customer demand. Parking requirements are too hard. Option 2 Clifton: One quick fix is Option 2. Enarson: Discussed at workshop, banks won't lend money. Preserve our Historic District and Economic Development. Support Option 2. Sherwood: Support Option 2 also. Erickson: Support Option 2; Findings to Council except do quickly for everyone. Consensus for discussion OPTION #2 17.30.010 Toews: Definitions were not in before. Only section different from #1 is (B) referring to exemption threshold. 2 · · · e e Planning Commissi9n Minutes September 26, 1996 Page Three 17.30.015 (C) Toews: or expansion of an existing structure -- Delete and replace with wording in 17.30.040. Miscellaneous discussion followed. Enarson suggested when they go for the nuts and bolts that they change the requirement of square feet needed for parking spaces; the numbers may be high. Option 3 Clifton: Option 3 is a real leap. Would overly encourage use of the parking plan that allows all of their workers and guests to use the Park & Ride. Enarson: Uncomfortable with that. Jeff Hamm: What parking policy is in the urban area is going to have a major influence on the extent to which you are going to get a shift into alternative modes of transportation. When you start to have a constriction of parking supply or when you start to impose parking pricing, that is when you see a major shift. The extent to which the City closes down the parking supply in the downtown area, in terms of supplylpricing, the more you are going to see use of alternate modes of transportation and the Park & Ride lot. Boles: I have problems with the pressures it will cause for uptown. Concerned with the effect. 3. Public Question Period Tim Lambert: Old world trends -- having an entertaining experience in town. Entice them to do what you want them to do. D. Revision to Fences. Walls. Hed::es & Arbors Code 1. Staff Report (Eric Toews) Toews discussed the four basic concepts common to all three options and also outlined the three options. He said this would replace Port Townsend Municipa~ Code Chapter 17.36 Fences and Greenbelts. 2. Commission Discussion Option #1 Enarson: Strongly favors Option # 1, with some modification and with Clear Vision area accepted. Option #2 to mitigate fences with tops, still allow 8' hedge; why not allow 8' fence? Sherwood: Agreed. Clifton: As we get more dense, need for privacy is more important CONSENSUS: Option #1. Add broken glass or spikes. Leave barbed wire and electric fences as is, without regulation. 3 · · · e e Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1996 Page Four Tim Lambert: Where a road turns and visibility is broken by internal corner (however, on the opposite side it is still referred to as a corner) but it's on the exterior turn and never blocks anybody's view, per se. Sherwood said that would not be an intersection. Lambert said it is referred to as corner, but deadend; details need to be worked out -- not an exterior corner. Visibility and public safety issues will not come up. Toews: Tied to platted rights-of-way; opened in future. Clear Vision Areas--keep platted intersections clear. Enarson: T -intersection and some other situations do not create vision problems. Suggest when platted but not opened, be allowed to have a fence and hedge as long as you sign an agreement saying, when that street is opened, you will provide a clear vision. Some of these are never going to be opened. Erickson: With clear use agreement. Allow abutting property owners come in and put a fence or hedge where they can use the property. Boles: Natural shrubbery. Toews: Constructed or planted--makes specific reference to artificially constructed barrier, and hedge means any self-supporting barrier of living vegetation planted to enclose or separate areas. Draft Option # 1: Sherwood: Basic Findings -- O.K.. 17.08.033 Enarson: Arbors -- There are arbors that have no latticework. Cross out archway. 17.08.088 Enarson: Clear Vision Area -- Alternate #2. Define rights-of-way (ROW); unopened. Somewhere sayan opened ROW under the Clear Vision Area; second paragraph or elsewhere say if ROW not opened, sign for street use agreement. Toews: Define Clear Vision Area tied to open rights of way and state the Clear Vision Area will expand with the opening of ROWs. CQNSENSUS: Clear Vision Area -- Alternate #2 17.08.211 Enarson: Trees. When does a row of trees become a hedge? Toews: Like us to in,clude expanded definition. Enarson/CJifton O.K. Enarson: Hoping for a definition of greenbelt. Toews: Like us to include expanded definition. (Residential properties that abut previously developed adjacent comDJercial properties that were not required to provide buffering.) JLnarsonlCUfton O.K. Boles: How does that address the issue of trees when planting not being a hedge? Toews: Could come up with a definition that describes when closely planted trees become a hedge. Tim Lambert: Good definition of hedge in horticultural literature. pric: Would be happy to look at that. Chapter 17.36 17.36.030 (B.1.) Enarson, Page 1-5, "Unless tied in with #3, as per definition." Toews: Allow trees as long as they are Jimbed up to the upper Jimit of the clear vision area. 4 · · · e e Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1996 Page Five 17.36.040 (C) Erickson: You could have a 30' tree within your setback, five 30' trees all together. Boles: Where is behind a set back? Enarson: Why do we need it? Sherwood: Cancel (C). Enarson: Change to parallel to the building. 3. Public Question Period Tim Lambert made a drawing and discussed his 7.6' wall. Erickson said it looks like you have done everything that is covered here. 17.08.215 17.23.030 17.23.040 17.23.060 E. Revision to Home Occupation Code 1. Staff Report (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion Enarson: Definition for gain. Toews: Requirements for business license under Chapter 5.08 ". . . . with the object of gain." (D) Enarson: Change language (two businesses). Toews: It seems the way to craft an exemption is to make it a performance standard. Some jurisdictions would allow as a matter of right no impact home occupations; those that don't involve more than 5 business related visits to the site per week and do not employ any non-resident individuals. Provide language. Boles: Same with ineligible? Toews: There is a range. Delineate some uses. Boles: State outright some that are exempt. Toews: Any in 17.23.060. (C) Enarson: Whichever is "greater." Change to less. (I) Erickson: Why expanding hours--delivery truck not 7:00 -7:00. Want 8:00- 5:00. Clifton: Thinks 8 to 5 looks better. Erickson-S to 6. Enarson agrees. (J) Enarson: Number of parking spaces. (Define.) Boles: Workshop exempting Day Cares. Clifton: More than 12, cannot have day care in your own home. Boles: Reference to performance standards? Sherwood: Not thought out. Boles: On site, when and how much? Sherwood: Emphasize adjacent. Boles: On site as necessary as to avoid. Enarson ok (K)Enarson: Visible and audible. Perform~ce standards l1~eded. Needs to be modified. Boles: Difference for him is person trying to make money has to make noise. With a hobby there is room to negotiate. 5 · · · e e Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1996 Page Six 17.23.070 Toews: Exempted uses Sherwood: External appearances are permissible. (Cancel that out. Replace with, "Heavy equipment, large power tools or power and noise sources not common to a residential dwelling shall not be allowed. No electrical or other similar interference. . .".) Enarson: Boilerplate? 3. Public Question Period 17.23.060 (I) Tim Lambert: Move to a business park at time of offense. Tim Lambert spoke about notice of the meeting and that there are not many observers. It was pointed out the meeting was a workshop and that a public hearing would draw more people. V. NEW BUSINESS Toews said in the interest of accuracy, they would produce one draft for Commission review. Erickson reported she will be gone all next month. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 10. 1996 Assisted Living Concepts, PUD/Conditional Use Permit #LUP96-00040 (W elch/Boles) October 17. 1996 Special Hearing on Phase I Development Regulations (parking, fences & hedges, home occupations) October 24. 1996 Special Meeting to formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations for a decision by City Council regarding parking, fences and hedges, home occupations VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Enarson and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 10: 17 PM. 6 I · · · e Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1996 Page Seven µ~ Sheila Avis Minute Taker fit y' A ~c- ~~ .. ' Lois Sherwood, Chair 1 .-