HomeMy WebLinkAbout02271997 Min Ag
.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Council Chambers, 7:00 PM
Business Meeting
February 27, 1997
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9,1997
m. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. John Sheehan, Conditional Use Permit Application #LUP97-00001
1. Staff Report, (Judy Surber)
2. Public Testimony
3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Erickson)
4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions
.
B.
Titlel7,PTMC(Zomn~
1. Staff Report, (Tim McHarg/Tim McMahan)
2. Public Testimony
3. Commission Discussion
C. Title 18, PTMC (Subdivisions)
1. Staff Report, (Tim McHarg/Tim McMahan)
2. Public Testimony
3. Commission Discussion
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings
March 6, 1997
Marçh 13, 1997
March 20, 1997
Three (3) Planning Commission special workshop meetings to consider the
public testimony and formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations
for a decision by City Council
. VII. ADJOURN
.
.
.
,t..'
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Business Meeting
February 27, 1997
I.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in
attendance were Lois Sherwood, Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Linda Clifton, Cindy Thayer and
John Boles. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Tim McMahan and Tim McHarg.
n. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve the minutes of January 9, 1997, as written and amended was made by
Sherwood and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor.
III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail
Chair Thayer said they had received supplemental instructions and directions but were missing
the change to Title 20.
Erickson referred to the discussions the Planning Commission had approximately a year ago
regarding parking at the Eagles Club in the Industrial Park. She indicated the Eagles contended
people would be coming and going, and there would not be a lot of people present at one time.
She noted when she Iead the High School Senior Class will be having their graduation party at
the Eagles in June, she checked with Jan Zimmer and found the City had required 27 off-street
parking spaces at the time of the Eagles change in description of use. She believed this use
substantiated the off-street parking requirements.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. John Sheehan. Conditional Use Permit Application #LUP97-00001
1. Staff Report, Judy Surber, City Planner
Findings of Fact:
II' Surber noted the business use is John Sheehan's hot dog stand directly across from City
Ran on Water and Madison Streets. She said the Conditional Use Permit is required
because the business is conducted out of a temporary structure. She indicated that typically
the operation is for 6 months out of the year and said Mr. Sheehan has asked in Finding # 1
that the months not be specified, but rather that it indicate it is for a 6-month period.
·
·
·
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1997
Page 2
..The site is located in the C-III district, and the use is permitted outright. It is the
temporary nature of the use and structure that require a conditional use permit.
II' The design was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee. The HPC found that
with some minor modifications to the coloring of the structure, the requirements for design
review had been met.
II' One employee parking space would be on-site for the operator's use. Due to new
revisions to the Parking Code, this particular use in the Historic District requires no
additional parking spaces.
II' There are no setback requirements.
II' The restaurant has historically been seasonally operated from this site for approximately
11 years. It is typically operated during the warmer months of the year from mid-spring to
mid-fall; hours of operation typically have been from 11 :00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekly.
II' The proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act and the site is outside
the Shorelines jurisdiction (which will be added to Finding #10.)
II' No comments were received from the Public Notice published in the Leader.
Draft A (Staffs recommendation)
Draft B (Varies only in Condition #6. )
Conditions:
II' # 1 The applicant has stated he has an open building permit that is still applicable from last
year. Jan Zimmer, BCD, suggests adding to this condition that the applicant shan apply for a
building permit to ensure conformance with all provisions of the code, including Chapter 11,
Barrier-Free Design and Facility.
II' #6 Draft A: (Staffs recommendation.) "The Conditional use permit is not renewable and
shall expire six (6) months from the date of placement of the temporary structure."
1 ) Is based upon the existing zoning code which requires a "conditional use permit for
temporary buildings and defines temporary buildings as meaning less than 6 months.
2) Would require applicant to reapply each year; however, new zoning code revisions may
propose an easier process for such uses. The draft zoning code to be reviewed soon proposes
a Type II permit process which simplifies the process and will most likely reduce the fees.
II' #6 Draft B: (Conditions 1-5 same as Draft A). Add to Condition #6: "... shan permit
placement of the temporary structure for a period not to exceed six (6) months annually. . . ."
"The applicant may request renewal on an annual basis upon submitting written request for
temporary placement. This request would be reviewed by BCD for conformance with these
findings and conclusions."
Surber pointed out Draft B would set a precedence that would essentially vest the
applicant under the conditional use permit. Any changes done to the zoning code, the
applicant would not be subject to. She suggested if the Planning Commission chooses
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 3
Draft B they might wish to provide some kind of sunset clause, perhaps that 3 years in the
future this would expire, and then come into compliance with the zoning code.
Surber noted that no temporary building can be placed on the site until approved by City
Council; that decision is scheduled for March 17th. If the decision is favorable, the building
could be placed, and operation of the temporary use could proceed, once the City finds the
structure is in conformance with the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code.
II' Enarson Said she had eaten there and since this is quasijudicial, she would be glad to
step outside. She laughed and said she just wanted to make it official. The consensus was
they had all done the same.
II' Boles Does this application only go with the owner/proprietor?
"Surber That can be clarified on the last page. Typically conditional use permits are
non-transferrable.
"McMahan That should be clarified.
2. Public Testimony
Chair Thayer explained the new procedure for quasijudicial matters is to
. give participants an oath when they testify.
Those speaking in favor:
Mr. John Sheehan, owner/operator "Dogs-A-Foot"
Chair Thayer asked Mr. Sheehan, "Do you swear and affirm that the
testimony your are about to give is true?" Mr. Sheehan replied, "I do."
Mr. Sheehan said he had been operating that little restaurant on that
comer for the past 11 years and would like to it do for next 11 years. He said he does not plan to
make any changes without the general approval of City Hall and conforming with neighborhood
plans. He said they run a neat little ship, that Plan B would be easier, but they would do with
Plan A.
Those speaking in opposition: There were none.
Chair Thayer closed the hearing to the public.
.
·
·
·
, '
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 4
3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Erickson)
..Sherwood Said when she read through this she was concerned about annual renewal being
a hardship for the applicant in terms of timing in getting things processed. She said,
however, she liked the sunset clause and would now like to draft it with the sunset clause to
make annual renewal easier. She specified Draft B with the sunset clause.
II' Erickson Said she had been concerned about a continual temporary permit going on year
after year unless it would be allowed for everybody. She said if you give one, you should
give them all, and she is not comfortable with that. After codes are done, she thinks there
will be some other ways of making it easier on the applicant. She said she has some
difficulty with harmony in the character of the area, but it's almost harmony because it has
been there so long. She specified, definitely Draft A.
4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions
II' Clifton Describe what the hardship is.
"Sherwood It is unsettling to close in the fall without the firm knowledge that the City will
give you permission to reopen.
II' Clifton Isn't that the nature of asking for a temporary permit?
II' Boles Your feeling, Erickson, 1 year?
II' Erickson Ifpolicies were in place, I wouldn't be for a continual guaranteed permit for
anything because of the nature of the permit. Because there are going to be new policies, I
think it would be easier to get a temporary permit.
II' Boles That's likely to occur within 1 year anyhow.
..Surber The zoning code is scheduled for Council decision in April.
II' Enarson If City Council adopts the new zoning and subdivision code, 17.6.060. for
temporary uses, it is 4 months. We are dealing with existing codes not future codes, and it is
draft only. She said she shares Erickson's concerns in grand fathering this very long. She
said she thought a lot of this could be done long-distance and started in the fall. She said she
is sorry for extra financial burden for the applicant; she could agree with a sunset for 2 or 3
years, but no longer.
II' Boles Concurred and that if they go with Draft B, he would request they specify that.
II' Clifton Are there any other temporary structures; espresso stands? Are they
comparable?
..Surber There is another conditional use permit very simìlar in nature to this one in the
pipe line. There is also an espresso stand that has received an enforcement letter because it
also requires a conditional use permit. So there are other temporary structures out there, and
most of them are basicaHy in vioiation; any precedence here wouid impact them. The reason
they have been here for quite some time and not been enforced is that it used to be a criminai
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 5
offense versus a civil offense. Now the code is being amended so that it is a civil offense.
With our enforcement code we set priorities in implementing enforcement, because we have
only one enforcement officer. Slowly, but surely we win be getting to each one of them.
..Thayer Then it is important for us to discuss setting a precedence.
MOTION
Clifton
Use Draft A as conditioned: Findings of Fact #1 to read "six
(6) consecutive months beginning on a specific date and ending
on the same day ofthe month 6 months later "; Finding #10 to
include "outside the Shorelines jurisdiction"; Condition #1
include modification resulting from Surber checking with BCD
to see it they have an open building permit versus needing final
inspection; Condition #6 to say "non-transferrable."
SECOND
VOTE
Erickson
6 in favor; 0 opposed
B.
Title 17. PTMC (Zonir¡g)
Mr. McMahan introduced Tim McHarg, Madrona, on contract with the City
filling in for Eric Toews. McMahan explained that Eric drafted Title 17 with the exception of
the PUD chapter; and McMahan drafted Title 18. Thayer pointed out that some Planning
Commission members also met with the day-time meetings of the Land Use Committee
considering some of this material.
McMahan said Eric Toews cautioned that care needs to be taken in reviewing
Title 18. When Eric was plugging in uses for different zones, a lot of what went into that was
trying to guarantee some of those important zones, e.g. RIV, from erosion from incompatible use
of the strategy of that zone. If someone starts to have certain uses that end up eating away at that
zone, a lot of the intent of the Plan can end up being damaged. McMahan indicated it was a real
balancing act to put uses into the table to forward policy direction from the Planning
Commission and Council in adopting the Plan.
McMahan distributed copies of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan Goals and
Policies Providing Guidance in Adopting Implementing Development Regulations, a walk-
through of the Plan and all the policies drawn upon in writing Title 17. Commission members
also received copies for Title 18 Subdivision Code.
Chair Thayer asked, in jest, if the hearing was advertised, because of the small
attendance. McMahan affirmed it had been advertised
·
·
·
, '
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 6
.. Boles Indicated Enarson and he had met the first time with the Land Use Committee
and City Council on Title 18, and subsequently he, Thayer, and Erickson met at the an-day
meeting on Title 17. He said it was a very constructive process; he spoke about some
changes that were posed and that have been incorporated in this material. He said those
changes are easily identified if the Commission wishes to have them focused
I. Staff Report, Tim McHarg/Tim McMahan
McHarg introduced PTMC Title 17, Zoning Code. He said in addition to
replacing the Code itself, the City of Port Townsend proposes to repeal and replace the City
Zoning Map to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted in July 1996 and the Land
Use Map. Upon adoption, the revised Zoning Code and Map would apply throughout the
incorporated limits of the City of Port Townsend. In addition, the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) of the Comp Plan has identified the Glen Cove area, currently located outside
the City Limits, for a potential area for future extension òf the Urban Growth Area boundaries.
This win require additional action by the City Council of Port Townsend, as wen as by Jefferson
County.
McHarg went on to say, to serve to further define and implement the
attempts of Growth Management and the City's Comprehensive Plan, changes include:
Þ Additional definitions
Þ Minor changes to current chapters for clarification
.. New zoning districts and standards
Þ Creation of new chapters such as Accessory Dwelling Units; Temporary Uses; Fences, Walls
and Hedges; Design Review; Conditional Uses; Variances, etc.
He highlighted some major chapters:
Þ Definitions: Significantly expanded from approximately 125 to 350.
.. Establishment of Zoning Districts: Significantly changed. Implements the classification
system and the Land Use Map as presented in the Comp Plan.
* A. Residential
*B. Mixed Use Centers
*c. Commercial
*D. Marine related and Manufacturing
*E. Public, Park and Open Space
*(Uses: permitted outright, conditional and disallowed)
Þ Planned Unit Development -- new section.
A. Residential
B. Commercial
C. Manufacturing
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 7
"Multi-Family Developments
II' Commercial, and Marine-Related and Manufacturing Uses
II' Nonconforming Lots, Buildings and Uses
McHarg noted the basic role of the Planning Commission in considering
these changes and the draft the zoning code is to determine if the proposed changes to the zoning
code and map are consistent with and significantly implement the Comprehensive Plan. This
determination will be made on public testimony heard tonight, information provided by Staff,
discussions by the Planning Commission and making recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commission decision options:
1 ) Approve the draft zoning code map as presented
2) Approve the draft zoning code map with conditions
3) Remand the draft zoning code to staff for revisions
4) Continue proceedings with further discussions
II' Boles Asked concerning the engineering design standards (EDS).
"McMahan The EDS consists ofthree things: Engineering Design Manual; Title 12 --
rewrite of streets and roads; and Title 13 -- primarily rewrite of Water and Sewer Codes. He
explained those are on a different and separate track. He said they will not be coming to the
Planning Commission for review; they will be going straight to City Council for review, to
Council committees and on to Council. He said they win follow these codes by a couple of
weeks and be adopted a couple of weeks later by City Council.
"Thayer Asked if they are not required to come before the Planning Commission.
"McMahan Replied they are not; they are not land use regulations per se. He noted that
the Planning Commission is at a disadvantage, however, because these codes refer to those
standards. He indicated Titles 12 and 13 would be available for review on Monday.
"Thayer Asked if they can take those into consideration when they deliberate.
II' McMaban Affirmed.
II' Boles If we have reservations we can condition approval of the part that might
depend on design standards. You are not saying we should accept these carte blanche if we
have a concern?
"McMahan Especially regarding the engineering standards, in reviewing those codes you
have in front of you, if you are concerned with how codes will be implemented, with regard
to how the Comp Plan is being implemented, on your memorandum that comes to Council
recommending approval, revisions, whatever, ofthe codes you have; absolutely make
mention to Council of your concerns and assume they will be addressed in a certain way in
implementing the Plan.
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 8
"McMahan Title 17. Commercial, manufacturing, PUD provisions -- the Comp Plan
called for implementation in the adopted codes. They have not done that yet, because of the
workload. With the mixed use centers and residential components of the PUD code, it is a
difficult balancing job to make sure that the incentives you provide don't destroy something
else, e.g., don't harm the environment, the character of adjoining neighbors, etc. There were
not many examples available and they are going to have to be fairly creative to craft a code
that doesn't erode what is around. Hopefully, a revision to that code win be coming through
in the summer months.
II' Erickson Asked regarding 17.30 waterfront design guidelines overlay district.
"McMahan
Things that are not yet revised:
· 17.26 overlay districts (only revised with changed zoning districts put in them so that they
are consistently with the current zoning)
· 17.28 and 17.30 are inconsistent with Reg Reform
· 17.44; 17.48; 17.52
· Revised for Phase 1 only...-17.56, 17.68, 17.72
· 17.76
· 17.80 inconsistent with Reg Reform and not revised
· Interpretations -- 17.82 has been deleted.
II' Went on to say, Toews left a memorandum on remaining edits and revisions.
2. Public Testimony. Chair Thayer opened public testimony for Title 17.
Lloyd Cahoon--Manager, Port of Port Townsend. Addressed usage of specific districts.
Table 17.22.030, Page 9 l, Port Townsend Boat Haven. Expressed thanks for having changed
the maximum heights from 35" to 50'. Knows at least two buildings that need 50'.
Distributed and discussed Port of Port Townsend, PTMC - Title (Zoning) Impacts and
Recommendations (p=permitted; C=conditional; X=prohibited;
M=permitted if marine related)
Table 17.22.020
Boat Haven -- MII(A)
Conditioned Industrial Area: requires some port activity and some businesses:
Change to "M" from X (Allowed to the extent they are marine trades)
II' Apparel and other finished products manufactured and assembly -- seats, sails, etc.
"Light manufacturing or processing not otherwise named
"Lumber and wood products processing -- masts, etc.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 9
Change to "P" from C
"Marinas (Self-explanatory)
II' Child care and day care centers (In the plan for some time, and part of the justification for a
grant -- Skookum Corporation in connection with development of the Industrial Park and
Boat Haven)
Move up 1 level
"Solid waste facility (to "P"from C -- is now being done)
II' Water and wastewater treatment facilities (to "P" from "C" -- boat washdowns)
Change to "M" from X (Permit to the extent marine related)
"Mini-storage for marine related (mobile operators)
II' Warehousing operations (related to manufacturing)
Change to "P" from C (Clearly has to be permitted)
"Docks and piers for pleasure craft
Point Hudson -- MII(B). Does not include facilities for solid waste handling; water and
wastewater treatment.
Basically the same as MII(A). (Not necessarily a change in their existing use.)
Change to "M" from X
Offices, government (Is prohibited activity within Point Hudson facility. At some point in the
. future may be directly operated and may need to have an office.)
Table 17.20.020, Page 73 -- General Commercial
Not Port property, except for 2 small lots. (Adjacent to the boat haven and somewhat and
clearly related.) Some business could be conducted in the general commercial property and
could be supportive of the boat haven (e.g. electrical and electronics good manufacture and
assembly).
Change to "P" from C
II' Electrical and electronics goods manufacture and assembly -- would dearly like for Boat
Haven -- would be complimentary to boat building and repairs. (Not highly industrial
business that would interfere with otherwise general commercial use)
· Furniture and fixtures manufacture and assembly -- boat related furniture
II' Custom art and craft work -- substantial amount of work at the Boat Haven and Point Hudson
"Mini-storage and mini-warehouses -- whether in Boat Haven or adjacent
II' Welding and fabrication -- small welding jobs for marine use
II' Wholesaling
II' Offices, government -- Plan today is in 4 to 5 years remove Benedict Spit and move the
Coast Guard office into the property currently owned located in this district
"Regional retail establishments -- More in terms of regional business that sells marine
supplies on retail basis
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 10
Chapter 17.24.010, P/OS
Public Facility -- (See City Resolution No 97-08) Modifies the language in this Chapter dealing
with the ownership/control of the property.
Table 17.20.020, C-III
Quincy Street Dock -- Vested interest: Port owned and is located within that district.
Change to "C" from X
Boat sales and rentals -- at least a conditional use, if perhaps not permitted. Clearly the
manufacturer of boat supported sales and rentals is in the history of the town.
II' Boles Most in the CII zones you were qualifying in one way or another; what is your
specific concern about them being conditional use rather than "P", since you yourself
qualified them?
~ Cahoon For two different reasons: 1) one qualified is welding. That is very difficult to
control; 2) others, because we don't know if we are going to have enough business in here or
not. If we have the choice of having then in the Boat Haven or a commercial area and they
were both otherwise viable, there is not much doubt that the preference would be to put them
in the General Commercial area. Primarily, they don't necessarily need to be within the boat
yard, the shipyard, with all the amenities. It is more to do with the probability of our being
able to recruit a business or recruit them into that area as opposed necessarily to being able
to represent to them that if we are able to recruit, they can be put into either of those two
locations. Part of the marketing is to be able to have some certainty. Initially, it was
intended as a marine-trade supportive district, and we didn't think that was appropriate. We
could probably recruit businesses into that area very easily.
II' Erickson Did I understand that there was a grant that was conditioned for a child day
care center?
II' Cahoon Yes, the block grant for Skookum, the Port Office. It is not limited to people
at the Port. The building is within the district It has been the intent for some time to offer
child care.
II' Erickson If you don't get a child day care center in that building, you won't lose the
grant?
II' Cahoon I don't raise it to try to intimidate anybody to make their decision because of
the grant. It's not a major factor. You are not compelled at all.
II' Clifton Asked about some trades that are within the Port that don't appear to be
marine related. Are those grandfathered? Are they leased on a yearly basis? How do you
propose to deal with that?
II' Cahoon Virtually all of the businesses are non-marine related. Those are done by two
leases. One part is old leases that do not have current standards of marine trade and because
of that have been controversial for a number of years. Those leases have perhaps 6 and 12
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 11
years remammg. They are conditions agreed to a long time ago. One lease does have a
specific marine trade content, but is 20%. The other does not talk of marine trade versus
non-marine trade, but talks of manufacturing versus non-manufacturing. That is where this
non-manufacturing comes in.
II' Clifton When the leases expire, then use would matter?
II' Cahoon That is why the Comp Plan and zoning issues are so dear to us; the space
available for expansion. Virtually anything that loses space is a constraint; to the extent that
we can take back to marine trade businesses spaces currently not used for marine trade, there
is no question about it. Weare constrained by the prior leases.
John Randall, Owner for Fruit and Produce Business
PTMC - Title 17 PTMC Zoning Code (17.60 Temporary Uses)
Mr. Randall stated he has a 6-month business, a Fruit and Produce business
and a Christmas tree business. He said he would like to know he has some security; they work
very hard in the six months, and he would like to be able to know they can come back the next
year and get a temporary permit. He said the focus on his business is open air.
He said what he sees of the Draft B referred to with the 6-month temporary
permit discussed for John Sheehan earlier in the meeting is it would take less paper work, less
expense, and it's quicker. He alluded to his other seasonal business, a V-pick in Quilcene. He
praised the response Port Townsend people have given him and he would like to stay here. He
said he would like to know that next year he can renew his business.
Chair Thayer closed the hearing to the public.
II' Enarson We will be going through temporary structures as we go through this tonight.
3. Commission Discussion
II' Enarson Said she had a lot of things the Port raised on Title 17 she went through and
marked to allow for changes.
II' Boles Said there were a lot he had tried before in previous meetings.
C. Title 18, PTMC (Subdivisions) Tim McMahan
McMahan distributed and briefly highlighted excerpts from Washington Land
Use and Environmental Law and Practice and attached a few sections from RCW 58.17.110,
Subdivision Code. He said this is a fairly complex section of the code yet is 50 percent legal.
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 12
McMahan said they have made a major effort to make Title 18 a user-friendly
code that will subsequently help you walk through and understand exactly how to make it
through the process step by step, direct you to all the right places, and ten you exactly how your
project is going to be reviewed and permitted. He said the engineering design standards have
been pulled out of the existing Title 18; they are stand-alone standards and will essentially be in
a manual that can be given to an applicant when they come in. He said there will be no guessing
any more; no negotiation any more -- they wiU be able to understand what they have to do on the
ground to get a project through. He said they have been talking about Reg Reform and the
Comprehensive Plan talked about making development affordable in Port Townsend.
Summary of changes includes:
"Short subdivision threshold raised from 4 lots to 9. Existing Title 18 says up to 4 lots can be
administratively reviewed, but it can be appealed or the Director can choose to send it to the
Planning Commission for review. Between 5 and 9 is stiU characterized as a short
subdivision, although it's reviewed under all the long subdivision criteria; it has to come
before the Planning Commission for a hearing and then on to Council. It is a distinction
without any difference in the current code that they have attempted to remedy with this
drafting -- up to 9 is administratively reviewed by Staff If somebody wants to appeal that, it
goes through the quasijudicial appeal process. Currently that means an appeal to City
Council; City Council has now approved changing that to have a Hearings Examiner to
review Type II appeals. The main rationale, development is appropriate in a particular
neighborhood now because the City is a UGA.
II' Platted Lots of Record. There has been an impression that once a plat is recorded, they are
simply vested, no matter what and no matter what the topography is, not matter what the
layout of plat is. The Attorney General's office has flatly said, under subdivision authority,
you lack the authority to approve developmental platted lots of record; you must go through
some review under the State Subdivision Statute. McMahan said they have attempted to
have a very simple administrative process to review those applications that come over the
counter, essentially. He said if someone is seeking a recognition or development on 10 or
more lots of record, they have recommended that be kicked into the fun Type In long
subdivision review process.
McMahan then walked the Commission through the way the Code is set up.
II' 18.04.060 Own set of definitions applicable to the zoning code
II' l8.04.070 Enforcement section -- exempted actual conveyances oflots of record. State
Subdivision Statute prohibits conveying property until it has gone through formal subdivision
review. City recommended they not do that with lots of record because essentially they are
under a territorial platting statute that was for the purpose of conveying, and they determined
it does not make much sense to have criminal penalties for conveying lots of record whiçh
were established for those purposes.
.
.
.
, .
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 13
II' 18.08. Clarified the process and answered some problems with the existing code.
Removed the 5-year prohibition from the BLA section.
II' 18.12. Main policy change is elevating to nine lots. Referenced Prof Robert Friedlich's
statement that any subdivision review consists of: a preliminary sketch; review of
preliminary plat application; final plat review. Preliminary sketch review is under Title 20.
(Prof Friedlich-- "Preliminary plan or plat application stage is by far the most important as
to public health, safety, and welfare of the community; the Planning Commission has
broadest discretion to approve/condition/deny a proposal at that stage of the process.") That
is true of Staff review of Type II or Short Subdivision application and Type II Long
Subdivision application. It is important for the to Planning Commission to know whether a
project meets and satisfies the criteria under the State law. This has made that very clear.
II' 18.16. Fairly similar to Short Subdivision Chapter. Main difference between the two is
how they are processed procedurally, Type n versus Type III. One change, full subdivisions
under this draft at final plat approval have greater flexibility under Section 18.16.100 in the
kinds of submittals they win make to guarantee that the improvements are actually put in, a
little more flexibility for bonding, talking about rather large amounts of money to develop
these properties. Around the state it is recognized on the more pledged accounts, monies in
escrow are is appropriate way of ensuring that those improvements are put on the ground so
that lots can begin to be sold and that funding is available to complete the project.
II' 18.18 Tried to create an expedited process that will impose the least amount of burden
while still meeting the intent of the Attorney General's office.
II' 18.20 Binding Site Plans (BSP). Don't currently have a BSP section of this code, but do
it anyway. Our code currently says that condominiums are to be viewed as subdivisions; the
State law changed a long time ago and said that should not be done. Attempted to have real
clarity on how Binding Site Plans are done. Another thing, the BSP has a connection to the
PUD process, e.g. with a Mixed Use building. As you go through the zoning code, a BSP is
required for the Mixed Use buildings.
II' 18.24
2. Public Testimony
There was no public testimony on Title 18.
3. Commission Discussion
II' Clifton BSPs for condominiums only?
"McMahan No, Scope on Page 45, ". . . . divisions for sale or lease of commercially or
industrially zoned property. . . ." That is just a guarantee that with commercial or industrial
property, the building is where they say is going to be, the improvements are where they are
supposed to be, the landscaping, the buffering is where they are supposed to be -- other site
.
.
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 14
improvements are where they are supposed to be. There is a survey that's recorded that
shows that will be in place. With these kinds of properties the City typically has site plans
prepared by surveyors anyhow, and we review those.
II' Erickson Binding Site Plan--how does that kick in?
Discussion followed.
II' Enarson Subdivision of Lots of Record, Page 207. 17.88.020.A. Nonconforming lots-
Consolidation. ".... they are considered to be consolidated and may not be sold or
otherwise separated so as to create any resulting nonconforming lots." The way I read that
contradicts what you said that the Attorney General's office said the City cannot mandate
conveyances of property; we can review them in the reference of the building permit, and
this kind of development; we can review them under the subdivision code which currently
exists. How does the City have the right to tell somebody they can't sell a lot of record?
"McMahan The Attorney General's Office (AGO) doesn't take my view on conveyancing.
The implication of the AGO is that we shouldn't allow conveyancing. My recommendation
is that we not get in the business oftelling people they can't convey. There is a distinction
here in this section of the subdivision code that is pretty important. This section deals with
areas that were downzoned -- RI area] 0,000 square foot lots. If someone has two lots within
that area, they are presumed to be consolidated to implement that rezone. A very important
thing to keep in mind here is to implement that rezone. If someone is allowed to convey
adjacent lots, you could end up with RII zoning there before you know it. The City would
simply have to swallow a lot of 5,000 square foot lots. This was pulled in from codes all
over the state. All over the state outside of Jefferson County there are lot consolidation
ordinances that require consolidation and for conveyancing even on substandard and
nonconforming lots. This is really to implement the RI Zone; that is the intent of it. He said
there are many platted lots in areas that are rezoned for other than residential use, and if
property owners convey off little 5,000 square foot lots, and you have a commercial zoning
code that requires a certain minimal lot area to implement the new zoning and those property
owners are conveying off small pieces, you will end up not having those zones anymore.
II' Enarson Need to get back on that.
II' Boles Asked Staff that any significant changes beyond what were in there before, to
please highlight henceforth.
It was determined to go through the material chapter by chapter and to
allow intent questions.
TITLE 17
17.04
17.04.020
Page 2. Change typographical error to read, "Allows for and encourages. . . ."
.
.
.
,~
Planning Commission
February 27,1997
Page 15
MOTION
SECOND
VOTE
Enarson Approve as amended
Erickson
6 in favor, 0 opposed
17.08
17.08.020. Definitions -- (CONSENSUS):
II' Accessory -- (To be checked)
II' Amusement activity -- Conditional Use
II' Amusement park -- Conditional Use
II' Apartment hotel -- Permit
· Bakery -- Permit
II' Boat sales and rentals -- Delete "recreational" and Permit
II' Building line -- Permit as amended: "decks 30" or less are excluded"
II' Business service -- Permit
II' Car Wash -- Conditional Use in both C-II and M/C districts
II' Cemetery -- Change spelling to "interment"
II' Commercial air -- Permit in M/C district
II' Conditional (special) use -- Last line correct to read, "are processed as Type III permits"
II' Conditional (special) use, minor: Change to read, "A conditional use which is to be
conducted within an existing building. . . ."
II' Confectionery -- Permit
II' Efficiency dwelling unit -- Revisit
II' Entertainment (live) -- Eliminate
II' Family -- Delete the word "gratuitous"
II' Financial institutions -- Permit
II' Floor area -- Check on
V. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings
Three Planning Commission special workshop meetings to consider the public testimony
and formulate findings and conclusions and recommendations for a decision by the City
Council.
March 6. 1997 Title 17 and forward. Chapter by Chapter.
March 13. 1997
March 20. 1997
·
·
·
:~'"
. ,
.
Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 16
VII. ADJOURN
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Sherwood and seconded by Erickson. An were in
favor. The meeting adjourned 10:00 PM.
/} ì /;/ .
UTlcitv--___~/¿ tL~l1ut/
/ Cindý'Thayer, Chair
~~
Sheila Avis, Minute Taker