Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09101998 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Workshop Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 10, 1998 August 27, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Staff Presentation (Bruce Freeland) 2. Commission Discussion V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings September 17, 1998 September 24, 1998 October 1, 1998 October 8, 1998 October 15, 1998 October 29, 1998 VII. ADJOURN Kimm & Larry Fay, Variance Application LUP98-47 (Erickson/W orden) Ron Pak (Tides Inn), Shorelines CUP LUP9211-03 (Boles/Sherwood) Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Workshop Parks & Recreational Plan, Workshop 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Public Hearing Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC Parks & Recreational Plan, Public Hearing " . t' · · · i. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Workshop Meeting September 10, 1998 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, John Boles, Craig Johnson and Nik Worden. Lois Sherwood was unexcused; John Boles arrived at 7:05 p.m. Bruce Freeland was the staff member present. n. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of August 27, 1998 as written was made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail .. Letter, marked Exhibit G, in support of the request for Comprehensive Plan amendments dated March 19, 1998 from Lynda and Denny LaVigne. .. Letter from Lynda and Denny LaVigne dated September 1, 1998. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Staff Presentation (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland explained this meeting is in preparation for the October 8th public hearing of the proposed Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments and to give Staff direction in preparing material for those documents. Mr. Freeland noted he had not brought in a panel to discuss the CIIIMU issues as previously suggested, but said he would follow up with his own previous experiences dealing with mixed use centers (MUCs). He introduced Mr. Eric Toews as one ofthe original crafters of the Comprehensive Plan and asked Mr. Toews to recap the original thinking surrounding the issues of the CIIIMU Zoning. 2. Commission Discussion (Commission is directed to select options it finds most worthy of consideration. ) Cop,ied to PCOMM q/A/C¡~} ,~L\ . 1. " · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 2 1. CIIIMU Reconsideration: (Request by Denny and Lynda LaVigne and City Council.) Purpose -- determine if the CIIIMU designation is working as intended and capable of implementation. Comprehensive Plan Policy. (Any development in the CIIIMU zone mustindude hou~ing at a density not below 17 units per 40.000 square feet of site area aI!gnot morethan24.units per 40,000 square feet. Buildings must be at least 2 stories high. and it is.1\~~u1D.~dJbl!i notrequired) that th~b"ºJ!~iDg wilt be on the secondjloor.) Mr. Toews presented a refresher of the process and background of studies, documents and rationales that led to inclusion ofMUCs in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1996. He pointed out that it was not considered by Staff to be their brain child, but, from the inception, MUCs had broad community support. Mr. Freeland discussed his experiences with MUCs in City Planning in Palo Alto, California and Bellevue, Washington. He indicated both communities were committed to the concept, but both had difficulty getting started. Benefits and pitfalls of MUCs were discussed. Chair Thayer raised the issue of how to process the options presented for review in Mr. Freeland's September 3, 1998 memo to the Planning Commission regarding the 1998 Çomprehensiv~ PlanIIpdale.:...PºliçYcJ;>Jopo_sªlsJh1\tR~.QlÜre a Change to the Zoning Code. Mr. Freeland requested the Commissioners to decide on options they consider to have merit for public hearing; Staff will then return those options on September 24th for Commission consideration with the right language to take to hearing. Planning Commission conclusions of their deliberations is as follows: Planning Commission conclusions: [OK J = inelude; ( - J = delete Issues: 1) Should housing be required? ( - J Option A: Phasing (Recommended by staff for hearing) ( -- J Option B: Area Mix, Not Parcel Mix *( OK J Option C: Enable not Require (Recommended by staff for hearing) *(Add floor area ratio) " · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 3 [OK] Option D: Incentive (Recommended by staff for hearing) [ -- ] Option E: CII Zoning -- (Replacement) [- } Option F: R-IV Zoning - (Replacement) Mr. Freeland asked if there were any other options. It was determîned a no actîon optîon could be taken and would result in no change. 2) Should there be a minimum density? [- } Option A: Minimum density would need to be eliminated as part of the "enable not require" option. (Recommended by staff for hearing) Minimum density would have to be retained with the "incentive" option since there would have to be a certain level of housing built in order to earn the incentive. (Recommended by staff for hearing) Staff recommends that the minimum density be retained under "phasing" option, so that planning for the future phase anticipates full development. (Recommended by ~1aff for hearing) In the event the Commission concludes that no change should be made to the requirement that housing must be provided, then it is reasonable to assume that a minimum density is also needed. (Recommended by staff for hearing) *CONSENSUS: Change to maximum density Mr. Worden suggested changing to maximum density - (Could establish a moderate floor area ratio for commercial, less generous than in a CII zone, then allow residential to be added at least in an equal amount.) Issue -- Allowable commercial uses Expand the list of uses to include additional activities compatible with a residential environment. (Recommended by staff for hearing) Expand the list of uses to reduce non-conforming uses. · Planning Commission conclusions: (OK) = include; [ - } = delete (- ) Option B: (OK) Option C: *[ OK} Option D: [OK] Option A: [OK] Option B: " · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 4 [- ] Option C: (Recommendçd by staff for hearing) Expand the CWMU uses to include all non-residential C-II uses. Mr. Boles: If an all commercial development, you might want to limit the floor area ratio. Mr. Freeland proposed to draft under "enable but not require," to put an all commercial project on the same playing field as if it were a CII zone. CONSENSUS: Have a separate floor area ratio for COIThtTIercial and residential portions. Mr. Freeland will bring back options. Mr. Boles asked regarding parking reduction for CIIIMU. Mr. Freeland will check to see if there is a parking reduction. 11. Speser Proposal: (Request by Phyl Speser) Allow "small high-tech businesses" in residential zones. (At a minimum. this idea requires an amendment tQ Land Use Element Policy 7.14) Implementation would be through provisions in the Zoning Code Issue: What is "high tech? " *( OK) Staff proposal - narrowly define: "High Technology -- Uses primarily involvin~ computer technology. telecommunications. or research and consulting services in a technology field. " (Recommended by staff for hearin~) *MODIFY - Mr. Boles suggested "in the field of' rather than "involving." Mr. Freeland to bring new definition. Issue: What limitations should be vlaced on such businesses? [OK} Minimum standards. (Staff recommends the foll9win2 draft for hearin2 .... shaded wordins: to be deleted: underlined wording to be added) Every l1ørnêØ¢cl1tmtìðri high technolo~y business shall meet all of the following minimum standards: A. ". . . business. " B. C. ". . . 50 percent of the floor are~ or 800 the floor area of the building as it · Planning Commission conclusions: [OK] = include; ( -- ] = delete · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 5 existed prior to the occupation of the building by the high technology business, whichever is less;" D. ".. . high technology business;" E. Except for the purchase of merchandise crafted rin-site or items clearly accessory to a service (e.g., paintings, crafts or artwork, and hair care products incident to a beauty salon) no retail customers shall visit the home premises at any time; F. ""... nonresident. . ." G. ""... home. . ." H. Except for three nonresident workers, and except for occasional visits by business associates and outside service providers, persons who do not reside on the premises shall be prohibited from working at the home occupation; ~ maximum number of persons working at the site shall be limited to twelve: I. ""... home occupation hi~h technology business . . ." 1. ""... home occupation high technology business . . ." K. "" . . . nor shall noise levels at the property boundaries be increased above the ambient noise level:" L. ""... nor shall any activity generate higher levels of electromagnetic radiation than that normally associated with a residence; . . . " M. "... home occupation hi~ technolo~ business. . ." Mr. Boles: para E -- there is no limit on retail sales from the premises. Mr. Freeland: This was dropped because of "'no customers." Mr. Boles: para H -- "The maximum number of persons working at the site shall be limited to twelve." Questioned wording in paragraphs H and I. Additional issues needinf¡ Planninf¡ Commission direction: [ yes} Must the owner or an employee live in thç building? What provisions s:Qould be IlVlde for parking? a) Should historic properties in the National Historic District be allowed to use on- street spaces as is done for Bed and Breakfast Inns (B&B's)? (Staff recommends either: *[ no?? ) . 1) on-street parking be allowed for historic structures following the same rules as those for (B&B's). OR 2) that historic structures not be eligible for conversion to businesses.) *Mr. Freeland will send to Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). (If you convert yards of · Planning Commission conclusions: [OK) = include; [ - } = delete ,~ · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 6 historic buildings to parking lots, have you damaged their historic fabric?) [ OK] b) Should additional landscaping be required to screen parking lots? (Staff recommended options): 1) A ten foot landscape screen be required between the parking lot and any adjacent residentially zoned property boundary. 2) None of the parking lot, other than the access driveway, be allowed in the front yard set back line, and that a ten foot landscape screen be planted to obscure the parking lot from view along any street frontage. 3) Solid fencing to prevent headlight glare from spilling off the property will be installed between the parking lot and any adjacent residentially zoned lot. (Recommended by staff for hearin~) .. Must the businesses be established in an existing structure? ( OK) Option A: Yes. (Staff recommendation above assumes that the business is within an existing structure and that the structure can not be expanded or altered. (Recommended by staff for hearin~) (- ) Option B: Yes, but allow for expansion. Set an upper limit on the total size of the businesses, such as 3,500 gross square feet. [ - } Option C: No - allow new non-residential buildings up to a maximum size, such as 3,500 gross square feet. .. Shall any exterior alteration of an historic structure require Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) review: (OK) Option A: Do not allow historic properties to be converted to businesses, as the conversion is likely to require or lead to alterations of the buildings and the grounds that would be damaging to the historic character. (Recommended by staff for hearin~) [- } Option B: Yes, make HPC review mandatory and binding, and include interior alterations involving changes to walls in such review. (Recommended by staff for hearinc:) [ -- ] Option C: No. · Planning Commission conclusions: (OK) = include; [ - } = delete J · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 7 .. Should there be a limit on how many such uses can be established in a given area? ( -- ) Option A: Yes. Allow no more than one in a 200 foot radius. (Recommended by staff for hearin~) (OK] Option B: Yes. Allow no more than one in a 1,000 foot radius. ( - ) Option C: No. .. Should there be a limitation on where these businesses can be allowed? [ OK] Option A: Yes. To minimize traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods, allow businesses only on properties fronting on arterial, collector, and minor arterial roads. (Recommended by staff for hearing) [ OK} Option B: No. Ill. Arthur Proposal: (Request by Bernard and Germaine Arthur) Allow "low impact businesses" to be established in the R-ID zone in Uptown. Requires issuance of an administratively issued permit. (Staff is now authorized to grant minor permits for conditional uses conducted entirely within an existing building.) At a minimum, requires amendment to Land Use Element Policy 7.14. Staff proposes language to be taken to hearing on this policy: Policy 7.14 Discourage the conversion of residential areas to nonresidential uses. Prevent the encroachment of commercial uses into residential zones, except for: a. b. *[ OK] c. d. Low impact businesses in the R-III. multiple family areas. subject to a conditional use permit. (Recommended by staff for hearing) *Mr. Freeland to add - does it have to be the entire building or can it be a portion of multiple-unit building? · Planning Commission conclusions: (OK) = include; ( -- ) = delete ;< · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Boles: What prevents someone from locating in one of the units in the building? Issue: Limitation to Uptown The R-ill zone is applied to a number oflocations in town, many outside of Uptown. *( OK) Option A: Create an R-IIIIU zone that is applied only to Uptown. *CONSENSUS: Limit to Uptown: Lawrence-Washington; Garfield-Polk ( -- ] Option B: Make the provision for low impact businesses available in all R-Ill zoned areas of the city. (Recommended by staff for hearin~) Issue: What are low imlJact businesses? (Not defmed in the Zoning Code); rather than defining "low impact," it would be clearer to amend the use table (PTMC Chapter 17.16.020) by specifying those businesses that can apply for a conditional use permit in the R-ill zone. *( OK] Option A: List of specific uses suggested by the Arthurs is: Computer and high technology (define as in Speser) Design/architecture Engineering/planning Telemarketing Wholesale publishing Art repair and development Consulting Inventors/designers Staff agrees this is a good list, but would propose adding "Education and Music Studios" with no more than 8 students at the site at anyone time. (Recommended by staff for þearin~) *Mr. Freeland said same conditions exist as Speser proposal. Mr. Freeland expressed his concerns but said they could consider adding a performance based option. ( - ) Option B: Include other businesses of the types now found as non-conforming uses in residential areas, including doctor and dentist offices, counseling services, and alternative health practitioners. (Staff proposes additions only be allowed for solo practitioners and that the number of customer visits be capped.) · Planning Commission conclusions: [OK] = include; [ -- ] = delete · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 9 Issue: What limitations should be vlaced on these businesses? .. Conditional uses must meet the criteria set out in PTMC 17.84. In addition to general use permit conditions, specific limitations on allowed businesses should be adopted. .. Raises same limitations as for the Speser proposal. One potential difference might be whether these businesses should be limited to collector and arterial streets. (Staff favors such a limitation, but recognizes that the proposal from the Arthurs did not intend such a limit. .. Process for issuing a conditional use permit depends on whether the use is in an existing building. (If the building is to be expanded or is a new building, the project becomes a "major conditional use permit," which is a Type ill application heard by the Planning Commission. CONSENSUS: Same minimum standards as on Page 7; employee must live there; parkingllandscaping; limit of 6 employees. IV. FischerlDom: (Request by David Fischer and Malcolm Dorn) Allow "a limited amount of small scale businesses in residential zones whose character is in keeping with the neighborhood and whose activity level does not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood." Fischer and Dorn purpose that these businesses be subject to a conditional use permit. At a minimum, requires amendment to Land Use Element Policy 7.14. Staffproposes language to be taken to hearing on this policy: Policy 7.14 Discourage the conversion of residential areas to nonresidential uses. Prevent the encroachment of commercial uses into residential zones, except for: a. b. c. d. A limited amount of small scale businesses of a character in ke~ping with the neighborhOQd and with activity levels not adversely impacting the surrounding neiihborhood (Recommended by staff for hearing) Mr. Freeland will rewrite without reference to home occupations. · Planning Commission conclusions: (OK) = include; [ - } = delete · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 10 Issue: What businesses should be included? Specific business proposed to be established by Fischer and Dorn is a "day spa," which is a health and wellness facility with saunas, hot tubs and professional massage. [OK} Option A: List uses that are eligible for a conditional use permit. The list proposed for the Arthur application could be used, with the addition of "day spa." (Recommended by staff for hearina;) ( -- ) Option B: Do not identify specific uses that may apply, but set forth a set of performance criterion that would need to be met. (Not recommended by staff for hearina;) Issue: What limitations should be placed on these businesses? The same limitations as listed for the Speser proposal are recommended, with the exception that businesses could be located in new construction with design approval from the Historic Preservation Committee. CONSENSUS: Same as for Speser. v. Agriculture Designation: (Request by Robert and Darby Greenway) Create an agriculture use designation in the Land Use Element and Zoning Code. Issue: What is the purpose q.f the proposal? .. Take advantage of the current use valuation provisions of the tax code that allow farms to be taxed on their income rather than the market value of the land. (County Assessor will accept either the R - I zone or the granting of an agricultural conditional use· permit. .. Desire to see City embrace agriculture as an important long term component of a well rounded city. .. Establish legitimacy of agriculture use for specific locations in case homes are built around the farms and future residents should find some aspect of the farm distasteful. .. Accomplish the first three purposes without the financial burden of applying for a conditional use permit or rezone. Issue: What is an a.r:ricultural use desiwzation? .. RI-(A) zone eliminated in the 1997 zoning. .. New R-I zone basically the same in provisions of agricultural uses. · Planning Commission conclusions: [OK} = include; [ -- } = delete J · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 11 .. R-I zone requires 10,000 square foot lot size -- R-I(A) allowed 5,000 square foot lots. .. Both are residential zones that allow agriculture as a matter of right. *( OK) Option A: Conclude that the R-I zone is an a~cultura1 desi~atioh in that agriculture is a permitted use. (Recommended by staff for hearing) *Mr. Freeland to reword for hearing: Conclude that the R-I zone is an agricultural designation. ( - ) Option B: Develop a new A-I zone called "agriculture" which lists the same agricultural uses as the R-I zone, but eliminating many of the non- agricultural provisions of the R-I zone. ( OK) Option C: Amend the R-ll zone to make some agricultural activities permitted rather than conditional use. (Staff prQ:poses amendment to the land use table for the R-ll zone): Agricultural Uses in R-ll: .. "Crop or tree farming (no retail sales)" -- Q f .. "Concession stands, agricultural or produce" -- f* *(When located on arterial or collector streets with approved access only, otherwise they would remain conditional.) V. NEW BUSINESS There was none. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings September 17. 1998 Order to be reversed - (Johnson to be recused from Fay Variance; Erickson from Tides Inn) Kimm & Larry Fay, Variance Application LUP98-47 (Erickson/Johnson) Ron Pak (Tides Inn), Shorelines CUP LUP92 1 1-03 Boles/Sherwood) Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Workshop Parks & Recreational Plan, Workshop 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Public Hearing Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to City Council September 24. 1998 October L 1998 October 8 1998 October 15. 1998 · Planning Commission conclusions: (OK) = include; [ -- } = delete .. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1998 Page 12 October 29. 1998 Parks & Recreational Plan, Public Hearing The following meeting was added to announced meetings: October 26. 1998 6:30 p.m. -- Joint City Council/Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Karen Erickson and seconded by Mr. John Boles. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. kL~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission conclusions: (OK) = include; ( - ) = delete · · · Guest List Name (please print) Address T estimonv? YES ~ /f5 ~ v-lt ~Il,. ~rfU/U r3?-o -¡ e .~.f?~ 5;-:;-- - 7 ( J ~,JU1 1 MJ , q IA~ d~?v ~~ ~ l ( I I I I I