Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04291999 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting April 29, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 8, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business . VII. New Business A. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Open-Record Public Hearing) 1. Staff Report (Eric Toews) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Planning Commission Recommendations for Annual Assessment of Comprehensive Plan <Workshop) 1. Staff presentation (Eric Toews) 2. Commission Discussion VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings May 13, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Workshop May 27, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Open-Record Public Hearing IX. Communications .' X. Adjournment c~ , . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING CO:MNITSSIONMINUTES Business Meeting April 29, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. 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, Lois Sherwood, and Larry Harbison. Christine Ota arrived at 7:15 p.m. Len Mandelbaum and Nik Worden were excused. Staff members present were Eric Toews, Jeff Randall and Interim BCD Director Robert Leedy. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Sherwood and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. .. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of April 8, 1999 as written was made by Mr. Harbison and . seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES -- There were none. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Open-Record Public Hearing) 1. Staff Report (Eric Toews) Mr. Toews introduced Mr. Bob Leedy, Interim BCD Director. Mr. Toews said most of the proposed amendments were suggested by outgoing BCD Director Bruce Freeland. He explained that changes in the draft ordinance are of minor clerical nature; however, there are several changes in both the definitions in PTMC 17.08 as well as the Use, and Bulk: and Dimensional Tables throughout Title 17 that are more sensitive in nature. He briefly outlined proposed amendments with significant policy implications: · AQ:lUsement definitions in 17.08 PTMC: delete "amusement activity;" revise and add new definition of "amusement device," "amusement arcade," and "amusement park or center" in . I EXHIBIT t. ~op1ed to Councl1 ,11S'lqq ~ COPIED PCoMM BY DATE S/lolr; Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1999 Page 2 increasing level of use intensity with corresponding amendments to the use table indicating where those redefined uses are allowed outright, conditionally or prohibited. · Zoning boundary interpretation in 17.04 PTMC: extensively revised. Distinguishes between large ownerships that were intentionally split-zoned (particularly the western part of the city) and smaller lots perhaps inadvertently split (where the traditionalSO% rule would apply). · Setback requirements: revised extensively throughout Title 17 almost uniformly in the direction of lessening setback requirements, particularly on Public Park and Open Space land in the city. Found a practical impossibility that rendered so many small P/OS(B) and P-I parcels undevelopable. Greenbelt reqµirements: to submit a landscape plan for development on Public Park and Open Space land directly abutting residential districts similar to the requirements in the Bulk and Dimension Table for manufacturing and marine-related uses. · Marine-related and Manufacturing Use Classifications: Makes provision for very small-scale food service uses, e.g., The ßlue Moose, Otter's Crossing, etc., within these districts where the code as previously written prohibited them. .' Ms. Erickson asked why child day care centers were brought back in. Mr. Toews replied it corrected the alphabetic listing only (see pages 38 and 39). · Public. Park and Open Space Use Classification: changes in definitions and use tables pertaining to zoning districts. Significant changes -- public campgrounds and public recreational vehicle parks (previously unclassified with prohibitive uses, e.g. Fort Worden public campgrounds and public RV parks in P/OS). Noted suggested change to definition of recreational activities, e.g. carousels -- clarifies that recreational activities must occur on land under ownership and control of the municipality; however, such activities may be operated by a not-for-profit organization. · Alterations to an approved PUD: distinguishes criteria between major and minor PUD alterations. Chapter 17.32 clearly sets forth those changes that would constitute a major change requiring reapplication and re-approval of the PUD. · Freestanding signs. Subject to director discretion, allows some flexibility in the location of freestanding signs, e.g. Bed & Breakfast signage. · NonconJorming Lots. To correct disparities. 1) two adjoining lots under common ownership, with a dwelling on each - under the new density requirements of the code would be nonconforming lots. The two parcels could not be divided and sold despite having been long-developed as separate lots. 2) exemptions to the lot merger requirements of lots demonstrated at any time formerly to be in separate ownership, even though now they are in common ownership. · Fence Height Limitations: clarifying amendments throughout the code. Chapter 17.68 PTMC does not apply to other than residential zoning districts -- Bulk and Dimensional requirements throughout the code included fence height regulations for,mixed use commercial, marine-related and manufacturing, and public park and open space. CLARIFICA nON: do fence height restrictions apply on the lot line, and only within the J . . . · · · " . Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1999 Page 3 required yard area, or do they also apply behind a required yard area within the building envelope? Based on the director's interpretation, it was determined they do not apply within the building envelope, they apply only on the lot line within the required yard areas; outside of that area, only the maximum building height limitation applies. Q. Regarding situations where there is no setback requirement, where a building is allowed to be on the front or side lot line, what is the fence restriction, if any? A. Applying the same logic, there would be no fence height limitation whatever other than the building height limitation; there basically would be no regulation of the fence height. At the last Planning Commission meeting it was noted, that might be an unfortunate result and there may be a desire to include at least some reasonable fence height limitation even when no setback is required. Ms. Erickson: There is no fence height limitation in the Commercial District -- the wall of a building, 35 feet? Mr. Toews affirmed and said they had pointed out 2 weeks ago, any fence over 6 feet high requires a building permit, and very likely fences over 8 feet in height would require engineering; the likelihood of such appearing anywhere in town is in question, but there is a theoritical possibility. Mr. Toews referenced 20.04 PTMC and noted they are able to process this series of code amendments outside the annual Comprehensive Plan and development regulations amendment cycles, that specific allowances are made for city-sponsored code amendments that are consistent with the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and land use map. Since none of these proposed amendments implicates inconsistencies with the code, they can be done basically on an ad hoc basis. He pointed out-that none of the following criteria appear to apply to this type of code amendment, but it is an area of the code that requires some clarification, and something should be included in tonight's record that addresses these criteria so that it is clear it was a consideration in these deliberations. Criteria that ap,ply to any code amendmen~ found in Chapter 20.04,080.A.3: · Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment substantially changed since the adoption of the Plan? · Are the assumptions upon which the Plan is based no longer valid? · Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely-held community values? Ms. Erickson: Page 13, "viewscape." This evidently is a new word that has been brought in. Does this have something to do with towers; how is this used? Mr. Toews: This is one of quite a number of definitions in 17.08 PTMC that are recodification of definitions currently in 17.78 PTMC, Personal Wireless Facilities code, adopted late last year. This conforms with the effort made in the development and adoption of the code in 1997 to include all the definitions of the code in 17.08 PTMC. Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1999 Page 4 2. Public Testimony . At 7:25 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the public hearing. There was no public testimony. Chair Thayer closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. and opened the meeting to Planning Commission discussion. . 3. Discussion Mr. Harbison: Asked what was the most recent criteria used. Mr. Toews: Provision of the code that allows this ordinance to be processed -- First instance: 20.04.090.A.1. Further in subsection "C" of 20.04.090, under Planning Commission Review, it indicates the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any text amendment to the Land Use. Code and make a recommendation to the City Council using the site specific criteria set forth in PTMC 20.04.080.83. He indicatéd those criteria are not applicable to these amendments, since there is not a site specific amendment before the Commission; a Planning Commission finding and conclusion would help the record. Ms. Thayer: We can direct you to write that finding and conlcusion based on your statement? Mr. Toews concurred. Mr. Harbison: Asked if he understood correctly that the fence height, in all probability, did not need to be addressed. It was because of the practicality issue; that it required no further action or remedy on the part of the Commission? Mr. Toews: Said at least that was the point he made, that he was not sure there was any Commission resolution of the issue. He referenced the April 29th Planning Commission meeting minutes (Page 9) and Mr. Worden's suggestion that a fence height limitation be included regardless of the 0 setback requirement, particularly the MII(B) at Point Hudson and adjoining residential areas and discussion of a suggested 10' fence height limitation. It is an unresolved issue, and he thinks it is a valid concern. Including some reasonable fence height limit even when no setback is required, would make sOJ!le sense; however, there are some practical limitations that are likely to keep this from happening in those instances. Ms. Thayer: We also discussed that a fence over 6' in height would require a building permit and would have to conform. Ms. Erickson: Referenced discussion regarding something to the effect of raising the 4' fence height on front property lines in residential zones. Mr. Toews: Believed there are some provisions in 17.68, to address the deer issue, if fences are not sight obscuring, etc. Ms. Erickson: Then we are clarifying what we already have? Mr. Toews: We are looking for consistency. Fence heights in 17.68 were originally intended to comply within required yard areas, or on the edge of a required yard area, on a lot line; behind that, the maximum building height would apply. On Page 35, fence heights in C-I, . . . · · · . Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1999 Page 5 C-II, C-II(H), and C-ill districts were eliminated entirely because aU of those have a 0 front yard setback. A not-so-similar change on Page 43, M-I maximum front fence height has been raised from 4' to 8' even though there is a front yard setback requirement of 10'. In M-II(A) and M-II(B), the maximum building height applies because there are no setback requirements. Ms. Thayer: Questioned if the fence height is raised, should there be an additional hearing? Mr. Toews: Said he thought not, that changes to fence height sections of the code were highlighted as an amendment and were specifically included in the public notice. Ms. Erickson: Asked the purpose of raising M-I to 8'? Mr. Toews: 1) We don't have any M-I in the city; 2) a 4' fence requirement in industrial seemed like a drafting error at the initial code adoption because it really didn't do anything in terms of securing the property. Ms. Erickson: Indicated as far as securing the property, it also does not do that in M/C. Mr. Toews: Explained that M/C is a little bit different since it has rétail commercial, and M-I is exclusively manufacturing. Ms. Erickson: Pointed out you also have manufacturing in M/C; probably security is the only reason someone would put up a fence, and why not also move M/C to 8' -- the setbacks are the same, everthing except the fence heights. Mr. Toews: Checked for the hearing notification and concluded that clearly the fence height limitations were identified as an area of the code that was being reviewed for amendment. Ms. Thayer: Said she saw no problem with raising the M/C to 8' maximum, knowing what Ms Erickson just brought up. Mr. Toews: It was addressed in the threshold determiniation checklist. Ms. Thayer: We are not taking away a privilege; we are adding a privilege. Mr. Toews: In the mixed use zoning districts, there was a fence height provision. CONSENSUS: Change front maximum ~ence height requirement in MlC from 4' to 8'. MOTION Ms. Sherwood RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF TITLE 17 PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED AND MODIFIED WITH THE ADDmONAL STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION TO BE PREPARED BY MR. TOEWS, AND RAISING THEFENCEHEIGHTREQUllŒMENTT08'IN MlC. SECOND VOTE Ms. Ota UNANIMOUS - 5 IN FAVOR BY ROLL CALL VOTE Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1999 Page 6 B. Planning Commission Recommendations for Annual Assessment of Comprehensive Plan (Workshop) 1. Staff presentation (Eric Toews) Mr. Toews noted he had been informed that the BCD department had received approximately a half dozen additional suggested changes today and more are expected tomorrow. The closing is scheduled for close of business, May 3. He reviewed Ms. Surber's April 15, 1999 memorandum, looking again at the process for the annual review and update of the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 20.04 PTMC. He described some of the suggested amendments that were received by the BCD Department through April 15 including some from BCD: · C-III downtown Historic Commercial zoning district -- conform northerly boundary to the pre-1997 boundary, per Dr. McCarron. To allow these propertiešto be used to meet the off- street parking needs of downtown commercial uses. (Parking code as currently written prohibits the use of adjoining residential areas to meet the parking requirements of commercial uses. In drawing the northerly boundary of C-III, they tried to exclude parcels thought to have serious development limitations because of the steep slope; however, there are small portions of those parcels that probably could be used to meet some of the off-street parking requirements of some of the businesses.) · C-II, general commercial zoning district ..- permit either conditionally or by right, residential uses in upper stories of buildings, per Dr. McCarron and Councilmember Garrison. As currently written, owner/operator residential use is permitted, but as a general rule, such a situation as multi-family in the C-II district is not permitted in upper stories. · Amend the Planning Code to make permissive rather than mandatory a mixture of commercial and residential uses in C..I, or neighborhood serving mixed use zoning district, per Mr. Garrison. Discussions last year related exclusively to the Cll-M/U and not CI-M/U · Amend relative provisions of the Plan and Zoning Code to allow individual commercial tenants within the CI-M/U zone (San Juan & "F"; North Beach; Howard & Hastings) to occupy more than 5,000 square feet, that mixed-use buildings would still be prohibited from obtaining individual leasable spaces larger than. 5,000 square feet, per Mr. Garrison. (Would allow a tenant to occupy a cumulative total of 10,000 square feet in a building and not violate the code requirements - but the space must be constructed in such a manner that no individual leasable space would exceed 5,000 square feet.) · Amend provisions of the Plan and Zoning Code to link allowable density in. R-III district to the number of bedrooms contained within a dwelling to allow greater flexibility in dwelling unit design, per Mr. Michael Raymond. Suggested minimum lot size: studio apartment (1,000 sq. ft.); I-bedroom (1,500 sq. ft.); 2-bedroom (2,000 sq. ft.); 3-bedroom (2,500 sq. ft., the current minimum lot size in the R..III district). . . . ;, · · · ~ . Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Toews pointed out the criteria for annual assessment of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Ms. Surber's April 15th memorandum and indicated discussion would take place in detail at the May 13, 1999 workshop meeting in preparation for public hearing later in May. He asked if the growth rates cited (2.1%, 1997-1998-1999), conformed with those ofthe real estate trade? Commission members Thayer and Ota affirmed. Mr. Toews asked special notice be given to PTMC 20.04.050.Cl., Criteria for Annual Assessment, "Beginning in 1998, the Planning Commission shall assess and monitor the Comprehensive Plan during the spring of each year based on consideration of the following criteria" which he enumerated. He said staff's recommended findings indicated there has not been any significant change in circumstances from spring of last year to spring of this year, and that no major planned policy initiatives require review and revision in this cycle. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS .' Next Scheduled Meetings May 13, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Workshop May 20, 1999 Continuation of Workshop (if needed) May 27, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Open-Record Public Hearing There was brief discussion regarding City Council representation in the Comp Plan amendment process, the status at Glen Cove and the Shoreline Master Plan. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- Current Mail X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Harbison and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8: 10 p.m. /"'¡ /' ,.I l~t- ,rl vj ,1" j1df1M/ - Cind Thayer, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker I Name 'pie," prin'} I Address I T::imlon~~ I . . ~ . . Guest List ¿Ë /1 . . ~ I I· ~