Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04081999 Min Ag · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Workshop Meeting April 8, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 11, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business · VII. New Business A. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC 1. Overview and proposed review schedule (Judy Surber/Eric Toews) 2. Commission discussion B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process 1. Staff presentation (Judy Surber/Tim McMahan) 2. Commission discussion VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings April 29, 1999 Proposed Amendments to title 17 PTMC (open-record public hearing) May 13, 1999 May 27, 1999 IX. Communications · X. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Workshop Meeting April 8, 1999 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. II. Roll Call Members in attendance were Chair Cindy Thayer, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Len Mandelbaum. Christine Ota arrived at 7:25 p.m.; Karen Erickson was excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were City Attorney Tim McMahan, Eric Toews and Judy Surber from BCD. m. Acceptance of Agenda Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Len Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Larry Harbison. All were in favor. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes of March 11, 1999 as written was made by Mr. Larry Harbison and seconded by Mr. Len Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) There were none VI. Unfinished Business. There was none. VII. New Business A. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC Overview and proposed review schedule (Judy SurberÆric Toews) Mr. Eric Toews noted addition of substantive changes -- issues raised by Mr. Bruce Freeland: ~ Definition of amusement activities and devices in Chapter 17.08 PTMC -- to fix and clarify. ~ Minor PUD alteration -- to clarify what is meant. ~ Amendments relating chiefly to food service uses in manufacturing districts -- to address issues that surfaced during the year with certain, small scale restaurant uses wishing to locate or be considered conforming uses in manufacturing areas, particularly at the boat haven. mlCOMM ~/11 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Workshop Meeting April 8, 1999 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. II. Roll Call Members in attendance were Chair Cindy Thayer, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Len Mandelbaum. Christine Ota arrived at 7:25 p.m.; Karen Erickson was excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were City Attorney Tim McMahan, Eric Toews and Judy Surber from BCD. m. Acceptance of Agenda Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Len Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Larry Harbison. All were in favor. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes of March 11, 1999 as written was made by Mr. Larry Harbison and seconded by Mr. Len Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) There were none VI. Unfinished Business. There was none. VII. New Business A. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC Overview and proposed review schedule (Judy SurberÆric Toews) Mr. Eric Toews noted addition of substantive changes -- issues raised by Mr. Bruce Freeland: ~ Definition of amusement activities and devices in Chapter 17.08 PTMC -- to fix and clarify. ~ Minor PUD alteration -- to clarify what is meant. ~ Amendments relating chiefly to food service uses in manufacturing districts -- to address issues that surfaced during the year with certain, small scale restaurant uses wishing to locate or be considered conforming uses in manufacturing areas, particularly at the boat haven. · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Toews said that ofthe policy choice changes included, none of the changes proposed is at odds with policy direction contained within the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that it is permissible to process this ordinance outside of the City's annual review and amendment cycle for substantive code amendments that would create an inconsistency between code and the Plan. Mr. Toews noted the proposed public hearing scheduled for April 29th and that the SEPA comment period also lapses on that same day. Reasons for proposed amendments beginning with Section 3: SECTION 3 Most definitions in Sections 3 through 7 are re-codification definitions that were adopted last year in the new Wireless Facilities ordinance in Chapter 17.78 PTMC. The change is to remove definitions from Chapter 17.78 putting them into Chapter 17.08, conforming to the past intent to assure uniformity and have only one definition chapter. Defmitions that do not relate to Ch.pter 17.78: ~ Page 7 -- Deletion of "amusement activity"; inclusion of "amusement device"; redefinition of "amusement park or center." To clarify definitions in Title 17 Use Tables. Differentiates what types of amusement devices and activities are appropriate in various commercial zones, e.g. toddler rides outside of stores vs. amusement parks or centers (principally amusement related uses, not accessory uses to a different commercial use). ~ Page 8 -- Regulate "amusement devices" separately from "amusement parks or centers" and "amusement arcades." Hierarchy of amusement uses: 1) amusement devices: per Use Tables, five or fewer amusement devices are permissible at any commercial location in town 2) amusement arcades: more than five uses 3) amusement parks or centers: more than 20 uses Q Mr. Worden: The way this is written it does not address a carousel that is only a single device. It fits within the definition of amusement device, but a building within which it is housed would not be considered an amusement park or center because there is only one device, and there would have to be more than 20 to qualify. A Mr. Toews: The carousel wouldn't fit this definition. It does say riding devices by not more than 4 persons; and it would excluded by this definition. Q Mr. Mandelbaum: Is it necessary to say that an amusement device is something that provides recreation entertainment only? Could you not get into problems eventually with weight lifting, other health devices, or providing educational value? A Mr. Toews: Health and fitness equipment? This wasn't meant to be an exhaustive listing. Q Mr. Worden: How is this used in the zoning code and whether or not we care? · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 3 A Mr. Toews: Referred to Tables - Section 13, Page 22; the same uses are differentiated in Section 16, Page 29 (Commercial Use Table). Q Ms. Thayer: Are we attempting to change definitions here to suit the carousel, or is that an applicable situation that should come before us as a change in the Comp Plan? A Mr. Toews: The purpose of these amendments was not meant to address the carousel situation. The purpose was to try to clearly differentiate in scale and intensity the types of amusement uses that were out there and where certain of those would be permissible. Q Ms. Thayer: As much as I would like to see us incorporate that, I think we are getting on thin policy by trying to put it in there. A Mr. Worden: I don't think that is what we are trying to do; anything we would try to write into the zoning code to apply to a carousel is probably going to backfire. It just occurred to me that this is something that is current, and I wondered if this change would have an affect on it. I think the answer is that it doesn't. Mr. Toews: It would be prohibited currently, except for the fact the Shoreline may trump zoning. In terms of the zoning code prohibition, it would be an unclassified use here and therefore prohibited. Unclassified uses not specifically called out in the Use Tables are currently being prohibited. Ms. Surber: Unless incidental. With a use that is incidental to a permitted use, you could go through a conditional use permit process, e.g. on-site roasting, incidental to the sale of coffee for a coffee shop in a commercial zone. Indicated she is certain she classified a carousel as an amusement activity, which has now been deleted. Mr. Worden: So the only way to address a carousel with this change would be by Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Toews: Or alternatively, if it were an incidental use. Q Ms. Thayer: Under amusement devices, what would be an example of weight lifting devices that are an amusement? A Mr. Toews: The only thing imaginable is a circus sledge hammer. ~ Page 8 -- Public campgrounds (inclusion of definition). Opens an array of amendments proposed elsewhere in this document. As the code is currently written, campgrounds are not called out as a use anywhere, even in Public, Park and Open Space (P/OS) districts; e.g., Fort Worden campgrounds are currently not listed, and therefore are a non-conforming use; any new campground would be unclassified and a prohibited use. This defmition relates to the Use Table for Public, Park and Open Space on Page 45 where it is listed as a permitted use in the P/OS District and Conditional in both the P/OS(B) and P-I districts. SECTION 5 ~ Page 10 -- Manufactured home definition (clarifying addition - for questions and confusion again arising regarding the distinction between manufactured and modular homes). Manufactured homes are constructed in the factory, consistent with federal standards. · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 4 Modular homes are essentially factory built homes that meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC), are made in panelized construction, assembled on site, but have an entirely different set of construction standards. The policy decision during the Comprehensive Planning process was to allow manufactured homes outright in all single family residential districts outside the National Register Historic District, resulting in a question about whether modular homes would be allowed within the National Register Historic District. This definition clarifies the distinction that since by definition modular homes meet UBC standards, they would be allowed in all single family residential districts. SECTION 6 ~ Page 11 -- Planned unit development (PUD). There is no current definition ofPUD in Title 17. It is taken in part from the definition contained in the city's engineering design standards and is meant to be used in conjunction with provisions in Title 17 related to PUDs. It arose out of proposed modifications to Chapter 17.32 relating to alterations to an approved PUD. ~ Page 12 -- Preliminary PUD, a term used in Chapter 17.32 currently undefined. Clarification is intended of what is meant with alterations to improve PUDs -- alterations to a PUD that has received approval by the city but does not yet necessarily have all the improvements in place, so that it hasn't satisfied all the conditions. Q Mr. Worden: The description in 17.32.060 of innovative residential development sounds like a PUD. What is the difference? A Mr. Towes: The PUD is certainly one way to achieve the goals of innovative residential development. A PUD does not necessarily result in innovative residential development; sometimes it may simply be a permissible deviation from the prescriptive zoning standards. Q Mr. Worden: Isn't the justification for a PUD that it is allowed, without strictly following the requirements of the zoning code; something acceptable that results in better benefits to the residents of the community? A Mr. Towes: It must result in some tradeoff. Mr. McMahan: The distinction is, there are several subsections that qualify for relaxation of zoning code requirements; one of them is innovative residential development. Another one is provision of affordable housing in a way that is not commonly found; another, additional environmental benefit. It is just one of the ways of describing the benefits that the community gets by a PUD that can be trading off some of the relaxation to the zoning code standards for a benefit. Q Mr. Worden: So innovative residential development could apply to a single site as opposed to a group of housing? A Mr. McMahan: Replied affirmatively. Ms. Surber: Cited the approval criteria. Mr. McMahan: Thought this to basicaIly be a subset ofPUD as described in this section. Q Mr. Mandelbaum: Do you really want to limit PUDs to those things, even though you qualify them with "typically" consist of multi-unit structures? · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 5 A Mr. McMahan: Suggested this is not entirely accurate, because it isn't necessarily "typically" multi-unit structures, that the PUDs we have approved around here are not intended to be multi-unit structures. MAYBE YOU COULD SAY, "INCLUDING MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURES," OR "MAY CONSIST OF..." ~ Page 12 -- Recreational vehicle parks. To be considered in conjunction with inclusion of the definition of public campgrounds. The Use Table on Page 45 calls out where such uses are permissible for the city; permitted outright within P/OS, permitted conditionally in P/OS(B) and P-I. Although we currently have a definition ofrecreational vehicle park, it is an unlisted use in the Public, Park and Open Space Use Table. Q Mr. Worden: Do our regulations on RV parks have any limitation for time of occupancy? A Mr. Towes: The only limitation is contained within the definition itself. ~ Page 12 -- Setback yard requirements. There is some confusion as to what types of buildings and structures are subject to the setback requirements and from where the setbacks are measured. This is to clarify measuring from the right-of-way lines to the building line. "Building line" is already defined in 17.08; this is to improve the relationship between our definition of "building line," and "setback and yard requirements" and make them entirely consistent with one another. SECTION 8 ~ Page 13 -- Boundary interpretation. The code as currently written includes somewhat boilerplate provisions relating to boundary interpretation. When a parcel or lot is split- zoned, the way the code currently reads, if 50% or more of the property lies within one designation, that designation will be applied to the entire lot. During the city planning process, there were a number oflarger parcels and lots that were intentionally split-zoned. As currently written it would mean either expansions or contractions of zones that were not intended at the time the Comp Plan was adopted. These rules of interpretation are intended to help differentiate between those parcels that are split-zoned by intent because they are large, e.g. a 10-acre parcel in the western part of the city where we wanted to approve the southern 5 acres in an R-III District and the northern 5 acres exclude and leave within an R-II District. This addresses: 1) standards that pertain to single-family residential districts, 1- acre threshold is used; if it' s a parcel that is split-zoned and I-acre or larger in size, the boundary is as it would fit on the map; 2) if smaller and split-zoned, the 50% rule would apply; e.g. a 10,000 s.f. single-family residential lot erroneously split-zoned, the 50% rule would apply; if more than 50% was in R-II, R-II would apply for the entire area. There is a different size threshold for multi-family, commercial, open space and manufacturing districts, dealing with more limited areas of town, typically smaller ownerships, so the 10,000 s.f. rule would apply. If a lot is greater than 10,000 s.f. and was split-zoned, it was done so intentionally; ifless than 10,000 s.f. and it was split zoned, the 50% rule would · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 6 apply. SECTION 9 ~ Page 15D -- Principally correcting a clerical error (erroneous cross-citation). ~ Page 15E -- To distinguish between major or minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) according to the rules of Chapter 20.01. Ms. Surber: There was nothing to determine whether a minor CUP, which deciphers whether to go through a Type II or Type UI process. Major CUP is basically new construction; incidental uses did not refer to either Type II or Type ill based on new construction. Someone could come in for incidental use requiring new construction, which according the code was conflicting as Type U. Mr. Toews: Will be repeated throughout and seen in a ripple effect in several other places. SECTION 10 ~ Page 16 -- Modular homes. Included as a permitted use in all districts except R-IV -- to clarify questions that have arisen. Even if not called out specifically, it would be permitted as single-family, stick-built construction. ~ Page 16 -- Single-family dwellings prohibited in R-IV districts. To make the code consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. The Comp Plan allows single-family dwellings in R-ill districts having minimum density requirements and basically prohibits single-family residential dwellings in R-IV districts. Mr. McMahan: Also makes it consistent with the code itself. The Bulk and Dimensional Section essentially states that single-family dwellings are not allowed. ~ Page 18 -- Personal Wireless facilities. Due to the impossibility within the context of our zoning district boundaries to address the very specific siting requirements and standards recently adopted for wireless facilities as to whether permitted, conditional or prohibited within these Use Tables, the definitions are being called out saying that this table does not apply and referencing 17.78 PTMC. SECTION 11 ~ Page 19 -- Maximum number of units in anyone multi-family structure. Not a new requirement. Also included to get people to thinking with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that suggested that there be limits on the maximum number of units allowed in a multi-family structure to avoid large, bulky buildings. Q Ms. Thayer: With four units per acre, per 40,000 s.f., are you saying you can have four dwelling units in anyone structure? The way I read it, in an R-I zone that means 16. A Mr. Toews: No; it is the whole duplex, triplex, fourplex issue. It's meant to indicate that a fourplex consistent with the base density of the zone, is permissible in both R-I and R-II. Q Ms. Thayer: Suggested to include (units per 40,000 square foot area) as in the upper two and asked if that wasn't the intention, four units if you have a fourplex -- you can put a fourplex · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 7 in R-I on a 40,000 s.f. lot. She felt it was confusing to read this on the upper two and then say maximum number of dwelling units in anyone structure; you could interpret that as meaning there are four structures and could have four units in each structure. A Mr. McMahan: That wouldn't work -- if you put units per 40,000 s.f., you have an inconsistency between the R-II and R-IV. In R-II maximum housing density is eight; if you included (units per 40,000 square foot area) to the box with the number of dwelling units, you would have four in R-II. Mr. Toews: It has to work the way it is written. Mr. Worden: These are different requirements -- there is a maximum housing density based on the land area, and a maximum number of units per structure which doesn't have anything to do with land area. You have to abide by both requirements. Mr. McMahan: You have to read it together. ~ Page 20 -- Addition of a footnote. To clarify the applicability of the fence height restrictions, that heights apply within required yard areas or along the edge of a required yard for residential districts and referring to Chapter 17.68 PTMC. SECTION 12 ~ Page 21 © -- Incidental Uses: CUP(Type II) -- ripple effect discussed earlier. Reference to Chapter 20.01 PTMC differentiates between Type n and Type III CUPs. SECTION 13 ~ Page 22 - Amusement devices and activities. Definitions. SECTION 14 ~ Page 26 - Maximum fence height footnote. There were no fence height limitations in the mixed use zoning district bulk and dimensional tables. Along a yard area or lot line where there is no setback requirement, there is no fence height requirement. If there is a setback requirement, an 8' fence height requirement would apply; e.g., a mixed-use building up to a front yard lot line but not the width of the whole lot; somebody could do an architectural wall or something along that lot line that would exceed 8' -- a courtyard or something behind that and then only the maximum building height provisions would apply since there is no setback requirement. The footnote, similar to the residential table, clarifies that the setback requirements apply within the required yard areas and along lot lines. The question arose as to what happens if you are within the setback area, inside the permissible building envelope, is there a fence height limitation? Answer: NO, there the maximum building height prevails. SECTION 16 ~ Page 29 -- Amusement devices and uses. ~ Page 32 -- Personal wireless service facilities. · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 8 SECTION 17 ~ Page 34 -- Front yard setbacks in C-II(H), hospital zoning district on Sheridan. To achieve consistency, and make better use of the land, location of structures; that no front year setback also apply within the C-II(H). Neither C-II general commercial nor C-ill elsewhere in the city have front yard setback requirements. ~ Page 34 - Side yard setbacks in C-ill. Similarly, change to the side yard requirements is intended to allow some provision for light, air and open space when you have a C-III use directly abutting R-II or R-III (the only residential zones that directly abut C-ill). Ms. Surber: Why did we use different language under C-III than under C-II and C-II(H) which provides for an additional 5' setback? Mr. Toews: That is a fair point. It would make sense to include the setback requirements - the taller the building. the greater the setback in C-III. ~ Page 35 -- Maximum Fence Height. Same concept as mixed use districts: no fence height restrictions. Where there is a setback requirement, there is a fence height limitation, except 4' maximum fence height has been deleted in C-I, C-II, C-II(H), C-ill and C-IV in favor of maximum building height limitation, referring only to 8' restrictions inside rear yard areas. Ms. Surber questioned if it would be simpler to relate all this to residential zones instead of saying "except; max. bldg. height applies when abutting another commercial zoning district?" In other sections of the table, setbacks are related to protection of a residential zone; maybe reword it to protect zones. Mr. Worden said he thinks that was clear, that really was the intent. When you are next to a residential zone you follow the residential guidelines. Mr. Toews said he had determined in C-II and C-II(H) it was simply referring to when a setback is required -- when abutting residential. Ms. Surber noted a typographical error in C-III (Rear): exceDt: 8' when a side vard -- change to: exceot: 8' when a rear yard setback is reouired. SECTION 18 ~ Page 36E -- CUP (Type II) has already been discussed. SECTION 19 Revisions related to manufacturing and marine related districts ~ Page 38 -- Child day care centers. . . are currently listed, but were not in alphabetical order. ~ Page 38 - Wholesale of goods or products manufactured on the premises is a new division. Wholesale had not been referenced anywhere. ~ Page 39 -- Food services. To make conforming existing small-scale restaurant uses that are located in the boat haven and Point Hudson; permit conditionally and place an upper limit on the size of the use so that it wouldn't be attractive as a primary site for restaurants to locate. · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 9 The only one that possibly exceeds that limit is the Shanghai Restaurant in M-ll(B). The list of prohibited food service uses repeats the same list of food service uses called out elsewhere in the code, so it is clear they were not forgotten. ~ Page 42 -- To conform the table to the newly adopted Chapter 17.78 PTMC. SECTION 20 ~ Pg 43 -- Maximum Fence Height limitations. In marine-related manufacturing districts, M-II(A) and M-II(B) it is proposed to eliminate fence height requirements, a deviation from the rule of the 0 setback requirement. Mr. Worden: The allowable building height is 50' in M-II(A). Could not imagine building a fence that high, but maybe it could be limited to something like one story. Mr. Toews: This is drafted to allow the types of uses where a fence, perhaps even higher than 10', is desired for safety or security of the property, not having people straying into areas where they might be injured. Ms. Thayer asked if a fence has to conform to the UBC. Mr. Toews replied he understood a fence over 6' in height requires a building permit. The reasoning for not regulating at all is: 1) the UBC requirement making that probably an impossibility -- no precedent for it; 2) simply allowing greater flexibility to the land, e.g. a courtyard and some sort of wall enclosure higher than the 8' requirement. Mr. McMahan -- Page 35, regarding front lot line in private businesses in other zones typically facing street rights-of-way. The UBC requirement wouldn't in any way restrict that. With a permit, you might have to have it engineered. Mr. Worden -- With the C-ll design standards, they are talking about detailed requirements for the articulation of building facades and the maximum plain area of the building that you can have; those standards wouldn't apply to fences. We might succeed in getting the building scaled in a way it is appropriate, but you could still have perhaps a 20' x 100' long fence which would be next to the sidewalk and essentially have no features or windows. He couldn't think why anybody would do that, but thought maybe it should be considered. Mr. Toews -- This is principally seeking consistency, at least in the restrictions pertaining to commercial districts and trying to provide light, air and open space. If there is no setback requirement, presumably that was not an issue with that district; if there is no restriction on buildings, we simply did not choose to regulate fences there. It is a valid concern -- with 0 yard setbacks in some instances, it would be entirely legitimate to suggest a fence height limitation within those situations. Ms. Surber -- Suggested putting an 8' limitation in residential areas at Point Hudson. Mr. Worden -- Thought it would be wise throughout the code to establish a maximum fence height that applies everywhere, maybe 6' - 8' which is plenty generous for any use imaginable, even manufacturing. Mr. McMahan -- Referenced the Port's request of highest possible fence height for the · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 10 Larry Scott Memorial Trail. Ms. Surber - There was some discussion to reopen the fence section of the code and revisit the design, and within the residential districts consider a higher fence for deer. Ms. Thayer -- The Planning Commission came up with a higher fence height, and the City Council overrode us. SECTION 21 ~ Page 44 -- P/OS(A) Erroneously referenced in the current code. On the Land Use Map it is potentially park and open space, the cross-hatched area. This nomenclature would make the two halves entirely consistent with one another. Plain P/OS on the Land Use Map is existing park and open space. SECTION 23 ~ Page 45 -- Public campgrounds, RV parks. Pointed out that golf courses and driving ranges currently within P/OS(B) and P-I zones are treated as prohibited and permitted uses respectively. The proposed changes them to conditional use regardless of the location within a public property and open space district. The golf course is currently P/OS and is a conditional use. ~ Remaining changes relate to Chapter 17.78. SECTION 24 ~ Page 49 -- Setback requirements. To provide greater flexibility in locating structures and buildings on publicly owned land. Setback requirements pertaining to public, park and open space districts effectively rendered undevelopable many public, particularly P/OS(B), districts in the city, because they are typically small, isolated islands. There are some existing public uses, basically in the National Register Historic District, like City Hall, some adjacent public land, and the rear parking lot. As the code is currently written, if that were ever to be developed for other public use, there would be a 20' front yard setback requirement; in the context of this district, it was felt, a 0 front yard setback would make more sense. When you are abutting mixed use or a commercial zoning district, the 20' would not apply. Ms. Surber questioned industrial districts and Mr. Toews replied there are front yard setback requirements in industrial districts. This is attempting to make those public, park and open space districts that are directly abutting commercial conform to adjoining commercial. Manufacturing has front yard setbacks, so the 20' setback requirement would make some sense there. ~ Page 49 -- Greenbelt requirements (new provision). Rather a mirror-image provision in the commercial, manufacturing bulk and dimensional tables. ~ Page 50 -- Maximum fence height. P/OS(B) and P-I are districts that are commonly infrastructure uses and not primarily for recreational use. · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 11 SECTION 25 ~ Page 50 -- Modifications to an approved PUD. Mr. Freeland's concern that there was no definition of a minor modification to a PUD and shared by the Planning Commission last year. There was no definition of what it was, or what it was not. ~ Page 51 (A) -- What modifications to an approved PUD do not include. Staff had concern for A.2, a reduction in any perimeter setback not abutting a public right-of-way -- situations where their preference would be to retain the ability to modify setbacks on interior lots within the PUD. Here, you cannot by way of a minor modification reduce a perimeter setback around an outer edge of the PUD where it joins neighboring residential properties. Mr. Worden -- A.2. Why do you accept setbacks on public rights-of-way? Wouldn't that be fairly significant too; it doesn't seem like a minor adjustment. Ms. Surber: Ifit's a public right-of-way dedicated within the PUD. Mr. Toews: This is public rights-of-way in general, not interior. The issue was thought to be the impact on the adjoining neighborhood; if there is a right-of-way on the perimeter of the PUD, the impact to the neighborhood is buffered by virtue of the right-of-way itself. However, in a situation where you have a right-of-way where you are directly abutting residential property is a slightly different situation. We would not want to permit the modification there. Mr. Worden: Thought the setback along a right-of-way is equally important; maybe not so important to individuals, but the space next to a sidewalk is very significant depending on the zone it is in. Would like to see the exception for abutting a public right-of-way eliminated from the minor modification definition. Mr. Harbison: These are the exceptions to the minor? Mr. Toews: These are the situations those circumstances shall include; these do not constitute minor modifications. Suggestion: delete the last part and change to say: "2. A reduction in anv oerimeter setback. " Mr. Worden: Concurred. Ms. Thayer: How has that affected staff over the last year or so? Have you had requests? Ms. Surber: Recalled Hamilton Heights; a big issue for a neighboring property owner for a buffer between them and the development. Ms. Thayer: What will it do if we excluded those perimeter setbacks abutting a public right- of-way? Ms. Surber: It is a good point. IfI am living directly across the street on a local access street which could be as narrow as 16', the PUD has allowed for a density increase for multi- family. It is a significant change in the character of the neighborhood. Suggestion: A.8 - change to developmental coverage. Discuss further. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 12 SECTION 26 ~ Page 52, Section 26.E -- As currently written, literally no uses would be permissible as home occupations. Instead changed to similar language in other codes, saying use of a nature similar to those listed which creates impacts on the neighborhood similar to those created by the uses listed. SECTION 27 ~ Page 52 - To clarify placement of a sign could be either on the wall of the dwelling or the accessory structure, wherever the use is, since home occupations are permitted both in principal and accessory structures. SECTION 28 ~ Page 53, A.3 -- To be consistent with the sign code. ~ Page 54 -- Freestanding signs. Enable Bed & Breakfasts, principally, to locate signs in an area where they are visible to vehicular traffic. To provide some flexibility to the current requirements which were too restrictive. SECTION 29 ~ Page 54 -- To correct a citation error. SECTION 30 ~ Page 56 -- Conform Chapter 17.78 to changes made in 17.08, definitions chapter. Chapter 17.78 will still include a definition section; however, instead of definitions it will include the list of sources to use if the desired definition is not specifically called out in 17.08. SECTION 31 ~ Page 60 -- Amendments to non-conforming lot provisions Mr. McMahan: Exemptions B.l, 2, and 3 -- moved into subsections to make it easier to read and administer; Exemptions B.4 and B.5 - added; remainder of the section -- added titles to subsections. Exemption B.4 -- Within the last couple of years situations were encountered that were unfair and required some interpreting of the code to get around the harsh applicability of the section. In one case there were two fully-developed residences next to each other with fully separate sewer/water services, fully separate accesses, that happened to have been common ownership. One was slightly smaller than 5,000 s.f., and they wanted to sell one of the two lots. Given that situation is allowed all over town, but for the fact they were under the same ownership "forever," they would have been allowed to be sold off separately. This came to a real surprise to them when they went to sell. This addressed that circumstance. The proviso was in here that prior to the auditor making sure that these can be transferred, the auditor's · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 13 office would check with the city to make certain there is separate water and sewer service, and separate access. Exemption B.5 -- One the city encountered also and came from his experience in Snohomish County where the County administered their non-conforming lots section of the code. If an applicant did a title search and found anytime in the past they were under separate ownership, as a matter of equity, they were allowed to be transferred separately. This uses the Snohomish County model and was felt to be a reasonable liberalization; it expands the ability to transfer in some sections where some equity problems have been encountered. The primary purpose of this section of the code was implementing the R-I downzone. Ms. Thayer: Questioned regarding on-site sewerage disposal, the requirement for all properties in the city to be connected to the sewer by year 2002. Mr. McMahan: Responded that is likely to be revisited by the Planning Commission and Council sometime in the future for policy direction. SECTION 32 ~ Page 62.F -- nonconforming structures. Was intended to basically say that they are dealing with nonconformities as to bulk and dimension, not just height and density, but also nonconforming as to setbacks. It was basically a drafting error. Mr. Toews reiterated that the hearing date scheduled April 29th is simultaneous with the end of the SEPA comment period; SEPA Threshold Determination will be published April 14th. Planning Commission workshop is scheduled for May 13th for final lines in and lines out. The transmittal of their findings, conclusions and recommendations will go to City Council for their May 17th council meeting. Mr. Toews suggested that one or more Planning Commission member attend the May 17th council meeting. If Council chooses to modify the proposed ordinance, a public hearing will need to be scheduled. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendm~nt Process Staff presentation (Judy Surber/Tim McMahan) Mr. McMahan distributed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process -- Major and Minor Amendments -- Five Year Process, a paper prepared by his office, noting it included staff proposed solutions to some of the issues. He indicated that action or direction was not intended at this meeting, but it was information for a long-term process. He indicated Staff felt during last year's Comprehensive Plan amendment process there was a lot oftemptation and desire by the community, City Council and Planning Commission to really get involved in revisiting Comp Plan policies. Concern was raised by Staff and also the · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 14 Planning Commission that the public had not participated although they had attempted to include the public. ~ Mr. McMahan explained he was not sure it was the public's fault, that in talking to city attorneys and planners in other jurisdictions he is finding the same is happening state-wide. The community pours in a tremendous amount of energy, figures it is a 20-year document, and thinks the job is done. ~ Then on an annual basis, property owners come in and unravel the Plan incrementally along with people in the community bringing things that maybe they didn't get in the initial process or ideas that come up after Plan adoption. In 1997 the State Legislature enacted RCW 36. 70A.130 that talked about a 5-year process. Local governments are supposed to do a comprehensive review of their Plan to ensure whether the Plan and regulations are still in compliance with the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA also requires a review to determine accomplishments, how you are coordinating with the county-wide planning policies and making sure they are still meshing. The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan amendment ordinance, Chapter 20.04 PTMC, was one of the first adopted in the state, was guided by legislation in existence at the time, and indicated the Plan needed to be reviewed totally every year. The process which starts in AprillMay and needs to be completed in November opens the door to people coming in and asking to completely rewrite some of the fundamental polices. Mr. McMahan said it was naive in that it was not fair to the public; there was no way to get the public on board. He said he felt with the 1997 amendment, the state legislature was also foreseeing incremental erosion. He indicated he did not feel last year's amendment process was a great service to the community. SUGGESTION: ~ Review minor issues annually. ~ Major issues involving fundamental Plan policy directions and fundamental GMA compliance put on a 5-year docket for consideration; make it a bigger process - get the public involved really early in the process. Mr. McMahan indicated the process should not be changed this year; the public has a right to rely on the process already in the code; to change mid-stream would not be fair to anybody. He noted this paper is starting to define how one might go about changing the rules: ~ Start working on a code amendment that would be in effect for next year's planning process. ~ Differentiate between major and minor amendments. Something proposed that is a fundamental departure from our Comp Plan goals, goes far afield of the county-wide planning policies and consistency with the Jefferson County Plan, put on a 5-year docket. · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 15 According to state legislation this is to be implemented by September 1, 2002 -- year 2001 will be a roll up of Port Townsend's Comp Plan adoption. ~ Suggested the docketing process already in our code is the place to sort out when something is too big to handle in the annual process. We would allow the community to suggest anything they want, but when we docket what is actually going to move on forward,. and the Planning Commission makes its recommendation to Council on what we consider in the annual process, that is the opportunity to determine the big things not to be considered this year and put on the schedule for longer range consideration. ~ Page 3.8. -- 20.04.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. Things that are allowed to be visited each year. Things were broken out to be considered for yearly revisitation. ~ Considering codifying for 5-year docket. Solicit and get a citizen task force involved in October or November the year before like with the Comprehensive Plan, that can start considering 5-year issues with each of the planning elements, start public meetings (coffee hours, etc.) to ensure the community becomes very seriously involved at start of rewriting the Community Direction Statement and the Fundamental Goals and Policies of the Plan. Mr. McMahan pointed out this was just an introduction, and he was really desirous of Commission member's feed-back. He indicated that perhaps this fall, or later this summer, they can start working on a code amendment. ~ Ms. Thayer: Noted 5 years happens quickly; people got burned out by the Comp Plan; 5 years comes around and you start all over doing what was already done. She indicated it is going to be an enormous task to get participation. ~ Mr. McMahan: The legislature says we are supposed to do this every 5 years. ~ Mr. Worden: Do we have to look at every part again, or could there be a process where Staff and the Planning Commission identified what needed to be looked at, and get a task force to look at that, so it's not like a rewrite? ~ Ms. Thayer: Did not interpret it as a rewrite every 5 years. Mr. McMahan concurred. ~ Mr. Toews: Every 5 years we would have to ensure we are meeting the mandatory GMA requirements, e.g. land area identified to meet employment projections, etc.; not revisiting fundamental goals or policies of the Plan unless they have been found not to be meeting community needs. ~ Mr. McMahan: How do you make any sense of asking yourselves on an annual basis if growth and development is as anticipated? We do not have to do that; I think we are asking ourselves to do too much annually. The other thing it might allow you to do is, if someone comes in and wants to "scrap" a zone and rezone a large piece of property in a current zone (that zone and land use designation was fundamental to the mission of the Comp Plan and we could make that kind of finding), it would allow us to roll reconsideration of that zone into the 5-year amendment process. That might not make a land owner especially happy, but · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 16 I think there are grounds to do that, and it would be defensible, especially if we apply more strict change in circumstances tests to a rezone (which we are able to do under the code we have), if we require that applicant to prove that something changed. I find it hard to justify having a change finding a year or two after Plan adoption or after a significant amendment cycle. It protects the community from someone really trying to swing the goals and policies of the Plan away because they want to do something different with their land than the community anticipated when they initially adopted the Comp Plan. ~ Mr. Toews: Planning differentiating between minor and major is really key. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to do when you are making reference to material elements of the Community Direction Statement as well as identifying what is a significant and unifying principle of the Plan; there could be considerable debate among even the citizen participants who were involved in development of the Plan. ~ Mr. McMahan: Agreed, but said this is a discretionary decision. We can't draft this in a way where you can merely do a checklist and figure whether something is major or minor. You need to craft a finding where somebody asks for something. We are just trying to find some criteria, and would really appreciate some help; it isn't going to be easy to figure out. ~ Ms. Thayer: Are you asking to come back for a workshop or discussion? Mr. McMahan concurred -- within a month or so. ~ Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked regarding a timeframe. ~ Mr. McMahan: Said it needs to be done before the end of the year, because they will be into ~ next year's cycle at that time. ~ Ms. Thayer: Felt earlier would be better. ~ Mr. Worden: Asked regarding deadline for Planning Commission docket recommendations for the Comp Plan. ~ Ms. Thayer: I don't believe we are there yet. ~ Mr . Worden: Replied to Ms. Surber that he thought she had hoped they would be limited to things that have some urgency, and he could not find anything urgent. ~ Ms. Surber: The deadline will probably be incorporated into some other meeting agenda. vm. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings April 29. 1999 Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (open-record public hearing) May 13. 1999 Public Workshop to complete deliberations of the draft ordinance. May 27. 1999 IX. Communications. There was nothing. ;, · · · Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Page 17 X. Adjournment Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Chair Thayer reported Mr. Len Mandelbaum will be excused for the April 29th meeting. ~~~ r ~y Thayer, Chair ~?l~ (' Sheila Avis, Minute Taker · · · Guest List Meeting of: /~II AI AI/1/() Co# M 15 5ì'0AI IUO/2J'5'/IO ¡tJ Purpose: ' Date: c¡/¡ /c¡q , I Name 'p~... printl I Address I T;stimOn~? I ES I 0 I I I I I