Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06292000 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm June 29, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 25, 2000 V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business Workshop - Discussion of Several Code Amendments VII. Upcoming Meetings: July 13,2000 - Review of City Council Docket for 2000 Comp Plan Update VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 29, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Karen Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lany Harbison, Christine Ota, Jeny Spieckerman, and Bernie Arthur. BCD staffmembers present were Jeff Randall, director, and John McDonagh. City Council representative was Alan Youse. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of May 25, 2000 as written was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ~- There was no unfinished business. VI. NEW BUSINESS Workshop -- Discussion of Several Code Amendments Mr. Randall stated BCD wanted to touch base with these draft amendments, that they are working drafts and probably not complete; environmental review is in process. Mr. John McDonagh, associate planner who drafted the amendments, continued discussion and answered questions. A Chapter 2.72 -- Historic Preservation Committee Background: The proposed changes to Chapter 2.72 are being sought to qualify the city as a Certified Local Government (CLG) with the State Office of Historical and Archeological Preservation. CLG status will allow the city to apply for additional grant monies from the State dealing with historic restoration. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 2000 Page 2 Many communities with even a modest historical area have attained this certification. Mr. McDonagh noted the following changes: .. §2.72.060 A5. -- Local register maintained. .. 92.72.Q60 B.6. -- Is proactive. .. 92.72.065 1. Sets out criteria and sets up a register. .. §Z.72.0Q5 4.c. -- The carrot is "a special tax yl!luation" DISCUSSION: Mr. Randal1 pointed out there are a lot of benefits, that grant monies could be available to places that would now qualify in other parts of town outside the Historical District. Mr. Arthur questioned §2.72.060 Authori1Y and fiplctions, that it seems the HPC has the first right of refusal. Mr. Randall replied that BCD is the decision maker, that the HPC is a design review board. Mr. Arthur asked if §2.72.060.A.2. is a duplication of §2.72.060.B.8. Mr. McDonagh noted there could be some duplications, that they could be changed. The meaning of elements such as "special, economic" in 92.72.065.l.d was raised. Mr. Randall stated the meaning of what they have should be clear and suggested including State staff in discussions to assure accuracy. Mr. Spieckerman asked regarding §2.72.065.4.b. and how a person can do something in violation of a building permit. Mr. Randall noted the reference to PTMC 17.30 and 17.80 and BCD's role. Mr. McDonagh clarified if there are civil infractions they could lose the special tax valuation. It was pointed out this is a "first touch" and that BCD would be getting back to the Planning Commission after this workshop. B. Chapter 17.08 and 17.86 -- Minor Variances Backgro1.ij1d: The proposed changes are to the definition of a Minor Variance found in Chapter 17.08 and to the Variance chapter itself, 17.86. The changes to 17.86 clarify what the purpose of a Minor Variance is and lessen the review criteria they must meet. Through these amendments, BCD will be better equipped to address certain land use proposals that can't meet the strict criteria of a full variance. Some examples of such situations include: · Construction on a lot that is too narrow (less than 10%) of the required minimum width; · Expansion and/or alteration of pre-existing non-conforming structures; . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 2000 Page 3 · Reducing, by 10% less than the required minimum, setbacks for projects that involve ESA's. Mr. McDonagh noted the following: Chapter 17.08 -- Definitions .. The distinction between variances and that the definition in Title 17.08 would allow new building, not just expansion. The classic 50xlOO lot size is not included in "c." Cha'p~er 17.86 -- Permit review process .. The standard for a minor variance is now the same high standard as a major variance (he gave examples). The Type U process is without public hearings. DISCUSSION: Ms. Erickson asked regarding the definition of minor variance. Mr. McDonagh indicated the definition is the same except for underlined additions. Mr. Arthur cited personal experiences and stated, depending on the applicant and BCD director -- if there are personality clashes, he was curious as to whether this kind of minor variance application is going to be equally applied. Mr. McDonagh replied there is no surety except the confidence placed by the City Council. Mr. Randall indicated the 5000'lot size is not big by other cities' standards, and he spoke of aggregate situations. Mr. Arthur spoke of aggregate being fair, that it goes both ways. You need to be aware of what is in the neighborhood, how the traffic flows. Mr. Randall replied they do not want to create traffic problems. C. Chapter 20.01 -- Administration of Land Use Regulations Background: The proposed changes would alter the way in which BCD processes most Type U and Type Ulland use applications. As proposed, all Type III applications would be subject to a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, rather than the Planning Commission. To offset this expanded role of the Hearing Examiner, many Type ill applications would be reclassified to allow Type U (administrative) review. These reclassified applications would be reviewed and approved by BCD with an option by the Director to refer them to the Hearing Examiner if they involve complex legal, factual and planning issues. Mr. McDonagh reviewed §20.01.040 Table 1 - Permit/Decisions; Table 2 Action Type; Footnotes, and Summary of Decisionmaking. He explained that: .. Type III situations would be allowed to be done administratively with the caveat of taking complex issues to the Hearing Examiner. . Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 2000 Page 4 .. Subdivision lots of record, 10 or more, would be handled by BCD rather than going before the Planning Commission. DISÇUSSION: Ms. Erickson questioned about personal wireless under Type TIT. She also asked that BCD come back with the original and examples for changing. She expressed concern regarding how they would know from neighbors of Type II changes if the neighbors were not notified. She said she was not comfortable with that sliding over without examples from the past. Mr. Arthur raised the issue of binding site plans and the possibility of wanting a public hearing. Discussion ensued. Mr. Randall pointed out that this draft would be reworked and would come back in approximately 1-112 months for more review. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Upcominfl Meetinfls: July 13,2000 -- Review of City Council Docket for 2000 Comp Plan Update . Mr. Randall reported City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan docket with no changes and that the environmental review is now in process. He indicated there are mapping errors that need to be corrected. Vlll. COMMUNICATIONS -- There was nothing to report. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. ~/j G. J R-¿~ htlh- ---- Karen Erickson, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker .