Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08092001 · · · DRAFT CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chainnan Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jerry Spieckerman, Jim Irvin, Frank Benskin and Lyn Hersey; Bernie Arthur was unexcused. Also present were BCD stafImembers Jeff Randall, Judy Surber and John McDonagh. Alan Youse and Mayor GeoffMasci represented the City Council. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda, and Mr. Spieckennan seconded the motion. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Spieckennan made a motion to approve the minutes of July 26, 2001 as amended, and Mr. Irvin seconded. All were in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment Workshop: Dwellin2 Unit Definitions & Code Cross-References BCD StafIPresentation was made by Ms. Judy Surber. She noted the schedule of Comprehensive Plan amendment workshops listed in her memorandum of August 2,2001 to the Planning Commission and stated the September 27th date to consider the fonnal amendment proposed by the Northwest Maritime Center was at the Maritime Center's request. The Commission indicated their preference of having longer and fewer meetings. It was detennined to leave the meetings as scheduled with the possibility of continued meetings. AMENDMENT #1 - Clarify definitions of UnitIBedroom and Various Housin2 Types ATTACHMENT A Issues raised on definitions regarding dwelling units or dwelling sites: Accessory structure: Strike -- duplications of accessory building. Mr. Randall also suggested strikeout in the code for consistency. Adult family home: Mr. Randall suggested amending to read, ". . .The maximum number of adults to be accommodated in such a home shall confonn to the requirements of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services as it exists now or is hereafter amended. . ." Bedroom: Clarification -- consistency with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) that a bedroom has to be attached to the primary house. UBC regulates by use. Mr. Masci asked if this is going to be way out of compliance with appraisal standards and suggested including the caveat to require a closet to be consistent. Mr. Randall indicated they also have the option of deciding a b~droom can be accessory to a single family house. Dwellin2 Unit: (Ms. Surber's handout.) To be more consistent with the UBC and to better define what a complete living unit consists of. Efficiency dwellin2 unit: Much the same as dwelling unit (no distinction in the zoning code from a single family residence; in the building code the most minimal house you can have -- approximately 400 sq. ft. including full facilities.) Family: Noting that it can mean a group of people unrelated by blood or marriage. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2001 Page 1 DRAFT Guest House: Policy question -- should detached bedrooms be pennitted in any zone? Reference made to requirements for Accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Guest houses are prohibited in the zoning code; BCD proposed adding guest house or detached bedroom in the use table and explicitly saying "prohibited." Mr. Spieckennan was bothered by the restriction. Mr. Randall said the proposal is that should be an ADU. Mr. . Spieckennan asked with a kitchen and bathroom and everything else? He strongly recommended removing the language as a requirement. BCD feels a decision needs to be made one way or the other. Halfway House: Mr. Spieckennan raised the issue that there are other kinds of halfway houses. Mr. Randall indicated they are a prohibited use within the city. Institution. educational: Housekeeping change to "schools." Nursinl!. rest. or convalescent home: Ms. Surber referenced her handout: ". . . means an establishment licensed by the State to provide full time complex or chronic care for seven or more individuals who by reason of chronic illness or infinning are unable to care for themselves." "Seven or more" differentiates- this from an adult family home. Mr. Randall felt Alzheimer units fit better in this category. Mr. Masci questioned, "Such care shall not include surgical, obstetrical or acute illness services." He pointed out Medicare restrictions which would impact that prohibition. "Services" was pointed out as a key word. Mr. Masci suggested this wording is out of compliance with medical reality, and suggested they might say "scheduled surgical care" to allow for emergency services, or such wording as "These facilities shall not contain an operating room." Planned unit development or PUD: Clarification - additional wording pointing out that through a PUD you can exceed the base density of the underlying zoning district, and also to change the units per structure. Townhouse or row house: Mr. Randall suggested the definition should be changed to five or more. Residential treatment facility: -- See Attachment C ATTACHMENT B (No changes yet.) Assisted Livinl! Facility: Listed in the comprehensive plan, but not in the zoning code. Decide whatever they are called, they are consistent throughout. Adult care homes are allowed in all residential districts; nursing home is not. Dwellinl! units: To make sure they are the same in both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. ATTACHMENT C - Table 17.16.020 Single-Family Residential Uses: _ Efficiency dwellinl! unit: Deleted. Mr. Randall clarified someone could build a very small house that meets _ the definition of efficiency dwelling unit -- it's a single family dwelling. Multifamily Residential Uses: Apartment houses: Insert #1 to reflect four dwelling units per structure could be modified through PUD approval. Boardinl!houses: Proposed separating from lodging houses. Permitted in all four zones. Consistent with definition offamily. Now no cap on number of boarders, and permitted outright. Changed to six or fewer roomers. Lodl!inl! houses: Not pennitted in R-I and R-II zones. Intensity of use, (potentially one car per lodger). Changed to 7 or more roomers. Nursinl!. rest or convalescent homes: Residential treatment facilities includinl! 2roup homes for the disabled: City Attorney suggested to strike the note and insert language in handout, "Group homes for disabled are protected by State and Federal law and cannot be treated differently from residential structures occupied by a family." Townhouses or rowhouses: Mr. Masci asked why not allowed in the R-II zone. Mr. Randall suggested the definition should be changed to 5 or more. Accessory Uses: Detached office/artists studio: Insert #2 - to allow home occupations in detached structures, consistent with the residential zone. Home occupation regulatións limit the size. Mr. Masci thought "artists studio" opened a caD ofwonns. "Detached office/studio was suggested." Ms. Hersey noted two different things -- someone building an office or studio for business, and somebody building a studio or office for recreational purposes. She suggested they be defined in both categories; give it to both so we don't have the issue. Mr. Randall suggested commercial versus non-commercial. Mr. Spieckennan suggested, "Commercial use subject to home occupation regulatiöns." Ms. Hersey repeated that it needed to be defined clearly in both categories separately (maybe a building to store tools or an office, and then wanting to run a business out of it). . Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 9, 2001 ;- DRAFT . Other Uses Schools. Hi!!her Education: Prohibited [Xl in R-I and R-Il zones; Conditional Use [C] in R-IIl and R-IV zones. Intensity of college is greater. Elementary - high schools are a service to the general community and people living next to them. College is an option, a destination and not as closely tied to the neighborhood. Not a lot ofR-III and R-IV available; they are conditional in P/OS; not pennitted in P/OSE and permitted outright in P-I zones -- could go for a rezone in P-I. PROBLEM AREAS IN A TT ACHMENTS A-C: 1. What do YOU call a house with two separate kitchens not cut off by the original house? Mr. Glenn Norcross pointed out it can be defined in a court of law by putting a lock on a door; when you stop access from one side to the other you change the whole thing -- it is a home with two kitchens. When that lock is on one side, you change the whole thing. Mr. Randall asked when does it become an ADU; an ADU has separation issues: I-hour ceiling, I-hour walls. Ms. Hersey suggested using the building code requiring a I -hour firewall for someone wanting two separate kitchens. Mr. Randall said they need a definition of kitchen. In the past it was defined as the oven; the oven/range is when it becomes a kitchen. Presently, with the second kitchen, it becomes and is regulated as an ADU. They can I-hour it, still use if for one family, but ifthey wanted to build a second ADU they couldn't do that. If they don't call it an ADU, they can't require the fire protection. Mr. Randall suggested that the other things plus the oven/range defines the kitchen; when you get enough living facilities in a structure or in a space, it becomes a dwelling unit, and that is what they are trying to define. Suggestions included: Mr. Masci supported Mr. Norcross' suggestion; when a kitchen is walled off, the decision is made for you, it is a dwelling unit. It isn't, if there is no barrier or anything. Mr. Norcross: define the kitchen, have the 220 range top (once you have hard wired it, it is obvious you have just made it a kitchen) -- define it to the maximum. Mr. Spieckennan: include in the building permit -- subject to and agree to the review process. Mr. Masci: inspection on sale. Ms. Hersey: complying to the codes is a safety issue -- require a I-hour firewall up front. Mr. Randall said if there is concern about people's rights to have multiple kitchens, they could have a definition: the dwelling unit has all the facilities and is separated by a wall or a door they lock from any other dwelling unit in the house with its own separate egress or ingress or to a hall. If they have these illegally, BCD would have to go in afterwards and force them to retrofit, or if they already have an ADU and have illegally converted something, make them tear it out. Ms. Surber asked ifthe definition of kitchen is -- oven range requiring 220 voltage or propane, you could have a second kitchen that would have everything but that, then if you had an ADU would you necessarily have to have a 220 range? . 2. Can someone build a guest house/detached bedroom without kitchen facilities? The Use Table now does not allow; you would have to make either an office or an ADU. Mr. Spieckerman felt accessory structures that contain bedrooms should be pennitted. Mr. Benskin questioned sanitation facilities. Ms. Surber said you would have to have a bathroom, but if you added a kitchen, it would become an ADU. Mr. Harbison asked if kitchen facilities should be the evaluator they should be using for a detached bedroom. Mr. Spieckennan did not see any reason to require sanitary facilities. Mr. Randall asked who thinks it would be O.K. in the code as an accessory use to a single, family dwelling to have bedrooms. Four out offive approved with reservations regarding sanitation facilities. Mayor Masci stated he had come to address concerns regarding the home occupation ordinance. He asked to interrupt the agenda to allow him to do this as he had to leave. HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE. PTMC 17.56 Mr. Masci spoke of the process evolution stating that some 20 years ago home occupations were defined by use. Mr. Dave Robison infonned him that in 1996 the ordinance was the most liberal in the State of Washington. Mr. Masci said'in 1999 the use of his home occupation was out of compliance, but the City did not notify him. . Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 9, 2001 DRAFT Mr. Masci made the followin~ points in reference to PTMC Chapter 17.56: 17.56.020 Permits required. (Wrong kind of permit.) You are dealing with a building pennit -- it should be a business pennit which could be regulated more flexibly and equitably, and not be a BCD problem. Think about separating it and making a business function. You can put caveats on it to take care of complaints; you could issue a . provisional pennit for 3 years with a I-year renewal based on complaints -- if the neighbors complain, you review it .. yearly. If you achieve 3 years with minimal number of complaints (you set a threshold), it is fine; review complaints for validity, and count egregious violations only. 17.56.030 Application process, Item D, Limitations. Only one pennit at one time --limits two people in a household from having different home occupations. Limits economic activity, the ability of hiring people, etc. Proposed text amendment. 17.56.060 Required conditions. A (Eliminate -- contradicts E) Totally unfair, i.e., you make a sun room to expand your waiting room -- you are not allowed to do that because it's related to your home business. C Becomes a problem if the business grows and you have to move it to a commercial building. Anti -economic development. F So as not to make the list prescriptive, insert such things as, ". . .(e.g., paintings, crafts or artwork, and hair care products incidental to a beauty salon, vitamins, orosthetic devices, etc..). . ." H ". . . only two commercial pickups or deliveries per day are pennitted." Strike, not realistic. J "Except for three non-resident workers, . .." (Is limiting.) Home businesses are supposed to be incubators for success to provide income for the community and employment for people. K "No more than one worker vehicle may be parked on-street, . .." (Unrealistic and unfair.) Discriminatory to small business which are less able to absorb this type of restriction than commercial districts. Also impacts "three non-resident workers" (J above). L "Home occupations that OCCUPy more than 500 sauare feet. . ." Mr. Randall pointed out that cannot be modified; it is a UBC, a state requirement, and is only included as a cross-reference. UBC says commercial business occurring in residential space that exceeds 500 square feet shall provide fire safety separation between the two -- I-hour wall, I-hour door. N "No production, generation of any hazardous substance, or storage of any hazardous waste shall be pennitted;" That would mean doctors, photographers, architects could not have a home occupation, yet it has always been an assumption those professions would be allowed. (Not applicable . unless you put some caveat that photographic, medical supply, medical waste is exempted.) 17.56.070 Minimum standards -- Minor Home Occupations. If you differentiate between minor and major, it is some kind of zoning or building issue. If you switch to business, you don't have to deal with this. Suggested the following if you leave this in: A Leave B Eliminate the 800 square foot. C Eliminate ". . . five customer vehicle trips per day;" (is destructive to success.) D "One sign identifying. . . three square feet. .." Six square feet and three si~ns is better -- two faces on a corner lot. No electric signs; signs could be reviewed. 17.56.80 Minimum standards -- Major Home Occupations. Problems created between minor and major home occupations: A "... within 1 00' of an arterial or collector street;" Why not 200'? B "No other maior home occupation may exist within 300 feet of the propertv;" Uptown -- Starrett House, Annapurna Inn and Ravenscroft Inn are all on adjacent lots. Enforcement issues -- i.e, parking, etc. C "... 12 customer trips per day;" D "Maximum floor area. . . shall not exceed 50% . .." Should be detennined by the construction of the building, not by an arbitrary number of square footage. It is losing site of the goals which are to encourage business, to allow people the most flexibility to be successful. With the Home Occupation act you can't track it; if you have a business license, you can tax them -- that is the difference. G "Off-street parking may be required if on-street parkin~ for the home occupation ~ inadeauate or would be detrimental to the nei~hborhood." Has to do with the nature of a specific thing. . Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 9,2001 ,. · · · DRAFT 17.50.090 Permit administration and enforcement. As a business -- you can check it out if it becomes a condition of issuing a license. You can be review it, and it can be controlled if something changes, and we can collect taxes. We can be more flexible and still have control over the development of growth and the uses of the neighborhood if we approach it from a business model standpoint. Answering Ms. Hersey's question of how the Planning Commission can move this forward, Mr. Masci stated home occupations are allowable in residential neighborhoods per application of business licenses and will fit the criteria of the business license ordinance; then it is up to BCD people to come up with the criteria. A lot of them will shift over from this ordinance. It becomes more of a financial issue than a building issue. It changes the paradigm and allows you to get those businesses that are soft and non-conforming and non-impacting into our economy. Mr. Randall explained, one thing Mr. Masci was saying, if you have zoning regulations and a conditional use pennit process that is fairly strict, e.g. limitations on trips, employees, and parking, it is forcing people underground. Mr. Irvin indicated they want to make this as flexible as possible, but there are impacts to the residential neighborhood. Mr. Spieckennan noted that home occupation restrictions should really be about protecting the neighborhood. He said if he buys a house in a certain area, that is what he wants it remain. Mr. Randall pointed out there will be a public hearing on this. Mr. Spieckennan felt too many of these issues were over-regulated. He suggested regulating safety issues, building codes, issues that impact the neighborhood -- e.g., how many buildings, the size, etc., and said who cares if they sleep in it, put in an office or an artist's studio? Problem areas in Attachments A-C (continued) 3. Sanitation and cooking devices in detached office. regulated as an ADD. Mr. Randall answered Mr. Benskin that it would have to be attached to a water and sewer source, the city's main line directly and pay SDCs, or the side sewer; an ADU can be either attached or detached from the main house. Definition of congregate living arrangement. Ms. Surber will do more research for definitions from those who run these facilities. Mr. Randall indicated if they say assisted living facilities should be treated like a nursing/rest/or convalescent home, they would not be allowed in R-I or R-Il zones; Mr. Harbison, it is how they fit in these zones. It is not the distinction of a complete cooking facility. Mr. Randall explained if they want them in R-II as conditional use, they do get into this issue, that the Comprehensive Plan is not clear and they have to decide when they have to be broken up into separate structures not to exceed four dwelling units per structure. He said if you want these buildings broken up, if you don't want these big, monolithic assisted living facilities in R-II, and there will be more, you should just say that these are basically dwelling units. Mr. Benskin and Ms. Hersey concurred with the idea of dwelling units. Mr. Irvin disagreed saying he supported the definition when you have a communal kitchen and dining room, and it is for the express purpose of congregate care, those units should not be defined as individual dwelling units and therefore be subject to being broken up; Mr. Randall, they are oriented around that common facility, even though they might have some amenities in their room. Mr. Irvin recognized that a lot of people don't want them in their back yard, but they are coming and we need to detennine where to put them. Mr. Harbison indicated the problem is, if they do consider them congregate care, and not consider them individual units, they have to detennine how much size they are willing to see in R-II. Mr. Randall concurred, ifthey allow them in R-II; they tend to be big and don't like to break them up because they are so reliant on those common facilities. Then maybe they should be allowed in R-III, R-IV or do a PUD which would give a little more flexibility and they could still be required to do some breaking up. Prohibiting them in R-II deals with a lot of the problem, treating them like a nursing home. If you do them in R-II with a PUD, you have to do density calculations. There is limited R-III and R-IV property, and so few that are set with the proper infrastructure. Adding the PUD to the R-II would need to be indicated in the code. Consensus: Allow in R-Il with a PUD and identify the density calculations. 5. Businesses pennitted in R-I and R-II zoning districts. Mr. Randall pointed out they had fixed the townhouse situation. 6. Calculation of parking in use tables. Ms. Surber said they would deal with the parking code later. 7. Difference between congregate care. assisted living, nursing/rest/convalescent home. grQ!!Q home. residential- treatment facilities? Ms. Surber explained that "group home" is state and federally protected. She referenced a Supreme Court ruling in Pasco where they could not require a special use pennit, we call a conditional usePlanning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 9,2001 DRAFT pennit. City Attorney Watts is reviewing that case and says the City may have to change its codes to allow group homes to be pennitted outright in all zones. She said in that case they want to tighten up the definition of group homes; she will have recommendations in time for the hearing. Now the definition for residential treatment facilities is broad. The Use Table says residential treatment facilities and group homes are together, ... nursing and convalescent homes are broken out separately. Residential-treatment facilities elsewhere in the code are pennitted, in the C-Il Hospital zone. Residential-treatment facility is not the same as group homes, not federally/state protected. Mr. Benskin questioned the definitions for residential-treatment and for halfway house. Mr. Surber said she and Mr. Watts are looking at it more as a halfway house. There was discussion regarding several of those definitions that are separated in the Use Table. Mr. Harbison suggested reference to recovery and transitional, and said that it appears the definition of halfway house clearly indicates that it is transitional housing from a more custodial confinement. Mr. Randall added that it is involuntary. Ms. Surber then said the one thing they don't have covered now is the drug and alcohol recovery; Mr. Harbison reiterated that it is recovery and transitional housing. Mr. Spieckennan added mental health. Mr. Benskin said rather than pennitting outright in R-I and R-Il there should be some kind of process to notify neighbors what is going on -- some kind of license, pennit or Í1úonnation process and regulation of it. Ms. Surber asked if mental health, drug, and alcohol transitional, and sex offenders would all be the same kind of concern? Mr. Benskin said they wouldn't be the same kind of people, but the same kind of consideration for the neighborhood should apply. Ms. Surber said she would find some way to differentiate residential-treatment facility from the rest. VI. OLD BUSINESS I. Draft Cottage Housing Ordinance 2. Draft SEP A Dwelling Unit Exemption Ordinance 3. Proposed Text Amendments to Home Occupation Ordinance PTMC 17.56 4. Draft Amendments to Wireless Facilities Regulations It was detennined to forego further discussion on the ordinances listed above due to a lack of time. Mr. Randall said BCD would schedule a public hearing for the August 30 meeting. It was detennined to convene the hearing at 6:00 p.m and to continue the hearing if there was not sufficient time to hear all four draft ordinances on August 30th. Public testimony and deliberation on ordinances requiring less attention, e.g. Nos. 4 and . 2, will be considered first. V. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 30,2001 -- 6:00 p.m. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS 1) Memo to City Council from City Attorney John Watts re New Open Meetings Act 2) Jefferson County Planning Commission Meeting regarding Major Industrial Developments (Mills), August 15, 2001, 7:00 p.m. WSU extension in Hadlock. Mr. Randall encouraged Planning Commission members to attend but asked that they not constitute a quorum. IX ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Larry Harbison, Chainnan Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 9, 2001 ~1' · City of Port Townsend Department of Building and Community Development Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-5081 FAX (360) 385-7675 ... .¡. Staff Report Date: To: From: Subject: August 23 submittal for Public Hearing on August 30,2001 Port Townsend Planning Commission John McDonagh, Planner (379-5085) Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to PTMC Chapters 17.08 (Definitions) and Chapter 17.78 (Wireless Facilities). BACKGROUND The proposed amendments to Chapters 17.08 and 17.78 are being sought to exempt certain types of next generation wireless antennas rrom review under the city's code. Specifically, these antennas are very small in size (not bigger than a 16-inch rectangle), low-powered and operated by unlicensed communication providers of wireless internet, fax and data services. Unlicensed radio equipment by definition requires no FCC license to install or operate. Chapter 17.78 presently makes no distinction between these types of antennas and traditional cell phone antennas and equipment, which are considerably larger. The effect of the wireless code, as currently written, will hinder the creation of wireless networks for the distribution of Internet data. · Workshops with the Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendments were held October 12, 2000 and January 25,2001. Minutes from both of these meetings are attached for your review. PROPOSAL Staff, in working with a local Internet provider, has drafted a series of amendments to various sections of the Wireless Facilities chapter (Chapter 17.78) and the definitions section of the zoning code (Chapter 17.08.040) that should adequately cover the various sizes & types of these antennas that may arise. A draft ordinance is attached, with the sections proposed for amendment shown in strikethrough and underline. · DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO PTMC CHAPTER 17.08.040 - DEFINITIONS, AND CHAPTER 17.78 - WIRELESS FACILITIES Ordinance No. . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 17.08 (DEFINITIONS) AND 17.78 (WIRELESS FACILITIES) OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF PERMITTED WIRELESS FACILITIES. SECTION 1 FINDINGS Whereas, * Whereas, * NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing and upon the record before the Port Townsend Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: . PTMC 17.08.040 - Definitions "Low power facility" means a licensed or unlicensed personal wireless service facility with a maximum transmitter peak output power that does not exceed the limits for such as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission. one '..vat!, Other than the antenna, all associated equipment for low powered facilities must be i&-Iess than 14 by 16 inches in length and width . and eight inches in depth. including all associated equipment, and may have an Low powered facility antennas have with a length not to exceed 30 inches, a width not to exceed 5 inches and a depth not to exceed 4 inches. Low powered facilities mounted on street poles in developed street rights-of-way are subiect to the provisions of Chapter 17.78.1 OO(D). PTMC 17.78.020 Scope and applicability - Exemptions. A. Scope. This chapter applies to the location, placement, construction and modification of licensed or unlicensed personal wireless service facilities as defined in this chapter. In addition to any other required permits, all proposals to locate, place, construct or modifY a personal wireless facility shall require a wireless permit as further set forth in this chapter; provided, however, that this chapter does not apply to personal wireless facilities located completely and entirely inside a building, as that term is defined in this chapter. B. Exemptions. The following personal wireless service facilities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Federal, state or local personal wireless facilities used for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness and public health or safety purposes; 2. Two-way communication transmitters used by fire, police, and emergency aid or ambulance services; . · 3. Citizen band radio transmitters and antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur ("ham") radio operators; 4. Unlicensed. low-powered. wireless communication antennas designed for mounting onto a structure. other than a street pole. the size of which does not exceed that as defined in 17.08.040. In addition. this exemption does not apply to those unlicensed facilities that would be located on buildings. structures. or street poles subject to the jurisdiction of the city's Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). In such cases. the proposed unlicensed facility placement must receive a certificate of design review trom the HPC prior to it's installation; 5. Emergency or routine repairs, reconstruction, or routine maintenance of previously approved facilities, or replacement of transmitters, antennas, or other components of previously approved facilities which do not create a change in visual impact or an increase in radio frequency emissions levels; 6. Military and civilian radars and marine vessel traffic. communication facilities, operating within FCC regulated frequency ranges, for the purpose of defense, marine or aircraft safety; 7. Temporary personal wireless service facilities; provided, that the city is notified in advance of the need for such facilities and the duration of their use; and 8. Existing facilities, subject to the requirements ofPTMC 17.78.150. PTMC 17.78.100 Review process - Preferred locations - Secondary locations - Low powered facilities - Variances. A. General Provisions. · 1. Comments. The BCD director may solicit comments from the public works director, building official, local utility providers, adjacent jurisdictions if the proposal is within one mile of another city or jurisdiction, the Washington State Department of Transportation (if the proposal is adjacent to a state highway), and any other state, local or federal officials as necessary. 2. Findings and Conclusions. Based upon comments from city departments and applicable agencies and all other pertinent information in the record, the decision- maker shall make written findings and conclusions documenting compliance with all approval criteria. Approval and design criteria are found in PTMC 17.78.110 through 17.78.120. Required conditions of approval are contained in PTMC 17.78.130. B. Preferred Locations - Review Process - Additional Notice Required. An application for the siting of personal wireless service facilities in a preferred location shall be processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, Land Development Administrative Procedures, as an administrative permit with notice and appealable to the hearing examiner, except as follows. The notice of application and notice of an appeal of a Type II action shall be mailed to the latest recorded real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least 1,000 feet (for monopoles and macro-facilities) or 300 feet (for mini-facilities and micro-facilities) of the boundary of the property upon which the development is proposed. C. Secondary Locations - Additional Notice Required. An application for personal wireless service facilities siting shall be processed according to the criteria for the particular type of permit set forth in PTMC 17.78.090 through 17.78.100 and as provided in Chapter 20.01 · PTMC, Land Development Administration Procedures. The decisionmaker on Type II pennits wiH be the BCD director. The decision-maker on Type III/conditional use permits wiH be the hearing examiner due to the special expertise involved in these applications. Type III/conditional use permits, will also be subject to the review criteria set forth in Chapter 17.84 PTMC, Conditional Uses, and the design review and approval criteria set in . PTMC 17.78.110 through 17.78.120. In addition, for all permits requiring public notice, the . notice of application and notke of public hearing shan be mailed to the latest recorded real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least 1,000 feet (for monopoles and macro-facilities) or 300 feet (for mini-facilities or micro-facilities) of the boundary of the property upon which the development is proposed. D. Low Power Licensed and Unlicensed Facilities. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, low power licensed and unlicensed facilities mounted on street poles in developed street rights-of-way may be permitted in all zoning districts (including residential) and processed as Type I, administrative review process, pursuant to Chapter 20.01 PTMC; provided, however, that such facilities remain subject to any franchising or licensing fees established by the city council. Low power licensed and unlicensed personal wireless service facilities are defined as facilities with a maximum transmitter peak output power that does not exceed the limits for such as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission. one watt, Other than the antenna. all associated equipment for low powered facilities must be is-less than 14 by 16 inches in length and width and eight inches in depth. including all associated equipment, and may have an Low powered facility antennas have with a length not to exceed 30 inches, a width not to exceed 5 inches and a depth not to exceed 4 inches. 1. Low power licensed and unlicensed facilities on new street poles. The placement of low power licensed or unlicensed facilities on new street poles in developed street . rights-of-way shall be processed as a Type II administrative review process, pursuant to Chapter 20.01 PTMC, with mailed notice to adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposal. E. Historic Preservation Committee Review. No personal wireless service facility. including those exempted pursuant to PTMC 17.78.020.B.4. that is proposed to sflall-be located on buildings, structures, or street poles subject to the jurisdiction of the city's Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) pursuant to Chapters 2.72,17.30 and 17.80 PTMC, and no city permit or approval for such an activity shall be placed or put into service be issued unless a certificate of design review has been issued by the HPC and all other city permits or approvals for such an activity have been obtained. F. Variance Procedure. Any applicant may request that the requirements established by this chapter be modified. Such request shall be processed according to the procedures for variances in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, and shall satisfy the criteria of Chapter 17.86 PTMC, Variances. In addition to the approval criteria ofPTMC 17.86.050, in granting any variance the decisionmaker must also find that: (1) there are no increased noise, aesthetic or safety impacts on adjoining properties as a result of the proposed variance; and (2) in the case of a historic building or structure, the variance wiH continue to allow for effective concealment, disguise or camouflaging of the facilities. The decisionmaker shall not grant a variance from the provisions of this chapter which establish the allowed, conditional and prohibited uses within the various zoning districts. . · · · SECTION 3 TRANSMITTAL TO OCD The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the State Office of Community Development within 10 days of adoption of this ordinance. SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after the date of its publication in the manner provided by law. SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such order or judgment shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder of any part of this ordinance. To this end, the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this law are declared severable. Read for the first, second, and third times and adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a regular meeting thereof, held this 18th day of June, 2001. GeoffMasci, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: Pamela Kolacy, City Clerk John Watts, City Attorney CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 12, 2000 . I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Jerry Spieckerman, Bernie Arthur, Jim Irvin and Frank Benskin. Christine Ota and Karen Erickson were excused. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall and John McDonagh. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Appointment of a new Chair for the Planning Commission was questioned and added to the agenda as New Business Item 3. All were in favor of accepting the agenda as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of September 28, 2000 as written and corrected was made by Mr. Arthur and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. . V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposed Amendments to PTMC Chapter 2.72 -- Public Hearing Chair Harbison pointed out this proposed amendment is regarding the structure of the Historic Preservation Commission. He called for BCD Staff Planner John McDonagh to make the staff presentation. Mr. McDonagh reported the proposed ordinance would amend Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 2.72. He noted two previous workshops with the Commission in June and September and stated the intent of the changes is to qualify the City for recognition as a Certified Local Government (CLG). He reminded that CLG status would: - . Establish a local register of historic places. This would allow the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) functions to be expanded to accept nominations and to vote whether to include specific properties that lie outside of both the special Urban Watemont District and the National Historic District which also e Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 October 12, 2000 · extends into uptown. It would basically allow any properties that lie within the city limits of Port Townsend that met certain criteria based on their architectural integrity, significance, etc., and allow the City to apply for grants from the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Currently those grants are typically pretty small and are usually limited to educational types of brochures, repayment costs involved with conducting surveys, etc. · Extend the special valuation process the City currently has for properties within the Historic District to those properties that would be listed on the Historic Register. Mr. McDonagh distributed replacement pages 4 and 6 of the draft ordinance with late recommendations from City Attorney Watts. He highlighted changes: · Page 4, Paragraph 5, HPC authority - changed to clearly say the committee initiates recommendations for listing on the Port Townsend Register of Historic Places. (This change is in response to Mr. Arthur's question regarding what happens when HPC makes a nomination - is that final, or is that something that is ultimately the BCD Director's call? It is a recommendation to BCD just as it is on any of their other current decisions.) · Page 6, 2.c., line 4, -- to correct typographical error, "the" is stricken. Also added at the end ofline 4, " .. . for the BCD Director's decision on the nomination, ..." · Mr. McDonagh stated although he invited HPC members, none had been able to attend this meeting, but this is draft ordinance was reviewed by the HPC. The CLG coordinator from the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation has also reviewed this draft; she has indicated if this worked out, it would satisfy their criteria for granting CLG status to Port Townsend. Chair Harbison asked if any Commission members wished further review. Ouestions from Planning Commission: Mr. Spieckerman: You have removed the word "maintained." Who now maintains the list? Mr. McDonagh: It would be BCD -- the HPC via the Building and Community Development Department. We could modify that paragraph 5 a little further to make sure. Mr. Spieckerman: The previous writing said it would be the Historic Preservation Committee that would maintain the list. So what do you do with "maintain"? Mr. McDonagh: It would be BCD. Maybe some additional clarification in that paragraph would be good -- " . . . the official register shall be . . . " Mr. Harbison: So it would not be the committee? Mr. McDonagh: Really anything HPC does and maintains anyway is in effect. Mr. Harbison: If this refers to the Historic Preservation Committee, in essence we are talking about that responsibility in the end lying with BCD. Mr. Spieckerman: Does that seem necessary to be included there? Mr. McDonagh: It is something of a minor point. Mr. Spieckerman: Is there wording now of who maintains it? · Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 12, 2000 Mr. Randall: We don't have one. We could simply add a sentence at the end of the paragraph saying, "The list shall be maintained by BCD.,j Mr. Spieckerman thought it would probably be worthwhile to clarify who is the holder of the list. Mr. Randall: The HPC, much like yours, acts as a committee. It is rather difficult for a committee to maintain the list. Mr. Irvin: Would it be more appropriate to put that under the register of historic places, 2.72.65 on Page 5? Mr. Harbison: Or is it related to the structure of the committee that needs to be referred to? Mr. Randall: That may not be a big issue for HPC, but it might be an issue for CLG status, that the city is clearly going to maintain those records. Mr. McDonagh suggested adding to Page 4, second line of#5 -" . . .This official register shall be maintained by BCD and compiled of buildings, . . . " Mr. Spieckerman: The only thing I would have against that is that this section is talking about the authority of the HPC. I would suggest that line be added under Section 2.72.65 as paragraph 5, bottom of Page 6, and simply list it there as one line saying, "This list shall be maintained by BCD." Essentially that paragraph is discussing register of historic places and is essentially the list there. Mr. McDonagh suggested adding a new Section 5 to 2.72.65, Register of Historic Places, saying, "The list of properties on the local Register of Historic Places shall be maintained by BCD." · Public Testimony: At 7: 17 p.m. Chair Harbison called for Public Testimony. There was no public testimony; Chair Harbison closed public testimony and asked for Commission discussion. · Commission Discussion: Mr. Arthur: We had talked about dispute resolution. Mr. McDonagh: HPC recommendations, as changes have indicated, go to the BCD Director for his final approval. BCD Director's Type IA decisions on HPC recommendations may be appealed to the Hearings Examiner. Mr. Arthur: So we don't need anything in here; There is a structure. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: . 2.72.65, Register of Historic Places, adding a new Section 5 saying, "The list of properties on the local Register of Historic Places shall be maintained by BCD." . Ordinance Title changed to read" . . . State Office of Archeology. . ." MOTION Mr. Spieckerman Send the ordinance to City Council as amended this evemng · Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 12, 2000 · · · SECOND . VOTE Mr. Arthur Passed unanimously,S in favor Mr. McDonagh reported there has been discussion the federal Department of Interior proposed in its budget and it just passed Congress to have a substantially greater sum of money that would trickle down to state governments for their CLG programs. It looks like they are going to have more monies for capital projects or larger projects than just simple brochures and educational types of grants. 2. Workshop on amendments to: a. PTMC 17.78, Wireless Facilities Mr. McDonagh introduced Mr. Ned Schuman, a local businessman and owner of OL YMPUSNET, and he said a lot of these changes have actually come about with suggestions from Mr. Schuman who served on the Wireless Facilities subcommittee and was very involved when the city was working on drafting its ordinance. Mr. McDonagh stated the purpose of the changes is to help deal with the wireless technology which is changing very rapidly and new technology which is emerging. He spoke of impacts and outlined changes needed to the Port Townsend Wireless Facility ordinance by this changing and emerging technology. Mr. Schuman showed a sample of the very small antennas, approximately 16 inches square, that would make wireless internet, fax, modem and data services available at your home. Mr. McDonagh explained that if the City makes these exempt from our Wireless Facilities code, it is going to be exempt from SEP A review. He said that someone could go to a provider, sign up and follow the instruction manual on how to mount this antenna under the eave of their roof and point it in the proper direction to receive this service. Most antennas, microcells, on the horizon of this type of service fall well within the size definitions spelled out in the WACs. They cover a wide range of services, beyond just the type service OL YMPUSNET may expand into. Mr. McDonagh turned the workshop over to Mr. Schuman who distributed copies of his comments and made his presentation. Mr. Nick Worden who also served on the committee was present and joined in the discussion following the presentation. It was noted, Mr. Worden and Mr. John Watson, also of the committee, reviewed the draft changes. Mr. McDonagh indicated this is being put out for Commission information; BCD will be refining it and bringing it back around the end of year. Chair Harbison requested Commission members to contact BCD of any comments they have in reading through the material. Mr. McDonagh and Mr. Randall concurred. b. PTMC 18, Land Division Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 12, 2000 McDonagh stated the proposed changes regarding phased development more or less mirror those in Clark County. Mr. Randall spoke to the issues of time limitation on final plat submittals and time . extensions. He spoke of two PUD's which would very soon be affected by impacts of the current time limitations, Lynsfield and Hamilton Heights. During discussion that followed, Mr. Arthur stated that developers in Port Townsend don't have unlimited resources and without extended time limits, you sometimes put development in the hands oflarge developers who can put it into the existing time frames. He suggested if it is not flexible enough for small developers to develop, they might end up just infilling vacant lots. Mr. McDonagh spoke of the need to act quickly to effect the proposed changes. c. Expansion of a public utility located in the C-III zone. Mr. Randall stated U.S. WEST, now QWEST, has requested expansion of their uptown building located in a C-III zoning district. He said nothing in the zoning code fits their use. Impacts of the current zoning and rezoning were discussed. 3. Appointment of a new Chair for the Planning Commission Vice Chair Harbison said it was requested that consideration be given to election of a new Chairperson for the Commission, in granting the wishes of current Chair Karen . Erickson to step down. It was determined it is appropriate to conduct an election of officers, but since Ms. Ota is not present it was felt to withhold an election for a time when the full Commission would be available. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 26, 2000 - Possibly cancelled Mr. Randall introduced Jean Walat, new BCD Staff Planner. Ms. Walat comes to Port Townsend from New Jersey. Chair Harbison again reminded Commissioners to contact BCD with any suggested changes to the proposed amendments considered at this meeting. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS - Current Mail IX. ADJOUIRNMENT . Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 12, 2000 · · · Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Spieckerman and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Larry Harbison, Vice Chair Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 12, 2000 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25,2001 · I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Larry Harbison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Bernie Arthur and Frank Benskin. Jim Irvin, Karen Erickson, Christine Ota, and Jerry Spieckerman were excused. BCD staff members present were Jeff Randall and John McDonagh. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Arthur and seconded by Mr. Benskin. All were in favor. IV. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Mr. McDonagh indicated that since the minutes of November 30,2000 had not been included in Commission packets, they would therefore be reviewed for approval at the next meeting. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS -- Workshop: Discussion of the following Code Amendments: · A. Chapter 20.01 - Administration of Land Use Regulations Background: The proposed changes would alter the way in which BCD processed Type III land use applications. As proposed, all Type III applications would be subject to a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, rather than the Planning Commission. Mr. Arthur stated he was satisfied with the information as presented. Discussion followed regarding the benefits of a Hearing Examiner. Mr. Randall pointed out the new role of the Planning Commission would allow the Commission to do more long-range planning. He noted that the new Hearing Examiner has a good record, and he felt he would do a good job. Mr. McDonagh stated he would brief those members who are absent on the changes to the appeal process suggested by City Attorney Watts before the public hearing now scheduled for February 22,2001. B. Chapter 18 - Land Division Background: The proposed amendments to Chapter J 8 would provide longer time frames for submittal and approval of final plats and short plats. Discussion covered pitfalls that now exist and proposals for remedy. Mr. McDonagh noted the need to accommodate existing development. Both Mr. Benskin and Mr. Arthur stated they felt the changes were well done. · · · · C. Chapter 17 ~ Wireless Facilities Background: The proposed amendment to Chapter 17.78 is being sought to exempt certain types of next generation wireless antennas from review under the city's code. Discussion included disposal of outdated equipment and questioning regulation other than for health and safety. Mr. McDonagh spoke of changing technology and the probability of recurring need to come back for further changes. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS February 22,2001 - Public Hearings for Amendments to Chapters 20.01 and 18 VIII. COMMUNICATIONS - Current Mail The Peninsula Planner, January 2001 Chair Harbison suggested regarding any available conferences that the Commission identifY areas of interest. Mr. Arthur expressed his interest in SEP A laws. Further discussion regarding SEP A laws followed. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Arthur and seconded by Mr. Benskin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:14 P.M. t%L ,/ . ~CV\ Larry Harðison, Chair æ~¡f~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 2