HomeMy WebLinkAbout012408CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2007:00 PM
CITY HALL ANNEX -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
Meeting Materials:
EXH I Planning Commission Meeting Agenda -January 24, 2008
EXH 2 Draft Planning Commission letter to City Council, 2007 Development Regulation
Amendments - : ort Townsend Municipal Code & Shoreline Master Program Revisions,
February 24, 2008; marked Drafr with Steve (Emery) edits on page I
EXH 3 Draft Child Care Ordinance, prepared 11/02/07 (Line in, line out version)
EXH 4 A. Nelson & J. Surber, PTMC Code Amendments -Home Occupations -Workshop #3,
January 18, 2008 (Meeting Date: January 24, 2008)
EXB 5 Staff, Matrix: Home Occupation -Proposed Changes to Code, revised 1-17-2008
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM.
II. ROLL CALI.
A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Alice
King, Bill LeMaster, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray (arrived 7:30 PM), George Unterseher
Excused: Harriet Capron
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Kristen Nelson requested discussion under Upcoming Meetings. The agenda was
approved, as amended, all in favor.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of January 10, 2008 were deferred until the next meeting.
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None
VI. NEW BUSINESS-None
Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8 January 24, 2008
Vll. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PTMC CODE REVISIONS -Judy Surber, Senior Planner
A. Revised Child Care Drafr Ordinance -Review Edits from November 8, 2007
Ms. Surber recalled that the Planning Commission had requested review of wording
changes at the November 8, 2007 meeting. She referred to the Ordinance attached to the
packets (page 3 and 4 regazding age specifications) which shows the edits suggested by
the Commissioner. She requested that the recorder read excerpts from the approved
November 8 minutes, page 5, regarding existing day care centers, pre-existing nses, and
child age ranges.
Ms. Surber recalled that state licenses can be obtained for children less than 30 months of
age, but the parents must be on site in a co-operative arrangement. Mr. Unterseher asked
about pre-school state licenses, and was told that that stand alone schools must have a
state license. Commissioners then adjusted the proposed text by deleting the last sentence
of line 37.
Mr. Emery suggested adding "in home pre-schools have no state licensing procedures"
on line 43. In response to a question, Ms. Surber explained that the City is looking at
impact to the neighborhood, while the State is primarily concerned with safety. She
recalled that in earlier attempts to add some safety provisions, the City had determined
that the State would not make inspections for home pre-schools and considered adding
provisions for City inspection, which had been rejected by the City Attorney and DSD
Director due to liability concerns.
Ms. Surber said that all other edits from November 8 had been incorporated.
Regarding the Findings and Conclusions, Ms. Surber said that this draft was slightly
revised based on the November 8 meeting. In the Day Care section, there was a change
to include reference to the information that Erica Delma had provided in her testimony
(last page, Findings and Conclusions).
Chair Emery explained revisions he had made to his copy prior to the meeting:
formatting, spacing, and minor editing for streamlining the language. He noted the
specific changes of "child care" to "childcare", per his word processor, a change from
active to passive voice and hyphenation of "stand-alone". The use of the "track changes"
facility (MS Word) was suggested for future edits; Chair Emery said he would send his
edits in that format following the meeting. Ms. Surber said she would check the State
regulations and follow that convention. Mr. LeMaster pointed out a misspelling of
revisions on page 9, paragraph 2.
[Mr. Ray arrived at this point, 7:30 PM.]
There was a five minute break during which Ms. Surber attempted to retrieve Mr.
Emery's edits in track change format from her computer. However, her copy did not
show his track changes.
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8 January 24, 2008
There was a brief discussion about whether to approve the version in hand, or to wait for
Mr. Emery's track change version. Alice King moved to approve Mr. Emery's revised
document, pending Ms. Surber's review of Mr. Emery's edits. if anything of substance
is noted, Ms. Surber will bring that issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Unterseher seconded the motion. Mr. Emery agreed to copy all Commissioners as well.
The motion, as stipulated, was approved all in favor.
B. Findings and Conclusion -Review
There was a brief check to see if everyone was working from the same Child Care
Ordinance document (EXH 3).
Chair Emery noted that he had made additional changes to the Recital portion of the draft
Child Care Ordinance (EXH 3). Ms. Surber explained that the strike out and underline
language reviewed on November 8 begins on page 3, and there had not been changes to
the Recital portion.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Ray moved that the edits of November 8, pages 3 and 4 of
EXH 3 be affirmed. Mr. Fry seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor.
C. Home Occupation Ordinance -Workshop
Refemng to the staff report (EXH 4), Ms. Surber reviewed the work and process that
had taken place on the Home Occupation ordinance since August She noted that the
proposed changes to the code had been documented in matrix format (EXH 5) for ease
of understanding. After the initial work sessions, planning staff consulted with
Development Services staff to get their input and comments. The matrix is a melding of
Planning Commission comments and Development Services modifications. Once the
Planning Commission has walked through the matrix, staff will have sufficient direction
to prepare the bill format changes. Both the matrix and bill format will be available for
the hearing and decision-making.
The first issue discussed with Development Services is that the current code has only one
type of Home Occupation permit; Minor and Major would be new. Currently it is a Type
I, which requires no notice. The recommendation had been moving towards a Minor,
Type II, with notice and administrative approval and a Major, Type III, with notice and
hearings examiner process/approval. Development Services staff preferred to retain
Type I, but with some changes to the matrix, such as increases in restrictions. Type I's
would therefore have very little potential for impact.
For example, instructional classes has been stricken. For a Type 1, the limit is one person
at a time and only one vehicle at a time. She reviewed the parking conditions. Under
Type 1, a business vehicle, based on Planning Commission direction, must look like a
residential vehicle. She reduced the 9 feet limit and "big boz 'trucks are not allowed.
The suggested limit of 77 inches in height allows for a Dodge Caravan type but does not
P/annrng Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8 January 24, 2008
allow for the other type of truck. (These are not restrictions on trucks making occasional
deliveries to the Home Occupation location.) Larger vehicles would fall into Type II.
With regard to parking, under the Minor permit, new parking spaces are not to be created
to accommodate a Home Occupation. But, with a Major, which requires notice and
approval criteria, off street parking space maybe required.
The last part deals with new construction. The old code did not allow for new
construction and does not speak directly to it. Previous discussion has considered
allowing new construction provided the maximum floor area ration is not exceeded.
Therefore, DSD would not allow a Type I; any new construction would necessitate a
Type II or II.
George Unterseher raised questions about delivery trucks. Ms. Surber said that delivery
trips are treated separately. She reviewed the limits in the matrix: Up to 2 round trips per
day and 5 deliveries per week.
Bill LeMaster asked for clarification on a situation where a service or trade (plumber or
electrician, for example) does not operate at the residence, but does use the residence as a
business address. After sharing examples, it was generally agreed that the impact or
disturbance to the neighborhood is the primary consideration. George Unterseher cited a
case in town where an employee, not a business owner, stores/stages electrical materials
and parks several trucks at his residence. This would not be covered by the Home
Occupation regulations, even though there is impact to the neighborhood. Staff and
commissioners agreed that the overall intent is to minimize disruption and annoyance to
residential areas, not to prevent people from earning a living.
The Commission discussed the relative values of zoning (to separate residential areas
from commercial areas) versus minimizing carbon footprints by maximizing the use of
residential dwellings and properties for a variety ofpurposes. They considered the
optimal number of trips per day and other factors. They also considered the challenges
for owners to accurately estimate number of trips etc. at the time of permit application, as
well as the challenges of monitoring and enforcing these limits. Alice King noted that
the actual test is whether neighbors are impacted and whether they complain. Ultimately,
a highly successful home business may outgrow the residence and/or neighborhood and
need to move to a commercial location.
Mr. LeMaster suggested that different rules may be needed for different neighborhoods.
Ms. Surber pointed out that restrictions or limits can be based on the classification of the
road, i.e. local or arterial. Mr. LeMaster said that previously there had been tighter
restrictions on when notification is required; he preferred that neighbors always be
noticed up front, as with Type II and IIIs. Ms. Surber explained that DSD staff had been
concerned that that would cause more people to avoid permitting altogether. Objectives
also include making compliance (for residential appropriate businesses) easier, and
minimizing administrative overhead.
After further discussion, the Commission agreed that a balance is needed ih having rules
to protect neighborhoods without undue restrictions to Home Occupations and without
Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8 January 24, ZODB
unreasonable administrative cost. Mr. Unterseher said he believed the proposal was
reasonable and should be accepted.
Ms. Surber mentioned that she had done some research on other jurisdictions. She said
that Issaquah had the highest number of trips: 25 one-way or 12 round trips per day.
She noted that the number of trips per day for Major could be bumpad up, if the Planning
Commission so chose. For instructional, the number of vehicle trips is related to local or
arterial roads; this concept could be applied to all client related vehicle trips. After a
brief discussion about whether a higher number of trips is needed, members agreed that
relating the number of trips to the type of road made sense for all categories, not just
instructional.
The recommendation was: For Type Iis, 5 round trips on a local and more (up to 12) on
an arterial; for Minor, up to two round trips and more (up to 4) on an arterial. George
Unterseher expressed concern about the degree of detail. Judy Surber said approval
criteria must be met, regardless of type.
Judy pointed out that instructional is seen as a direct community asset; that was the basis
for treating it differently.
She then suggested these specifics: Under Major; Type II, 5 round trips on a local, 10
round trips on a major arterial. For Minor, Type I: 2 round trips on a local and 4 round
trips on a major. There were no objections.
Mr. Fry questioned specifying a physical vehicle size/height in inches considering that
technology changes fairly rapidly. A suggestion to address that by gross vehicle weight
was discussed. Ms. Surber reviewed the research staff had done; she said the gross
weight had not worked with this scenario. She used the example of a dump truck. Julian
Ray asked about bill board trucks that are popular in Seattle. Kristen Nelson said that
according to the sign code, such trucks are not allowed in Port Townsend. Ms. Surber
mentioned the Chrysler Town & Country, the Dodge Grand Caravan, and the Toyota
Sienna, noting they are all 68.9 inches in height. Cut away (commercial) vans, such as
plumber or insulation vans are 84 inches in height.
The Commissioners also discussed commercial plates as a differentiator. Mr. Ray noted
that commercial plates can be used regardless of size or weight, so that would not be an
effective differentiator.
There was mention that language could be changed to "similar to a family car' which
would leave the decision to the Director.
Mr. LeMaster asked about parking regulations and any restrictions on boats or
recreational vehicles (RVs) etc. to see if there was any synergy with regard to size.
Kristen Nelson said that RV parking downtown is not allowed; all agreed that there were
not similar rules for residential areas.
Planning Commission Meeting Page s of 8 January 24, 200&
There was additional discussion about the simplicity of Poulsbo's two page document,
and the need for Port Townsend to improve its code, because of the number of Home
Occupations here. The height limit of 77 inches was explained in detail, with examples.
A suggestion to use 80 inches was shown to be unfeasible.
Returning to the memo, Judy Surber asked if there were any objections to having Type I
for Minor permits? Mr. Ray voiced his support; there were no objections.
With regard to Instructional Activities, Ms. Surber said that "counseling'' had been added
to the definition. She noted that currently the code exempts A, B and C, as written here.
B had been recommended to be stricken, but she said that "occasional exceptions for
recitals, demonstrations and other similar gatherings" could be added.
After a brief discussion, Commissioners accepted the change to: ` .... occasional
exceptions such as recitals, demonstrations and other similar gatherings', and retaining
item B.
Commissioners also considered whether the restrictions on cars for were too stringent.
The outcome was to leave the regulation unchanged at two cars for all categories, not just
instructional, which allows overlap between appointments.
George Unterseher asked for clarification on the process and how these rules are applied.
Ms. Surber explained that an applicant for a business license fills out a form with these
various pazameters. Responses aze reviewed by DSD staff and a determination is made
as to whether the business is exempt or Type I or Type II.
Bill LeMaster described a scenario of a business in a residential zone, which is not the
primary residence of the business owner, and questioned whether or not it was legitimate.
Commissioners agree this is not in compliance with the law. He described further that
the building owners live on the second floor and rent the first floor space for the
business. After a brief discussion, Commissioners agreed that this situation is not in
keeping with the intention of the code.
Related to the above, Alice King noticed that a similar issue had been discussed at an
earlier meeting and did not seem to be covered under the documented changes. Ms.
Surber clarified that only the last round of changes are shown in the matrix, for the
purposes of this workshop.
Ms. Surber moved on to item 3: "This is just to say that the City can revoke the permit
for not meeting the conditions."
Mr. Emery noted that the second item 3 should now be called 3A. Ms. Surber noted that
this provision addresses situations where a decision is needed to deal with slight
variations that are not otherwise absolutely clear from the code. She described an
example of a counseling business just off Sheridan Street which has been allowed as an
exception because of the location and the types of surrounding uses, i.e. school and day
care center.
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8 January 24, 2008
She discussed criteria for approval. "We originally said that Type II would be processed
as a conditional use permit. When you look at the Home Occupation and Conditional Use
requirements, which are redundant, it seems unnecessary to invoke a conditional use
permit process." She referred to EXH B and asked if there were any suggestions to add
specific text to the Home Occupation code. There were none at that time, but Ms. Surber
noted there would still be opportunity zt the hearing for additional adjustments.
Additions and new construction -Under Type I (Minor), there is a recommendation to
allow no new structures or additions. Under Type II, new additions would be allowed to
the existing house or a stand-alone out building. One could not exceed the standard 500
square feet, or 25% of the gross floor area of the existing house, which ever is less. She
explained the rationale that is based on the ability to design/construct space that is in
keeping with the neighborhood and meets all conditions. All other building restrictions
and conditions apply.
Kristen Nelson again asked for clarification on round trips. After further discussion
about needs, variations, balance and the possibility of additional conditioning, Bill
LeMaster suggested removing the restriction on number oftrips entirely. Ms. Surber
advised against eliminating this parameter, noting that virtually all other jurisdictions use
it, and the lack of any metric would be burdensome for staff if complaints are made.
Ms. Surber suggested that the title of Approval Criteria be used instead of Required
Conditions, which was approved by the Commission.
Regarding the requirement of primary residency, Alice King read a previous change of
text aloud: "require the dwelling to be the primary residence of the principle
practitioner/business owner" (September 7, 2007 Code amendment, 3`d workshop, staff-
recommended change). Commissioners noticed the need for a definition of "primary
residence'. Kristen Nelson suggested new wording. " At least one person residing on the
premises must be the principle business owner or practitioner"; this was interpreted to
mean the person (principle owner/practitioner) could be a renter. There was no further
comment.
VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS
Jerry Fry moved and Alice Ring seconded that the February 74 meeting be cancelled;
agenda items will be scheduled for February 28, 2008. Agenda will include Home
Occupation Ordinance -Public Hearing and Update to Amendments on the Sign Code.
Scheduling beyond that date will be made a later date in consultation with Rick Sepler.
The motion was approved, all in favor.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None)
Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of B January 29, 2008
X. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Steve Emery called for adjournment of the meeting at 8:40 PM. All were in favor,
with none opposed.
,,
a
S e Ehnery, C i
~~7fi~' ~~k~L
Gail Bernhard, Recorder
P/arming Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 January 24, 2008