Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062308CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session the twenty-third day of June 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Michelle Sandoval presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were; Brent Butler, David King, Laurie Medlicott, George Randels, Catharine Robinson, Michelle Sandoval, and Mark Welch. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Senior Planner Judy Surber, Development Services Director Leonard Yarberry, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE OMNIBUS ORDINANCE Senior Planner Judy Surber reviewed the packet material, noting that the "omnibus" ordinance contains several unrelated changes to the municipal code. Staff is allowed to bring forward such revisions as long as the revisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The Development Services staff works very closely with the code and they keep a running list of suggested changes to move forward for Council approval. She referred to the Planning Commission memo of February 24, 2008, showing their findings and conclusions in support of the omnibus ordinance. Included in the Planning Commission's findings was a recommendation to approve the minor variance ordinance which proposes greater administrative flexibility in certain circumstances. Ms. Surber noted that the child care ordinance has already been addressed separately by the Council. Consensus was to review each proposed amendment. 1. Create provisions for homeless shelters in the C-Il and C-Ill zones. Ms. Surber noted she worked with shelter providers, in particular deforest Walker of OLYcap. There was discussion of having the fees waived for these conditional use permits. Another recommendation from Ms. Walker was that the 29 consecutive day limit was too restrictive. Staff recommends replacing "29 City Council Workshop Page 1 June 23, 2008 consecutive calendar days" with "a specified time limit" which would be spelled out in the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Randels asked about the rationale for excluding the C-II(H) zone from this use, considering the many comments received about shelters being placed near service providers (ie Jefferson Healthcare). Ms. Surber noted that it is a very limited area but this section could be revisited to include C-I I (H). Ms. Surber also noted that the number of people who could be housed in churches in an emergency situation was not addressed in this ordinance. She stated she is working with Pastor McMillan as representative of the ecumenical community but has not heard back as to whether churches feel the need to increase the number from the current maximum of six. 2. Clarify the number of detached dwelling units allowed on one lot in the R-I and R-ll zoning districts. Mr. Randels suggested that a footnote be used to translate the code into "user friendly" words. He also noted that the word "bedroom" remains in the table ("units/bedrooms") when action has been taken to eliminate the use of "bedrooms" as a unit of density. Ms. Surber noted that she will bring forward a footnote for Council review. 3. In the C-I/MU and C-ll/MU mixed use zoning districts, add 2 feet to the minimum ground floor clear ceiling height and allow a requisite increase in maximum building height by 5 feet. 4. In the C-Il and C-ll(H) commercial zoning districts, add 2 feet to the minimum ground floor clear ceiling height and a requisite increase in maximum building height by 5 feet. Ms. Surber noted that, for example, a builder had difficulty fitting a ventilation system into a recent project under the current restrictions. Mr. Randels asked why this would not include the C-III zone. Ms. Surber stated she thought it is already in place in C-III but will follow up and add if needed. Mr. Yarberry noted that this requirement would not necessarily make plan review easier but would make construction easier. Ms. Sandoval expressed concerns about the overall allowable height increase and whether it would cause problems in terms of views being blocked and other issues to existing neighbors. She asked for more information on the overall impact. Ms. Surber noted that individual project review would also be done and that would take such issues into consideration. City Council Workshop Page 2 June 23, 2008 5. Provide clarifying language as to what occurs when bonus density for a Planned Unit Development results in a fractional dwelling unit. This would include a process for rounding the bonus calculation figure up or down. Staff was asked to look at determining bonus density if the property in question covers two different zones. 6. Clarify the requirements for lighting in Multi-family Residential Developments. 7. Require surveys done by licensed surveyors for lot line adjustments. 8. Take out requirement to show building envelopes on final short plat maps. Questions were raised about the advisability of this change; if the building envelope has been approved, why would the city deviate from the approved requirement. Ms. Surber noted that an example would be a subdivision which has a critical area with a buffer. The applicant must show you can get a buildable lot on each area; if the answer is yes, the application can go forward, however setbacks may change over the years. The requirement would indicate that it is possible, not that the exact footprint must be followed. Mr. Watts stated the Council could make it binding, like a CC & R or a covenant imposed by the Council. 9. Remove requirement to have persons or corporations with a security interest sign and approve the final short plat. 10. Remove the requirement to have persons or corporations with a security interest sign and approve the final plat. 11. Revise an incorrect word in the preliminary plat chapter 12 Remove requirements to show building envelopes on final plat maps and add Language for certification by the County Treasurer. 13 Create a new section adopting the optional DNS process for the State Environmental Protection Act Mr. King asked whether a second review would still be optional. Ms. Surber. stated it would be and the SEPA responsible official would make the determination. Mr. Randels asked if there had been consideration of whether a two hearing process may be appropriate for non-minor projects, resulting in more public process. 14. Clarify maximum density for development within confirmed critical areas City Council Workshop Page 3 June 23, 2008 15. Clarify the requirement for geologically hazardous slopes Mr. Randels stated that staff might consider changing the language to make this section more clear; perhaps providing a table rather than text. 16. Coordinate the Critical Areas Code and the Shoreline Master Program regarding residential development and steep slope buffer reductions. 17. Add mailing to adjacent property owners to the Type 11 public notice requirements, modify when publishing is required for Type 11 permits, and require that a title company prepare the list of property owners and add references to the Shoreline Master Program within the development permit application framework PTMC Section 20.01.1000 and insert references to Shoreline Master Program permits to the Project Permit application framework tables. PTMC Section 20.01.040 18. Remove additional standards for public notice on Shoreline Program Permits. 19. Clarify the information required for applications regarding site specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. 20. Revise short plats that involve vacations to make them Type 111 applications 21. Add references to the Shoreline Master Program within the development permit application framework. 22. Insert reference to Shoreline Master Program within the Development Permit Application Framework. 23 Revise Urban Development regulations to require a minimum ground floor clear ceiling height of twelve feet and allow a requisite increase in maximum building height by five feet. (amend Shoreline Master Program) Consensus was that items needing clarification or further review based on Council questions would be referred to the Community Development/Land Use Committee for review and recommendation. MINOR VARIANCE APPLICABILITY AND CRITERIA ORDINANCE Ms. Surber noted that this change would allow more flexibility on minor variances and provide administrative approval of minor relief from bulk and dimensional requirements in certain circumstances based upon consistency with proposed review criteria. Ms. Sandoval said that some "real life" examples would be helpful City Council Workshop Page 4 June 23, 2008 Mr. Randels stated that five percent may be a bit too much flexibility; in many instances five percent would not be "minor." Mr. King asked what would prevent this from becoming a new de facto standard. Mr. Yarberry noted that this would be helpful with certain unusual situations. Consensus was to refer the proposed minor variance issue to the Community Development/Land Use Committee for their review and recommendation. RECESS Mayor Sandoval declared a recess at 8:17 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:24 p.m. EMERGENCY DECLARATION -HOUSING Ms. Surber stated that the declaration (declaring a housing emergency for low and moderate income households) was drafted as a joint City/County resolution for the Council's review. She stated it stems from RCW 84.52.105 linking emergency declarations to affordable housing levies, although a levy is not recommended at this time by the Housing Action Plan Network Advisory Group (HAPN). Ms. Surber noted that she contacted a number of agencies and found that most of them felt an emergency declaration may help and "won't hurt" an application. She added that because there has been some discussion as to whether an "emergency" declaration is appropriate terminology, another draft has been included changing the language of the sample resolution to "affordable housing crisis." Regarding housing grants already submitted, Mr. Timmons noted that the CDBG grant for Habitat has come through and grants that OLYcap has applied for have not been successful because too much of the grant was earmarked for administration. Mr. Butler stated he was supportive of the language in the revised resolution. Mr. Randels noted that there are plenty of facts demonstrating the need for affordable housing in Jefferson County without making such a declaration necessary. These include strong demonstrated support by local government for the goal of trying to solve the affordable housing problem; for example, establishment and endorsement of HAPN by City and County. He also noted City Council Workshop Page 5 June 23, 2008 that since the County's reaction has not been positive, proposing this joint resolution and not getting support to adopt it would have a negative effect. Ms. Sandoval stated that during her involvement with HAPN, a very macro level process was in progress; a strategic map was developed and what should have followed was a delineation of the steps to be taken. HAPN was to start to vet ideas and policy directives in order to bring a plan forward to the Council and BOCC. She stated she would like to see this occur prior to or simultaneously with any sort of crisis declaration. Mr. Welch stated he would like to see this move forward in the most coordinated and effective manner. Ms. Sandoval noted that education of the public is an extremely important part of the process. In response to a question from Ms. Robinson, Mr. Watts said that state law requires cities to review their surplus lands for the purpose of possible affordable housing projects. Mr. Butler stated he would take this feedback to HAPN. Ms. Surber noted that the city must be prepared to build capacity and provide a lead agency to work on the most likely project; at this time the Mountain View School site and the QFC site owned by the County have surfaced as possibilities. Mr. Timmons agreed, stating that the lead should be a nonprofit organization rather than a government. HAPN should set the policy framework, then work to get a nonprofit provider. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Attest: Pam Kolacy, MMC City Clerk City Council Workshop Page 6 June 23, 2008