Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060707City of Port Townsend Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall -City Council Chambers Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Agenda for June 7, 2007 EXH 2. R. Sepler, Staff Memo, Residential Setback Ordinance, June 7, 2007 EXH 3. R. Talbot and C. Kostelec, Letter: Proposed addition to the PTMC LUP07-059, Chapter 17.62 Residential Setback Adjustments, June 5, 2007 EXH 4. J. Randall, Draft Proposed addition to the PTMC LUP07-059, Chapter 17.62 Residential Setback Adjustments Ordinance (revised) EXH 5. R. Sepler, Staff memo, Barbed Wire Ordinance, June 7, 2007 EXH 6. Guest Lists (2) for June 7, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Lizut called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. He welcomed guests and explained that the meeting/hearing was being held in Council Chambers, rather than in the City Hall Third Floor Conference room, in order to accommodate more attendees. II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Steve Emery, Bill LeMaster, Roger Lizut, Julian Ray and George Unterseher. Harriet Capon, Alice King, and Liesl Slabaugh were excused. III. AGENDA Chair Lizut noted that agendas were available along with other meeting materials. He asked if there were any suggested changes to the agenda. There were none. Mr. Ray moved for acceptance of the agenda and Mr. Emery seconded. The agenda was approved, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lizut said that the draft minutes for May 31 had been received, but would be deferred for review/approval until the next meeting. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. NEW BUSINESS: a. Residential Setback Adjustment Ordinance Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 1 of 7 Chair Lizut read the Planning Commission Public Hearing rules of order script in its entirety. However, he noted that the prescribed 3-minute time limit for initial testimony would not be in effect and that speakers would not be timed for this meeting. He asked if any Commissioners had any interest, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this matter. There were none. Staff Presentation: Rick Sepier, Planning Director, reviewed the materials for the meeting: Paper copies of two documents (EXH. 2 and 3.); electronic copies of the draft ordinance (EXH. 4) that had been e- mailed in advance of the meeting. EXH. 2 is a brief staff memo from Mr. Sepler regarding the residential setback ordinance, and EXH. 3 is comment letter from Richard Talbot and Colette Kostelec, received on June 5. He noted that proposed revision had been initiated during the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, and the Planning Commission determined that it was more appropriately treated as a zoning code amendment than as a potential revision to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission had suggested that at the appropriate opportunity it should be placed on the agenda. It was reviewed on May 10 during a workshop session. He said that Jeff Randall, the primary author of the proposed ordinance, was on hand to present the document. He noted that the key issues are that, in practice, as persons consult the Development Services Department for building permits, the strict application of the setback requirements does not always make sense based on adjacent properties, development patterns, etc. "Although an application for variance allows for individual relief from established requirements, the process . requires a demonstration of hardship, which is often difficult to find." There are two types of variance: a minor variance allows a I O% variance, administratively; amajor variance is subject to review by the hearings examiner and is somewhat costly. The role of the Planning Commission is to review this proposal and determine whether it is in the public interest. Staff will revise the draft ordinance and do additional research as directed. There are a number of options available: hold the public hearing and ask for specific additional information; or choose to make a decision favoring the amendment or denying it; or recommending it with modifications. Mr. Jeff Randall then summarized the changes that were made following the last workshop. He said he would try to address some of the issues that were mentioned in the comment letter, EXH 3. He referred to Attachment A, revision 1.0 Page l ,line 19 -The first change reflects that "local access street" was stricken, based on the prior discussion at the workshop. Line 26 -The intention here is to flesh out the purpose, and make it more consistent with the overall intent of the ordinance, e.g. "to better utilize the rest of your yard". Page 2, line 28 to 30 -Additional description of streetscape friendly features. He noted that after reading Richard Talbot's comments (EXH. 3), he agrees the language may need clarification. Line 30 -This adds an additional criterion, i.e. that the house must be located on a street with • homes close to the street. Mr. Randall said he agreed with the Talbot/ Kostelec argument that the standard should be equally available to all. Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 2 of 7 Page 3, line 1 to 3 -This is with regard to shoreline view corridors and reflects the discussion at • the workshop. Line 8 to 9 -This provides the reference to the City's Design Engineering Standards for compliance with sight obstruction standards at intersections. He noted that he verified that the measurement was from the edge of the paved street; he said that in practice, the sight distance triangle is almost always only in the right of way, not cutting through private property. Referring to the Talbot/Kostelec letter, he said that it appears that they agree that the current setback rules and process are problematic. However, they offer a simpler alternative, i.e. to reduce the 10 foot setback to 5 feet, everywhere, and to forego a design review process. Mr. Randall said that he does not object to and would support that as another alternative. However, he does not believe that garage doors should be so close to the street because of the likelihood of cars or trucks being parked on the sidewalk or right of way, as well as the aesthetic considerations. He agrees with their comments regarding the fundamental unfairness for non- conforming properties. With regard to streetscape standards, he said he would leave that to the Commission to discuss. Public Testimony: Chair Lizut asked if there were any written materials that had been submitted or that anyone wished to submit, without speaking. There were none in addition to the Talbot letter. Chair Lizut invited those who had signed the Guest Sheet to speak in the order signed in. • Richard Talbot, 540 Benton Street, Port Townsend, WA Mr. Talbot said that since Mr. Randall had already commented on key points of his letter, he would not repeat that, but explain his position further. He stated that the proposed process is somewhat cumbersome. Some terms, such as "neighborhood", are not well defined. He noted that there is great variety from block to block within the same neighborhood. He said that, in general, they (Talbot and Kostelec) support the principle of the proposal, but believe it needs more crafting. Otherwise, it would require the City to expend more resources than would be recouped from the $75 fee. Regarding the facade material, he noted that in his understanding, the City does not now need to approve the design of a building to issue a permit. Yet, this proposal includes some proscriptive criteria that would allow some "pretty unfriendly frontage, not what we are trying to achieve here, which is this sort of neighborhood front porch community type of thing". He said that either the proscriptive criteria must be properly stated or not done at all, because the current text is not adequate. He said that these were his major concerns, and noted that this was not a simple task. Mr. Talbot added that he did not understand why the effective period in the adjustment should not follow the building permit. If one follows the reasoning that it is necessary to see the design to make a judgment, then the documentation that comes in with the permit is needed. To have a three year period for this adjustment is unnecessary. He mentioned the fairness issue that had been acknowledged by Mr. Randall earlier. He said that his own proposal offered several benefits: the code change is clear and simple; the City's job is simplified; time and money are saved; and the fairness issue is resolved. He also commented on the garage issue. He suggested that the City should look at development not in terms of the platted rights of way, but in terms of the planned use for a street. For example, a local access street has a need of 50 feet, so there is an additional 1 ] .5 feet (on each side of the street) not • intended to be used for road development, which could be used for parking. It would not intrude on a sidewalk; typically now it is used for plantings. On that point, he said he disagreed with Mr. Randall. Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 3 of 7 . Chair Lizut thanked Mr. Talbot, and returned to the script, asking if staff wished to respond to any subjects raised by any speaker or to make any additional statement. Staff Response: Mr. Sepler said that he would first like to identify what everyone agrees on. He said that it is apparent that everyone would like to find anon-grievance process, and to define criteria that can be applied to deal with any circumstance. He said that applicability needs to be based on context, on something measurable with regard to adjacent properties; the process needs to be predictable, so the criteria needs to be non-discretionary. This hearing was not to approve a change in setbacks, based on the notice of SEPA documentation. He said that to comprehensively address the setback issue across the zoning districts would merit a great deal more study. He said he would suggest closing the hearing, and scheduling further discussion for the full Planning Commission when there is more time to craft the revision. Planning Commission Questions: Chair Lizut invited Commissioners to ask questions of speakers and staff. Mr. LeMaster said that having read the proposed adjustments, he still did not understand the purpose. He said that Port Townsend is very mixed (non-homogenous) in appearance, citing the differences in areas such as Umatilla Hill, the hospital area, Clay Street, Morgan Hill, etc. He said that he did not understand the stated purpose of making all of these areas more walkable. He asked why the Commission would favor legislating and codifying something like this. • Mr. Sepler said that obtaining a variance should be a process applied infrequently and rarely granted. The circumstances are such that the strict interpretation of the current setback regulation does not make sense. However, the adjustment, as drafted, may not be the most effective way to relieve such situations. He noted the approach taken by Seattle, where the composition of the existing street or neighborhood is the basis for a decision. He said the intent here also includes providing for pedestrian accommodation, and more proximity to the street. Mr. Randall recalled that Mr. LeMaster had not been present at the workshop when the PowerPoint presentation had been shown. He said it included photos and the compelling reasons why the change was needed. He cited the examples where, on a particular street with many or most houses close to the street, property owners had much more useable yard space. He said he also tried to address the density issue on page 2, line 3: "make it more likely that Port Townsend's small and narrow lots can be developed to the permitted density standard specified in the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan". He said he had included that change based on Mr. LeMaster's comments at the previous meeting. Chair Lizut asked if anyone in the audience had comments solely to clarify any item raised by a Commissioner for staff, and read the guidelines for the audience. There were no further comments. He recalled that Mr. Sepler had suggested postponement of a recommendation, but added that the Planning Commission could decide otherwise. Mr. Ray moved that the issue be postponed until members had more time to consider the testimony and Talbot letter, and a larger Planning Commission body was available. Mr. Unterseher seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion was approved. Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Chair Lizut noted that the agenda for the June 28 meeting was full, and asked staff when the . matter could be scheduled. Mr. Sepler asked if the Commission would prefer to have staff work with Mr. Randall to craft a revision that addressed the concerns raised during the hearing. Chair Lizut said that in his opinion he believed the Commission was close to closure on this matter, and that it would be well for staff and Mr. Randall to collaborate on the next set of revisions. Mr. LeMaster asked if there exists any regulation that prohibits vehicles from parking in or blocking the right of way. Mr. Sepler said that there is a regulation, but it does happen. Mr. Ray said that he thought this was an enforcement issue, but that compliance also depends on the amount of space that is normally required for driveways, etc. Chair Lizut asked that Commissioners forego further deliberation until staff has had the opportunity to redraft and schedule this matter at a future meeting. He said that appropriate notice would be given to interested parties so they could again participate. Chair Lizut then asked Mr. Sepler to move to the staff presentation on the next matter, Barbed Wire Ordinance. b. Barbed Wire Ordinance Mr. Sepler referred to the summary memorandum, EXH. 5. He recalled that former City Councilman Walker asked the City Manager to prepare an ordinance dealing with the repair of downed fences or the erection of new barbed wire fences within the City. Because it would modify the fence section of the Municipal Code, it is subject to the purview of the Planning Commission. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider this and to forward a recommendation on how best to dispose of it. The issue as identified at Council was • that when located adjacent to a trail or sidewalk, a downed barbed wire fence could pose a hazard to the public. Apparently there have been a number of incidents when horses or others have become entangled in barbed wire. In considering the adoption of a ban, there are three issues. First is the extent of the ban itself; should the ban apply only to barbed wire next to trails or sidewalk; or should the ban be broader in scope? Should barbed wire fences be used for security or livestock control? Is this a recurring problem that needs to be addressed by the City? He said one option to consider is whether barbed wire fences should be required to be set back from property lines when adjacent to a trail or public right of way. He noted, however, that the purpose of such fences is typically to demarcate property lines. The Planning Commission's role is to determine if the proposed ordinance is warranted and in the public interest, and to make a recommendation to the City Council. He added that there is no staff recommendation on this proposal. Chair Lizut invited comments from the public. There were none. Chair Lizut invited questions from Planning Commissioners. Planning Commission Questions: Mr. LeMaster asked if anyone had an estimate of the amount of barbed weather fence in the City or if an inventory had been done. Mr. Sepler said that no data or estimate was available. Mr. LeMaster asked if there had been had been an attempt to determine the economic impact on the community at large if adopted. He also asked if anyone had made a determination by lot sizes of • what the cost of barbed wire replacement would be? Mr. Sepler said that such data had not been collected. Mr. LeMaster asked if Mr. Sepler could give an indication of what it would take to Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 5 of 7 determine or estimate the impact in economic terms. Mr. Sepler responded that such information • would require some research. Mr. Unterseher suggested that the Commission take the third option, and forget the proposal. Chair Lizut first determined that Mr. Unterseher had not made a formal motion and then asked him to speak a bit more about the issue. Mr. Unterseher said there appears to be no public interest in this issue, and he saw no point in adding more regulations, without real provision for enforcement, to the Municipal Code. He moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the draft barbed wire ordinance. Mr. LeMaster seconded the motion. Mr. Ray said that he was strongly in favor of the motion and perhaps the solution to be offered to City Council could be to address the state of disrepair of fences or other public hazards. He said he believed that the focus should be on the hazard and not the specific material. Mr. Emery said that he believed this matter would then fall into the purview of the Council's public safety committee. Chair Lizut then asked how the Planning Commission should send this message or recommendation to the City Council Mr. Sepler said that the Planning Commission could direct staff to prepare a recommendation for denial with a note that explains this alternative. Mr. Ray and Chair Lizut collaborated on the phrasing of a friendly amendment; they moved that the draft ordinance be denied, and that a memo should be prepared by staff recommending that the issue of hazardous materials be referred to the Public Safety committee of the City Council. The motion passed, all in favor. Chair Lizut adjourned the public hearing portion of the meeting. i VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS: June 14, 2007 -CANCELLED June 28, 2007 -Continued Public Hearing: Rezone and Draft Howard/Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District Ordinance; Code Amendments Update. Chair Lizut and Mr. Sepler noted that the deliberation phase of the Howard /Ranier Street Ordinance may not take place until a subsequent meeting. Mr. LeMaster asked at what point in the process it would be possible to discuss the list of excluded uses or activities in the Corridor Overlay District. Mr. Sepler responded that that once the public hearing portion is closed the Commissioners are free to take as much time as need for deliberation. Mr. LeMaster said that the zoning is multi-use, and therefore his question is what should be allowed in multi-use in general. Chair Lizut said that at this point in the process, the Commission is listening to input from staff and public, and not yet in the discussion/deliberation stage. He reminded that interested parties had been notified that the hearing would be continued on June 28, and that there should not be further discussion before that date. He added that the hearing and process could extend for several more meetings. In response to a follow up question from Mr. Unterseher, Chair Lizut repeated his previous instructions for Commissioners and staff to hold all questions and discussion for June 28. • IX. COMMUNICATIONS: None Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 6 of 7 X. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Ray moved for adjournment. Chair Lizut adjourned the meeting at 7:54 PM. a~d Roger Lizut, hair Gail Bernhard, Recorder • • Planning Commission June 7, 2007 Page 7 of 7