The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03311997 . . . f ~ MINUTES OF THE PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING ON Zoning, Subdivision, PUD and Multi-Family Regulations MARCH 31,1997 The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met for a special public hearing to receive public testimony on Title 17 Zoning Code, Title 18 Subdivision Code, PUD and Multi-Family Regulations and Ordinance changes this 31st day of March, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Julie McCulloch, presiding. Present were Jean Camfield, Kathryn Jenks, Im1 Keith, Diane Perry-Thompson. Ted Shoulberg, Bill Davidson, and Mark Welch. Staff present were City Attorney Tim McMahan, Staff Planner Judy Surber. City Administrator Michael Hildt. Public Works Director Bob Wheeler, Pam Kolacy, City Clerk, and Sheila Avis, Minute Taker. . ; Mayor McCulloch remarked that Title 17 and Title 18 are the primary implementing ordinances of the Comprehensive Plan. She commented that these code revisions have been under consideration by the Planning Commission since the end of February, and that this is a public hearing of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Council consideration and review will follow on April 1 and, if necessary, April 2. Final action is scheduled for the regular Council Meeting, April 7th. The Mayor pointed out that these codes are closely linked to the engineering design standards which are currently under discussion by Council committees, and are scheduled for public hearing April 15th. ¡ ~, f Title 17 -- Staff Planner Surber introduced Title 17, Zoning Code and Zoning Map, noting this is the City's action in implementing the Growth Management Act subsequent to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Map. Surber indicated the proposal before Council is to repeal and replace existing Title 17 and pointed out the chapters that had substantially changed from the existing zoning code: ~ 17.04 General Provisions );;- 17.08 Definitions Expanded -- such as those that affect review procedures of conditional use permits (CUP) and variances, e.g., minor -- Type II are administrative and will not corne to the Planning Commission and City Council; maior -- CUP ultimately comes before Council for review. y 17.12 Establishment of Zoning Districts Planning Commission did not focus on Zones C-IV Commercial District, M-l and M- III Manufacturing Districts described within the Zoning Code, but not shown on the Zoning Map, because none of the properties are currently within the City Limits. );.- 17.16,17.18,17.20,17.22,17.24 Land Use Tables Chapter 16 -- manufactured homes are permitted outright in residential districts; duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are included but not to exceed underlying densities. Chapter 18 -- neighborhood and community serving mixed use districts; Chapter 20 -- includes C2H Hospital Zone, C-III downtown Historic Commercial; , f 1 ;; ; ! I * t , ¡ City Council Meeting PaRe / March 3/. /1)1)':' :; r' . . . ¡,: ~! ï: ;, " ~.. Chapter 22 -- bulk, height and dimensions reflected in Marine Related Point Hudson (lower intensity use) and Boat Haven (industrial); Chapter 24 -- PIGS Open space connections not reflected -- implemented in future phase through functional plans, e.g., Parks & Recreational and Open Space and Trails. :¡.., 17.26, 17.28, 17.30 Overlay Districts Mainly unchanged -- may be changed later. ,. 17.32 Planned Unit Developments Residential mld mixed use -- residential/commercial y 17.36 Multi-Family Residential Development Standards Multi-Family Type I -- administrative process without notice ., 17.40 Mixed Use Development Standards Intended to be much the same as Multi-Family -- large portion of the Chapter is reserved for future consideration. ;. 17.52 Day Care Facilities, and 17.56 Home Occupations Recently revised and adopted -- no substantial changes. ;. 17.60 'remporary Uses New chapter -- addresses seasonal uses; Type I permit, administrative with no notice. );.- 17.68,17.72,17.76,17.78,17.80, 17.82-- (Mainly unchanged or Reserved) .,. 17.84 Conditional uses Substantially the same; procedures taken out and referred to Title 20. n Cumulative impact added as an approval criteria. .,. 17.86 Variances Substantially the same; procedures taken out and referred to Title 20. r 17.88 Nonconforming Lots, Buildings and Uses Changes include: nonconforming lots, lot consolidation in RI Zoning District. Buildings ffild Uses remain fairly similar. ~ ] 7.90 Administration and Enforcement -- (Refers to Title 20.) ¡¡ < I ! J ¡ ¡ ~ ¡ , ,I ,. . : ~ i f ! City Attorney McMahan clarifìed concerning Surber's presentation that she briefly went through sections of the Code that had not been substantially changed. He said no SEP A notice was done on those sections that were not substantially revised, and he explained that for Council to revise those sections, they would have to do a SEP A notice, go to the Planning Commission and back to the Council. McMahan stated revisions to the Code that are mandated by the Comprehensive Plan were targeted, and he noted they did not target those areas of the Code that were recently revised. or didn't need to be revised to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Title 18 -- McMahan introduced Title 18, the new Subdivision Code, and discussed the general purpose of subdivision law and subdivision planning. He handed out copies of a portion of Professor R ¡chard L. Settle's book, Washington Land Use Environmental Law and Practice, a quick overview of what is required through the subdivision process, and copies of RCW 58.17.110, approval criteria and City Council Meeting Page 2 March 3/, /99- . . . fundmnental requirements that have to be met for any subdivision review, and questions that would have to be asked of any subdivision applicant. Dr. Settle gives two key purposes for subdivision reVIew: );;> fs iniÌ'astructure adequate and provided by the developer concurrent with approval or tìnal plat approval of the subdivision (a state mandate on the city)? ,. Do the lot layout and road layout make sense regarding topography and the site conditions in terms of slopes, wetlands, stormwater, etc.? McMahan distributed a policy paper regarding Title 18 that was reviewed by the Land Use Committee. He said the existing Title 18 is difficult to read and administrator. He noted engineering design standards have been removed and are now free standing, the Code is primarily procedural now, and that submittal requirements are very clearly spelled out. Chapters include: ';> 18.04 General Provisions -- (Standalone definitions.) Þ ] 8.08 Lot Line Adjustments Key change -- allows a process to do 90° lot rotations. , 18.12 Short Subdivisions Key policy issue -- revised threshold from 4 to up to 9 lots -- processed administratively as a Type II application without public hearing, notice to neighbors and appeal provisions. ;. 18.16 Full Subdivisions Clarity to make consistent with Regulatory Reform, and make mandatory application of engineering design standards. -,.. 18.18 Subdivision and Recognition of Lots of Record Uniformly treat all applications under the City's engineering design standards, Im1d use regulations, and environmental regulations; Tier III in RI downzone area -- steep slopes, wetlands where sites cannot be developed with the subdivision standards; Minor review fees. Platted lot review required for building permits on lots if -- extension of public services is required; for only one platted lot -- will automatically certify that lot as conforming \vith the code so long as the engineering design standards are met; for between 2 - 9 lots (Type I review through a checklist) -- will certify as conforming with the subdivision statute and the City's Title 18 if engineering design standards are met, and the lot layout is consistent with topography: 10 or more lots -- Type III full subdivision review. :'" 18.20 Binding Site Plans A void full subdivision review for projects seeking permits zoned and permitted outright under the zoning code. }- 18.24 Subdivision Development Standards Incorporates by reference the engineering design standards. i I ¡ f I t - The meeting was then opened for public testimony. City Council A1.inutes l\1.arch 31, 1997 Page 3 . . . PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Lloyd Cahoon, Port of Port Townsend General Manager Mr. Cahoon said he is discussing Title 17 only: the Port had no comments on Title 1 8. I Ie emphasized the Port gave a presentation to the Planning Commission. The handout he distributed included only items with which the Planning Commission concurred. He said the Port presented nearly twice the number of items to the Planning Commission, and took the position the points the Planning Commission did not concur with the Port would not repeat to Council. He noted the items are fairly specifìc. ., , ,t f it ~ The first two relate to Use Tables: 17.22.020 M-II(A) Boat Haven Y Apparel and other fìnished products manufactured and assembly .,. Light manufacturing or processing not otherwise named .,. Marinas ;. Docks and piers for pleasure craft Change from X to M Change from X to M Change from C to P Change from C to P 17.22.020 M-Il(B) Point Hudson ,. Apparel and other finished products manufactured and assembly -- ;... Light manufacturing or processing not otherwise named >- Marinas ';> Docks and piers for pleasure craft >- Offices, government (Requested P, but would be happy with M) Change from X to M Change from X to M Change from C to P Change from C to P Change from X to M ~ ¡ ¡ ï i 17.22.020 C-III (Historic Commercial -- Quincy Street Dock) .,. Boat sales and rentals Change from X to C 17.22.030 (Boat Haven) " Building heights, maximum Change from 35' to 50' (Feel strongly 50' is the height required, for the Boat Haven only. The tallest Admiral building is 50'; the travel lift being purchased is 44' and it is desirable to get the travel lift in certain buildings. Even with 50' permitted, there will hopefully be cases where they will be seeking higher. Cahoon said certainly 50' is not the top end, but in the industrial area 35' is much too low and 50' makes a lot more sense as a starting point. Hopefully most buildings will fit within that.) Shoulberg said he would think 50' would be too low, given construction standards needed to build the roof, truss heights, door heights, headers, etc. and that they would need to go way over 50' just to get the 44' travel lift in the door. Cahoon said they thought 50' is all they could get, but if City Council wanted to go higher, they would take it. I-Ie said the trave11ift would not necessarily have to enter the building in all cases, but it would be nice if it could. He said you could assume there would be 3' to 5' of trusses City Councill\1inutes Page 4 Jlarch 31. 1997 . and unusable space. With the Admiral building, the 50' definition is an inside clear height; the I IV AC, etc. on top of the building is beyond that. He said he thinks the definition ofthis is the same; so in effect they are talking about a clear space, not necessarily height n ground to the top of the building including all HV AC -- as he understands the definition. He said the higher the better, but he really does not know what the top end could be. Keith asked StafT if they were using the same definition of height. McMahan replied he thought Mr. Cahoon was wrong on that. He said as he recalls, Staff is using the Uniform Building Code height. Keith said if you are talking mid-point of the highest gable, you might well get the 44' clear by that definition. Cahoon said they are not terribly concerned about going beyond 50' for a permitted use. He said he thinks there will be occasions they will have to come back for relief for that. Davidson asked if the Port had made the same comments to the Planning Commission. Cahoon indicated they had. and that they were incorporated into their recommendations to Council. Jenks asked Staff regarding conditional use vs. permitted requests, in M-II both (^) and (B) n if there were to be a marina or a dock and pier for pleasure craft, would it fall under the Shorelines and require a public notice? If permitted there is no public notice; if conditional there is; but, if it is under Shorelines, there is public notification anyway? McMahan said for the record he will have to check his record, but thinks Mr. Cahoon is correct that these recommendations were indeed adopted and recommended by the Planning Commission. He answered Jenks that under the Shoreline Master Program, they would have to obtain a substantial development permit, and in all likelihood it would involve a notice of hearing. Cahoon said there would also be hydraulic permits, etc. Jenks asked if they went along with the '.p" in the Use Table instead of "C", would there be opportunity for public comment? Cahoon affirmed there would be; it would not automatically permit the project at all. Shoulberg said regarding the middle ofthe gable that it was said it is a flat roof. and that is a different situation. He asked if there is a process in the ordinance where they can get a height extension. Surber said they could apply for a variance. Shoulberg asked if they could tic the variance to the travel lift something relational. McMahan said Council is at liberty to what they want with this. J Ie said it is a little diftìcult to concoct a performance standard base with a height restriction in that zone. The City has traditionally implemented this through variances. He said his bias is that zoning codes that have variances aren't very good zoning codes. If this height restriction doesn't make sense in this particular zone, the Council might consider a different height restriction. Cahoon said the major advantage to the Port of having a higher height limit would be the predictability for potential business; they are recruiting businesses. The removal of that restriction would be the removal of an obstacle that would help. . David Cunningh.am--Poulsbo Mr. Cunningham said he had spent 30 years of drafting, critiquing and reviewing these kinds of ordinances. He noted he had said about the City's Comprehensive Plan, that this is a pretty good job, and that the same is so of these ordinances relative to the current generation of GMA zoning ordinances that are going around the state. His explained his problem is that shortly after he moved to Port Townsend in 1973. although . City Council Minutes PaRe 5 March 31. 199ï I !¡~ " 1 i ¡ ; I J i ~ ~ I' f P n I _J . . . he does not live here now, he bought an entire city block, a small triangle 4,700 square feet total. at the southwest corner of Redwood and D Street. The location is from uptown down F Street, east to west, down the hill approaching the pond in the northeast corner of the golf course, turn left down Redwood; one side is the golf course, another side the D Street right-of-way, another side Redwood. It is block 24 Webster's Addition. It was platted as a small triangular block with two partial lots, 4.700 square feet total. When he bought the property it was in a zone with no minimum lot size, and now is in a zone that allows no development at all -- R-ll Zone, with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. It is a nonconforming lot of record, but there is no provision in the zoning ordinance for nonconforming lots of record in an R-II Zone. He said, consequently, he has no use for the property, which obviously isn't fair. is inconsistent with GMA, and also causes, if not fixed, an unnecessary cause for appeal. which he said is the last thing he wants to do. Cunningham proposed two solutions: Zone as R~lll (minimum lot size -- 3,000 square feet). He said it adjoins the golfcourse, the second largest open space next to Fort Worden in the City. On the other perimeters of the golf course there are located some other multi-family zones and even commercial zoning. His alleged his second suggestion as possibly the easiest fix -- change Page 221 , Chapter 17.88.020.A to read, " Where two or more adjacent nonconforming lots of record within the R~l "or R-II" zone. . . . He said he had inquired whether or not this would still be under current circumstances under this code, and he was told it would. He said to him it clearly is not, that it has been downzoned 100 percent and needs to be modified. Jenks asked if this is a specific solution that would affect all other R-I property. She suggested it would be a general change to benefit his particular property. Cwminghmn replied that it would affect all other R-Il property, but that is not where he is coming from, that he wants to fix his problem. He said he does not care how it is done, but it seems simpler to do the R~n. fIe noted a 20' front yard setback in an R-III would be more difficult to build on than the 10' setback in R-II. Surber af1irmed, R-II has a reduced 10' setback. Keith indicated both D Street and Redwood dead-end at the golf course at that point. Cunningham said D Street goes west to east and dead-ends at the golf course, an undeveloped right- of-way; Redwood is a developed right-of-way from F Street south past his property approximately another block. Keith suggested vacating the undeveloped portion of 0 Street. Cunningham responded, if he was successful and sure of a vacation, but the vacation is a quasi-judicial process that they could not commit to today. He said he needs to figure a legislative way to solve the problem. Cunningham said he may very well want to come back in the future and vacate. Keith said he knows of at least six properties below 5,000 square feet elsewhere in what is about to become the R-Il Zone. He said to make a general change in the policy would also affect those others too, and without investigating what the consequences are he was unsure of a general change. Surber noted the intent was to liberalize the present standard which requires a variance for those lots that do not meet the minimum lot size. She said through this chapter they hoped with lots that are legal building sites, because they were under legal ownership before adoption of the g i I ! ; Z :l 1 I I ! r City Council Minutes March 31, 199ï ; f ,I , ~ f ~ : PaRe 6 . . . .J i . ~ minimum lot size or are not contiguous with other property under the same ownership, they would not have to go through the variance process in those cases, provided they met the bulk, height and dimensional requirements, lot coverage, etc. when constructing on those sites. She said this wording does need to be clarified to show they are making it more liberal, rather than more restrictive. She elaborated that would apply to Mr. Cunningham since this piece is separated from the rest of his ownership by platted rights-of-way and it would be a legal building site, that a variance would not be required for construction on the site, unless the building itself did not meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Cunningham said this is a single isolated piece, he owns no other property, and, according to the ordinance now. it is not a legal building site because it is zoned R-II. It is also a nonconforming use, and there are no provisions for nonconforming use in R-fI. He pointed out that as the ordinance stands today. the property cannot be used for anything. Surber reiterated that perhaps the wording docs need to clarified in the code. McMahan said this came up in the Planning Commission, and he said they have been interpreting it a little bit differently. He proposed making explicit what the intent is and said what they should add is, "Nonconforming lots outside of the R-I Zoning District are legally buildable so long as they meet the bulk, dimensional, and other requirements, i.e. setback requirements. etc." He said there are a number of 4,900 and 4,700 square foot lots that are under separate ownership, and the intent was that those should be legally permissible without having to resort to the variance process. Cunningham said he owns two fractional lots, 1 and 3, which add up to 4,700 square feet, the entirety of that triangle. McMahan replied he had not understood, and that it would be difficult to meet setback requirements. He questioned the validity of the Planning Commission revision, and told Mr. Cunningham they can fix it when they get to that point. ! I i ;! 1 ¡ I ;, ~ { .' 9, ~¡ The Mayor closed testimony to the public. " Consensus was to begin discussion and continue to 10:00 p.m. Ii ~: f. i ., "! Jenks voiced concern that there was no potential open space on the map. She suggested a PUD incentive for open space. She said she wanted further deliberation ofPUDs and to tie to the amount of open space that a developer is willing to set aside. Shoulberg asked, "What is the cost of these changes?" He indicated they don't yet know the impact of affordable housing; there are no clear yes's and no's. Keith replied some things will have an impact of increase, hut also some have simplified procedures and will save money. Perry- Thompson spoke of trade-offs, establishing consistency, and the ability to change the Comprehensive Plan once a year. Jenks suggested they keep the discussion of cost to another venue, that it is an adjunct policy ~ ,. - ì. f f Issue. Consensus -- Start with Title 17. proceed page by paj?;e: Page Number: .,. #6 -- Amusement Activity. Delete "or the sale of souvenir items." ì ~ City Council Minutes Page 7 March 31,1997 0, S r i, L 'i ~! ~; '," ,'I i': . . . >- #6 -- Antenna. Jenks suggested deleting the word "transmitting." McMahan said this is really important. He referred to the Use Tables and noted that everywhere they have used antenna they have combined satellite dishes with the term antenna. He said the City is preempted by federal law in terms of antenna and satellite facilities that include transmittal facilities. He said the Planning Commission made an important recommendation that the City adopt a section zoning code they have reserved for telecommunication facilities. He indicated Staffwill be working on that and bring it back by summer. McMahan cautioned against deleting the word "transmitting" so as not to run into difficulty with federal law. Discussion ensued. , I i e i , ~ MOTION Davidson Leave definition for antenna as is and telecommunications ordinance in the near future. await a SECOND Welch VOTE 6 in favor, Jenks opposed MOTION Perry- Thompson Accept Chapter 17.04 as recommended by the Planning Commission. SECOND Davidson VOTE Unanimous, 7 in favor MOTION Jenks Strike last clause of Amusement activity to read". .. including coin-operated machines, rides, and booths to conduct games." SECOND Welch VOTE Unanimous, 7 in favor î ¡ .~ ¡ [ " j.- #9 n Building height. Jenks wanted to add "from ground level" in A or delete H. Davidson -- no support for change. ~ #9 NN Building official. Strike "provisions of this title" and insert "Uniform Building Code." MOTION Camfield End the definition of Building official with "and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code." " SECOND Perry Thompson VOTE Unanimous, 7 in favor );-- Shoulberg is there a definition of "air rights"? McMahan said if it has not been used in the code, they have been pretty careful not to use it in the definition. If it is something that is likely to come up in the nonconforming uses. mld the Council wants to have something to do \yith air rights, Staff can craft a definition at that time. !! i ; i: ., i: J ).- #11 Typographical error. Child day care --last line, change "reciprocative" to "reciprocal." ? # 12 Church (bingo). McMahan thinks it was lifted from the old code; it could be an accessory ~ 'Þ ( t City Councill'v1inufes Page 8 ¡'vfarch 31, 1997 r , l " ! , J ~: t . . . LIse. MOTION Delete "bingo or games of chance, nor" and make to read II. . . and accessory uses, not to include schools which exceed normal religious service hours." Welch SECOND .Jenks VOTE Unanimous, 7 in favor ~ # 13 Committee. Change to -- Committee, Historic l>reservation: ,. # 14 Congregate care facilities. MOTION Jenks Delete "by senior citizens and non-senior citizens alike" from the definition of congregate care facilities. SECOND Davidson Motion amended to: VOTE Change the definition of Congregate care facilities to read, "A building or complex of dwellings designed for, but limited to, occupancy by senior citizens which provides for" Unanimous, 7 in favor );- # 15 Covered moorage building area MOTION Welch End definition of covered moorage building area, ". .. covered by a roof, designed for boat storage." SECOND Keith VOTE Unanimous, 7 in favor ". #16 Planning Commission recommended deck be defined. Do not define deck. 'r #19 Family. Strike (excluding servants) n Leave as is. ,. #21 Fourplex. Two open space exposures -- discussion ensued. Change -- at least one open space exposure. .,. #22 General merchandise store. Line 5, Delete the first word "sell". ,. #27 Kelmel, animal. (Planning Commission memorandum) Add -- four (4) or more "each" .,. #27 Landscape. Change to, ". . . materials such as but not limited to . . ." );- #28 Livestock. (Reference Page 63 -- Small animal husbandry) -- Revisit .,. #29 Lot (parcel/tract/site). McMahan n subdivision, nonconforming (FLAG -- McMahan to make uniform with subdivision Ended with page 36. Motion held for --April L McMahan advised of a dilemma in the adoption of the code and how it relates to the adoption of the engineering design standards, and further how it all relates to eligibility for Public Works trust funds. City Council Minutes Page .9 A1arch 31, 1997 .J J I ~ j ! ~ í' ~ ¡ ! i " i ~ , ¡ i ~ ¡ ! 1 I ~ I ~ , _1 . . . He suggested two alternatives: y Make Title 17 and Title 18 effective at the end of the month at the same time as the design standards are effective, so that there would be a window where the City is still operating under existing Titles 17 and 18, and the old zoning map. Issues include: They have not succeeded in getting written clarification from Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) that having these ordinances effective at the end of the month makes the City eligible for Public Works trust funds. He and Public Works are a little uncomfortable with that; also, there may be a little rush to vest before everything is in effect at the end of the month. It is going to take Staff a little time to get new fomls in place, new procedures in place. After Titles 17 and] 8 are complete, revisions will have to be brought fÒr Title 20 and fee ordinances. These are necessary to implement these codes and they will not be done by April 7th. ..,. Do an interim control adopted on April 7th when these two ordinances are adopted, m1d freeze in place for three weeks. They can tell DCTED in their application they adopted the codes m1d they were effective on the April 9th deadline, and have fully implemented the Comprehensive Plan through development regulations. .~ " ¡, ! ~ ~ ~ ~ Instruct the City Attorney to return with an Interim Control Ordinance effective until the engineering design standards arc adopted April 21. SECOND Pcrry- Thompson Motion amended: Instruct the City Attorney to return with an Interim Control Ordinance effective until April 28th. Discussion: McMahan proposed the ordinance would say they wiJ1 accept applications, will hold pre-application meetings with people and begin processing thcm, but are staying issuance of any determinations of completeness until after April 28th. It will be clear that applications will be under the new zoning code when they corne in. He proposes adopting Title 17 as an emergency ordinance that it is effective on April 7th, that they will not vest until after April 28th. VOTE Unanimous, 7 in favor ¡: ¡: .' f¡ ~ i ;i (! 1 l J' i' I: $ !'. H ;j ~J ~¡ MOTION .Jenks RECESS ;> ~f There being no further business, at 10: 1 0 p.m. Mayor McCulloch declared the meeting recessed until 7:00 p.m. on April L 1997, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Attest: i' i, ,¡ ¡" .¡ ~ ; Q [I '-K ~ /! ' . 1'-1' ", ~ . r¿lrrL( t-~'_.¡' t L{',-,¿ C Pamela Kolacy, City Clerk ..1 !:i ~i <I ~ f j, 1- !: ~' . ~ ¡, City Council Minutes PaRe 10 March 31. 19Yì ; i, ~,