Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04021997 . . . PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED MEETING FROM MARCH 31 AND APRIL 1. 1997 APRIL 2, 1997 ~ The meeting, continued from March 31, 1997 and April 1, 1997, was called to order by Mayor Julie McCulloch at 6:30 PM. Council members present were Camfield, Davidson, Jenks, Keith, Perry Thompson, and Welch. Staff members present were City Attorney Tim McMahan, Building & Community Development Director Bruce Freeland, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. Council member Shoulberg arrived at 6:55 PM. Mr. McMahan began by revisiting the term "public facilities," which was discussed previously. He proposed a new definition for the term which he provided to each member. The new definition follows: Public Facility: Any use of publicly owned land for transportation, utilit9ies, or communication, or for the benefit ofthe general public, including strets, schools, libraries, fire and police stations, municipal and county buildings, recreational centers and parks. He also noted that after review, he has concluded that certain facilities commonly defined as "essential public facilities" have been characterized individually in the use tables; therefore the addition of a separate listing for this category is not necessary. Those not listed are not permitted "Essential public faci]ity" is defined in the definition section. Freeland added that since the individual types of facilities are specifically listed, those facilities not listed are prohibited. He stated that according to the law, he is directed to follow the most specific rather than the most general advice. 'i :1 s. J f: ¡.: Davidson then moved to adopt the definition of "public facility" proposed by the city attorney, designated in the handout as page X-I0. Camfield seconded. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Review of Title 17 recommenced at page 133. Keith asked about "defensib]e" open space. Freeland noted that it is a good concept - one that makes structures safer from a police safety point of view. Although the ideas are good, and the Planning Commission discussed it. there wasn't time to incorporate them once it came up. "[ ¡, ~ : f: !.- Freeland commented on the multi-family reseidential design standards. He stated that what is being asked for in this chapter is somewhat unusual - that is, we are asking for a forma] design without a formal design review process. Usually with these types of requirements, a commission or staff is assigned to work with the designer/developer and we don't have the kind of budget to take on that overhead. He added that the BCD department will reduce the chapter to a checklist which can be handed to builders, and try to administer the criteria without a Jot of subjective ideas. Since the standards are not "back & white", there will almost certainly be instances of disagreement between staff and builders. He emphasized this is experimental, and the City Council Meeting (cont trom 3/31 & 4/1 Page 1 April 2, 1997 ¡ i ! ! ~. r , t, . . . workability won't be evident until it has been in place for awhile. A prime example is the "privacy" provision. Questions arise including how many windows overlooking the neighbors are too many windows? Without a full process set up to handle these issues, the standards are subjective. He promised to try to make it work as painlessly as possible. Welch asked how disputes will be resolved. Freeland said this is a type I permit, not appealable to council. but to the court. McMahan clarified that in court, a judge would decide not on the merits of the design, but on whether the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the permit. He/she will look at the amount of guidance in the code. McMahan believes the code coupled with the eomp plan would be enough to defend decisions. ii ~! " ;! ~¡ ,,' ¡; í The Planning Commission recommendation on chages to Section 17.36.060 was discussed. Keith said this must assume that requirements may be differnt if the property is fronting an arterial street. Freeland noted that 'pedestrian scale" isn't a term commonly used by the city - it is intended that all streets other than SR 20 will be oriented to pedestrians; the distinction would not seem then to be useful. ì ~, Motion: Davidson moved that Planning Commission's recommendation to delete "adjacent to ..:' and eliminate B be accepted. Welch seconded. Motion carried, 6-1. Keith opposed. ~; Motion Jenks' moved that the heading on l7.36,O80 be changed to "tree/vegetation retention" and that 17.36.080 B.2. addívegetation a.fter the word "trees" -Wellch seconded. The motion carried with 6 infavor, Shoulberg opposed. Shoulberg then opened the issue of whether or not this Chapter 17.36 will freeze the market and go against affordable housing. He does not believe costs will be hsared over this type of unit, and that we should remember we are dealing on the Port Townsend, not the Belleview, scale. c, ~: f !, ;! Keith stated that the discussion has gone on about how expensive it is to build a more complex building that may be required by the design criteria of this section; he is convinced the additional cost will not be that significant. He added that the use of the "reasonable and practicable "clause should be protection. .. .. ; i ~. t. ¡ Motion: Shoulberg moved that Chapter 17.36 Multi.family Residential Development 5,'tanJards. be deleted and that sta.tf' be directed to as soon as ./èasible do a cost analysis on what it would cost lO implement a typical project and brinf!; this infòrmation back to council in the nearjitrure. Welch questioned the effect of deleting the section. . ~. ë ¡ .1 Freeland noted that it would have the effect of multi-family projects being permitting with building permits only. He also stated his understanding that this was a significant part of thc comprehensive plan - that neighborhood and work group participants felt it was important to have design criteria if these developments were to be allowed in residential areas. !; , City Council Meeting (cont from 3/31 & 4/1 " Page 2 April 2. 19Y7 \' ". I I 'il Ii' ; . McMahan noted that the comprehensive plan is not explicit on this point - it was drafted in this fashion to implement the direction received from council after they listened to neighborhood comments and workgroup comments. From the public policy perspective. he believes Eric Toews felt there was a "dea]" with neighborhoods to disperse multifamily development through neighborhoods. . ¡ i I I t Welch seconded Shoulberg 's motion. Keith stated the trouble with implementing this use without any design standards could result in some pretty unattractive projects, and if neighborhood reaction is poor. it could lead to negating the whole idea of this use. p, :. Camfield also noted she believes this was part of the trust by the public. Keith suggested the chapter be left in and if the design standards are too onerous or draconian, they could be revisited. Shoulberg questioned how the BCD director makes a decision; he believes the structure is difficult and the standards hard to administer. ø \ £¡ !: 1; ~ , n Freeland reiterated that the whole chapter would be taken into consideration, with requirements and optional elements relating to each other. He again said there may be conflicts on any given site. ~ i " ';! r . Vote: motion flied, 2-5, with Welch and Shoulberg in favor. . ~ [ ~, j, e t. k ;\1otion: Perr}' Thompson moved to insert "to the extent reasonable and practicable" in 17. 3 6.1 OOA. Camfield seconded. Motion carried unanimously, by voice vote. Other amendments to 17.36 ;, ï: ~' ~' Fix 140 - label A and B formatting In 17.36.150(B)(8) change "practical" to "practicable" and add "drought resistant native species" after "water" , I , l\1otion: Keith moves for approval of17.36 as amended. Perry-Thompson seconded. Motion carried, 6-l, by voice vote, Shoulberg opposed j, ~ I' ~¡ 'i ¡: j\1otion: Davidson moved for approval of Chapter 17.40. Camfield seconded. ;\1otion carried unanimously, by voice vote. Motion to approve l7.52. and delle 17. 5, 17.44 and 17.48 carried unanimously. I', . 17.60: Motion: .)'houlberg moved to add allowance for Director to grant a one-time annual two-month extension for a temporary use permit, Welch seconded. Motion failed. 3-4. Welch, Shoulberg and Jenk<J in favor: Davidson, Perry Thompson, Keith and Camfield ;¡ :\ 1 ¡ ~ £: " " f , City Council Meeting (cont from 3/31 & 4/1 Page 3 April 2, 1997 . opposed. l'vfotion: Cam:.field moved for acceptance all? ó{) (lormerly l7. 82 but renumberedj. Davidson seconded. A1otion carried unanimously. by voice vote. Motion: Davidson moves fÒr approval of 17. 84 with change in sentence, page 2 J 4: removed "in those limited instances. . . . . ." and capitalize "Consideration". lvJotion carried unanimously by voice vote. Motion: Shoulberg moved to adopt 17. 86. Perry Thompson seconded. unanimously by voice vote. Motion carried ... ;\1otion: Keith moved for approval of 17.88. unanimously. by voice vote. Jenks seconded. },lotion carried '" ¡\1otion: Keith moved for approval ol17.94 as amended. carried unanimously by voice vote. Jenks seconded. 1vJotion ~ K . ; r TITLE 18 Jenks expressed concerns about the threshold for short and long subdivisions, particularly regarding public notice requirements. She suggested making platting of lots or record a type 2 process. . j\1otion: Keith moved to con:.firm the recognition of historic platted lots as a Type I process. Shaul berg seconded. 1110tion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, Jenks opposed. J1otion: Keith moved/or approval ofl8. 04 as amended to provide a clearer definition oj' "nonconforming lot." Shoulberg seconded. Motion carried. 6 in favor, Jenks abstaining. , . i ¡ 1 At ¡ Motion: Perry Thompson movedfor approval of 18. 08 as amended. Davidson seconded. Motion carried, 6 infavor, Jenks abstaining. Jenks suggested addition to 18.12.050 A, number 6 "indicate land to be cleared and location and access for clearing during construction with same changes to long plat section. j\1otion: Jenks moved to remove 18.12.140 stating that BCD shall be authorized to grant a one-year extension. Welch seconded. Motion carried unanimously by voice vore. Keith suggested a change to add "by the applicant" after "shall be recorded" Changes were suggested to "Building envelope language" .;: ¡; . Motion: Keith moved/or approval of 1 R. l8 as amended. Perry Thompson seconded k: ~ ' City Council Meeting (cont from 3/31 & 4/1 Page 4 April 2, 1 ()(F7 t , -.: .., 1 --- I Motion: Perry Thompson movedfÓr approval of ¡8.20 as amended. Keith seconded. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. ¡ K I t f. [ . [ . f, . J'vfotion carried 6~1, with Jenh opposed. Motion: Keith movedfòr approval ofl8.24 as amended. Perry Thompson seconded. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. ,. . ADJOURN ;: 'I There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at II :40 p.m. Attest: .j ¡¡ ~I 'I ~ I t' 11 !I !j 'I, i' ~: -----) /. ~x)lIJv'\ ---K ¿-J¿;,. c"'Y' Pam Kolacy, City Clerk . ¡: l: I; -. :; -, t, Ji ! , - . " ¡: Hi ~: ,¡ ii ,! ~i .1 ¡ I: f i: ~. City Council Meeting (cont from 3/31 & 4/1 Page 5 April 2. t997 ~: .'