Loading...
September 3, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting Minutes City Council Chambers, City Hall September 3, 2019 Commissioners: Present: David Bernstein, Suanne Martin Smith, Annette Stewart (Chair), Trish Tierney, Kathleen Wilson Absent: Stephanie Bailey Phil King, Mark Trenary Staff Present: Community Development Director Nick Bond, Long Range Planner Keri Sallee, Code Enforcement Officer Doug Price 1. Call to Order: Chair Stewart called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. 2. Business items: A. Discussion: Amendments to Chapter 20.212 – Dangerous and Unfit Buildings. Code Enforcement Officer Price gave an overview of the proposed changes to POMC Chapter 20.212, which involve transferring responsibility for appeals of code violation abatement orders from the City’s Building Board of Appeals (BBOA) to a City hearing officer. Although some abatement orders may involve building code violations, many others do not, and the BBOA is not the correct body to review non-building code matters. The City’s municipal court judge, who is a former planning commissioner, has been contacted and is willing to serve as the hearing officer for appeals on abatement orders. The City, and not the appellant, will pay the cost for his services. Associated changes are being made to Title 2 (appointive positions) that will create the hearing officer position and qualifications. B. Public Hearing: Amendments to Chapter 20.212 – Dangerous and Unfit Buildings. Chair Stewart opened the public hearing. No public testimony was received. Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tierney made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the amendments to Chapter 20.212 as presented. Commissioner Martin Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion and Recommendation (contd. from June): Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Housing Permanent Ordinance. Long Range Planner Sallee summarized the previous discussion about this ordinance, which had taken place at the June 2019 meeting. A public hearing had also been held at the June meeting. At the Commissioners’ request, Sallee had consulted with the City Attorney on several issues after the June meeting: whether expanding public notice beyond the proposed half-mile radius of an SVP facility would be advisable; whether public notice of a proposed facility should be sent to occupants as well as legal property owners; and, whether a specific, minimum length of time should be identified for operation of an emergency security services generator. Sallee said that with regard to the notice issues, the City Attorney had advised a consistent approach. If the City wanted to change the proposed notification radius from a half-mile to one mile or some other distance, it could do so, but the distance should be consistent for all notices since singling out any application or applicant with a different distance requirement could appear prejudicial, unless an overriding need for an alternative distance can be documented. This would also apply when deciding whether to notify residents as well as property owners. With regard to the emergency generator, the City Attorney advised against establishing a specific, minimum time of operation in City code. The City is not an expert on SVP facilities and should not attempt to determine the need for, or the operating requirements of, onsite emergency generators. This legal responsibility should remain with the state-licensed facility operator. Commissioner Martin Smith made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Sexually Violent Predator Housing permanent ordinance as presented. Commissioner Tierney seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion and Recommendation (contd. from June): Tree Canopy/Significant Trees Code. Bond had provided email information after the June meeting, to follow up on Commissioner Bailey’s questions about how other jurisdictions with tree canopy requirements had developed their tree canopy percentage requirements. He spoke with the developer of Snohomish County’s tree canopy ordinance, who said they used a tree canopy calculation tool that estimated the existing tree canopy in urban areas of Snohomish County at approximately 30% in single-family residential areas. Since the County wished to retain this existing level of tree canopy, this is the percentage that was incorporated into their ordinance. Bond said that Port Orchard doesn’t have the advanced mapping tools of Snohomish County, but when looking at environmental maps and subtracting out ravine areas (like Blackjack Creek), it appears that 30% may be a net increase over the current tree canopy in the City’s single-family neighborhoods, which seems to average approximately 15%. Commissioner Bernstein asked if the purpose of the tree canopy was more for aesthetics or habitat value. Bond said that it will serve both purposes, and also complement required landscaping in new subdivisions. It is not intended to create or contribute to a buffer effect, however, such as landscaping between commercial and residential zoned properties. Bernstein asked why the tree canopy requirements will only apply in residential areas. Bond said that although the landscaping code does require trees in non-residential buffers, right-of-way and parking lots, it is generally desirable for commercial development to maximize use of land in a way that single-family development generally does not. A tree canopy requirement of 30% would be inconsistent with the high lot coverages that are allowed in the commercial and industrial zones for viable development proposals. If a site is cleared for commercial development, under the proposed tree canopy code the developer will only be required to retain any trees protected under the critical areas ordinance. Bernstein asked if subdivision developers could be required to “cluster” their required tree canopy preservation areas near adjacent critical areas or areas on adjacent subdivisions that had already been set aside for tree preservation, to create more substantive habitat areas. Bond said that he would be reluctant to require this in code, as it could make development more difficult for oddly-shaped properties, access issues, or those with a lot of critical areas. It could, however, be recommended where feasible as administrative guidance. Commissioner Wilson said that if the significant trees code is being repealed in its entirety, the definition of “significant tree” should be put into the main Definitions chapter of Title 20. Sallee will add this definition into the ordinance. Bernstein said that if a stand of trees are removed, and just one tree is left, that tree becomes a blowdown hazard – what prevents someone from having an arborist say that it is now a danger tree? Bond said that this situation would be identified and caught when the City reviews the landscape plan for a subdivision application, and the developer would either have to modify the tree removal plan or remove all the trees and replace them. Bernstein asked how the tree canopy code would apply to existing single-family homes and undeveloped lots that will not be part of a new subdivision application. Sallee said that the owner of a single-family house will not be required to prepare a landscaping plan or tree replacement plan if they want to remove trees from their existing developed lot. Bernstein asked what would happen if the owner wanted to tear down and rebuild or significantly add on to the house? Bond said he would consider that question, and whether the significant tree code could potentially be retained to apply to all development unless the tree canopy code applied instead, i.e. if there was a new subdivision application. In other words, there would be a “Path A” for existing lots and “Path B” for new subdivisions. Bernstein said that would make him more comfortable. Tierney said she would prefer to wait until all the Commissioners were present to participate in the discussion prior to voting. Bernstein said he would like to review the landscaping code against the tree canopy and significant trees code at the same time at the next meeting. Chair Stewart confirmed that the item will be continued for further discussion at the October meeting. Discussion: Title 20 “Housekeeping” Amendments. Sallee gave an initial overview of the 2019 Title 20 “housekeeping” amendment package, which is a collection of all the minor errors, inconsistencies and omissions that have been noted in the code through the year, and which are intended to be cleaned up in one ordinance. The amendments do not involve substantive changes to the code. The Planning Commission will be asked to discuss the amendment package in detail, hold a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to City Council at the October meeting. Volunteer Opportunity – Parks Plan Update Selection Committee. Sallee said that the City will be updating its Parks Plan in 2019-2020, and has published an RFP for consultants to do this work. The Planning Commissioners are invited to volunteer for the consultant selection committee, which will meet in early to mid October. Commissioners Bernstein, Stewart and Tierney volunteered to serve on the committee. 3. approval of minutes from June 4, 2019: Commissioner Tierney made a motion to adopt the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 2019, as submitted. Commissioner Martin Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Adjourn: Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 7:16 pm. Annette Stewart, Chair Nick Bond, Community Development Director