Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022808CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 2008 7:00 PM CITY HALL ANNEX -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for February 28, 2008 EXH 2. R. Sepler, Memo to City Council, Residential Bulk and Scale, February 13, 2008 EXH 3. City of Port Townsend, Ordinance 2970, Interim Regulation -Bulk and Scale, adopted February 19, 2008. EXH 4. R. Sepler, Memo to Planning Commission, Town Meetings -Proposed Strategy and Approach, February 28, 2008 EXH 5. R. Sepler, Draft Tentative Agenda for Port Townsend Town Meeting I: Maintaining Our Small Town Character, February 28, 2008 EXH 6. R. Sepler, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Mid-Cycle Assessment Process CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM ll. ROLL CALL Present: Ilarriet Capon, Steve Emery, Jerauld Fry, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Kristen Nelson, 7ulian Ray, George Unterseher Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Comrriissioner Fry moved for acceptance of the agenda, which was seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and approved all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 24, 2008 -Commissioner Ray moved and Commissioner Unterseher seconded for approval of the minutes, as written. The minutes of January 24, 2008 were approved, as written, al] in favor. Minutes of January 10, 2008 -Commissioner Fry moved and Commissioner Nelson seconded for approval of the minutes, as written. The minutes of January ] 0, 2008 were approved, as written, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -None Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 February 28, 2008 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Rick Sepler, Planning Director, gave a brief status update on events and progress since the last meeting. He noted that planners had been asked to suspend other work in order to focus on the ferry issue. Long term, they had been asked to address the 10-year Comprehensive Plan mid- termassessment somewhat earlier, which would be covered in more detail later in the meeting. City Council had also introduced some interim controls the previous week. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss near future issues and the Planning Commission role in them, as well as for staff to receive feedback from the Commission on forthcoming events. Sign Code - Mr. Sepler said that the code draft is ready for a final workshop and would have been on the agenda, if not for intervening business. This topic has been pushed back to March 27. Afrer the next set of line by line corrections, a hearing date will likely be set for April, and this topic will be placed on City Council agenda for May. Uptown Strategies-A joint meeting with City Council is planned for'fhursday, March 13. [Note: this meeting was subsequently changed to Monday, March ] 0; the regular March 13 meeting was eancelted.] A full packet on parking and uptown design standards will be distributed prior to the meeting. It will include the revision of the last design meeting held Thursday, February 21. He recapped the background of the interim controls for uptown parking. He said that about 18 months ago, City Council chose to enact these controls dealing with off street parking. The parking code had been revised about three years ago to eliminate the off street parking requirement in commercial areas, C-Ill for residential and commercial. While this "worked" for downtown, the Planning Commission had recommended that some scheme was needed for Uptown. Subsequently, a specific project (Rienstra Building) had been allowed to build to the full zoning envelope, because no portion of it was restricted by the need to provide off street parking. It was then realized that the building scale and lack of provision for parking was problematic, and impacts would be seen in the surrounding area. City Council then placed a moratorium on [he requirements (one off street parking space per residential building). An Uptown Charette was held to envision and discuss the future plans for the Uptown. The differences between Uptown and Downtown were recognized and hence different guidelines were sought, particularly for parking. Two committees were formed, with Planning Commission participation on both. the Design Committee was charged with developing design guidelines for the Uptown area, ensuring that new buildings are fitting to the character of the area. The recommendations of that committee, just completed, will be considered by the Planning Commission and then City Council. A similar committee was formed to consider Parking. He said the work has started but has not yet been completed, pending the outcome of a baseline parking inventory for the surrounding area. He noted that `°within 300 feet of a commercial district, you measure the success of off street parking by the amount of its capacity that is used at any given point. At about 75% used, possible remedies should be discussed. Surveys of the area during winter, summer and other periods are being conducted. He said that, thus far, the Uptown is not at [hat 75% use level as yet. Mr. Sepler noted that there are a series of prescribed interventions that can be taken below 65% at peak, at 65%, at 75% etc. The committee will produce a matrix showing recommended actions, by businesses and government, at various use levels. The intention of the joint meeting is to enable questions and answers and to fast track this project forward, as much as possible. Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 February Z8, Z008 George Unterseher asked for clarification on the progress of the Key City building and parking plans. He asked how the City is looking at the potential for growth uptown with regard to parking. Mr. Sepler said that the Key City proponents have been very thoughtful about these issues, and have had a representative on the committee. They wish to be a "good neighbor' and have been making every effort throughout the process to fit in and to minimize any inconvenience or negative impact to the surrounding community. Mr. Sepler listed some of the steps Key City has taken: arranged with local physicians to use their parking facilities during off peak hours; investigated valet parking; and investigated shuttles. They would be required to do a transportation demand management plan stating how they would reduce traffic and parking problems. He noted that previous rules are no longer appropriate, and should be replaced by more innovative solutions, such as the above. He noted that the design guidelines are also innovative and incorporate some very creative ideas, such as setting back upper stories to reduce mass, while still allowing the 50 foot height. .lohn Owens will present the Design aspects and Rick Sepler will present the Parking aspects. This will be followed by informal discussion among the City Councilors and Planning Commission. Typically, there is no public comment during workshops. Chair Emery asked if any specific solutions had been discussed for Polk Street. Rick Sepler said that there had been a scheme designed for that purpose and it will be covered at the workshop. He noted that employees had previously been told not to pazk in front of businesses, so parked on Polk Street instead. Secondly, a transition is needed between the commercial and residential areas. He drew a rough diagram on the board, showing a proposed planter and turn around arrangement with signs to discourage traffic going down Polk Street. Mr. Sepler said that several neighborhood residents had participated in the committees. Mr. Ray added that, in his opinion, quantification of the Uptown parking issue had been the best thing to come out of the process. Mr. Sepler briefly explained the meaning and use of the 75% rule that is used nationally to evaluate the degree of use of parking capacity. Chair Emery thanked Bill LeMaster, Julian Ray and Rick Sepler for their efforts on the Uptown Design and Parking Committees. VII. NEW BUSINESS Interim Historic Residential Demolition and Bulk Control Ordinance Rick Sepler, Planning Director Mr. Sepler said that this issue had been on the Plamting Commission's list for consideration during this year. In recent months there has been increasing concern among DSD staff because of several inquiries about teardowns or partial teardowns of historic homes or structures_ To date, there have only been two permits issued. He said that when dealing with historic resources, the regulations should deal with what is important, while no[ impeding appropriate renovations and remodeling. Mr. Sepler said this issue does not deal with primary or secondary buildings; there are tools in place to cover them: it addresses secondary and below. Port Townsend has a National Historic Landmark District and, as such, has an obligation to addresses these types of issues. The IIPC (Historic Preservation Commission) had asked that City Council prepare an ordinance on an interim basis that would allow for the development of an historic residential tear down ordinance. Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 February 28, 2008 An historic commercial ordinance applying to the downtown is already in place. An interim control would prevent teardowns until a historic residential ordinance can be adopted. Mr. Sepler said that the law pertaining to this issue is very clear. The Supreme Count has ruled that local authorities can prohibit teardowns if there is a reasonable work plan with time lines, etc. The interim control that protects [hose historic structures has sufficient latitude and flexibility. He noted that this issue is closely related to the second topic, Bulk Control, and the possibility of a smaller Victorian working class home being torn down and replaced by a very large home in its place. There is a need to deal with scale because dissimilar scale adversely affects the whole district. There also needs to be a reasonable relationship between the size of the new structure and the size of the lot, for example. Mr. Sepler recommended that a quick and easy guideline be used to make detemrinations. In commercial areas, the FAR (floor/area ratio) is a standard tool. The average size for new home construction in Port'fownsend for buildings and garages is about 2200 square feet. The typical Victorian lot is 50 x 100 feet. In theory, one could build a 5250 square foot house (box-like). With an average size of 2200 square feet, an FAR of 0.5 would be appropriate. When considered by City Council, there was concern that with a 40,000 square foot lot, a 20,000 square foot house could be built. Therefore, a sliding scale was developed, and adopted on interim basis, where the FAR decreases as the lot size increases. Based on the success of similar committees, the recommendation to City Council was to form a task force. Although this is a sensitive issue, there is a need to move expeditiously. Therefore, it has been proposed that the task force include two Council members and two Planning Commissioners, which should alleviate potential scheduling delays. In addition, the committee would include one HPC member, one Historic Society member, a realtor, a designer and two Uptown residents. George Unterseher and Jerry Fry volunteered to serve on the task force. George Unterseher mentioned his experience with the Marblehead ordinances, which are very complex, but very effective. Mr. Sepler noted that there are ways to renovate or increase useable space in small Victorians while preserving the character. He called attention to the interim ordinance 2790 (EXH 3), including its EXH A showing the sliding scale. Julian Ray expressed his support and moved for George Unterseher and Jerry Fry to represent the Planning Counnission on the task force. Kristen Nelson seconded and the motion was approved, all in favor. Mr. Sepler mentioned that there is strong interest by several City Council members to address these issues beyond the historic district. Also, presently, R-III development is prohibited in the historic district and there is concern about the desire to change that regulation. Chair F,mery asked if the new regulations would preclude the building of such structures as the Starrett Mansion. Mr. Sepler said that it likely would preclude that Kristen Nelson requested a copy of a map showing the boundaries of the historic districts; Mr. Sepler said he would provide that after the meeting. There was a brief discussion about the environmental benefits of taller houses with narrow footprints as a general guideline and specific design rules needed to address character, scale and aesthetic considerations. Planning Commission Page 9 of 8 February 28, 2008 Mid Cycle Assessment Process and Town Meetings -Strategy and Approach Rick Sepler, Planning Director One of the work projects for last year was to do a mid-cycle assessment; that was postponed until [his year. The mid-cycle assessment process was set up by the creators of the Comprehensive Plan to evaluate assumptions and status mid way through the 20 year cycle. Mr. Sepler noted that [his has become a bigger issue than anticipated because some aspects of [he Comp Plan have not turned out as envisioned. For example, the actual population growth has been far less than projected. Although there has been a great deal of in-migration and ex-migration, the total net population has not increased significantly. In response to questions, Mr. Sepler said that according to census data, households have gotten smaller. The age profile shows that the middle range has decreased, with increases at the younger and older range ages. Mr. Sepler referred to his memo, EXH ~F. He reviewed the four themes that had emerged during the Comp Plan development process. He described each as being central to the plan, noting that if any one of these changed, the town would not be as "livable". There were [wo key strategies to maintaining `pillar one', the small town character: ]. urban area growth distributed throughout the town in seven "mixed use centers" and 2. policies leading to the creation of a City-wide system of interconnected open spaces and trails. He said that it appears that the small town character has been preserved but the development of mixed use centers has not been successful Pillar two is providing public facilities within the City's financial resources. Success here has been mixed. For sewer and water, there are very competitive rates compared to comparable areas in the State. He noted that good progress has been made with storm water management. However, the City has been unable to adequately fund the Library, parks and roads. Roads have been significantly under-funded and inadequately maintained. 1'he City has an excellent bond rating, and 75% of the budget is in good condition. However, there are certain problem areas which are far from adequately funded. Pillar three is to achieve a better balance between jobs and housing. He recapped the strategies For promoting "family wage'' jobs and housing affordable at that level of income. Despite the initiatives and efforts, Port Townsend has not been able to make significant progress toward these goals. He said that for home prices Jefferson County is now the second most unaffordable county in Washington. He noted that ten years ago retail sales revenues were at $1 million; today they are only at $1.5 million inclusive of inflation. "I7rere are some challenges in this area." The last pillar is accommodating Port Townsend's share of county-wide growth. He said the City has signed a contract with the County and the State to meet this condition within the 20 year period; this is an obligation related to its designation as an urban growth area. The proposed approach is to hold a series of three town meetings, each focusing on one of the three themes or pillars. The purpose would be to get citizen input on what is working and how to best address or modify strategies on the things that are not working. Basically, that is the charge for the Planning Commission `'to listen carefully, evaluate fully and determine which parts are to be augmented and how, to achieve these ends." The first town meeting is scheduled for March 6; agendas (EXH 5)were distributed to the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Ray asked for clarification on the scope of possible changes to the P/arming Commission Page 5 of 8 February 18, 2008 Comp Plan implied. Mr. Sepler respond, "We have to be surgical; the intent of the mid-cycle assessment is not to review the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is, if things areri t working, let's try to remedy them as discretely as we can." He noted that the challenge arises from the fact that some of the fundamental assumptions have not worked out in practice. For example, if mixed use centers are still deemed appropriate, what will it take to make them happen? There was clarifcation that this cannot become a re-writing of the Comp Plan, but should be an assessment and updated scope of work. A discussion about the lack of population growth ensued. Mr. LeMaster noted that with the lack of increased tax base and larger population, the mixed use center is not viable. Mr. Sepler said there will be a discussion of why mixed use has not happened. In his professional opinion, there is not absorption lazge enough to build all four corners at one time. Because housing units cannot be sold at the densities that would warrant the investment by one developer, no small developer could do one corner at a time. 'The antidote may be for the City to undertake "building the first one". He said that perhaps this type of development must bejump-started. Various aspects are interrelated and dependent on a critical mass of housing. George Unterseher questioned whether the existing demographic information is adequate and whether it had been thoroughly analyzed. Bill LeMaster asked for clarification on the role and actions of the County in effecting pillar four. Mr. Sepler said that the County is supposed to curtail small lot development in the County. After a brief discussion about that track record, Mr. Ray suggested that because of the political sensitivity, he agreed that it would be more productive to focus on the other three aspects. Mr. Sepler said that while it is necessary to consider the fourth aspect, a town meeting would not be the best vehicle. Mr. Sepler stressed again that the "small town character" is the most important theme/aspect and would be the topic for the first meeting. He described the format and process components planned for that meeting. Phis will be a noticed meeting, with Commissioners dispersed among the small groups/tables as participants, not as facilitators. He walked through the tentative agenda that had been provided earlier (EXII. 5). He said it is entirely possible that certain ideas or concepts may come to the fore that were not even thought about ten years ago. He described the Overview portion, as well as the purpose and process for each of the three exercises, including the "pulse pad" and ballot voting in exercise III. Overall, this process will frame out future efforts. The second meeting, on April 17, will have a different format with a greater educational component to present status and options on services and facilities. Staff anticipates that at the end of the three meetings, the information and opinions collected will be sufficient to guide the Comprehensive flan updates and crafting of a better strategy. He listed several of the likely key components: mixed use centers, Upper Sims Way, economic strategy to support better wage jobs, sustainable funding such as a Parks District, and housing action plan. Mr. Sepler gave a brief update on HAPN (Housing Action Plan Network) activity. The HAPN committee has maintained that ultimate success will require many small changes. Of the more than forty "low hanging fruit" actions recommended, one was to ensure that R-IIII zoning has a minimum density, precluding single family housing. This was clearly supported by HAPN, the Planning Commission and City Council. However, during the City Council meeting, there was vociferous opposition to this notion by some residents in the vicinity of Howard and Hastings Streets, location of a potential mixed use center. Mr. Sepler said that apparently some residents had not realized that multi-family zoning has been in effect in that area for ten years. During the meeting, Councilor Randels, Eric Toews and others had provided comments supportive of the Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 February 28, 2008 minimum density requirement and explained that i[ had always been intended to be part of R-llI zoning. Commissioners considered several ways that might be used to ensure that potential buyers are fully informed about zoning conditions and implications. Jerry Fry noted that there is much misunderstanding about affordable housing and perhaps that can be addressed through education and outreach. Mr. Sepler said he would also expect that there would be those speaking in favor of more agricultural uses, such as using unopened right of ways for community gardens, etc. He reminded that the Town Meetings would be opportunities for the Planning Commissioners to participate, listen and talk with people about these issues; this is not quasi judicial process. He encouraged them to ask everyone for their ideas, particularly solutions to problem issues. George Unterseher asked ifMr. Sepler had current information on the income level needed to buy a median priced house in Port'fownsend. Mr. Sepler said that he believed it to be $?0,000 to $80,000. Mr. Unterseher cited the example of local firm that has been unable to fill four positions offering $62,000 salary because qualified potential candidates cannot afford to move here. Mr. Sepler noted that with nine square miles it should be possible to increase the supply of housing. A big constraint has been the cost of utilities; payment assistance can be made for subsidized housing but not for affordable housing. Teachers, police and other similar service providers cannot afford housing here. Vlli. UPCOMING MEE"PINGS March 6 -Town Meeting I March 13 -Joint Meeting with City Council and Uptown Strategies March 27 -Sign Code Workshop George Unterseher asked about the status of the Sign Code work and number of meetings until it is finished. Mr. Sepler said that the 32 page version is ready for review. IX. COMMUNICA'T'IONS Conunissioner Fry said that he attended the Low lmpact Development Conference earlier in the day. He noted that it was very well attended by a diverse group including builders, developers, regulators. consultants and planners. Mr. Emery also attended. They said that more than half the attendees were from Jefferson County (including Port Townsend). There was a brief recap about: the meaning of low impact development, trends/changes in local regulations, and the positive implications for development cost in the long run. Mr. Emery noted that unused right of ways are excellent locations and opportunities to employ simple, compact rain gardens to reduce storm water run off and the like. There was a brief discussion about the projected population growth for the County; the issue of extending the sewer line to Glen Cove; and the possible future of the paper mill. P/arming Commission Page 7 of B February 28, 2008 X. ADJOURNMENT Fallowing suggestion by Julian Ray to proceed to the Farewell for Alice King, Bill LeMaster moved to adjourn, ~~~hich was seconded and approved all in favor. Chair Emery adjourned the regular meeting at 8:40 PM. XI. FAREWELL FOR COMMISSIONER KING Commissioners and staff held a farewell reception honoring Alice King for her years of service on the Planning Commission and wished her well. ~_~. Stev~mery, Chair, ~' t. ~ -~ t ~ ? -- ~~.~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder P/arming Commission Page 8 of 8 February 28, 2008