Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062608CITY OF PORT TO~YNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City HaII, City Council Chambers Thursday June 26, 2008 Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, June 26, 2008 EXII2 R. Sepler and S. yVassmer, Memo: Maximum Illuminated Sigrtage Clarification, June 20, 2008 EXH 3 Uptown Parking Strategies Committee, Final Parking Kecommendation Matrix, March 3, 2008 EXH 4 Draft Uptown Parking Ordinance for Planning Commission Discussion, May 22, 2008 EXH 5 R. Sepler, Memo: Uptown Off-street C-III Parking Requirements, June 18, ?005 CALI, TO ORDER Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mickhager, Kristen Nelson, George Unterseher Excused: Julian Kav 111. ACCEPTANCF. OF AGENDA The agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes oCMay 22, 2008, Corrections: Page 3 -paragraph 8: "Ms. Nelson asked what the final decision had been regarding the height restrictions on canopy signs and ]ettering_ Mr. Sepler said that where changes in the code that caused certain signs to become pre-existing legal non-conformine, those signs can remain. Other pre-existing, illegal signs may need to submit to a design review process: Page 4, paragraph 2: " ...4. A Changeafile Insert sign thur adrertises seafood sold within the Port of Port Townsend Boat Hnren is allowed, provided that a munagemeiat and maintenarzce plmr prepared by the Part o(Port Townsend is approved by City Coiazcrl. " Page 4, paragraph 7: "... the aGUa] number of signs affected was estimated at about 45 signs.' I3i11 LeMaster proved to approve, as amended, and Jerry Fiy seconded. The minutes ofMay 72, 2008 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL, PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 June 76, 2008 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Sign Code Recommendafion -Clarification and Direction to Staff (Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Suzanne Wassmer, Land Use Development Specialist) Mr. Sepler referred to EXH 2, the staff memo of June 20 on Maximum Illuminated Signagc, and suggested that stafl~and Commissioners walk through the issue. He noted that there are three different ways that this particular section of the code can be interpreted. Suzamre Wassmer referred to current code, 17.76.050, F_ 2 pertaining to mixed use, commercial, and public, park and open space districts outside the historic district, which reads "Signs illuminated with internal or neon lighting are Limited to a sign face area of 25 square feet : The questions are: Is each business allowed 25 square feet of illuminated area? Or, is each sign for a business limited to 25 square feet? Or, are elements of a sign allowed that area? Mr. Sepler reminded that businesses can have more than 25 square feet of signs in these zoning districts, based on the building frontage. Suzanne Wassmer noted that the interpretation made for certain larger buildings, such as hotels along the waterfront and for the hospital, was that each sign could be that large. (She mentioned that the illuminated area for Safeway was much larger.) One question is whether an applicant should go through a sign variance process for anything larger. Should they go through design review? She said that with larger buildings, there would be detnand for more illuminated signage. Mr. Sepler said that the code strongly favors indirect illumination, i.e. "Indirect illumination is encouraged", although it is not required. }Ie said that was the policy guidance. Can there be more than one 25 square foot area of internally illuminated signage? For externally illuminated or non-illuminated, the signage may go to the maximum area based on the size of the building. Ms. Wassmer noted that in the Historic District section of the code, the total area of signs illuminated by internal lighting shall not exceed six square feet per separate store front, which is more specific than for the commercial zones. Commissioner Unterseher said that it is misleading to measure all intemally illuminated signs by the outside frame. He noted that many intemally illuminated signs have a -`negative field behind illuminated letters". He asked, `'How should such instances be measured?" Commissioner Fry observed that the third option, i.e. by element, would have the effect that there would be much more illuminated signage area. Implementers will tend to choose intemally illuminated letters because that will allow the most illuminated signage area. aesthetic solutions. He said an effort should be made to establish a guideline regarding the ratio of allowable illumination to the allowable size of the sign. Anything greater than that would require LeMaster favored a cooperative process that would have developers and City staff agreeing on a design review. Mr. Unterseher said he agreed in principle, and that the current provisions are too confusing. However, he said he did not understand why extemally illuminated signs are preferable. Mr. Sepler said this arose from the National Tmst for Historic Preservation Water Street study, which notions were then applied beyond the historic districts. The recommendation was that external illumination better preserves the historic character and reduces the spillover effects. Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 June 26, 2008 Mr. Unterseher questioned why that guidance should be applied outside the historic areas. Additionally, he pointed out the difference in a single hooded light bulb (historic) versus the generalization to "ex[emally illuminated", often characterized by high brightness and far more light pollution than from internally illuminated signs. Mr. Sepler said the problem was one of interpretation. Ile suggested, based on previous comments by Mr. LeMaster, that for more than ~0 square feet of illuminated sign, there must be a sign plan and design review process. Atypical storefront would be allowed 25 square feet, and no design review would be necessary. Mr. Unterseher suggested that the intent be clarified in the code. i.e. that the intention is to avoid "too much illunination". Mr. Sepler said that a maximum size is needed in order for the rules to be effective. Mr. LeMaster suggested "no greater than ] 0% of the allowable signage area". As an example, based on the total signage area for Safeway, about 25 square feet of illumination would be allowed there. There was additional discussion about ensuring a reasonable process. Mr_ Sepler also noted that recent businesses and their signs are all of reasonable size and illumination. Ms. Nelson moved to accept the option shat allows each business 25 syuare Jeet, i.e. the recommendation of the ad hoc sign committee. To minimize light pollution, the committee r-ecomneended that no change be made to the maximum ZS square foot age even for illuminated box signs and for individually illuminated leuerr. There x~as additional discussion about multi- tenant buildings and Ms. Nelson restated the motion, adding that applicants may pursue the sign variance process, as needed. The motion rcas seconded hyMr_ hrv and apprm~ed, all in Jdvor. A discussion followed about the light measurement issue. Mr. Sepler said that was ]eft as a staff mle rather than incorporated into the code and he acknowledged the significance of rapidly changing technology. He said that they would depend on the requirements of downward facing and shielded lighting for Icss spillover. Mr. Unterseher was concerned about reflective background even on signs with very low wattage. Mr_ Sepler said that the only complaint received about lighting and signage during the past few years was about the ATM machine at Wells Fargo. Upon investigation, staff had learned of a State WAC requiring the specific bulbs that were installed, for safety/security reasons. It was agreed that Planning Commission concerns about light measurement issues will be conveyed to City Council when the revised code is presented. VII. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing -Proposed Revisions to Title 17, Zoning -Off-street Parking Regulations in the Uptown C-III Zoning District. (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Because there were no members of the public present, commissioners and staff agreed to dispense with reading of the public hearing script. Mr. Sepler introduced the revisions to Title 7 7, Zoning regarding off street parking in the Uptown C-III Zoning District He reviewed the background, including the parking requirement for apartments (l .5 spaces per unit) and residences (2 per unit). He said that the single largest limiter on building size isoff-street parking, which typically takes 30% or more of the building site. About three years ago, there was a movement to try to encourage increased densities and broader affordability. He reviewed the theory that providing more housing and fewer parking spaces encourages people to own fewer cars and possibly to use public transportation more. This was P/arming Commission Page 3 of 8 June 26, 2008 coupled with the ongoing issue in Port Townsend revolving around affordable housing. That is, unencumbered by parking requirements, there could be more units per site, lower prices and therefore more affordable housing. With parking requirements removed, the practical result was that 50 foot tall buildings, not previously feasible, became economically feasible. However, although there were more and smaller units, they were not more affordable. Partly in response to the public's reaction to plans for a SO foot building project on Lawrence Street across from the Library, City Council then established an interim ordinance requiring one off street parking space for each residential unit and none for commercial. They rejected any moratorium to reduce buildings to a 35 foot height. (Mr. Sepler mentioned the pending plans for the Key City building on Lawrence Street; however, no application has yet been submitted.) This was followed by a community charette to address character, parking, and scale issues for the Uptown area. The outcome consisted of two tracts or processes. One was to address design issues, by formation of a committee. "The design guidelines that now apply to Uptown are the same as the Downtown, but they have very different issues. The second was to address parking needs. A committee fowrd that if there were no off street spaces, the burden would fall on the surrounding neighborhood. They also found that there was no confidence that people moving in would have fewer cars. He said that spatially we are not well located for pedestrian only use and public transportation is not well situated to fully meet the needs. The full recommendations of the parking committee are appended to the materials (EXH 3). Several of the items are on hold pending completion of a parking survey. During the winter, a baselnre survey was done. A survey will be done in July on a Saturday before 1:30 PM. If 8S% of the parking capacity within 300 feet of the commercial area is in use, that will indicate issues that must be addressed immediately. He said they would work with the property owners to address employee parking, such as guaranteeing rides home, encouraging alternative modes and public transit. However, at [his point, it appears that during the Farmer's Market peak period, there is adequate parking. He noted that there are items that need to be done immediately; when 6S% of capacity is reached, and when 7S% is reached. It is also structured to have disincentives at the later stages, and the expectation is that merchants will self-police. From the initial survey, since vehicles were typically parked for about 8 hours, the problem appears related to employee parking. One issue that can be addressed immediately is to require off street parking for new development in the area. A draft ordinance (EXH 4) had been prepared. Mr. Sepler described it as very strait forward. This would reestablish one space per unit for multi-family and mixed use dwellings in the C-III zoned portions of the Uptown National Landmark Historic District. It also would extinguish the interim parking control currently in place. Commissioner Nelson noted drat previously the parking requirements had been eliminated downtown and uptown [o encourage development and potentially affordable housing. She said that according to the Comp Plan there should be higher density in mixed use areas. She questioned whether re-instituting parking requirements would have a negative effect in that regard. Mr. Sepler said that this would only apply to the C-III district uptown. He said that only two ways were identified to accomplish the goal: reduce the building height and eliminate the parking requirement, or take this compromise approach. This was seen as the most balanced approach. Ms. Nelson also noted that the Design Strategy was also parr of the solution. Mr. Sepler said that the recommendation for building height was to allow it to remain at the 50 feet maximum. The committee did not see height per se as "the enemy'. IIe said that the group had been mindful of the design issues, which had been reviewed at the joint meeting with City Council and the Planning Comnssion. Planning Commission Page 9 of 8 June 26, 2008 Mr. LeMaster noted that there are no parking requirements for strictly commercial buildings, i.e. those having no residential components. He said that since the parking problem uptown is caused by the commercial activities, he did not understand why the residential component should be penalized. Mr. Sepler said that the commercial side of the solution is part of other recommendations not subject to this ordinance. That includes forma] monitoring, getting businesses to cooperate, trip reduction strategies, etc all in a phased manner. He said that would be considered implemented by City Council as soon as the surveys/studies are completed. He mentioned the related bulk and scale issues. Mr. LeMaster said he did not recall that bulk and scale issues had been discussed as part of the parking subject. Mr. Unterseher said that if one of the reasons for eliminating parking requirements had been to encourage more affordable housing, he did not see that as valid. Mr. Emery said that the original idea was for in-till purposes, making vacant lots productive, and that it was not seen as a major factor. Ms. Nelson said her concern had not been about affordable housing but about encouraging development in intended high density mixed use areas. Commissioners asked Mr. Sepler if this parking measure would be a detriment to further in-fill. Mr. Sepler said that for in- fill to take place, there must be adequate services, especially public transportation. He said that it was unlikely that most people would give up their cars entirely, and that there are more cars registered in Port Townsend than people. Ms. Mickhager asked for clarification on the bounds of the C-III uptown area, and was shown the area on the map. Ms. Nelson questioned the revised 1'AQLE 17.72.080 entries for bicycle parking, i.e. that there were None. Mr. Sepler clarified that there is a bicycle requirement for commercial but not residential. Ms. Nelson commented that she was very pleased with the work than the parking corrtrnittee had done, but that she was concerned that only two of the six steps appeared to be moving forward. Mr. Sepler said that staff needs [he parking study results to move forward on the other recommendations. He said [hat the code change process takes time and it was felt it could begin before the other steps. Ms. Mickhager asked why commercial was not included. Mr. Sepler said that having crowded commnercial districts actually works. People will walk or bike when they expect parking difficulties. He also said that commercial parking usually is not 24 hour use. "There is ample parking at night. Mr. LeMaster asked if there are provisions for requiring employers to ensure that employees do not use up available parking. Mr. Sepler said that business owners understand that it is in their best interest to accommodate and support parking soimions. Otherwise, residents will demand a sticker program that will negatively affect customer parking and the bottom line for their businesses. There was additional discussion about the ultimate benefit of such a provision for residential and not commercial. Mr. Sepler reviewed several approaches that had been considered along with this recommendation. He discussed the idea of fees that would fund sidewalks, bike lanes and explained that that part had been eliminated. The approach taken was to get businesses to participate in a management scheme. Ms. Nelson commented on the difficulty of creating commercial parking and of determining how many spaces each business should have for what periods of time. She said that, in addition, it can be somewhat of a waste during the times the business is closed. She said it is easier to plan for residential parking based on the number of units and there is agreement that employee parking will not occur in the residential spaces. In response to a question, Mr. Sepler confirmed that the set of recommendations had been approved by City Cowteil. Planning Commission Page S of 8 June 26, 2008 Ms. Mickhager said that even considering all of the above, she did not understand why there would be no parking requirements for commercial development. Some Commissioners said they believed this ordinance, as drafted, would have some positive impact and others said it would not. Mr. Sepler said that the situation was such that in terms of square footage, it would be at least ten years before a new commercial building would be able to make adequate return on investment. Ile said that only residential can pay for new development [Rick; please verify preceding and clarify rf needed:] Mr. LeMaster said it was his understanding from committee discussions that expansions for local manufacturing/storefront businesses such as printers and bakeries were key development opportunities for that area, and would also provide employment. He said he agreed with Mr. Sepler that the new construction of commercial properties was a long way off citing the many vacancies in available retail leasing space. Ms. Nelson questioned whether it would be appropriate to put additional light industrial uptown in an area with very high rents. She said that the demand is for retail shops within walking distance of residential areas. Mr. Unterseher pointed out that, practically speaking, it will be obvious to commercial and residential developers that they need to provide parking, if street parking is not adequate. Chair Emery noted that this portion of the meeting was intended for questions. He asked if it would be possible to have an overlay for bonus densities. Eor example, could low income 1IUD housing be built? Mr. Sepler pointed out some of the contradictory needs and goals of the community. He said that the whole discussion is about the character of the Uptown. Many people have indicated that they wish to manage traffic and parking to some degree, and they wish to limit the size and height of new buildings. He mentioned the option of exploring an arrangement "in lieu" of commercial off street parking. He explained that under such an arrangement, developers could either provide off street parking or pay into a fund that would be used for related good works. Commissioners discussed [he lack of success with previous "in lieu' funding in the downtown area. Mr. Sepler said the question was whether, for the price point of development that is coming in, should developers should be given a break and not be required to provide parking or "in lieu" payments. The examples of Aldrich's, with one space per residential unit, and Waterman Katz, which will make demands of existing on-street parking, were discussed. It was noted that in the latter case, the burden is shifted from the developer to the public. The option of building a parking garage or lot cooperatively was discussed. Mr. Sepler cited the successful model implemented by merchants in the University district in Seattle. At this point, Mr. Sepler recapped the options for the Plamvng Commission for this meeting: ] . make a reeomtnendation, either the one proposed or an alternative, or decide against entirely; Z. close and continue the public hearing to date specific for further discussion, or 3. table it indefinitely, which would not be consistent with City CounciPs direction. Ms. Nelson moved that the proposed ordinance establishing art off street par-king requirement for residendia! uses in the C-OI portions of the Uptown National Landmark Historic and rescinding provisions of Ordinance ?968 be recommended for adoption, as x~riiten. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fry. With 3 in favor and 3 opposed, the motion.failed to Barry. Mr. LeMaster then moved that the Planning Commission consider an in lieu Jee related to the one parking space per residential unit arrangement under ] Z 72.080. ,3Jter a brief discussion about the process he revised the motion, i.e. that staff be directed to formulate the in lieu Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 >une 26, 2008 concept proposal and also expand the applicability to commercial parking. Mr. Unterseher seconded the motion. Mr. LeMaster said that he believed an in lieu fee would provide a way to help develop alternative means of transportation. He cited the increasing cost and environmental Impacts of petroleum dependency and the need for the community to make shifts in practice and foster long term solutions. Ms. Nelson sought clarification about the new motion. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler said that, assumine the motion passed, he wou]d prepare a new proposal consistent with the above suggestions. Mr. LeMaster then said he may wish to modify his motion. He said he preferred that the number of required parking spaces be based on the actual number of vehicles owned per Port Townsend resident. That is, if the number of vehicles is two per person, than the oft street parking requirement should be two spaces per unit rather than one per unit. He said that this would increase the likelihood that developers would pay the in lieu fees and increase the resources to pay for alternatives to cars. Ms. Nelson expressed her concern that the end result might actually be more pavement uptown. Mr. Sepler suggested that the starting point would be for staff to verify what the prior requirements were. The next step would be to establish the in lieu provision, including formulas for determining the fees. A committee would be needed to determine the priorities for which the fees would be used: sidewalks, bike racks, etc. There was agreement that the motion would stand without the specific modification cited by Mr. LeMaster. I'he motion was approved, 5 in favor and I opposed. Chair Emery then continued the public hearing on the Uptown parking ordinance to .luly ] 0, ?008. Appointment of Two Commissioners for Ad-Hoc Teardown and Height, Bulk and Scale Committee Mr. Sepler briefly explained the scope and needs for the committee. Commissioners Bill LeMaster and George Unterseher agreed serve as representatives from the Planning Commission. VIiI. UPCOMING MEETINGS July 10: Continuation of llptown Parking Ordinance Public Hearing; Workshop-Town Meeting Outcomes and Mid-cycle Assessment Mr. LeMaster requested that the summaries for the Town Meetings be merged into one docwnent. Mr. Sepler said he would provide that information on disks. IX. COMMUNICATIONS XI. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 June 16, 1008 Kristen Nelson moved for adjournment and Mr. LeMaster seconded. Chair Emery adjourned the meeting at 8:40 PM. ,~/~~. Gail Bernhard, Recorder P/arming Commission Page 8 of 8 June Z6, Z008