Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071008CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JULY ] 0, 2008 7:00 PM CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting Materials: EXH I . Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for July ] 0, 2008 EXH 2. R. Sepler, Memo: Revised Drafi Uptown C-III Parking Ordinance, June 27, 2008 EXH 3. Draft Ordinance: Establishing an Off Street Parking Requirement for Commercial and Residential Uses in C-III Portions of [he Uptown National Landmark Historic District..., for Planning Commission Discussion July 10, 2008 CALL TO ORDF,R Chair Steve Emery called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM 11. ROLL CALL Present: Steve Emery, Jerauld Fry, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mickhager, Kristen Nelson, Julian Ray (arrived 7:13 PM), George Unterseher Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director 111, ACCEP"FANCE OF AGENDA Commissioner Nelsen moved for acceptance of the agenda, which was seconded by Commissioner FrR and approved all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes oC June 26, 2008 -Commissioner LeMaster requested correction of wording on page 5, paragraph 4: "Mr. 1 eMaster said that parking was not discussed in the bulk and state design committee." Mr. LeMaster moved and Ms. ~Yelsnn seconded for approval of the minutes, as amended. The minutes of June 26, 2008 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLICCOMMEN"P-None Vl. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Public Hearing -Proposed Revisions to Title 17, Zoning -Off Street Parking Regulations in the Uptown C-III Zoning District (Continued from June 26, 2008) Rick Sepler, Plamring Director Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 Meeting of July 10, 2008 Chair Emery opened the continued public hearing and asked Mr. Sepler to make his presentation Rick Sepler said he had provided two documents for consideration by the Planning Commission. The first (EXH. 2), is a summary of the table excerpted from 17.72 that applies to commercial uses and parking requirements. This table does not apply to the C-III zoning districts currently. However, at the last meeting, Commissioners had expressed interest in investigating reestablishment of these requirements within the C-III zoning in the Uptown Historic district. Rather than crafting new use tables, he had provided these as a starting point. The second document was a revised ordinance (EXH. 3) that would reestablish those parking requirements in the C-III zone. It would also reestablish a new section that would allow a fee in lieu of parking spaces. He said that no specific amounts had been developed as yet; additional time would be necessary for analysis. Questions from Planning Commissioners: Commissioner LeMaster expressed his appreciation for staff s efforts in prepazing the revised draft ordinance. He said it had never been his intent, in requesting the "in lieu fee", that the current connnercial parking requirements for other areas in Port Townsend would be applied to the uptown historical C-III area. Mr. Sepler said that Commissioners could decide what applies, but suggested they work from [he existing Ordinance as a mode], rather than create new categories. Ile suggested they could select any, all or none as they would apply to the uptown historical C-III area. Ile noted that it would be inconsistent to recommend a new definition. Mr. LeMaster said that he had no desire to establish or support additional parking spaces or parking lots in the historical areas of the community. Ile said he wondered whether the in lieu fee for the historical commercial areas, because they are so sensitive, should not necessarily be associated with the intended use of the commercial activity but associated with the s ware oota >e of the building that will be occupying said lots. Mr. Emery noted that square footage appears in the chart provided- Mr. LeMaster asked if that could be associated with any proposed residential development, as well. [Julian Ray arrived at this point, 7:13 PM.] Commissioner Mickhager asked if staff could provide some estimate or range of in lieu fees so that Commissioners would have some perspective as a starting point- Mr. Sepler said that the prior in lieu fee was S3500; some jurisdictions are as high as $22,000. At Chair Emery's request, Mr. Sepler provided a brief status and description of documents for Mr. Ray, before proceeding. Commissioner Unterseher asked if the in lieu fee had ever been applied before in Port Townsend. Mr. Sepler said the original in lieu fee was adopted with the original parking code when it was revised in the 1990s, and was extant until 200. No one opted for this option; no fees were ever received. He said the code was revised for two reasons: the fee in lieu was not in use, and there was a desire to capture in fill development on the vacant lots. The initial Planning Commission parking recommendation was that some funds would need to be provided for alternative modes, if not on street parking. However, the City Council choose not to require fees, which was in effect a waiver of alt off street pat~cing requirements downtown, with a fixture district to be created. Uptown was igtored. 'This issue came to a head with the Rienstra building project. "that is, the public questioned how a 50 foot tall building with neither parking space(s) nor Planning Commission Page 2 of8 Meeting ofJu/y 10, 2008 monetary contribution could be allowed. This led to the Uptown Charette, and eventually to the work enrrently before the Planning Commission. Chair Emery asked how many vacant commercial lots remain. Mr. Sepler said that based on an assessment done about 18 months ago, there are seven potential sites uptown that are undeveloped or underdeveloped (ratio of improvements to land value is very low). There was a brief discussion about the possible application of this Ordinance to several uptown properties. Commissioner Fry asked if there had been a restriction, in the previous in lieu provision, as to what the in lieu Cunds could be used for. Mc Sepler said that a parking plan and dedicated accounts had been required. If this new in lieu arrangement was pursued, City Council would not make it effective until such time as a dedicated plan was in place. He said typically jurisdictions will set the fee in /ieu at about 80;~u of what their study determines as real value. Mr. LeMaster asked if off street parking requirements would apply in the case where an existing business expands. Mr. Sepler said that typically this would apply if there is a change of use or if there is expansion of area. Existing buildings are allowed to be maintained. Mr. LJnterseher expressed his concern that instead of a long term plan, these types of changes are piecemeal and will not really solve the problem or improve the overall situation. Mr. Sepler pointed out that after consideration of many options, the parking committee had decided on an adaptive management approach to better manage resources. They identified the residential component as easy to address by adding some spaces. They also believed that the commercial use was the fundamental issue and commercial traffic could be managed. The plan as accepted by City Council establishes a threshold before more serious steps such as restricted parking are taken. Merchants will work hard to avoid having to take very costly measures. Julian Ray voiced his agreement that the uptown community had strongly preferred self- management and a graduated approach, with monitoring over time to deternune what, when, and how should be done. "They decided to start with low cost, simple steps rather than imposing regulations. GU asked if steering people to public transportation, for example, was part of the plan. Mr. LeMaster asked Mr. Sepler to estimate the cost of providing off street parking to a mixed use facility and the impact o£the added cost/affordability on the facility. Mr. Sepler said that it would not affect affordability, given the high cost of land/property in that area. Por many years, the cost of structured parking, e.g. underground, was about X22,000 per space; he said he would try to get a current figure. Surface parking is a poor use of space. It was agreed that off street parking raises the cost of development over and above already high costs, and quite possibly could affect the overall feasibility of a project. Mr. LeMaster said he still did not understand why the parking committee had recommended a parking requirement on the residential component for mixed uses in the commercial uptown historical district. Mr. Sepler noted the outcome of the Charette, i.e. "Do not change the character of Uptown:' Big parking structures would not be consistent to the character of Uptown. He said that the question was, if we are not going to provide off street parking, what is the best way to manage the existing resources? If employees continue to park on Po]k Street, residents will demand a sticker program. The committee decided, for commercial parking to follow the model of the University parking association in Seattle. '1'o track the supply and demand over time, they decided to do a parking inventory annually, and to take additional measures upon reaching pre-established Thresholds. For example, when 85% of capacity is used for more than six hours per day, move to the next level of interventions. Julian Ray agreed that Planning Commission Page 3 of8 Meeting of July 10, 2008 the community seemed to take ownership of the problem, and it seemed best for government to get out of the way. He said that people came together around the idea of understanding the problem, fact finding and community-managed process using incentives and astep-wise approach. He said there was buy-in from Polk Street neighbors, businesses, developers, and all involved. Mr. LeMaster said he applauded the overall plan but did not understand the burden on the residential component. Commissioner Nelson referred to the University District (Seattle) model, noting that it was commercial and residentia}. She asked Mr. Sepler if there were off-street parking requirements for residential. He said that it included reduced, not one for one, requirements for both residential and commercial with differing requirements by area. The University model is a not- for-profit association that manages the parking resource. He said that, per this model, if the city of Seattle did not require commercial on the ground t7oor, it would never be provided. Planning Commission Deliberation: Ms. Nelson indicated that she would like to move to deny the draft ordinance in its entirety and to start over. Mr. Sepler explained that the options were to move to approve the prior draft, or the current draft, or the current draft with modifications. Ms. Nelson proved to approve the draft from the previous meeting, June 26, 2008. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ray. Mr. LeMaster said that given the increased cost of development and rising cost of fuel, he found it unreasonable to support an ordinance that would add to the cost of residential ownership and set aside natural resources for an automobile. Mr. Kay said that Mr. LeMaster had raised some good points. However, he said there are really only three to five buildable lots in the area in question, and thought that should be considered. He was in favor of trying the proposed approach and cautioned against second guessing the parking committee process. He said perhaps the Planning Commission should not try to fix that which had such broad cormmunity buy-in. Ile also listed the examples, issues and models from otherjurisdictions he had researched as part of the parking committee. Ms. Nelson reiterated her concerns that imposing parking requirements Uptown, a designated growth area, would diminish the potential for growth and development. She said it would be inconsistent to impose parking requirements that make development and cost of ownership higher, but clarified that she was not talking about affordable housing. Ms. Mickhager said she believed change was inevitable, and that the Uptown could not possibly remain exactly as it is. She said her concern was helping those who wish to shop uptown, as well as those who live there. She said that despite the natural resource issues, she was in favor of focusing on the neighborhood needs. She said neither one of the proposals was adequately addressing the issue, bringing people to the Uptown without cars. There was discussion about the in lieu fees. Ms. Mickhager said that while it may be a step in [he right direction, it would be too little, at $3500, to have impact. Mr. Ray pointed out the fee would be based on a cost analysis; for example, $22,000 would go a long way if spent on alternatives. Ms. Nelson said that the Uptown is the area selected in the Comp Plan for responsible growth. With growth come more cars, more businesses, and more convenience and choice. She said the realization that one cannot always find a parking space in front of one's destination is par[ of the trade-off lssue_s come with growth and not all of them can or need to be fixed. Planning Commission Page 4 of 8 Meeting ofJuty 10, 2008 Mr. Ray noted that the approach has multiple facets, education being an important one. He mentioned that the parking inventory data would help to replace conflicting perceptions about the '`problem'. He cited studies which show that if people need to walk more than 300 feet they think there is a parking problem. In being exposed to the parking committee process, he said that many people learned new points of view and emerged with a common understanding of the problem. Ideas were suggested-for making better use of existing parking before pursuing more drastic measures. IIc also mentioned the example of having employees clock in at the Park and Ride. He said that almost no one, including Polk Street neighbors, wished to discontinue the Farmer's Market, which is the major factor in the peak time parking demand. Mr. Sepler pointed out that City Council has already adopted the overall plan- It calls for striping, joint use, improved transit schedules, voluntary transportation management by the businesses, and an adaptive management over time approach. He agreed with Mr_ Ray that many businesses and residents had changes their minds during the process, and were now much more willing to support collaborative solutions. He said that the Planning Commission is now dealing with the only revelatory change. Action on the whole plan has been awaiting the summer peak time inventory. Mr. Sepler also pointed out that without a contribution by the developer, the public obviously pays the entire cost. Mr. Ray cited the compelling rationale mentioned by merchants in the University parking district. They said that they knew they could not do away with cars/parking needs, so if they did not Snd a way to deal with them, they would fail financially. Therefore, [hey realized they needed to find a way, internally, to deal with it. He suggested that the City should limit its actions and regulations and allow the community to make that happen. Kristen Nelson said that postponing a clear decision and leaving the burden for future Planning Commissions to deal with could be considered as irresponsible. She was not in favor of a series of "let's try this" actions instead of a long term plan. Mr. LcMaster questioned whether many of the Uptown residents who support the recommendations of the parking committee realize and agree that this area is targeted as a growth area for the City of Port Townsend. He said, "Trying to pave versus infill with residential and/or commercial for automobiles, 1 find this contradictory to the goals of the City of Port Townsend°. Mr. Fry called for the question. Chair Emery did a brief recap of the original Planning Comtission decision to remove parking restrictions in which he had participated. He said that [here was expectation of refining a parking plan thorough the Charettes and public input. He said that what is proposed is a reasonable compromise that it does take the neighbors' concerns into consideration. Planning Cammissioners passed the motian to accept the June 26 version nf'the Ordinance: 5 in favor, and 2 opposed. VII. NEW BUSINESS Commission Discussion on the Town Meeting Outcomes and Mid-Cycle Assessment Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 Meeting ofJu/y 10, ZOOS Mr. Sepler explained that amid-cycle assessment is not a wholesale rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan. What is envisioned is a quick assessment of what is and what is not working, and to remedy areas that are not succeeding as well as possible. To hcIp with the mid- cycle assessment, three town meetings were held and each addressed one pillar of the Comp Plan. The first was on Character; there was genera] agreement that the City has done a very good job on preserving the character of Pon Townsend. The second aspect was dealing with and adequately funding the services needed by the community. City Council has taken action to find specific funding sources, to avoid competition for funds for various services. The last issue was dealing with Jobs/Housing, for which the community expressed the most concerns. He said there has been lirtle progress in the areas of new jobs and affordable housing. He said he wished to introduce a discussion by the Planning Corrunission about the best way to proceed. What should be the focus and what are the target issues? Considering the limitations, what should the course direction be for the second half of the Comp Plan's life? He suggested that the Housing and Jobs balance seemed to be the aspect most in need of attention, and requested the Comnrissioners views on that. Based on the discussion, Mr. Sepler would then prepare a work plan, which would then be forwarded to City Council for approval and/or modification. Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Sepler to review possible actions by the City, given that it cannot unilaterally create jobs or affordable housing. Mr. Sepler said the first issue is to determine whether goals for jobs and housing are still accurate. In addition, are our policies adequate to make them happen? He said that there has been work and progress in modifying them. Are there specific projects that the City should evaluate? He said that this is where more can be done. For example, the City can form public/private partnerships. While the City cannot create jobs directly, it can provide the infrastnicture that helps to enable job creation- He noted that this is an opportunity to develop a better strategy: increase the duration of time spent by visitors; create opportunities for telecommuting, etc. Mr. Frv said that he believes Port Townsend should focus on what it has to sell/offer to the rest of the world. He believes that is the absolutely beautiful surroundings, and is very concerned that half of our dwellings are vacant/unused in the winter time. He said that there is a huge opportunity to increase the amount of time spent here and the amount of revenue from tourism (and residents). He said one idea from the town meetings that should be studied is development of a hi-speed wide area network for the entire city, run as a utility and income source. He said he believes that would allow more people to live and work here all year round, and that it would attract more high tech people as well. Mr. Emery added that entrepreneurs are attracted to communities that arc rich in culture. He said scenic beauty brings them here, but cultural richness is what keeps them here as residents and business owners. He recalled the discussions at town meetings about the need to expaud opportunities for entrepreneurs and noted how that ties in with the existing cultural scene. Mr. Unterseher also supported the idea of enhancing the communications infrastructure. He also said that he had personal experience wish the difficulty of recruiting applicants for full time jobs, even at S30 per hour. He said there is a general problem and lack of reliable workers at all levels. Others noted that that was a national, rather than a local problem. Mr. Unterseher said that it the Quimper Peninsula had a plan for power and food resource self- sufticiency within 30-50 years, that would draw national attention and invesUnent interest. Mr. Emery said that the idea of having more worker cooperatives had also been raised at one of the meetings. Such cooperatives are on the rise and would be consistent with sustainability goals. Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 Meeting of July 10, 1008 Mr. Ray recalled that he had promoted, researched and pursued "final mile solutions'' for many years, having worked locally with W SU, the Navy, and various vendors. He cited successful working systems in Mount Vemon and Sequin, and talked about the larger cities of Portland and Tacoma. He said such projects are not expensive when considering the returns, but require more capita] investment than Port Townsend has been able to consider, given all the important needs still unmet He said that while he certainly believes that such a utility would pay for itself, finding the funding has been an unsolvable obstacle. Mr. Ray said that he believes it is important to continue streamlining regulations and permitting processes, and making it easy for potential entrepreneurs or developer/investors to make things happen here, without abandoning our standards for economic, environmental, and social responsibility. He suggested that focusing on these processes may be one thing that can be achieved. Mr. LeMaster raised the issue of land use regulations. He suggested that perhaps Team Jefferson could be invited to discuss their perspective, which may help the Planning Commission prioritize its work so as to assist that process. Mr. Sepler agreed that if Commissioners decide to focus on housing and jobs, that several meetings should be arranged to hear from Judy Surber on Housing and from Team Jefferson regarding economic development. Mr. LeMaster said he would add. education as another component to be investigated, possibly under economic development Mr. Ray cited his familiarity and experience with the public school system, and suggested that its problems were impossibly pervasive and challenging. He suggested that any attention and energy be directed toward private/cooperative schooling alternatives. Mr. Sepler agreed that education is a subset of economic development, but did not agree with Mr. Ray's assessment of the public school system. }Ie cited the example of the failed attempt to recmit students for the magnate school for maritime uses. He said students did not want to work on boats. He suggested that a better approach would be asking what their educational interests are and bringing those opportunities into town. Mr. Unterseher suggested inviting realtors to speak with the Commission. He said there is "affordable ~ housing in town, but people seem unwilling to use it. Mr. Sepler said that the average wage is not sufficient to buy the average home. There are actually vacancies in subsidized housing. The biggest problem is in the middle strata, between 80 and 100% of median; this segment cannot afford to buy here. There was additional discussion about the relationships between int}astmcture, economic development and affordable housing. Mr. Sepler pointed out that most of the affordable housing shortage is in town, close to schools and services. He said the general challenge is the small absorption rates, to justify putting in infrastmcture, amuch greater numbers of units must be built and sold within a relatively short period of time. The situation is quite different outside the City limits. The trade offs associated with maintaining the "character" and heterogeneity were also discussed. Mr. LeMaster returned to the subject of public/private partnerships. He questioned what would become of the Mountain View property and what type of collaboration between the schools and community may occur. He also wondered how the Planning Commission might facilitate intergovernmental planning activity between the County and City. Mr. Sepler said that for those projects specifically demarcated in the Comp Plan, there is an obligation to do them. [NotePMg Sepler's follow up continent about fundutg sources was inaudible; When asked for her input, Commissioner Mickhager said that she was interested in all of the ideas that had been discussed. Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 Meeting of July 10, 2008 Commissioner Nelson reviewed the topics of the three. town meetings. She asked if there was anything the Planning Corrnnission could or should do affecting the budget and funding. Mr. Sepler said that City Council had taken on that issue. Also, any '`character" issues or steps were not really central. There was agreement that the housing/jobs issues would be the most appropriate to focus on. Mr. Unterseher mentioned the approach taken by some cities is to provide subsidized housing for teachers and other essential professions and services. He said that lots owned by the City and available for leasing should be identified, since land is the greatest building cost by far. Mr. Sepler noted that Judy Surber would be speaking about the status of the HAPN work at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Sepler said that based on this meeting, he would provide a verbal update for City Council indicating that housing~jobs and associated issues would be the key areas of focus for the Planning Commission. He said he would also schedule presentations from Team Jefferson and from Judy Surber about HAPN. Mr. Ray mentioned joint meetings with the County Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. It was agreed that consultation with these bodies should be included in the schedule after outlining the approach. Mr. Emery and Mr. Ray reiterated the dilemma of this small conununity in attracting funds and assistance in relation to other larger or more rapidly growing jurisdictions. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS July 24 -Workshop: Town Meeting Outcomes and Mid-Cycle Assessment UX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. LeMaster moved to adjourn and Mr. Fry seconded. Chair Emery adjourned the meeting at 8:53 PM. Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 Meeting of July 10, 7008