Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052809CITY OF PORT TO~~'IVSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Council Chambers Thursday, May 28, 2009 Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, May 28, 2009 EXH 2 R. Sepler, Teardowns, Bulk and Scale Review. May ] 8, 2009 EXH 3 Teardowns, Bulk and Scale Recommendations Matrix, April 9, 2009 EXH 4 Chapter ] 7.30 Proposed Revisions, May 28, 2009 EXH ~ Chapter ] 7.08.020 Proposed Definitions A through D mid Section 17J6.030 Bulk Dimensional and Density Requirements, May 28, 2009 EXH 6 Teardowns and Bulk/Scale Taskforce-Background Materials and Reader CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Il. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery.. Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster. Monica Mick-Hager, and.lulian Ray. Kristen Nelson, outgoing Chair, was present as an observer, not as an official member. As a newly appointed member oCCity Coune7, it was necessary for her to resign from the Planning Commission. Ms. Nelson explained that the actual sweating in had taken place earlier dean she expected- Connuissioner wished Ms. Nelson ~~~ell in her new position. lIl. ACC}:P7`ANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Mick-llaeer noted that her tenure of Chair be in effect until the end of the year. She also suggested that the election of Vice Chair be postponed wail the following meeting. One new member will bejoining the Planning Commission as of the next meeting. in June. Mr. Sepler noted that ptacedurally, no motion is necessary, if there is genera] consensus. If so, Ms. Mick-Hager would assume the role of Chair and a new Vice Chair would be elected at the next meeting. They would both hold these positions until the first Monday of January, 2020 when new elections are held. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of April 9. 2009: Mr. LeMaster moved to approve the minutes of Apri! 9, 2009, as written, and Mr. Emery seconded. The mimdes of April 9, 2009 were approved, as written, all in favor. Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 V. GENERAL PUBLIC_ COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHEDBGSINT:SS: Workshop -'feardowns, Bulk and Scale 1. Overvie»~ of process to date (Rick Sepler. Planning Director) Staff presentation: Mr. Sepler referred to the packet that had been provided. He said that consistent with the schedule in EXfI. 2, this workshop would cover an Introduction (the Overview of process and a proposed review process). Alterations/Additions to Historic Residences - Desi~~ Review, and Daylight Plane (time pcnnitting). He noted [hat both Steve Emery and Bil] LeMaster were on the Bulk and Scale Ad hoc Task Force and welcomed them to help with summarizing the key issues. He said questions or comments by Commissioners need not be held to the end. He also pointed out the revised sections (line in, line out) of the code in the packet. A number of concerns were raised about one year ago regarding certain historic resources in town. There was concern about tear downs and alterations of historic residences. There are significant protections for commercial historic stmctures; there must be careful consideration and review before alterine historic structures. hi order to tear down a historic structure, it must be shown to be economically infeasible to maintain it. Mr. Sepler said these came out of constitutional issues raised before the Supreme Corn t (Pem~ Central decision) that concluded that a community can identify historic assets that must be maintained, provided there is a reasonable economic use to the owner. He said that protections are absent for residential portions of the National Historic District. Except for SEPA provisions, there are no other regulations preventing the tear down of a historic stricture. Eor example. should there be an application to tear down a historic simcture such as the Starrett Mansion, the only recourse would be to require a^ cnviromnental impact statement that would consider the alternatives. Facing three specific applications in town (Captain Tibbats House. Tyee Saloon, and a house on Fillmore Street.), the City Council adopted interim controls, which are fully legal as long as there is reasonable plan to develop regulations to replace the interim rules. 'fhe interim regulations prohibited the tear down or partial demolition of any historic residence without prior review. The process included the establishment of an ad hoc task force comprised of members of the City Council, the Platming Commission. the HPC, the Design Committee, and members of the community. They were charged with assessment of the issues and recommendations, which would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The purpose or benefit of an ad hoc group is to obtain a preliminary reeonunendation from a broad group of experience and interests. Of the series of recommendations, one was deferred to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then moves through a process that will develop a final recommendation that they believe is in the best interests of the City. The proposed process is to produce a draft ordinance that encompasses the changes and to seek public comment through a public hearing, tentatively envisioned for late July. The Ylamting Commission may hold as many meetings and hearings as necessary to complete a reeonunendation to City Council. The City Council veil] then have a workshop, likely a joint workshop with the Planning Commission, followed by a public hearing. The Council will also hold as many meetings or hearings as needed befprc taking action on the proposal. The CTED (Community Trade and Economic Development) organization will need to be informed of any changes to give them opportunity for Planning Commission Page Z of 7 comment, as well as the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. [Mr. LeMaster noted that CTED is being dissolved and merged into the Department of Commerce.] Mr. Sepler said that there was concern that the National Historic Landmark District designation, as named by the Department of the Interior, could ultimately be threatened if historic tear downs were not better regulated. Mr. Sepler discussed the peripheral issues, such as "demolition by reelect", which were also addressed by the Ad Hoc committee. He said that all historic homes in Port Townsend were within the scope, as well as the historic commercial properties. Another issue, related to the quality of the historic district, recognizes that many of the historic structures are fairly modest, fairly intact, period construction. The gradual erosion of these supportive, secondary structures could have an effect cumulatively. In addition, when a building is tom down it is often replaced with a much larger building than the original. The size of homes has grown significantly both locally and nationwide. This could result in a lack of continuity and compatibility of the particular mix of homes that is Port Townsend. Commissioner Fry requested a definition of historic stricture. Mr_ Sepler said that the operative definition is that if five of a set of eight criteria apply, then the structtne is considered historic. However, this will be revisited by the Planning Cormnission, i.e. the number of criteria that must be met Mr. Sepler described the nomination draft for the National Historic Landmark District prepared in the ] 970s. it classified buildings as Pivotal, Primary, Secondary, Altered Historic and Non- conforming. By ordinance, the City has established that buildings that are Pivotal, Primary, or Secondary are historic and warrant some degree of review. However, outside of the downtown this was purely voluntary. individually fisted buildings bring an additional review for SEPA, not additional protection. It was noted that any standards of the Department of the interior would not have impact. Mr. Sepler walked through the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations, EXH 3 [Note: basic proposal information is not restated below]. Teardowns -Mr. Sepler noted that the current SEPA regulations do not result in an approval/ decision, and are only a review. He said he had asked both the HPC and the Ad Hoc Conunittee what their goals are, i.e. what we are trying to achieve with these proposals. The HPC is working on documentation of what should be preserved. The Ad Hoc eotmnittee has also not come to a definitive statement. He said that historic character is very important, particularly the 1860-1920 period. While there maybe later buildings that fall into the criteria, that is not as weighty. Commissioner Emery agreed and added that the Legion Building is of a type that is relatively rare now. Mr. Sepler said there may he buildings designed by well-known architects that may qualify.. The criteria and number that must apply will be reviewed. Mr. Sepler said that there is never a dispute that pivotal and primary buildings must be preserved. However, there were questions about other types such as '`worker cottages ~ that have not been substantially altered. May they be modified, and if so, to what extent, and in what manner? He said that the predominance of what we have is i^ the historic district The Ad Hoc committee said the streetscape and historic scale of the buildings is what is significant He said that with lots typically 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep, there is typically space for adding on in the back. He cited Richard Berg's house as an example of extending in the back, without changing the streetscape. If building upward, there must be a step back from the original front face of the house. Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 It is also important to provide for a means of review. The rules are administrative but there is a satety vah-e for the rules where a departure may be considered by a design review body in unique situations, where the rules do not work. Design review would be part of the permit, and would be inspected for compliance. Inventory -The next issue is dealing with the inaccuracies of the nomination draft and map that were prepared in the I970s. Buildings that were marked as intrusions are now compatible, and some that were compatible are now intrusions; some buildings are no longer there Anew inventory is discussed at a later point in the meeting. In addition, there must be a good historic building process for those buildings outside the District that are historic. A process is proposed where any person can nominate a building for inclusion as historic. The building would be posted. The HAC and Historical Society would be asked for their opinions. The DSD Director would make the decision to include or not include. The same process would be used for the new inventory. Timelines would be specified. Property o~+°ners would be allowed to contest a ruling, and appeal it to the Hearings Examiner. This would be sinvlar to the process followed for tax assessments. In response to a question, he said the inventory would only deal with the Historic District as framed by the Department of the Interior. 'the nominations are for instances outside the District. Commissioner Fry was concerned about structures nominated against the owner s wishes. Mr. Sepler said the intention was to have an open ended process because buildings not now qualified may qualify in future years. He mentioned the first house designed by Architect Jim Cutler, built in 1970, which is coming up on eligibility for nomnation. The key is to establish eood criteria to avoid spwious nominations. The Director s decision is intended to efficiently eliminate any nominations that are unfounded. The perception is that a Historic designation may limit alternations to your home. Mr. Sepler pointed out that that there are tax benefits and other accommodations for helping to maintain historic properties. Commissioner Mick-Hager asked if a property owner could refuse the designation or `'get off the list' once designated. Mr. Sepler said that there is an opportunity during the initial nomination and that there is a notice to title that is part of the inventory- He referred to the Perm Central case and public interest. The conununity can compel the property owner in these situations, if there is still reasonable use. He mentioned the case of the'fibbals House where, after testimony and imrestieation, the Ciry allowed one wing to be removed because it was structurally unsound. Mr. LeMaster raised the question about secondary buyers. He advocated inclusion in the ordinance of some measure to ensure that a buyer of a designated historic house will be adequately informed of the implications. Connnissioner Ray suggested that the Title Companies should be required to provide this information. Mr. Sepler said the City would need to do a notice to title regarding the designation and the rules that apply. Mr. Ray expressed his concern regarding the rights of property owners and the possibility of being forced to comply with special measures against ones will. He suggested that there must adequate measures in place to support and protect the property owner. Mr. Sepler noted the supportive structures proposed. He discussed the nature of "takings _ and provided examples of when application of these rules may and may not be seen as takings. After further discussion, Mr. Sepler said there would be criteria for the District and for outside the District. He said the District boundaries and designation are still appropriate. A re-inventory will be needed. "lire City has budgeted funds for a suanner intern (with appropriate credentials) to do the inventory. The inventory will follow strict protocols and will identify those homes that are significant. Ultimately, the resulting map would be subject to a public hearing and Planning Commission Page 9 of7 nomination. Members of the community will be welcome to attend and argue for inclusion or exclusion. Residences outsidethe district will also be eligible. Commissioner Fry commented on the boundaries of the District and asked whether the boundaries are drawn down the middle of the street or otherwise. Mr. Sepler said that the boundary is the middle of the street. He said there not an intention to redo the nomination or expand it. The goal is to understand the condition of various structures that are in the Historic District. In the interim, the original map will be adopted, and used until the new map is done. The plan calls for 6-8 weeks of field work before the new inventory/map is ready- He discussed the State Register which identifies structures as "contributing' or "non-contributing". It does not allow for gradients. He discussed the desirability of having greater scrutiny for the most historically significant buildings. The inventory is intended to provide those demarcations, and associated criteria. He noted that the updated inventory would not come before the Plamring Commission. Rather. the Planning Comtrtission will set the rules of how it would be used. In terms of historic designation, the criteria from other cities will be used. If under ~0 years old, 5 of the 9 criteria must be met: if over ~0 years, 3 criteria must be met (Section 2.72 of the Municipal Code). Commissioners noted that there are many, many examples of "old" buildings or those that wilt soon meet that the 50 year threshold in Poet Townsend. Maintenance of Historic Structures - Mr_ Sepler said that this is a particularly sensitive issue. He discussed the proposal for dealing with those buildings drat have not been maintained to an acceptable level to ensure continued safety and integrity. This calls for adoption of provisions from the latest version (2003) of the International Propeny Maintenance Code. The basic provision is keeping a building weather tight. Commissioners briefly discussed several instances in town where old barns or garages are in serious disrepair or have actually collapsed. Mr. f mery inquired as to any recent decisions on the Carriage House. Mr. Sep]cr said dial the inventory would likely include some questions about any outbuildings that may meet the criteria on their own. Bulk and Scale; '.Maintaining Community Character Mr. Sepler said that teardowns in historic districts are otter characterized by replacement buildings that are significantly larger, which can have an adverse affect on the character of the community. }Ie cited Seattle and Vancouver neighborhoods where this occurred when the market was very strong. When the Port Townsend code from the 1970s, borrowed from Kent, was adopted, the average house size (less than 1700 square feet) rarely maxed out the envelope. The average house size is now over 2400 square feet; and nationally, it is 2800 square feet. The zoning has been overwhelmed. One can still build almost a 4,000 square foot house on a 5.000 square foot lot, particularly by building three stories- (Mr. LeMaster pointed out that newer homes must be much larger in size in order to pull up the average to that degree.) increased Side-yard Setbacks - Mr. Sepler explained that several previous measures had unintended consequences in contributing to bigger homes. To allow for increased Accessory Dwelling Units, the side-yard setbacks were reduced from ] 0' and S to 5' and 5' feet. This resulted in both bigger ADU's and main homes. The ADU's were envisioned to provide an alternative housing choice. Although not subject to this ordinance, they are subject to Bulk and Scale regulations. The challenge with ADUs is that the average size of an ADU is 1600 square feet, although the maximum by code is 800 square feet. That is, most of the ADUs have been built on top of garages: in many cases the ADU and garage are bigger than the house it serves. The issue is that many of the ADUs are dominant and out of context and scale to the primary buildings themselves. He said that ADUs were originally designed and encouraged to be built into the primary structure. He said there are design guidelines, rarely implemented- that provide Planning Commission Page 5 of7 for another entrance to the ADU, not next to the front entrance. In practice, there are more outbuildings: and which often predate the primary building. Require confannance with a daylight plane for all structures -Boxy homes adjacent to other homes have an adverse effect since they do not allow light and air to adjacent properties. Mr, Sepler explained the concept by drawing examples oC sculpted buildings designed for Less blockage of light to adjacent buildings. The vertical distances allowed are intended to roughly replicate the same size and scale of existiug historical buildings. One of the challenges is to make the scheme workable even on slopes and uneven lots. Require modulation on primary facades facing streets - Mr. Sepler explained the background and basis for modulations. which are intended to reduce the appearance of scale and mass from the street. Limit the maximum srze of residences and outbuildings - Mr. Sepler explained that this was the most challenging issue for the Ad Hoc committee and they had not come to full agreement on a reco~mnendation. While it is important to have a reasonable size for buildings and while good design could accommodate larger buildnrgs, some felt there needed to be limit to the size of homes proportionate to the size of the land they were located on. In addition to connnunity character considerations. many felt that the issue also includes responsible uses of resources and scale. Some felt that the current sliding scale. i.e. the bigger the lot the bigger the house can be, was appropriate. The proposed provisions listed in EXH 2 were discussed, but there was no consensus. Mr. Sepler noted that one of the sensitive issues is the subject of daylight basements, depending on the slope o€the land. Allow departure from daylight plane and modulation requirements through llesign Review. - A "departure ° may be granted in unique cases where the regulations do not fit. Allow departures from front setback requirements to match existing neighborhood patterns - This proposal would use an averaging method to allow a convenient and efficient waiver from standard setback requirements. Maintaining Historic Character Ensuring Compatibility Design Review - Mr. Sepler stated that there must be a way of dealing wilt alterations for primary or secondary homes that is efficient and consistent, with the appropriate level of review. Design review for primary structures would be through the HPC. Design review for secondary structures would he administrative_ Mr. Ray asked if the design review could also be triggered by a neighbor or other interested party. Mr. Sepler said that currently Design Review is advisory to the Director; he said he had never cowrtermanded an advisory from the HPC. He noted that Seattle had a process whereby if al] (Design Review) members were in agreement on a decision, it would be binding. He said perhaps a simi]ar arrangement could be made here. Design Guidelines -Guidelines that will implement the criteria mentioned earlier must be crafted. This includes consistency with the Secretary of the Interior s standards; preservation of primary facades while accommodating life-safety and new materials; and locating additions to the rear or side of site. Vertical additions must be set back Crom the primary facades. Mr. Sepler showed a mm~ber of photographs as examples. The complete list of guidelines is summarized in EXH. 2, pages 3 and 4. Commissioner Emery mentioned the need for housing that can accommodate multi-generational families, as related to reasonable size. Ile said that this must be considered for new construction. P/arming Commission Page 6 of 7 Chair Mick-Hager noted that there are many reasons that will be given for building large houses, and that the issue of limiting square footage is a very difficult one. Mr. Ray noted that the trend to larger housing is consistent with the trend to larger people. Mr. LeMaster said that if the other measures of the "envelope `discussed are adopted. he did not see need for further restrictions. Ile said there is a question of whether individual rules are necessary for all the out buildings and ADUs. He also suggested that it would be well if incentives for "green' building and `greener" materials could be crafted. There was a brief follow up discussion on factors affecting energy efficiency. Mr. Ray noted the differences between perceptions, "green speaking' and actual size and/or efficiency. Mr. LeMaster added that the Climate Action Committee will be recommending measures aimed at "reducing the carbon footprint' and that bulk and scale revelations should be aligned with that policy. Mr. Sepler noted that Commissioners had each received copies ofthe Teardown and Bulk/Scale Taskforce booklet, EXH. 6, and other reference materials. VII. NEW BUSINESS (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Planning Commission meeting will cover Alterations/Additions to Historic Residences -Design Review (1 Z30), Daylight Plane (17.08), and Maximum Allowed Building Size The June 25 meeting will focus on Demolition of Historic Residences and Historic Designation Criteria. The entire draft package will be scheduled for July 9: July 23 will be the hearing. He said that more time could be scheduled as needed. City Council will likely not act on this matter before September. Mr_ Sepler said he would take care of noticing the meetings. IX. ADJOURNT~IENT Mr. Emery moved to adjourn and Mr. Fry seconded. Chair Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 8:40 PM. Monica Mick-Hager. i ,, ~f~ .~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder /~µ Planning Commission Page 7 of 7