HomeMy WebLinkAbout061109CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION b9EETiNG
Cih° Hall, Council Chambers
Thursday, June ] 1, 2009
Materials:
EXIT 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, June 17, 2009
EXH 2 Plamiing Commission Discussion Draft: 17.08.020 and ]7.}6.030 dated 5/28/2009
EXH 3 Teardowns. Bulk and Scale Recommendations Matrix, April 9, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 7:00 I" v1.
II. ROLL CALL
A quorum oCPlannine Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Gee
Heckscher. and Monica Mick-Hager.
Bill LeMaster and Julian Ray were excused.
Since this was Mr. Heckscher's first meeting, Chair Mickhager asked him to share a bit about ]vs
background. Mr. Heckscher said he had moved to Port Townsend less than two years ago.
Noting his background in preservation architecture. he said he was the architect during the
reconstruction of the clock tower. He also worked for about 1 ~ years in constnution. Orignnally
from the East Coast, he has also lived for about 27 years in the Bay area_ Mr. Ieckscher is a
member of the Historical Preservation Committee and the Boards of the Historical Society and
the Washington Trust.
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Mr. Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda: the motion was seconded by Mr_ Fry. 7~he
agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor.
IV. APPROVAL, OT ~1INUTES (None)
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None)
VI. UNFINISIIED BUSINESS:
Workshop-Teardowns, Bulk and Scale
1. Proposed Revisions to Chapter 17.30 PTD9C (Historic Overlay District)
Pfanning Commission Page 7 of 5
Staff Presentation and Commission Discussion
Mr. Sepler noted that his goal for the meeting was to review the proposed 1730 section and
17.16; the remaining materials from john Watts can be done at the following meeting.
Mr. Sepler walked through the version of the document with line numbers and highlighted the
changes. He said this draft deals with Design Standards. Historic residential development, other
than Bed and Breakfast establishments, has not been subject to design standards.
Page 3 -Mr. Heckscherpointed out that pi~~•otal, primary and secondary are "contributing', and
below that is "non-contributing`. Mr. Sepler agreed that should be added to the definition.
Page 3 -Ifnot identified as pivotal, primary or secondary, i.e. contributing, it is not subject to
this review. Mr. Emery inquired whether there are contributing historical buildings in the R-I
district Mr. Sepler said there is no K-1 in the Historic District. That which qualifies as historic
outside the district is covered in a later section.
Page 15 - I7ie addition of E. under ] 730.140 was noted
Page 20 - "The additional guidelines are presented here. The intention is to preserve the primary
historical facades; typically, those facing the street provide the character and the scale; the
secondary facades are not of as great a concern. Mr. Sepler noted the provision for
accommodations that may become the none for viable use over time, such as lighting or alarms,
or alternate types of materials. He noted the need to retain those featuresimaterials which make
the structure special or unique. Ms. Mick-Hager inquired whether a formal process ofreview
would he mandatory for building o~imers to make modifications suds as lighting or alarms. Mr.
Sepler said that minor changes would be administratively handled. I le pointed out examples and
highlighted relevant passages.
Mr. Heckscher asked for a definition of"functional adaptation'. Mr. Sepler suggested this would
encompass changes such as a hand rail on stairs or possibly a ramp for accessibility. Mr.
Heckscher suggested that one criterion is whether or not a change is reversible. There was a brief
discussion regarding property rights, new technology and what would require review. Mr. Sepler
said anything inside the building is exempt from the process. He pointed out other possible
waivers and exceptions. He said the intent is to provide an easy process for appropriate waivers
and inconsequential changes, not to micromanage necessary building maintenance. Mr. Sepler
said he would add additional language regarding reversibility.
Page 31 -Items 3 and 4 provide guidance regarding character and locations for additions, and
explains "building line". Mr. Sepler drew illustrations to show the intentions regarding vertical
changes set back from the facade. 7~hus far, the amount of the set back has not been codified.
Commissioners agreed that some language or purpose should be added to clarify the intent. Mr.
Sepler suggested "to provide a clear demarcation between the historic facade and the addition,
and visually to provide adequate separation between the new and old.... '~. "1"here was general
agreement that a specific distance should not be specified. Mr. Ieckscher suggested that "their
own period....." could be re-phrased for clarity. (There were no suggested changes to item 4.)
Page 23, Section 1730.170 - Mr. Sepler explained that the table of historic buildings would be
deleted and the old map would be in place until the new inventory is completed. Ile pointed out
the addition of item C, which provides for a process to obtain confinuation of the designation for
a particular building that may have been altered since the 1976 inventory.
Mc Sepler confirmed that he would clarify definitions for "contributing ~ and °'non-contributing".
Planning Commission Page 2 of 5
He reviewed the method that would be followed for the new inventory.
2. Proposed Revisions to PTMC Sections 17.08.020 (Definitions); 17.16.030 (Bulk,
dimensional and density requirements); and Table 77.16.030 (Residential Zoning
Districts -Bulk, Dimensional and Densih~ Requirements).
Staff nresentation and Convnission Discussion
The challenge on modifying the building envelope is that reducine the size can still result in a
box-like structure. Another device is to limit height. A third way is to define the envelope with
requirements for a daylight plane, i.e. to modification of building comers so as to allow light, air
and separation between buildings. A definition for "daylight plane' has been added to 17.08.020.
Mr. Sepler stepped through the provisions and discussed what intrusions arc allowed and how the
daylight plane is measured for single-story and multi-story dwellings.
Chair Mick-Hager expressed concern that this would place restrictions on every residential
property owner in the City. Mr. Heckseher pointed out that generally the lots are very small:
where lots are larger, a larger building can be built. After a brief discussion, and further
explanation, there was agreement with the proposed changes. Mr. Sepler shoe~ed examples of
new construction that did or did not fit within the defined daylight plane. He showed how houses
would be required to step down where the grade is greater than 30 percent. He said that areas
that were once thought to be unbuildable are now buildable. In response to question, Mr. Sepler
explained the change in interpretation that was made by the City regarding environmentally
sensitive areas. He noted that with more stringent regulations there maybe '7casonable use'
ehallenges_
Mr. Sepler next discussed the table 7 7.60.030 and side-yard setback changes_ A change had been
made in ?006, which had unintended consequences. In one case, aforty-foot wide house had
been built. Most of the Uptown area is laid out with a five or ten foot balance on one side. The
proposal is to bring back the requirement for 15 feet total setback with a minimum of 10 feet on
one side.
With regard to minimum modulation, page 6. Mr. Sepler showed how one could now build a 35
foot wide house, which has no modulation on the primary fagade. The proposal is to limit
unmodulated walls to 20 feet; every 20 feet, there must be at least a 2 foot change. Ile noted that
the teen "modulation` will be further defined in that section. Because of a State pre-emption, the
City permits HUD-stiekered modular homes. He said he would verify that 20 feet is a feasible
maximmn plane.
Ms. Mick-Hager requested verification offence height maximums. She asked if there is still a
difference in permitted height, depending on whether the fence is solid or open. Ms. Mick-Hager
and Mr. Sepler agreed to check the code on that question.
Maximum House Square Footage Issue - Mr_ Sepler recapped the Ad Hoc Committee
deliberations, noting that it is a difficult issue. Currently, there is a sliding scale, based on the
property size, up to 5,000 square feet. The average homesize is now about ?400 square feet. In
the past, the City has not regntlated the maximum size of the building; height and percentage of
lot coverage has been regulated. He said that some believe that large houses are actually immoral
and unreasonable,i.e.a waste of natural resources. Previously discussed proposed chances
Planning Commission Page 3 0/ 5
would reshape the envelope for new housing, but not prevent very large houses to he built on
multiple lot properties. He noted the history ofvery large homes in this City, mentioning the
Starrett Mansion, the James House, the Old Consulate Inn as examples.
The Ad Hoc Committee has deferred to the Planning Commission on this issue. Mr. Emery
recalled that Commissioner LeMaster, who was also a member of the Ad }Ioc Committee, had
indicated that he beticved that the other measures would be adequate, and that specifying
maximum square footage for a house was not necessary. Mr. Emery said he did not favor
legislating morality tluough City codes. He said that he expected that large houses not permitted
in Por Townsend would 6e built elsewhere in the County: City regulations would not prevent the
houses from being built somewhere else.
Chair Mick-Hager asked if the basis of the reasoning for any of these regulations was to attempt
to maintain the character ofthe City. Mr. Sepler noted that modest areas change over time as
original rather small houses are replaced ~c ith much larger structures or added on to. "rhe loss of
a historic resources is addressed by specifyine how building on may be done. The second
question is whether it is acceptable to the conununity to have larger and larger scale homes
replacing the traditional ones. He conveyed how Seattle dealt with this issue. For lots of 5,000
square feet or less.. the building footprint may be 1,000 square feet plus 15% of lot area. with
various qualifications. That does not include outbuildings and ADUs, which are subject to
zoning rules. A 10,000 square foot lot would accommodate a 2500 square foot house. A half
acre would allow a 4,000 square foot house. He noted that the specifications must stale what is
included in floor space: primary floor space and half of the upper stories, provided they are set
back etc_ He added that this approach is complex and can meet with significant pushback.
Commissioner Pry said that he did not see setting a maximum square footage as viable, and that
attempting to legislate morality cannot work. He said that one attraction of this town is diversity,
and that setting a maximum will result in the opposite.
Mr. Sepler said that the other measures are directed to the charge of preserving character and
historic homes. He said they allow increasing the volume of a home as desired but preserving the
sireetscape. He believes that requiring preservation of historic homes will reduce number of new
larger homes.
Commissioner Heckscher was asked for his opinion. He said he was primarily interested in
hearing various opinions. He said he had a bias against very large homes For reasons of
practicality and resaurce conservation. He noted that either incentives or penalties could be
influential in shaping future building.
Mr. Sepler showed photographs of other Port Townsend structures/additions. including Architect
Richard Berg's addition to the rear of his home.
Mr. Sepler suggested that this topic be continued until the next meeting, so that Mr. LeMaster
and Mr. Ray can have input.
Chair Mick-Hager said that, personally, she would not relish having a huge house built on an
entire block in her neighborhood, but that the proposed measures would help to prevent that. She
said that, thus far, she did not see the need for a maximum square footage regulation.
VII. NLW BUSINESS (None)
Planning Commission Page 4 of 5
VIII. UPCOMING MF,ETINGS
On [he next scheduled Planning Commission meeting date, June 25, a join[ City CounciU County
Commissioners' workshop wilt be held in Council Chambers. Mr. Sepler suggested changing the
date/time for the Planning Commission meeting so that John Watts can attend. The topics of
teardowns and definition of historic are among the agenda topics. He will follow up with a-mail.
Mr. Sepler mentioned that a new training would be set up with John Watts as soon as a Vice
Chair is elected.
3X. AllJOURNMENT
Mr. Emery mop°ed to adjourn and Mr. Fry seconded. Chair ltilick-Hager adjourned the
meeting at 8:40 PM.
~//~
Monica Mick-Hager. Chair
~~~~
Gail Bernhard, Recorder
Planning Commission Page 5 of 5