Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012209CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/ HPC MEETING City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Thursday, January 22, 2009 Materials: EXH I Planning Commission/HPC Meeting Agenda, January 22, 2008 EXH 2 R. Sepler, Proposed Uptown Commercial Sub-district Design Guidelines, January I5, 2009 EXH A Port Townsend Uptown Neighborhood Design Study, Recommendations to City Council, January 23 2007 EXH B Port Townsend Uptown Neighborhood Design Study Worksheet, January 23, 2007 EXH C Port Townsend Uptown Recommended Measures to Address Height, Bulk and Character of New Development EXH D DRAFT 17.30.155 Uptown Commercial Subdistrict Additional Design Standards CALL TO ORDER Chair Kristen Nelson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 PM. HPC Chair Charles Paul called the HPC meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Plam~ing Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster, Moniea Mick-Hager, Kristen Nelson, and Julian Ray A quorum of HPC members was present: Richard Berg (arrived 7:06), Marcia Moratti, Jim Manier, Charlie Paul (Chair), and Rosalind Russell Gee Heckscher was excused. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director, and John McDonagh, Planner II, were in attendance. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda for the joint meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes for review. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 January 2Z, Z009 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UPTOWN Commercial Design Standards -Workshop (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Mr. Sepler said he would review three projects that are in progress. City Council has an upcoming retreat, planned for Saturday, January 24. This year the City has extensive commitments for the first quarter of the year. Projects that are approaching full implementation include: Upper Sims Way, Downtown Streetscape, Tidal Park -all are time sensitive with regard to funding and work. Because the City must be mindful of potential federal funding, agendas must be nimble and flexible. Sims Way is ranked first from the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO). The Planning Commission has a work plan that is subject to public hearing. It is likely the City Council will consider its work plan implementation so as to fit it in behind the other projects that are forth coming. Mr. Sepler said that there had been an inquiry from the State Department of Transportation regarding readiness for going to bid on the Streetscape project in 60 days. Mr. Sepler had responded in the affirmative. He mentioned the Tear Downs, Bulk and Scale process that involves both the Planning Commission and the HPC. This is a stop gap process, also involving limitations on house size, as issues are being evaluated. He said that the committee, which has been working diligently, will next meet on February 3. It appears that there are approaches now defined that warrant moving forward to Ordinance. There will likely be a joint workshop, followed by City Council involvement. He said the teardown component was largely patterned on the existing rules for downtown, C-III. It is also advocating HPC design review of significant work for planning primary or secondary buildings within the district. He said it was likely that the recommendation would provide for administrative review of some minor additions, boundaries of which will be defined by the ordinance recommendations. The third process is a move to revise the zoning envelope throughout the City. He noted that the zoning envelope was developed in the l 950s when the average house size was about 1500 square feet. Since that time, the average house size has grown to about 2500 square feet. To deal with discordant effects, the ad hoc committee is considering a limitation on floor area and scaling based on lot size. The second is to examine the building envelope and reduce the massing; one technique investigated is to the "daylight plane", for which an example was shown. Mr. LeMaster mentioned the inventory within the historic district. Mr. Sepler discussed the criteria for designation of historic buildings. Ne noted that the operative approach would be to use the existing nomination as a stopgap until a complete inventory is done. There are issues outside the historic district. He said that best protection in the Iong run for the community is to delineate all the instances. Mr. Sepler said that a draft Ordinance would like be sent to the City Council for consideration in March. Ms. Nelson asked if an ad hoc committee replacement is required for former Commissioner Unterseher. Mr. Sepler noted that Mr. Unterseher had attended the ad hoc committee meeting the previous week, and the Planning Commission could consider that item at the end of the meeting. John McDonagh mentioned that the Bulk and Scale committee had considered some minimum property maintenance measures to prevent demolition by neglect. Mr. Sepler said that an interview process is underway for a new building official who would be charged with enforcement in this area. P/arming Commission Page 2 of 8 January l2, 2009 Mr. Sepler mentioned that the City may also consider relaxation of Grand Opening signage and extending the current time limit from 15 to 30 days. Regarding the meeting agenda, Mr. Fry moved and Mr. LeMaster seconded to extend the Plmnzing Commission meeting approximately IO minutes beyond dze end of the joint meeting business to deal with housekeeping items. The motion was approved all in favor. Mr. Sepler then walked through the packet materials, beginning with the staff memo dated 3anuary l 5, 2004 (EXH 2). He began by recalling issues raised regarding the proposed Rienstra building during the pending application period: parking, density, and loss of character and scale. In response, two interim controls were proposed. A height limitation failed but a requirement for off street parking was instituted. Mr. Sepler reviewed the charge for the Uptown Parking Strategies Committee, their process, recommendations and the revisions that were adopted in November of 2008. Mr. Sepler also reviewed the charge for the Uptown Design Strategies Committee. During a series of Uptown Charettes, it was recognized that the Uptown District is a fragile district, that it works because if its eclectic collection of uses, that the wrong kind of development would have an adverse effect on the character of the district, and that additional protections/ design approaches were warranted. Mr. Sepler said the zoning envelope allows for 50 foot tall structures in the C-III district. Mr. Sepler did a brief walk through of the Uptown Design conm~ittee process and the packet documents (EXH A,B, C) which summarize study and workshop outcomes. Based on that work, staff prepared draft design standards, I 7.30.155 (EXH D) for consideration at this meeting. Mr. Sepler pointed out that, while this version is closer to "code language", after review by the HPC and Planning Conunission an Ordinance format version will be produced. There was agreement to begin with general questions and to then step through the specific guidelines, section by section. Mr. Fry inquired why curb cuts in the uptown area were not covered in this document and if separate documentation existed. Mr. Sepler said that curbs are part of the City's engineering design standards that would apply for new construction. Chair Kristen Nelson asked Richard Berg if he believed that, as an architect, he could design a new building that would meet all the proposed regulations and would be economically viable. Mr. Berg said that issue was held in mind throughout the design development process, and that he did believe it was feasible. Ms. Nelson also asked about the off street parking requirement. Mr. Berg said that the residential market actually demands it and that it can be done profitably and economically. He said that while people may be willing to park a block away from a store, they generally require a space for their cars where they live. Mr. Sepler responded to a question as to why only Lawrence, Tyler and Clay Streets are called out in the design document. He explained that these guidelines would only apply to the C-III portions of Uptown, so that only those streets would be involved. There was also clarification that parking regulations are not covered in this proposal, since that topic has already been addressed by City Council. With regard to the specific issue of "fee in lieu'' provisions for Uptown, Mr. Sepler explained that such provisions had not been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council However, there will be bi-annual parking studies, and upon approaching a 75% threshold, a Parking District will be initiated. P/arming Commission Page 3 of 8 January ZZ, 2009 Mr. Sepler noted that section 17.44 pertains to commercial and mixed use guidelines, which are cited frequently in this document. The challenge is to provide linkage and references while not replicating large sections of code. With regard to the objectives, one of the big issues is allowance of tall buildings for economic viability, while dealing with rather abrupt transitions. Mr. Sepler said that, other than Clay Street, almost every one of the C-III blocks has median adjacent property of either R-III or R-II, i.e. scalar change that must be managed. The second issue is to ensure that, by requiring ground floor storefronts, the economy of the district is encouraged. A third issue is to ensure that the pedestrian scale and accessibility along Lawrence Street is maintained. Mr. Sepler briefly reviewed and explained key issues addressed by the design standards under City Form, noting particular challenges for each. Under Height, Bulk and Scale Compatibility, he noted the reference to commercial and mixed use code and the importance of transition to adjoining residential neighborhoods. He pointed out the set backs required for building facades over 40 feet high. Mr. LeMaster mentioned work by the ad hoc committee in applying the shade related requirements to commercial buildings, and Mr. Sepler said that could be reviewed further. Mr. Sepler discussed challenges in the transition between the back of the building and adjacent R-IUIII zoned homes. Referring to page 4, section 2 b, Mr. Sepler discussed the provision that would allow a wall up to 20 feet high directly on the property line, rather than screening and fencing, etc., provided it meets the finishing requirements. Chair Nelson raised a point about the requirement that adjacent property owners must agree, noting concerns about the likelihood of court actions. She and Mr. Berg recalled that the consent provision had been discussed but eliminated during previous consideration in committee and joint meetings. Commissioners, staff and HPC members considered whether or not a wall was clear}y superior to screening fencing. Height of the wall, and finishing materials. as well as possible use of the space behind the wall were discussed. Mr. Sepler suggested discussion around these questions: Do we think it is a good provision? Should the neighbor s agreement be required? Should the height or materials of the wall be adjusted? He said that the intention was to increase the use of the property, an alternative to a set back from adjacent property. Kristen Nelson said she does not like that the neighbor must agree, and that it is better to allow activity to take place inside an enclosure where noise, etc. is greatly reduced. Mr. Berg said that, for a developer, the neighbor agreement provision is horrible because of the uncertainty. He said that perhaps a wall height of 14 or l 5 feet would be better. However, neighbors must realize that being adjacent to commercial property carries certain characteristics and conditions that are different from residential. Mr. Sepler noted that, in most zoning schemes, the break between zones is not done mid-block, so this presents a special issue for Port Townsend. Mr. Berg pointed out that all of Brooklyn is broken mid-block. Mr. Ray said he also did not favor the requirement for neighbor agreement. Ms. Mick-Hager wished to clarify that the wall is a building wall, not just a 20 foot high wall. There was a question about possible graffiti problems but some felt that would be unlikely since graffiti "artists" usually select surfaces that will be readily seen. P/arming Commission Page 4 of 8 January Z2, 2009 A straw poll indicated agreement that the neighbor clause should be dropped. Secondly, the height of the wall should be adjusted to 14-15 feet to allow for a normal one story building. Mr. Sepler said that staff would modify that section of the recommendation, and include sketches to show the intention. Mr. Paul said that he was concerned about the combination of a 5 foot setback side yard and a 20 foot wall forming, in essence a 5 foot alley. He suggested some mitigation that would preclude a cinder block wall with inadequate finish, perhaps more specificity with regard to the wall. Mr. Sepler said that some provision could be inserted to deal with pre-existing conditions. The rationale for solid railings was mentioned. Chair Nelson noted that solid railings can be very attractive. There was clarification that the height for residential railings is 36". The requirements for lighting, light pollution, lighting spillover and building shadowing impacts were briefly reviewed without further discussion. Mr. Sepler discussed the specific standards for Clay Street, which is the only full block of C-HI zoning in the district. This results in a relatively intense area of development immediately adjacent to a single family area. Therefore, a special set of requirements intended to screen parking, service and storage areas had been drafted by the ad hoc committee. Ms. Mick-Hager raised concerns about likely trash build up behind the specified 6 foot screen or wall. She said that cost cutting is typical for the rear of buildings, so it is likely to be Less attractive, and can become messy as well as very unappealing from the view of second story residences facing it. She also noted that such areas are small and difficult to clean and may emit objectionable odors. She suggested that a design review include every side/face of a commercial property and that owners be required to landscape, beautify and maintain the back and sides, not hide them behind walls. She added that she had no problem with 20 foot walls that were part of a building since any accumulated materials/trash would then be inside the building. Chair Nelson pointed out that the standards for wall materials were specified on page 9 (EXH D}. Mr. Sepler provided background on the committee's thinking. He said they had initially discussed their preference for a commercial building to wrap around and have a commercial facade on Clay Street. However, it was recognized that all buildings ultimately need a place for deliveries, dumpsters and parking, etc. Some way to access the back of the buildings would be always be needed. Mr. Berg pointed out that there is really no way to ensure that a garbage area will be kept clean, with or without a wall. He said he agreed that an area maybe more likely to be dirty/unkempt if there is a wall, but no way to ensure that it will be clean without a wall. Mr. Ray said that without a wall there would likely be garbage creep. He suggested finding a way to increase community pride and to put pressure on building owners to maintain cleanliness. Ms. Russell asked if a provision for foliage screening may be appropriate. Mr. Sepler said that it is almost conclusive that the second story will be residential, which will overlook this type of area, so there is some reason to believe it will self police. He recommended that the design review be included, and possibly to add reminders or precautions regarding frequency of trash pickups and cleanliness, etc. He cited similar guidelines in Seattle which states that the placement and functionality of enclosures will be reviewed. The guidelines discuss various means of breaking up the facade of a large building, as well as building elements. He called attention to the drawing on page 6, which presents techniques for achieving vertical articulation. Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 January 22, 2009 Mr. Ray mentioned that, as these techniques are used more widely, many new buildings take on a formulaic appearance. There was a brief discussion about cladding, colors and the details that were incorporated in a particular Port Townsend example to mitigate bulk, and the differences that would be required for it in the proposed guidelines. Mr. Berg said that it is not possible to ensure good design through any set of guidelines. Mr. Ray added that the guidelines should not be so prescriptive as to produce only a few highly similar designs and to disallow creativity. He suggested that more flexibility was preferable to forcing repetitive cookie cutter designs. There was acknowledgement that only good designers can ensure good design. Kristen Nelson mentioned that in the existing code (page 2, in the box) it is stated for commercial development adjacent to a residential zone, that an 8 foot wide buffer to create a year round visual screen, at least 6 feet high, is required. Mr. Sepler said he would make the appropriate changes to ensure internal consistency in the document. Mr. Sepler briefly walked through Signage, Roof Designs and reflective glare. Mr. Emery said that recommendations from those concerned about global warming would be to install or convert to light colored roofs, and install solar panels. Richard Berg acknowledged the direct conflict between that advice and these guidelines. Mr. Sepler said that the Climate Action Committee would be coming out with a set of reconunendations within the next year. There was a brief discussion regarding how these issues are evolving. Mr. Sepler stepped through the section on Architectural Details. In response to a question regarding review by the Art Corrunission, Mr. Sepler said that the Art Commission reviews public art. He said the content of this section is intended to give the potential proponent clues of what is acceptable, and what treatment is appropriate in terms of design and materials. Ms. Nelson questioned whether or not the wording under Landscaping h. 1. was consistent with page 2, A, and page 5, 3. a, which are all concepts in landscaping but worded very differently. Mr. Sepler said staff would follow up on that. (There was also subsequent mention of section S.d.4. in this regard.) Mr. Sepler called attention to section 5. a. Pedestrian Environment, page 14. He reviewed the set of transparency items and the ways in which visual interest and ``window shopping" are encouraged. He noted the possibility for facades with less transparency, "provided the project features an exceptionally attractive pedestrian element''. 5. b., Protection from the Elements, provides guidelines for overhead weather protection such as awnings, marquees, canopies or building overhangs. He confirmed that the language in this section would be changed to "shall be~' form rather than "should". Mr. LeMaster questioned why the blank wall prohibition for Lawrence Street was not extended around the corner. Mr. Berg pointed out that there are existing blank walls on Tyler Street. HPC members and Commissioners agreed that the extension had been recommended; Mr. Sepler said he would follow up on that change. Several other items were briefly discussed: S.d. Intrusions to the pedestrian environment 6. Historic Preservation and Design Review, a. Existing Bui}dings Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 January 22, 2009 6.b. New Buildings and Substantial Modifications. What is proposed here is intended to provide clarification on what is important. Any building or substantial modification will have to define what a substantial modification is and will follow guidelines in this section. That is, the intent is not to produce historic replicas, but buildings that are beautiful background buildings. 6.3. There was note that public buildings or prominent community activity may deviate from the stated principles..... For example, a new library addition may be considered more a foreground building than background, a prominent public place. fi.c Design Review process, includes provision for input from the Uptown community. Mr. Paul noted that the HPC had discussed the possibility of an expanded membership to include one or two Uptown residents. Mr. Sepler discussed the relationship to bulk and scale review; he said the process for C-III should not be different than that for a residential building around the corner. He offered to draft this notion in more detail. Mr. Berg noted that the existing Commercial Design Review Committee could possibly become the general Design Revie~~~ Connnittee that would include all Design Review except the Historic District, which would be reviewed by the HPC. For the Uptown Historic District would be involved in the review. This would eliminate the need to staff yet another committee. Mr. Sepler said he would attempt to draft a proposal. Mr. McDonagh mentioned references to signage and signage colors in the document. There was a brief discussion as to whether the color palette for downtown should be used uptown. Mr. Paul said there is a new palette that should be approved by City Council in the near future. Ms. Russell pointed out that there are no speed signs on Lawrence, and suggested that two signs be installed, rather than a traffic light. [Much of this conversation among several people was inaudible.] Mr. Paul moved to adjourn the HPC meeting, which was seconded acrd approved unanimously. HPC members left the meeting at 8:44 PM. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Sepler recalled that the possibility of working with the County Planning Commission had been discussed on previous occasions, and proposed arrangements for a joint meeting. He said that CTED offers a short course that is tailored to the needs of the jurisdiction, and that past events had been very useful. There would be an opportunity to gather for dinner and to hear three speakers, including Attorney Phil Olbrechts. Mr. Sepler suggested that, in this case, it would be well to invite speakers knowledgeable about UGAs, growth management, and expansion of UGAs, etc. Mr. Sepler recommended Mr. Tim Trohimovich, Planning Director for Futurewise, who would provide a primer, answer questions, and be available for discussion of issues. Another speaker from AHBL (performed the study for Tacoma) would be an expert in facilitating mixed use development. The earliest possible date would be Thursday, February 26. Possible locations are City Hall or the Pope Marine Building, which would provide more space. Commissioners were in favor of the idea, and agreed that Mr. Sepler should confirm the arrangements. P/arming Commission Page 7 of 8 January 22, 2009 VIII_ ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved for adjournment and Mr. Emery seconded. Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8: SO PM. Gail Bernhard, Recorder P/arming Commission Page 8 of 8 January 22, 2009