Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040909CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Council Chambers Thursday, April 9, 2009 Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, April 9, 2009 EXH 2 Sign Departures EXH 3 Proposed Sign Code Revisions: Public Facility Signage Plan, 17.76.030 Historic district I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kristen Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster (arrived 7:05 PM), Kristen Nelson and Julian Ray. Monica Mick-Hager was absent. David Goldman was present for the discussion about the Howard Street Comdor and formula stores. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Ray and Mr. Emery moved for acceptance of the revised age~7da. The revised agenda was approved, as written, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of March 26, 2009 Corrections: Page 1: The date of the meeting at the top of page 1 is March 26, 2009 not March 12. Page 1: "Ms. Nelson disclosed that she participated during the Wooden Boat Festival in a voluntary capacity and recei~~ed a small stipend for this." (additional information added by Ms. Nelson) Page 3: "Mr. Ray stated ...." (not state) Mr. Emery moved to approve the minutes of March 26, 2009, as amended, and Mr. Fry seconded. The minutes of March 26, 2009 were approved, as mnended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Page 1 of 7 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Continued Public Hearing: Proposed Revisions to Port Townsend Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 Historic District relating to Signage (Rick Sepler, Planning Director) Staff presentation: Mr. Sepler referred to two documents that had been mailed in advance of the meeting: EXH. 2 Sign Departures and EXH 3. Proposed 17.76 Sign Code Revisions. [Mr. LeMaster arrived at this point, 7:05 PM.] Mr. Sepler recalled that concern had been expressed at the initial hearing (March 26) regarding waiver of signs or alteration of signs. There were questions as to which classes specific rules apply: commercial, not for profit; etc ? Staff had suggested that there might be a way of using the departure method that would better respond to a broad series of uses throughout the community, and could impose a higher standard than typically found by strict adherence to the -code. He referred to 17.46.080 regarding departures, which are currently allowed by the code. A departure is a means whereby applicants can depart from established standards provided they can show that the alternative standard they propose is in the public interest and meets or exceeds the applicable guidelines that were established. The departure process is a means by which someone who believes they have a "better idea" can show how that idea better meets compliance with the code. It should be noted that showing that an approach is less expensive is not sufficient. The first modification is to l 7.46.080, item 19: 19 Sian placement tvpe and size in all commercial districts. provided that departures for sianaae in the C-III district shall be subject to the review procedures found in 17.30 Historic Overlay District - Design Review Mr. Sepler stated that this means one can depart from a strict application of standards in any commercial district, but in the C-III district the process is through the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) rather than the Design Review Board. He also referred to page 4, line 14 in the Proposed 17.76 Sign Code Revisions document, EXH. 3, which explains the departure process for the Historic District. Any commercial entity in any district could apply for a departure. He said staff believes this allows adequate flexibility to accommodate way finding and provides broader guidance, flexibility and a higher standard. Mr. Sepler said that City Council is considering some form of notice into the Sign Code that at some future date there will be additional revisions to this "placeholder" provision. Commissioner Emery mentioned the provision in the previous paragraph that refers to a limit of three kiosks downtown, and asked if the locations of the kiosks were specified. Mr. Sepler said that this is the adopted language, but a revision to this language (and elimination of the number 3}has already been accepted by the Planning Commission and is part of what will be considered by City Council at the next public hearing. Page 2 of 7 Chair Nelson asked if there is also a reference to the Departure clause found in the sections of the code for non-historic districts. Mr. Sepler confirmed that that is covered by the Design Review process. Commissioner Emery moved that the Planning Commission accept the proposed Sign Code revisions dealing with Departures, as drafted by staff. Commissioner Fry seconded. Chair Nelson noted that this includes both 17.46.080 as well as ]7.76.030. The motion passed with a vote of 4 in favor and I opposed, with no abstentions: 4/1/0. Chair Nelson called fora 5 minute break in order for Commissioners to shift to a less formal workshop seating configuration. The meeting resumed at 7: 15 PM. VII. NEW BUSINESS Discussion: Howard Street Corridor Development and Zoning 1. Formula store discussion Mr. Sepler introduced Mr. David Goldman. Commissioners had agreed at the previous meeting to invite Mr. Goldman to this discussion. Mr. Sepler reviewed the background and history of the Howard Street Corridor plan and its relationship to the Upper Sims Way project. He noted that the construction is likely to begin this summer for sewer, water and storm water. He said there are no plans at this point to go beyond Discovery Road. He noted that there is no specific funding, but that there are several possible sources that may still become available in the future. For example, if the Sims Way project comes in under bid, any savings could be applied to the Howard Street project. He discussed the community vision of developing the Howard Street Corridor as a mixed use area, which would require at least two story development. Office space may be a good way to start with the possibility ofmulti-family housing in the long term as part of secondary development. He reviewed earlier plans for an Overlay District and the fact that early plans had assumed the development of a nursing home as the anchor tenant. When that party withdrew, there was progress on consideration of an LID. However, with the general economic downturn, potential participants are proceeding with greater caution. Mr. Sepler noted that the challenge locally is the cost of retail space and the lack of adequate return on investment. He said this essentially prohibits capitalization with purely commercial use of a building. However, there are some national tenants who would potentially be in a position to undertake such investment. One challenge is the set of formula store ordinance provisions intended to prohibit "big box" retail businesses_ Mr. Sepler said that the purpose of this discussion is to consider any strategies or acconunodations that may serve to move things forward. He noted that the point is not to reconsider big box retail or allowing single story strip development. However, there may be some variation in a limited area that could spur development. He noted that it may worthwhile to review the original intentions of the formula store ordinance as well as what has worked and not worked with regard to the mixed use concept. Page 3 of 7 There was a brief discussion to clarify the issues to be discussed, i.e. to consider any ideas that may lead to desired development in Howard/Upper Sims without unreasonable compromise of community interests and principles. David Goldman pointed out that the existing formula store ordinance does not prohibit; it regulates. He reminded that there are a number of "chain stores" in town, and that there could be more. He asked Mr. Sepler if there is a plan for installation of water and sewer infrastructure along Howard Street from Sims to Discovery. Mr. Sepler confirmed that that was the case; he said the design is being finalized at this time. Mr. Goldman also asked about the projected level of service at the intersections by 2020. Mr. Sepler said that the modeling has shown adequate service levels, i.e. "we couldn't make them break". He said that the intersections are not the problem, it is the road capacity. Mr. Goldman mentioned some of the reasons the formula store ordinance was adopted: big box stores tend to increase car traffic and create for more work for police and courts; they drive out local small businesses; corporate profits tend to be spent outside the area; and they tend not to contribute to local community charities and events. He noted that there are exceptions, such as Safeway. He said that it has never been clear that the community would benefit by these large stores, possibly because the community and setting are so unique, and that none of those factors has changed over the years. Mr. Goldman discussed the notion that the presence of residences and people attracts businesses and service providers, not the reverse. He suggested more consideration of incentives for residential development instead of for commercial. He also recalled the "eyes on the street" security advantages of a residential focus. Mr. Goldman discussed his studies of macro economics and distributed copies of a DVD entitled to Commissioners and staff. He noted that the version is also available on the Internet. He explained the connection he sees between demographics and planned development, as well as trends in pension funds, banking and the economic situation on a national scale. He reported that public pension funds are now $750 billion to one trillion dollars in debt. He noted that Port Townsend ranks 16'h or 1 Th out of 1,000 US counties in terms of the number of banking transfers to this area. The profile of the average Coop member is 52, retired and childless. He advocated emphasis on incentives that will make it possible for those who are here to stay here. What types of housing are most needed; how can it be built, and what are the infrastructure and amenities appropriate to the demographic base? Who is the town and what are the key ingredients? He noted the importance of keeping the hospital open and not losing capacity and services there. He noted that an aging population in particular will tend to move if they don't feel needed medical services are available nearby. He said there are no easy answers but favors an approach of considering the strongest factors, such as traffic, demographics, economics, key medical and other personal services. He cited the example of Old Bell Town in Seattle where new businesses have followed residential influx in recent years. He said he is not anti-formula store, but favors making them fit into what works for our unique character. Chair Nelson indicated that she agrees that commercial will follow residential. However, she expressed concern that rents could not increase enough to make new buildings pencil. She asked what will make it viable for businesses to pay significantly more to locate their businesses on Upper Sims/Howard than they would downtown. Page 4 of 7 Mr. Goldman said in his opinion it is no longer possible to "pencil forward", and that there will be a totally different and unpredictable economic landscape by 2010. Commissioner LeMaster expressed his opinion that the City has been on a linear track that is not working. He said the area (Upper Sims) is not right for this plan. Instead the plan should foster the existing structures; businesses and residences. Also, it should consider those across the City line who are underserved; he noted that boundaries are part of the problem. He said that he believes it is inappropriate to allocate so much staff and resources to forcing development of the Upper Sims/Howard Street area, when it is clearly not ripe for development. He questioned whether there may be ways to negotiate with corporations who settle here and to hold them accountable to the community. He also mentioned the need for more residential units. Chair Nelson asked whether the main thoroughfare would be the best place for residential housing. Commissioner LeMaster said that he could envision multi-family units there. Mr. Sepler mentioned examples elsewhere of attempts to create alternative housing types. Commissioner Ray spoke in favor of promoting synergy rather than an either/or, commercial versus residential, concept. He said that growth and livability must be considered hand in hand. He noted that residents who desire to shop locally cannot always find the shops and products they wish to purchase here. There was a brief review of the existing limitations on commercial floor space and exceptions far grocery stores. Commissioners also briefly considered the types of businesses that are desirable in terms of potential economic impact, especially sales tax revenue. Mr. Goldman noted the absence of larger ticket items such as automobiles, furniture and appliances. Mr. Sepler reviewed the reasoning that has driven the idea of offering incentives for Sims Way development. He said there is recognition of the need for mixed housing types and that this will not happen automatically. He said that the City wishes to ensure that development happens in the right way; otherwise tax dollars will flow out of the City. Mr. Ray added that this is a multi- faceted approach to mold this particular area to fit community needs and goals. Mr. Goldman recalled that Quizno's had not been able to come to agreement with the City on "deformularization" afew years ago. There was discussion on the types of businesses or services that could be viable here, such as medical specialty practices and sandwich/coffee shops. Mr. Ray mentioned that he sees a trend of greater flexibility and adaptability with some large corporations, such as Starbucks, with regard to uniformity, etc. Mr. Goldman suggested that the City consider offering some form of tax incentive over a long period of time. as part of a package for businesses to locate in town. Chair Nelson asked if Mr. Goldman had researched the differences between franchises and other chain stores, since franchises are often locally owned. Mr. Goldman said that the key factor had been the uniqueness of the landscape, and the desire to avoid having Port Townsend look like every other town, not franchise versus non-franchise. Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Fry mentioned his experience with attempts to promote mixed use in Folsom, California. Repeatedly, they found that development ideas for Old Town did not pencil until light rail from Sacramento ended there. This led to construction of mixed use buildings, with condos and rentals on upper stories filling frst, followed by the shops to serve the residences. Mr. Sepler mentioned that market research had shown the need for an assisted living facility. There was additional discussion about what types of businesses or services were feasible within the current regulations. Chair Nelson inquired about the exemptions for certain types of stores and the rationale for them. Mr. Goldman said that certain provisions had been added by City Council as part of the political compromise process. Mr. Sepler briefly recapped possible approaches going forward, i.e. identifying what businesses are wanted, and actively recruiting them. He said it is not the use table that is the problem but finding a way to jump start. In response to a question about the underlying reason for stirring development, he said the town needs alternative housing types to accommodate a working population. He said that the need for tax revenue is not the major issue. The need for some heterogeneity of the population was also expressed; otherwise there will be a great imbalance of elderly retired people and working people to provide services, etc. Several Commissioners agreed that a combination of factors must be considered and blended into an effective strategy. There was additional discussion about the Comprehensive Plan, noting the need to stop leakage, to provide affordable housing, and have it be possible for service people to live here. There was also brief discussion about the problem of funding for the schools. There was also recognition that younger generations have different expectations and goals with regard to shopping convenience and a sense of place. After additional discussion, Mr. Sepler said that since Commissioners believe a combination of approaches will be required, he would be returning with a matrix outlining the options in the near future. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Sepler requested that the next meeting on April 23 be cancelled. VllL COMMUNICATION (None) Mr. Emery mentioned that he would be applying for the City Council seat left. vacant by Councilor Butler. IX. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner LeMaster moved for adjournment, and Commissioner Ray seeonded. Chair Nelso» adjourned the meeti~ag at 8:37 PM. Page 6 of 7 k ~, Gail Bernhard, Recorder Page 7 of 7