Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062409CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, June 25, 2009 EXH 2 Design Review Framework Table, 01-05-09 - 06-OS-09 EXH 3 Chapter 17.30 PTMC Historic Preservation and 17.08.020 Definitions EXH 4 Teardowns, Bulk and Scale Recommendations Matrix, Apri19, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER 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, Gee Heckscher, Bill LeMaster and Monica Mick-Hager. Julian Ray was absent. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda; the motion was seconded by Mr. Fry. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor. Mr. LeMaster suggested deferring the election of Vice Chair until the following meeting. Chair Mick-Hager agreed that this item should be deferred until the full Commission is present. N. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrections: May 28, 2009 (None) June 11, 2009: Page 2, paragraph beginning with "Page 3 - "In this instance, it is not subject to review"; also, omit text following "Mr. Sepler said there is no R-I in the Historic District". Paragraph beginning Page 20 - "Secondary buildings will receive administratively review." Page 3, 4t'' paragraph: "He said he would verify that 20 feet is a feasible maximum plane." Commissioner Fry moved and Commissioner Emery seconded to approve the above minutes, as modified. The minutes of May 28, 2009 and June 11, 2009 were approved, as modified. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) Planning Commission Page 1 of 5 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Workshop - Teardowns, Bulk and Scale, Parts 2 and 3 (Rick Sepler, Planning Director and John Watts, City Attorney) Mr. Sepler said that he and Mr. Watts would jointly make the presentation and would gather Commission comments, corrections and direction, returning with a revised draft document at a later meeting. Staff Presentation and Commission Discussion John Watts provided background to this matter. He said the City Council adopted interim ordinances in early 2008 dealing with bulk and scale; maximum house size; and demolition provisions for historic structures. As part of the adoption of those ordinances, they also appointed an Ad Hoc Committee, which met to formulate concepts which were carried forward to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will develop a proposed ordinance to be considered by the City Council. The recommended process from the Ad Hoc Committee is a three pronged approach: Consider regulations related to maximum house size; Consider regulations concerning bulk and s, including compatibility; and consider historic preservation issues. The direction from the Ad Hoc Committee was to expand historic design review to the uptown commercial area; this has been through a first reading by City Council. In addition the Ad Hoc Committee recommended expansion of design review to historic residences and to "raise the bar" on demolition of historic residences, and to regulate/control demolition by neglect. Mr. Watts noted that demolition by neglect is not a land use issue. Therefore, it does not need to come before the Planning Commission, and is on a separate tract. A structure that is listed on a national, state or city historic registry is not protected from alteration or demolition by that listing. A listing provides no regulatory framework; it is essentially a voluntary listing by the owner to obtain tax credits or other tax benefits. The current design review framework is mandatory for bed and breakfasts, but there is no design review for an alteration for a historic residence that is not a bed and breakfast. Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 2. Proposed Revisions to PTMC Sections 17.08.020 (Definitions); 17.16.030 (Bulk, dimensional and density requirements); and Table 17.16.030 (Residential Zoning Districts -Bulk, Dimensional and Density Requirements). Staff presentation and Commission Discussion The challenge on modifying the building envelope is that reducing 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 corners 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 are 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. Heckscher 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 showed 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 may be "reasonable use" challenges. Mr. Sepler next discussed the table 17.60.030 and side-yard setback changes. A change had been made in 2006, 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 facade. The proposal is to limit unmodulated walls to 20 feet; every 20 feet, there must be at least a 2 foot change. He noted that the term "modulation" will be further defined in that section. Because of a State pre-emption, the City permits HUD-stickered modular homes. He said he would verify that 20 feet is a feasible maximum plane. Ms. Mick-Hager requested verification of fence 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 home size is now about 2400 square feet. In the past, the City has not regulated 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 changes would reshape the envelope for new housing, but not prevent very large houses to be built on multiple lot properties. He noted the history of very large homes in this City, mentioning the Starrett Mansion, the James House, the Old Consulate Inn as examples. Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 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 Hoc Committee, had indicated that he believed 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 through City codes. He said that he expected that large houses not permitted in Port Townsend would be 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 of the City. Mr. Sepler noted that modest areas change over time as original rather small houses are replaced with much larger structures or added on to. The loss of a historic resources is addressed by specifying how building on may be done. The second question is whether it is acceptable to the community 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 state 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 Fry 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 streetscape. 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 resource 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. NEW BUSINESS (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS On the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting date, June 25, a joint City Council/ County Commissioners' workshop will be held in Council Chambers. Mr. Sepler suggested changing the Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 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 e-mail. Mr. Sepler mentioned that a new training would be set up with John Watts as soon as a Vice Chair is elected. IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved to adjourn and Mr. Fry seconded. Chair Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 8:40 PM. Monica Mick-Hager, Chair _~ ~~ ~ '- GaiPBernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 5 of 5