Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081309CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room Thursday, August 13, 2009 Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, August 13, 2009 EXH 2 J. Arango, Slide Presentation: Port Townsend Historic Residential Property Survey I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Gee Heckscher, and Monica Mick-Hager. Bill LeMaster and Julian Ray were excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Commissioner Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Fry. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 2009: Commissioner Fry moved and Commissioner Emery seconded for approval, as presented. The minutes of July 9, 2009 were approved, as presented, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 VII. NEW BUSINESS: Presentation: Historic Residential Inventory (John McDonagh, Planner, DSD; John Watts, City Attorney; Jeff Arango, Historic Preservation Intern) John McDonagh introduced colleagues John Watts and Jeff Arango. He noted that this workshop had been scheduled as a joint Planning Commission and CDLU workshop. However, City Councilor George Randels was the only CDLU member who was able to attend. Other members of the public in attendance were Richard Berg, Charles Paul, and Bruce Freeland, who were invited to comment during the meeting. . Mr. McDonagh said that staff would present the methodology and status for the survey/inventory. He recalled that City Council had authorized the inventory last year and allocated funds for hiring Mr. Arango to perform a survey or inventory of historic residences in the National Historic District Landmark. The process had included several HPC (Historic Preservation Committee) members (Charlie Paul and Gee Heckscher). Mr. McDonagh showed the original 1976 "polka dot" inventory map of the Historic District. He noted that Port Townsend had not required residential design review in the past in the Historic District; the design review process was voluntary except for the downtown commercial areas, and for conditional use permits such as a church, school or Bed and Breakfast. In recent years, there has been realization that the City is at some risk for inappropriate changes to residential properties that now contribute to the quality and character of the City. He pointed out that National Historic District Landmarks are just a step below National Monuments. City Council has directed the Inventory, as well as development of bulk and scale regulations which will form an integrated package. The purpose of this workshop is to present the approach and methodology to the Planning Commission and CDLU before finalizing the Inventory. Jeff Arango has completed his first year of graduate work in Urban Planning and Design at UW. Previously, as the Planning Director for a small Vermont town, he was involved in their process for Historic Preservation District designation and development of design review guidelines. The deliverables for this project include a digital Checklist, via Adobe software with photos and password protection. He has also been able to make use of the Historical Society Database, per Bruce Freeland, and its block categorization system, with the possibility of eventually integrating the data from both systems. There is also a spreadsheet categorized by the block numbers and color coded based on the classification. The database is searchable by property address and is also viewable in GIS format. George Randels inquired if others in the future will be able to apply the criteria consistently if/when the inventory is extended to the rest of the City. Mr. Arango said that the criteria and categories are fully defined and every effort has been made for consistency in applying the criteria. Methodology -The traditional "polka dot" map distinguishes among Pivotal, Primary, Secondary, as well as Altered Historic and Recent Compatible properties; the latter two are non- contributing buildings. The new classification includes Pivotal, Primary, Secondary and Non- contributing. Mr. Arango reviewed the point scheme.. For the evaluation categories, he is looking at the physical aspects such as style of exterior, age (is it within period of significance or Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 at least over 50 years old?), continuity and context (same builder or family within the same block), and alterations (degraded or restored). [George Randels pointed out an overlap in the point categorization system, which Mr. Arango will correct.] Alterations are assigned negative points. For an easily reversible alteration, it is possible to get one point back. The inventory and classification deals with exterior only. He said all of these observations and photos are from the street and maybe partly obscured by vegetation. In some cases, use of the database has been helpful to fill in gaps. Mr. Arango showed how the points are entered in the spreadsheet, which categorizes and color codes the property based on the number of points. At this time the points are not captured directly on the checklist. It shows the excellent, good, fair rating but does not tally the points and show the final ranking. This can be done at a later date if deemed necessary. He also showed a snapshot of the GIS layer, showing the color-coded buildings. George Randels asked if the out-buildings were rated separately from the main building. Mr. Arango said the out-buildings are considered as part of the whole property and hence are all assigned the same ranking as the main building. A full inventory of all put-buildings would be problematic because of the view/access issues. The rationale is that in order to do alterations to an put-building on a pivotal or primary property, a design review should be required because it will affect the property overall. In some cases, he has documented unsympathetic additions or new put-buildings that are actually larger than the principal building. Mr. Arango then showed photos and discussed key characteristics of certain properties. He pointed out where several secondary buildings had been built by the same family and thus received context/continuity points (840, 834, 826 Adams Street). This family builder information was available from the database. Other examples at 811 and 833 Adams are 1950's style houses not within the period of significance. They were determined to be non-contributing buildings, although older than 50 years. Mr. Emery raised the question of houses of cultural significance. This topic was deferred to later in the presentation. Chair Mick-Hager asked if there were examples in the 50 year range that were rated as contributing. Mr. Arango said there were not, although there were examples in the 75 year age range. He also showed 716 Taylor that was previously secondary and is now primary. There was a brief discussion about the importance of "ornate" qualities; Mr. Randels said he believed this characteristic should be considered neutral, neither a positive nor negative. Ms. Mick-Hager recollected that ornate carpentry was one of the factors in the original ratings. Mr. Arango said ornate exteriors are no longer built, and Mr. Randels pointed out that interior carpentry is not part of the evaluation. Mr. Arango showed another house that had been primary but due to its alteration and other factors is now secondary. Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 Mr. Watts requested that Mr. Arango walk through the sample checklist. For 834 Adams, he showed the block number, how he enters IDs, takes a photograph, checks off the boxes, and adds notes, if appropriate. Each property is then filed in a folder identified by the Block ID. He then showed the particular line item in the spreadsheet, which contains the number ratings and tally, and demonstrated how changes are made to result in a total and color coding. Mr. Emery inquired about the well known architect, Cutler, who had designed one of the houses in this area and about the rare types of buildings where there are only a few in the area or in the world. There was a discussion about how "scarcity" might be valued and affect the rating. He also mentioned the American Legion building, as one of only a few of its type in the world. Mr. McDonagh noted that all preservation policies are local. A building may be on the National Register but not protected unless done so by the local County or City regulations or affected by some tax credit conditions. Mr. Arango discussed the differences between costly up front work of establishing local districts and regulations, or having backend regulations. He said that design review can be required for any building at least 50 years old, or other such generic criteria. Mr. Watts referred to the checklist and asked Mr. Arango if a panel of 5-10 "experts", for example, would be likely to produce an average rating equivalent to Mr. Arango's rating. Mr. Arango said that other communities had been consulted, and that he felt the criteria were fairly well-defined and could be used by others to produce a consistent result. However, he acknowledged the possibility that a rating could be challenged. He said that the categories (pivotal, primary, etc.) matter ultimately, but the biggest distinction is Contributing versus Non- contributing. He said that the municipality has the right to regulate, and design review does not need to be based on historic preservation. Mr. Watts pointed out that different categories may trigger different levels of review. In that case, it is necessary to justify why a particular property belongs in a particular category. He said we must be as objective as possible, so that decisions can be replicated for similar situations. He said he understood Mr. Arango to say that he believed others would come to the same ratings if they applied the defined criteria. Mr. Arango urged everyone to review the criteria and methodology and reminded that he had also defined what the inventory was and was not. That is, it is not a full historic survey in the sense of what the Parks Service would require. John McDonagh added that he, Rick Sepler, Charlie Paul, Gee Heckscher and others had been involved in the process, and that any questionable ratings or changes from the original survey would be carefully vetted. Mr. Watts asked which other cities had been consulted or used similar methods for categorizing. San Jose, Olympia and Oakland were mentioned. John said he had spoken with a planner in Olympia, who sent a copy of scheme that was very much like what Jeff Arango had produced based on the California cities. He said that they had debated whether more quantitative or qualitative methods were appropriate and how to incorporate the methodology into the zoning code, etc. Mr. Emery asked whether designating famous properties such as those that were part of films had been considered. Mr. Freeland added that he felt that criteria dealing with the historic merit of properties were missing, and agreed to discuss this further. Mr. Watts said that the City has considerable authority in determining which buildings would be subject to design review and preservation regulation. The important point is that the criteria for regulation or mapping needs to be objective. Bruce Freeland, 1428 Monroe St., Port Townsend, introduced himself. He said that he is the Chair of the Historic Property Survey that the Historical Society is doing, but that he was not Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 necessarily speaking on their behalf. He said that, in his opinion, given that this is the National Historic Landmark District, this approach is lightest on the historic merit of these properties. He recalled the issues that had arisen over the Fillmore Street property about one year ago as to whether or not the house was historic and should be preserved, rather than torn down and replaced. He said he understood how subjective and open ended this historic consideration could become. However, he suggested three ways in which history could be incorporated without undue resources. One is to automatically include, in the highest category, the twenty plus properties that are already listed on the local, State or National Historic Register. The second way is to recognize the scarcity issue, and identify those properties that would be most missed if no longer there. He recalled the tear down of the Tibbals House back wing as an example. He said that building was built in the 1870s and that the original part was of one of the few Greek Revival buildings in town; to lose any of them would be a great loss. He also mentioned the small number of genuine Craftsmen bungalows and one example of a Gothic Revival house at Adams and Clay St. He suggested that it would be quite possible to establish a rule based on the number of existing houses of a certain type, i.e. under ten. As to the question of who lived in a house, that information has been recorded by the Historical Society. Mr. Freeland said the question of who was historically important can be answered by consulting one of several reference books about Port Townsend. Any person who received coverage in these reference books would qualify as an important person associated with a property. Mr. Watts asked about the three suggestions. The first was acknowledged as being straight- forward, with the assumption that houses listed on the State or National register would be classified as Pivotal. Regarding the second, Mr. Freeland clarified that scarcity would be a new criterion for which points would be added. Mr. Randels expressed his opinion that the first suggestion would give too much power to our predecessors by relying solely on the original rating. He said that an up to date rating should also be given weight. Mr. Freeland then suggested that the Registry listing should be made part of the point system; Mr. Randels agreed. Mr. Randels also pointed out that recognizing scarcity alone may result in points being assigned to houses that are no longer legal and/or those without any aesthetic appeal whatsoever. Mr. Freeland said he was actually suggesting scarcity of historic styles of buildings. Mr. Watts asked for direction from Commissioners whether they were in favor of adding points for scarcity and/or for having served as a residence to a historic personage. Mr. Heckscher pointed out that the scope of work had been bounded by funds and time, and that Mr. Arango had been instructed to restrict the criteria to what he had presented. He said that it would be possible to accommodate additional criteria, but not within the time allowed. Mr. Freeland said he could provide the data within a month. Mr. Heckscher said that the deliverable is due at the end of August, at which time the HPC will review/verify the inventory. Mr. Paul recommended that the process be allowed to continue as it had been defined, and if there are changes from CDLU or Planning Commission, it would be prudent to pick up an additional funding line to make the changes. Mr. McDonagh noted that identifying the set of Registry buildings would be simple, and that perhaps it would be best to find a way to add them to Mr. Arango's list separately. He said that based on conversations with Mr. Freeland and Mr. Arango regarding the historical criteria, he believes that those factors could be pulled in at the time of writing the regulations, if that turns out to be the recommendation of the Planning Commission, CDLU, etc. Mr. Randels encouraged everyone to consider if these issues and factors are more, less or equally important outside the Historic District. He said that since he has been urging extension of this inventory City-wide, he would appreciate such discussions. Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 Mr. McDonagh said that there are about 28 properties, not all homes, outside the District that are listed either on the State or National Registry. He mentioned Chinese Gardens, Happy Valley, and Fort Worden as some of these properties. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Arango to what extent his criteria are based upon "contributing to the District". That is, if outside the District, can a property contribute to the District, and if not contributing to the District, do the criteria work? Mr. Arango said that perhaps some of the criteria work and some do not. That is, those dealing with the property itself work, but those dealing with continuity or context don't work. Mr. Randels suggested that points can still be assigned for continuity/context outside the District, and that generally it appears that the criteria will work anywhere in town. Mr. Arango urged reserving judgment until the Inventory is completed and some notions of regulation are being discussed, before elements are changed. He said, however, that some of the suggestions maybe fairly easy to implement, especially with Mr. Freeland's help with information. He said perhaps certain prominent buildings could be listed as a local landmark based on history. He said the history part is important but was not within this scope. One idea is to provide a way to have designated landmarks different from design review, i.e. based on factors like being featured in a film or the like. He said maybe there is an easier way to do that outside of the Inventory process. Mr. Freeland said that he disagrees with regard to the history issue. He said that the thing that is important about the National Historic District is the history. There may be houses that had to do with the founding of the town, and that should be here for our future, but that may not qualify on the basis of the physical elements of the house. However, that aside, he thanked and complemented the City on taking this subject on, and commended Mr. Arango on the job he is doing. He thanked everyone for their participation and effort. Chair Mick-Hager said that many of these points had come up at previous Planning Commission discussions, and she urged the guests to continue to attend workshops and meetings. She agreed that the process is ongoing, and that since citizens will be affected by the outcome, all these issues must be addressed. Mr. Randels said he agreed, and he also urged that "We not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, because at some point decisions must be made." Mr. McDonagh asked Mr. Berg if he wished to speak; Mr. Berg had no comment. Mr. Arango added that the Inventory should be viewed as a living document, to which amendments can be added over time. Mr. McDonagh added that this is not a national park level survey that could be used to renew the nomination form, which is now almost 40 years old. He said that around the State, the preservation community has been extremely surprised that Port Townsend does not yet have residential design review. He said this project is another step in what has been a long gradual process for protecting the interests of the Port Townsend community. Chair Mick-Hager thanked all guests for participating, and closed this portion of the meeting. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 August 27 - Teardowns, Bulk and Scale Ordinance -John Watts stated that this would be the first cut for the consolidated ordinance. It will include place holders for any sections that will eventually be included. At this meeting, the Planning Commission will see the Ordinance Form of the bulk and scale work and the update to the historic regulations, design code. Some weeks beyond, depending on the rate of review, there will be a scheduled public hearing. Along that path, the Inventory work will be rolled in when it is completed. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -None X. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Emery moved for adjournment and Commissioner Fry seconded. Chair Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 7:55 PM. - (~~" Monica Mick-Hager, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page 7 of 7