HomeMy WebLinkAbout082709CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Materials:
EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, August 27, 2009
EXH 2 J. Watts, E-mail to Planning Commissioners: Aug 27 Pl. Comm. Meeting -agenda and
materials, August 21, 2009
EXH 3 Draft revisions to residential zoning code, PTMC 17.16, concerning new Bulk and Scale
provisions, dated 7-27-09
EXH 4 Draft revisions to PTMC 17.30 -Historic Preservation Code, dated 8-21-09
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Monica Mick-Hager called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Gee Heckscher, Bill
LeMaster ,Monica Mick-Hager and Julian Ray.
Staff: John McDonagh, Rick Sepler, John Watts
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Chair Mick-Hager suggested rescheduling of the September 24 meeting due to the Film Festival. Mr.
Heckscher suggested rescheduling of the September 10 meeting due to the opening of the Maritime
Center. Mr. Sepler also mentioned that the County Planning Commission wished to schedule a joint
meeting as the first meeting in October. After a brief discussion, rescheduling was postponed to the end
of the meeting. Commissioner Ray moved for acceptance of the agenda; the motion was seconded
by Commissioner LeMaster. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 13, 2009: Commissioner Heckscher moved and Commissioner Emery seconded for
approval, as presented. The minutes of August 13, 2009 were approved, as presented, all in favor.
V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None)
P/arming Commission Page 1 of 9
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Proposed Municipal Code Revisions: Teardowns, Bulk and Scale
Rick Sepler, Director, DSD/Planning
John McDonagh, Planner, DSD
John Watts, City Attorney
Mr. Sepler introduced the draft ordinance, noting that it is very complex and is still a work in
progress. Certain issues from the previous meeting have not yet been by addressed as fully as
needed. The intention for this meeting is to review the work in progress and obtain feedback
from the Planning Commission. He noted that at least one month would be needed to prepare the
next version.
The version in hand represents the first attempt to combine all the elements discussed over the
past six months into one ordinance document. He said there had been some internal changes
made by the staff team, and the Planning Commission is being asked to advise on whether the
draft is basically correct. By the time of the hearing, there maybe some unresolved points, but
any substantive issues should have been identified.
Mr. Sepler said that Mr. Watts, the chief crafter of the document, would walk through it with
Commissioners. Mr. Watts said that he had summarized the major elements in his e-mail (EXH.
2). There are two chief components. Bulk and Scale applies city -wide, for both historic and
non-historic, and for new building or remodeling. The second major component is for updates
and revisions to the Historic Preservation code. This includes 4 areas: 1. update to design
review, residential component; 2. the designation process, which is new; 3.the demolition
section, revised and built on the existing demolition sections and broadened to apply to
residential; he noted that there is a widened ability to remodel and that demolition only applies if
someone cannot do what they want to do with adaptive reuse. The fourth part is the maintenance
section.
Mr. LeMaster asked for confirmation that the day light plane is the prominent element of the
Bulk and Scale provisions. Mr. Sepler said that it is a significant aspect, and that it is basically
directed at sculpting the buildable envelope. Mr. Fry asked questions related to page 1, C i.e.
"lot line for purposes of this section means ..........street vacation." Mr. McDonagh referred to
the provision in the State law that has allowed for the statutory vacations that have limited
applicability in town, and have been settled on a case by case basis. The verbiage in question
means that measurements are taken from the lot line, as platted, and not including that which was
potentially vacated through statutory vacation. Mr. Watts pointed out that this is existing text
that was codified four or five years ago and reviewed the background to that. He said that in the
case that a street vacation is granted via the State legislation override, the City restricts
development to the original lot, not including the vacated area.
Mr. Sepler said that we are changing the zoning envelope via the daylight plane. We are also
requiring modulation for the first time at the building line, down the street. Side line setbacks
are being changed back to the ones that were in place for about 30 thirty years, i.e. 10 and 5 feet.
P/arming Commission Page 2 of 9
Page 3, no. 4 - Mr. Fry asked if accessory structures would affect this statement, noting that
accessory structures are often built on uneven land. What are the consequences of the term
"dwelling" here? Mr. Sepler said that once this scheme is in effect there will likely be pre-
existing non-conforming uses for some of the out-buildings. Mr. McDonagh confirmed that the
ADU ordinance allows an ADU to be used as anon-conforming structure if it was built prior to
1971. An ADU built today would need to comply with the building envelope requirements. The
side yard setback could not be altered and the building could not go through the top of the day
light plane.
Mr. Watts referred to section 17.30.020, page 3, Applicability. The change reflects that the
application of design review is to a structure inside the district, or outside the district. Before, it
was limited only to inside the historic district. This provides for mandatory review and
mandatory compliance throughout the town, if a qualifying structure.
Mr. Fry requested discussion about the reference to cultural, political and social significance of
structures, even though that has not been accounted for in the new criteria. Mr. Watts stated that
the purpose statement contains broad policy statements and the detail follows in later sections.
He reviewed the change in the process. Applying the criteria, even if not mapped, may lead to
designation of a historic home. Mr. Watts clarified that one cannot argue that a particular
building is significant from a cultural standpoint and that automatically translates into
designation. He said there must be something between the statement and the criteria to meet the
designation.
Mr. McDonagh added that section A. will need some modification to show that it applies city-
wide; Mr. Watts agreed.
Mr. Fry questioned the meaning of intrusions in section A. k. Mr. Ray suggested several
examples, such as planters, portable signs, etc. Mr. Sepler said that the term applies to "things
that block pedestrian passage or are less than pedestrian-friendly". He said it is also a term of art
for structures that are not consistent in design.
Page 4, B. 2 - Mr. Fry pointed out that the Uptown districts should be Uptown Commercial
districts.
Page 4, d. - Mr. Heckscher suggested this should say "local, state and national..."
Mr. McDonagh mentioned the three buildings that have sought local register designation: the 1-
2-3 Building, the Parish Hall on Jefferson Street, and the Kellogg Building.
Page 4, #3. - Mr. Fry pointed out that "strictly limited to" language is used elsewhere in the
document, and should be made consistent throughout.
Page 7 - Mr. Watts pointed out that the underlined text in #5 is not new, and was previously
approved by City Council. Paragraph B under 17.30.54 is new. It is a new process providing
that minor alternations are subject to design review within the department, not through HPC,
although HPC consultation is certainly encouraged at the discretion of the Director.
Planning Commission Page 3 of 9
Page 7, A. line 2 - Mr. Heckscher questioned the meaning of municipal improvement and asked
if this applies to all government buildings. The examples of the County courthouse and the
Fairgrounds were discussed. After further discussion regarding "historic" versus
"governmental" applicability, Mr. Sepler and Mr. Watts said staff would note this issue and
follow up with a recommendation on clarification/rewording as appropriate. There was a brief
review of the process that was followed for recent downtown streetscape projects.
Page 13 c. -- "pyramidal form" was explained. Mr. Sepler said that a pyramidal height was
established for the downtown; it allows variable building heights up to 50 feet in the center of
town, where the Mt. Baker Block and Hastings buildings are located and steps down in all
directions.
Page 17, A.2 - Mr. Heckscher asked for more information about "guidance documents" Mr.
Sepler said this refers to the adopted guidelines used by HPC. It was agreed that a more
definitive title and reference should be inserted there.
Page 18 a. - Mr. Fry pointed out the contrasts between this item and D 1. on page 19. There was
a brief discussion about contemporary architecture and adaptive reuse.
Mr. Heckscher pointed out the occurrences of "should" and "shall" in the document. Mr. Sepler
explained that the Makers consultants had been involved in review of that language and the
distinctive use of "should" and "shall" had been intentional.
Page 19, Transparency D - Mr. Heckscher mentioned the ADA requirement is 10", which would
have to be met.
Page 18, E3 - Mr. Heckscher asked if encroachment permits are needed. Mr. Sepler said that
weather protection is encouraged; separate permits are not required. Mr. LeMaster mentioned
that overhangs are covered under the sign ordinance.
Page 20-22: 17.30.158 Historic residential development - Mr. Sepler reviewed the discussions
of the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the design standards. Primary facades are those that face
the streets. Preserving their scale and design goes a long way to preserving the character of the
community. An associated concept is that of directing any alterations, additions or modifications
to secondary facades. A corner lot is considered to have two primary facades. For a pivotal
building, there is a high degree of rigor regarding the degree of alteration allowed. A primary
building has some additional latitude. For secondary buildings, which are typically small,
building up is allowed if there is a step back; a great deal more latitude is allowed.
Page 20, 2 a. -- Mr. Ray suggested that the word character be used instead of integrity. Mr.
Sepler noted that integrity is a term of art, meaning that the facade `works' as a composition, and
that one is not is introducing a dissimilar element. There was agreement with adding the word
character, as in "preserve the character and integrity......".
Planning Commission Page 4 of 9
Page 20, A 1. - In response to a question about "accommodations to meet lifelsafety
requirements", Mr. Sepler said that this includes ADA, fire code and other issues. An example
would be the fire alarms installed at Fort Worden in the Officers Row. These are
accommodations, not wholesale changes.
Page 22, paragraph 10 - Mr. Watts noted that the reversibility concept had been covered here.
Mr. McDonagh pointed out that this entire document recognizes that properties, issues and
factors evolve, and are not frozen in time. He noted that historic houses are homes, not
museums.
Mr. Fry suggested that the reference to Secretary of the Interior Standards (1995) be changed to
(1995, as revised).
Page 21 - Mr. Sepler noted that an accessory structure built in the front of a property that would
block the historic elements is not permitted. He also reviewed the setback requirements.
Mr. Ray suggested that in B 9, the wording be changed to " ...new work shall be differentiated
from the existing structure... ".
Page 21 3. - Mr. Heckscher suggested rewording to clarify the intent regarding height of the
existing and/or new structures.
Page 21 6. -After discussion about the intention and the wording; there was agreement that this
should be clarified with language such as "pedestrian-oriented view" or "street level view", or
the like.
Page 22 4 -This item will be clarified in a manner consistent with Page 21, 6 above.
The possibility of relying on landscaping and vegetation for screening was discussed. Mr. Sepler
advised that due to the change factor over time, this is not a practical single solution. It can be
provided as an alternative, but should carry fairly rigorous performance standards. Chair Mick-
Hagerwas in favor of adding alternatives with performance standards. Staff agreed to draft
language allowing for alternatives for further Planning Commission review.
Page 23, A 12. - Mr. Watts pointed out that an additional document would eventually be added
but would not likely be ready for this version and public hearings.
Page 24-25 - Mr. Watts noted that the original list of buildings in the Historic District will be
replaced by the Map.
Page 26 - Mr. Watts reviewed the process that would allow a building to be designated as
historic residence without owner consent, and be subject to mandatory design review, etc.
Commissioners noted that there may be concern from some property owners who will consider
this to represent a loss of their property rights and/or property value. However, there was general
P/arming Commission Page 5 of 9
agreement that the proposed regulations are reasonable, flexible and defensible; the intent is
protection and preservation of value for the entire community.
Chair Mick-Hager noted that the Planning Commission is responsible for clearly communicating
the rationale and value of these regulations to the public. Mr. McDonagh added that by
preserving the character and defining features of neighborhoods, one is preserving and enhancing
the property values as well.
In response to a question, Mr. Watts said that if a property is designated, based on the objective
criteria, duly noticed and not challenged by the property owner, the designation takes affect, with
or without the property owner's consent. There is a defined appeal process. Mr. LeMaster asked
if there would be fees for nominating or appealing. Staff said that a recommendation regarding
those specifics would be worked out by staff. The details will not be addressed at the hearing, but
the policy intent will be included. He said that it should be clear there is a reasonable scheme,
which avoids punitive or obstructionist behavior, and includes a check and appeal process.
Mr. Ray said he believes that a clear outline of the process and criteria will help to alleviate any
fears or misgivings by property owners. He was in favor of addressing the details as early in the
process as possible. Mr. Watts suggested that perhaps a summary judgment process should be
available.
Page 29 - 30 - Mr. Watts reviewed key elements of section 17.30.250, Criteria for Determining
Designation in the Register, including the voluntary process by a property owner, under A 1.
There was discussion about those cases where a demolition or remodel is sought by the owner
for a property that is not on the map. Mr. Watts said that there will be several questions on the
building permit application, such as "When was the house built?" Mr. Ray mentioned the need
for carefully crafted language to avoid the appearance of capriciousness. Mr. Sepler said that the
adopted criteria will be scrupulously applied and that the wetlands/critical area determination
process can serve as a model for these types of questions. Not all wetlands and critical areas are
mapped, and there are other issues which can cause a property to be so designated.
Mr. Watts noted that there is no set of criteria or nomination that would designate a commercial
building as historic, for example, on Upper Sims Way or at the Fair Grounds. Likewise, school
buildings such as the Lincoln Building would not be covered. That would be outside the scope of
what has been directed by City Council. There was discussion as to whether local listing should
be added to state and national registers. Mr. Watts noted that the Comp Plan has similar
supporting language, i.e. references to preserving historic assets, but does not provide much
regulatory authority. Mr. Watts said it is important to understand that this Ordinance does not
apply to every building, i.e. not every building in town could be historic under this process. He
said that, if they wish, at some point the Planning Commission can recommend expanding the
scope of the design review to include non-residential structures, but that he would advise not
side-tracking this work to expand the scope. The key issue is to define what is historic. In the
original Historic District process, the critical criterion was to what degree a building contributed
to the District. In the current inventory, there is a set of criteria applied to qualify as historic.
Mr. Sepler said staff would consider this further.
Planning Commrssron Page 6 of 9
Page 31-32 - Mr. Watts said that if a building is on the Map, it cannot undergo demolition or
remodel without design review. If not on the Map, but nominated for designation, the permit is
held until the nomination process has been determined. Therefore, the process must be quickly
decided. If the nomination has merit, it must go through the hearings examiner process. If there
is not merit, the Director would rule it out quickly. Mr. Ray asked for the rationale on the five
year duration for the ruling. Staff said that seems to be a reasonable starting point, since one
would not expect the factors to change within that period. Mr. Watts said that one intention is to
prevent a third party from, in effect, harassing the owner with repeated nominations. Mr. Fry
asked for clarification on whether the timing applies to the property or to the owner.- All agreed
it applies to the property even if the owner changes and that should be explicitly stated in the
text.
Page 32, Part Three - Mr. Watts reviewed this standalone section, which incorporates sections
approved in 2004. This is all existing language except for the clarification that if you are going
through an approved design review alteration that is not demolition, and would be outside Part
Three. This applies throughout the entire city provided the property is designated historic or
eligible to be designated.
Page 35 - 17.30.360 - For a historic residential structure, the only criterion allowing demolition
approval is imminent threat. That is, a building is likely to fall down and is a life safety hazard.
The safety valves are the liberal provisions for adaptive reuse through the design review process.
Mr. McDonagh added that in the commercial areas either a structural or economic test had to be
met, while here only the structural test applies. The basic premise is that since a residence is not
an income producer, an economic test is not applicable. Ms. Mick-Hager stated that this means
an owner of a historic house is required to maintain it and not allow it to fall down within the
review processes laid out. Mr. Watts said it also prevents someone from tearing down a historic
structure and replacing it with a modern out of scale building.
Mr. Sepler mentioned a case in Coupeville involving the Washington Trust. Anew owner of a
primary building on a waterfront lot wishes to tear it down and replace it with a larger structure.
Mr. Watts reviewed the two criteria for commercial building teardowns, structural and economic,
i.e. the takings argument. If there is no reasonable use for the property, demonstrable through
financial analysis, it may be possible to make the ease for demolition, under a constitutional
argument. He said reasonable economic use does not necessarily mean the highest and best
return of value on the dollar. He said it would be up to a court of law in an individual case as to
whether application of regulation constitutes a taking. That concept still applies to a commercial
situation. Mr. Watts noted that these rules were adopted about 5 years ago and they are not being
proposed for change.
Mr. Ray commented that the language in Part Four is very clear, well written and inclusive. Mr.
Watts said the language is substantially copied from the International Property Maintenance
Code, which has not been wholly adopted by the City. However, sections are being adopted, in
effect, through this process.
Planning Commission Page 7 of 9
Mr. Fry asked if Part Four is going to be applied to current maintenance issues. Mr. Watts said
that it could be so used.
Chair Mick-Hager described a historic property that she has owned for 25 years that may not
meet the standards, and asked what the impact would be on her with the adoption of this
ordinance. Mr. Watts said DSD would need to determine where this property fits in terms of
priorities and how their limited resources would be applied. He said that presumably the
downtown commercial buildings would be the first priority, then primary residences, followed
by pivotal and secondary buildings. Mr. Sepler said that it is quite likely that complaints will be
addressed first.
Mr. Ray said he thought the question was what specific steps will the City take if a building
owner does not do proper maintenance; what will the City do to enforce the standards? Mr.
Sepler said there is not sufficient staff to actively monitor and enforce compliance for every
historic property. Therefore, complaints will be the major driver. Mr. Watts said that the code
enforcement process is designed to get compliance, not to be punitive. The punitive provisions
are reserved for willful wrong doers. If voluntary compliance is not attained, the process can
lead to administrative orders and fines, judgments/liens etc which are appealable. Ultimately, the
City can undertake abatement, i.e. correction or mitigation. However, normally some
improvement can be attained voluntarily.
Mr. Ray noted the similarity to previous discussions about enforcement with other issues. He
asked if some of the language crafted for other situations could be tied in with this document to
ease the perception of takings. Mr. Watts recalled the Wallen situation where very substantial
fines were imposed after earlier attempts to attain compliance failed.
Mr. Watts posed the question of what would happen if someone was living in a historic residence
but did not have the means to maintain it. Mr. Sepler mentioned that the Ad Hoc Committee had
discussed the option of developing a series of support references and networks. He said that basic
provisions are for a weather tight exterior and structural integrity, not minor cosmetic issues. He
noted, however, that many of the existing day to day complaints/issues deal with un-mowed
.lawns, cars on front lawns, activities and structures in right of ways, etc. He said that because of
the complexity of the issues, staff recognizes the need to communicate clearly via prepared
hearing materials and selection of appropriate examples, so as to convey what the regulations
mean and do not mean. He said that it would be important to share these materials with review
groups like CTED and others for feedback. He noted that presentation of full information and
examples up front as part of the staff report usually works well to deflate concerns that may
arise.
Mr. LeMaster asked how the Fiore application process might have been different under the
proposed new regulations. Staff pointed out that presumably the inventory process and
application of criteria would have properly categorized the building. Mr. Watts pointed out that
the experts focused on whether or not the Fiore property was contributing to the District. The
conclusion was that it was not contributing. A different standard is being used now.
P/arming Commission Page 8 of 9
Mr. LeMaster said that if the process/list of ordinances had been in place at the time the Fiore's
purchased their home, they would have had much more information and would have known what
to expect. This will hopefully help to avoid similar situations in the future.
VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS
Mr. Sepler suggested changes to the schedule for September and October, in consideration of
Commissioners' scheduling conflicts mentioned at the beginning the meeting. He proposed the
second meeting of October 22 for the joint City/Planning Commissions meeting and October 8
for the Public Hearing. September 17 would be held for a potential meeting in the event issues
are identified after meeting with Bruce Freeland. After brief consideration, Commissioners
agreed to meet on September 17 in any case, in order to allow time for planning the joint
meeting, as well. Other September meeting dates are cancelled. Mr. Sepler said he would
inform the County Planning Commission that, depending on the outcome of the Public Hearing
on October 8, the joint meeting may need to be postponed beyond October 22.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS -None
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ray moved for adjournment and Commissioner LeMaster seconded. Chair
Mick-Hager adjourned the meeting at 9:00 PM.
Y
Monica Mick-Hager, Chair
Gail Bernhard, Recorder
P/arming Commission Page 9 of 9