Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042607• Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall -Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: 1. Agenda for Apri126, 2007 2. Draft Ordinance -Howard St. /Corridor Overlay District 3. J. Surber, Memorandum to Planning Commission, Affordable Housing, April 26, 2007 4. Executive Summary -Howard St. Corridor Overlay District, Bonus/Incentives 5. Agenda Bill AB07-052, Ordinance 2944 re: Barbed Wire I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The following Planning Commission members were present: Hamet Capon, Steve Emery, Alice King, Bill LeMaster, Julian Ray, George Randels, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Roger Lizut was excused. Chair Randels invited new Commissioner Bill LeMaster to share a bit of his background. Mr. LeMaster said that he and his wife own and operate Lehani's cafe. He has two children at Blue Heron School, and a grown daughter who lives in North Carolina. He and his family have lived in Port Townsend for about five years. Just prior to that they lived in Utah for seven years where he was employed as Program Director for implementations in Enterprise Resource Planning. He said he had extensive experience in corporate/business information systems planning. Mr. LeMaster said he holds a degree in Economics and had been enrolled in an MBA program. He also noted that he has lived in many different areas of the USA, and has done considerable traveling internationally. III. AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. The agenda was approved, as written. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for April 12 was deferred until the following meeting. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT (None) V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Howard/Ranier Street Corridor (Rick Sepler, Planning Director and Judy Sepler, Senior Planner) • Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9 April 26, 20~I7 Rick Sepler noted that meeting materials had been e-mailed, and extra copies were available. The items are listed in Meeting Materials. He said that the full Bonus/Density report including methodology would be available at least two weeks prior to the hearing. Judy Surber introduced their guest, Steve Paysse with OIyCAP (Olympic Community Action Programs). Mr. Paysse is a member of the Housing Action Plan Network, and is very interested in the affordable housing component of the Howard Street Ordinance. Mr. Sepler said he would first describe the change in the ordinance and the rationale for it. He recalled that the Commission had wished to have better guidelines in terms of affordable housing. Although we were taking an established section of the plan and placing it in another section of the code, some components may not be applicable. He said that Judy Surber had prepared a memorandum related to this and would speak to that issue. He described for Commissioner LeMaster the draft Overlay ordinance. He said that through visioning with the community, workshops and the direction of City Council, the Commission had been charged with up zoning, with specificity, the area to include mixed use development and a broader range of development. It is thought that the area may be a good place to serve long term growth for both commercial and residential needs. Towards that end, the Planning Commission had been working on a draft overlay ordinance establishing the set of uses to fully implement that, with certain additional requirements. One aspect was an incentive based approach or bonus schema, whereby certain actions such as providing day care, a public plaza, open space, and/or affordable housing may result in an allowance for increased building size. Towards that end, rather than codify the exact parameters and rewards, a methodology will be defined that will be applied for each application submitted. It will take into consideration changes in market factors and the output will be a specific requirement based on those variables. The preliminary has been identified in the memorandum. Mr. Sepler noted that this area is a pioneering area; there is no road or development in place, nor was there development proposed. There is a section of the code, 17.090, which identifies the incentive. Up to a certain amount of square footage, the pioneer developer would receive the bonus density without having to provide day care, open space or affordable housing. He reviewed the notion of encouraging starter projects, which will attract further development. And, the business that takes the greatest risk going into an unknown area gets the greatest benefit. When the bonus is up, there is no additional provided. Furthermore, the incentives would not work unless there was other development there to support it. The economist who is preparing the bonus scheme metrics has indicated that, considering the number of frontage commercial sites, only one fully developed building is needed to seed the process. Since there is a limited number of sites, one (1) would be the tipping point. Beyond one, the market has been established. If the first business took the full bonus, amulti-story 60,000 square feet building, that would provide enough to establish that market, compared to what is already at the intersection of Howard Street and Sims Way. Those ideas and provisions were inserted into the most recent draft. He noted that B and C are less scientifically derived. A is the amount of mixed use development; a 55,000 square foot building would use up the entire bonus. B and C are based on an actual proposal, the relocation of Kah Tai Care Center and creation of a new Assisted Living facility. The owners have an option on the property and have testified before the Commission. This development plan, which would also employ 90 people, is seen to provide the appropriate key Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9 April 26, 2007 step to make the entire plan for the area feasible. He said they, along with the business park • adjacent, become the built in component to support all the mixed uses. He said the City would certainly wish to incentivize their early construction. Should this ordinance be adopted by Council, the owners would close on the property and proceed with the development. Mr. Unterseher asked for clarification about the boundaries of the overlay district. Mr. Sepler pointed out the boundaries on the map. He mentioned that there had been discussions with prospective buyers of several properties. There was uncertainly about the status of the Safe Harbor early plans. At this time, the bonus is seen to apply within 100 feet of Howard/Ranier, but Mr. Sepler said that the Commission may wish to discuss this further. Mr. Sepler then moved to the report from the economist. He said that it raised a number of issues and on the whole he thought it was very good. He summarized that for an affordable use unit, about 2500 square feet bonus would be granted. One of the cautions noted was that the end result should not all be 300 square foot studio units. That was addressed with the restriction that units may be smaller, but not Iess than 80% of the size. of the units and proportionate to distribution of the units there. Mr. Sepler referred to the example on page 4. He said the challenge is whether or not to spell out the mechanism, which can be fairly cumbersome. He said his best recommendation was not to specifically codify the mechanism because it will change. The template will be available as an exhibit to the ordinance, but it will be applied on a case by case basis. The template, the ordinance and the process would all be adopted. Mr. Sepler said that there were two other recommendations. One is to develop the plaza rating system and to define a scheme to evaluate the qualitative aspect of the plazas. He said it has been shown that plazas are beneficial in many ways. The guidance from the report noted that plazas are tough to qualify, and suggested five square feet of bonus for one square foot of plaza. He said that developing a plaza rating system may take a great deal of time. Instead, he suggested that Commissioners articulate what they are seeking and direct staff to develop a system. Mr. Unterseher said that the AIA had recently developed a guideline. Commissioners recalled the beneficial characteristics that had been discussed at a previous meeting: moveable seating, food vendors, fountains, etc. Mr. Sepler said that day care was more problematic. He said that staff had been less successful in finding appropriate models for day care requirements and function. Mr. Randels asked how the consultant's recommendations relate to the draft ordinance. Mr. Sepler said that the draft was done first. The consultant was then queried as to whether the lists of items were valid things to bonus. The next step is to determine how much bonus we need to grant for what we are seeking. He noted that the day care amenity was problematic for the consultant, who was asking for more specific parameters: number of children, hours of operations, etc. Chair Randels said that those guidelines had been provided and that he did not understand why the consultant could not offer some advice based on those parameters. Ms. Slabaugh added that a list of the characteristics of inviting plazas had also been developed. Mr. Sepler said that he would follow up on those issues. Mr. Unterseher suggested that the Planning Commission should stress the importance of day care but leave the details open with regard to size, location, operation. i With regard to process for this meeting, the Commissioners and staff agreed to step through each of the sections of the ordinance. Ms. Surber asked when it would be appropriate for Steve Paysse P/arming Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9 April 26, 2007 to give his input. The Commissioners invited Mr. Paysee to speak whenever he had particular • input to a topic. Mr. Paysse noted that the housing group had agreed to the desirability of multi- use buildings with child care incorporated; they see great need for child care in the community. He said that in a mixed use implementation there would be a combination of retail, 80%, 50% and 30% subsidized housing, as well as child care. He noted the relatively high number of single women with children in the low income brackets who can get jobs in this community, but cannot afford child care. He said that there is a church organization that is willing to operate such a facility. The missing piece is a building/facility. Chair Randels said that the Planning Commission's goal is to incentivize developers to provide the space; the church or some other group could operate it. Ms. Slabaugh added, as example, that the Life Center representative had said that his organization had no interest in operating such a facility themselves, although they had good experience with a co-existing child care/nursing operation in Gig Harbor. Draft Ordinance Review: Chair Randels suggested that the Commission address the misnamed rights-of--way by including that in the ordinance. He suggested that "we call Ranier, Ranier", not one name to the north and another to the south; this could be included on page 3 of the ordinance. He referred to the anomaly on the map, where the same street has been named both Shasta and Ranier. He noted that from a marketing perspective, Ranier is a better name than Howard or Shasta. Ms. Capron noted that on page 3 the reader is referred to a color map not included in the document. She recalled her earlier suggestion to describe the boundaries of the Overlay district within the text, asking Mr. Sepler if that would not be possible. Mr. Sepler said that such a description would need to be very precise, but that it could be done. Chair Randels said that a map would be available at the public hearing and for the City Council review. Mr. Sepler said that a number of jurisdictions do include the map as part of their zoning codes. Several Commissioners agreed that a map should be attached to the Ordinance, especially considering the irregular shape of the overlay district. Also on page 3 under Purpose and Intent, Chair Randels suggested the addition under E or G the "desire to provide a pleasant and secure environment for residents'', or language to that effect. Ms. Capron said she like the words "livable and friendly''. "Pleasing" was also mentioned. Page 4 -Chair Randels referred to the relaxation of the formula store restrictions on corners. He asked for clarification as to whether this applied to street corner or building corner. Mr. Sepler recalled it was "street corner" but said he would check the regulation, 17.54. He questioned whether or not the language of the draft actually alters something that is not in the current ordinance, i.e. the reference to "street corner". Mr. Sepler read an excerpt of the ordinance, which was followed by a discussion about possible scenarios. Mr. Randels gave the example where a building is located on an internal street, but not a legal right of way. Mr. Sepler read: "Street corner includes frontage on private parking lots and access ..... [inaudible]. Mr. Sepler said that by using the term "street corner", it covers any and all instances intended in the original ordinance. There was agreement that the draft text was sufficiently clear. Mr. LeMaster followed up to clarify in his own mind the degree of "relaxation" and was assured that all the other formula store provisions would still apply. (Ms. Capron mentioned that Lake Tahoe is now highly "deformularized". She noted the extreme contrast in appearance between older and more recent retail establishments there.) • Page 4, items Band C -Chair Randels questioned whether "stand-clones" would be allowed anywhere in this district. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler said he believed that the mixed use P/arming Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9 April 26, 2007 prohibition applies within 100 feet of the center line. This would allow stand-alone retail usage in the second tier. He referred to 17.060, and said, "Pure use is required within 100 feet of the alignment. Past that, even though it is a mixed use district, a singular use is allowed, excepting that items 1, 2, and 3 could never be permitted." Mr. Randels referred to B, where there is a prohibition on apartment houses within 100 feet and multi-family dwellings within 100 feet. Mr. Sepler agreed to clarify: "multi-family dwelling, as a sole use". Bill LeMaster asked why convenience stores were not allowed. Chair Randels explained that they were allowed, but not as stand-alone buildings. They must be part of a mixed use implementation. Ms. Capron referred to line 39, "professional offices are encouraged...''; she suggested stronger language. Mr. Sepler said that it was very hard to regulate the design in such a way as to ensure that office space can be easily or readily converted to residential space. He said it would be very difficult to insist on a structural design that would ensure that. There was no change made. Chart review, pages 5-6: Max. building height -For buildings within 100 feet of a R-I or R-Il district, Chair Randels asked if this should be modified to allow more height at the frontage, but step down to the rear. Mr. Sepler said he would add a note to that effect. Minimum building front along primary street/None - In response to a question from Mr. Randels about the meaning, Mr. Sepler agreed that this item could should be eliminated from the table. Minimum building frontage along Howard Street - Mr. Randels asked if this should be further defined, and drew an example of a building with adjacent plaza. Mr. Sepler said the total width would be counted. Maximum amount of nursing home and/or congregate care facilities - Mr. Randels questioned the 70,000 square feet in relation to other amounts in the document. Mr. Sepler said he would clarify that in the next version. Mr. LeMaster asked if there was a minimum building size in terms of square footage. Mr. Sepler responded that it is implied. Given the 70% frontage and minimum lot size requirements, the expected building size would be about 20,000 square feet. Mr. Sepler noted that within setback and bulk/dimension requirements, there is hidden design. To meet all the requirements, one would need a building of about 20,000 square feet, which is consistent with the planning vision for that area. Mr. Unterseher asked if there was some requirement for the setback from the street and the depth of the sidewalk. There was some discussion about the C-II design process and the redo of the right of ways. Mr. Sepler said that the City would look to do more in the 60 foot right of way to provide wider sidewalks, parking and streetscape, which would be scaled to the buildings. Mr. Sepler mentioned that the Wetlands Assessment for the new alignment was scheduled for later in the week. He said there is a wet area just where the curve of the road will be. If there is something to mitigate, it will be identified in the assessment. Page 6 -Mr. Sepler said he would clarify Maximum Bonus Floor Space, along with the other square footage parameters discussed above. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9 April 26, 2007 . Maximum Housing Density - Mr. Randels asked if this applies before or after bonuses. Mr. Sepler said he would construe this to read: if we have 60,000 square feet, 36 units are allowed. Mr. Randels suggested that the parameter should be expressed in number of units per square feet. Minimum Open Space and Tree Conservation - Mr. Randels asked if this should be based on gross land area. It was noted that this. item seemed to be working against those who were actually trying to be consistent with the end result desired. Mr. Sepler said that this was taken from the existing C-I and C-II M/U. He agreed to examine how this might best be modified. The definition of Open Space, including Urban Open Space, was read aloud. Mr. Ray re-raised the issue of the 40 year term with regard to ensuring affordable housing; this issue had been discussed at the previous meeting. Steve Paysse confirmed that this provision had been based on HUD guidelines; he said that there is always a minimum of forty years, sometimes fifty years. There was discussion about the possible negative impacts on developers and development. Mr. Paysse recalled a situation where a particular property in the City could not "make it" financially, about which there had been a discussion with HUD representatives. He said that when he explained to HUD that the terms of the original agreement were financially infeasible, HUD asked what could be done to make it work. For example, they asked "Do you still want to have affordable housing?" Do you still want to be in that business? They asked what would make it work, and were willing to alter the terms -for the balance of the 50 years - in order to foster affordable housing. He said they are willing to change the model X years into the term, if the original arrangement is no longer feasible. Mr. Randels said that HUD no longer has a meaning and that the federal government no longer has an interest or gives priority to affordable housing. It was noted that the current situation refers to community sponsored and supported affordable housing, and need not follow the old federal model. Chair Randels stated that the ordinance should be written to match what this community needs. He said that if the developers/sponsors choose, in addition, to sign on to other programs with additional requirements, that is their decision. Ms. King asked for clarification on what Mr. Randels was suggesting. He said he was suggesting flexibility. He cited the example of Hamilton Heights where 40 units of affordable housing will not remain affordable, i.e. they will be soon be sold to a second buyer. He said that the gain was in providing affordable housing for the family that needed it for as long as they wished to retain it, and characterized it as a big step out of poverty. There is no minimum time to hold the house. The rationale is the amount of sweat equity the family invests. Mr. Paysee cited the housing needs assessment, which showed that the need for affordable housing in Port Townsend is widespread. Mr. Randels said there is a need for multiple strategies, not just one. Mr. Ray proposed that the 40 years should be reduced to 15 or 20 years, although he said he did not know how that would be accomplished. Ms. Slabaugh asked if there were other options than the two mentioned. She said she did not see how the Hamilton Heights model would fit in this case, given the requirement for mixed use. Mr. Paysse said that for mixed use, the retail on the first floor must make money. For the residential component, some occupants are at each of the 30%, 50% and 80% subsidy levels, so . that there is mixed use and mixed income in one building. Mr. Randels noted that what he had envisioned here was to intersperse various income levels with market rate housing. After additional discussion about the number or percentage of units that would need to be subsidized Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9 Apri/ 26, 2007 (and for how long), Mr. Sepler suggested that perhaps the economist should be consulted about . the options versus the bonus amounts. Mr. Ray asked if a developer should be allowed to buy out of one affordable housing agreement and build replacement units elsewhere. Mr. Randels said that would likely undermine the goal of a mixed income community. Ms. Slabaugh asked if the economist was saying, in essence, that by setting up a proper bonus scheme, the project would pay for itself. Mr. Sepler said that "If you can get 2500 square feet for providing a comparable unit, it is worth it to the developer, based on the costs in Port Townsend." Mr. Unterseher added that there are two views of how it works. One is the developer's view; developers always sell their building within 3 to 4 years. He said a key question is whether we (the City) are going to allow the builder to sell this property. He noted that if not, no developer would touch this arrangement. Mr. Sepler mentioned the option of finding an appropriate not-for-profit who would handle these things. For example, Habitat for Humanity has the experience and wherewithal -although it is not on site. He asked, "Can all the goals be accomplished in this place?" Mr. Unterseher suggested that instead of requiring affordable housing in the same building, the developers, jointly or singly, be given the option of building affordable housing in the neighborhood. Ms. Capron asked if the 40 year provision had been implemented anywhere in Port Townsend.. Mr. Sepler said no, that the bonus in the PUD ordinance had never been used. He noted that • depending on what is decided for this district, it would have to be changed. Mr. Randels said that he thought the provision should be changed. Mr. Sepler said that he thought the real issue was whether or not the affordable housing was essential in this neighborhood. Or, would it be acceptable to have it occur anywhere in the community? There was further discussion about whether there were too many goals to accomplish in this one project/area, and recognition that the area itself was quite small. Mr. Randels noted that, despite the questions, the economist was saying that this was feasible. He said, "I think we can do something here, and I think we should." Mr. Unterseher said that he agreed that more flexibility was needed; he thought there should not be so many requirements in the same building. Mr. Sepler noted the challenge: if inclusionary zoning were attempted, it would be very hard to retrofit R-III and R-IV densities to make it work. This is an area that is yet undefined, so the process is still possible. He said that the likely number of units would be about ten. Mr. Unterseher said that if there are no takers within a year or two, the 40 year duration can be revisited. Mr. Paysse noted that affordable housing in this community is declining. He said that, based on the analysis, the need is 75 additional affordable units per year from here on out. Mr. Le Master asked about the value of the bonus to developers and whether there is a means to ensure pay back of proportional value when the building is sold. Penalties provisions were discussed; Mr. Randels noted that deed restriction would be a more effective mechanism. After additional discussion about the 40 year restriction, Mr. Sepler suggested the following option: Require the developer to do the study and calculations, and propose the term to achieve some end, based on guidelines the City establishes. If the duration is beyond the minimum required, Pfanning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9 April 26, 2007 the bonus will increase accordingly. Mr. Sepler said he would follow up with the economist. Ms. Capron suggested 19 years instead of 20, stating that it sounds less ominous. Page 7 - Mr. Randels noted the references in the ordinance to various terms such as low-income, very low income household, etc. He suggested that all these be changed to affordable, for simplicity. After a brief discussion about definitions and sources of definitions, Ms. King noted the differences among the terms, and stated her reluctance to substitute terms. Mr. Paysee noted that for some people, the term "affordable" is used to avoid the discomfort of dealing with terms such as "low-income", etc. Mr_ Ray opined that affordable and low-income were equally parametric terms. However, there was a de facto decision to retain the "low-income" terms. Mr. Sepler said he would return with a menu of options for the bonus density study the proponent prepares. Developers will be given guidelines, including a minimum requirement in terms of duration. They can implement within the building, implement in the building for a variable period of time past the 20 year minimum, implement within the study area, or implement within the study area through the auspices of an established agency. Economist's Executive Summary -Chair Randels noted the references to female single head of household. He said that couples and single men can be low-income, too. Mr. Sepler noted that single head of household was the category of greatest need. Mr. Randels said that the reference should be to all those who are in need. Public Plaza Areas - Mr. Randels asked if "open to the sky'' meant that awnings are not allowed. He suggested that awnings or overhead protection from rain may be a desirable feature. Mr. Emery mentioned the plans for a light tower for the library remodel. Mr. Ray asked if there could be an indoor park, i.e., enclosed by glass with plantings, etc. Mr. Sepler noted the challenge of needing to lock the doors and control access at night. He said he would clarify this section by allowing for canopies and awnings. Landscaping guidelines were also discussed. Mr. Sepler said staff planned to return in two weeks with the revisions and to be ready for a public hearing on May 24. The hearing will be in Council chambers. b. Barbed Wire Ordinance Mr. Sepler recalled that the Planning Commission had been briefed on this matter at the previous meeting. He distributed copies of agenda bill AB07-052 pertaining to Ordinance 2944, which has been referred by Council to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission will decide how to proceed on this proposed ordinance. He had included a copy of the draft ordinance, as prepared. It would prohibit the erection of new barbed wire fences or the repair of existing ones with barbed wire. One of the key issues was concern about Iivestock and the use of barbed wire. There are also state laws requiring the use of barbed wire in certain situations, as around impounded car lots. Mr. Sepler said that there would need to be a hearing, and suggested holding it immediately after the Howard Street hearing. He noted that this proposal would also need to go through the SEPA process. There was a brief discussion about the many types of barbed wire and the various uses of it for • security and other purposes. Chair Randels noted that the Commission should make certain there is opportunity for farmers within the city limits to be heard. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9 Apri/ 26, 2007 Being a new member of the Commission, Mr. LeMaster asked if the Planning Commission had • the option of deciding that the proposed ordinance is not needed. Fellow commissioners noted that they could make that recommendation to the City Council, and then the City Council could either take that advice or not. There was a brief review of the charge from the City Council. There was agreement that a public hearing should probably be held in any case. Mr. Sepler said he would double check the City Council's motion on it, possibly postpone the hearing, and follow up with the city attorney about the policies, before the next meeting. VII. NEW BUSINESS (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS May 10, 2007 -Howard !Ranier Street Corridor Overlay District -Ordinance Residential Setback Adjustments Ordinance -Discussion May 24, 2007 -Public Hearing on Rezone and Draft Howard /Rapier Street Corridor Overlay District Ordinances (tentative) Public Hearing on Barbed Wire Ordinance (postponed} IX. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Sepler mentioned that a City Council workshop meeting on Upper Sims Way/Howard Street had been scheduled for May 24, with an opportunity for public comment. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved for adjournment and Ms. Slabaugh seconded; all were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:57 PM. /`~ ~_ George ande s, it -~Jltir/ ~ca~~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder • P/arming Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9 Ap~i/ 26, 2007