Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030807• CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING of MARCH 8, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Meeting Materials: EXH. 1 Agenda, March 8, 2007 EXH. 2 Howard/Rainier Street Corridor staff draft ordinance, February 28, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commissioners was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, George Randels, Julian Ray, Liesl Slabaugh, and George Unterseher. Roger Lizut was excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA • Mr. Randels moved that the agenda be accepted, as written. Mr. Ray seconded, and the agenda was approved, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 11, 2007 -Corrections: Page 3: "All the transportation studies and interest in the area were based on the extension of Howard Street." ;add the before Rainier (spelling) right of way; "...49 unit residential project at 15"' and Eddy Streets, a 8-9 unit project on Discovery and other mixed use projects. ; "...C.L. Flint with 181ots at Eddy just south of Hastings (in R-II)."; "...preference for some solution at both Howard and McPherson or Thomas, and Sheridan, and a long median with a few controlled breaks for turns." ; Page 4: "... between Shasta and Howard Streets,"; "processes, councilmatic bonds, or other funding sources.' ; Page 5: "Mr. Sepler added that the cost of structured parking is about $20,000 ..."; "Ms. Surber asked about the area south of Sims Way..."; Page 6: ".... as one-story boxes' ; " ... if you median between McPherson and Thomas..." ;also, delete the bracketed phrase; Page 7: " ...is free, it might not pencil."; Page 8: " .... would be "checkerboard and spread out". January 25, 2007 -Corrections Page 1: "..agenda was approved, not minutes; • Page 4: "... as they do in the downtown area."; "non-compliance" Page 7: "amenities could be requested..." February 15, 2007 -Corrections Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7 March 8, 2007 Page 2: "remove (None) after Unfinished Business Page 3: Ian Hinkle comments noted, but left as spoken. Page 5: Items 2 and 3 titles were expanded to match the Exhibit text; Strait of Juan de Fuca; Page 8: Item 43 - "....under Liquor Control Board regulations."; Page 8-9: "....Ms. Surber noted that adding another square footage threshold was getting quite complex. She recalled that in the shorelines jurisdiction, there was a limit on square footage within the Northeast Boat Basin, with a maximum square footage for the boat haven shoreline district overall, and this amendment would now add another threshold for a CUP (conditional use permit} within the MII(A) district." Page 10: ".... Commission, not committee" Mr. Ray moved and Mr. Emery seconded that the three sets of minutes for January II, January 25, and February l S, 2007 be approved, as amended. The minutes for January Il, January 25, and February 1 S, 2007 were approved, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Rick Sepler took the opportunity to introduce Todd Fletcher, who is with the Life Care Centers, the management firm for Kah Tai. Mr. Sepler said Mr. Fletcher had offered to act as a resource and to answer any questions that may arise at this meeting about Life Care plans in the Upper • Sims area. Discussion of Draft Overlay Ordinance for Howard/Rainier Street Corridor -Uses, Bulk and Dimensional; Bonus scheme -Bonus areas identified (Sepler) Mr. Sepler said that the draft ordinance, at the direction of the Planning Commission, contains a number of substantive changes from previous meetings. He said that he had also received a good set of comments from Chair Randels, and had incorporated all but two suggestions, which would be explained in the course of the meeting. He noted that that the process had not yet progressed to the final line-in/line-out stage in preparation for hearing. Mr. Sepler said that the use tables were clarified and simplified, with the intention of making them as easy to understand as possible. Certain uses (C.) are allowed in mixed use development. Section I7.xx.60 has been clarified to say that residences must be located above the underlying commercial use, and there is a minimum two-story height within one hundred feet of the Howard Street alignment. The final alignment of Howard Street may include a portion of that right of way, but it may change as it goes farther north. For maximum building height, this section is intended to allow four stories; it allows height up to 50 feet if adjacent (within ] 00 feet) of the Howard Street alignment. Otherwise, it is two stories, up to 35 feet, within any of the abutting districts; or 35 feet if the development has no residential use component. Mr. Randels said that it was not clear that the last restriction applies anywhere but on the corridor, and suggested that it be clarified. For example, a three story office building is permitted. Mr. Sepler said he would clarify that. • In looking at the maximum ground floor to clear ceiling height, he had been advised by various architects that 12 feet is adequate. Clearly 10 feet is not functional in a mixed use building but 15 feet is not required; it is allowed. He noted that the intention is to apply this to mixed use and Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 March 8, 2007 . commercial, but not to residential. Mr. Randels also suggested checking the SMP regulations pertaining to Indian Point. He said that adaptability to commercial use had been considered, and recalled that 10 feet may have been used there. Mr. Sepler agreed to follow up, and note for possible amendment. He pointed out that Mr. Fletcher may later wish to comment on the 70,000 square feet maximum floor area and bonus for nursing homes. He spoke briefly about how bonus floor space is defined, and the need to determine the number of early developers who will be eligible for bonus, or to which developers this may apply. Mr. Ray asked when the economist would be providing his recommendations. Mr. Sepler said that initial materials are due within two weeks, at which point calculations of square feet can be made. In terms of the bonus density, he pointed out that on page 8, greater specificity has. been included for the public plaza areas. Regarding child care, he noted that he had taken material from other jurisdictions as a model. He explained that the criterion of 13 or more children defines a child care center under DHSH. Mr. Randels suggested that the criterion refer to the DHSH standard rather than use the current specific number, which may change. The square footage is based on the maximum number of children. Mr. Randels challenged the need to have the child care in the same building, and Mr. Sepler agreed that it could be changed to "within the Overlay District". He also pointed out the error at line 39 - "shall be" not sahllbe. Ms. Slabaugh pointed out a typo on line 37 - "running", not runninn She asked for the rationale of stating the number of weeks of operation per year. There was a discussion about the desired number of days per week, and weeks per year, and the likely result of making the specifications too demanding. The State has no requirement in this regard. The option to remain silent, and leave the service levels to the negotiation was considered. Mr. Sepler suggested that commissioners focus on the policy; that is, the City desires a viable day care that is operating as much of the year as possible, and whose hours of operation meet the needs of working parents. There was some agreement that the ability for staff to negotiate was desirable. Mr. Sepler said that his contacts in Seattle indicate that typically child care centers receive free rent from the property owners. During the discussion, Mr. Ray suggested that Mr. Fletcher's opinion would be valuable. Mr. Sepler first gave Mr. Fletcher background information on how his organization's plans are seen to fit into the Howard Street Corridor planning. Mr. Fletcher said that his company has one day care facility in Gig Harbor, which is inside the same building as the nursing facility. He says that it works very well; it is run by anon-profit board, and there is great interaction between the elderly and the children. The child care facility was already in operation when the nursing facility was purchased. He said that most of the children are not nursing facility employee's children; it is open to the public. Ms. Slabaugh asked if Mr. Fletcher's company would consider providing a child care facility in exchange for bonus floor space or other accommodation. He replied that he had little experience with new construction, and, therefore, did not know. He said that it is possible, but was careful to convey that Life Care has a policy and a practice of staying within the business they know. They would not operate a day care facility, but they might be willing to share building space or make some arrangement. He was clear that having such an amenity will not automatically staff one's business; the experience has been that the majority of their staff arrange child care with Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 March 8, 2007 . family or friends in a home setting that is more affordable for them. He noted that the most significant benefit is to the elderly patients in the nursing facility. There was agreement to defer these questions until some information is obtained from the economist about bonus values, etc. Ms. Slabaugh voiced her concern that too many specific requirements may deter potential developers. Various degrees of specificity and flexibility were discussed, after which all agreed that it would be well to wait for the economist's response, to find out what the tipping point is, and to see what the City can get for its dollars. Meanwhile, Mr. Sepler said he would revise the ordinance to reflect the policy and the intent. He summarized as follows: viable child care is more than an amenity, it is a social necessity; it supports the vitality of the neighborhood; unless promoted and. incentivized, child care is not likely to happen; after the pioneers are on board, the City will offer some bonus or incentive to encourage the establishment of a child care facility with appropriate service objectives. Mr. Unterseher speculated that several employers may wish to collaborate on some child care facility/arrangement. Mr. Sepler said that 090 is the potential antidote. The economist's advice is needed as to how generous the bonuses should be. The issue is "how much gets on the ground before suddenly the ground is worth a lot a more". He said that it is not a calculus that is hard to do; this is done with LIDS (limited improvement districts) everyday. There is the ability to do certain development without the provision for corresponding amenities or improvements. He said that the economist has a formula that is quite brilliant; it allows one to plug in values for projects under consideration, and the output indicates the point at which the value of the land and the expected return on investment will be high enough and the risk low enough to put the City in a good negotiation position. He noted that, thus far, developers have not sought the PUD bonus, probably because the market had not yet been right for that. Resuming the walk through, he pointed out that section 090 is the ability to do these things in certain categories without provision of certain amenities or improvements. (For mixed use development, it should read "within 100 feet of the Howard Street alignment,,, ") . He pointed out the initial "blank" square feet of nursing home and the initial "blank" square feet of assisted living development. One thing that should be noted is that a supermarket is exempt, i.e., it is not subject to the pioneer provision. The reason is that a supermarket, per se, does not achieve the vision identified for the area. It is only the provision of the supermarket with the accompanying housing that makes it a viable addition. He said that the proponents are working with a prospective client who will be visiting in early April with a site plan showing integrated housing, office space and supermarket. Chair Randels asked about the term "assisted living", and whether or not special regulations applied to this type of project. Recognizing that terminology varies from state to state, he noted that "assisted living" was a term of art in Maryland, and his firm had instead developed "congregate housing", which was open to people of any age. Mr. Fletcher said that, to date, his site plan was conceptual only, pending zoning changes and confirmation that his company can develop in this area. The concept is skilled nursing on one side, as at Kah Tai, and a boarding home on the other, which is the official state designation. Thus, the term "assisted living" is commonly used as the equivalent generic term. In response to a follow up question, he confirmed that this term would not in any way present a legal problem for Life Care. Mr. Sepler said that one issue that has arisen for this project was that the initial limit on floor space was 70,000 square feet with a bonus of 20,000 square feet available. As now described, the proposal is for a total of I 10,000 square feet. Mr. Sepler said that staff would advise Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7 March 8, 2007 changing the limit to acknowledge the project and its location, i.e., maximum of 90,000 square feet, plus available bonus of 20,000 square feet. Chair Randels offered an idea for discussion on the pioneer bonus; he suggested relief from the formula store restrictions for pioneers. Mr. Sepler asked if clarification is needed regarding a formula store within a supermarket. Several types of examples were mentioned: Starbucks, bank branches, and pharmacy extensions within supermarkets. When asked for his rationale, Chair Randels said that he believed that it may be an incentive for pioneers, and noted that it may help to offset the considerable risk. Ms. Slabaugh noted that the existing ordinance does not prohibit such arrangements. Mr. Randels said that he would waive the corner prohibition and the spacing requirements. Referring to page 4, lines 8 - 11, Mr. Sepler noted that the draft ordinance already covered allowed a corner use, based on his understanding of consensus from the last meeting. Mr. Randels noted that the 3000 square foot limit remained. Ms. King said she thought that the "corner" concession was sufficient. Mr. Ray asked Mr. Sepler for his opinion on the need for further concessions or incentives, and for his sense of the strength of the overall concept to attract appropriate development in the target area. Mr. Sepler said that he would be in a better position to answer that question when he sees the proposed scheme in April. In response to Mr. Randels question about the remainder of the Howard Street Corridor, Mr. Sepler said that the potentially most threatening prospects had been addressed by the two-story, residential mixed use requirements. There was a brief discussion of `what if 'scenarios, and acknowledgement that prediction is very difficult. Mr. Sepler said that the set of actions that can be taken by the jurisdiction include: building the roads, installing the infrastructure, and making rules that incentivize and support the vision. He said that incentives work only in a hot market. He noted that residential is already hot, and hopefully commercial will catch up. He noted that there is extremely high retail leakage now, and the City Council is buying software to calculate the impacts. There is also a huge environmental cost for people to shop outside the City. Mr. Ray noted that if some concessions are made for the pioneers, it does not mean that the whole formula store ordinance is being eviscerated. Ms. King asked what other concessions were being suggested. There was a brief consideration of whether additional square footage, say 5,000 instead of 3,000, would be appropriate. It was noted that if they deformularized, that could be done anyway. Ms. King was not in favor of further concessions. Ms. Slabaugh stated that since prediction is impossible, she would be favor of retaining the existing restrictions, at least until there was some experience and/or evidence of the need for changes. Mr. Randels said that there is also the political reality, andthat it is important for the Planning Commission to be sufficiently proactive in ensuring that development can occur. Ms. King said that the Planning Commission had done quite a bit already, and that she did not believe any further concessions to formula stores were appropriate. Mr. Ray asked if there was a way to allow some flexibility for staff to negotiate with pioneers, without overtly opening the door to formula stores. He also noted that there must be caution to avoid public perception that the values or vision associated with the formula store ordinance are being compromised. Mr. Sepler said that there would have to be a defined process; there are insufficient standards defined at this point. Ms. Capron added that given the consideration and time that had been devoted to the formula ordinance, she did not support eliminating or weakening it at this point. Mr. Unterseher and Mr. Randels reminded that the City Council had asked the Planning • Commission to review the ordinance. After a brief discussion about the scope of that charge, Mr. Sepler confirmed that the charge had been to look at the ordinance with respect to the Howard Street Corridor. At this point, it was realized that several Commissioners had previously been Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 March 8, 2007 operating under a different understanding. It was also acknowledged that by virtue of the preceding discussions, the Commission had to a large degree considered the issue. Ms. Slabaugh moved that the Howard Street ordinance draft be retained in its present version, with regard to the formula stores. Ms. Capron seconded the motion. Mr. Randels pointed out that the draft would remain in draft form until taken through the public hearing process. He added that the motion and a vote may be in order, but that he would prefer leaving the issue open to further discussion, along with other issues. Mr. Unterseher added that there were other questions to be answered, such as the possible or probable number of pioneers, and the "tipping point' etc. Mr. Sepler said that the report had been targeted for March 22, but that now seemed improbable. He had also hoped to meet with the proponents to see if the scope and proposed scheme is consistent with the requirements, after which he would share that information with the Planning Commission. Therefore, the April 12 meeting would be appropriate for that discussion. Ms. Slabaugh said that Mr. Unterseher's point about the number of pioneers was well taken, and would help to determine how much flexibility is needed. Mr. Emery asked about the outstanding item on page 8, i.e. the viability of "forty years" as a requirement. Mr. Sepler said that Ms. Surber was in the process of investigating that question. Chair Randels asked about the overall scope of the overlay. Referring to Howard Street on the other side of Sims Way, he wondered if a block or two there might logically be part of this overlay, acid be mixed use. Mr. Sepler said that the next agenda item would be a good place to consider that. Mr. Ray pointed out the prohibition of radio and television towers, on page 4. He said there should be clarifying language in this ordinance about cell phone towers in this overlay; Mr. Sepler agreed to review that, as well as consider amending the definitions. Ms. Slabaugh also questioned the phrase "bone fide affordable housing" on page 7, line 35. Mr. Sepler noted that the term appears in the PUD ordinance. There was agreement that the Housing Action Plan should be referenced for specificity. Mr. Emery suggested that "certified affordable housing" per the Housing Action Plan may be appropriate, and Mr. Sepler agreed to investigate and pursue changing the PUD ordinance, as well, if needed. Ms. Slabaugh withdrew her earlier motion regarding formula restrictions in the Howard Street ordinance. In conclusion of this agenda item, Mr. Sepler said that he would bring forward the report on bonuses from the consultant as soon as possible. b. Map Exercise -Boundary of Overlay District. Referring to page 3, line 38, Ms. Capron requested that the external boundaries of the overlay zone be added in textual language, rather than just referring to the map. Mr. Sepler said that would be done just as soon as the boundaries were firmed up. Mr. Sepler asked if there was agreement on adding the parcels on Howard Street, across Sims Way, as suggested by Mr. Randels earlier. Ms. Slabaugh observed that because of the location, those parcels would not be experienced as part of the village setting/feeling. Mr. Randels said the intention was to foster the same or similar urban look and feel for any structures built in that area in the long term. All were • in agreement. Mr. Sepler said that a final map and verbal description would be prepared. P/arming Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 March 8, 2007 • VII. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Membership on Uptown Ad-hoc Committees Mr. Sepler said that there will be two ad-hoc committees that will be populated by ads seeking representatives to deal with two aspects of Uptown planning. There will be three to four meetings of 1.5 hours each, beginning at 5:00 PM; day of week is not yet known. One aspect is Parking Strategies in the Uptown C-III district. The Council member is (was) Scott Walker; there will be one Planning Commissioner, two uptown business owners, two uptown residents, Planning staff and Public Works staff; Rick Sepler will facilitate. Mr. Ray volunteered to participate on behalf of the Planning Commission. The other committee will deal with Design Related Strategies. There will be a Council member, a Planning Commissioner, HPC membe, design professional, two uptown building owners, two uptown residents, and planning staff; John Owens (Makers) will facilitate. Mr. Randels volunteered to participate. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS March 22 Draft Ordinance Review (tentative) April 12 Public Hearing on Draft Howard/Rainier Street Corridor Ordinance Mr. Sepler noted that the agenda for March 22 may be light. Ms. Capron will be absent on March 22. • IX. COMMUNICATIONS Transportation: Mr. Sepler reported that work was proceeding with Council members on the transportation plan. A public meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 13 at the Pope Marine building for Upper Sims property and business owners. He noted that there is still some misinformation about the plan and options that must be addressed. X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ray moved to adjourn and Ms. Slabaugh 8: 40 PM, all in favor. Ga 1 Bernhard, Recorder • Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 March 8, 2007 ring at