Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022207CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2007 7:00 PM CITY HALL -Third Floor Conference Room Meeting Materials: EXH. I Agenda, Planning Commission Meeting, February 22, 2007 EXH. 2 R. Sepler, Working Draft of Howard Street Corridor Overlay District and Bonus Scheme Ordinance, revised February 22, 2007. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Liesl Slabaugh and George Unterseher. Julian Ray was excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels moved that the agenda be accepted, as written. Ms. King seconded, and the agenda was approved, all in favor. N. .APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for January 11 and January 25, 2007 were deferred until the following meeting. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Introduction to and Discussion of Draft Ordinance -Draft Overlay Ordinance for Howard Street Corridor -Uses, Bulk and Dimensional; Bonus scheme- Bonus areas identified (Sepler/Surber) Before addressing the draft ordinance, Mr. Sepler explained that meeting materials had been e-mailed a few days later than planned due to the time constraint of getting the Streetscape Plan adopted. He said the plan had been adopted by City Council; copies will arrive on February 23. The City Manager will leave for Washington on Sunday, P/arming Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7 February 22, 2007 • February 25 to present the plan. Some funding is expected; it was Mr. Sepler's understanding that approximately $2,000,000 had been earmarked for implementation of that plan. He said that both Congressman Dicks and Senators Murray and Cantwell have been supportive of the plan.. Chair Randels stated that he and fellow Commissioners may wish to comment further on the streetscape plans at a later date. Mr. Sepler explained that he had paper copies of the draft ordinance in which he had corrected a few errors found in the draft mailed earlier. He cautioned that this had changed the line numbering on the later draft. The intent for this meeting was to walk through the draft and determine if this is consistent with the directions. given earlier by the Commission to staff. Any additional guidance will be incorporated into the next, and possibly final, draft for the March 8 meeting. The goal for this meeting is to elicit a sense from the Commission of what should be "bonusable" items, from which the consultant can analyze and determine possible equivalents. Mr. Sepler noted that there is increasing urgency on these bonus items. Other staff has met with the proponents of the mixed use shopping center, who are developing a site plan that will incorporate mixed use buildings, the grocery store itself and some type of public facility/plaza. A concrete answer is expected within 90 days. He said the assisted living facility meetings and planning are also moving forward. Mr. Randels asked if there had been any follow up by the developer who attended the previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sepler said that he had not heard from Mr. Sherry. Mr. Sepler said that the approach for the overlay district is twofold: first, there will be an accompanying ordinance that will rezone the overlay, extruding the C-II M/U downward to fill the overlay boundaries. Chair Randels asked if it shouldn't be combined into one ordinance. Mr. Sepler said he could handle it that way. After a brief discussion, they decided to leave the actions in two parts. Mr. Sepler updated the Commissioners on the Howard Street re-alignment. He said that based a meeting with owners of the sites, a good solution was likely. He pointed out the properties involved. There is no direct line of sight. The scheme involves trading the right of way at one place for another. This will leave a 20 foot corridor for a dedicated multi-use trail. Both sides of the street would now have commercial development. This would encourage the mixed use center development. In considering the bonus scheme and a possible tipping point, this context is important because it provides more incentive. Mr. Sepler displayed a sketch showing where the major uses would be sited, and where the road curves over. In this solution, the City need not purchase more land; it just shifts the right of way. This allows frontage on both sides, with a walkable street and angled parking on one or both sides. He said that, while this is not a huge number of units, it is enough to form a critical mass, and there wouldn't be as much risk or concern for the second tier. Ms. Slabaugh asked how this arrangement will avoid purchase of additional property. Mr. Sepler said that this area involves two plats that come together. According to the surveys, there is an undefined (ownership is unclear) strip of 30 feet, plus the City right of way of 60 feet. A possible resolution is to for the City and the property owner to each take half of the 30 feet, i.e. I S feet. The Business Park has agreed to give up 5 feet, which amounts to 20 feet for the 10 foot trail with shoulder, etc. Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 February 22, 2007 . Mr. Sepler added that work is also proceeding on a lot line adjustment which is agreeable to the City and would satisfy the parking requirements for one of the property owners. He also pointed out on the map how this arrangement avoids the wetlands. Turning to the ordinance itself, he said that the purpose and intent are taken from the goals for Howard Street Corridor and Upper Sims Way, which have been presented previously. He said that that everything in the Overlay District will need to meet the requirements of the underlying zoning, C-II M/LT, plus any other requirements recommended by the Planning Commission. This ordinance will be considered after the ordinance described above, which amends the map. The working map to describe the boundaries will be perfected at a future session. Referring to section 17.040, he said that all the permitted, conditional and permitted uses in C-IUM/U would be allowed, except those excluded. Assisted living facilities are allowed, and must be more than 100 feet from the Howard Street right of way. (There was a brief discussion about the possible street name change to Shasta or Ranier, which will be dealt with later when the realignment has been finalized. There was also clarification on the meaning of the term Gateway and its boundaries, and the status of the Gateway Plan, which remains operative for the time being.) Nursing, rest or convalescent homes would not be good frontage on this street, but would be appropriate as a second tier use. Chair Randels asked about the plans for the triangle across the street. Mr. Sepler said that the City can require dedication; it could become public use or traded. This will be worked out as part of the package. Mr. Emery asked for clarification about the location of the police station in relation to the realignment. Mr. Sepler pointed out where it would be located, if funded, along with the connector road. Mr. Sepler then reviewed the list of prohibited uses (17.xx.040 B) that the Planning Commission had previously indicated. There was a discussion about the definition of convenience stores, i.e. are they defined as stand alone stores? Mr. Sepler said that he would check and correct, if necessary. Ms. Slabaugh asked for clarification on arcades in mixed use buildings. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler said that he would clarify items 6, 8, and 9 (arcades/amusement, convenience stores and general merchandise stores) as being allowed in mixed use buildings. There was also discussion about schools, which refers to large public schools; small private schools would be allowed. On 17.xx.060, Mr. Sepler asked if Commissioners were in favor of allowing offices above commercial uses, as well as residences. Chair Randels recalled an earlier suggestion that offices should be allowed, but such offices should be easily convertible to housing. Mr. Unterseher noted that allowing offices would enhance marketability, as well. For 17.xx.070, Bulk/dimension/density chart, the minimum lot size has been increased to 10,000 square feet. Maximum building height is 45 feet, with exceptions deleted. Minimum ground floor clear ceiling has been increased to 15 feet, following the example of Seattle. Minimum building frontage has been set at 70 %. Maximum floor area ratio has not yet been computed; this will depend on what the bonus schemes will yield. Maximum amount of any individual leasable commercial space may also be specified, • based on the bonus scheme recommendations. (Asterisk will also be researched) Maximum amount of commercial floor space (in any one structure) will be decreased to Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 February 22, 2007 • 40,000, but be subject to increases per the bonus scheme. Maximum bonus floor space will be set at 20,000 square feet. Maximum housing density has not yet been worked out; 24 D/U is likely. Chair Randels suggested that the R-IV specification be used. Minimum average housing density will be worked out based on market conditions. Open space will also be determined with other parameters per the bonus scheme. Mr. Sepler said there should be open space on every lot, and the 10% figure may pertain. Chair Randels said that there is a conflict between building out the streetscape and this item on open space. He suggested that it should be made clear that open space should be elsewhere than on the street frontage. He also wondered if there should be different standards for commercial and residential, i.e. smaller for commercial. Mr. Unterseher said that open space square footage is not the issue. What is important is its usability, scale, and aesthetic appeal Mr. Sepler said a higher level of streetscape improvements would be required, with base level provided by the City, and supplemented by developers. He suggested that this be considered and discussed further. Mr. Lizut raised the issue of sidewalk/building scale and asked if there were provisions to prevent future instances of improper scale and visually unpleasant implementations, as happened with the Sheridan Street medical office building. Mr. Sepler drew an example of how this could be avoided by having astreet-side courtyard which increases the storefront area, provides weather protection, and is visually pleasing. He said that proper design guidelines were key. Mr. Sepler added that Howard Street was being designed with 12 foot side walks, as well. Mr. Unterseher was in favor of codifying inset and other requirements, rather than having only guidelines. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler said that he would provide recommendations, including a picture, for the next meeting. There was further discussion about the lack of enforcement with guidelines. Ail agreed to return to this subject. Mr. Sepler said that section 17.xx.080 is taken from the PUD section, which has a bonus scheme. It has been modified to allow an administrative decision process to facilitate development. The question is whether or not there are enough criteria specified so that staff can make expeditious bonus decisions. He walked through the major purposes: open space, affordable housing and public plaza areas. He noted that there is an issue to be resolved regarding partial bonuses. A Bonus Density Study template based on certain variables is being prepared by the consultant. The methodology will allow the City to be attuned to the market, will stand up in court, and provide developers with their requirements and bonus options, based on the project data they submit. In conjunction with the discussion of public plazas, Mr. Sepler recommended the book by William White, The Secret Life of Small Urban Spaces, and relayed a story about required plazas in New York City. The keys to success are movable chairs, access to food, pleasing landscaping, and adequate maintenance. Mr. Randels noted that day care should be on the bonus list, and there was acknowledgement that combining elder care and child care in some way was desirable. Mr. Sepler said that the plaza specifications will need to be developed more fully and be proscriptive about requirements: how many chairs, maintenance arrangements, landscaping, and so on. • Ms. Capron asked if developers would actually commit to the 40 year guarantee on affordability for affordable housing. A discussion ensued about issues related to transfer Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7 February 22, 2007 of ownership in that period, and whether the length of time should be reduced. Mr. Emery gave an update on the HAPN (Housing Action Plan Network) group status, and suggested that they may be able to provide valuable input to the bonus scheme. Chair Randels mentioned Hamilton Heights, which has no cap on appreciation. He said that those 40 units for one site for Port Townsend is the equivalent of 2500 units in Seattle. He said that he would rather see such housing scattered about the entire living area of the town, rather than all in one place. Mr. Sepler suggested two things: calculate number of (market rate) housing units built as mixed use as an integral part of this village, and also number of affordable housing units as an additional bonus. There can be a minimum and maximum percentage of affordable units. Chair Randels tentatively suggested a required minimum of 10 % and a maximum of 30% affordable units. This would apply to the whole area. There was agreement about the need to foster dispersal of affordable housing, rather than allow it to be concentrated in few locations. Mr. Sepler briefly described talks with the proponents of the new grocery store, and how they were being encouraged to combine residential and office above commercial in such ways as to solve potential noise or other issues. He noted that housing projects must be integrated with commercial, and there must be focused development. Mr. Emery again noted that there should be coordination with the HAPN action plan when formulating requirements or guidelines. He also asked if there had been any instance where affordable housing had been developed as part of a PUD, and if not, should the 40 year provision or some other stipulation be revised? After additional discussion, Mr. Sepler said that he and Ms. Surber would research the background and report back to the Commission. Mr. Lizut suggested that the Habitat for Humanity rules and conditions be consulted as a possible model for these issues. Mr. Sepler summarized the Commissioners feedback on bonuses: clarify and quantify open space requirements; research follow up on affordable housing, with 10% minimum and 30 % maximum requirements; add language about integrated projects; clarify public plazas to be more proscriptive and rigorous in terms of design, functionality and appeal; add day care and look to Seattle's CAP initiative which defines the bonus for day care and its operation. He asked if there were any other bonus suggestions. Mr. Unterseher asked if there were transportation elements that should be added. Mr. Sepler responded that transportation and management would be addressed for all commercial and mixed use areas at a later date, including parking requirements. Ms. Slabaugh asked if bike parking was already included in the C-II regulations; this will be verified. h1 response to a question from Mr. Emery, Mr. Sepler confirmed that ADA accommodations were a standard requirement. Ms. Capron added that a 10 % minimum for affordable housing seemed rather low. There was a brief discussion about the example of the Tree House project, economic feasibility, and the importance of definitions/criteria (low income housing, affordable housing, low income residence). Mr. Sepler said the determination of the value of a square foot here will be an important factor. Ms. King asked if there was a standard definition for affordable housing. Ms. Surber said that both affordable and low income • housing are defined in the zoning code and in the RCWs. These issues will be researched and considered, as well. Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 February 22, 2007 • Mr. Sepler moved to 17.xx.090 and the topic of the tipping point, i.e., Incentives for early development in the overlay district The City will capitalize, with the assistance of property owners, to get the alignment and construct the road; assumed completion is 2009. Since developers are conservative in terms of building in a new area, there should be significant incentives for early development. The suggestion from staff is that a very attractive incentive be given, i.e. use of the bonus densities, without provision of corresponding amenities, for A., the first X number of square feet developed within 100 feet of the Howard Street Right of Way, or for B/C., nursing home/assisted living in the overlay district. Chair Randels pointed out that if more square footage is for residential, this may not be effective, and a different incentive may be needed. Mr. Sepler said that the square footage is appropriate and needed for B and C. In terms of timing, Council has determined that zoning will follow the transportation decisions. If Council makes a decision on the Transportation Plan within 60 days and a hearing is held within 90 days, ground breaking could occur within a year. The proponents will close on the property purchase the day after the zoning ordinance changes are approved. Mr. Unterseher noted that a guaranteed expedited permitting process would be a significant incentive for developers. Mr. Sepler said that both major proponents have said that the deal is contingent on the intersection at Howard Street being fixed. Mr. Emery added that in the past, the Commission and the public have recognized the value of "eyes on the street". He noted that a convalescent home would have 24-hour operations, with some associated car and foot traffic, providing transitory "eyes on the street". And, if the grocery store has 24 hour operations, that will also contribute. He also noted the potential for the police station in the area. However, he cautioned that having only offices on the second floor along Howard or Ranier Street would be less desirable than ensuring some residential. Mr. Sepler and Chair Randels said they believed the market demands for residential would preclude that being a problem. Mr. Randels asked if formula stores belonged in this ordinance? A discussion about need, opportunity, market pressures, and applicability ensued. Mr. Randels suggested modifying the formula rules for this area. Mr. Lizut said that strict rules were/are appropriate for the historic district, but that more flexibility may be appropriate for this area. Mr. Sepler, noting his neutrality on the subject, suggested that if formulas are allowed or accommodated in some way, the price of admission should be quite high. Ms. Slabaugh and Ms. Capron were not in favor of relaxing the formula store rules anywhere in town. There was a tentative decision to consider the matter separately, but possibly in the same timeframe. Chair Randels also brought up previous discussions about encouraging changes in the Business Park PUD. That is, the City would support changes in return for public benefits regarding circulation, open space, etc. He asked if this should be referenced in the Whereas clauses, ordeal with it as a separate issue. Mr. Sepler said that this should be handled separately. The Business Park owner is in the process of preparing materials for a request. When that is reviewed, it can be considered in the context of the larger picture the City is trying to create. Mr. Sepler pointed out the Business Park on the map and recapped the negotiable issues • identified thus far. Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 February 22, 2007 • He noted that revised materials would be mailed out one week before the next meeting on March 8. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS March 8, 2007 IX. COMMUNICATIONS None X. ADJOURNMENT Draft Ordinance Review Steve Emery moved and George Unterseher moved that the meeting be adjourned. Chair Randels adiourned the meeting at 8:35 PM. • Gail Bernhard, Recorder • Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 February Z2, 2007 George Randels, Chair