Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022510~.. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 EXH 2 EXH 3 EXH 3A EXH 4 EXH A EXH 5 EXH 6 EXH 7 EXH 8 EXH 9 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, February 25, 2010 R. Sepler, J. Watts, and J. McDonagh, Memo to Planning Commission regarding Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the PTMC: Demolition/Redevelopment; Proposed Adoption of Bulk and Scale approaches; Adoption of New Designations for Historic Residential Buildings; and Adoption of New Designated Buildings Map Bulk, Scale and Teardown Revision, Draft Ordinance, January 10, 2010 Bulk and Scale Code Changes Definitions, Draft Revisions Historic Preservation Draft Ordinance, January 20, 2010 Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 (Historic Preservation) and Chapter 17.08 (Definitions), January 2Q 2010 Adopting Map, Draft Ordinance, January 20, 2010 Historic Residence Inventory Map, January 13, 2010 R. Sepler, J. Watts and J. McDonagh, Staff memo to Planning Commission regarding revisions since January 28, 2010 Hearing ,February 19, 2010 Summary of StafF Proposed Changes to Draft Ordinance, February 25, 2010 Matrix: Issues raised in an anonymous display ad in February 24, 2010 Port Townsend Leader I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julian Ray called the Planning Comtission meeting to order at 6:35 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Bill LeMaster, and Julian Ray. Commissioners Gee Heckscher and Monica Mick-Hager were excused. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director; John McDonough, Senior Planner; John Watts, City Attorney III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Emery moved for acceptance of the agenda; Mr. Fry seconded. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 28, 2010 - Mr. Sepler clarified his statement on page 6; "Mr. Sepler noted that the cost of the Fiore issue was home by the applicant and the City..." Mr. Fry moved to P/arming Commission Page 1 of 13 approve the minutes of January 28, 2010, as amended; Mr. LeMaster seconded. The minutes of January 28, 2010 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. OLD BUSINESS Continued Public Hearing -Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinances (Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director; John Watts, City Attorney; John McDonagh, Senior Planner) Chair Ray welcomed those present and explained that this was a continuation of the January 28 Hearing on proposed Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinances. He asked those who wished to speak to sign in. He then explained that the proceedings aze recorded and read the Rules of Order for public hearings in their entirety. He verified that no Commissioner(s) had financial or property interest in connection with this matter. Mr. Ray explained that staff would make presentations followed by the opportunity for public comment. He explained the guidelines for testifying, noting that a maximum of three minutes would be allowed for each speaker. He said that everyone who wished to speak would be given an opportunity to do so. Staff Presentation: Mr. Sepler introduced himself and colleagues John Watts, City Attorney and John McDonagh, Senior Planner. He reviewed additional reference materials: Memorandum incorporating changes (EXH 7); clarifications based on conversations with community members (EXH 8); responses to the display advertisement that appeared in the Leader on February 24 (EXH 9). He recalled that staff had presented the proposal and reviewed the background and process at the earlier hearing on January. He said staff would briefly recap that information at this meeting as well as explain the clarifications worked out since the initial hearing date. Mr. Sepler reviewed the chazge and process followed by the Ad Hoc Committee appointed by City Council regazding Teazdowns and Bulk and Scale. He said that John McDonagh would review the survey undertaken to update the inventory of historic homes within the Historic Land Mazk District. He noted that subsequent to that staff had prepared the proposed ordinance, and that the draft contains numerous strategies to preserve historic resources, while allowing adequate flexibility for property owners. He said he would address issues associated with Bulk and Scale throughout the City. John McDonagh then provided a brief overview of the survey and historic home designation process. He recalled the survey performed by the National Park Service in 1976 in support of forming a National Historic Landmark District (NHLD), which is one step below a National Monument. The City has two such NHLDs, the one surrounding uptown/downtown commerciaUresidential buildings and the one surrounding For[ Worden. The latter is not addressed by this proposed ordinance; it is managed by the Pazks Service. Planning Commission Page 1 of 13 Mr. McDonagh explained that the recent survey was intended to update the original survey, which contained errors of omission and as well errors of classification. There are 690 structwes. Prior to this, historic residential structwes were not subject to design review, but some were subject to review as Bed and Breakfast commercial entities. The City had recognized the need to tier historic residential structures and the inventory clarified contributing structures as pivotal, primary and secondary. He explained that the Jefferson County Historical Society database and the original 1976 survey map had served as the basis and foundation for the survey. He noted that the swvey did not focus on the owners/residents of the house but on the physical appearance of the property from the street level. He explained the checklist and scoring system, including the six major criteria. Mr. McDonagh briefly reviewed the pivotal designation and noted that there are only 11 such homes within the District. He also reviewed the primary designation and reported that there aze 48 such homes within the District. Likewise, the secondary designation was reviewed; there are 306 of these homes, mostly characterized by smaller scale and building dates outside the period of significance, 1870 to 1920. From the inventory detail, a color coded GIS map was produced (EXH 6). Mr. McDonagh pointed out the large wall map on display and the lazger I1"x17" copies available. He noted that 366 of the 690 total properties within the district had been designated as contributing. He recalled that the methodology had been reviewed and approved by the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation and by Gee Heckscher, an azchitectural historian who also serves on the Planning Commission and HPC (Historic Preservation Committee). Code Revisions -John Watts, City Attorney, recalled that the City Council adopted interim ordinances in 2008 preventing the teardown of historic homes and provided some regulation on bulk and scale limitations for remodels, alternations and new construction. City Council appointed an Ad Hoc committee comprised of two Councilors, representatives of the HPC, the Planning Commission, as well as citizens. This group met 6 times over a period of about eight months, producing a set of concepts, which were worked into a draft ordinance and [hen worked through by the Planning Commission on seven occasions prior to the public hearing January 28. The approach involved two overlapping prongs: a set of historic preservation regulations and a set of neighborhood bulk/scale issues (to be discussed by Mr. Sepler). Mr. Watts noted that the set of historic preservation regulations deal with several featwes. Among them was design review for commercial strnctwes in the uptown area, work that has already been completed through the Planning Commission and City Council. Other issues now under consideration are: expansion of [he design review process to historic structures in residential areas; criteria for when demolition can occw; and standazds for addressing "demolition by neglect". Mr. Watts said that the fact that a home is located inside the NLHD, the azeas designated by the national Pazks Service, or even the fact that a home is listed on a federal, state or local register does not prevent that home's alteration or demolition. The listing or designation is not a form of regulation. The design review framework was adopted about twenty years ago by the City to be mandatory for downtown commercial buildings and optional for uptown commercial buildings; recently, design review was made mandatory for uptown commercial buildings, as well. There was no design review for historic homes until City Council adopted interim ordinances about two years ago. In 2004, additional regulations and requirements were adopted regarding proposed demolition of downtown historic commercial buildings. There has been no proposed demolition since that time. Prior to 2004, the only basis to review a proposed historic downtown commercial P/arming Commission Page 3 of 13 building was through the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process. SEPA does allow review of the loss of historic resources but the outcome is not certain. It may only provide for documentation of that building before demolition is allowed. For the uptown areas, prior to the interim ordinance, only SEPA review was available. Now there is a similaz regulatory framework to what was applied for the downtown commercial buildings in 2004. Mr. Watts restated backgound information he had provided at the 7anuary 28 hearing. Both the US Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Courts have addressed the ability of a locality/city to enact historic preservation requirements. He referred to a State Supreme Cowt case from the 1970s, which cited the US Supreme Court case dealing with the proposed demolition of the Penn Central Raikoad Station in NYC. "The US Supreme Court in the Penn Central case held that the bwdens of landmark regulation do not amount to a taking of property at least when the owner retains reasonable beneficial use. The Court (referring to the US Supreme Court) went on to observe it is not in dispute that states and cities may enact land use regulations or controls to enhance the quality of life by preserving the chazacter and desirable aesthetic features of the city." Very recently, the State Court of Appeals ruled on a challenge to Seattle's landmark preservation code. Late last year, they upheld that code with regard to challenges that the ordinance was vague, overbroad, constituted a taking, and was unduly oppressive. The legal framework supports the City's ability, if it chooses, to regulate the historic assets and protect them from demolition or inappropriate alteration. Lastly, Mr. Watts addressed the advertisement that appeared in the Leader on February 24, 2010. The ad indicated that the approach being taken by the City could affect the economic viability of the town. There was some question whether or not historic preservation regulations take away from property values or negatively impact the economic viability of a community. That is not the case, according to a study done by the State of Washington in November 2006 called "Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Washington State", prepazed for the WA State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation; the study is available from the WA state web site. It concludes that there aze a number of azeas where historic preservation provides valuable benefits to a community as well as to neighborhoods. It also cites the benefits of heritage tourism (attraction of visitors/tourists to heritage sites). Mr. Watts said he saw no reason why these conclusions would not be applicable to Port Townsend. The study also addresses historic designation and property values. It talks about matched pairing: comparing values of homes in neighborhoods that were part of historic preservation districts versus a matched pair of homes in other neighborhoods not part of such a designation. "Designating a neighborhood as an historic district protects futwe neighborhood quality and preserves historic amenities and characteristics valued by local residents and others. Property values in two of fow study neighborhoods increased at slightly higher rates than values in two comparison neighborhoods." Mr. Watts stressed several major points with regard to the ordinance itself. First, the historic designation of a home as pivotal, primary or secondary does not freeze the building in time. It may be altered, remodeled and/or adapted for re-use, so long as important historic characteristics of the structwe are preserved. Local standazds would supplement the Secretary of the Interior standards. Mr. Watts referred to page 19, ordinance section 17.30.158, that sets forth local standazds that would be applied. He reviewed the different designations (pivotal, primary and secondary) which evoke different degrees of review and restrictions. Examples of pivotal, primary and secondary structwes, as shown in the Workshop materials, were cited as examples. Mr. Watts said that all are entitled to be altered, at different levels of scrutiny, and as long as they do not affect the elements facing the right of way. The Workshop brochwe showing examples of pivotal, primary and secondary houses is available on the City website. P/arming Commission Page 4 of 13 Mr. Watts discussed a change from the draft ordinance presented in 7anuary; this is the process for reviewing whether or not a home can be altered. For secondary homes, the review would be done by DSD, and not involve the HPC process. The review would run concurrently with the review of the required building pemut. For pivotal and primary, the review would be through the HPC with a recommendation to the DSD Director There is a process to challenge both a home's designation and the application of standards to the home, through the Hearings Examiner, if the matter cannot be worked out with staff. Mr. Watts said that, to his knowledge, in twenty years there has never been an appeal of an HPC review/recommendation and Director's decision for historic commercial buildings; this is an indication of a successful process. Mr. Watts added that the interim regulations, including residential design review, have been in place for two years. The review process has worked, and there have been no appeals to the Hearings Examiner. The next main point is with regard to the designation process, previously discussed by Mr. McDonagh: inventory survey/map; designation criteria; documented checklist and scoring scheme. If there is information that the owner would like staff to review, an informal process could lead to revision. If there are still unresolved issues, there is a formal process for further review. That is, the map is also not frozen in time. The checklist features used for the inventory of residences inside the NHLD also apply to historic residences outside the District. The alteration of a home outside the District could be subject to historic preservation standards if the home meets the criteria for designation. The criteria do not rely on a specific time frame; a home must meet other standards in conjunction with the age criterion. Another major point is with regard to demolition. Demolition provisions have applied, first, to downtown commercial historic buildings, and more recently to uptown commercial historic buildings. The proposed ordinance similarly applies now to proposed demolition of historic residences. Mr. Watts stressed the framework. If a proposed alteration of a home involves demolition of a portion of the home to accommodate the alteration, that demolition maybe allowed if it is reviewed and approved through the DSD and/or HPC process. This is part of [he concept that a historic home is not frozen in time and adaptive re-use is allowed, if the alteration is approved as being consistent with the standards. If a building is so deteriorated as to be unsafe and the cost of repair is excessive, then demolition is allowed. Mr. Watts also reviewed maintenance and "demolition by neglect", which comprises Part 4, where a building becomes unsafe either through intentional or unintentional neglect. The provisions are taken from the International Property Maintenance Code which has been adopted by the City. The provisions are designed primarily to maintain the basic stmcture of an historic building. As stated in section .400, "The intent of this section is to prevent the situation where an historic building is intentionally or through neglect allowed to become unsafe or deteriorate to the point where demolition by neglect occurs." He referred to EXH 8 (Summary of staff changes), item 6, noting that the underlined portion is new to the draft ordinance. This addition "clarifies that the intent of the demolition by neglect provision is not to address minor code or maintenance issues". Mr. Watts then reviewed Changes 1, 2 and 3, which had been explained in the February 19 staff memo. Planning Commission Page 5 of 13 Mr. Watts discussed Change 4, which adds a new paragraph (6.) regarding Exemptions. This is intended to clarify those aspects of residential construction that do not require a building permit; a list of examples is included. Mr. Watts read Change 5 in its entirety, which is intended to clarify that the code does not require reversibility or restoration of structure to meet standazds. The issue was whether or not the Ordinance could be applied retroactively, i.e. if a historic home had been modified in the past, could the home owner be required to restore the building to an historic preservation standazd? He said the answer is no, and this section now clarifies that matter. Mr. Watts briefly discussed other issues that had arisen since the initial hearing. With regazd to the advertisement that stated that any exterior work, even paint color, must be approved, Mr. Watts stated that is not the case. He referred to the matrix prepazed by staff in response to the ad, EXH 9. He reviewed the seven items of concern identified in the anonymous advertisement, explained the issues, and clarified the provisions of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Watts stated that this Ordinance and the earlier Ordinances dealing with historic commercial revisions are based on a number of other cities that have undertaken a similaz review and detemuned to enact regulations that preserve historic buildings. Washington cities included LaConner and Steilacoom, as well as Spokane, Tacoma and Seattle. He said it is useful to consider those examples that have stood the test of time, including court challenges. He noted that development of the checklist also relied on materials from cities outside this state. Mr. Sepler then commented on several items. First, he noted that the City position is not an antiquarian one, but proposes continued and vital reuse of homes in the community. It is seeking ways to avoid needless review and, with good community input to date, an Ordinance has been crafted that provides good assurance for reasonable use, without undue formal review. He said staffis mindfiil of the cost of any historic preservation regulation and has identified some funding sources for those who are truly in need. He said specific information would be provided as soon as details have been worked out. Bulk and Scale Regulations - Mr. Sepler said that he would discuss infill and new development both within the historic district and throughout the community, as per the charge to the Ad Hoc Comtnittee. The intention was to ensure that homes were proportionate to the size of the lots, fit in with neighboring homes, and contributed to a streetscape promoting the values of the Comprehensive Plan. The current bulk and scale regulations were designed during a period when there was no anticipation of building to the full extent of the envelope. However, average home sizes in Port Townsend have increased from under 1700 to 2800 squaze fee[. Mr. Sepler reviewed the recommendations of the draft Ordinance for new construction, redevelopment or additions to historic homes: Increase side yard setback to 10 ft on one side and 5 ft. on the other; this is a return to the traditional standazd. Require conformance with aday-light plane for all structures. Require modulation on primary facades facing streets. P/annrng Commission Page 6 of 13 Allow departure from daylight plane and modulation requirements though Design Review. Allow departures from setback requirements to match existing neighborhood patterns. (The current variance requirement is predicated on finding hazdship.) Mr. Sepler said that with these changes, staff believes new development can be accommodated in a manner that will be more complementary to existing neighborhoods and those yet to develop. He said that although there had been discussion about a maximum building size or floor to lot area ratio, the Planning Commission had decided not to establish a maximum size parameter. Mr. Watts stated that the proposed Ordinance before the Planning Commission will be a recommendation to the City Council, which will review and take final action on the matter. Public Testmmony Chair Ray thanked the staff for their presentations and invited those who wished to testify to do so. Richard Berg, 727 Taylor Street, Port Townsend is an azchitect and member of the HPC. He said that the HPC has worked with the City on the development of the proposed Ordinances. On behalf of the HPC, he said he believes these code revisions address several important issues. He also said that, based on experience with reviews of secondary homes in the past, the HPC supports having these reviews done administratively, i.e. not through the HPC. Joan Frore, 308 Fillmore Street, Port Townsend said she appreciates the volume of work that has been done on this ordinance and is in favor historic preservation, particularly for the old Victorians. However, she is concerned about the expanding the scope of protection to homes beyond the pre-1920 Victorian era. She said that most of the property owners in Port Townsend would not caze to see their rights removed with regard to designing then homes in terms of the building codes if their house was built after 1920. She stated that those who have purchased a pre-1920 Victorian are fully aware of what they have purchased and that investment in such a property will likely be returned. She said that many of the secondary homes, built after 1920, aze in terrible disrepair and she does believe can be restored for a reasonable return on investment. She said she does not understand the basis for designating some of these homes as contributing, i.e. they do not seem worth the balance when weighed against the reduction in property rights. Some are brand new and do not seem appropriate to include. Ms. Fiore cited her experience of spending $100,000 for attorney and expert fees to have her house taken off the historic map. As a home-owner, she sees the situation as untenable because of the cost, time and loss of freedom. Ms. Fiore also believes the guidelines are "unbelievably vague"; she quoted the guideline that requires the renovation needs to be "harmonious and integrated". She cited examples and showed photos of Seattle's Douglas Truth Library, whose traditional main component was built in 1914, with a connected addition built of glass, steel and copper. She pointed out that this is considered "harmonious and integrated" and was, in fact, nominated for a prestigious architectural award. Ms. Fiore believes that the criteria are too subjective and that an approval will ultimately rest with the opinion of one individual, which is unfair. Ms. Fiore provided copies of photos she had taken of various historic "designated" homes in Port Townsend as part of the testimony. Larry Hurwitz, 308 Fillmore Street, Port Townsend stated that he is an architect. He thanked the City for the hard work and effort that had been involved in drafting the proposed ordinance. He said he had attended some of the eazly meetings and appreciated the complexities. He noted, Planning Commission Page 7 of 13 however, the mention of McMansions in the pre-amble and the assumption that large houses are undesirable and unwanted. Mr. Hurwitz challenged that assumption, stating that those coming to Port Townsend, such as retirees, are not seeking a large home. They are seeking something efficient and easily maintainable, as well as other featwes, but large size is not among them. He mentioned the apparent confusion between historic characteristics and size, noting that historic does not mean small scale. He also noted that by his observations, neighborhoods in Port Townsend aze not homogeneous with regazd to height/number of stories, age, architectural style and materials. He said that the heterogeneity is one of the reasons people, including his wife and he, love living here. Mr. Hurwitz also questioned the likely efficacy of the setback and daylight plane regulations in controlling the bulk/mass of houses. He also noted the number of existing Victorians which would not be allowed to be built today under these restrictions. Mr. Hurwitz said he is also quite concerned about the demolition by neglect language, and does not see how this will work. He said it is not in the spirit of Port Townsend and cannot likely be fairly enforced. Marcy.7affe, Blaine Street, Port Townsend stated that she owns a Victorian and did not anticipate that her life would change when she purchased it. She lives in Port Townsend because of the people here and her desire to enjoy them. Ms. Jaffe said that while she has intended to maintain her house as best she can, she is concerned about the language and content of the proposed ordinance and how it may affect her and others. She feazs that the law will be interpreted as strictly as possible, allowing it to be used as tool of one neighbor against another. She fears that keeping up with maintenance requirements will be too expensive and that aging in her home with dignity will be increasingly difficult. She feazs that others will impose their expectations of levels of maintenance that exceed her resources. Ms. Jaffee said she had reviewed how other cities had modified or scaled the use of the International code to their situation and needs, and to protect its citizens. She wishes to be certain of the intent in this case. Ms. Jaffe noted that property values will continue to rise, and is concerned that she will be not be able to either continue to live in it or to sell her property, because of these restrictions that have been placed on it. While acknowledging the study about higher property values for historic homes, Ms. Jaffe has fears about presswes of newcomers with unlimited resowces to buy up property and demolish/rebuild where these restrictions do not apply. She also had concerns about the possibility of "Hollywood facades" being maintained while hiding the essential building behind it. She expressed her general concern that the possible outcomes of these regulations have not been thought through. Other concerns are that "we may be regulating out the funk", and that not all review/decisions should be on the shoulders of one individual. She suggested a different way of calling out all possible interpretations/repercussions and allowing the public to review that, particularly considering the complexity of the documents. On a final note, Ms. Jaffe questioned the applicability of the Penn Central example and its relevance to the process to be applied to secondary houses in Port Townsend. She also said that from her personal sample, most people in town do no[ really understand what this proposed ordinance means to them. After confirming that there were no others who wished to testify, Chair Ray closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. St~Responses Mr. Watts stated that one of the advantages of the proposed regulations is that they would provide a clear process for situations such as that which Ms. Fiore had described. At the time that she sought to demolish her property, the only process available was the SEPA process, which did not provide clear standards/guidelines for a determination regazding teazdowns. He said that P/annrng Commission Page 8 of 13 attempting to evaluate the proposed process by way of an example under the SEPA process would not be valid or appropriate, since these aze not comparable. Regarding Ms. Fiore's references to the vagueness of the guidelines, Mr. Watts noted that these criteria, which originated with the Secretary of the Interior standards, have withstood court challenges; rulings have determined that they do provide a sufficient level of guidance. With regard to Mr. Hurwitz's comments about large homes, Mr. Watts said that while the standards do not in and of themselves prevent large homes, they do attempt to limit the size of homes in scale to the neighborhood. Regazding Ms. Jaffe's concems about the strict application of the code, Mr. Watts said that on a day to day basis staff deals with application of discretion in a wide variety of code matters, and exercise that discretion responsibly. Any concerns by applicants/home owners aze heard by the City Manager and City Attorney, and there aze processes for further appeal. The internal process ensures that staff does not operate in an excessive manner. Mr. McDonagh responded to Ms. Fiore's comment about homes newer than 1920. He referred to the staff matrix which had been prepazed and reviewed the number of homes in each of the categories: pivotal, primary and secondary. He said that of the 366 historic secondary homes, only 52 were built after 1920 and none were built after 1950. The majority of those were built between 1920 and 1939, meaning that the most homes were at least 80 years old. Mr. Sepler said that he appreciated the testimony and kind words of those who testified. He said that no one wishes to reduce subjectivity more than the person who administers the codes, and that subjectivity leads to politicization of decisions. Mr. Sepler cited his education, background and professional experience in a variety of communities; he noted his familiarity with the body of law dealing with the nature of design guidelines and their application and believes there is adequate guidance included within the draft ordinance. He said that anyone filling his position will need to have the same degree of training and competence, just as the building official reviews building plans based on adopted codes. Nonetheless, any input that can be provided that provides greater certainty and greater clarity is always welcome. Mr. Sepler noted that this is a very difficult and complex issue, the outcome of over a year of work for the Ad Hoc committee and the Planning Conmussion. Chair Ray inquired as to the number of individuals involved. Mr. Sepler said that there were nine committee members and there were more than 30 individuals who testified at workshops and hearings. Many attested to the need for the ordinance and others expressed concern. He said that the intention is to find the fair balance between the preservation of private property rights and latitude for future development and the public good as identified in the preservation of public assets. Chair Ray asked if this ordinance would in any way change SEPA review. Mr. Watts responded that it would not, from a legal standpoint. SEPA would still be available to review proposed alterations to historic assets, but in a backup role. It would disappear to the extent that it would be supplanted by code such as that proposed. Chao Ray invited questions and discussion from the public and the Planning Commission. Joan Fiore responded to the statistics on numbers of contributing homes and noted that the number of homes and property owners was not the key point. She stressed that the period of significance is pre-1920, and not the number of properties/people impacted. She also stated that she had read P/arming Commission Page 9 of 13 various staff comments describing intention, but the code actually conveys something different She asked why there would be code that does not say what is actually meant and how the code will be applied. She said she does not think you should write code based on the person who happens to be in the position. Van Church, 1215 Hudson Street, Port Townsend was recognized to speak. He said he moved to Port Townsend because of his family and lives in house that has been in the family since 1945. Mr. Church said he and his wife had just gone through a historic preservation planning/permitting process to pick up, move and replace the foundation for his house. He said he enjoyed dealing with John McDonagh and Rick Sepler, that both are quite competent and capable of making rational decisions. He said he is concerned that there be continuity into the future, when these individuals are succeeded by others. Larry Hurwitz stated that he was curious why there has not been more focus on incentives rather than requirements/ restrictions. He said he would like to hear more about that possibility. Mr. McDonagh explained that when the City Council adopted the interim regulations in early 2008, they also adopted permanently the expansion of the special property tax valuation program. This local adoption option of a State law enacted in 1985 applies to certain classes of properties, and now includes historic residential. If a historic building property owner spends 25% of the assessed value of the building on qualified building rehabilitation, the value of those improvements can be deducted from the assessed valuation for a period often years. This has been available for commercial historic buildings for many years; he mentioned the Waterman Katz Building, renovated at a cost of over $1,000,000, as a commercial example. Another program is USDA World Development, which has an office in Port Angeles. This program has the potential for assisting low income home owners with repairs by providing very low interest loans; it applies not only to historic homes but to others as well. Mr. McDonagh said the City is working with OlyCap to identify property owners in need of the program, particularly to correct safety problems or major maintenance/repair. Planning Commission Questions/Deliberation Commissioner Emery referred to the Guidelines, section 400. 11.2. and requested clarification on the definitions of openable and fixed windows. He also suggested that outdated building names (1730.170) be deleted/replaced from the final draft of the ordinance. Mr. McDonagh explained that the building table of section 1730.170 is being stricken. Mr. Watts said that the questions relating to the demolition section are very good and worthwhile, and highlight the problems of adopting any International code word for word without tailoring to the local situation. He believes that the concept of having something on the books that deals with the issue of demolition of neglect has merit, as many cities do. He noted that the City of Port Townsend standard already in place has not been very useful to deal with some of the commercial buildings that otherwise will continue to deteriorate. Therefore, staff had recommended that the code be enhanced with specific standards that could be used in appropriate instances to prevent demolition by neglect. He noted that it may be possible to refine the language to improve it. He also noted that the concept is good, but in any particular circumstance code can be tamed to an extreme, resulting in an absurd result. However, Mr. Watts stressed that the code is not going to be handled in such a manner as to lead to absurd results, or administered inappropriately. Mr. McDonagh added that staff has already tailored the International Property Maintenance Code to a certain extent. With regard to the window issue, he said that operable windows are most P/arming Commission Page 10 of 13 important when dealing with sleeping rooms; an egress window is required as a life safety issue. That particular can be addressed within the code. Commissioner LeMaster said that, in his understanding, the intent of the ordinance is to classify homes in the NHLD in such a way as to avoid hazassment and lengthy legal process. He noted that there is nothing in the code stating that we aze trying to not allow what are sometimes termed McMansions in the residential areas. The inclusion of daylight plane provisions was to encourage maximum creativity in design and maintain community character, and not to establish direct bulk restrictions. He said he agrees with Mr. Hurwitz regazding the diversity of style and architecture and the desirability of retaining it. In regards to demolition by neglect, he said it is his understanding that the intent is to discourage and prevent situations where absentee ownership and neglect lead to property deterioration for the purpose of teardown and building something of greater market value on the lot. He said we are not trying to establish maximum house sizes, or to drive people out of their homes because they cannot afford to maintain them. Mr. Watts said Mr. LeMaster is correct -there aze no house size floor/area maximums, provided a building is within the daylight plane and setbacks standards. He said that absentee ownership is an issue, but not the only issue to which demolition by neglect can be applied. He said the guiding principle is that it is reserved for the serious and egregious situations; it is not intended for minor flaws such as cracked glazing, for example. Absentee ownership and life safety aze not the only issues; the draft is du•ected towazds the preservation of historic assets that the City enjoys. Mr. Sepler then presented the options available to the Planning Commission. One option is to separate the question, i.e. forward on to City Council the portions of the ordinance dealing with historic review process and design, and reserve the demolition by neglect/teazdownpnrtion for further consideration. A second option is to forwazd on the entire recommendation, with a note that the matter should be further reviewed, accompanied by the minutes of this meeting. He said that, either way, the Planning Commission may ask for Beater scmtiny. Mr. Watts added that the role of the Planning Commission is to review and make recommendations with respect to zoning and use matters. He said there is a question as to whether or not the demolition and neglect provisions are such a zoning and use matter. It was felt that these sections should come through the Planning Commission as part of an overall package to address historic preservation issues, but it may not legally be necessary for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on it. He indicated support for the suggestion to pass it on with a cautionary note. Commissioner Fry said he would be in favor of pointing out to City Council that the demolition by neglect section needs more work. He said that there may now be too much specificity in this part of the code. Commissioner Emery added a suggestion that clarifies that a number of flaws, issues or problems must be present for a home to be considered in violation of the code. Commissioner Emery moved to accept and recommend to City Council the proposed ordinance including the additions/revisions considered at this hearing, with a cautionary note indicating that the demolition by neglect section is in need of further reftnement. Commissioner Fry seconded the motion. Mr. Sepler suggested that, should the motion be approved, the Chair instruct staff to include the transcript of this hearing, so that the public testimony would be Planning Commission Page 1 i of 13 available to City Council members. Chair Ray instructed staff to include a transcript and/or minutes. Commissioner LeMaster suggested a second cautionary note: Further work is needed on clarifying the ambiguity with regard to the ongoing classification of secondary homes. Commissioner Emery accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment; Commissioner Fry concurred. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Sepler confirmed that staff would prepaze the recommendation with a cautionary note indicating that the provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code should be reviewed for its applicability to Port Townsend, and a note recommending that additional attention should be paid to secondary homes to ensure appropriate latitude. In addition, a copy of the transcript and/or minutes of this hearing will forwarded to City Council prior to its workshop for them to hear public comments and be more informed in their discussions. Chair Ray and Commissioners expressed their appreciation to staff and for those attending and providing input to this process, and to historic home owners. VI. OTHER BUSINESS (None) VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS Mazch 11, 2010 -Public Hearing: PTMC Amendments -Omnibus Commissioner Fry indicated he would not be able to attend the March 11 hearing. IX. COMMUNICATIONS (None) X. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Emery moved and Commissioner LeMaster seconded for adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 PM. (~ Julian Ray, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Page i2 of 13