Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012810CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, January 28, 2010 EXH 2 R. Sepler, J. Watts, and J. McDonagh, Memo to Planning Commission regarding Public Haring on Proposed Revisions to the PTMC: Demolition(Redeuelopment; Proposed Adoption of Bulk and Scale approaches; Adoption of New Designations for Historic Residential Buildings; and Adoption of New Designated Buildings Map EXH 3 Bulk, Scale and Teardown Revision, Draft Ordinance, January 10, 2010 EXH 3A Bulk and Scale Code Changes Definitions, Draft Revisions EXH 4 Historic Preservation Drag Ordinance, January 20, 2010 EXH A Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 (Historic Preservation) and Chapter 17.08 (Definitions), January 2Q 2010 EXH 5 Adopting Map, Draft Ordinance, January 20, 2010 EXH 6 Historic Residence Inventory Map, January 13, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Mick-Hager called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:36 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Steve Emery, Jerry Fry, Gee Heckscher, Bill LeMaster, Monica Mick-Hager, and Julian Ray. Staff Rick Sepler, Planning Director; John McDonough, Senior Planner; John Watts, City Attorney III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Ray moved for acceptance of the agenda; Mr. Heckscher seconded. The agenda was approved, as presented, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of December 10, 2009: Mr. Ray moved to approve the minutes of December 10. 2009; as written; Mr. Fry seconded. The minutes of December 10, 2009 were approved, as written, al[ in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (None) VI. NEW BUSINESS P/arming Commission Page 1 of SO Public Hearing -Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinances (Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director; John Watts, City Attomey; John McDonagh, Senior .Planner) Char Mick-Hager welcomed those present and explained that this meeting would begin with a public hearing on proposed Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinances. She explained that staff would make presentations followed by an opportunity for public comment. She said no action would betaken by the Planning Commission regazding the proposed ordinances during this meeting. She explained the guidelines for testifying, noting that no time limitations would be imposed, but requesting that comments be concise. She said that everyone who wished to speak would be given an opportunity to do so. It was noted that Commissioners had received packets containing background, proposed ordinances, and the Historic Residence Inventory map (EXH. 2-6) Staff Presentation -Rick Sepler, DSD and Planning Director, introduced John Watts, City Attorney, and John McDonagh, Senior Planner, who would be presenting specific portions of the material. Mr. Sepler indicated that the presenters would provide background and summarize the key elements of the ordinances under development. He noted that this hearing had been preceded by an Open House during which there had been opportunity to view the updated Historic Residence map, and for the public to speak with staff regarding specific properties and issues. Mr. Sepler briefly the described the purpose of the hearing and the scope of proposed PTMC (Port Townsend Municipal Code) revisions, as outlined in the staff memo (EXH 2). He explained the relationships between needed demolitionlteardown regulations, criteria and historic property designations, as well as standards to mitigate the impacts of new construction. He briefly described the work of the Ad Hoc Committee appointed by City Council, which had forwazded its recommendations to the Planning Commission. He said that many historic structures are at risk of removal and replacement by homes that would be inconsistent in size and character with those azound them. The preservation of neighborhood character was stressed. The Ad-hoc committee considered a number of devices that would allow for new construction in a manner that would provide for square footage but not adversely affect the surrounding development, i.e. standards for bulk and scale. He noted that there is no proposal for maximum house size but there are changes to the side yard setback. Revised map and survey highlights -John McDonagh reviewed the process that that had been undertaken to survey (re-inventory) residential properties in the National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). He referred to the original 1976 "polka dot" map that was part of the National Pazks Service Survey. In support of the code changes, a consultant was engaged to update this inventory. Mr. McDonagh noted that the Jefferson County Historical Society database had been utilized as well. Mr. McDonagh briefly described the scoring system developed to classify properties as contributing (pivotal, primary, or secondary tier) or non-contributing. He discussed the six scoring areas: Building Exterior; Style; Age; Continuity and Context; Alterations; and Reversibility. The initial scoring scheme and the scores of the 700 homes in the district were reviewed by staff and the Washington Trust. A score of at least 5 points was required to be considered a (contributing) secondary building; at least 10 points for primary, and I S points for pivotal. The color coded Historic Residence Map is a representation of the results of the survey; details for each property are on file and available for inspection. There are differing standazds, mostly related to protecting the primary or street fagade, for each contributing tier: pivotal Planning Commission Page 2 of 10 buildings receive the greatest degree of protection and are allowed the least alteration; primary buildings are somewhat less restricted and secondary buildings have the least protection/restriction. Code Revisions - Mr. Watts then provided background relevant to the draft code revisions and regarding the legal basis for cities to regulate these matters. He referred to the National Historic Landmark District (NHLD) approved by the National Pazks Service. He stressed that a building in the NHLD or those individually listed on the national or state historic registers aze not automatically protected against demolition or alteration. A number of years ago, the City adopted standards for the protection of downtown commercial buildings. Proposed standards for protection and allowed alteration of historic residences follows this same approach -changes must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior (National Park Service) standazds and adopted local standards. Recently the City Council approved amendments to the Historic Preservation Code which made design review applicable to the uptown historic buildings. What is proposed in the draft code revisions now under consideration would provide for design review for historic residential structures other than Bed and Breakfast businesses (which are already covered by code). Mr. Watts noted that in 2004, the City adopted regulations to prohibit demolition that applied to historic commercial buildings downtown. Before that, there was no basis to deny a proposed demolition downtown, other than through the SEPA process. Mr. Watts described the situation that azose about one year ago concerning the planned demolition of the Fiore residence on Fihnore Street. A neighborhood group believed that the building was historic and demolition should be denied, while the owner maintained that it was not historic. The City hired its own independent expert who deternuned that the building was not historic, and the demolition was permitted. He also briefly discussed recent cases in Seattle, where the City's regulatory rights were upheld by the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court. That is, a city may enact restrictions to preserve the character of the city and land/property regulations of this nature do not constitute a "taking>' Mr. Watts discussed the process that the City has gone through since adoption of the Interim ordinance. He explained that during this heazing, public testimony will be heard but that no further action will be taken by the Planning Commission on this date; the hearing will be continued to February 25. He said that he did not plan to walk through the ordinance changes on a page by page or line by line basis, but would highlight key elements. One key point of the proposed changes is to expand the desiga review approach to historic residences in the NHLD. A second major point is that the bar is being raised on demolition. The third main point is design review. Just because a building is designated as historic, it is not frozen in time. It my be altered, remodeled and/or adapted for re-use, so long as important historic characteristics of the structure are preserved. Local standards would supplement the Secretary of the Interior standazds. Mr. Watts referred to page 19, ordinance section 17.30.158, that sets forth local standards that would be applied. He reviewed the different designations (pivotal, primary and secondary) for which evoke different degrees of review and restrictions. Examples of pivotal, primary and secondary structures, as shown in the Workshop materials, Planning Commission Page 3 of 10 were cited as examples. Mr. Watts said that all are entitled to be altered, at different levels of scrutiny, and so long as they do not affect the elements facing the right of way. Process: Mr. Watts referred to page 6; he explained a change from the Downtown design review process: a number of exceptions for minor alternations would be handled only by staff and not need to go through the process at the HPC level. Changes in roofing material, replacements in kind of windows using compatible materials, new railings, etc were mentioned as exceptions. Mr. Watts described the designation process, referring to page 22 and following pages. He briefly described the applicability, elements and criteria pertaining to Historic Place Designation. He noted that owners or others have the right to nominate or challenge a designation through an established process. Demolitions: Mr. Watts pointed out that this section, 17.30.300 [EXH. A.] had been reformatted and expanded. The standard specifies that a building may not be tom down and replaced by a new building if it is possible to accomplish additions and revisions with preservation of the fagade, Demolition is allowed only if the building is in danger of collapse. He said that demolition is also allowed if the building is so deteriorated that it would be unreasonably costly to retain. A similaz standard in a Seattle ordinance was challenged in the Court of Appeals and upheld. Mr. Watts also addressed maintenance and "demolition by neglect", which comprises Par[ 4, where a building becomes unsafe either through intentional or unintentional neglect. The provisions are taken from the IBC (International Building Code) and are designed primarily to ensure that a historic building is kept weather tight. Bulk and Scale: Mr. Sepler then provided an overview of the proposed Bulk and Dimension changes. He noted the generally shared concern that new construction has the potential to dominate and destroy the historic character of the community. He recalled that the Ad Hoc committee had spent several meetings considering the ultimate goals and results desired. They had been guided by the Comp Plan which recognizes that the historic character of the community is essential and should be preserved. However, the committee members also noted that many Victorian homes did not have closets, or had heating /cooling problems, or had been altered significantly over the years. The intent was not to prohibit active use; empty shells would not contribute to the vitality of the community. There was a desire to accommodate but without adding another level of review. All of the things that require a review currently require a permit. The first tier of review is administrative; as staff deals with a roofing permit, it can concurrently deal with changes in roofing material. Additions and garages can be dealt with as part of the building permit process. The process is intended to preserve the scale and character as seen from the street. The schemes discussed allow for accommodation for many different changes to a property. Attention also fumed to new construction. Anew home that did fit the scale of the neighborhood would adversely affect other property values and the intent of the Comp Plan. As noted, most of the bulk and scale regulations were designed in the 1960s and they were intended when it was unthinkable that anyone would build to the full extent of the envelope. He acknowledged that one could almost get a 5000 sq. fr. building on a 5000 sq. ft. lot under those regulations. The intent of the new regulations are to allow new construction to fit in and to allow a similar flexibility, but with restrictions on placement and to keep the scale of the street. Planning Commission Page 9 of 10 New construction, redevelopment or additions to historic homes would need to meet the fol}owing standazds: Increase side yard setback to ] 0 ft on one side and 5 ft. on the other. Require conformance with aday-light plane for all structures. Require modulation on primary facades facing streets. 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 hardship.) Mr. Sepler said that the new standards would allow better integration of new construction throughout the City and not overly restrict new development, but would preserve the character consistent with the Comp Plan. Public Comment Chair Mick-Hager invited members of the public to comment, first stating their full name and address. Tony Goldenberg - Mr. Goldenberg stated that he has worked on many of the secondary homes, particularly on rock/foundation maintenance and repair. He asked whether it would be necessary to use wood in contact with the ground in order to match the existing chazacter. He said he normally installs pressure treated wood and cement board over it, and would hope there was no need to go back to use of siding. Marcy Jaffee - Ms. Jaffe stated that she lives in a Victorian house in the historic district. She expressed her concern that the regulations will allow it to be livable and affordable. She said energy efficiency with such homes is elusive. She said there should be incentives for undertaking expensive upgrades, repairs or maintenance. She was concerned about the extent and expense of policing, monitoring and enforcement. She had questions about the concept of reversibility and the implied costs in time and money. Ms. Jaffe also questioned whether a possible replacement of a front door with a metal door for security reasons, as an example, would be allowed under the new regulations. She said she did not fully understand the definitions of major and minor alterations. She asked what the added cost of administration would be and asked specifically what the Fiore case had cost local taxpayers. Ms. Jaffe suggested that current historic home owners should be exempted in some way, such as by making the new regulations effective upon the next sale of the properties. Paul Becker - Mr. Becker stated that he had not had opportunity to attend the Open House or read the materials. His house is on a double lot; one side is the front facade of the house. He wondered if, as situated, the side of his house is considered to be a primary fagade on another street. Another question he posed was what processes he would need to follow if he replaced a pane of glass or painted in the front of the house versus the same repair or maintenance in the back or side. Planning Commission Page 5 of 10 Pat Durbin, 1932 Washington Street - Ms. Durbin said she had come to speak in favor of the proposed changes. She said she had moved to Port Townsend in 1999 after living and traveling in other parts of the US, and had experience with historic restorations. She said she had seen many historic structures torn down and replaced with new development. Ms. Durbin said that Port Townsend is unique among all the historical and Landmazk villages and towns she has visited, including those in the South and on the East Coast, and should definitely be protected from undue alterations. She urged the City to pass the code revisions under consideration. Michael Meegan, 1053 Quincy Street - Mr. Meegan described an azea in the City where there are 6,000 square foot lots. He was concerned that it may be possible under City regulations to end up with multiple new "McMansions" in the same block with existing historic buildings. Chair Mick-Hager closed the Public Comment period of the hearing at 7:42 PM. StafJ'Response: Mr. Sepler said he would respond briefly to the previous public comments. With regazd to Mr. Goldenberg's question about materials, he said it was not the intent to recreate a deficient circumstance. He said the regulations would be clarified. Mr. Sepler noted that since Ms. Jaffe had left the hearing, he would make an effort to contact her. He clarified that reversibility is not a requirement and that he would follow up on that apparent misunderstanding. Mr. Watts briefly discussed the questions of whether a future City Council could essentially require property owners to restore their homes and agreed with Mr. Sepler that reversibility is not a requirement. Mr. Sepler noted that the cost of the Fiore issue was borne by the applicant and the City. With regard to Mr. Becker's question, Mr. Sepler said that staffwould clarify in a future draft the situation of a structure situated on a double lot, as described by Mr. Becker. He said that scenario had been discussed, but would require code refinements. Additionally, painting does not require a permit; design review would be necessary for significant changes and those additions greater than 300 sq. ft. In general, the intention has been to cover as many situations as possible with administrative permits. With regard to the testimony about mega-mansions, Mr. Sepler recalled that the Ad Hoc committee had deferred to the Planning Commission on whether there should be a maximum residence building size. Staff initially proposed a floor area ratio so that the size of the home is proportional to the lot. That was tempered by modifying the side yard setback and the day light plane. But, after lengthy discussion, there is no restriction on overall building size. Mr. Watts noted that the Interim regulations established by the City Council do provide for restrictions on building size. Mr. McDonagh, referring to a portion of Ms. Jaffe's comments, added that there had been an earlier expansion of the special tax valuation program to residential properties and regulations. This local adoption optaon of State laws applies to certain classes of properties, and now includes historic residential. If a 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. He mentioned the Waterman Katz Building as a commercial example. P/arming Commission Page 6 of 10 Mr. Sepler indicated that staff would take direction from the Planning Commission with regard to prepazation of additional information prior to the next hearing. He noted that all of the packet materials for this hearing are available on the web site. Chair Mick-Hager thanked members of the public who were exiting the meeting for their attendance. Planning Commission Discussion Mr. Ray suggested that a compact packet of information for members of the public would be helpful, particularly one including the financial benefits. Mr. LeMaster asked for clarification on how a building not in the historic district would be identified for inclusion as a contributing structure. Mr. Sepler indicated that the City Council has authorized the second phase of the survey, which will be in the azea of Morgan Hill out to Fort Worden. There was a brief discussion about the current process that is based on SEPA. Mr. Sepler confirmed that the City would not be able to complete the entire survey process for several years. Mr. LeMaster also expressed his concern that all potential buyers aze not being informed by realtors when properties are encumbered by virtue of their historic designations. Mr. Watts said that the Planning Commission could recommend that a Notice to Title be included, similar to that related to regulations on wetlands. He also noted that because wetlands change over time, it is also assumed that prospective buyers must do due diligence when considering a purchase. Mr. LeMaster requested statistics on the number of residences in each historic category, which were briefly reviewed. He asked that the number of buildable residential lots be included, as part of an overview or status of the community. Mr. Sepler noted that that type of information is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fry referred to Exh A. 17.30.010, line 4. He pointed out the lack of other recognition elsewhere in the document that that line has been added, which may lead to confusion. Mr. Watts said he would check on that point. Chair Mick-Hager asked how citizens are kept informed regarding wetlands and critical areas, There was fiu-ther discussion about available sources and references, including the web, and the dynamic nature of much of this information. Staff also mentioned that the Ad Hoc Committee had considered the possibility of offering loans for weatherizing historic structures to those with cash flow constraints. Mr. Sepler said that staff would follow up on this direction provided by the Planning Commission in preparation for the continued hearing. Chair Mick Hager announced the continuance of the hearing, date-specifc to February 25, 2010. She called for a short break at 8:15 PM. Mr. Watts and McDonagh left the meeting at this point. The Planning Commission meeting resumed at 8:29 PM. Planning Commission Page 7 of 10 VI. OTHER BUSINESS Plannina Commission Chair and Vice Chair Elections Chair Mick-Hager called for nominations for the Chair position for 2010. Mr. LeMaster nominated Monica Mick-Hager for Chair. Mr. Emery seconded. Mr. Fry nominated Julian Ray for the Chair position; Mr. Heckscher seconded. Chair Mick-Hager initiated a brief discussion about the need for regular rotation of the Chair and Vice Chair positions, and the desire to provide opportunity for all members to serve in these .positions. Both nominees were asked for their thoughts. Ms. Mick-Hager said she would be willing to serve, since she had only been in the position for a few months. However, she said she would also be comfortable to allow Mr. Ray that opportunity. Mr. Ray said the group had been working well and that he had enjoyed working with Ms. Mick-Hager as Chair. He also noted that freshness is important and that it is important to avoid the appeazance of being overly institutionalized. Mr. Fry added that rotation, annually, is very important Ms. Mick-Hager thanked Mr. LeMaster for nominating her, but dec&ned She observed that there seemed to be genera! agreement and said she did not think a vote was necessary. Mr. Ray nominated Mr. Fry for Vice Chair; Mr. Emery seconded The nominations were tacitly approved. Mr. Ray stated that he would like Ms. Mick-Hager to continue facilitation through the remainder of the agenda. Possible Joint Meeting with Counri Plannine Commission Ms. Mick-Hager reported that she had attended a meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC), about a month previously. She recalled their discussion about a Team Jefferson presentation, which was well regarded, and about their intention to bring in other presentations to support their planning processes. She said that JCPC was unanimously in favor of meeting with this body, Port Townsend Planning Commission (PTPC), and had extended an invitation. She also noted that the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) had resumed. its process at exactly that time, and staff had suggested that process be allowed to progress before the Planning Commissions met. She asked for input as to the most appropriate next step. Mr. Ray suggested that, whenever the next meeting, it should be located at a County site, since the previous meeting had been held at Pope Marine. Mr. Sepler sought ideas on topics for discussion. He mentioned that the JGMSC had directed staff to come back with revisions to the county-wide planning policies, i.e. the foundation to the GMA, within 90 days. Additionally, he said he expects that discussions between the City, County and Port may result in new information regarding new economic viability and approaches in the near future. He said that it is now certain that Growth Management updates will be P/arming Commission Page 8 of 10 postponed for at least two years. He said that it may be well to ask Team Jefferson to present to both bodies. Mr. Ray suggested the possibility of re-evaluating the possible outcomes at Glen Cove. Mr. Sepler explained that, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendations, a background study will be undertaken with the intention of assessing needs and determining which portions of the market aze the most likely to attract. He said that it may be best to wait until this is completed, possibly within 60-90 days. Mr. Fry noted that the resulting data would be valuable input to any discussions, but that it if there is intent to get to know the County Planning Commissioners better, a joint presentation could be scheduled prior to the completion of the background study. Ms. Mick-Hager said she believes it important to develop good working relationships, but would prefer to find a way to make efficient use of time, especially since the County Planning Commission has a great deal of work to do, and is very short staffed. She suggested more regular attendance at their meetings, but as individuals/citizens. Mr. LeMaster indicated his greater sense of urgency. He questioned why it is necessary to wait 60-90 days to begin the process of working collaboratively with the County Planning Commissioners. He noted that he and others as individuals had an obligation to the County as well as the City, and would like to begin developing creative processes immediately. There was further discussion about the ways in which a process could be moved forward. There was a review of applicable rules. Mr. Sepler said that it is legal for less than a majority of each body to get together to informally discuss matters, but if there is a majority on either side the meetings must be properly noticed and open to the public. Mr. Ray pointed out the differences between productive, result oriented meetings and open ended philosophical discussions with the purpose of getting to know one another. He spoke in favor of a few City Planning Commissioners attending County Planning Commission meetings as an informal way of preparing for formal joint meetings with cleaz agendas and goals. Mr. Hecksher said that was agreeable but that he would like to see the formal joint process begin somewhat sooner than 90 days. Mr. Sepler said that as soon as there is progress on the study, which will be done by outside consultants, staff can update Commissioners on it. He clarified that the City would like to see the study completed, and is seeking County and Port agreement on this. If that proceeds as hoped, there could then be a joint presentation to both Planning Commission bodies. Mr. Ray asked if it would be possible to outline a timeline by [he next meeting on Febniary 11. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that it would be appropriate to communicate with the Chair of [he County Planning Commission as to status and expected next steps, since they had extended an invitation to meet. Mr. Sepler said he could contact County staff with that information, on behalf of the Planning Commission. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS February 11, 2010 -Public Hearing: PTMC Amendments P/arming Commission Page 9 of IO Mr. Sepler said the packets would be mailed the following week. Several Commissioners noted that other community meetings were taking place on February 11, and indicated that they may wish to attend. Mr. Sepler said that although the hearing had already been noticed, it could be cancelled or that it could be opened at 6:30 PM, public testimony taken and closed, and continued at a later date. Commissioners tentatively agreed to the latter arrangement. (However, this meeting was subsequently cancelled.) IX. X. February 25, 2010 -Continued Public Hearing: Residential Bulk, Scale and Teardown Ordinances COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Emery reported on a decision by the HAPN group to take a 6 month hiatus, suspending their meetings until July 2010. When they return, they may adjust their meeting schedule to fewer but longer meetings so as to optimize City and County staff resources. He said significant City staff resources aze supporting the Public Development Authority and County staff are largely allocated elsewhere. Cormnissioners expressed their appreciation to outgoing Chair Monica Mick-Hager for her work and service. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery and Mr. LeMaster moved for adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 PM. Gail Bernhard, Recorder 1~ Julian Ray, Chair P/arming Commission Page 10 of 10