Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080510CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, August 5, 2010 EXH 2 R. Sepler & S. Wassmer, Memorandum to Planning Commission: Continued Public Hearing on August 5, 2010 to Consider Amendments to PTMC Chapter 17.68 "Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges, July 28, 2010 with Attachments A, B and C EXH 3 R. Sepler, Memorandum to Planning Commission: Strategies for Upper Sims Way/ Howard Street Corridor, July 2$, 2010 with Forms-Based Codes Attachment I. CALL TO ORDER At the outset of the meeting, due to the absence of both Chair and Vice Chair, and the lack of a quorum, Commissioners present decided to appoint a temporary Chair (Mr. Emery) and, as asub-committee, hear public testimony and re-notice the hearing for a later date. Mr. Emery called the committee meeting to order at 6:40 PM. However, a quorum was established with the arrival of Vice Chair Fry at 6:42 PM, who called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:43 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was established at 6:42 PM: Sarah Bowman, Steve Emery, Jerauld Fry and Monica Mick-Hager. Gee Heckscher and Julian Ray were excused. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Emery moved and Ms. Mick-Hager seconded for approval of the agenda. The agenda was approved, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 8, 2010 - A correction was noted regarding the spelling of Mr. Fry's f rst name, Jerauld. Mr. Emery moved for approval of the July 8 minutes, as amended; Ms. Mick- Hager seconded. The minutes of July 8 were approved, as amended, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) Page 1 of S VI. OLD BUSINESS Continued Public Hearing: Proposed Revisions Chapter 17.68 PTMC -Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges -Suzanne Wassmer, DSD/Land Use Development Specialist Vice Chair Fry read the rules of order for public testimony. He verified that no Commissioner had interest, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this matter. Staff Presentation Ms. Wassmer noted that this hearing was a continuation of the public hearing of July 22, 2010, during which changes to Chapter 17.68 PTMC had been discussed. She referred to the staff memo of July 28 (EXH 2) and Attachment A, Proposed revisions to the code. She noted that revisions are shown with double-underlines and deletions are lined out. She noted the addition of illustrations and pointed out the life-size model showing relevant heights and percentage of transparency required for fences at various heights. She explained the purpose of the revisions and that the need for higher fences is mainly due to the fact that deer easily jump over 6 foot fences into yards and gardens in order to consume vegetation. She explained the requirements for materials that provide a high degree of transparency, such as wire, fine mesh, string or monofilament. Ms. Wassmer noted that suggested changes from the previous meetings had been incorporated, and with the intention to make the code easier to read. Mr. Sepler briefly explained the process. The Planning Commission considers an issue at the direction of City Council, including hearing public comment, and then makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council will then hold its own hearing on the matter, where there will be further opportunity for public comment. The Council may then accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission or accept it with modifications. Public Testimony Linda Spurgeon, 509 Walker Street, Port Townsend Ms. Spurgeon requested clarification on when a permit is required; Mr. Fry and Mr. Sepler indicated that a permit is needed for fences over 6 feet tall. Ms. Spurgeon also inquired as to how many arbors are allowed. Mr. Sepler said that there are no limitations for arbors that meet the definition of a functioning arbor (but may not be used as a way to avoid the building permit process). Ms. Spurgeon also questioned how wire can be stabilized along the top of a fencing structure. Mr. Sepler noted that the wire can be fastened between vertical posts. He noted that the purpose of this PTMC chapter is to avoid/prohibit walling off of the field of vision. With regard to the corner requirements, Mr. Sepler said that safety is the key concern. When roads are perfectly centered in their right of way, there is no problem with private property corners. However, if they are not centered and the "site triangle" falls on private property, there is specific guidance. If the edge of the rolling surface is at or very near the property line, there must be a free and clear viewpoint that is 20 feet back from the corner. Ms. Wassmer pointed out the section of code on page 1 that discusses the site triangle requirements. In the case of a highly transparent all-wire fence, Mr. Sepler pointed out, the 20 foot set back may be unnecessary -these are case by case decisions based on Page Z of 8 visibility and safety. They also noted that either aerial view maps or site visits are employed by staff in each case. At this point, Vice Chair Fry verified that no other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Fry mentioned the references to "partially or totally obscured" views, suggesting that this language may lead to problems of interpretation. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that a site visit would address that potential problem. After a brief discussion, Mr. Sepler suggested a change to the section clarifying the reason for the requirement. The language would state that the requirements applied "where the structure presented a safety hazard, as where the sight line is partially or totally blocked". Mr. Fry also noted that there is a provision that the property owner must prove to staff that the structure meets the guidelines. Planning Commission Questions Staff clarified that the permissible materials for providing transparency particularly in the area above 6 feet are not proscriptive; they are possibilities. Ms. Mick-Hager inquired as to when building permits are required and how to determine permit costs. Ms. Wassmer said that fences over 6 feet require a permit, per the IBC (International Building Code). The cost is based on value (materials plus labor), including a $50 charge for the building inspection. The fee is based on an actuarial table that rates the value of the project, and endeavors to achieve a fair balance among large and small projects. Mr. Sepler stressed that the basis for the requirements and the inspections is safety; the fence must withstand wind forces and the posts must have proper footings to prevent rot. As an example, a $5000 fence would have an associated permit cost of between $200 and $300. In response to a question from Ms. Bowman, Ms. Wassmer confirmed the wording of section 17.68.010. (Vice Chair Fry verified that no other members of the public wished to comment, and closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing.) Planning Commission Deliberations There was a brief discussion about barbed wire, its need/use in residential zones, and about previous related Planning Commission and City Council deliberations regarding its regulation. There was agreement that any restrictions be limited to fencing over 6 feet high. Mr. Emery moved that the text under 17.68.040 should be modified to read: "1. No fence or wall shall.......sharp instrument. This prohibition shall not be construed to limit the placement of barbed wire fences below 6 feet." The motion was seconded by Ms. Bowman. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Emery proposed a change to one word in Attachment A, section 17.68.010 Purpose: " ... and improving the image and appeal of the community" would be changed to " .... and improving the aesthetic quality and appeal of the community" For purposes of discussion, Ms. Mick-Hager seconded the motion. Mr. Emery said he believes that the Page 3 of S term "image" is too vague and not as appropriate to this situation as "aesthetic quality" would be. Ms. Bowman inquired of staff as to any examples of language or terminology that would better convey a sense of place or quality of the community environment. Mr. Sepler referred to references in the Comprehensive Plan to quality of neighborhood or to pedestrian scale. He suggested "improving the visual qualities and appeal of the community consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan". Ms. Bowman expressed her support for language that referred back to the Comp Plan. Mr. Emery withdrew his motion. Mr. Emery moved that the phrasing offered by Mr. Sepler be taken instead: "improving the visual qualities and appeal of the community consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan". Ms. Bowman seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor. Ms. Bowman inquired whether Attachments B and C would be included in the Ordinance revisions. Mr. Sepler said they would not be part of the code, but would be used as the basis for public information handout materials. Mr. Fry asked for clarification as to the meaning of the Notes on the last page referring to Chapter 12.1. Ms. Wassmer said that the current code contains two footnotes on the bottom of page 4 about definitions, etc. This note indicates that Chapter 12.10 is back in the code, but does not apply to residential districts or fences. Mr. Sepler explained that this information will not be part of the code and would be placed in a cover memo. There was a brief discussion about the maximum heights information in Table 17.68.030. Mr. Sepler suggested a "See note" change, which could be included as part of the general motion to accept the revisions. Mr. Emery moved to accept the proposed revisions to Chapter 17.68 PTMC, Fences, Walls, Arbors and Hedges, including staff recommendations, Attachments and previously approved amendments. Ms. Bowman seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. At 7:28 PM, Vice Chair Fry called for a brief recess at in order to make seating changes for the next scheduled agenda item, Workshop on Land Uses. (Ms. Wassmer left the meeting at this time.) The meeting resumed at 7:30 PM. Workshop: Land Use Approaches for the Howard Street Corridor and Upper Sims Way -Rick Sepler, DSD/Planning Director Mr. Sepler suggested that since two of the Planning Commissioners were not able to attend, this "primer" could be continued in the future, when a full complement of Commissioners are present. Mr. Sepler reviewed the main points of his July 28 memorandum to the Planning Commission: Strategies for Upper Sims Way/ Howard Street Corridor (EXH 3). He discussed the land use controls that are sought for this comdor, noting that this is the last commercial zoning that is undeveloped in Port Townsend and that it is adjacent to an area Page 4 of 8 of recent work. He referred to the long range and Comp Plan direction-this will be a mixed use or commercial district. The intention is to have the second and possibly third tiers behind it developed at a higher density to provide housing choices. The Planning Commission goals were: to ensure the appropriate character and scale of new construction or redevelopment in the area; to encourage the creation of additional housing opportunity, both in type and density in areas surrounding the first tier commercial frontage. He noted that although there may not be as much housing fronting the commercial street as desired, the pattern sought is housing within a walkable distance so as to take advantage of the amenity. That is, "provide for a walkable neighborhood that supports multi-modal travel choices"; this is included in the Comp Plan both for environmental and local use reasons. An additional goal was to encourage a scale and diversity of development that contributes to a reduction in retail leakage while concurrently reducing the adverse environmental impacts associated with those trips. Mr. Sepler recalled the study done by The Leader regarding retail leakage and the fact that the environmental impacts have not been documented. He acknowledged that although businesses such as car dealers would not locate here, it would be possible to have basic mercantile staples available here. Another goal is to encourage the establishment of public amenities to support the higher residential densities and commercial intensity of development that might be allowed. Mr. Sepler mentioned the Lake Union example and what features might make higher density living attractive. He noted the significance in the fact that rebuilding of the playground area was one of the first steps taken by the developer there. Mr. Sepler said that in researching this challenge, two issues stood out. First, it is the design that matters; people wish to see pedestrian scale, a diversity of shops, and multi- story buildings. He said that while that defines the Howard Street frontage, it is the transition to the surrounding area that becomes more challenging. Regarding zoning, since the look and feel is of greatest importance, it may be possible to have some flexibility in the uses that are permitted. He spoke in favor of a blend between current zoning practice and the application of elements from form-based codes. He also noted the need for some limitations: e.g. there are causal links between fast food restaurants and childhood obesity, and the unfortunate fact that those least able to afford good food are the highest consumers of these types of food products. He suggested aform-based code that specifically includes a use table that identifies the prohibitions and allows the remainder. He advised that the formula requirements in this limited area be suspended, since the limitation on uses would address the concerns. This means that some franchises, possibly locally owned, maybe allowed. He discussed the appeal of form-based zoning. It is predicated on the transect, i.e. seeing land uses in context. This concept is taken from the natural sciences, where various ecological zones are recognized as habitats in relation to each other along a continuum. (Form-based codes and the transect concept applied to urban planning is discussed more fully in the attachments to EXH 3.) Mr. Sepler suggested possible expectations for the Howard Street Corridor: two or three story buildings; mixed use buildings; specified distance from the street with parking to the rear and side; list of uses not allowed. At the second tier: two story buildings; residential; multi-family encouraged; town houses allowed; cottage housing of higher density allowed. At the third tier: duplexes, tri-plexes; quad-plexes. This provides amenities along the main street with transition to the surrounding residential area. Page 5 of 8 Mr. Emery noted the possibility of supporting a large grocery store, such as Kroger, in that area. Mr. Sepler said there is currently much more flexibility in the box store world, and mentioned that Target is opening a store in downtown Seattle. There was additional discussion about the differences in Sims Way, an existing corridor, and Howard Street, which is open to design opportunity. Commercial shortages and underserved areas were mentioned: pharmacies; supermarkets; and general merchandising. Some of the obstacles to having a successful blend of mixed use, such as deliveries and noise during early morning hours, were mentioned. The advantage of having some grocery store diversity and competition to keep prices down was discussed. The fact that Kroger Corporation owns and would like to operate here both QFC and Fred Meyer stores was noted. On the other hand, businesses such as Costco already established in Sequim and Silverdale have little or no interest in locating here. Mr. Sepler said that there are some risks for existing merchants to consider, noting that land use cannot regulate labor practices, but can regulate form. Commissioners expressed interest in exploring the form-based approach, which allows the uses of the buildings to change over time. Mr. Fry noted that Trader Joe's specifically seeks out previously used grocery stores of 15,000 square feet or less. Ms. Bowman said that, in addition to the land use elements discussed, she was interested in seniors and aging in place, and how to encourage locally produced goods and foods, with minimization of shipping, etc. There was additional discussion about how the Howard Street area could potentially blend mixed use space for seniors, small scale farming, art artists, studios, and other features, such as sustainability. Ms. Bowman said her expectations would include: environmental sensitivity; speaking to the history and culture of Port Townsend; amenities for children and seniors; ability to walk everywhere; and that being outdoors is encouraged. She suggested that land controls should ensure that the spirit of Port Townsend is preserved and that the community should have input as to quality of life issues and what is valued and wanted. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that it is possible to walk or bicycle most of the time for those who live uptown, and this should also be possible for the Howard Street area. She also said that she believes it would be wonderful to put farming or community gardening into the mix, side by side with upper story apartments, etc. and to put parklands into the mix. Mr. Emery mentioned Joseph, Oregon, a winter resort which takes every opportunity to provide open community spaces, however small. He noted, however, that allowing farming would certainly impact the objectives of greater density, unless it is limited to green roofs and other creative uses that do not use up significant acreage. He noted that certain incentives could be used to shape these types of space and building features, and to encourage the appropriate scale. Ms. Bowman inquired as to how much commercial space is currently for sale at this time, and what the basis is for pushing development of this area at this time. Mr. Sepler noted that markets fluctuate over time, but that this town continues to be a sought after destination. What impedes that growth now is the inability for those coming here to sell their properties elsewhere. He said that when the up cycle begins again, it will happen with considerable speed, and that we need to be ready with plans and infrastructure. However, there is also a limit on what government can do on its own. Page 6 of 8 Mr. Sepler mentioned the example of a wonderful urban garden in Chinatown in the Seattle International District on an unused hillside next to a high-rise. Iri addition, he noted that the Port Townsend Co-Op buys about $1 million per year of local crops and has also invested in crop extension. He noted an eventual possibility of having a Co-Op extension in the Howard St. Corridor area. Mr. Fry expressed his concerns about noise and commercial deliveries in mixed use areas, and noted the need to design around these types of obstacles. There was also discussion about flat rental rates, and the lack of "urban pioneers". There was further discussion about mitigating noise with water or with sound damping devices. Odors from the paper mill and co-generation were mentioned as other factors to consider. Mr. Sepler provided guidance to how to proceed. One possibility is to hold a Charette. This could include crafting some options that could be presented and publicized with the idea of obtaining feedback from the community. He said the latter approach tends to be more efficient. Mr. Fry requested that Mr. Sepler also research APA resources for small towns for ideas. Mr. Sepler said that he had examples of small scale towns that wished to recreate their downtowns, and other information for perusal. He said that towns such as Port Townsend already using design guidelines can more readily adapt to form-based than those that don't. He said that staff could have some alternatives fleshed out by the September meeting. He also suggested that a visit to certain sites in Seattle and Bothell may also be helpful. Drafting of an ordinance would follow these other steps. Commissioners expressed their support for this approach in moving forward. There was a brief discussion about the part of Howard Street leading from the round- about to the Mill. The vacant part is zoned C-II; the possibility of some redevelopment along Sims Way over a twenty year horizon was mentioned. Mr. Sepler said that area would likely have a wholly different use table than Howard St. Mr. Sepler mentioned that Sarah Bowman, Walkable and Livable Communities Institute (WALC), was assisting the City with pursuing funding for extending road improvements to Sheridan Street. Ms. Bowman noted the importance of improvements that allow students to walk to school. The poor condition of Discovery Road was noted. VII. NEW BUSINESS -None VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 12, 2010 -Cancelled August 26, 2010 -Cancelled September 9, 2010 -Workshop: Maximum Residential Building Size Workshop: Land Use Approaches for Howard Street Corridor/Upper Sims Way (Note: This meeting was subsequently cancelled.) IX. COMMUNICATIONS -None Page 7 of 8 X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved for adjournment; Ms. Bowman seconded. Mr. Fry adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM. Julian Ray, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Page8of8