Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101410CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:30 PM Materials: EXH 1 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, October 14, 2010 EXH 2 R. Sepler, J. Watts & J. McDonough, Memorandum to City Council: Potential Strategies to limit the maximum size of single family residences, July 12, 2010 EXH 3 Transportation Functional Plan, City of Port Townsend, prepared by TranspoGroup, Draft April 2009 EXH 4 Tentative Review Schedule, Transportation Functional Plan, October 2010 to January 2011. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ray called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 PM. II. ROLL CALL A quorum of Planning Commission members was present: Sarah Bowman, Steve Emery, Jerauld Fry, Gee Heckscher, Monica Mick-Hager (arrived 6:32 PM), and Julian Ray. Guest: City Councilor George Randels III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Sepler suggested time at the end of the meeting to verify the upcoming schedule. - Mr. Emery moved and Mr. Heckscher seconded for approval of the agenda. The agenda was approved, as amended, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August S, 2010 -Approval of the minutes was postponed at Chair Ray's request due to an a-mail delivery problem. (There were no minutes for September 9 since the meeting was cancelled.) V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VL NEW BUSINESS: Workshop -Transportation Functional Plan -- Ken Clow, P.E. Public Works Director and Jon Pascal, TranspoGroup Page 1 of 8 Rick Sepler introduced the workshop topic, noting that the Comprehensive Plan had established overarching guidelines and broad policy for the community in a number of areas including transportation. For transportation, a functional plan has been developed, which brings the broad policy down to applicable guidance that can be used to condition future development projects and to implement location specific solutions. The role of the Planning Commission in this review is to ensure that the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are maintained in the functional plan. To that end, the staff had provided copies of the Transportation Functional Plan and a link to the Comprehensive Plan some weeks in advance of this meeting, which will be an overview by Public Works Director Ken Clow and TranspoGroup consultant Jon Pascal. Ken Clow provided paper copies of the slide presentation: Transportation Functional Plan, Planning Commission, October 14, 2010; a similar version had been shown to City Council in April 2010. The plan has been in progress for several years beginning with the hiring of TranspoGroup in 2006. Initial work and data were useful in the Upper Sims project. Staff is now focused on bringing the plan to the Planning Commission and City Council and moving it forward. This plan is intended to implement, not supersede, the Comp Plan and the Non-motorized Plan. In response to a question, Mr. Sepler said this is the first in-depth transportation plan the City has undertaken. Mr. Clow added that extensive modeling is the heart of this plan. Mr. Clow reviewed a transportation timeline of events from 1994 to the present and forward. He briefly discussed the Downtown Parking Management Plan and the Concurrency Ordinance (2005). Concurrency refers to the rules that apply as development takes place; they are intended to ensure that transportation capacity keeps pace with growth and development. The Functional Transportation Plan (FTP) was begun in 2006 and is expected to be adopted by early 2011. Mr. Clow pointed out the key issue of funding, i.e. how capacity and service will be paid for. He said that City Council has been working on that aspect all along the way. Mr. Clow then introduced Mr. Jon Pascal of TranspoGroup to cover the technical aspects of the plan. Mr. Pascal provided an overview of the plan and the work steps that comprise the plan: comprehensive data collection, traffic model, identification of needed improvements, arterial street plan, updating the concurrency management plan, identification of financing mechanisms. Mr. Pascal discussed the model building aspects in relation to the Arterial Street Plan. He said that a key question is whether level of service standards can be maintained given the land use plan. The consultant's task was to apply more rigor here, and to ensure that the City could meet targeted service levels. Segments of the City with development plans were incorporated into the model. He described the varieties of traffic information collected and calibration within the model. He noted that the model was then expanded for the County and has been used for State Hwy 19 & 20 planning. In response to a question about level of service, Mr. Pascal said that there are a variety of ways to measure level of service. Port Townsend measures wait time and delay at intersections; other communities use volume and capacity along a corridor. Wait time and convenience must be balanced against cost/capacity. Mr. Pascal noted that specific descriptions regarding level of service are found in the Arterial Street Plan. Page 2 of 8 Mr. Pascal briefly walked through graphic representations of land use (Residential Density), current and anticipated through 2026. Traffic volumes at peak time are modeled based on that growth. (The same process was also done for commercial, retail and industrial land uses, but is not shown in this presentation.) Using the model, the projected traffic volumes for future dates can then be output. He noted the benefits of the model, that it shows where the increased traffic occurs, i.e. Discovery Road, because Sims Way is already at or near capacity. The assumed capacity for a corridor is 800- 1000 vehicles per hour. Commissioner Bowman inquired how the modeling was done, noting that the measurements were taken before traffic circles were installed. She asked if intersection treatments have an impact on the capacity. Mr. Pascal said that the level of service was measured on both a corridor and intersection basis. Mr. Sepler said that intersections were assessed with both signals and round-abouts, and no substantial functional difference was seen between them. From the level of service, a list of projects was developed, i.e. capital needs. There are intersection projects, arterial and collector improvements including sidewalks, turn lanes etc, and non-motorized improvements (outside the travel lanes). There was discussion about the linkage between the non-motorized plan, the City design standards and this project plan. Mr. Pascal mentioned that the more significant improvements in the arterial street plan included Upper Sims Way intersections, Kearney Street, Discovery Road, and at Mill Road. He pointed out the cost summarization and the fact that 57% of the total $60,000,000 goes to Arterial/Collector improvements. He also noted that much of the future delays are intersection related. About 15% of the total program is directed there. In response to a question, he said that the cost estimates may be high compared to the present time by as much as 20% since they were made prior to the economic slowdown. It was also noted that the estimates are for full project cost, but do not include debt service arrangements. Commissioner Fry inquired about the Right of Way Preservation code. Mr. Sepler said that for any sub-division in the developable area there must be a through street which can serve as a building block for the next piece. This is part of the policy/design; no acquisition is required. Mr. Clow said that many of the areas have been platted for many years and there are existing rights of way. This plan identifies where the main corridors into and out of developing areas will be. Mr. Ray pointed out that the time line (slide 3) is not entirely accurate in that City Council has already been working on the funding plan for some time and funding continues to be a concurrent process. Mr. Heckscher mentioned the right of way preservation corridor at Hendricks Street, noting it is partially implemented up the hill from 49`" Street:; Hendricks St. was not opened as a street, but was graveled and widened for emergency access. Mr. Clow said it is a secondary access out, and actually goes back to the older Lynnfield development. Mr. Pascal said the plan confirmed that there would be no more major corridors needed in that area in the future. Slide 16 shows the list of existing and potential funding sources identified. Mr. Pascal said that most of the existing funds come from the motor vehicle fuel taxes, and that the City has been successful in obtaining federal and state grants, as well. Mr. Clow also explained that street vacation compensation dollars (from the gaining property owners) are applied in acquiring new property for transportation right of way purposes. In Page 3 of 8 response to a question, he said that the City began tracking that money in a special account about 6 or 8 years ago. Other State sources are Transportation Impact fees (TIF), Local Improvement Districts (LIDs), and Transportation Benefit Districts. With LIDs, it must be shown that property owners receive a benefit from the planned improvements, which is much more challenging in a slow economic period. A Transportation Benefit District is a separate entity from which specified tax revenue (such as a $20 vehicle fee) are designated for transportation improvement. Mr. Pascal said that the State legislature expects local jurisdictions to utilize this type of mechanism to at least partially fund transportation improvements/maintenance. One of the tasks undertaken by TranspoGroup was to develop a draft TIF program that the City Council could choose to implement. One of the applicable growth related projects was Discovery Road; that draft TIF is included in the Appendices of the Transportation Plan. As shown in slide 17, the jurisdictions most successful in getting their transportation needs met are those that use a variety of means. Mr. Pascal said that concurrency is a requirement in GMA; that has now been defined and shown how it is measured. A Concurrency Management Plan is included as Appendix F. Mr. Pascal also discussed the roadway infrastructure conditions and maintenance shortfall. Photographs of existing asphalt and chip seal roads in varying states of repair are included in the presentation. The Transportation Plan includes tables showing the status and condition of existing roadway infrastructure. A pavement lifecycle graph shows how repair costs and cumulative life cycle costs rise if roads are allowed to degrade too far. Mr. Pascal pointed out that maintenance strategies and standards are different for arterials, collectors and local streets. Mr. Ray and Mr. Clow noted that there are many other factors affecting road life that must be managed including storm water, traffic speed/routing, vehicle weight, parking, etc. In response to a question, Mr. Pascal said that cities typically use an index called Pavement Condition Index (PC>) ranging from 0-100. Most cities are in the 70 range. Port Townsend has not been formally rated. However, 13% are new; 37% are good; 37% are poor; and 13% failed, which is not beyond the norm. He said that other cities are shifting emphasis to arterials and connectors to ensure that the major routes are well maintained. It was noted that hybrid cars with heavy batteries and narrower tires are an added road degradation factor. Mr. Pascal said that the majority of failed streets are local streets but there are a few collectors, such as portions of San Juan. In closing, Mr. Pascal noted that the total 2009 street fund revenues of $590,000 were all spent on Maintenance and Operations (potholes, signs, striping, snow removal, sweeping, etc.). He said the next steps would be for City Council to adopt the plan and then adopt a revised concurrency ordinance. Ms. Mick-Hager complemented TransGroup on the clarity of the Transportation Plan document. Ms. Bowman inquired about cross-referencing to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sepler said that the staff report will include a list of applicable items. Ms. Mick-Hager noted that the Plan sections relating to Jefferson Transit and School Transportation seemed out of date. Mr. Clow said that both of those sections had been changed to make them more generic and to reflect the closure of Mountain View. He said there have been shifts in Mountain View traffic on specific days/times but overall it seems relatively unchanged. Page 4 of 8 After a brief discussion, Commissioners agreed that there was no need for an additional workshop, and the public hearing could be scheduled. The staff report will be distributed in advance. Mr. Sepler said there would also be copies of the Goals and Policies of the Comp Plan and the applicable transportation excerpt. He advised Commissioners to ignore the CIP portion, which is not the current version of the five year plan. VII. OLD BUSINESS Workshop: Maximum Residential Building Size -Rick Sepler, DSD/ Planning Director Mr. Sepler recalled that City Council had asked the Planning Commission to review its prior discussions dealing with the maximum size of single family homes. It was suggested that a fuller discussion might identify other issues that had not been fully considered. He provided copies of a memorandum to City Council dated July 12, 2010 (EXH 2). Currently, there is no regulation established that would limit the size of a home in relationship to the size of a lot or multiple lots. That issue, based on both environmental and neighborhood character considerations, had been discussed previously by the Ad hoc committee, the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Sepler invited City Councilor Randels to comment and provide his personal perspective. Mr. Randels said that he had been a member of the Ad Hoc Committee and had been involved in this issue since the outset. He said that the solutions that had been proposed with regard to existing neighborhoods, including application of daylight plane concepts, should be satisfactory there. However, he expressed the need to protect neighborhoods yet to come and into the far future. He said he wished to explain why this issue had become so important in his view. Mr. Randels described his experience in the Washington D. C. area (Northern Virginia, Leesburg, Loudoun County) where population grew from 40,000 to over 300,000 from 1980 to the present. He mentioned the building of McMansions as well as many hundreds of acres of 1.5 story look-alike housing. He said that he did not wish to see anything similar happen in Port Townsend. In addition, he said that he had also seen an example of a 60,000 square foot house being built in a northwest Washington D. C. location that overwhelmed and literally destroyed the character of the surrounding homes/neighborhood. Mr. Randels pointed out that such homes are often not efficient in terms of taxes; the same land could support a greater number of smaller houses and generate more tax revenue. He added that proliferation of large houses will also likely delay desired neighborhood commercial development since there is lower density per square mile to support that business. He urged the Planning Commission to discuss the issue, using Mr. Sepler's staff memo as a starting point. Mr. Fry inquired why Mr. Randels did not believe the daylight plane requirements were adequate. Mr. Randels said that for undeveloped areas of town, daylight plane is irrelevant to limiting structure size. It has an influence only where one is attempting to fit anew home into an existing neighborhood where adjacent lots/houses are situated. He Page 5 of 8 expressed concern that a certain density is necessary for a city or town; very large houses, which require multiple lots, affect that desired density negatively. This eventuality runs counter to the planned zoned density that was intended. A brief discussion ensued regarding a particular example in Port Townsend. Chair Ray asked if Mr. Randels had an elegant solution in mind. Mr. Randels said that there were several possible ideas incorporated in Mr. Sepler's memo. He said that the departure technique had been shown to be effective in some cases. He also mentioned the conditional use process. He mentioned the possibility of a regulation that limits the number of aggregated lots, consistent with the particular zoning district. He said that the approach taken in the interim ordinance, an outright maximum, may not be a perfect, long term solution, but would be preferable to having nothing at all. Mr. Sepler provided a brief description of form-based code, which is less concerned with use than with proscriptive standards for appearance, look, scale and character. He said it tends to work well for commercial corridors and multi-family areas, and has also been used for single family homes in some jurisdictions. It is a graphic and text code; models from other communities are available. Ms. Bowman said that such concepts would seem to apply with regard to the large home issues. She asked if it would be possible to build homes that are large but that would fit in Port Townsend, and how that would best be codified. She also asked how and when this issue had first arisen for consideration, and was given a brief history by Mr. Ray and Mr. Randels. Mr. Randels said that his concern was urban design, not house design, and neighborhood character and walkability. Ms. Bowman said that she would like to hear a comparison of the benefits and the concerns. Only one benefit was noted -the presence of wealthier people in the community. Mr. Randels said that he would expect considerable push back to a form-based approach. There was discussion about several of the possibilities mentioned above. Mr. Sepler noted that the more egregious situations are those where houses are insensitive to the site, those that have significant change or difference from existing adjacent structures, and those that are disproportionate in size and closer to the street. He also recapped some of the techniques in the staff memo: floor to area ratio; a maximum building envelope; clear design guidelines, rather than design review for every new home; energy efficiency requirements; and zoning minimum density, particularly R-II. There was also a brief discussion about the application of setback requirements, particularly in R-II and for multiple lot properties. Chair Ray spoke in favor of a balanced approach that respects the desire of property owners to build their "dream homes" yet heads off development that is not in the interest of the overall community. He wishes to be open to the whole range of ideas that can achieve the desired end. It was also noted that for the foreseeable future, the economic climate has reduced the threat of "McMansions" and that it may be 15-20 years before there is a return to the large house trend. Mr. Randels suggested that in addition to some combination of the ideas above that there be some form of maximum limit, with a safety valve such as a departure process. Ms. Mick-Hager suggested the possibility of placing a limit only on what is above ground. Mr. Sepler again reminded that there must be complete clarity about the intent of any regulations and conditions. Page 6 of 8 Mr. Randels thanked Commissioners for the discussion and left the meeting at 8:25 PM. Mr. Emery said he would like to consider both what constitutes a single family dwelling and the trend toward multi-generational dwellings due to economic forces. He also noted the existence of many retirees who would like to live more communally, i.e. in a co- housing arrangement. There was further discussion about the need to maintain perspective, to consider the needs of the entire community, to avoid overestimating the threat of very large single family dwellings, and to be open to evolving needs and solutions. Chair Ray said he had welcomed the opportunity to review these issues again, and that he would like the Planning Commission to be in the position of having heard all perspectives before making a recommendation. Mr. Sepler suggested that Commissioners continue the discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Emery said he would like further follow up on the Green Energy factors. Mr. Fry summarized what he had seen in Folsom, California -development of many very large homes laid out side by side with little variation. However, he said he doubted we would see something similar in Port Townsend, and that the trend is to smaller homes. In response to a question about trends, Mr. Sepler said that building permits are way down, there is a great deal of unsold housing stock, and that although there is some more activity of late, he believes rates of growth development seen in the peak years may never return. He said the first wave of recovery will be seen when those who wish to move here are able to sell their homes in other states/locations. So he believes there is time to think through the issues and address them, if so decided by the Planning Commission. He said that in his experience it is easier to implement a rule that has been on the books, than the need to communicate and implement changes quickly. Mr. Ray spoke in favor of a provision that is clear, responsible, and easy to implement and enforce. Mr. Sepler said that he would provide copies of the City Council motion directing this issue to the Planning Commission. There was further discussion about the undeveloped R-II areas, walkability, and the fact that the development regulations now favor large home development by way of lesser infrastructure requirements. However, it was pointed out that large homes have less infrastructure demands because of people, fewer cars, etc. The rules for sewer tie-in were reviewed; Mr. Sepler explained that this is based on distance from the nearest main, not size of home. Mr. Emery also pointed out that limiting house size limits environmental impact, but not if that larger house is built elsewhere, i.e. outside the City, anyway. Mr. Ray added that would also mean lost revenue for the City. He spoke in favor of working with prospective home builders/owners to achieve win/win situations. Mr. Heckscher asked where the goal of more affordable housing fits into this discussion. Mr. Sepler indicated that attempts elsewhere to link affordable housing provisions to builders of very large houses were not successful. Ms. Bowman asked what other communities have done. She was told that they regulated bulk and scale, and used design review as well Mr. Sepler suggested again that the Planning Commission clearly define the intent and what they hope to see as an end product, so that staff can draft an ordinance based on those intentions. Page 7 of 8 VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 28, 2010 -Planning Commission Meeting Cancelled; Planning Commissioners are invited to attend the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting at the Court House, BOCC Chambers. The meeting will begin at 6:30 PM. November 4, 2010 -Public Hearing on the Transportation Functional Plan followed by Workshop: Upper Sims/Howard Street Corridor, Form-based codes (Regular meeting on November 11 is cancelled due to holiday.) November 18, 2010 - To be announced (Regular meeting on November 25 is cancelled due to holiday.) IX. COMMUNICATIONS -None X. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved for adjournment; Mr. Fry seconded. Chair Ray adjourned the meeting at 8:54 PM. Julian Ray, Chair Gail Bernhard, Recorder Page 8 of 8