Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021011CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF FEBRUARY 10, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session the 10th day of February 2011 in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, Chair Julian Ray presiding. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners present at roll call were Gee Hecksher, Jerauld Fry, Steven Emery, Julian Ray, Monica Mick - Hager, and Sarah Bowman. Staff members present were Development Services Director Rick Sepler, and Deputy City Clerk Joanna Sanders. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve acceptance of Agenda. Jerauld Fry seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6 -0 by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve Minutes of November 4, 2010 and January 13, 2011. Jerauld Fry seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6 -0 by voice vote. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON - FOR ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA) No public comments were made. NEW BUSINESS Election of Chair and Vice -Chair Mr. Ray explained the need to redo the election of officers. At the last meeting, two commissioners had not yet been reappointed by Council. Therefore, the Commission felt it prudent to reaffirm its decision. Motion: Steven Emery moved to approve re- electing Julian Ray as Planning Commission Chair and re- electing Jerauld Fry as Vice Chair. Gee Hecksher seconded. Vote: motion carried, 5 -1 by voice vote, Monica Mick -Hager opposed. Planning Commission Meeting February 10, 2011 Page 1 of 5 OLD BUSINESS Proposed Land Use Approach for the Howard Street Corridor and Upper Sims Way - (Rick Sepler, DSD /Planning Director) Rick Sepler reviewed the draft zoning regulations for the Howard Street Corridor and explained that during the last meeting questions were raised regarding: 1) the extent of the zoning in terms of whether or not to include Upper Sims Way; and 2) if Upper Sims Way is included, whether relaxation of the formula store ordinance is appropriate. Previously, the Commission agreed to review the existing uses. At this time the Commission is being asked for input and to provide general direction on specific sections of the regulations in order for staff to prepare a final version for review at the next meeting. There was consensus that the draft form -based overlay standard regulations are a positive and thoughtful approach. Mr. Sepler reviewed some recent developments (parking) and the upcoming selection of the design consultant for extending Howard Street to Discovery Road. Comments were made that the same development standards should not be applied to both Howard Street and Upper Sims Way in order to accommodate a variety of retail businesses. The development of Howard Street is going to be a more sanitized and organized development compared to Upper Sims Way. It is important that the Commission consider both new and existing structures in the development design and application of the proposed development guidelines. It was noted that the intent is not to legislate existing structures. These regulations would only pertain to new construction and there are still many locations along Sims Way where new construction could occur. Mr. Sepler discussed the buildings along Upper Sims Way and the variations in how they are situated on each lot which has transitioned over time. Howard Street is not as long as Upper Sims Way and the development design for Howard Street does not consist of a continuous street wall. Discussion ensued regarding the process for creating individual lots through a binding site plan which is preferred over the subdivision process because they can prescribe the building footprint. Mr. Sepler discussed funding options which include the possibility of creating an LID, or the City installing the infrastructure with latecomer agreements for sewer and water improvements. When the Real Estate market is high, an Planning Commission Meeting February 10, 2011 Page 2 of 5 LID is practical. However, this option does not work well during a flat Real Estate market when property is not selling. An alternative is to use utility funds, while looking for TIB funds and then accomplish incremental development over time. If the basic infrastructure were provided, then some property owners might develop. The second option allows for property owners to pay for the improvements at the time of development. In response to a question about the intent of serving pedestrian and nonmotorized access, Mr. Sepler explained that the development design could incorporate shorter block lengths for walkability which would also give the perception of being more manageable versus longer block lengths. Challenges include figuring out how to work with existing platted blocks. He presented a handout showing a design guideline using mid -block pedestrian connectors as a possible solution. If this design guideline is used, it must be artfully designed to keep it aestheically pleasing and prevent it from becoming an alley with garbage cans, etc. This space will be a public access easement. The Commission discussed examples of mid -block pedestrian connectors and covered walkways in other areas. In connecting the vision with the language, and determining whether or not this is the right approach, Mr. Sepler stated that landscaping is happening between the lots anyway unti the lots are developed, so why not build landscaping into the design guidelines. Discussion then turned to parking requirements for future businesses along Howard Street. Mr. Sepler explained the design guidelines require buildings be constructed right up to the property line along the street and he provided examples around the City. Parking would be located at the back of the building and accessed from the side street. Mid -block pedestrian connectors or covered passageways could be used as access to the rear parking area thereby making a rear entrance to a business unnecessary and allowing the use of back of the building for deliveries only. Mr. Sepler expressed his concern about the commercial lots along Howard Street which abut residential property and how best to address parking, storage and access without creating a barrier. There was discussion of the lack of design features on the back of buildings and how to mitigate impacts or effect a transition with the use of fencing, landscaping, alleys, etc. After discussing fire access, Mr. Sepler agreed to do a site section on how to transition design features and include required items for follow -up discussion. He will also look at arcades, walkways and pedestrian connectors and review circumstances where they might not work. Mr. Sepler highlighted some main policy decision points to get agreement and direction. He asked the Commission to review the design guidelines as Planning Commission Meeting February 10, 2011 Page 3 of 5 they relate to the section on "Applicability" (page 2, line 7). He also pointed out the section relating to "Formula Retail and Restaurant Establishments" (page 2, line 22) and confirmed that there would be a modified rule /use table based on applicability to this overlay district. The following items were reviewed by Mr. Sepler for follow -up: 1) departures /variances will be subject to approval to allow for creative solutions while insuring the intent of the chapter is met; 2) check on the edge of commercial (95% may not work entirely); 3) talk more about access to driveways and rear alleys; review arcades, walkways and pedestrian connectors; 4) review site section relating to back side of commercial /apartments; and 5) review commercial prohibited uses (pages 4 & 5) and apartment subdistrict prohibited uses (page 7). He will fix inconsistencies on height and he noted that planned unit developments also need to be added to the list of prohibited uses. The Commission was then asked to review the zoning map to determine where to put a common wall. There was a question about the maximum building size and a request for clarification of section 4(a) Screening and Landscaping on page 4 lines 16 - 18 where it states 'Parking facilities adjacent to the right -of -way shall be screened with a combination of landscaping and fencing ..." Mr. Sepler replied the maximum building size is 60,000 sq. feet. The types of landscaping and fencing can be further clarified in the standards, but the intent is to largely obscure the view of parking facilities. He stated a graphic could be created showing a screening example. Mr. Sepler will also be preparing a full section drawing of Howard Street and the commercial blocks including apartments and the backside views. Discussion then turned to Upper Sims Way, the 'rooms" approach and consideration of the Gateway Plan. Mr. Sepler reviewed the guidelines for development under the current code. There will be further input at a future meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS A brief discussion ensued regarding the economic benefit and challenges of bringing broadband or a wireless distribution system to the City. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 24, 2011. Items scheduled for discussion at the next meeting include the Nonmotorized Transportation Plan Supplement and the 2011 Work Plan. COMMUNICATIONS No items were presented. Planning Commission Meeting February 10, 2011 Page 4 of 5 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Attest: Planning Commission Chair L City Clerk's Office Planning Commission Meeting February 10, 2011 Page 5 of 5