Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09241998 Min Ag . '. . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Workshop Meeting September 24, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 10, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Staff Presentation (Bruce Freeland) 2. Commission Discussion V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 1, 1998 October 8, 1998 October 15, 1998 October 29, 1998 Parks & Recreational Plan, Workshop 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Public Hearing Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC Parks & Recreational Plan, Public Hearing VII. ADJOURN ! . . . I ;.... .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Workshop September 24, 1998 I. ROLL CALL Ms. Lois Sherwood arrived at 7: 15 p.m. Chair Thayer then declared there was a quorum and called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, and Nik Worden. John Boles and Craig Johnson were excused Staff member present was Bruce Freeland. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of September 10, 1998 as written was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail ~ Craig Johnson letter of resignation effective October 16, 1998 -- Ms. Thayer had discussion with Mr. Johnson, and he agreed to participate in any possible continuation of the October 15, 1998 Comp Plan deliberations. ~ Memorandum from the Port Townsend Historic Preservation Committee dated September 24, 1998 ~ Letter dated September 23, 1998 from David Fischer & Malcolm Dom ~ Letter dated September 21, 1998 from Dr. Phyl Speser ~ Modified Language Addressing Dr. Speser's September 21, 1998 Letter ~ Memorandum dated September 23, 1998 from Jefferson County Historical Society Board of Trustees ~ Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of October 1, 1998 ~ Comparison of Proposals to Allow Businesses in Residential Zones IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chair Thayer noted this is a workshop meeting. She welcomed the Public, informing them there would be no public testimony received at this workshop. 1. Staff Presentation (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland said the objective of this meeting is to make sure they have a draft ready for Copied to O~ I () /~.:? nilJ J , . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 2 public hearing. He discussed the order of material to be consider for the comprehensive plan: 1) Comp Plan changes that do not require an associated change in the zoning code; 2) Comp Plan changes that do require a change in the zoning code; and 3) Site specific maps. The first two will be discussed tonight. 2. Commission Discussion Chair Thayer questioned the hearing process, saying she assumed they wanted to have testimony on each item separately and come back on October 15th to deliberate. Mr. Freeland suggested they handle the October 8th hearing in two portions because of the difference in the legislative and the quasi-judicial aspects. He suggested having one hearing on all of the purely legislative policy together at once. All of the quasi-judicial would then be heard as a separate hearing on each idea. He also suggested if there is not enough time to complete the work, that it be continued to another night not on the present schedule. Mr. Freeland said in order to get through City Council by the middle of November, which is the date in the city code, they need to be able to make recommendations by approximately October 15th. CONSENSUS: Hold hearings on October 8th, and proceed with deliberations that same night as time permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES NOT REOUIRlNG ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE Mr. Freeland said he took language already agreed to in this section and put it into context of how it will appear in the final Comp Plan. Ms. Erickson asked regarding the request from the Port for a sea plane. Mr. Freeland said that had not made the docket. Mr. Freeland indicated he hadn't planned discussion, that he thought this first set is in good form, but he wanted the Commission to see it and see if it is still on track. ~ Land Use Element; Capital Facilities & Utilities Element; and Economic Development Element -- There were no changes ~ Transj>Ortation Element -- Ms. Thayer: Chan&e, Page VI-2710.2 e.(I): Do not eliminate "is" -- to read: "The use of street utility funds is . . . ." CONSENSUS: Make the one change as above, and leave the rest as it is. " . . . , . . Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 3 PROPOSALS TQ AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE Mr. Freeland explained this set has zoning code and/or zoning map changes attached to them. He said it starts with the CII/MU proposals, and that he gave the Planning Commission an alternative, Option A and Option B. He indicated in each case they are in the context of the Zoning Code, that all of the changes that appeared to be needed were to zoning rather than the Comprehensive Plan. He said there are two ideas in each draft: 1) what should be the policy on whether housing is required, an option or incentive; 2) what should the list of uses be. Mr. Freeland said matching the list of uses with the housing piece was completely arbitrary, that there is nothing at all that says the uses listed in the use table in Option A are in any way logically related to the way you handle the housing; that set of uses could just as easily be applied to Option B or vice versa. He said there is a mix and match component to this; you could even decide you wanted all of the uses that are in A plus all of the uses that are in B, if you thought those were all10gical. He said they are not mutually exclusive, and they are not in any way necessarily tied. He went on to say the Bulk and Dimension Table is unique; that is where some of the differences in the housing treatment occurs. Mr. Worden asked if Mr. Freeland is claiming at this point that none of what they are proposing here as a zoning change conflicts with any of the policy or goal statements in the Plan? Mr. Freeland replied that he had re-read it, and regarding housing, there is nothing in the Plan that tells you what the uses should be, other than that they should be uses that make sense in an environment that would have housing and commercial. Mr. Freeland said there are no specific ideas on what the uses are; the question of housing, the Land Use policy, in the Land Use Element that describes the community serving mixed use centers, simply says it is a zone that should accommodate high density housing. There is no language that is directive as to whether or not it is mandated. He said his reading was that if you wanted it to be something other than mandated that there be housing, there is nothing in the current language that says it should be and he thinks they are free to make these changes without amending the Plan. Chair Thayer asked if it might be better for Option A and Option B to include all the same uses and then as they deliberate, go through and decide what may not work. Mr. Freeland explained the differences in uses in Option A and Option B. Option A -- uses that were missing that seemed in Mr. Freeland;s mind compatible with the residential environment. I , , · · · . Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 4 In Option A, he looked at uses that were allowed in the CII zone and asked himself, "What is wrong with this use in an environment that would have a lot of housing?" He said, for instance art galleries are not included in the CII/MU, and he could not think of any reasons why that was incompatible with a neighborhood having housing and commercial use. Option B - the list to use if you wanted CIIIMU without making any current use non- conforming. In Option B, he said he went out and looked at all the existing business in CII/MU, made a list of them and asked himself, "What would these be called under the Zoning Code?" A lot of them were professional offices, some were specialty stores, a bowling alley. He then amended the use table to include those categories of land use that are currently missing from the CII/MU, that if put in the CII/MU would have the effect of making the existing uses permitted, fully conforming uses as opposed to non'-conforming uses. Chair Thayer asked if they want to include the same list for both, after hearing his reasoning? CONSENSUS: Include the same use list for both Option A and Option B. Option A - CII/MU Proposal Mr. Freeland said the really complicated thing was how to handle the Bulk and Dimension Table, in Option A, on pages 6 and 7. He said Option A was the one where they said it would become a choice, simply a permitted use, not a required mandated use. Changes in the Bulk and Dimension Table: 1. The minimum ground floor nonresidential building frontage along abutting public R-O-Ws (except as provided in § 17.18.020 (C)PTMC) -- indicating that at least 70% of the building frontage had to be commercial. The minimum building frontage has to do with the placement of the building on the lot; a certain amount of the building has to be abutting a public right-of-way, so the building has to be set up next to the street. That is unchanged-- still creating a kind of urban environment where the buildings are set up near the street. 2. How much of the ground floor frontage that was required to be along the street must be non- residential? (Implying that you couldn't have less than 70% of the street frontage in a commercial use. It is trying to put the commercial use on the bottom, out in front. That needed to be changed since we are saying we are no longer requiring a mix of any sort. The street frontage could be either all residential or all commercial.) 3. Floor area ratio -- (has a choice). As Mr. Worden has pointed out, we have large buildings with 3 to 1 floor area ratio (FAR). That FAR was there because it was presuming you were having housing above the stores. Under the current configuration, since you have to have both commercial and housing, you couldn't build three times the site area with all commercial development. We needed to somehow reduce the amount of commercial you '. , , · · · " Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 5 could have, just on its own without housing. The question then, what should that limitation be? Mr. Freeland said he assumed they were talking about ground floor commercial with housing above. If they allowed 1 square foot of gross floor area of commercial use for each square foot of lot area, that would enable you to completely cover the lot with commercial use. He said he assumed maybe that would be what you could do if you had all commercial. If you did have housing above, you would then be able to still build the size building as under the current MU. There is nothing inherently magical about that; you could also have said it was a 2 to 1 for an all commercial building, which would make it the same as the CII zone and maybe a better choice. Mr. Worden suggested you may have two stories of commercial, even with 1 to 1, because of the parking requirements, set backs, etc.; it is quite possible it would be a two-story building. He said he thinks from a developer's standpoint a 1 to 1 is probably as much as they would be likely to do, since it is mostly retail oriented. Mr. Freeland interjected that it might be offices above commercial. Mr. Worden agreed. He said what he likes is the incentive for doing residential is substantial; you can do three times the building if you include residential. Ms. Erickson questioned the 45' height -- you don't stipulate with residential; you could have a 1 to 1 and a lot of parking with a commercial building. She said that height definitely supersedes what you can do in a CII zone. She asked if it goes only commercial, should it be at least the minimum of a CII zone, a 35' height outside the Historic District which would allow a three-story commercial building? Within the RII zone right next door, it is only a 30' height limit. CONSENSUS: State under maximum height: "If only commercial development - a maximum of 35'." Mr. Worden questioned the minimum building frontage requirement. He said it seems like a detailed design issue and is not sure the Zoning Code should address it. Mr. Freeland agreed it is a design issue. The drafters' idea when it was written was to move to a more urban rather than suburban development pattern, with Aldrichs in mind as their model -- something where the store is built right up next to the sidewalk and has a strong community presence, He said without that you are more likely to have something that is set back with parking between the building and the street; he thought it was considered to be a pretty strong design feature that was wanted for the character it would produce. Mr, Worden said his thought is there are design options that would allow you to do a court like arrangement, that you could have a lot of retail space that opened either onto a private street, or to a pedestrian space. He said he does not think they would want to preclude that. Answering Mr. Freeland's question if they wanted to remove it, Mr. Worden said he did like the notion of preventing the paradigm of the street/parking lot building and thinks it is fair to do that. Mr. Freeland said 70% would allow you to have 30% of the front that could be cut out into a court or something. Mr. Worden suggested that buildings fronting up to Kearney Street are not going to be very good business spaces. There is no place to stop; you are going to have to drive , . . . , Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 6 around behind the building, park and walk around to the front to come in, and it doesn't make much sense. Mr. Freeland said this rule is envisioning a very different future. Mr. Worden said it doesn't sound like an arterial they are talking about, if you want to put stores right up to the sidewalk on the street front. Mr. Freeland said he is sure the property owners would like rules that are more like the cn zone. Ms. Erickson it would allow for more creativity; once you put stipulations on it, it is pretty much cut and dried what it is going to look like. CONSENSUS: Remove minimum building frontage. Ms. Erickson questioned if the 60,000 sf maximum might be something else they want to look at? If it is all commercial, you have 100% or 1 to 1 sq ft usage up to 35' she was trying to envision a 60,000 sf building in some of the CII/MU. Mr. Freeland said it could happen out on Discovery where you have large, completely undeveloped parcels that are in the CII/MU zone; you could get a building that size. Mr. Freeland said in ClI, maximum building size is 75,000 sf There is a subtle difference -- commercial floor space within a structure; if you have housing, the size of this structure could actually be quite large. 4. Eliminate minimum housing density. Chair Thayer requested that John Boles be able to listen to the audio tape of tonight's meeting. Option B - CIIIMU Proposal Mr. Freeland explained the complicated rule in the Bulk and Dimension tables, pages 6 and 7, and said the main change is to the maximum floor area ratio. He said the idea was that you want to have an incentive for people to build houses; his starting point was wanting to have less commercial development by right than people might really want. If you can get all the commercial you want, where is your incentive to put housing? He noted that in a way Option A has an incentive in that you can get a bigger overall building, but in order to get it you have to go to structured parking, underground parking, maybe a steel building -- a very expensive project, to reach the full FARs. He said it seems that what you have in Port Townsend is people building parking at grade, and when you build parking at grade it is very difficult to get a building that is bigger than a .3 or .35 floor area ratio. Zoning provides for much bigger and more intense buildings. He said he thinks as land value goes higher, the day will come when people might be willing to actually utilize those high floor ratios, but for the foreseeable future, if people build .3 FAR commercial, that is probably full development on that site. He felt he needed to come up with a smaller FAR as the base, and as housing is added it could be higher; he said he somewhat arbitrarily established a base for all commercial FAR.2 sq ft of building for every 1 sq ft oflot. He said he actually considered 0.1. If you really want to give an incentive, take a 5,000 sq ft lot, 0.1 would only let you put up a 500 sq ft commercial building; 0.2 would let you put up a 1,000 -. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 7 sq ft commercial building. Somebody could probably use a 1,000 sq ft commercial building, but, other than latte stands, it would be a stretch to use a 500 sq ft building. He said in trying ditTerent ratios it got complicated, and he came back to a .2 FAR for an all commercial building. For every square foot of housing you add, you can add an additional square foot of commercial, and then you can work your way back to the full 3 to 1 FAR, which someone really might use, maybe 10 or more years in the future. He said this is very complicated, and maybe there is a better way to do it. Mr. Worden said he thinks the spirit of that is right, though he is having a hard time grasping the numbers and figuring out whether or not it is in the right ball park. He asked if the .3 is what is typically built now in cn zones? Mr. Freeland answered that there are different parking ratios for retail as opposed to office, and that depending on the use and how much parking is required to support the use, you might have buildings in a range of.3 to .35. Mr. Worden asked regarding limitations on site use in a cn zone, and Mr. Freeland answered that they are parking, and landscaping requirements in the parking code, but, basically, you can cover the lot. Mr. Worden indicated he thinks it is a very good suggestion, that he likes it. Mr. Freeland said what he does not like about it is how difficult it is going to be to explain it to people over the counter. Ms. Erickson asked if you have residential that is 40,000 sq ft, what would the commercial be? Mr. Freeland replied it would be an 8,000 sq ft building tòr a 40,000 sq ft lot. You start off with building an 8,000 sq ft commercial building on the site, and if you add a dwelling unit that is 1,000 sq ft, you could have an additional 1 ,000 sq ft of commercial; it is a 1 for 1 commercial bonus fòr every square foot of residential. Mr. Worden suggested, to make it easier to understand you might state that you have a basic entitlement of.2 per sq ft oflot area, and that may be increased by 1 sq ft for each sq ft of residential that is added, with a maximum limit. You set the base line. Ms. Erickson suggested they picture an example and expand that to explain it to the public. Ms. Thayer suggested that with a 10,000 sq ft lot, 100' x 100', you could build 2,000 sq ft commercial. CONSENSUS: The same corrections be made to Option B as to Option A. Mr. Freeland said with Ms. Erickson's concern regarding 60,000 sq ft, he could put in a note, "or such other size as the Commission deems appropriate." He suggested that with things going to the public, it might it might be better to err on the side of showing a change that people can come in anQ. see in the file. The public would know there is consideration of a change. Mr. Freeland noted the following three that had to do with business uses in residential zones and referred to the Comparison of Proposals to Allow Businesses in Residential Zones he · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 8 presented tonight. He also referred to letters of response from the Speser proposal and the Fischer/Dorn Proposal, but said he had not received anything on the Arthur Proposal. He pointed out during their last discussion, it was debated what the point of departure should be for drafting these; should they be drafting something that is the way they would want to invent this idea, or should it be drafted to reflect what the applicants wanted? He said the more he thought about it, the more he thought they ought to reflect something the applicants want. He said the choices open to the Planning Commission after the hearing are to accept, reject or modify. He suggested they modify the drafts presented as much as possible to reflect what the applicants are asking to have heard. C. Speser Proposal Mr. Freeland referred to the document Modified Language Addressing Dr. Speser's September 21, 1998 Letter. He said from Dr. Speser's letter he tried to figure out how you would modify the wording which resulted in this document. Chan~es shown as a result of Dr. Speser's letter: ~ PTMC CHAPTER 17.08 Definitions -- Language changed in reference to their business being a "think tank." ~ PTMC CHAPTER 17. 16.020F -- #2. Removed the requirement that the owner should reside on the premises. ~ PTMC CHAPTER 17. 16.020F -- #10 Hours. Per Dr. Speser's suggestion, added the clause, "Except on rare occasions". Mr. Freeland said he has a lot of difficulty with #10 and #12 from the point of view of having to enforce. He said he literally took the language Dr. Speser suggested; the second choice would be to strike the hours. CONSENSUS: Leave as it is written, "Except on rare occasions" in #10 a~d #12. ~ PTMC CHAPTER 17. 16.020F -- #12 Delivery. Per Dr. Speser's suggestion, added the clause, "Except on rare occasions". Mr. Freeland said in Dr. Speser's letter, it talks about truck deliveries. .. "common to a residential dwelling". Mr. Freeland said that it is common to move in and move out. There are two ideas -- the hours for materials, goods and commodities during the week days; and materials, goods and commodities. It was suggested to leave it as written with the expectation that Dr. Speser would be present to testify if there is something different. CONSENSUS: Leave #12 as it is written. ~ PTMC CHAPTER 17. 16.020F -- #14 On-site parking. Originally written, 14.a. ". . .ten foot landscape screen. . .", and 14.c. "Solid fencing to prevent headlight glare from spilling. . ." The letter suggests you don't need both, and it to specify how many feet oflandscape screen. CONSENSUS: #14 O.K. as written. ,'... . . · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 9 ~ PTMC CHAPTER 17.16.020 -- Accessory dwelling units. Mr. Freeland said he had to make an editorial change to the caption of 17.16.020 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses, as it deals with several subjects under the caption. D. Arthur Proposal Mr. Freeland said they did not receive any communication from Bernie Arthur. The idea was to only make the change to the uptown RIll district -- RIII(U) accomplishes that. Changes to the COIn¡> Plan designating Rill(ut ~ List RIII(U) in the Land Use Element; ~ Add description of the Rill(U) - Uptown Residential and Mixed Use District to the section, A Description ofthe Land Use Designations and attached map. (Same areas zoned RIll in and around uptown.) ~ Add as Policy 7:14.d. Changes to the Zoning Code designating R-lli(U): ~ Add description ofthe RIII(U) - Uptown Residential and Mixed Use District to Chapter 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts. Other changes: ~ Small Scale Businesses -- is much as Dr. Speser proposal but changed to (6) workers. ~ Use table -- expanded uses. Should be the same as for Dr. Speser; CONSENSUS: Add Think Tanks. Mr. Freeland said that a difference from the last meeting was the owner living on the premises, and asked if he should show on the Comparison chart the Speser Proposal Yes, and the Arthur Proposal No. CONSENSUS: Change Comparison Chart - Yes for Speser Proposal; No for Arthur Proposal. Mr. Worden asked where it says about allowing business in a newly constructed building on a vacant lot? Mr. Freeland said they need to address that more; it is implied rather than stated boldly. He said what the rules end up saying is that you can't be bigger than the building that preceded you, so if there is no building there, there is no square tòotage allowed. The way it is written, it is a logical impossibility that it could be new construction. CONSENSUS: Include, "It must be in an existing building and. . ." · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 10 E. FischerIDorn Proposal Mr. Freeland referred to the Fischer/Dorn letter stating they specifically proposed the amendments they would like to see. Mr. Freeland proposed using all their suggestions, but indicated there is an additional change that will be needed beyond their recommendations. Fischer/Dorn want to go to a performance based system. Mr. Freeland said he thinks they are saying that any business that can meet those limitations, starting on page 5, is allowed. If that is the case, he said he needs to add language to that effect and take the additional specific uses of the language out of the Land Use Table, because it is no longer that approach. CONSENSUS: Use FischerIDorn proposal; proceed with issues regarding performance criteria. F. Å&riculture Proposal Mr. Freeland indicated that last time they said the existing RI zone really was an agriculture zone. He proposed some slight amendment to the Comp Plan and the description in the land use categories to make it explicit; it didn't actually say "agriculture" anywhere in the RI Low Density Single-Family designation. Mr. Freeland said they proposed to include some agricultural uses as a matter of right in the RII zone as well, and suggested they say, "Selected forms of agriculture are also allowed." He said he talked to Mr. Greenway after the meeting, and Mr. Greenway had some specific ideas he wanted to see reflected, i.e., support for community supported agriculture where basically people subscribe to a market basket and come pick up on a periodic basis, not general retail sales but a form of direct sale from the farm to the consumer that has a lot less impact. Mr. Freeland said that is called Community Supported Agriculture, and he made up a definition that he thinks describes it and added it to the Use Table. He said he added V-pick sales of crops that maybe they should have considered permitted as Mr. Greenway wanted to see, but Mr. Freeland was concerned about parking and impact on neighborhoods, so he thought it made more sense to be conditional than permitted outright in an RIT zone. CONSENSUS: Include U-Pick as permitted, to be addressed after the public hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS -- (not discussed at this meeting.) ~ Policy Amendment (Evans application) . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 11 V. NEW BUSINESS Chair Thayer asked if they felt they could take one meeting for a workshop on the Parks and Recreational Plan, then to a public hearing on October 29th? She said she looked at the Plan and did not see the controversy in this Plan that she had in the Non-Motorized Plan. She said she had a concern regarding history of the parks, that there seems to be a lot of history for some of the parks, but nothing for others; she said she brought this up before. Mr. Freeland said the key is whether to hold the workshop next week, then go to the hearing. He said they had not "noticed" anything because they did not know if they were proceeding or not. Chair Thayer said mostly she had additions, nothing controversial. CONSENSUS: Proceed with the Parks and Recreational Plan workshop on October 1st. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 1. 1998 Parks & Recreational Plan, Workshop October 8. 1998 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Public Hearing -- continuation on an succeeding night as required October 15. 1998 Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC October 29. 1998 Parks & Recreational Plan, Public Hearing October 26. 1998 6:30 p.m. (Was not discussed) Joint Workshop -- City Council and Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Amendments VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Sherwood and seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:40 p.m. c2r ~~ , Cindy Thayer, Chair ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker