Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02261998 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting February 26, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail III. OLD BUSINESS IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (Hearing Continued-without additional public testimony) 1. Staff Presentation (Jeff Randall) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Parking) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Signs) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Planning Commission Public Hearings Procedures (Workshop) 1. Staff Presentation (Tim McMahan) 2. Commission Discussion Annual Comprehensive Plan Process (Workshop) 1. Staff Presentation (Bruce Freeland) 2. Commission Discussion B. C. D. E. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings March 12, 1998 March 26, 1998 VI. ADJOURN , . .t' ~ .. · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting February 26, 1998 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Lois Sherwood, John Boles, and Craig Johnson. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland, Jeff Randall, Daniel Haufschild and Tim McMahan. II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail Letter dated February 18, 1998, to Mr. Daniel Haufschild from Washington State Department of Transportation. III. OLD BUSINESS -- APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the continued session of February 5, 1998, will be considered for approval following discussion of the Non-Motorized Plan. · v. NEW BUSINESS A. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (Hearing Continued -- without additional public testimony) 1. Staff Presentation (Jeff Randall) Chair Thayer noted the goal for tonight's discussion ofthe Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is to go through any problems planned to be revisited, not to go over what has already been agreed upon. Randall indicated the Commission had copies of marked-up plans that contain underlines and strike outs. He said the draft transmission letter can take the place of findings and conclusions. Chair Thayer said they would leave the letter to the conclusion of the Plan discussion. Peterson noted they had tried to interpret the word walkway vs, sidewalk and pathway to be consistent throughout. 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Discussion of revisions of the proposed new draft was conducted page-by-page. Changes were made to the following pages: · COPIED TO COUNCIL COPIED TO COUNCIL SS' e' BY. BY CJ~ DATE (/; //0/91 DATE 3/éf<//9? · · · ~ . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 2 Pa~e # 4 (1) Last paragraph, change to "Bikeways and/or walkways. . . "; (2) third bullet change to ". . bicycle and/or pedestrian connections" 17 Last paragraph. Northwest Bank? (Interest Bank?) Change as required. 40 (1) Boles questioned the usefulness of committee arguments and suggested eliminating the section on Shared Streets. Enarson disagreed and called for a vote. At Chair Thayer's request Haufschild gave the rationale that this was in response to discussion regarding neighborhood streets and to acknowledge that the committee did discuss this. Enarson said she thinks throughout it is valid the committee's rationale be represented. Vote - Committee recommendations to be left in: 3 in favor; Boles and Johnson opposed, Sherwood abstained. (2) Paragraph entitled Why Sidewalks? Following first sentence - remove extra "Sidewalks. " 41 First sentence -- change to "three miles of sidewalk." 43 Haufschild noted addition of the paragraph regarding inconsistencies. Enarson indicated the cover letter addressed their concerns quite well. Chair Thayer suggested addressing in a minority report or in the letter that there were equal concerns regarding retaining the committee's recommendations throughout. 47 (1) Bicycle Facility Vision -- add note at bottom designating this was taken from the Transportation Plan. (2) Bicycle Facility Vision ,"Users of all abilities. . . . to any destination in town" -- change to ". . . to destinations around town." (3) Why Bicycle Facilities, sentence 3 -- change to Nationally, approximately 63% of all . . ." 66 and 69 Boles questioned priorities and costs -- Page 66, Kearney Intersection @ $50,000 vs. Page 69 San Juan - Blue Heron to 49th, Route to school, Trail on one side, 5-10 years @ $14,000; Center - San Juan to Cherry, Route to school, Trail on one side, 5-10 years @ $11,200. Asked why the priorities were reversed. Haufschild replied this is the balancing act the committee went through, fewer intersections or more trails. Intersections cost more money. Boles indicated that he thought the word was that routes to school is supposed to be the highest priority; the balancing starts with some balancing in that favor. Boles said he does not see why a trail on one side can't be done in those locations especially. 78 Paragraph entitled Sidewalks, first sentence, change spelling to "requirements." 79 (Reference Page 1 09 Policy 1.19 and Page 110 Policy 1.22.) Boles said he thought they had eliminated paved aprons. Haufschild said his recollection was that they struck paved aprons on the roadways, highways, but paved aprons for walkway junctions would be moved to universal accessibility. Enarson concurred with Haufschild (Unpaved pathways for wheelchair accessibility.) 83 Directed Actions, "Encourage. . . to maintain and repair." Enarson said that is required . . . ¡ Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 3 now under the EDS; it seems contradictory where one plan says "encourage" and the code says "require." Peterson said the thought they had started out with "encourage" throughout, and that they wanted the plan to be more of an encouragement and the code an enforcement. He indicated they had used "actively encourage and require" but that was inconsistent with the wording they had earlier. Enarson said she could see where they were trying to say to have some action to educate people. 108 Policy 1.14. Boles asked what the relationship is to Policy 1.4 on Page 106; do they overlaþ, are they redundant? Peterson replied that Policy 1.4 is related to new development, doing easements and constructing the non-motorized system as envisioned in the plan. Policy 1.14 is where there are existing trails that are within a development to the extent these connections make sense to preserve the existing informal walkways. Peterson affirmed Erickson's statement, "It is when doing subdivisions and PUDs." 1 07 Policy 1.8, sentence 3. Correct to read, ". . . connections be preserved for non-motorized use . . ." 109 Sentence 1 under Sidewalks. Boles asked regarding R-I having been deleted and asked where R-I is carried forward. Haufschild replied that his recollection is why should R-I be excluded. Discussion: when it was 5 or more per acre. R-I is covered. Peterson indicated that with a development less than 5 units per acre, it is redundant to say R-I. Boles asked if we are clear that we are talking about built development or zone. Peterson replied it implies that is being developed, from the definition in the codes. It was noted 1.15.1 says, ". . . where density along a street frontage is developed at less than 5 units per acre, . . ." 110 Policy 1.21, change to read, ". . . off-road walkways." 143 Sidewalks -- minimum width. Boles indicated he remembered a 2 to 1 vote with some controversy, and at the end of the last meeting talking about 4' minimum. Chair Thayer determined they should revisit the issue. Boles said he would like to have it clarified; he indicated they are talking about a 6' minimum. Thayer indicated that since that meeting she has concluded that 4' is really narrow and she is more comfortable with 6' minimum sidewalks, people walking side-by-side. Enarson said she would appreciate a vote and if there is a minority vote it can be included in the report to City Council. MOTION SECOND Discussion: Minimum for the sidewalk/pathway be 4 feet and a recommendation accompany this that the design standards reflect the same. Johnson Enarson asked for clarification -- anywhere in town, commercial or anywhere? Boles indicated he has difficulty with the plan that it doesn't address the different areas of town, and he thinks there is reason to expect that some places don't have Boles . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 4 to be 6'. Haufschild pointed out the reason for 6' is that there is 1 foot for encroaching vegetation. Thayer asked for explanation of 1 foot on either side, if they can say this is an 8' sidewalk. Haufschild replied beside the actual surfacing material, the foot on either side is a subgrade that is not considered part of the travel lane, and he considered that it a design feature, but not part of the walkway. Peterson noted the multi-use trail on Page 141 is 8" paved or unpaved. The connectors on Page 143 were intended to be the connectors for using a trail, not a concrete sidewalk, so to clarify the drawing, it is 4' when it is a shortcut, because those grow in and fill in. He said he thought from their standpoint, if they set a minimum 4' wide sidewalk that is all we are going to get. Boles referred to Page 143, standard detail for the primary neighborhood connector, and asked if is it correct that says 6', and does that 6' pertain to the primary pathway with 1 foot on either side. Peterson said he is distinguishing between a trail and making a concrete sidewalk. Boles asked if the terminology in this document isn't primary neighborhood connector and secondary neighborhood connector; that is the way the maps are coded. Peterson said this should be defined as Primary Nei&hborhood Conl)~tQr Shortcut Pathway as defined in the pathway definition and will be added to the title. Enarson replied to a statement by Thayer that there is no Standard Detail for sidewalks, that Page 145 addresses a 5' walkway and that is as close as they come to an Engineering Design Standard for Local Access Streets. Peterson explained that sidewalks are in the standards now for different widths in different areas and noted their location. He said the only thing missing is the neighborhood street, when they have them how wide they should be; the minimum is 5'. Boles said he is saying the minimum should be 4'. Enarson reminded that in the committee's report there was reference to the society of transportation engineers which says that 5' is minimum. She said from her observation and what she has read, for accessibility, 5' is a minimum, and she strongly urged for room for wheelchairs, particularly since we now have gravel for 99% of the streets in town. VOTE Failed - 2 in favor; Erickson, Enarson, Sherwood and Thayer opposed MOTION SECOND Discussion: Erickson Primary connector pathways be a minimum of 5' Sherwood Sherwood asked for clarification, assuming l' buffer on either side to provide for encroachment of vegetation and would be 7' rather than 8'. Erickson affirmed. Peterson said he felt they could go with a 5' minimum. Passed -- 5 in favor; Enarson opposed VOTE · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 5 Apj)roval of minutes ofthe continued meetin~ ofFebrumy 5.1998 After discussion, a motion to approve the minutes of February 5, 1998 as written and revised was made by John Boles and seconded by Craig Johnson. All were in favor. Draft letter to the City Council: Comments from the Planning Commission with recommendations to adopt the draft Non-motorized Transportation Plan Pa~e # 2 4 5 6 Paragraph 3, Overstatement -- rewrite 2. Emphasis of sidewalks. . ., paragraph 1, sentence 3. "We felt that the language in the plan and policies overemphasized the need for sidewalks. . ." Inaccurate to say "we" as a committee; Change to: "Most of the Planning Commission felt ..." and address minority opinions (that it was a vote of 2 to 4). (1) 3. Sidewalks on local access streets, sentence 1, add word "new": "... concrete sidewalks be a new standard for local streets . . ." (2) Sentence 2, "We do not feel. . ." Change to "Most of the Planning Commission do not feel" and address minority opinions. (3) Add a paragraph between paragraphs 1 and 3 to indicate concern for costs on both sides of the street was discussed, but there was no resolution. (Boles questioned the reference to local streets at the end of existing paragraphs 1 and 2 in terms of "local access streets." Enarson noted the vote taken on those, e.g., major arterials, minor arterials, local and all, and she said she thought they had decided to go with the existing design standards. Peterson said that was his memory also, the current standards already require sidewalks on arterials and collectors and the big issue for the committee was what to do on local access streets; sidewalks are required on one side of minor collectors arid both sides of major collectors and arterials and where there is commercial and multifamily development. He said it was his recollection there was some discussion, that the vote was not strong enough to recommend changing the current standard; that is why they only talk about local access streets. There was a minority opinion that might want to be expressed about that issue. Enarson said she felt it should be more strongly stated they did take a vote and did agree, 5 in favor and 1 abstaining, in favor of having pathways on local streets, and that should be stated for City Council. Boles said, as he recalls, he abstained because "pathways" was not clear. The standard definitions could include sidewalks.) (4) Consensus: Add a clarifying sentence. (1) Paragraph 2, "Policy 5.20 suggests . . ." sentence 2 -- "It is not clear if pedestrian friendly is to imply walkable." Statement is inaccurate. Consensus: Strike sentence. Boles questioned if Policy 5.20 reference to walkable streets was correct, and it was · · · .- Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 6 suggested to check the reference. (2) Last paragraph, sentence 1, Add the word "the" to read ". . . interpretation ofthe Comprehensive Plan. . ." (3) Last paragraph, sentence 3, Change to "requirements" and Add the word "be" to read ". . . requirements should be allowed. . ." (4) Strengthen deferrals and waivers. (There are others per the existing Engineering Design Standards.) Things lacking: Minority repQrt -- Enarson said a lot of her concerns have been addressed in these changes. En~neerin~ Desi~ Standards, other than the Engineering Design Standards already included. (1) Paved driveways in the Plan and also possibly changing existing Engineering Design Standards; (2) Surveying -- The City requiring surveying for development permits. (Including streets, sidewalks and other improvements. Having an elevation by a surveyor. There are no comparisons -- what are the standards, higher/lower than a roadway, etc) (3) Trying to encourage to do walkways and pathways -- huge added expense (a lot of language for volunteer efforts for short cuts and pathways.); (4) Width. Enarson questioned not allowing testimony from Bernie Arthur if considering the Department of Transportation (DOT) letter after testimony has been closed. It was determined that both could be considered at the City Council hearing.. MOTION Planning Commission pass forward the Non-Transportation Committee's Plan as revised, with the cover letter as revised, reflecting the Planning Commission process, concerns and disagreements. Erickson Boles said that he is going to vote against the motion. He said he appreciates the work the committee did and expressed his thoughts: there is a great deal in the Plan that is very good, and fully supports non-motorized travel of all kinds; this goes beyond the scope in scale compared to Port Townsend; it is too much of an engineering document and not enough of a Plan that is consistent with tþ.e character of Port Townsend. He said þ'e would vote against it, though he supports it a great deal. 5 in favor, Boles opposed by roll call vote Enarson SECOND Discussion VOTE · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 7 B. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMÇ (Parking) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Freeland explained that this deals with the class of retail uses in our community expressed in the code as retail, not otherwise listed -- grocery stores, apparel stores, retail activity; as opposed to retail for appliances, floor covering, durable bulk goods, hardware stores. Within the last year, three times BCD had people in town seeking to build general commercial stores. Freeland explained that for stores over 5,000 square feet in size in this category, the city requires 1 parking space for every 100 square feet beyond the first 5,000 square feet of building and said that he has never encountered such a high parking requirement. He noted an attachment at the end of the report giving comparisons of parking requirements to other cities and said those cities reflected the normal range he would expect, somewhere between 1 space for 200 square feet of store and 1 for 300 square feet of store. Freeland said this is a proposal to bring Port Townsend's parking within that normal parking range. He noted importance of the following: there is nO reason to require people to provide more parking than is needed to accommodate their parking demand; for any given size store we are forcing a much bigger environmental impact in the form of paving and the removal of vegetation; and more run-off of water from the site. He referred to a table in the report listing 200 square feet and 300 square feet and the pros and cons for each. He explained that 1 space per 200 square feet is used in cities that are very auto oriented, that are trying to always make sure there is a parking space in front of that store, even on the busiest days of the year. The cities that have taken the lower requirement, 1 space for 300 square feet, are typically cities that are trying to make sure there is enough parking for normal use, not peak use, or cities that are in one way or another trying to encourage people to travel by means other than the automobile. He pointed out policies from the Comprehensive Plan and said that it seemed to him that the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan tilted more to the end of the spectrum of trying to reduce auto dependency. Freeland said for that reason he is recommending: 1) they adopt the ratio that is a minimum of 1 space for 300 gross square feet of floor area; and 2) further, to prevent people from providing excessive amounts of parking, making a maximum parking ratio of 1 space of 200 square feet. Commission QU~Wons: Q. Erickson asked why a bank would be 1 for 200 square feet when there are a lot of retail stores that would only need 1 for 300 that are much more customer based? A. Freeland replied that seems to him to be a very high requirement for a bank. · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 8 Q. Erickson said she has a problem in changing this when they should be looking at those uses that have a stricter parking code, include that in this lump sum and get rid of some of these terribly restrictive parking requirements. A. Freeland replied it would be appropriate for the Commission to make a recommendation back to Council, that in addition to making this one correction, look at all of the parking requirements. We could look at all of the other codes and ask where are they outside of all of the standard deviations. Q. Erickson said the rest of the code is so restrictive and asked why they are looking at this and not looking at the rest of the code; why are they piecemealing this and not going into this for fairness. A. Freeland replied they were trying to correct a really severe problem in part of the code and not make the job so big they couldn't have done it. He suggested if there is need to go back and revisit the code, they ought to get that on a work list, ought to put it against the other priorities, and as they are able, go through and do the job. He said in the meantime there is a specific problem that has been identified. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer opened public testimony. Bernie Arthur, Jefferson Street The basic Staff Report on the parking changes they have to deal with tonight, are really reasonable and make a lot of sense. He said he has always questioned the reason behind the restrictive parking regulations in Port Townsend. He said most business people buy property that has adequate parking. He said that he thinks you will find that most car oriented businesses will buy as much property as their budget allows to do what they want to do for their business. He indicated that it is an interesting need for cities to try to foist their opinions on what a business person invests in. He commented regarding 200 or 175 parking places for banks and asked why we don't let them run their business. He said he thinks this is a really good idea and needed to be done a long time ago. He questioned why it was ever done in the first place. Arthur pointed out that with all these reports and ideas you never see a cost analysis; how much it is going to cost the property owner to implement the new rule; how much is it going to cost the city to implement a new ordinance, staff wise, budget wise, etc. He said he thinks it is important when you are analyzing these things, is it going to save a business a considerable amount of money if they aren't required to put in unnecessary parking. If it is necessary, that is a different matter, and he said he thinks the business will decide that. He said it would be nice . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 9 when a staff report comes out, that there is an analysis of what the value is to the City, what the costs are to City, what the costs are to the land owners. He said we all make those decisions when we make business decisions -- decide what it is going to cost and whether we can afford it. Scott Walker Touched on the minimum parking requirements. He pointed out automobile parking affects dramatically pedestrian and bicycle accessibility of the town. He spoke of the downtown area which he said is extremely vibrant with human activity and very little car activity, except for Water Street which most of the time is "maxed out" during the day and is a very exciting place for a person to be; there are no curb cuts, no parking lots to cross. He said some people say there is a shortage of parking, others say they always find a space. He compared that to the Upper Sims Way district which he said is completely unfriendly for a pedestrian, although he was unsure of that parking ratio. He indicated it is not a good place to implement a pedestrian friendly town and strongly recommended putting a parking cap on businesses. He said he would go one step further and support Bernie Arthur in getting the City out of parking requirements. He said what makes the downtown vibrant is that it was built before these requirements for parking. He noted businesses that were required to put in parking and gave up. Walker said he called Jack Westerman and asked how much he based the land value of the parking lot. Westerman's reply was that it was basically the cost ofland plus asphalt and indicated the comparison was out of sight between the Upper Sims Way district in terms of value per acre and the downtown district. Walker urged that if we really want to maximize our tax base, and maximize our pedestrian accessibility and make what is really attractive about Port Townsend to everyone who comes here as tourists, put a cap on the parking. He said one thing against one space for 300 square feet, on the busiest days the parking lot could be filled and there could be spillover on the street, but most of the shopping days the parking lots are going to be two-thirds, or one-quarter full, and he referred to the QFC parking lot; that is a lot of parking space that could be in trees, could be another business, could make a vibrant commercial district. He said the parking requirements will create a town that looks a lot like other towns, like Lynnwood, Edmonds, Sequim. He said what is attractive about Port Townsend, it is unique; it's not like those towns, and you don't have parking lots everywhere. He suggested a lesser requirement of 300 - 400 square feet for 1 parking space and gave Gig Harbor which is 300 square feet for 1 space minimum as an example of what he felt best fits a reasonable town, indicating Gig Harbor is a pretty pedestrian friendly town. He said 200 does not seem like a whole lot different from 300, but it does seem to make a difference. He said he supports putting on a cap or getting out of the busin~ss all together. Chair Thayer closed public testimony. '. . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 10 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions ~ Boles. Said he can't understand minimum and maximum; it seems backwards. ~ Freeland. Said it is easier for him when it is expressed as parking spaces per thousand square feed of development. For instance, 1 parking space for 200 gross square feet of floor area equals 5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of store. He said the maximum should be 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of store. ~ Boles. If they volunteer to do more, you would put on a lid and not let them do that. ~ Freeland. That is right. If we just have the minimum, 1 space per 300 square feet, or 3.3 spaces per 1000 square feet of store, there is nothing preventing someone from putting in as much parking as they want, and someone might pave a very large area. It is not unusual for a retail developer to want anywhere from 5 to 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet. He said very few cities have maximums. If you really wanted to take a stand against the automobile you could set a maximum at a lower ratio than that, but it might be considered to be anti- economic development. He said the range of what is comfortable for stores is between this minimum and maximum; probably this maximum is set at such a high ratio that it is not going to pinch very hard, so there is a question of how much good it is doing. ~ Sherwood. The cap might mess up everything. If it is set at 300 we are protecting health and safety, which is our primary goal, and 99% of the time if a business has a long range plan where they are projecting some things to be different in their business in the future, they may have a need that we mess up by putting a cap in there. She said she doesn't think they need to try to control everything. ~ Enarson: Said she can see rationale for a maximum. She said there are some design standards which protect the pedestrians in having parking behind a building instead of in front of a building, and We are trying to address health, safety and welfare and drainage concerns. Stormwater issues are so big that she doubts that many businesses would choose to build a lot more parking than they really need to. She said she doesn't think it's a problem. She said she agrees with the 300 square feet and would also like add a recommendation to City Council that they revisit the parking as a whole and try to readjust some of the other inequities, but it is OK to try to go ahead and get this fixed as soon as possible. MOTION Enarson RECOMMEND AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE PAJUGNG PROVISIONS, AS STATED BY STAFF, MINIMUM 300 SQUARE FEET GROSS FLOOR AREA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELETING MAXIMUM PARKING RATIOS OF 1 PARKING SPACE FOR 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA, BE ADOPTED. · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 11 SECOND Discussion Sherwood Boles asked if one would lose some control over design and/or environmental amenities or landscaping by giving up that maximum. Freeland replied it could be a trade off between the size of the building and the size of the parking lot. He indicated there is no way to control clearing the site, and the only time having a cap and save green space would be a if someone wasn't trying to maximize the size of the store on the lot. Unanimous, 6 in favor by roll call VOTE MOTION A LETTER BE SENT TO CITY COUNCIL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTING THEM TO DllŒCTSTAFFTOREADDRESSOTHERPAREING ISSUES AS FEASmLE IN THEIR FULL SCHEDULE. Enarson SECOND VOTE Boles Unanimous, 6 in favor, by voice vote. C. Proposed Amendments to Title PTMC (Si~s) 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Freeland outlined the three ideas to be considered: ~ Maximum sign height for very large buildings in a variety of listed zones -- 1) Staff proposal to allow signs up to 28 feet in height for businesses over 30,000 square feet to retain the 17 foot height limit for small businesses; 2) Not have specific listed height, but to require the signs all be beneath the roof level of the buildings, so the sign would be presumed to be anywhere on the building up to and below the roof height. He staff is still recommending to go with 28 foot height for 30,000 and larger businesses. He says there is value to consistency of sign height in a community; it gives it more of a consistent look. If you are allowing a lot of tall signs, they tend to compete for dominance in the skyline and they are typically utilized for businesses that are trying to be very auto oriented and capture people from a distance. He suggested that Staff might have thought it better to go with a higher degree of consistency and something that doesn't get into as much competition for height. He said he is also concerned, and in order to not have a height limit, we will have to get pretty complicated how we describe buildings, so that some people aren't able to cheat on building elements to get them higher up in the air and still say they are not above the roof line. He said he doesn't . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 12 know how they would control that without a lot of arguments with developers. ~ Allow double pole signs as allowable free standing signs in commercial and public open space districts and to limit the height of directory signs to 12 feet rather than 17 feet currently. There are still Staff recommendations, but no new information. ~ Sign height within the Manufacturing and Marine Districts. The limitation here is signs no taller than 10 feet; Freeland said he was not able to get an explanation of the history. There are many signs, particularly in the Boat Haven that are currently taller than that, so there will be an enforcement problem with the current ordinance. The Port recommended that we allow 28 foot signs; our staff recommendation had been to go to 17 feet for consistency with other parts of town. He referred to the table in his report that indicated there is a taller building height; so one point in favor of the Port's recommendation is that buildings are typically taller in the Boat Haven, because a lot of those buildings have to have boats going through their doors. Freeland said that still did not seem to him to be a reason why the signs needed be very high in the air, and 17 feet still would be consistent with other parts of town and would avoid some competing to be seen from large distances away. Staff recommendation is still 17 feet. Commission questions: ~ Enarson asked on page 4, sign height, B. It says, ". . . in no event may signs extend higher than the nearby surface of the roof of the building."; and further that canopy signs may not extend higher than the highest roof surface. She said she thinks QFC and even Safeway have facades that go up. Would they be conforming to this language; she said the way she reads it they would not. ~ Freeland replied it depends on what goes on in the building behind those spaces. He indicated the QFC signs might not comply, but he thinks that Safeway has offices behind what looks like a false front that is a true part of the building. He said it may not be with QFC; the height of that building element is still considerably higher than the 17 foot limit that currently exists; they may not be able to have their sign at the same point on the building as they have it currently. ~ Enarson said regardless it can't be higher than 28 feet, even in the event of a facade that is higher than the surrounding roof ~ Freeland suggested that is something they ought to look at; you might look at the drawing of the QFC sign attached to the December 2nd Staff Report. There is a roof element that is somewhere up 22 feet from the scale, the top of the parapet, and their canopy element extends beyond that; he said he does not know what is behind that canopy element and does not know where below the parapet the actual roof height is. He indicated that sign might be able to stay where it is. He said he didn't actually try to work backward froID any given case, because he thinks that makes bad law. He said he is still concerned about having building . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 13 facades manipulated for the purpose of creating billboard space for signs; that is not a good practice. ~ Thayer asked regarding page 5, E.l. If 24 square feet of monument sign area for each single- business or multiple-tenant building is the total. Freeland replied he believed it was total; 12 square feet on each side. ~ Boles asked if that is in addition to a sign on the building. ~ Freeland replied affirmatively, although the total sign area for a site is also controlled; you would have to add all the signs tog~ther. ~ Boles asked where the caveat was of having something behind a facade. ~ Freeland replied it has to do with what is a roof; the distinction is: 1) one is saying the sign may not extend above the roof; 2) there is clarifying language that says that canopy signs and marquees may not extend higher than the highest roof surface of the canopy or marquee, but in no event no higher than the nearby roof surface of the building. Two thoughts: 1) you can't mount it on top of the canopy; 2) the canopy itself doesn't justify going above the ordinary roofline of the building. He replied to Boles that the reference is to QFC's logo sign, the band of signs are all at 17 feet currently. He indicated he is calling it a canopy because it is covering the walkway, but does not know if there is anything functional behind there. He also explained that B.3. is not new to the code, it is highlighted because it is renumbered. ~ Boles asked regarding Page 4, A,3. and requested an example of an outdoor business which operates without a building permit. A kayaking business was suggested. Boles said so they could have a 4 x 10 sign there. 2. Public Testimony Bernie Arthur Indicated the signs ordinance is a dilemma. He said it important to remember that with a lot of businesses about 40% of their new business comes from their sign; having a sign out in front of their business attracts about 40% of their new business -- their advertising and all the other things are supplemental to that. When you try to legislate their ability to attract customers, you might be affecting their ability to stay in business. If you change the rules, like with the Gateway project, some of the businesses were forced to take signs down and they might not be able financially to put any sign back up. He said historically, it could put them out of business and maybe they won't be here in 5 years. He says it is easy to say you can have a sign, but if you don't have the money to buy it and put it up, it doesn't matter what the code says. The other thing, it stifles creativity to have rules too constricting. He said this ordinance is written and has been used for a long time, but it does have an effect on business not to have signs, and it does . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 14 have an affect on people who are affected right now with their inability to advertise their business. Closed public testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions · Boles, Page 3 paragraph 1, sentence I appears incorrect. Change to, ". . . and M-III zoning district be increased to 17 feet. . ." Recommendation I -- Sign height within the C-IIMU, C-llIMU, C-I, C-ll, C-ll(H), C-m, C-IV, P/OS(A), P/OS- (B) and P-I zoning districts outside of the historic district be increased for uses having 30,000 or more square feet of gross floor area from a maximum height of 17 feet to a maximum height of 28 feet. (AMENDED TO SAY --. . . THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BE INCREASED FOR USES HAVING MORE THAN 30,000 SQUARE FEET. . .) SECOND Discussion MOVE ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION I THAT SIGN HEIGHT WITHIN THE C-IIMU, C-IIIMU, C-I, C-ll, C-ll(H), C-ID, C-IV, P/OS(A), P/OS-(B) AND P-I Enarson Freeland reconsidered his former statement and said if someone pushed C-I and C-IIMU to the biggest possible building in that zone, they could get 30,000 square feet. So they could get their signs; he suggested they might want to say "greater than." Boles said he has a concern that sign heights not exceed 17 feet in C-I and C-IIMU neighborhood serving areas. MOTION Boles MOTION Boles AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION TO SAY. . . THE mSTORIC DISTRICT BE INCREASED FOR USES BA VING MORE THAN 30,000 SQUARE FEET. . . SECOND VOTE Enafson 6 in favor by voice vote VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION 5 in favor, Erickson opposed by roll call Recommendation II ~ · · · : Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 15 Double pole signs be added to the allowable sign types for freestanding signs in C-IlMU, C-llIMU, C-I, C-ll, C-ll(H), C-ID, C-IV, P/OS(A), P/OS-(B) and P-I districts, and that the maximum height of directory signs be reduced from 17 feet to 12 feet. MOTION ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION II REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGNS AS WRITTEN Enarson SECOND VOTE Sherwood 5 in favor, Erickson opposed by roll call B~º,mJ.!leudation ID -- (Jncludin¡: correction by Boles) The sign height in the MlC, M-I, M-ll, M-ll(A), M-ll(B) and M-ID zoning districts be increased to 17 feet to match the commercial zones in the city retaining the provision that the sign could not extend above the roof linell MOTION ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ID AS CORRECTED Enarson SECOND Sherwood Discussion Enarson indicated she was looking at the Boat Haven with a 50 foot limit and wondering about the 17 foot and thought seriously about the Port's request to increase the sign height to 28 feet. She said she disagreed that 40% of the business comes from signs in the Boat Haven. She said she also does not think on a 50 foot building they need a huge sign for boats, because that is not where the traffic, or the service, comes from. She said 60% of the business in our community comes from Port Townsend and what we are, and preserving our integrity means being picky; the merchants benefit from the overall ambiance of the town. Thayer said speaking from a property owner that looks down on that, it would be nice not to have any more lights in the area. Sherwood spoke of the perspective of being in the Port trying to find something, what would be the most facilitating to find the business you are looking for. She said she concluded that because the things are so close it would be harder to see at 28 feet, that actually 17 foot would be scaled to what you are going to see. Johnson asked what if you have a 28 foot sign now. Freeland repIÌl:~d they will be going through the whole city looking for other non-conforming signs. If it is 28 feet, it is already non- conforming against the 10 foot, so you wouldn't have solved the problem by going to 17 feet; it is already illegal. VOTE 4 in favor, Erickson and Johnson opposed by roll call Freeland spoke of the QFC sign and said they could hold this over, that it might have been · · · · .. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 16 information they should have had about this amendment that would relate to QFC, not that this is necessarily the guide for what this does. He said if that is information that we should get into the record, we could still do the research so the Council would know. He said he would clarify for the Council hearing. It was indicated by Commission members that they would not want to interfere regarding the QFC sign. D. Plannini Commission Public Hearinis Procedures (Workshop) 1. Staff Report (Tim McMahan) McMahan noted that one of the provisions in the regulatory reform code required that they adopt rules of procedure for conducting public hearings of land use applications. He referenced his memorandum to the Planning Commission dated August 1996 and said attached to that were a number of model rules and procedures from other jurisdictions. He read from his 1996 memorandum. He said they are the Planning Commission's rules, this is a draft, his recommendations given a starting point, and he said he is willing to spend as much time with them they as they would like. 2. Commission Discussion ~ Thayer asked about 1.4, Relationship with the Hearing Examiner. McMahan said they had created the office of a contract hearings examiner to hear a limited number of appeals, not any of the matters the Planning Commission is currently hearing. He said the Council is going to start interviewing for a finalist in a couple of weeks. Thayer asked that if in addition to their meetings this is to indicate they should attend the hearings of the Hearing Examiner. McMahan replied the Hearings Examiner's office is created to expedite administrative decisions, i.e., short subdivisions, an efficient and cost effective way of handling hearings and making sure that the record is developed predominantly. ~ Boles asked in 1.4 why occasionally and suggested they may need some criteria. Also choice of members -- consider "as appointed by the Chair." For what purpose? 1.5 has a purpose. Attend and monitor -" and/or monitor." McMahan said it is a closed record hearing before something goes to court. He said his goal in having this in here is to have some coordination between the Commission and the Examiner; you can see what the Examiner is doing and you can learn from each other. They can learn from you the local rules and the intent behind the Comprehensive Plan, behind the local development codes. McMahan said this is purely a recommendation, occasionally attend and monitor hearings, and the Planning Commission can choose to accept or not accept the recommendation. He said similarly 1.5 is to try to ''': . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 17 create some coordination between Council and the Planning Commission. Boles said 1.4 says "occasionally attend" but it doesn't really specify why it would be occasionally or for what purpose; 1.5 says that it is at such times as the Council conducts closed record matter, so there is a purpose to it. He said that with the Hearings Examiner they should have some criteria for why they are there. The Hearings Examiner is doing things that may not impact the Commission at this point. (On a rotating basis) -- he thinks they might want to consider, "as appOinted by the Chair" or something like that. Attend and monitor -- 1.4 and 1.5. We might want to say "attend and/or monitor." With attending Council, we would not have a standing and might be in the way. McMahan said he did not think they would be in the way. He said they are actually not authorized to be testifying at those hearings. This is really a coordination matter, so there is better communication. Considerations: 1.4 Enarson said she thought the Hearings Examiner should attend some of the Planning Commission meetings. Said she thought "May" might negate the relationship. Consensus: Change May to Encourage 1.5 Consensus: Change May to Encourage Consensus: Strike last sentence, "In addition, the Planning Commission will meet. . ." 2. Consensus: Add somewhere about recusals if there is conflict. 2.7 Consensus: Strike sentence, "A stated amount of time. . ." 2.10 Consensus: Strike 2.10 in total. 2.14 Consensus: Add, "At any time after the conclusion of the hearing. . ." 2:20 Boles said this is really form of a motion it is presenting argument before the motion. He said he thinks people might that troublesome. He said if that is intended to be the committee report, having considered the findings and conclusions, etc. and hearing the evidence, he would think the one making the motion based on findings and conclusions and evidence would not get into argument in itemizing what their satisfactions are. McMahan said if you are moving to recommend approval, you can make the motion to approve based upon the following findings that satisfies their criteria, and list the criteria and the facts. He said this is very valuable to have in the record. Enarson said usually they would say, "We find that the Staff Findings and Conclusions as amended are correct. McMahan concurred that is OK. Committee reports - add to procedures Discussion followed regarding Credibility Findings. McMahan said it is an incredibly powerful tool in defending Council, because courts automatically defer to credibility finds. E. Annual Comprehensive PI~ Proces& (Workshop) --' ': .. · Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 18 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Freeland asked if there were major information requests the Commission wanted him to come back with? 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer asked if the Commission has concerns they want to bring up. Freeland said if there are issues the first step would be to schedule them. There was discussion regarding how the County plans affect the City and regarding parking requirements in relationship to causing larger stores in town. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings March 12. 1998-- March 26. 1998 -- · VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Boles and seconded by Johnson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:55 p.m. a~~ ~ indy Thayer, Chair 4á-~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker · . . . Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Guest List /'1 / ~. u/U{/Ä.2JJ::2-é ð---ø--v I Name (p~." prin" I Address I T;=~mÎn~~ I r3 êrf",-"l4vf() I'~'fl-hj( J 13)-0 --r {;; /1.,.. ,.vv" Fr X . r"7'- <:' ~ I