Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09091999 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Workshop Meeting September 9, 1999 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Call to Order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes: Unfinished Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (CI-MU) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-III downtown northerly boundary) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion C. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-II upper-story residential) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion New Business A. Port of Port Townsend, proposed PTMC text amendment raising the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district (Boat Haven) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Commission Discussion Other Business: Next Scheduled Meetings September 16, 1999 Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation (workshop) September 23 r 1999 Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation (workshop) September 29, 1999 Proposed Glen Cove UGA Designation (open-record public hearing) September 30, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open-record public hearing) October 14, 1999 Finalize Comp Plan Amendments findings & conclusions Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district) October 28, 1999 Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open-record public hearing) Communications Adjournment . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Workshop Meeting September 9, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: V. Unfinished Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-III downtown northerly boundary) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-II upper-story residential) 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) 2. Commission Discussion VI. New Business A. Port of Port Townsend, proposed PTMC text amendment raising the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district (Boat Haven) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Commission Discussion VII. Other Business: Next Scheduled Meetings September 30, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (open-record public hearing) October 14, 1999 Finalize Comp Plan Amendments findings & conclusions Zoning Code Text Amendment Workshop (proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district) October 28, 1999 Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open-record public hearing) VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Workshop Meeting September 9, 1999 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. II. Roll Call Members in attendance were Chair Cindy Thayer, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, and Christine Ota. Karen Erickson and Len Mandelbaum were excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were BCD Bob Leedy, Judy Surber and Jeff Randall. City Council representative was Geoff Masci. III. Acceptance of Agenda Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. IV. Approval of Minutes - (Scheduled for approval at the next meeting.) v. Unfinished Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-IIMU) 1. Staff Report Ms. Surber stated she had contacted other jurisdictions to see how they handle their mixed use and general commercial zones. She distributed a table compiled from the responses including both general commercial with upper story residential and C-IIMU bulk, height and dimensional requirements. She indicated, in general, she found several jurisdictions have mixed use zones, either transitional between general commercial and residential which is different from our mixed use, or a few node mixed use centers surrounded by residential development similar to what we have in Port Townsend. She discussed the table and referred to transitional or node mixed uses, indicating that her main interest was with node mixed use centers. She explained that "Permissive" could include 1) a mix of uses, or 2) either just commercial orjust residential; it is not mandatory to mix uses. Rows 1 and 2 pertain to General Commercial with Residential above. She pointed out appearances in mixed uses: ~ Have design standards in place; · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 2 " Discourage, if not preclude parking in front of buildings; ~ Front yard setbacks have the feeling it is in a residential zone. Some had a minimum front yard setback similar to the residential setback requirement, making them compatible. A couple had a maximum setback. Ms. Surber thought a maximum front yard setback works best because you can accommodate to the surrounding environment and match the setbacks (put it on the street depending on what the. location is). With a maximum 50' setback, you are obviously not going to get parking in front ofthe building. Sumner's setback (5-50') still did not permit parking in the front yard. A 50' setback would be for courtyards, etc. Ms. Surber turned the discussion over to Mr. Leedy and Mr. Randall and said she could conclude with building costs obtained from discussion with Mr. Rob Sears, building inspector. Mr. Leedy stated in general Staff supports the table amendments, but has the greatest problem wrestling with the mandatory versus permissive residential component above retail. He indicated in reality if you make it permissive you are in between C-I and C-IlMU, and thought there had to be some expectation the residential component would sooner or later be part of the development. He cautioned regarding concern that something has to change in order to live out the experiment, to keep in mind the C-IIMU has only been on the books for a very short time. With one exception, C-IlMUs are in areas that probably don't anticipate development in the near future. Staff feels it is worth the effort to make the change, if there is a way to accommodate the C-IlMU. Mr. Randall referenced his Staff Report of September 2, 1999 attempting to show what is entailed in trying to apply current standards in the following proposals: San Juan Market (formal proposal by Vem Garrison). Difficulties encountered in the absence of design standards: " Street Frontage and Front yard setbacks - Most jurisdictions try to discourage parking in front and encourage building near the property lines to make it look different from the general commercial type properties. Current standards have no minimum or maximum setbacks requirement (the interpretation has been that there are no requirements and no restrictions). ~ Maximum Amount oflndividual Commercial Use -- Currently limited to 5, 000 square feet. In Mr. Garrison's discussions he has found that 5,000 square feet is not large enough for a general merchandise type business. Mr. Randall indicated you might have a smaller 5,000 square feet convenience-type store that is not going to be a real grocery store. They are recommending more like 10,000 square feetto really make it work. (Aldrich's is estimated to be approximately 10,000.) . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 3 " Maximum amount of Commercial Floor Space (in anyone structure) - Brought up by Mr. Garrison in a zoning code amendment request. If you were allowed 30,000 square feet of commercial space and additional residential space, you could have a very large building and may not be in character with the area that these zones are in. Mr. Randall concurred and thought there might be some things done otherwise, e.g., multiple buildings on a site. ~ Minimum Housing Density -- Mr. Garrison recommended giving the option of a minimum residential standard as in C-II/MU. (perhaps isolating the residential component a bit, e.g., putting it closer to Collingwood farms, with a commercial area closer to the street.) Mr. Randall indicated an optional requirement would give a lot of flexibility. David Diprete (inquiry proposal) North end of Howard Street at Hastings. ~ Relatively small site with a small house and an out building. His martial arts studio is getting to the point where his home occupation is exceeding the allowed requirements. He wants to be legal and wants to be able to expand a bit, maybe have a few more employees, maybe a little housing on site for students that mayor may not be related to his business. Mr. Randall said they tried to work with Mr. Diprete on this site and could not make it work; Mr. Diprete wants to add on to the out building with the martial arts studio. The C-IIMU currently reads, the number of residential units is triggered by size ofland (requiring 8 units). It does not say you can phase over time; the assumption is when someone comes they develop the whole thing, not allowing a small business owner to take over and slowly grow into something. The immediate two-story requirement is also difficult with the site. Mr. Randall answered questioning, estimating the C-IIMU zone in that area at 6 to 8 acres indicating a little of that land might be vacant; what is out there is residential, primarily on septic and city water. He said they have pretty good septic/sewer policies and can work with people on those issues, but automatically those single-family dwellings are non-conforming. If you want to expand that building footprint in any way, you are supposed to conform to the current zone, which is currently really inflexible. This district, also Jackman and 49th, are way out there. The kind of development Mr. Garrison is proposing at San Juan and F, where you have a pretty good residential entity around it, would probably support the neighborhood commercial idea right now. The Diprete proposal was not really serving the neighborhood around it, but his use is permitted and compatible with the neighborhood. He just couldn't do it. Mr. Randall suggested if they are to keep that zoning idea alive out there, they make accommodations for current use and allow development in stages. Ms. Surber went on to indicate they want to allow some flexibility and questioned how to do that. She said in conversations, other planners agree that multi-family zoning is somewhat recent and until the market demands the value of the land as such that makes it feasible, they are not seeing much happen. Redmond is seeing quite a bit, but are quite different what we have. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 4 She noted problems with financing; banks are not used to mixed use buildings, preferring to see either purely residential or purely commercial. She posed the following questions of Rob Sears: " If a developer begins with a two story structure, indicating a minimum first floor 10' ceiling height for commercial uses, how onerous would it be to design for future conversion to mixed use; would it really increase the cost substantially? Reply: The division between upper and lower floors has to be a I-hour occupancy separation, no matter what the use, whether both residential or both commercial; that is not a cost. A 10' ceiling height would not cost much more than 8' ceiling height for residential. If you don't like a 10' ceiling height for residential uses, you can hang a ceiling 2' down. ~ What kind of costs would be incurred if you were converting a strictly residential structure to commercial in the future? Reply: His only thought, providing commercial type restrooms. It would increase the cost substantially. ~ If it were to begin all commercial and converted to residential on the second floor at a future date, what costs would there be? Reply: The energy code is more restrictive for residential. His recommendation -- if you are going to build for future conversion, you should be looking at the residential energy code for the second floor at the time of construction, so you do not have to go back, change windows and go through the energy code calculations at that time. If it is in original construction, he did not see it as a significant cost increase. The conclusion from discussion with Mr. Sears is that you could easily design a building for not much more money for future conversion versus all residential or all commercial upfront. She said if they were to allow permissive, all residential or all commercial within that zone, allowing market demand to dictate when commercial might come in, perhaps it would be easier for people to get loans. They have been hearing from the community they are somewhat short on affordable housing and multi-family units, so they could start to see these kinds of structures being as purely residential to accommodate the current market demand for residential. She indicated this might be a good way to go so they don't close the door to future development. She referred to Mr. Diprete and the seeming feeling that if he invested too much money into the accessory structure, there is going to be reluctance to conversion at a future time to really make it work the way it was intended. 2. Commission Discussion Mr. Worden: A very successful developer oflow income housing once told him that any time someone starts talking about new low-income housing, they are talking nonsense; there is no such thing, unless it is subsidized. Mr. Worden thought in a town like this it is absolutely true the older buildings already here will always be a cheaper alternative than anything built new. He said he did not think the fact they are putting residential over commercial is going to make it low-income or affordable. Ms. Surber: Pointed out alternative housing types is also mentioned in the Comp Plan. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Worden: Said to Mr. Leedy that it seems the intent of the Comp Plan is to create a kind of neighborhood in these mixed use zones that has residential and commercial in it, and knows that the Comp Plan is quite specific about residential on second floor and putting it in the same building. He said from his viewpoint he was not sure it would make much difference whether or not they are even on the same lot; if there was some way you could have a halflot residential and half commercial, that would meet the intent of the zone. He was not sure how to do that. He said if they don't make a residential component mandatory, why would anybody do it; they can't make a market, if it isn't there. If we make it optional it will stay residential until there is commercial demand, then it will be commercial. He said he was not sure that was bad. Ms. Thayer: Concurred. Mr. Randall: Mr. Garrison said on his proposal residential could be done, but thought he was looking for more flexibility, perhaps locating in a separate building that would have residential in it, not on the upper floor. He was looking at trying to do general merchandise, doing small office spaces on the upper floor. His plan to have it all in one building included having some office spaces on the second floor, and the other side of the building facing Collingwood farms having some residential. Mr. Randall thought an average person might ask if they wanted to share a floor with office space; the whole type of use is going to be different and he questioned the noise compatibility in the same building. Mr. Worden: Did not think that was a bad choice and thought it would be rather nice to have that option and some of the structural things he suggested. He asked Mr. Randall if the reference at the bottom of the first page of his report should be to maximum setback. Mr. Randall: Referred to Ms. Surber's comments regarding concern about how close the building should be, and establishing a maximum. Mr. Worden: Shouldn't parking in front be a separate question? Couldn't we just say there will be no parking in front and not worry about setbacks to give more flexibility? There might be more creative solutions, e.g., a walk-in courtyard, etc. Ms. Surber: The 5' - 50'. Mr. Masci: How do we determine from among two or three fronts? Mr. Randall: There are ways to deal with that; it should be addressed. Ms Surber closed with discussion of character that was envisioned for the neighborhood mixed use. She said character to her is more like a building design, the uses fluctuating; the market demand doesn't seem to make that much difference. Her response to comments that there are no design standards, was that they are headed in that direction. Mr. Worden: Commented 8, 10 or 15 acres zoned, surrounded by residential, is mixed use any way, no matter what you put in. He said you have residential there, and he is not too concerned if it is commercial. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Randall: Noted that would be a pretty small commercial zone. Not all commercial uses could happen there; the uses are pretty tight. Mr. Worden: Martial arts should be allowed; somehow this zone has to accommodate that. Mr. Surber: Asked if it (C-I/MU) was not originally intended for uses where you could walk to the location, something that people would use on a regular basis? She thought a martial arts studio would be more regional than a neighborhood serving use. Mr. Leedy: Indicated that given the size of some of these C-I/MU areas, they may have to concede for a period of time to be auto oriented and not pedestrian oriented until the area builds up. Mr. Worden: Suggested if you have off-street parking, you could accommodate an intersection with quite a few cars. Some people will be walking. Mr. Leedy: There are certain treatments we would want to use with the standards, i.e., parking to the rear of the building, whether auto oriented or pedestrian oriented. Mr. Masci: Said he is seeing that located contiguous to the 35th, Corona Avenue area, which is a young area with lots of kids. To him, martial arts, music studios, etc. are youth oriented which suggests bicycles and walking as opposed to autos. The presumption that if it is adult, it is auto oriented is not always a valid assumption. Ms. Surber: Clarified that they are not really looking at use tables, so whether or not martial arts studios are appropriate in that zone is not what she meant, but more or less trying to accommodate a martial arts studio, or any other use, to the point of losing the ultimate vision of a mixed-use commercial building. She questioned if they would want to allow a studio built in such a manner that it could not be converted in the future; how much flexibility do you want to give to allow that kind of use to come in now? She said she likes the phased approach in terms of flexibility of saying you don't have to build the whole thing out now, but again, the martial arts studio or whatever use that comes in now should be built in such a way that the ultimate plan is not encumbered by that structure. Ms. Thayer: She still sees that area being years before it develops into an area where they walk to it. Hastings has to be widened with sidewalks, etc., before being a true walk-to neighborhood. Mr. Randall: Spoke of linking residential units to how much commercial space you are actually building, rather than how much land you have, and using that as a phasing method. If Mr. Diprete were able to build a 1,200 square foot studio, use some kind of equation and say it has to be in a two-story building, if you add on to one of these structures currently on the site, or build a new two-story building, he thinks Mr. Diprete would might look pretty seriously at trying to do it. Ms. Thayer: Thought that was a reasonable option to have. Mr. Randall: Thought if you have an existing single-family residence that is attached and not conforming in that zoning district, maybe counting that residence as one of the residential requirements might help. He said the use of that building is fine; you shouldn't make people · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 7 tear things down before the time bas come. He said if they did a few things like that, Mr. Diprete might still come and look at it; that property is not going very fast -- the zoning is part of the reason, because you can't do much there. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-III downtown northerly boundary) 1. Staff Report Ms. Surber referred to the map included with her September 2, 1999 Staff Report indicating the top and toe of the bluff that forms the northerly boundary of the Downtown C-III Historic District. She said looking at the map there are several blocks where the bluff face takes up pretty much the entire block leaving some usable space at the bottom of the bluff She pointed out: " Block 37 there is nothing behind the commercial building; ~ Blocks 38 and 39 both have parking areas behind. " The area for residential development along Washington Street is pretty much precluded by the location at the top of the bluff. In Ms. Surber's estimation, the only risk with extending the C- ill boundary to Washington Street on those three blocks, is the fact that, with the current platting, those northerly lots could be sold off separately, and if sold separately, someone could come in with a vacant lot wanting to do commercial development on the face of these steep bluffs, or they could be sold off and somebody could come in with a large residential house as well. Regarding the character of the downtown area, the Urban Waterfront Plan and Gateway Plan talk about the bluff face as being a part of the character and scenic value of downtown. It is, therefore, hard to say what the development potential might be for the face of those bluffs, and whether or not the character would change by this zoning. Ms. Thayer said no matter what they are, they still have to go through the ESA Ms. Surber concurred and said, especially behind Blocks 38 and 39, if they were to rezone the northerly half of those blocks that are already being used for parking, the development potential ofthe remainder of the blocks is probably not going to happen. It will probably just remain parking area space at the bottom. 2. Commission Discussion Ms. Surber agreed to check if there are property owners other than for those front lots. It was suggested if they are all the same ownership as the properties on Water Street they could be tied together, but Ms. Surber stated the City Attorney has said you cannot condition the Comp Plan amendments. Mr. Worden indicated the reason would be to accomplish making the parking a conformed use. Ms. Surber concurred. · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 8 Ms. Surber: Block 55 where the Bishop Hotel is, where you can pretty much see the top, precludes any residential development off from Jefferson Street, and does provide for an area that is currently zoned residential at the bottom of the bluff That may be more appropriately zoned C-III, with usable land adjacent to the commercial development. Mr. Masci: Asked what the harm would be to include Block 56, buildings on two or four would be an anchor; would the zoning then change the use -- both the church structure and the dental office? Ms. Surber: The bluff face was used as the natural boundary for the C-III Historic District. The map indicates there is another bluff on Blocks 90 and 91 that follows Jefferson Street, that effectively creates another topographical delineation between the northerly portion of Jefferson Street and the area to the south. Ms. Thayer: There is no commercial there. Ms. Surber: Explained that Mr. Masci is suggesting to rezone Block 56 all C-III commercial as well; there is still a logical topographical delineation between C-III and the residential. Mr. Worden: There is a substantial bluff on Block 89 above Jefferson. We could say go ahead and do this and the ESA will take care of any problems, but the right of the property owners to make some reasonable use would override the ESA. Ms. Surber: Concurred, but reasonable use for a single-family lot versus commercial might be argued as to what is reasonable for commercial - the parking requirements, etc., might result in a more extensive impact. Mr. Worden: If any of these properties on Water Street would use and want more parking could they excavate build a retaining wall? Do we have control over that? Ms. Surber: Replied affirmatively; conserving the toe of the bluff is indicated as an ESA and they would not be allowed to expand without an ESA permit. C. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop (C-ll upper-story residential) 1. Staff Report Ms. Surber discussed recommendations she had researched regarding residential above commercial, and it seemed that the trend in zoning is to allow more permissive uses, mixed uses. Residential uses above shops was listed in several of the newer textbooks; she indicated the copies she provided showed mixed uses as an up-and-coming trend. Ms. Surber's Survey Questions: ~ Conflicts: In a general commercial zone (explained to those surveyed general commercial meant more of a retail use along a state route, collector or arterial) do you allow upper story residential? She pointed out that many allowed it. The Planning Director of Aberdeen stated · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 9 they had seen some conflicts, not conflicts between uses, but some residential units were being impacted by the higher traffic volumes of the arterial roads, state routes. He felt there were better locations for residential development than along heavier traveled roads. Issaquah and Sumner indicated they are auto oriented zones and are not seeing much mixing of the two uses. Sumner felt if you properly designed the building, you could overcome the incompatibility issues with traffic, etc.; that meant architect-designed buildings, design standards, noise insulation, etc. Redmond indicated that although it is permissible, they are not seeing mixed-use in their auto-oriented zoning. Tumwater replied they are not seeing much in that zone because they only allow mixed-use with five or more stories. 2. Commission Discussion Mr. Worden: It seemed the conflict issue is the one that counts: he agreed that in most cases conflicts can be managed. In commercial they are primarily talking retail, and it seemed in most cases that was the most compatible. He pointed out that many conflicts are things that go on in the street, not the inherent business. Ms. Surber: You would think if the mix of uses is within a building under one ownership there would be some control over the tenants. Mr. Masci: Did not know why we are protecting the tenant; renters go in with their eyes wide open. On the other side, if a builder is willing to build residential units, it is the risk the builder would be willing to take. Ms. Surber: One jurisdiction said they are seeing more affordable housing in those auto-oriented zones, but it was currently a zone that was interspersed with older residential units; they were trying to convert to commercial and began with making it permissive residential or commercial. They indicated the upshot was a lot of rentals and affordable housing in that area; the downside, with rentals it was becoming more of a slum area. They indicated with design controls and new construction versus using old residential buildings, they didn't see this to necessarily be a problem. Mr. Worden: Thought they might be talking about old buildings. Ms. Surber: We don't have a lot right up on Sims Way; the C-II Zone, one block back from Sims Way, there is some residential. They would be further separated from the traffic. Mr. Worden: Questioned in his mind how all these commercial zones fit together; C-IIIMU was changed last year to make the commercial/residential option -- if we change C-II to allow residential. Asked if there is still a difference in the Use Table regarding what is allowed in C-II and C-IIIMU and if that would be the principal difference between those two zones. Ms. Surber: Concurred and speculated that in the C-II General Commercial the rents would be lower rents becaus~ of the variety of uses and opportunity for conflicting uses in more of an auto-oriented area. The rents would probably be higher in neighborhood mixed-use centers because they are in a more preferable residential environment and there are more controls on · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 10 the kinds of use below them. With the C-II Design Standards that are underway (there are interim design standards now), if they decide to make upper story residential allowed, that would be incorporated into the design standards. VI. New Business A. Port of Port Townsend, Proposed PTMC text amendment raising the building height limit in the M-II(A) zoning district (Boat Haven) 1. Staff Report Mr. Randall said this meeting was scheduled to get feedback and guidance in drafting the material. They were approached by the Port and their potential tenant, Platypus Marine. Their primary statement was that they have a heavy-haulout facility and no buildings to put boats in for the heavy-haulout; the desired space to work on the boats is indoors because of the different chemicals, paints and metals used in their materials. Staff discouraged the Port and Platypus Marine from applying for variance for their specific building height requirements, because BCD felt that was reany not the best tool to address the issue. It had been a conscious decision to limit the height to 50'. There are many policies in the Comprehensive Plan encouraging these kinds of marine trades and showing their significance. The question arises is, should there be an area in the Port that allows buildings higher than 50'? In working with Mr. Larry Crockett from the Port, they talked that maybe the best alternative would be to look at the Port overall, create an overlay district for the Port, identify areas that could be higher and at the same time give something back; identify those areas which should be lower. They started with the map attached to Mr. Randall's Staff Report of September 2, 1999. He said the text amendment could be very simple, could basically be the bulk and dimensional table for the M-II(A) zoning district with a notation to refer to the overlay map andjust adopt a map, probably describing the blocks referred to. He said he thought to a great degree they are dealing with a map and dealing with the Comprehensive Plan issues. Ms. Thayer referred to the statement in Mr. Randall's Staff Report: "BCD has determined that the proposal does not require a comprehensive plan amendment as the Comprehensive Plan contains only suggested height amendments. . . non prescriptive height limits." She asked where it was in the Comprehensive Plan that this was only prescriptive height limits, because in doing the Comprehensive Plan the prescriptive height limits is what they dealt in height limits. She said she thinks it was the understanding of an of them that in the Comp Plan those were the height limits that were going to prevail unless there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Randall said that he was not here when the Comp Plan was done, but read the plain language of Table IV that applied the policy of the Comp Plan to regulation. He · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 11 said it is exactly right that the zoning code says 50'; that is where the regulation is currently. Mr. Worden asked if the zoning code corresponds to the recommendation Mr. Randall said they have discussed this with the City Attorney. He suggested another way to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would be if they were lowering the height in some areas and allowing it to be raised it in other areas, an overall 50' average. He said what it comes down to is a zoning code issue and does not say, "Thou shall not," a recommendation; that is the nature of the Comprehensive Plan, not prescriptive. The Comprehensive Plan says to promote economic development; this is something the Port is saying is key to their economic development, the use of their heavy-haulout. They were trying to identify an area in the Port close to the bluff, which actually has very few residences looking directly into and residences looking in from other directions. He indicated that probably the area they are talking about should be smaller than the pink, 75' Height Limit Area, outlined on the map. Chair Thayer asked Mr. Randall if he was wanting recommendations from the Commission tonight. He indicated he is just presenting the issue, that this the first touch and he would welcome suggestions. 2. Commission Discussion Mr. Harbison: Asked if he was saying to reduce the size of the pink area. Mr. Randall: Concurred, and said the Port has really indicated there only a few sites where they could have buildings; they are pretty constricted right now. They need a fairly good amount of space for boat storage; that is where the big income is for them, and they do not want a lot of new buildings. Ms. Thayer: Stated that it was only 3 to 4 years ago the Port came in requesting the height be raised from 35' to 50' and at that time they felt that was high enough. She said she finds it interesting that now all of a sudden they want half again that amount. Mr. Worden: Indicated it is because they now have the heavy-haulout and they are handling much bigger boats. Ms. Thayer: They were handling bigger boats in the Admiral Marine building at that time; Mr. Worden replied that it was only one boat. Mr. Harbison: He said it shows some lack of anticipation, certainly, he but was unsure beyond that. Mr. Worden: Said he was out there today; the doors of the Admiral Marine building were open and they were working on a moderate size fish boat. He said the building is close to 50' high; that fish boat used all that height. They could have gotten a bigger boat in if they had taken off some of the super structure. In terms of height, they needed almost all of the height. Mr. Randall: The heavy-haulout by itself, the travel lift is 44' tall. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Harbison: Thought the height was restrictive in terms of the size. Mr. Randall: Said that in looking at the Admiral Marine building in Port Angeles, their height is 75' to 79'. Ms. Thayer asked how may residential properties are above that area. Mr. Worden: Said he thought the reason to limit the height there does have to do with views, not just of residences but even people coming in Sims Way. He said he thinks that probably a 75' high building in there would not be a major view blockage, especially given that they have that commercial space on the other side of Sims Way, and where the boundary is drawn on the map between the green and the pink makes sense to him. He said he is not sure that lowering the height on the other end does much for us, but it may. Ms. Thayer: Indicated there is a tradeoff here with economic development. She said you need to go up on the streets above the Port and look down, because if you get a building tucked up underneath the bluff, right at the bluff, you are not going to get nearly the impact as you are with same 75' building further down. It looms higher; she said she lives on Holcomb Street down from the hospital, and if you look at the 44' high travel lift and you look at the 55' high Admiral Marine building, where it is sitting the travel lift looks probably a quarter again as high, much higher. The further away you get, the more impact it has on views. If it were tucked up, it is not going interfere with their view as much, but all of the people on Jackman Street who bought property at that time, bought based on a 35' height restriction in the Port-- an impact on all of those views, because when you see a topographic map, it is 80' right at the top of that street. She said it is really going to impact those houses. Mr. Worden: Said that it would make sense to pull the area of the higher height level back from the waterfront; it would have a bigger impact there. If you get it back to the plane where the Admiral Marine building is or behind, it is better. Mr. Randall: Extending the orange line all the way across is approximately the Shorelines jurisdiction, and suggested bringing the line all the way across. The Shoreline code currently reads 35' high and takes precedence over the zoning code. Ms. Thayer: Also recommended that 75' be to the west of Admiral Marine building. Mr. Randall: Thought Mr. Crockett would like the Admiral Marine building in the 75' area, that they could see a possible expansion behind. He said from their standpoint, you make a good point that the farther away from the bluff, buildings closer to the water and farther away toward downtown, the more impact you have looking down. Ms. Thayer: Said that there will be a lot of public input, that she has been getting calls from all her neighbors. Mr. Randall: Mr. Crockett has indicated that it is very unlikely you are going to see buildings torn down in the Port in the moderately distant future. You are looking at some parts of the Port where you could see new building, where the lumber yard currently is, where Platypus is proposing, possibly an addition to Admiral Marine. Ms. Thayer: Said in that area the Poplars are over 100' tall, so if it sits behind there, she doesn't · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 13 think it is going to impact views like it would out further in the Port. Mr. Randall: The area behind the lumber yard, if you do have something where Platypus is proposing, the area is impacted. The view may already be gone to those houses, so that area may be a very good spot. Most houses being impacted are on Jackman and Hill Streets. Ms. Thayer. Indicated the elevation at the top of Jackman is 80'; where their house is a 100' and it is about a 12 percent grade. Mr. Worden: Noticed the drawing of what Platypus is considering. Even if we gave them 75' it does not conform to the way the language is written in the building code, minimum height between the ridge and the eave. They have 75' at the eave_ Ms. Thayer: They are asking for 79' at the building peak, average gable height of75'. Mr. Randall: Said that was a very good point. They are since looking at a lower profile for their equipment and are saying 75' average gable height would work. He indicated he took out their suggested 12 - 2 slope.; you couldn't get a 6 - 12 gable pitch roof. You probably don't want to discourage tall gable roofs. Mr_ Worden: Said he noticed going through there today, he was sure that probably 113rd of the buildings have no permit; structures made of plastic, aluminum, and concrete block. Ms. Thayer: If it were a difference between design standards and 75" she would rather have a flat roof Mr. Randall: Could have a couple of options on maps - one that says, go in 200' from the ordinary high water mark, extend the orange 35' with a 75' line west of Admiral Marine; one option as drawn now; and maybe one somewhere between the two, Ms. Thayer: Said she would like to have a couple of options. Mr. Masci asked concerning a wetland. Mr. Randall said there is a drainage corridor over there, then a wetland. He said where Platypus is being proposed to be built has already been ballasted. It was indicated that was pretty stable. Mr. Randall thought they might want to develop the wetland; Mr. Worden suggested one of the problems is the more you squeeze the 75' the more they might want to extend out there. He said he thinks they really have to hold the line. Ms. Thayer stated she thought it would be really difficult out there; that is a drainage corridor. Ms. Surber said if you increase the building height in that area, you make it more economically viable for it to happen. Mr. Randall concurred and said you might want to exclude that. Ms. Thayer pointed the city has created a drainage corridor out there as well as the wetland. Mr. Leedy asked about ballasting the other area and asked if that is the area the EIS covered. It was affirmed and Mr_ Worden said he thought they should make it clear the Shorelines zone has its own limits, but extend the boundary lines along the Shoreline limits. Ms. Thayer said for the record, she lives above this and has checked to make sure she can comment; it is legislative and permissible. She invited anyone who wants to come up and take a look at how those views are impacted. Mr. Randall said by the time they get to public hearings, Platypus architects will have . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 14 some photo simulations of how that building will look in that spot from different angles; we will know from what angles they have been taken. He said he would contact the homeowners to see if approve their coming out and taking photographs from their property, and win have that information. He said he would prepare different options, and asked if the Commission felt it worthwhile to have a second workshop on this before the public hearing, suggesting October 14th? Ms. Thayer said from her perspective she did not see any point of a second workshop; if they need to, it is on the October 14th agenda. Mr. Randall will be gathering more information and said he would keep them updated. VII. Other Business Mr. Leedy noted the latest iteration of Glen Cove/Tri-Area options distributed for reading. He pointed out the invitation from Mr. Al Scalf, Director of Community Development for Jefferson County, to attend the upcoming Public Hearings September 15 and 22 on the special study of the subject and asked if the Commission wanted to schedule a meeting. He requested at least a representative sampling of the Commission involved in the Port Townsend Plan. Ms. Thayer indicated that Ms. Erickson and she were the only two Commission members involved. Mr. Leedy said their particular interest for Port Townsend attending was to be able to ask questions. Mr. Leedy said he did not see a need of both commissions meeting. Mr. Worden concurred, and Mr. Leedy said he would communicate that to Mr. Scalf Mr. Worden reported that Mr. Jim Pearson, project manager for the Glen CovelTri Area study, is likely to attend Port Townsend's two workshops scheduled on the subject. Next Scheduled Meetings: September 16. 1999 Study Session September 23. 1999 Study Session EIS (Review land use and county zoning) EIS (Discuss land use and zoning options and draft outline of items to be considered at public hearing) September 29. 1999 Public Hearing September 30. 1999 Joint Training Session Public Hearing (open record) Public Hearing (open record October 14. 1999 Workshop EIS (Recommendations to City Council) 9:30 a.m.. - 2:00 p.m. (With City Council) Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed Ordinance Amending SEP A Thresholds Finalize Comp Plan Amendments findings & conclusions · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1999 Page 15 Zoning Code Text Amendment (proposal by the Port to raise the building height limit in the M-III(A) zoning district) October 28. 1999 Port of Port. Townsend (open-record public hearing) (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit Planning Commissioners to be excused: Ms. Erickson, September 7 to 23 Mr. Worden, September 16 Mr. Mandelbaum, October 7 VIII. Communications - Current Mail IX. Adjournment Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. /1 (!, 52 ~_. ~ Ci Thayer, Chair J¿d~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker ,. Guest List . Meeting of: ;1.//Æ/A/IAI ~ {' 0'#"'1/55/04/ Purpose: Date: 5' E ¡J-r £-Hð /5 K 9) let q 9 I Name 'pi.... prin" I Address I T;;~Tn~~ I . . - . ~- ~~c