Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06241999 Min Ag · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting June 24, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 10, 1999 V. Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) VI. Unfinished Business · Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Update on City Council docket decision VII. New Business A. Interim C-II Design Guidelines, LUP99-42 - open-record public hearing 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) 2. Public testimony 3. Commission discussion and conclusions VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings July 8, 1999 * Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (open-record public hearing) * Crist Subdivision (open-record public hearing) (Worden/Erickson) IX. Communications X. Adjournment · · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting June 24, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Len Mandelbaum and Christine Ota. Larry Harbison was excused, Lois Sherwood unexcused Staff members present, BCD Bob Leedy and Jeff Randall, City Attorney Tim McMahan and new City Manager David Timmons. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of June 10, 1999 as written and amended was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES -- There was nothing to report. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Update on City Council docket decision. Mr. Leedy reported that the City Council accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission for adopting the Comprehensive Plan docket with two exceptions: · Council declined the suggested amendment rezoning the Key City Lanes property on Kearney Street; · Council determined to docket the suggested amendment that would consider residential in addition to commercial in cn (residential above commercial in the cn district). He reminded that those were docketed for further Planning Commission and Council consideration and action. Chair Thayer thanked Mr. McMahan for his memorandums in their packets which clarified issues for the Planning Commission. Mr. Worden pointed out that the City Council response to the Planning Commission recommendation on the Key City Lanes property was · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 2 unanimously negative, and that two things were clear: · Several councilmembers strongly felt it was unfair to rezone property when the proponent was not t4e property owner; · There is not a lot of enthusiasm for CIIIMU zoning, and several councilmembers were unwilling to support it for that reason. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Interim C-II Design Guidelines, LUP99-42 -- open-record public hearing 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) Mr. Randall stated that BCD had received two comment letters after packets were sent out. The letters were entered into the record as: Exhibit A -- Mr. JeffHamm, Jefferson Transit, of June 23, 1999, with comments: 1) clarifying how maximum building setbacks in reference to the forest corridor would apply, and 2) including some language regarding mass transit in pedestrian-friendly area policy sections. · Exhibit B -- Ms. Nancy Dorgan, of June 23, 1999, with suggestions. Mr. Randall commented on why is this being done, that it is no secret a lot of the awareness and concern about how development occurs along Sims Way has been raised by the Rite Aid project, but also BCD has seen a real increase in the rate of commercial development in the CII area. Although there are several vacant lots in the area, there is also a lot of land with non-conforming houses or small, run-down commercial businesses that will probably be developed in greater intensity in the future. He said if the City is going to take steps to adopt design standards that implement the Gateway Plan and Comprehensive Plan more fully, now is the time to do this. He outlined the draft interim ordinance and changes made since the last workshop: · Pages 1 - 6-112. References to existing city policy -- an effort to show that almost all of the concepts that are laid out in the Interim Design Standards have origins in existing city plans and policies. Mr. Worden asked if Section I, the first 6-7 pages, will actually appear in the final ordinance? Mr. Randall replied this would be part of the ordinance, and he is contemplating, at least for the interim, something that would look just like this to hand out to developers. When it · · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 3 is codified into Title 17, normally the whereas and policy references would not be included, because they do occur in other places in the code and it would be repetitive. His assumption was that in Title 17 they would start with the purpose and intent. Mr. Worden said he thought it is very useful to have Section I here to show people who are not familiar with the standards. Mr. Randall replied they could easily have a hand-out that includes this background. Mr. McMahan explained that this ordinance is not set up for codification; it will be an interim ordinance, and when they actually have the full and complete final ordinance in December, that will be codified in Title 17 form. This will not be in the code books but will remain like this with all the findings until they do have the final ordinance. · Section 2.1 Purpose and intent. Language reflects a lot of what is in the Comprehensive Plan, the Gateway Plan. (The upper Sims Way area is an auto-oriented area versus pedestrian-orientation in 2.1.B.) · Section 2.2 Definitions. Changes were made to clarify, simplify and incorporate comments trom the workshop-- "shall" versus "should"; "objective" rather than "guideline"; "required" and "recommend" statements removed; "Primary intersection" added. · Section 2.3 Applicability - Permit required; Projects Subject to Permit. At. Threshold for new construction raised trom 120 sq. ft. (the threshold for a building permit) to 1,000 sq. ft. A2. Expansion of existing commercial buildings -- A.2.i. 4,000 sq. ft. addition would require review, or A2.ii, if your building is increasing by 50% of its existing size. (If you have a 1,000 sq. ft. building you can add up to 500 sq. ft. without a design review being required; if a 4,000 sq. ft. building, you could add up to 2,000 sq. ft. additional space without design review; if you exceed those, the 50% clause is required; if a very large building, e.g. Safeway, you could expand by much less than 50% and still create a very great impact, (4,000 sq. ft. requirement applies.) Originally it was 150%, but the intent of committee was 50%. · Section 2.4 Application process: Application fees. Mirrors the multi-family design review -- no committee; BCD review only (probably one planner review size of the project). Fee same as multi-family design review, approved by BCD Director (no special public notice -- process could happen rather quickly.) If SEP A is required, adjacent property owners would be notified of the SEP A process. · Section 2.5 Maximum Building Setback From Primary Street Frontage. A2. Objective. Not changed, based on the last workshop. Added regarding commercial buildings on comer lots being oriented toward the primary intersection, clarifying which · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 4 intersection, if multiple intersections. (To implement the Gateway Plan to make buildings more pedestrian-oriented, bringing them closer to the sidewalk and moving parking to the side or rear.) (See Exhibit A for Mr. JeffHamm's comments regarding maximum setback wording; could be forest corridor -- maximum setback could be the setback provided for the forest corridor plus 25 feet.) The forest corridor in the Gateway Plan is an area where including a forest buffer with commercial development could be complicated. Normally, businesses want that visibility trom the highway. Mr. Randall said in working with the forest corridor he felt in large measure it would be how many access points the DOT and the City of Port Townsend are willing to grant onto Sims Way. Without guidance, people will have to be asked in workshops what they want this part of town to look like. Mr. Randall was not aware of any projects in that part of town between now and December. · Section 2.6 Plazas, Landscaping, and other Pedestrian Amenities. Regards what can be done in the 25 foot setback space or a wider space in an alternate plan provIsIon. · Section 2.7 Off-Street Parking Lots. Moves the parking to the side or the rear. (30 to 75 percent parameter to help design street frontage. ) · Section 2.8 On-Street Parking Committee thought it important to create an incentive to help reduce the size of parking lots. Allow on-street parking -- where off-street parking is reduced by the number of developed on-street parking spaces adjacent to the site. AI. -- (Addition) If a developer does not design the parking based on maximizing on-street parking. · Section 2.9 Pedestrian friendly commercial development. (See Exhibit A for Mr. Hamm's comments regarding a requirement development feature to include such amenities as bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, transit pullouts and transit shelters consistent with the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, and Engineering Standards.) Provision could be made for a reference. Policies are already in place, and it is considered unnecessary to include in the Interim Design Guidelines. A2. -- (Raised sidewalks) Clarifying language added. If included in the permanent standards it would be appropriate to illustrate. · Section 2.11 Architectural Design. (See Exhibit B -- Ms. Dorgan suggested name changes which were left for her to clarify) A.5 -- (Tilt-up concrete walls.) A6 -- Made more flexible, but imply that you should consider the town when you select your colors; consider such things as predominate colors of the environment, buildings nearby, bright colors to be used in trim or small quantities -- keeping a sense of place with Port Townsend. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 5 · Section 2.17 Alternative Designs. Included to create some flexibility if there is a site with unusual characteristics or use -- an unusual vehicle, or large vehicles, if it showed consistency with the intent of the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Also included to integrate the alternate design provision into the interim guidelines so there is not some separate application to go through other than the main permit process. Mr. Randall pointed out this is scheduled to be the only open-record hearing on this project, that the City Council has determined to take the Planning Commission recommendation without another open-record hearing, to allow public comment during the comment period and take action on it. He reported SEP A ended today; there were no appeals received and he declared SEPA is now complete. Scheduling includes charettes planned for September, a draft final ordinance ready in October/November, and permanent standards in place by years' end. Planning Commjssion Questions and Comq)ents: Mr. Mandelbaum: Raised the possibility of having an advisory architectural committee. It would provide advice for the developer and also save time. Ms. Thayer: Asked if he did not consider this to be included in the Interim Standards. Mr. Mandelbaum: Replied he did not care where it is considered. Mr. Randall: Indicated a design decisionmaker had been discussed; in some jurisdictions, bigger projects go to a design committee; he stated they had decided for now to just get folks sold on the idea of design standards. He pointed out it would slow things to go for design review through a committee rather than staff, but there might be some advantages. He suggested they discuss it further. Mr. Leedy: Indicated the official Staff position is to go with Staff review for the interim and consider it further for permanent standards. Mr. Worden: The ad hoc committee and visitors to that committee wanted to make it absolutely clear what developers have to do, so there are no questions or discretionary decisions to be made; he was not necessarily opposed to architectural review, but felt it would complicate interim standards. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer opened the hearing for public testimony at 7:42 p.m. She encouraged anyone wishing to speak to do so, since this will be the only open-record public hearing. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Forrest Rambo, 103 Hudson Street Member of the ad hoc committee. It was his understanding they were going to call these policies rather than guidelines. He said he thinks it is good to call them policies because a policy is a course of action; there are a lot of places in this interim .ordinance where there is confusion between a course of action and the end result - the end result should be an objective. He indicated it is a formatting matter, not semantic, but in terms ofl.ooking at definitions within the city, he believes there is a definition for policy that corresponds to the idea .of a desired course of action. An objective is the aim,. the goal or the end result. He urged that they go through this and make very clear the distinction between those two things. He cited an example -- page 17, 2.13 Building entrances, and declared that is an objective and is measurable; the following statement is policy, is m.ore nebulous and not quite so measurable. He referenced the definiti.on section, "Obiectives which indicatç mandatoJ)' compliance ar~ identified by the use of the terms "shall" Dr "shall not. , . ." and noted it goes on to say, "Obiectives which allow some tlexibili1y as to how t4e intent .of the object,ve can be met are indicated by th~ use of the terms "should". "~y". "encoura~ed". or "discoura~ed". He declared that is policy, and he calledJor distinction to be made between the two.. Mr. Rambo indicated, other than that everything was great. Mr. Dana Roberts, 438 ~ 22nd Street He.said, having been a member of the working committee, he br.oadly gave his endorsement. He pointed out, remembering that December would come pretty quickly, they were not able to get to everything. He identified three or four fairly tough issues that were nDt included; they were not intended to be left out, it was simply they wanted to get something in place, and they would take a little more time. · Somewhat weak lighting standards -- outdoor illumination in general, although there is very helpful guidance from some of the city's existing requirements. Making certain some of the smaller structures, smaller properties, would provide a certain consistency throughout the district. He stated they might not have been fully prepared to deal with some of the ingenious .offerings of the lightin.g equipment makers. · Gross building size. · Maximum parking space. Rec.ognition of the end result has often been determined, in good part by how much sterile desert there is. There is room for some improvement in looking at the landscaping. Mr. Roberts said overall they had a high degree of consensus of what was presented, and he encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt it with such revisions as they find good cause. He made the following observations: · Page 9,2.3.2.ii. -- He concurred with Mr. Worden it seemed clearer to say that expansion could be done with a 50% threshold. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 7 . Page 15, 2.1t.A7 -- After RcconLn1Gbdation. Suggested striking the last two words of the sentence "is encouraged". · Goal of clarity. Recognizing the value that to whatever degree the ordinance can avoid people having to spend time trying to get clarification of what is intended, he would endorse Mr. Rambo's point regarding wording of guideline and policy. Ms. Nancy Dorgan, 2137 Washington Street #7 Referenced the drawing received earlier trom Baldridge for the proposed Rite-Aid store on Kearney Street, and said it is the baseline she uses in looking at the interim standards to see how valid Staff's work has been to protect us from that kind of monstrosity in the future. She pointed out windows as a particular concern. She said she had heard the argument this Rite-Aid building was an opening in negotiations for getting a better building. She did not buy that argument, stating she has seen this building; it exists at 21 st and Pearl Street in the north end of Tacoma where she grew up. She said it opened about 2 months ago and is not theoretic in concept; it really does happen to cities, and it almost happened in Port Townsend. Concerns in her letter included: · Section 2.15 (correction made to her letter) -- suggested as a way to avoid a developer from doing this is to, at least for interim standards, consider for retail buildings only, changing the optional window reQJlirement as it is written to a requirement. As suggested by Ms. Erickson at the workshop, look at the C-II zone Use Tables to see who needs windows and who does not. She indicated she chose Retail because she knows that would apply to something like the Rite-Aid store and asked the Planning Commission to consider this change to interim standards. She said developers with this kind of building don't give windows because they are expensive; we are not sure what the results might be if we rely on negotiation, good faith and working with value kinds of things without a requirement for windows. · Rename: ç..JI InterimArçhitectu.raVSit~ Desjzn Standards to clearly distinguish these from Engineerin(: Desi~ Standards (EDS). The title needs to be more than design because there is also engineering design. · Cross reference where an item occurs in both the EDS and the new design standards (e.g., a simple reference to the EDS page number), so a builder can see it in context. · Page 14, 2.9.A3, Pedestrian access -- change to requirement rather than optional. Referenced lack of pedestrian access at: 1) the McDonalds site, crossing from the Port at the stop light, and between McDonalds and Henery's Hardware very busy driveway; 2) from the lagoon or Park-and-Ride to McDonalds, a steeper embankment; there is nothing along the whole back of the development. She pointed out as the ordinance is written, there now should be access between commercial and residential, but the back of McDonalds is neither. She suggested changing to: "Pedestrian access §lm!l be provided between commercial sites and adjacent areas." (dropped the residential to include park · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 8 land, etc.) Rewrite to: "Access location shall be determined by existing or informal pathway locations and future walkway locations shown in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan." She pointed out that there has been a pathway made for access, and McDonald's has barricaded part of it, because they didn't want people cutting through from the Park-and- Ride where there is a busy drive-through window. She would like those access points required. · 2.11, Architectural Design. (Organizational) Suggested renaming or reworking to include 2.13, Building Entrances, as a subsection (equally architectural). · 2.11.A.2, Reflective roofing. Some roofing materials are really blinding, i.e., Jefferson Title reflective roofing (brown painted metal roof). Would like consideration to require non- reflective roofing materials on sloping roofs. · 2.1 I .A6, Colors. Has a real aversion to shiny paint. Suggested requirement be changed to "Prohibit high gloss paints except on trim, doorways, and window sashes." · 2.15, Windows. Feels very strongly. · Work on permanent standards -- pocket parks in commercial areas (See Parks Plan). Perhaps could be a parking space mitigation, e.g., children's playgrounds. In general, supports the good work that has been done; is concerned it does not address a building that would look like that. Mr. Bernie Arthur, 1320 Jefferson Street Committee member. Explained they liked the idea of interim standards to start property owners, developers, who own small properties along the corridor (with new highway improvements along Sims Way) to think about ways they can develop or redevelop their property in an orderly and reasonable way. He said ordinances sometimes become so restrictive they encourage the kind of development so many people in the community seem to verbalize they would not like to see. If you crowd small and old-time property owners out of the development business, you pretty much guarantee people will accumulate more space and build larger buildings. Thought the committee's idea was to make it simple with easy and understandable guidelines initiaUy at least, that could transition some of the people away from throwing up their hands and going away, and might allow some 4,000, 5,000 or 10,000 sq. ft lots to be developed by the present owner who is what so many seem to think should be in business. We don't want to take them out of business by creating a monster they cannot deal with or afford. From the real estate point of view there are so many small parcels along that road until you get right up to the forest corridor. There are very few sites that could accommodate this; if we force those little property owners to sell out, there might be more sites. Mr. Richard Berg, 727 Taylor Street Committee member. Also encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt the interim · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 9 standards. Indicated that as the interim standards have percolated through the process, he thought they had come out pretty much what the committee had wanted. He indicated it is a good tool for the city, and developers and designers who are trying to work with building in this district. He felt it was a good idea to cross reference other documents in the design standards. He noted he is an architect by trade; his bias is as a user and applier, and would really like to see it simple to use and a tool that brings information from all the different documents (e.g., the Gateway Plan and the Non-Motorized Plan) the city uses to say "yes" or "no" to a project into one document, that someone in his position can refer to and have a pretty good idea what is required. He said the thinks basically Ms. Dorgan's ideas are pretty good, although he does not necessarily agree with her feelings about high gloss paint that last longer, but in general he thought she had good suggestions. Chair Thayer dosed public testimony at 8: 10 p.m. 3. Commission discussion and conclusions CONSENSUS: As requested, it was agreed to also accept comments from the audience. Ms. Erickson referred to differences in the C-II districts, that there are three different kinds of areas; many things fit the highway corridor but not Washington Street or Discovery. She said she had a problem with goals and policies. Mr. Randall referred to different policies for different rooms, and pointed out that Port Townsend's C-1I zoning has its own character that should be respected, that Washington Street is different from uptown. Following further discussion, Mr. Rambo suggested the intent is that the term historic is broad, not only referring to the Historic District. Mr. Worden indicated reference to historic does not mean to mimic, or decide what is an historic building, rather overall scale, and colors used in the town, so that new developers respect what is already here. The followin& modi~cations were m~de to the interim standards: Page 2 Goals and Policies Mr. Mandelbau.m: Regarding goals, generally, thought they have included too much that have nothing to do with design standards. Policy 8.10 -- not clear what the relationship is between proposed street improvements, location of open space, a lot of the specific goals. If we trim that down it could be a little more focused, at least as far as the goal statement is concerned. Mr. Randall: Policy 8.10 -- The reason for including, this is a Gateway policy which specificallyhsays, "Prepare a corridor master plan for intensive commercial development of the area." · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 10 The area referred to is Howard Street/Discovery Road Corridor. This is specifically saying we need to do some detailed commercial planning. Mr. Mandelbaum: Suggested you don't need a lot of the a,b,c's and d's. This addresses issues such as vitality and attractiveness, but does not help the city deal with a lot of other things. Policy 8.10 Mr. Mandelbaum: Made a general request that Staff consider trimming the goals to those specifically related to the design standards, not to include such things as employment numbers, public policies, etc. which have no relationship to the subject matter we are dealing with. Mr. Randall: Policy 8.10 could be ended with, "Prepare a corridor master plan for intensive commercial development of the area." CONCLUDED: End Policy 8.10 with "development oftbe area." Page 3 2.2 Parking Typo, Line 6 -- correct spelling to "innovatively" CONCLUDED: Correct typo Page 5 4.5 Inside and Outside Typo, 3rd Line from bottom of the page -- change "and" to "an" to read -- " . . . that presents an interesting. . ." CONCLUDED: Correct typo Page 7 Title Mr. Worden: Ms. Dorgan requested to change the title, which Mr. Worden suggested. CONCLUDED: Change title to ArchitecturaUSite Design Standards Mr. Worden: Ms. Dorgan requested cross reference of the Engineering Design Standards. Mr. Worded suggested including a statement. CONCLUDED: Include a statement somewhere in the beginning cross referencing the Engineering Design Standards Page 8 M.s. Tbayer: Do we want to discuss Mr. Rambo's comment regarding policy and guidelines? Mr. Mandelbaum: Felt he did not need to, but would like to hear Mr. Randall's response. Mr. Randall: Most other jurisdictions use the word guidelines or don't say anything; those statements are typically in a design guideline booklet and not adopted in code. What might · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 11 be in the code is something like, "All new developments shall comply with. . . " This has been drafted to eventually go right in PTMC Title 17 and reads like code. He said he has some question about putting the term "policy" in something that is regulation. He arbitrarily picked the term objective because he felt that was clearer than guideline in an overriding statement that is fairly broad, fairly general, but is what we are trying to achieve - below that stating what things are required to achieve it, what things you should do. There may be some flexibility to achieve it, or you could come up with something like the alternative site design, or something completely different from what you have here. He asked for Mr. McMahan's oplOlon. Mr. McMahan: Rather liked Mr. Randall's conclusion on "objective." He indicated they discussed to a great extent that this is an interim measure until there is a final standard. An interim measure tends to be more regulatory in focus and perspective, versus more policy andguideIine. Every jurisdiction does differently; it is hard to find interim controls and design standards, which is what this has evolved as being; he felt one preferred way that seen ina lot of codes is the basic skeleton mandatory requirements in the code that refers you to a manual; in the manual is a menu of options which gets you to the code requirement. He pointed out they are trying to accomplish something that is a stop-gap measure, and felt to endorse Mr. Randall's view of the word "objective," that the word policy te·nds to water down the møre immediate interim enforceable impact. Ms. Erickson: Indicated she felt with the big picture, that rather than a clear-cut policy she liked the word objective, and said she thought they could take it all the way through. M.r. Worden: Really liked Mr. Randall's organization of tmscompared to the last draft. It is clearer in each section what is intended; recommending ways to do it are then presented. Felt the word "objective" is fine. Mr. Mandelbaum: Felt the draft is a significantly clearer, more coherent document than originally; also felt, in the context, policy ~nd objectives were synonymous and could go either way. CONCLUDED: Leave the issue of policy and guideline as written. .Page 9 1..3~A..1 Mr. Worden: Clarify -- if your building exceeds 4,000 sq. ft., any expansion would be required to have a permit. Thought it should say thisappIiesto existing commercial buildings with expansion either 2.3.A2.i exceed 4,000 sq. ft., or 2.3.A2.ii comprise a ground floor expansion of 50% . .. Suggested rewording. CONCLUDED: Change to "developments. . . "that involve one of the followinl::" . . . 2.3.A..2.ii "Co~mercial buildings the expansions of wbich either:" · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 12 Page 10 2.4.A Mr. Worden: Implies that the application could consist of drawings of what he caned design development level; they don't have to be completed drawings that you would submit for a building perroit. He said he thinks it should be said you don't need that; that you can make decisions and give guidance at an early design level. M.r. Randall: "... pursuantto PTMC 20.01.100 and shall also include architectural renderings and site plans" you could include something like "conceptual" or "draft." Mr. Worden.: Suggested "preliminary." Mr. Randall: Then what we normally do is focus in on the hand-out and application form itself to be clear that you should come in before you submit your building permit; come in with something conceptual. CONCLUDED: Change to ". . . pursuant to PTMC 20.01.100 and shall also include preliminary architectural renderings and site plans. .." Page 11 2.5.A.l.a. Mr. Randall: Suggested wording like, "In these areas the maximum front yard setback shaH be appropriate forest corridor buffer as determined through the review process. " Mr. Worden: That is a completely different situation, if we are serious about the buffer. We don't want the buildings to front toward the street if there is a buffer between them and the street. It looks the way that area would develop would be with an interior focus; it would have to be like a courtyard to drive or walk into. What you have is appropriate. Mr. Randall: Thought Mr. Hamm was concerned about in these areas, that somebow buildings would be focused on Sims Way and would have parking in front. He said he did not think that would work, but thought they would be oriented to internal streets. He suggested leaving it vague stating that when there are permanent standards, they will probably be a Jot more specific in that area; use this as a tool as to what they would like to see happen. The buffer on Sims Way is about to the Hilltop, and Discovery Road about to Howard Street CONCLUDED: Leave as written; make no change Page 12 2.6A. Ms. Thayer: Typo; period missing at the end of tbe sentence. CONCLUDED: Add period at the end of the sentence. 2.7.3 Mr. Worden: Reads like it means 30 percent of the area ofthe site; what we mean is it should not be more than 30 percent of the frontage along the primary street; suggested change. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Randall: Eliminate wording "the site along the" CONCLUDED: Change to read "Off-street parking should not occupy more than 30 percent of the primary street frontage. . ." Page 14 2.8.A.l, Incentives Ms. Erickson: Asked if they should also add redevelopments or expansions to the off-street parking incentive. The requirement is for new development and expansions or redevelopment. Would you add redevelopment? Mr. Randall: Suggested to include "expansions" to clarify that it would apply to what the design standards apply. CONCLUDED: Include "expansions" 2.9.A.l Mr. Worden: (Note: Ifbuilding entrances front directly on a public sidewalk, this objective. . .) Objective is not applicable. Mr. Randall: Should say "standard" CONCLUDED: (Note: ... change objective to standard) 2.9.A.2 Mr. Worden: Change to ". . . sidewalks by driveways. . . " Also change ". . . cars may pass over the sidewalk. . . "(not driveway). CONCLUDED: Line 1, change to "The interruption of sidewalks by driveways. . . " Also change". . .sidewalks should remain raised with a curb cut and ramp over the ~idewalk provided so cars m~y pass over the sidewalk. . . " 2.9.A.3 Mr. Worden: Concurred with Ms. Dorgan's suggestion, that pedestrian access between commercial sites and adjacent areas should be mandatory, especially conformance with the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan -- not should. Mr. Randall Change "should" to "sball"? Mr. Worden: Thinks that ought to be shall; that is open for discussion, but he thought that was the right way to do it. Mr. Randall: It refers to residential and commercial development; he thought he concurred with Ms. Dorgan. What they are really looking for is existing paths; the Non-Motorized Plan calls for, where people are walking. Ms. Erickson: Asked ifthis is a requirement for walkways between commercial businesses? Mr. Worden: Replied, asking for pedestrian routes to adjacent properties. If there is a sidewalk, that might meet tbe requirement; it might not be on the property, but could meet the · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 14 requirement, e.g., if you are on a comer lot, if you have a sidewalk on two sides, you have done it. In places like the McDonalds site, it would require that they provide some way to get trom their site into the park without walking in the street. Mr. Randall: There are a lot of different situations, as with Safeway; it can be as simple as providing some openings where people are cutting through the landscaping and making dirt paths; trim back the landscaping and put in a gravel path; make a formal opening and advise people to use it In a la.rger parking lot it might be appropriate to have a raise.d side.walk because of such a highly used inter-connection, but would be case-by-case. Mr. Leedy: Cautioned that this is one of the kinds of standards that you want some discretion allowed; we can't have hard and fast, "thou shall provide a path from this point to that point." There has to be some discretion and opportunity for the director to apply some common sense to review. Ms. Thayer: You are suggesting it stay as should rather than shall? Mt'.. {£edy' "Shalt" -- "where feasible" -- "where appropriate." Ms. Erickson: "Should," otherwise it's mandatory. Ms. Thayer: Said she is more comfortable with "should." Mr. Worden: Would like you to think that we don't hesitate for a moment to require vehicle access to adjacent sites. Everybody has to do that; he asked if it so unreasonable to require pedestrian access? CONCLUDED: Change to "Shall" - VOTE: 3-2 in favor Mr. Worden: There is an avenue built in this for exceptions. Mr. Randall: Asked regarding changing the language at the end of that sentence to "commercial sites and adjacent areas." (Eliminate residential or commercial development.) CONCLUDED: CIm,,"ge to. "]»ed.~triaJ1 a.ccess O!ll. be p.rovided between commercial sites and adjacent residential areas." On Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Thayer opened the meeting to hear further public testimony. Mr. Garrison Referenced Mr. Leedy's comment regarding clarification and caution, and indicated now the horse is out of the barn. He said with considerable discussion in regards to the availability of rights-of-way -- if you build a new commercial development next to an existing one that has a 5- foot concrete wall, and the neighbor refuses an easement -- the new person does not build his development, because he cannot put a pathway through that wall. Given the word "should," we could have said, with an things possible and work it out; once you have "shall" you are into a comer that cannot be mitigated. He noted that is why they wanted to soften that. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 15 Ms. Thayer: Asked if they wanted to revisit with that in mind. Mr. Garrison: Interjected it was alright. Mr. Worden: Said he was satisfied there are paths around it for those kinds of circumstances. Page 15 2.11 CONCLUDED: Change title to Building Design, M.aterials and Colors (Recommended by Mr. RandaIJ) 2.1I.A.2, Use of reflective roofing materials Ms. Dorgan: Explained her objection was only for sloping roofs. Ms. Thayer: "The use of reflective roofing materials is discouraged."; Ms. Dorgan recommended "require" non-reflective roofing. Mr. Worden: Ms. Dorgan also recommended addition of "on sloping roofs" which he endorsed, but is not willing at this point to make this mandatory. Ms. Erickson: Said she is not in favor of making it mandatory. Mr. Mandelbaum: Preferred to make mandatory. CONCLUDED: Leave as it is; make no change 2.11.A.4 Mr. Randall: What kind of materials are "ecologically friendly"? Ms. Dorgan: Suggested hardiplank. Mr. Randall: Commented the committee did not like hardiplank. Mr. Mandelbaum: Suggested changing "and" to "and/or" since recycled material is ecologicaHy triendly CONCLUDED: Change to "The use of wood, brick, and/or other..." 2.11.A.6 (Ms. Dorgan's request to prohibit high gloss paints.) Mr. Worden: Thinks "discouragement" is adequate. Questioned if this also applies to signs. Mr. Randall: It is just building colors. Mr. Worden: Suggested the sign ordinance limits such things as height, but that is completely different. Mr. Randall: Concurred and said they have sign review in the Historic District, but out there a sign win probably look lika their logo, which is their identification. He said Mr. McMahan recommended clarifying quantities by changing to "Bright colors should be minimiz~d or used for minor architectural features rather than major portions of the buildin&." Mr. Worden: Answered M.s. Thayer's question regarding "bright colors should be minimized", that there are ways to do reaIIy effective design using bright colors in extremely small quantities. He suggesting saying, "Colors should be minimized or used for accents." · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Randall: Suggested, "for minor architectural accents." CONCLUDED: Change to: "Bright colors should be minimized or used for minor architectural accents rather than major portions of the building." 2. 11.A. 7 CONCLUDED: Delete the words" . . . is encouraged" at the end of the sentence. (Recommended by Mr. Randall) Page 18 2.15 Mr. Worden: Ms. Dorgan suggested a mandatory window requirement for retail. He thought the critical part of that recommendation is recognizing this a good suggestion for some kinds of buildings, and maybe not for others, e.g. gas stations. He said he is afraid they are creating a lot of boxes with this, but really likes what it does for retail buildings. Mr. Randall: Explained it is just a "should" statement and would go back to the objective-- "Commercial buildings should provide generous amounts of windows to create ground floors with a "transparent" quality. He indicated this would give them some leverage to consider that windows are important to us. Mr. Worden: Said he accepted the compromise. CONCLUDED: Leave as is; make no change Page 20 2.17.A.l Ms. Erickson: Asked if that includes, or needs to include, "or placement of an existing building on the site." Mr. Randall: Said he would consider that a physical characteristic of the site. He indicated they could change to "Due to the physical characteristics and existing improvements. . ." M.r. Worden: Suggested maybe "building" is better, otberwise they could say something to the effect that they have already paved that. CONCLUDED: Change to "Due to the physical characteristics and existing buildings. . . " MOTION Mr. Worden Recommend to the City Council adoption of the Interim Ordinance with modifications agreed to in this meeting SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Four in favor, Ms. Erickson opposed VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Leedy introduced and Chair Thayer welcomed new City Manager David Timmons. ",.<" · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 24, ]999 Page 17 Next Scheduled Meetings July 8, ] 999 * Wastewater Comprehensive Plan -- open-record public hearing * Crist Subdivision -- open-record public hearing (WordenlErickson) Mr. McMahan explained that the Wastewater hearing scheduled for July 8th involved changes to the Comprehensive Plan and was sent to the Planning Commission for that component. He indicated there are limited changes. There was discussion concerning the Crist Subdivision hearing. Chair Thayer reminded Commission members it would be a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Mandelbaum asked the status of the Tri Area. Mr. Leedy noted the draft Environmental Impact Statement was projected to be out by June 30th, and wbat is being discussed now is merely a preliminary draft. He indicated a supplemental draft to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan focuses on the Glen Cove area. Mr. Worden asked if the city will have input to the UGA other than appeal. Mr. Leedy reported the joint committee met today, that there are still a few hurdles in their organization. Ms. Erickson announced that she may not be available for the second Planning Commission meeting in July. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by M.s. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. ý'¿J /J d ,~e(, ~/ {/{i}¿::J " Sheila Avis, Minute Taker · · · Guest List ~ ~I . . \~//~', " '. / J '. >~ ,/,;, ,,' , ;~" ,-- ,,' Meeting of:. '- 111//"/4; 0; L¿)A/ltf/~) 5/û/( Purpose: .,TA(7f1ë/M {' .]1- OéS'/rJ/V ~7,¡:+/V!)(+elh Date: ø !::;¿ c/¡q' q . I Name (please print) I Address I T~~~mron~~ I - 1)L1J\IÞr Q tfRf=_f<TS Y3ß- 2.2~ at L/ T.... ^ (" '" ~ \., Do/'1 c,... .') { 3ì vv"''''",'''' ..Ju.. H-ì t...- , f-- PT J ~ \\ 1"- C, -h-- \ ~ KI\¡ \f\o¡ Á""- 18(0 C ,/ c-U:( S{, V / 'F-~ 12Mv1A I D '3 ~ L . /1 <.~ :;:;;¡¡c&- / ..(No i) () --tku, ~#)h/\~__, hA~ ( -320 v'-- (,2f ~CV\I'~ '-' b1r¡ (7 127 .--' , '1 1-// I A L"'{ Á'-. U U - I I _ I . I~~ J -j/'"