Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06101999 Min Ag . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting June 10, 1999 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. . Call to Order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes: May 27, 1999 Reports of Committees (not related to applications under consideration) Unfinished Business A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Continued deliberations and adoption of Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions VII. New Business A. Interim C-II Design Standards Workshop - materials to be distributed at meeting 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) VIII. Other Business Next Scheduled Meetings June 24, 1999 * Interim C-II Design Standards (open-record public hearing) 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 10, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building by Chair Pro Tern Nik Worden. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Larry Harbison, and Len Mandelbaum. Cindy Thayer, Lois Sherwood and Christine Ota were excused. Staff members present were BCD Judy Surber and Jeff Randall. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion to accept the agenda was made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of May 27, 1999 as written and amended was made by Mr. Harbison and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES -- There were none. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Continued deliberations and adoption of Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions Mr. Worden stated that at their May 27th meeting the Planning Commission reviewed aU of the suggested and formal applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for 1999 and that decisions were made on all of them. He indicated the purpose tonight is to confirm the Planning Commission findings and conclusions and approve Judy Surber's draft memorandum to the City Council regarding the changes. He stated they could approve the draft as is, suggest amendments to it, or add to what has been recorded in it. Mr. Mandelbaum said he is in agreement with Judy Surber's cover note which requests that they clarifY the rationale for the decision the Planning Commission made on the Key City Lanes, Item #5, and that they should work that out at this time. He indicated they had approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 2 the remainder at the last public meeting. DOCKET RECOMMENDATION -- Item #5 Rezone the "Key City Lanes" Property from C-II, General CommerciaL to C-IIlMU. Community-Serving Mixed Use Center Mr. Mandelbaum: Said he thought the reason the unanimous majority ofthe Planning Commission gave for recommending this be put on the docket was they felt that it clearly met the three conditions set out in 20.04.080.A.3 and that is why he moved that they include this on the docket. He continued, that clearly looking at it from the Planning Commission point of view, they felt that the original planning text was such that circumstances haven't undermined the particular position of the original text, and that the assumptions of the original mixed-use provision are still valid, that there was a clear record of the last meeting that community values were still in support of that original planning material. He thought for all three reasons their recommendation of placing that on the docket was in order. Ms. Surber: Asked for confirmation of the summary, "That the assumptions of the original mixed-use zoning were still valid, and that the public obviously supports a mixed-use zone. Mr. Mandelbaum: Affirmed and said that to put it in the negative, he thought it would have been confusing, if not ironic -- if they had to evaluate the amended text, he did not think was the question before the Planning Commission. He suggested the question before the Planning Commission was whether the rationale for the original planning text, mixed-use, was still valid and the conditions and assumptions were still to support that; they were not evaluating the change, they were evaluating the original plan. Mr. Worden: Added that it seems there is some urgency for their reconsideration, given the fact that there is a high likelihood this property will be developed in the near future. He indicated his concern about the changed zoning to C-II is that he doubts the remaining C-II/MU property in the Kearney Street C-IIlMU zone can maintain its viability as a C-IIIMU zone since it has been compromised by the removal of this parcel from it, and since it has also been compromised by the removal of the Puget Sound Energy property and interrupts the band of property that could otherwise be developed in C-II/MU. He indicated the public testimony they heard last week brought to mind several things, one that there really is a fundamental change in what C-II/MU now means, compared to what it meant at the time they considered it last year, in that the residential requirement has been removed from that zone. At the time Council acted to change the zoning of this particular parcel, the principal argument was, as originally zoned it was not economically viable because of that residential requirement. He said he thinks it is fair to give this another hearing, and he also thinks it is significant that there has been a lot of public testimony about this item; there certainly is community sentiment, probably on both sides of it; they know there is substantial community sentiment for the original zone. They were told by several community members that a lot of · · · Planning Commission Minutes June ]0, ]999 Page 3 the reasons the City Council did not hear testimony last year was because people assumed the City Council would take the recommendation of the PlaIlning Staff and Planning Commission; therefore, they did not bother to come and comment. He thinks for those reasons it is important that this be put on the docket and considered again. :Mr. Harbison: Said that in addition to the changed circumstances, he thought another clear reason to change, Municipal Code 20.04.040 real1y indicates that it would not be appropriate for them not to hear the amendment; it does fall within that criteria -- broadly applies to goals, policies and implementing strategies. He indicated it would not be appropriate for them not to hear, not to place it on the docket. Ms. Erickson: Replied to Chair Worden regarding her recommendations, that she was not present when this was done at the last meeting, and since she is opposed to hearing a rezone on the Key City Lanes, she did not have any help with language that recommends this. She indicated these things could have been said at the hearing last year, and some of them voted for it; it was a 3 to 2 vote. She thougbt one of her biggest problems is that it is not the property owner coming in for this; she feels that is really, really V\-Tong. She said as a whole, she will definitely vote on the draft; she is definitely not for the proposal being on the docket; she said she will vote for the packet as a "",hole, and they will get back to that issue agam. Mr. Worden: Explained they spent a lot of time at the last meeting dealing with the issue of standing with the applicant, a..~d eventually decided that with regard to the policy proposal, that was not an issue because there was no standing required. He said essentially tbe Planning Commission took that on their own, not on the applicant's recommendation; they felt it was appropriate to consider, regardless of whether anyone proposed it or not. He said he felt clearly the minutes reflected that ~fr. Mandelbaum: Said he thought it was even debatable on the formal amendment, but clearly here there was no standing issue. Ms. Surbcr: Indicated she thought she had what she needed for the transmittal. She asked if, in Ms. Thayer's absence, one of the Commissioners present would come in to review the draft. Mr. WordeD: Agreed he would be available. Ms. Surber: Indicated she had some minor changes to the transmittal: II> replacing "requestor" with "applicant" throughout .. page 2, delete (Note: Numbering is to coincide with the May 6 and May 20 Staff Reports.) ., attach Exhibits A through V. " other very minor editing MOTION Mr.llarbison Accept the recommended transmittal and statement of reasons SECOND Mr. Mandelbaum · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 4 Chair Worden asked for public comment; Mr. Richard Talbot raised issues regarding mixed-use zoning. Ms. Surber apologized and interjected that the actual public hearing was closed at the last meeting, that they could not receive public testimony at this point, but that his comments would be welcome at the City Council hearing on June 21 st. Mr. Worden also apologized, and Mr. Talbot said his comments could be stricken from the record. VOTE 4 in favor by voice vote; none opposed VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Interim C-II Design Standards Workshop 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) Chair Worden pointed out this is a workshop on the C-II Design Standards that an ad hoc committee had worked on over the past several months. He explained that the public would be welcome to participate, but they would not be making a decision tonight. Mr. Randall explained that on the recommendation of the ex-Interim City Manager, and for a couple of reasons, the committee chose to proceed with an interim ordinance: 1) They were working with L&M Architects on adopting what they thought were going to be permanent standards. That association was terminated when it became clear L&M Architects was not going to complete the project within their allotted budget, and they were significantly short of completing the project; 2) Time was of the essence. The city was left with a pretty good skeleton of design standards and they decided the committee could proceed using sample ordinances from other jurisdictions to adopt a basic framework, that it would be a good time since at present there are not too many projects coming forward, but as fa]] and winter approach, they are going to be seeing next year's projects. Mr. Randall noted it would also be a good time to adopt some interim standards now so developers coming to town within the next year will have a chance to know that the rules are changing, that the City has specific guidelines they want them to consider when they are developing their projects, and it will give them plenty of time for next year's proposals. The Planning Commission will have a public hearing in two weeks; if adopted by the City Council in July, and the City is directed to go forward with permanent standards, they would plan to hold an aH-day charette workshop for the public in September. If, after a busy-summer, they can get the attention of people in September and get some good public involvement, they can show them the interim standards and pose questions regarding what Port Townsend means to them, what is our sense of place and what do we want the future of that Oateway section to look like in detail? He said they have some really good ideas and are excited about the future process. They · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 5 have been talking with Rick Seplar of Madron a who was very involved in the creation ofthe Gateway Plan and very much wants to be involved with the permanent design standards. Mr. Seplar has a lot of experience doing charettes and has offered to help. Why are they doing this? He enumerated a variety of C-1I proposals they have had within the last year: a 16,000 s.f commercial proposal; Safeway 13,000 s.f expansion; Tides Inn addition; Coldwell Banker building, approximately 4,000 s.f; Sea Breeze Convenience Store -- have completed SEP A and should be coming in soon for a building permit. A lot of community comment letters have focused on the way a building will look, what they can do to make a building fit in. There are no existing policies on esthetics, not a lot of policies they can use with SEPA to require building placement in a certain way, not very strict policies on pedestrian pathways. It is a good time to do this because they don't see many projects they feel will be affected; a lot of building is going on, but this would only affect incoming building permits. The interim ordinance will be in effect until probably the end of the year, until the permanent ordinance is on-line. The first six or seven pages of the interim ordinance are basically existing policies that are in other codes, the Comprehensive Plan, the Gateway Plan, the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. None of these concepts mentioned in the Interim Design Standards are new; all are concepts and policies that the City has adopted at one time or another, but have not implemented in C-II District. Mr. Randall gave an overview, and comments were received on the proposed ordinance which is intended to implement the following goals, policies and directives from the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. Maintaining Our Small T(JWn Character This quotation from the Comprehensive Plan, Page 11-4, has been heard many times when projects have come in. One thing people are trying to avoid is the Rite-Aid situation. The Rite-Aid issue in part is that it is a chain; another issue, what it is going to look like -- people want a say in how new development looks. Commercial Lands ~ Policy 8.3: Locate along the street, put the parking to the side or rear - same process is in the interim standards. ~ Policy 8.6: Provide some separation, some sidewalks, pathways between parking spaces. Economic Development Element ~ Policy 9.8 2.2 Parking -- Issue: ". . . Consolidated parking, serving more than one use or building, should be innovatively integrated with development to provide easy and safe access and security within an attractive setting." Guideline: Encourage on-street parking. Entrance ~. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 6 needs to orient to the parking lot but not dominate the face of the building. Interim standards -. parking lots shall not be located between the primary street (the busiest street) and building, but to the side or rear. 2.3 Pedestrian Circulation -- (Gateway Plan-- public spaces) ". . . Sidewalks and pathways need to be enhanced with street furniture, landscape and art objects, activity in abutting buildings, to provide a variety of experiences throughout the Gateway Corridor. The pedestrian system needs to include places to pause, rest and watch the activities of the corridor with provisions for both indoor and outdoor circulation. . . ." Interim guidelines: some recommendations provoking thought for developers to provide some outdoor spaces -- not a requirement. 4.1 SitelBuilding Organization -- Issue: ". . . New development should begin at the front yard setback Jine . . ." Shows how important the front yard is -- front yard setback, garbage and parking at the side or rear. Ms. Erickson: Regarding having the building right at the property Jine, Sims Way on Highway 20, and amenities in the front. Where would you put street furniture, landscape, art objects, activities abutting. If you have the building right on the property line, and a sidewalk, everything else has to be at the side or the back. Guidelines: Mr. Randall said that is basical1y addressed by saying the front setback could be 0 to 25 feet. Things you could have with up to a 25 foot setback would basically be anything but parking -- bicycles, landscaping, benches, outdoor seating for a restaurant, etc. Ms. Erickson: Asked for clarification; the recommendation is not actually that all buildings on Highway 20 be on the property line abutting Highway 20. You would bave a tunnel effect. Mr. Randall: Replied that there is some flexibility built in. He said another thing to remember is that the width ofthe Highway 20 right-of-way is 100 feet. Even if there is a lane of traffic or a turning lane in the middle, bicycle lane, planting strip and sidewalk -- oftentimes there is going to be some room behind the sidewalk. Some could use an extra wide sidewalk, a 12 foot sidewalk and have their building up against it. (See Page 12.) Point of Clarification - Asked if a driveway is a requirement, or something you are encouraging? Mr. RandaU: Replied that what we are reading through now is from Gateway, so they are basically policies; the interim guidelines contain some definitions. The guideline is meant to be a purpose statement followed by a recommendation or requirement, prohibition, incentive which are all defined. 4.3 Building Character - Guid.eline: Is talking about materials. Gateway states that new development and remodeling should recognize the historic architectural heritage through use of building materials, building proportions, form and details and other architectural devices compatible with those design principles inherent in historic architecture without replicating historic buildings. When the Gateway Plan was done 10 years ago, they felt · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 7 the Sims Way corridor should have its own character and should not try to replicate the Victorian downtown. Similar language will be seen in the interim guidelines. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if it is possible design principles inherent in historic architecture could conflict with design principles that are more ecologically meaningful, and if so what happens? (Integrated materials, recycled materials.) Mr. Randall: Materials -- natural, e.g., straw bale construction, etc. The recommendation was just for certain kinds of materials. The only one that was prohibited was tilt-up concrete wans. It was determined that a lot of materials could be used in a lot of innovative ways. You could use just about any kind of material with a good design; so it was decided to have broad recommendations, but not prohibit any of the materials you are talking about. Mr. Mandelbaum: Asked if there is anything in the design guidelines which promotes ecologically appropriate materials? Mr. Randall: Thought it was not stated that way, but it possibly could be; it seems encouraging that is the theme of our town. Mr. Mandelbaum: It is in our goals. Mr. Randall: Indicated they could consider that when they get to materials 4.5 Inside and Outside -- (Gateway Plan, windows) If a building is put up on the street, or in the situation of a corner lot up against the intersection with a couple of walls, do something more interesting rather than just a blank wall. Provide windows, doors, modulations -- do something with it. 4.6 Building Entrances -- ". . . All building entrances should be accessible to parking, but be oriented to pedestrian areas." Means sidewalks -- entrances should be visible from abutting street right-of-way -- try to deal with both of them, not j ust the parking lot. INTERIM C-II DESIGN STANDARDS Þ' Section 2.1, Purpose and Intent -- Attempted to make the whole system as simple as possible. There is a multi-family design review process in place now; the BCD Director, Planning Director, signs off on the permit; there is no public notice, no public comment period. The Planner reviews the project against the guidelines; if it is a project subject to SEPA (anything over 4,000 s.£. in a Commercial zone), people will be notified that this commercial design review process win be happening. Even though there is no formal public comment period associated with this process, most things will be subject to SEP A, so people win know and the BCD can incorporate their comments into the design. Mr. Forrest Rambo: Said, since this is an interim design standard, he thought it was important to include what time they expect that interim to be; they discussed in the meetings about 90 to 120 days. Mr. Randall: Mr. McMahan included Section IV. Duration -- Process to Adopt Permanent Guidelines, page 21. He thinks that is realistic. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Vern Garrison: Indicated that part of their process was thinking the interim design standards were no lesser than what the permanent design standards would ultimately be, that they were agonized over so and are in such form that they will ultimately end up being part of the permanent standards. They were so well thought out, they will serve well enough if the interim could be indefinite; they are so minimal, but are also so well written and so well intentioned that they would probably serve for quite awhile. Mr. Worden: Indicated he thought their intent was that some of these things seemed so non- controversial and urgent that they really needed to get them in place quickly, in addition to giving developers a key as to what is going on. Part of it was to say that these issues about location, building, parking and sidewalks are, for example, things they wanted to get on the books right away. þ Section 2.3, Applicability - Permit required; Exemptions. 1. Exemptions l.a. New commercial buildings. It was hard to say whether a 1,000 s.£., 2,000 s.£. structure, or whatever, is going to be significant, so they concluded" . . . do not exceed 120 square feet in size." Expansions of existing buildings: l.b.i. . . . do not exceed 4,000 s.f.; and Because so much of the design is already laid out in the existing building, they put the thresholds a lot higher. He indicated this is tricky; you have to read l.b.i. and l.b.ii together. l.b.ii ... ground floo.r expansion not exceeding 150% of the existing ground floor square footage. Expansion under 4,000 s.£. can be exempt, if it also does exceed 150 percent increase of the existing ground floor square footage. Mr. Worden.: Thought when he first read it, it was saying the total ofthe building couldn't be more than 50% bigger than the original building. You are much more generous than that. l.c. Interior and exterior remodels without expanding the ground Door. Gives a lot of leeway to people who just want things like changing the siding or repainting their building, etc. Adding a story to an existing building would be exempt to encourage people to do that, even though structurally it might be difficult. Mr. Worden: Thought they could be more liberal with the minimum size of new commercial buildings, also; 120 s.f is a coffee stand, and that is the only thing you could possibly do. þ Section 2.4, Application process; Application fees. Basically was patterned after the multi- family review process, e.g., the same fee. The developer would be providing some conceptual elevations, etc. and site plans for review in terms of a building permit. þ Section 2.5, Maximum Building Setback From Primary Street Frontage. More controversiaL Illustrations throughout are from other codes. Primary street frontage is · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 9 important - means street with the highest traffic classification (see definitions). If you are on Sims Way and some other street, Sims Way will always be the primary street frontage. Later terminology will say secondary street; (Safeway concept) -- more than one street; the requirement is to orient to two of those streets, in case there are several. Ms. Erickson: A lot ofC-II zones are abutting the waterfront, the requirement here is to put parking in the rear. Asked how they are going to manage that with Shorelines requirements. Mr. Randall: Replied there is another section for parking that says parking should be to the side -- that is the preferred option within the Shorelines zone. There are also some provisions for unique properties where they go through this exercise and cannot conform; we can work with them, e.g. Tides Inn who has done everything they could to meet all the policies. 1. Requirement -- (Most are recommendations; there are not many requirements.) Fronting one or more streets, new buildings shaH be located no more than 25 feet from the primary street frontage. Illustration # 1 -- building with a jog, where the jog isn't more than 25 feet back. Below tells what can occur -- plazas, seatings, etc. The 25 feet is somewhat arbitrary (it could more); 25 feet was chosen because it is a distance you couldn't put into parking. 1.a Exception: Sims Way corridor, forest corridór, basically that portion from the city limits up to t~cHilltop and Discovery Way up to approximately 7th Street. Cannot abut -- win have to work with that forest corridor. 1.b Exception: Accessory and secondary structures, where the primary building is oriented to the street. 2. Recommendation: Buildings on corner lots should be oriented toward the corner and street frontages, with parking and auto access located away from the lot corners. Illustration #2 -- preferred and unpreferred methods. Recommendation -- it is not saying requirement. If you have an intersection, it is possible you could have some parking on the side, not oriented like this; this is rather a starting point. 2.a This might also require multiple entrances. The angle on the corner at the intersection would be logical for an entrance, with perhaps an entrance in the back or into the parking lot. These are different configurations that are interesting and work for developers. .. Section 2.6, Plazas, Landscaping, and other Pedestrian Amenities. 1. Recommendation. Flex zone -- 0 to 25 foot setback. Encourage display of merchandise, or anything that is pedestrian oriented. Mr. Rambo: Mr. Mandelbaum's comments regarding encouraging environmentally sound design, would they be looking at this being impervious surface? Mr. Randall: He didn't think they are limiting it. .. Section 2.7, Off-Street Parking Lots. Policy coming from Gateway. A.I -- Requirement. shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Start there. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 10 A.2 -- Requirement. New parking lots shall not be located between the building and the primary street frontage. Boils down to the three concepts -- building setback; parking lot to the side or rear; don't put it between the building and the primary street frontage. A.3 -- Recommendation. ".. . should not occupy more than. . ." gives some parameters. A.4 -- Recommendation. A little redundant vvith Shorelines; with a Shorelines project they would be doing the same thing, no parking right between the building and the water. Ms. Erickson: Shorelines would override C-II zoning anyway. You would not have to meet these requirements if you were under Shorelines. Mr. Randall: Replied that the Shoreline code talks about uses; he doesn't think the design standard conflicts that it is very compatible. He understood that when the Shorelines is redone it will just become process. Mr. Garrison: Noted where the exception occurs between A.2 and A.3. Where the building occurs along the primary street, there will be no parking between the building and street; where the building does not occur along the primary street, you would be limited to 30 percent of your parking as a maximum. Mr. Randall: Pointed out the 30 percent is a recommendation. A.5 -- Recommendation. Encourages shared uses of parking lots and driveways. .. Section 2.8, On-Street Parking. Has really come along with the C-II design standards. 1. Incentive. Probably will not be possible to have on-street parking on Sims Way for now. We have all these side streets and rights-of-way, in some cases they don't go anywhere. This is saying to reduce the size of off-street parking lots~ develop some on-street parking adjacent. Mr. Randall has not heard any objections yet; would like to see extended to all zones. His understanding is this would go into effect immediately after adoption. Mr. Worden: Said he thinks the language of this incentive statement needs to be modified a little so it is clear that you get credit for the on-street parking if you develop it. You don't get credit if it is there before you get started. Mr. Randall: Indicated the intent is to get credit for the parking that is already there. Mr. Garrison: Said it is not to extract a punitive amount of money it would take to develop parking. The parking is there for a functional purpose, there to provide the access for service, whether it was there before or put there by the developer. It mitigates a need for parking. Mr. Randall: Oftentimes there will have to be some restriping, paving or parallel parking to turn into more efficient parking. Basically, this is talking about parking on their side of the street, on their property line. The other person, it is his side of the street and his property line. Mr. Worden: Agreed and said he presumed the DOT probably has jurisdiction over whether or not you have parking on Sims Way. Mr. Randall: Replied that they have a big say in it. Mr. Worden: Presumed it is prohibited; they probably ought to say that, so nobody is misled. ab · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Randall: Indicated they could; actually, the City Engineer is not nding out the idea of parking in some places on Sims Way. It will probably take care of itself; the engineers won't allow it, if it shouldn't happen. Mr. Worden: His concern W'3.S that people would rush in and work up a great design based on the fact they could do on-street parking on Sims Way and then learn that is not what it means. Ms. Erickson thought they should put in some language. Mr. Worden suggested, "Subject to the engineer's approval." Mr. Randall: Concurred -- "Subject to the Public Works Director approvaL" .. Section 2.9, Pedestrian friendly commercial development. A.l - Requirement. They want a direct connection, and it says if the building fronts on a public sidewalk it is not applicable. A.2 - Recommendation. Reduce the number of interruptions of driveways (Gateway Plan). "Where driveways cross sidewalks. . . " Gave i1]ustration -- When you are walking on the sidewalk, the sidewalk ends and goes down to the asphalt, and there is an intervening driveway, it seems less pedestrian-friendly than if the sidewalk continues through. Mr. Worden: Said he thought it was tremendously important; this probably does as much to give you incentive to use the sidewalk as anything you could do. Mr. Randall: Said they could include some illustrations. A.3 -- Recommendation. There is some discussion in the Gateway Plan about encouraging connections between developments. This reminds designers that we might want more than sidewalks on our streets, and sidew-alks near an entrance. We are going to look at their adjacent property. Is there a right-of-way abutting your property that dead-ends, that people cut through? We will try to incorporate the shortcuts. .. Section 2.10, Pedestrian Walkways Through Off-street Parking Lots. A.l Requirement. Physically separated. Safeway parking lot has multiple lanes heading into each other; it is not comf.ortable to walk through there. Mr. Garrison: Accessing from adjacent parking lots -- would be asked to grant each other easements and open up fences between with parking lots behind, so ideally you can park in one spot and go shop through a certain area. A recommendation, but, if you did dissolve your fences and boundaries and accomplish this, have some sort of pay -off -- say you could have 1/1Oth per parking space credit between the two of them; you could add up, quantify and subtract 10 percent for the cooperation, assuming that you would minimize and cut back. Mr. Randall: Agreed; it was discussed in revising the parking code. It is hard to quantify, but some additional reductions in parking standards for such things as pedestrian-friendly design, connecting to adjacent spots, etc. Audience: Decided there are a lot of incentives they can build in to permanent design standards, but there may be too many to consider for the interim design standards, incentive kinds of · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 12 things that could apply to more than just the parking issue. Mr. Randall: Thinks you will see more ofthat in the new parking code. ~ Section 2.11, Architectural Design. (Gateway Plan) A.4 Recommendation. ". . . natural textures is encouraged." Might be a good place for ecological language e.g., environmentally-friendly materials. Open to suggestions. A.6 Recommendation. Building colors. . . should be compatible; use of bright colors should be minimized; high gloss paints are discouraged. It is saying it is safe to work with the HPC color palette and earth tones. A.7 Recommendation. Building "base", something on the bottom of the building to give it a base -- will probably include more in the permanent standards. A.8 Requirement. "The street frontages" -- add primary or secondary. Audience: Blank walls from the water view -- many people approach the town from the water. Mr. Randall: That's another recommendation of the Shorelines Plan -- will pencil in "on the water side of buildings." ~ Section 2.12, Bulk and Scale. Does not limit the size of buildings in the C-II areas; there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding this, especially as you get closer to downtown in the hardware store and bowling alley areas. Another plan also mentions the bulk and scale of buildings, that the gross square footage of buildings should be left to the marketplace; we do want to encourage a broad range of commercial types of structures. It continued that it should blend in with the environment as much as possible; this talks about ways to do it. For the time being there is not a square footage maximum lower than the city-wide 75,000 s.f "Ensure that building massing, height and scale provide sensitive transition to adjoining residential neighborhoods." Rationale -- in most places Gateway is only one block deep, and next to it is mostly residentiaL A.I.d Did not apply that to abutting industrial, other commercial sites. Focus is residential. Audience: The three above are very specific. Are you referring to berms, mounds, rockeries, fences, when you say creative use of landscaping? Mr. Randall: You should probably say something like "including berms, mounds, rockeries, living fences, swales." Mr. Dana Roberts: Regarding bulk and scale, wasn't it decided to put on the agenda for permanent standards, a question about maximum size? It wasn't that we were starting with a preconception, but we didn't want to just let it go. Mr. Randall: There was a lot of discussion, like creating 20,000 s.f maximum, downtown out to approximately the McDonald's area. Although there are not a lot of properties, there are some buildings that are rather old. Somebody could come along, flatten them and build something new. Discussed stepping that up to 50,000 s.£. like what Safeway will be, up to approximately QFC; out to the edge oftown, 75,000 s.f, the current maximum. Ifthere is a · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 13 lot of interest it could be included He noted a lack of urgency right now since there is nothing pending that is large enough to trigger it. þ. Section 2.13, Building Entrances. A. The Gateway Plan has similar language. A.1 Requirement: Fairly flexible; cited the new Coldwell Banker building. Dlustration No. 10: Mr. Rambo: Horizontal Facade Division is shown, which is good because it helps to reduce the bulk and scale. It is not mentioned in the recommendations; you might want to allude to that, like the previous sections. Mr. Roberts: You also show perpendicular divisions that are maybe even more help to focus you on the entrance. On either side of the door you have what looks like a clear column to identifY the entrance. Mr. Worden: This drawing is an excellent illustration ofthe idea of breaking down the scale of the building; there is a series of different size elements to relate to. Commented, it seems like this requirement is something that is commercial good sense; but, it is interesting with cities that have evolved over a number of years and have a very heavy auto-orientation, these entrances start to disappear, start to go into the parking areas and parking garages. Mr. Roberts: One of the easiest ways to identifY an entrance is to have fairly prominent address numbers; many buildings listed in directories with street numbers have none posted. Mr. Randall: Good point. .. Section 2.15, Transparency. A.1 Recommendation. Gives a target - at a minimum you ought to have windows on 30 percent of your building adjoining the street. It is probable the side facing the parking lot will also have several windows; however, this gets them to focus on the street. A.2 Recommendation. Illustration of a parking garage may not fit Port Townsend. The concept is instead of having a blank wall with goods inside, you could carve little retail spaces with separate doors, or you could orient the windows of a deli, etc. to face the street. You could at least see in. A.4 Recommendation. Rather traditional window design goes down to the ground, but some designers of the group thought that really interesting things could be done with glass walls, so it was left as a recommendation. þ. Section 2.17, Alternative Designs. (If someone cannot comply.) Basically modified the standard variance criteria from the zoning code somewhat. Administratively, without making a separate application you could look at a project, see if they have attempted in good faith, in the spirit or the ordinance, but have some real constraints on their site that make it impossible, difficult or a hardship to meet the requirements of the ordinance, the · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 14 decisionmaker can approve or approve with modification an application for an alternative design. ~ Section 2.18, Variance criteria. Included by Mr. McMahan in case there is an applicant who is refusing to comply with the spirit of intent. Mr. Worden: Pointed out that especiaUy where Sims Way runs at an angle to the street grid, there are a lot of properties where this might apply. For some ofthose to be useful have some property trades, or right-of-way trades, etc. to make it aU work; this will come up fairly frequently. Ms. Erickson: Would you also consider due to "use," as weU as due to physical characteristics of the site that make it difficult? A lot of this is talking about commercial like it is going to be a retail store. There are a lot of other uses in the commercial table that would have difficulty with all these windows, e.g., noise of a body shop or a mechanic shop. We may want to put in a few more alternative design loopholes for their use. Mr. Rambo: Said he was glad she mentioned that, that there may be some things in the fire codes that require a wall to be not windowed, distance away from propane tanks, etc. Mr. Mandelbaum: Conversely, there could be times with exceptional permit situations, that what is a recommendation might be a requirement. Could imagine some language which would give the administrator some discretion, in exceptional situations, to convert a recommendation into a requirement, and can even imagine setting up criteria for that. Mr. Randall: Said if they felt it should be a requirement, he thought they would go the other way to aUow an alternative. If suggested if anyone feels strongly about something he has as a recommendation that should be a requirement, for them to please bring it up. Mr. Masci: Made the following points: ~ Section 2.2, Definitions, Page 8 -- (Some appear to be in violation of Council Resolution 99~026, Sections 5-7.) "Guideline" -- The hidden requirement is confusing to the populace. You already have a definition of the word "requirement." Should be a suggestion, an urging -- not a requirement. 1) Strike shall and replace with may~ 2) strike "either through man,datmy "requirements" or. Leave -- through various "recommended" actions. "Recommendation" -- First line strike the word "Where" to read: Compliance is voluntary. "Requirement" -- Strike" to implement a ßlÚdeline." ~ Section 2.3, Page 9 A.l.a - Rather than 120 s.£., 1,000 s.£. might be a viable size. A.t.b.ii -- Strike in its entirety. (You already have 4,000 s.f threshold limit; otherwise, if you had 1,000 s.£. building, 150% increase would only bring it up to 2,500 s.£., somewhat of an average house size. ~ Section 2.7, Page 12 - Suggested caveat on #2, "For Shoreline areas, see #4 below." · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 15 ... Section 2.11, Page 15 A.l Move «Sloping roofs shall have three or more roof planes." under A3, Recommendation. (Example IHOP) A.6 Bright colors and high gloss paints -- nobody is paying any attention about a growing alternative ethnic community. It is traditional to advertise their businesses with bright vibrant colors. Thought this could be construed as a discriminatory flaw. Is probably safer to leave the first sentence only and strike the remainder of the paragraph. A.8.p Fenestration - Remove parentheses; change to: "provide window and door openings" Mr. Roberts: Referenced Mr. Mandelbaum's comment regarding flexibility to push towards a greater allowance througb variations, it seems if you look on page 20, Alternative Designs, there might be some comfort in the point that the alternative design is consistent with the goals and policies of tbe Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. When you get into tbose goals and policies, there might be some encouragement to incorporate one of those adopted positions, something in some approval of an alternative approach. If it is rather general, one thing he thought he heard Mr. Randall speak of was about encouraging or making it convenient to do a second floor or a building. Page 9, 2.3.A.J -- discussion ensued and it was suggested to review upward exvansion. Mr. WordeD: A.1.b.ii, "comprise a ground floor expansion not exceeding 150% of the existing building's ground floor square footage" means to him you are expanding the ground floor and not anything else. Suggested, «expansions of existing buildings tbat do not increase the footprint of the building by more than 150%" Mr. Randall: Thougbt it was reflected in A1.c. Mr. Worden: Concurred. Said it was an unlikely scenario, that most buildings are not structurally capable ofbuilding another floor. Made a further suggestion - all the way through, make a habit of listing the requirements first, then the recommendations, so that it is really clear wbicb things are mandatory. He complimented Mr. Randall on distilling a lot of discussion, a lot of opinions and suggestions, etc. very effectively, that this covers very well. Mr. Garrison: Also concurred and suggested a verb inventory and reconciliation: ,yhould, discourage. They may be obvious to us; it doesn't hurt to expand the terms. Mr. WordeD: Indicated with the wireless ordinance they came upwitb definitions that were duplicating or conflicting with things already in the code somewhere else. At some point that reconciliation bas to be made. Ms. Erickson: «Development" in here brings up a question --if you go for a sign permit, it says that this ordinance becomes effective. She asked how it does. Mr. Randall: Thought this comes from Title 17. Ms. Erickson: Indicated it pulls up out of Title 17 and the defmition for development; reading here -- a sign permit and perhaps a need to change (a parking lot). We may need to clarifY that. What is the trigger going to be - new development or redevelopment, except for those · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 16 that are under exemptions? Mr. Randall: Indicated there are a couple of ways to find things. It may be cleaner to go the other way; a sign is listed in the code as a development. You do have a terminology conflict. Mr. Worden: Clarified with Ms. Erickson if her point was that signs are included simply because they are not excluded. Ms. Erickson: She indicated it was because ofthe definition of development, which is our normal definition. Reading the definition, it says that if you go for a clearing and grading, or sign permit, this becomes effective; but, it isn't, because there is no development She suggested that under exemptions they put "except for those requirements for clearing and grading, or sign permits." Mr. Randall: Thought he could say, "subject to 4,000 s.£. or larger and expansions of buildings that are "X" (whatever they decide it will be). They could also state specific exemptions, to let them know regarding remodels. Audience: Has the committee ever created a sketch of what a building would look like theoretically? Mr. Randall: 1.1r. Seplar said that even the best crafted guidelines aren't going to guarantee a good looking building. They are going to prevent the ugliest things you don't want to have happen - go through just the basic requirements, e.g., bring the building up to the front, put some windows in, a parapet or a couple angles to a gable, put the service elements in the back or side; you already have landscaping requirements with the parking lots. We were not specific on the colors or materials, so people have a lot of room. Audience: Have they anticipated required elements that win be added to the standards? Mr. Randall: Thinks the permanent standards probably will result in a few more specifics on the building design. One way to provide more of a guarantee that you have nicer buildings is to do something like create another Historic Preservation Committee where you have seven people who are basically judging the esthetics of the structure, judging whether or not the colors clash, whether the design of the windows, and base, etc. is consistent. The group decided they didn't want to go so far as to create a formal design committee. Audience: There is nothing in between? Mr. Randall: Thinks that is what the permanent guidelines will talk about. Mr. Masci: In 1975, 1976 and 1977, there was a design ordinance that specified what buildings would look like; it was declared unconstitutional. A lot of people wanted to preserve the Victorian character, and basically demanded a Victoria design standard for downtown. It isn't legal. Mr. Randall: There is some very specific case law that says you have to be really specific, and you can't just have a design review board reviewing things like, whether or not it is an attractive building. You have to be specific in saying what you want. In Port Townsend, we are basically trying to keep it open for people to express their individuality in what their · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 17 buildings look like; we are not trying to preconceive anything. Said what he sees this doing, right now when developers come in that are not from this area, e.g., Texaco, they call up the architects for Texaco in Los Angeles or wherever they are and ask them to design a building. The designer doesn't look at the surroundings; he looks at a site plan and drops the building in. This is trying to get a designer to look at the site, to look at adjacent things. If they would do that, you would probably end up with a pretty good design or something that is compatible with Port Townsend. Audience: What was the argument for not requiring a non-reflective roof? Cited Jefferson Title. Mr. Worden: It could conflict with energy standards, however. The purpose of those roofs is to cut down on heat gain. There are reflective coatings that are not bright silver that will do that job, but they are still "reflective coatings"; it is really difficult to draw that line in an ordinance and say which are acceptable or unacceptable reflective coatings. Said he would like to respond -- it just is impossible to prevent ugly buildings with this kind of ordinance as it is with any kind of ordinance to create good buildings. It takes somebody who is doing the job and gets "the drift" of what the town is about to create a good building. Said he thinks the best we can hope to do is establish what that "drift" is, or try to convey what the town cares about, and at the same time cut out the most egregious excesses. Audience: Interjected the only place she ever heard where they could get away with that was New York City; if they do not like a design, they get away with requiring a different architect before talking further until you come in with a better looking design. She indicated the HPC struggled with this; they never say, "We like this." They have to say, "This complies with, or does not comply with, the guidelines. That is as far as it goes. Mr. Alan Frank: Said that having four kids, he has learned that he gets more out of them by holding out a carrot, than holding a stick over their heads. Thinks you can encourage better building by offering proper incentives, and encourages that. Audience: Has two concerns: 1) minor -- high gloss paints are discouraged. Recommended if that is to be left in it should say, "except for doors and window casings" which is standard. 2) A little concerned about exempting remodels. Someone could use that as a loophole. Mr. Worden: The problem with including remodels is that a lot of this has to do with location on the site, access to the site, parking -- things that you really cannot change with a remodel. Audience: There are also things like doorways, blank walls, windows, etc. Ms. Frieda Fenn: Would like to see the building maximum addressed, and maybe it will be in the permanent standards; 75,000 s.£. is half again as large as Safeway, or QFC. That is very large, and she could imagine even one more building in the Sims Way corridor and the parking lot; she suggested a second floor that allows the hugeness. Audience: Another comment -- in Chapter Two there is a list of assumptions in the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, "any commercial redevelopment activity along the Highway 20 corridor and in Port Townsend commercial historic district." Feels we have to look very carefully at contro1Jing redevelopment. · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 18 Mr. Worden: Replied that is something they intend to address again in the permanent standards. Ms. Erickson: Another way to look at it, there are going to be a lot of buildings that will not get remodeled, updated or improved if the guidelines are too restrictive. In the C-II district right now there are a lot of old buildings, no windows and no entry on the side. If they had to adhere to this, there probably wouldn't be much done with those buildings because of the expense. Audience: Expressed concern regarding not being able to take out windows and not be able to reverse things. Ms. Erickson: You have to refer to the uses, what is the building being used for. Mr. Mandelbaum: Regarding Mr. Masci's comments on the guideline concept. Said he could imagine a more consistent use of language and administration here. For some reason we have avoided the term "policy," but if you use "policy" rather than "guideline" and you were to indicate what the city wants -- to provide safety for pedestrians, safe pedestrian-friendly commercial development. From there you say to do this, you have to have certain things and take such other measures; then you are in the position where the city is judging whether or not your policy is being met. To him it would give the developer on opportunity to persuade you that standard is being met by some creative ways, or you might tell them where they have complied, but, as you look at it, it still is not safe. Mr. Randall: Expressed appreciation for the feed-back and said the terminology probably needs to be tightened to be more consistent; it reflects a patching together of different standards --. going back to the zoning code, looking for existing definitions we already have, e.g. "purpose"and "policy" and seeing what we have rather than creating something new. Mr. Randall said his intent is to take this draft to public hearing and not change it between now and then, but keep notes of what they are doing, bring the same issues and say they will be addressed in the changes. He would like to leave the document alone and go forward with it, and when the Planning Commission has a recommendation, incorporate all those changes formally in what they take to Council. Commission members suggested changes of clarification might be helpful, but left it to Mr. Randall's discretion. Mr. Randall said if there are some things that seem a little obvious, he will clarifY them right away. Mr. Worden replied he thought that would be helpful but told Mr. Randall to do what he can, and they will work with it. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Next Scheduled Meetin~ June 24, 1999 * Interim C-Il Design Standards (open-record public hearing) · · · Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1999 Page 19 July 8, 1999 * Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (open-record public hearing) * Crist Subdivision (open-record public hearing) (W ordenÆrickson) IX. COMMUNICA TIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Ms. Erickson. An were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9: l5 p.m. 1/ ( L Nik Worden, Chair Pro Tem ,~Út;i::7 -' Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . Guest List Meeting Of:Thf)rí\lì~ GJMH ISS..lclJ Purpose: U Date: ~l Á\îQ..· \~ I Name (p~'" prinll I Address I T~==mln~~ I Rlè.t-.OJd T~loDV- 5'40 ~ ~ \1--- r,\ ------ (/¡(]Jrl/Út1 N\ Lcl/& p() RÐ-£ 17.~ P1 /' F;l , J FP \ /5/0 ,-T¿ifer5~ ST I PT v r-e I ~'^- -p ~ V\ 1\ 1\ 'l- tt- R6BEP-TS d I L{36 -- 2 L ~ S--t ~ ;.-¡ ~! t!fÄ Ilr Z~~ ç¡- ~ K[ C-(tL ç dCt?:- (2. 'Sc,. LrltvJeetJc¿ 5r / I . e, II ! ~-