Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05082003 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JOINT WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - April 24, 2003 V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. City Council Liaison Report VII. Unfinished Business A. Draft C-II Desil!n Standards BCD Staff VIII. New Business A. Appointment to Shoreline Advisory Committee VII. Upcoming Meeting - May 29 (Continuation of Tree Ordinance) IX. Communications IX. Adjournment May 8, 2003 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL May 8, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Members of the Planning Commission answering roll were Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, Bernie Arthur, James Irvin, Alice King, and JefIKelety; Lyn Hersey and Michael Hyland were unexcused. Members of City Council answering roll were Mayor Kees KolfI, Freida Fenn, GeofIMasci, Michelle Sandoval, Joe Finnie, and Catharine Robinson. Alan Youse arrived at 7:07 p.m. Also present were BCD Planners Jean Walat and Judy Surber. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Berg seconded. All were in favor. IV. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the minutes of April 24, 2003 as written; Mr. Berg seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT -- There was none VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Draft C-II Desi2n Standards BCD Staff -- Ms. Jean Walat Ms. Walat noted that the review process started with an interim ordinance approved by City Council in 1999. She explained the purpose is to decide what we want for our commercial district, and through this process decide whether to make up our town with such things as big or little stores. The ordinance will cover both esthetics, and how it functions for both residents and visitors. She reviewed the draft of Section II, General Commercial Zoning District Architectural and Site Design Standards Adopted, showing slides and photographs giving illustrations and explaining her remarks. She noted parts of the draft that were works in process. Councilmember Sandoval and Commissioners Berg and Arthur were among the Advisory Committee membership. Ms. Sandoval noted that members toured, looking for things that worked and things that did not, playing reality with existing building examples. Ms. Walat also indicated the draft looked at parking ratios and parking standards. At the conclusion of Ms. Walat's presentation, Chair Thayer asked the Planning Commission if they wanted another workshop to go page by page for their input. Consensus was to continue to the next meeting. Chair Thayer then opened discussion. QUESTIONS: Q Mr. Irvin: In the beginning of the document "commercial" was taken out and later on added. A Ms. Walat: Thought it had been eliminated basically because it was redundant; it was in a Commercial District and any existing or non-commercial buildings would not be affected by this. New buildings would be commercial Mr. Berg: Other kinds of buildings besides commercial buildings are allowed in the C-II Zone. We took out the word "commercial" so that any building in the zone would be subject to the guidelines. A) It was redundant; B) It was an Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 / Page 1 · unnecessary limitation. Q Ms. Fenn: Has the Dash Board been invited to look at this to improve design standards for people with disabilities, having just gone through an exercise in town, e.g. downtown sidewalks for people with blindness and people in wheelchairs. It is not just the roughness of the surface but width of the sidewalks, leaving room for sandwich boards and an area of uncluttered sidewalk -- handicapped friendliness. A Ms. Walat: All new construction would need to meet the building code for ADA. It would be good to have Dash look at it, also Jefferson Transit. Q Mr. Kelety: What magnitudes for "shoulds" get implemented; what is the effect? A Ms. Walat: The committee analyzed whether they were items they could live with or without, or if they were really essential to any project. When there are "shoulds," people can use them to get out of things, but on the other hand, you can't put a straightjacket on people. It recognizes these are the goals, and we want to see you are attempting to meet those goals, with some latitude where there are ways of getting to the same thing. Q Ms. Thayer: Is that reflected in the change of "shoulds" to "shalls" in this? A Ms. Walat affirmed. Q Mr. Kolff reapproached the question asking if in her experience has the use of "shoulds" been effective in encouraging people to follow what the community would prefer? A Ms. Walat: In the last 3 years they have only had 5 projects that underwent C-II Design review. Q Mr. Kolff: Are there other ordinances or standards where you feel it has been effective? A Ms. Surber: Gave an example; writing, 'incorporate some pedestrian friendly elements' and including ways to meet the "shalls," (a menu of ways to meet them) -- e.g. in a design meeting saying, "You are close, but not quite there; you should choose something more from the menu." Mr. Kolff suggested a good example is referring to color pallets that should be encouraged, but does not say that is the only pallet or specific color. Ms. Walat: Another example is in landscaping. The first section is all "shalls" and subsequently "shoulds" or "may.". · Q Mr. Masci: "Decisionmaker" -- Type II or Type III permit, is that the hearings examiner? A Ms. Walat: That might be a leftover. Type II includes lot line adjustments, minor ESA, minor conditional use permit; Type III, a major ESA requiring a hearings examiner. Q Mr. Masci: The history showed interim standards were passed in 1999, which would have included three of the present Councilmembers. He asked the rationale of the several changes, i.e. 2,000 feet downsized to 1,000. A Ms. Walat: Original is unchanged; new buildings over 2,000 square feet need to undergo review. Expansions needed to be more significant and needed to be 4,000 square feet. Q Mr. Masci: 17.xx.30, A. I. what were the arguments that drove the reduction of thresholds from 2,000 to I,OOO? A Ms. Walat: There was a lot of discussion regarding Mariner Bank, just over 2,000 square feet. She thought the feeling was that 1,000 feet was significant. Q Mr. Masci: Did you review the discussion of July 1999? That was a major point of discussion about what would you shoehorn into 1,000 and what you would put into 2,000, about the viability of business sizes in certain square footages. A Ms. Walat had not reviewed it and was uncertain of any other review. Mr. Berg's recollection of committee discussion was that with higher thresholds as in the interim ordinance, there were a fair number, especially existing buildings, along Sims Way or with the potential for building smaller than 2,000 square feet on some of those lots along Sims Way, such that with the ordinance the way it stood they might end up with a mixture where a half block not being done according to these design standards, and a lot or two below the threshold, another where they are according to the design standards, etc. It was felt that if they are creating these design standards in order to have some kind of cohesive design in the commercial district, they should set the threshold so that most of the street frontage is going to be in compliance with the design standards. Q Mr. Masci: So the rationale, the basis of the decision, was one of esthetic continuity as opposed to business necessity? A Mr. Berg: They did talk about business necessity, but what he recalled the feeling of the committee being was that these design standards aren't particularly onerous, and whether your building is placed at the front of the lot with the parking on the side, or behind, or at the back of the lot with the parking in front, really shouldn't be a cause of whether or not the business is going to fail, but if they don't set the threshold low enough to catch most of the property along there, every building that is smaller than 2,000 square feet could be at the back of the lot with a parking lot in front of it. That is kind of what they are trying to get away from. · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 / Page 2 · · · Q Mr. Masci: 17.xx.40. You've created the Design Review Committee, created another level of review with this design review committee? A Ms. Walat: It would be the same type of review; however, a review done by an expanded group. Q Mr. Masci: Why did you specifY the membership? A Ms. Walat: How rarely we actually do these reviews, we want to have people who are familiar with good design concepts. Having architects, designers would allow those people to be quickly up to speed, be able to look at the building and use the design standards and be familiar with those kinds of guidelines. Q Mr. Masci: Where are the specifications? A Ms. Walat: It is in the process document Ms. Sandoval: Mr. Randall attended these meetings also and felt it would be helpful to have other people weigh in on some of the design issues instead of it just being staff, particularly if they were professionals. He could get information from them he wouldn't necessarily have himself. One of the things the committee wanted with the design review team was the ability for alternatives so they could be creative, so if someone wanted to do something different and were outside of these, they could present their case with design professionals and not just staff making the call.. Q Mr. Masci: Architectural design people -- did you define what that was? Does it include contractors, limited to architects? Do designers who are not quite architects qualifY? It says, ". . . standing pool. . . with architectural design expertise. " A Ms. Walat: Thought the sense was tlley did not necessarily have to be architects, but designers, people who were familiar with constructing and designing buildings. Q Mr. Masci: 17.. xx. 1 1O.A.4. bike racks. "New buildings shall provide covered bicycle racks that are lit during evening business hours. . ." Where did the sentence come from? It is inconsistent with the sentence before. Before, you have bike racks; this says if it is at night it has to be covered. A Ms. Walat: That could be clarified. All buildings undergoing C-II design review need to provide bike racks of some sort. If it's a new building it is required to include a covered bike rack that is lit if the store is open at night. Q Mr. Masci: "Sloping roofs shall have three or more roof planes." Said he did not understand it in the existing standards, either. A Ms. Walat: Thought it is to avoid the monolithic type of roof, provide some building articulation It is an aesthetic. Q Mr. Masci: Questioned vehicle canopies, "~~ ~ shall not function as sign platforms." A Ms. Walat: It is aesthetics, essentially the same as the whole sign code. Q Mr. Masci: Pitch is aesthetics also? A Ms. Walat: Concurred. The pitch on the roof was pretty much already there. It now prohibits flat roofs; before they were discouraged. Q Mr. Kelety: 17.xx.30.4, Substantial alterations. Where is that defined? A Ms. Walat: It is defined in the definition section, 17.xx.20. The definition is taken directly from Uniform Building Code (UBC). Q Mr. Finnie: Design Review Committee -- have you already identified and do you have a pool of these professionals and semi-professionals that you would call on?? A Ms. Walat: It was very informal; basically, asked if they could up with a list of ten names of people they felt would qualifY. (Several names they had suggested were mentioned.) Q Mr. Finnie: Said he is familiar with design review and really does not have much of a problem with it; he has worked with them in the past. What you are doing is creating another level of scrutiny and administrative bureaucracy for the commercial developer who is building a new building. We ought to acknowledge that is a fact of life we are going to be dealing with here. For example, where a builder has an architect he is working with, the architect, who may have the vision of a building and works with BCD in the design of it, now is going to have some guesswork to anticipate what this design review team is going to come up with. That may then feed this whole issue of this alternative design option. That is money. He made the point for the record that nothing is free; this process we are constructing here has a cost to it and will be borne by builders. He asked as an owner of property in the Historic District, are there any exclusions or any areas of the C-II Design Standards that specifically concern themselves with modifications to historic buildings where there is going to be relief, or should we just assume these apply to any C-II building? A Ms. Walat, This is not in the Historic District. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 / Page 3 · · · Q Mr. KolfI: Asked Ms. Walat regarding recommendations concerning light pollution, you said you had taken these standards from Bainbridge Island, are you keeping them the way they are for the Planning Commission to review, or what are your thoughts as to whether or not they should be eliminated or changed? A Ms. Walat: Thought those that are fairly standard, like shielded lamps, would seem to make sense. The one she has the most concern for is the one specifically sets a level for light pollution and gives it in terms offoot candles. She answered Mr. KolfI that Bainbridge's ordinance is fairly new, and they have not had any major infractions so far. They are working with developers coming in new with the idea you have to limit light basically only to your own lot. She said Port Townsend will be doing a survey of places in town to see what kind of light is actually coming over from other properties, and also basically gathering more information. She felt it too premature to put that in the standard. Q Mr. Kolff: Said for the record, he knew there are many people in this community who are concerned about increasing light pollution and he thinks this would encourage them to have some fairly specific standards about the amount of light that does escape commercial properties. He said the city is currently known as being a city that is very good in terms of having minimal light pollution, and he would hate as development occurs to see the city get to a point where they say they should have done more in the past to control that. He urged they leave that in as much as possible for full review by the Planning Commission and others. A Ms. Walat: She said Staff also hears that a lighted sign is the only way to go, and they also have to take that into account. Q Mr. Masci: Substantial alterations. He suggested in the ordinance that comes before them, they add something regarding the current available commercial market appraisal, and accept it as an appraisal. He referred to Mr. Finnie's comments about these changes costing the individual component money. A Ms. Walat: The reason they included assessed value is because they didn't want people to have to go out and specifically get an appraisal in order to do this process. They knew the assessed value was probably going to be low, but people's estimate of what their building restoration was going to cost is going to be low too. They are at least erring on the same side. Q. Mr. Masci: Worried the determination of substantial alteration, that if it is 3 years and 11 months old and the value has gone up, the citizen cannot understand why they are being placed in that category. He wants language included that protects the citizens' interests -- tax assessor minimum value, he also wants wording for maximum. Suggested they say, "The appraised value may consist of the tax assessor's improvement valuation as a threshold of minimum value and/or recent commercially obtained appraisal." A Ms. Walat: Thought that was the intent, but it may not have been clear. Ms. Sandoval: The committee considered this extensively and did not want to have the situation with interpretation. They felt the UBC was the most straightforward and would allow people to use whichever one they wanted, either get their own market value appraisal or the tax assessor's improvement valuation. They went to the "book" because they didn't want a committee definition and also for cost impacts. Q Ms. Sandoval: The design committee was also that people could choose the design review if they wanted. They wanted to make sure they gave people options; this wasn't about restrictions, but allowing people to choose those options. The Historic District has HPC looking after it; C-II is out ofthat area, yet they wanted options for them also. They changed to "shall" to make sure they maintained the unique character of town by allowing differences. Q Mr. Masci: Reference to 17xx..40 thresholds tied to shall? A Ms. Sandoval: Concurred, but also alternatives after a certain threshold. She continued they meant one consultation meeting with the design team free; if they wanted more they could ask for more meetings. Q Mr. Finnie: Complimented The Design Standards team for their efforts over last 3 years. He asked where this process goes from here and when they are going to see Council moving on a document? A Chair Thayer: Planning Commission will have one more workshop, proceed to a Planning Commission public hearing and on to City Council. Q Mr. Finnie: Asked if they would see an ordinance before end of the year? A Mayor Kolff: It has been to the CDLU Committee, and would probably go on to the full Council Chair Thayer: If the Planning Commission does not send this back to the Committee, it will go on to Council. Mr. Scott Wilson made public comment but explained he was not a member of the C-II Design Review Committee. He made the following points: · Encouraged continuing discussion of "shoulds" and "shalls." · Nothing addresses maximum driveway access widths, pretty serious consideration for pedestrians, e.g. excessive 2 or 3 lanes wide, or single lane 12" feet wide. Encouraged review. · 1 to 1 reduction for on street parking versus off street parking. Parking is the most expensive impact on a Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 / Page 4 · · · developer. Encouraged going for 2 to 1 exchange rate. · Bike racks, nothing requires holding the frame; felt it more important than the important covered bike racks. . Pedestrian crossing should be short and well marked called for in the parking development section. Encouraged, including words requiring pavement change, paint or texturing, rather than "signs" to delineate cross walks and cross parking lots. Texturing or pavement changes is probably better than "well marked." · Stepping back commercial buildings so they conform to the abutting adjacent neighborhood development. Not sure they gain anything. . Exterior building material of similar type on all sides of a building. That would encourage a developer to lower the exterior materials to the lowest common denominator, or the highest common denominator he can afford for all four sides, rather than putting the best face forward · Lighting. Said he is a bit of an expert, and is not sure why they are excluding metal halide lighting; it's the most light for the least amount of watts, and least costly. The maximum amount oflumens is really a great way to go about it. He finds the low pressure/high pressure sodium lights are the most difficult to be under, the most rude coloring. Metal halide is actually a form of sodium vapor. Any good lighting catalog will show the foot candle footprint of outdoor lighting at varying lengths from where the light is in relation to its height above the grade, not difficult to meetfor a lighting engineer or an electrician. Chair Thayer closed discussion at 8:45 p.m at which time City Councilors left the meeting. A workshop was scheduled for the next meeting on May 29,2003 to continue Planning Commission discussion on the topic. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment to Shoreline Advisory Committee Ms. Surber stated BCD had received a grant for Phase II of updating the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The deliverable is to be by a certain date within 6 meetings, between now and the end of September and will be driven by the consultant. She explained adoption of the SMP does not have to be completed by the end of September, but will be within Phase III. Chair Thayer called for interest in participation on the Shoreline Advisory Committee. Mr. Irvin pointed out some Planning Commissioners had previously expressed interest. They were noted as Mr. Kelety, Mr. Arthur, and Mr. Hyland. During the discussion, Ms. Surber stated she would like the person selected to also be willing to serve in Phase III, in the event an additional grant is received. CONSENSUS: Member to be decided among those interested. IX. UPCOMING MEETING May 29,2003 -- C-II Design Standard Ordinance (continued) X. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none XI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. ~~~ _ /l ß4~ GndY~ - ~ SHeila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2003 / Page 5