Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08282003 Min Ag · I. II. III. IV. V. VI. · VII. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WORKSHOP City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm Call to Order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda Approval of Minutes - July 31,2003, and August 14,2003 General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) City Council Liaison Report New Business August 28, 2003 Draft Ordinance concerning Waterfront Design Guidelines Overlay District and National Register Historic District VIII. Upcoming Meetings - September 11, 2003 September 18, 2003 IX. Communications IX. Adjournment · . . - CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES August 28, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Bernie Arthur, JeffKelety, Alice King, and Jim Irvin. Richard Berg arrived at 7:08 p.m. Also present were BCD Planner John McDonagh and City Attorney John Watts. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Irvin made a motion to accept the agenda. Mr. Kelety seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Irvin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 31, 2003 as amended; Ms. King seconded. All were in favor. Mr. Irvin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 14, 2003 as amended; Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. V. PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT -- There was none VII. NEW BUSINESS Draft Ordinance concerning Waterfront Design Guidelines Overlay District and National Register Historic District -- BCD Planner John McDonagh and City Attorney John Watts Mr. McDonagh reported he and Mr. Warts have been working with the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) on this draft for approximately 1-1/2 years. He pointed out areas nominated in 1974/1975 to the National Register as a Landmark District, and stated that the National Park Service also recognizes Fort Worden as a National Landmark Historic District. Within the downtown Historic District, not every building is individually listed, but in a sense are all part of a district, a theme where sometimes it is just as important for spaces filled with less grand buildings. . This nomination did not result in any City regulation for a number of years. In the mid 1980's the City adopted Chapter 17.80, sometimes by a different number. This basically set up design review guidelines for the Historic District that for many years were strictly voluntary, dealt with the publicly zoned properties, e.g. City Hall, and focused primarily on the downtown areas. These design guidelines were for new development, either additions to historic buildings, or new construction, but it was strictly voluntary to go through the process and to comply with any recommendations or conditions. A few years later the City went through a planning process for the entire Urban Waterfront all the way to the Boat Haven which resulted in the Urban Waterfront Plan. Mr. McDonagh distributed a map showing the boundaries of the Historic District and the relationship of the special Urban Waterfront Overlay District. He noted that when the Urban Waterfront Plan was adopted it also adopted a set of design guidelines, how building forms should be developed, characteristics they should respect in terms of the environment in which they are being built. He pointed out the larger National Historic District, and smaller special Urban Waterfront District stating the Plan changed the way Port Townsend did its design review in the Historic District in the smaller area for new construction, exterior changes to buildings, etc, making design review and compliance with those recommendations Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 / Page 1 · · · mandatory. Mr. McDonagh noted an Uptown area zoned C-III where most of the design review applications and work take place that made review or proposals there mandatory but compliance with the recommendations voluntary. He stated it has caused confusion with building owners, Staff, and prospective property purchasers for a number of years. Formerly, when review by HPC became mandatory, HPC was the decision-making body and their conditions stuck. Approximately 1990, due to the state regulatory reform act allowing a development project to go through only one open record sort of public hearing, the City changed its procedures with the HPC to call them a committee rather than commission, making their decision a recommendation to the BCD Director who became the decision maker. At present the Port Townsend design review process is that anything in the C-III zone or in the Point Hudson area, basically not zoned residential in the Historic District, that would involve an exterior change to a building, e.g., a new addition to a building, changing the siding or wood windows, requires HPC review making recommendation to the BCD Director who ultimately makes a fmal decision and issues a certificate of approval. The City has been operating for a number of years with Chapters 17.30 and the older 17.80 which set up the Historic District, basically making submittal for design review and compliance voluntary. The later Chapter 17.30 said that some of the areas in town are important enough to make both the review and compliance with its recommendations or conditions mandatory. This ordinance would merge those chapters. Mr. McDonagh reviewed from his cover memo five significant changes, Amendments 1 through 5: 1. Consolidation of Chapters 17.30 and 17.80 into something that is a single historic district regulation, Historic Overlay District. 2. Establish a "Historic District Guidelines Manual" consolidating all guidelines used by the HPC for the past several years, putting them into a manual to hand to people as needed, and making it easier to do amendments to guidelines ratified by City Council. 3. Probably the chief issue, adoption of new standards related to demolition or partial demolition of a regulated historic structure. Reference was made to the potential demolition of structures at such places as Point Hudson. The current preservation codes, 17.30 and 17.80, are fairly permissive in the way demolition is viewed -- only showing enough detail of replacement for removals, and including HPC ability to issue a waiver for the removal process, as done previously with Phoenix Rising and Twigs 4. First significant change would be mandatory rather than voluntary compliance with the Design Review process for projects in the Uptown area of the Historic District, as with commercial related projects in the Downtown area. 5. Primarily housekeeping; clarifies the HPC role in Design Review relating to the Urban Waterfront Plan, all the way down to Point Hudson. Presently 17.30 lists all eight of the subdistricts of the Urban Waterfront Plan; HPC utilizes only the guidelines in the four subdistricts located in the special Urban Waterfront area. Remainder of the Urban Waterfront down to Boat Haven has four additional subdistricts with some guidelines. Similar to the early 1980's when submittal to design review and compliance was voluntary, the Tides Inn area was in the Urban Waterfront Plan but not regulatorily subject to design review. The SEP A process required them to go through HPC design review. This would basically reserve a spot for those design guidelines, and for the time being take them out of codification because they do not use them. No one in the Boat Haven is willing to submit to an HPC design review for a marine manufacturing building, and no one expects them to. Mr. McDonagh reported the SEP A review, for all zoning code text amendment changes, is being conducted. Today was the last day for comment period. There will be public hearings to take Planning Commission recommendations, hopefully early October, and then go before City Council in late October. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for Planning Commission questions. OUESTIONS There was discussion regarding what was considered new language in the ordinance given such things as single and double underlines and brackets noting new or expanded language. Mr. Watts pointed out this is an attempt to combine 17.30 and 17.80 with the goal of making a single user friendly chapter for both users and Staff. Mr. Watts explained that earlier versions were presented to HPC who also made recommendations adding underlining and striking deletions. He said this version needs to be cleaned up, but it is still new. Mr. McDonagh agreed the next version would be cleaned up, but that a lot from 17.30 and 17.80 is essentially the same language. Q Mr. Benskin: Thought he heard that there are things from HPC that are new, that have underlines, and then other new things that are not designated the same, that says to him this is all new language. Since it is not inherent to either one of Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 2 · · · the documents, it would be new language. A Ms. Thayer: Thought the easiest way is to understand that this has gone to HPC through multiple revisions. We should take it as it's written, whether expanded, revised, or new, and go from there; that is what's being proposed now. Mr. McDonagh: Will make it clear. A lot is a merging of these two chapters. Q Ms. Hersey: Is there a possibility we could have those two chapters? It would be better to understand to have those two chapters before them. A Mr. McDonagh: He assumed they had copies of the municipal code, but should have suggested they look at them. Mr. Kelety: Thought from an editing point of view, it is extremely helpful simply to know what is new; he was not personally concerned about the merging. That is minimum for him, Q Mr. Irvin: 1) What is the schedule for workshop revisions, public hearing, etc.; 2) Would like to understand what are the regulated parts of this whole package, regulated historic structures. He thought he heard that nothing that falls in the residential zoning gets that regulated category; therefore, these would not apply to revisions or modifications to residential homes, etc. He was interested in other zoning categories, specifically Point Hudson District. What of those buildings are considered to be regulated historic structures? A Mr. McDonagh: II Schedules -- Hearings and any needed additional workshops will be held with the Planning Commission. Council has asked for their presentation in the fourth quarter of 2003 (end of the year). A Planning Commission public hearing is tentatively planned sometime in October, and a Council public hearing later in October. That is subject to change if the Commission would like and feels they need another workshop. Mr. Watts added that the matter is coming before Council Tuesday night for input of their schedule for advanced planning, and they will be asked to tentatively okay setting October 23 as their public hearing. One possible date for a Commission public hearing to accommodate that would be Thursday.october 9. Chair Thayer suggested if they need another workshop that may be an issue; the Commission has hearings September 18 and September 25, and there is not a quorum available September 11. Mr. McDonagh: D Regulated parts -- Several segment answer: No residential properties currently are subject to design review, and none with the adoption of this ordinance. (Exception in both instances: any residential property that is involved in a conditional use permit, e.g., B&B -- subject to mandatory design review and compliance, whether uptown or downtown); Point Hudson properties, original 17 .80 Historic District Overlay ordinance only subjected to C-III zoned properties and basically the publicly zoned properties -- no residential, no high density residential, no other commercial, nothing in Point Hudson. The smaller boundary became subject to the HPC design review process with the adoption of the Urban Waterfront Plan, the Point Hudson properties as well as Swains (not in the Historic District but commercial). He answered Mr, Irvin that it was neither mandatory or voluntary before the Urban Waterfront Plan became adopted. After adoption of the Urban Waterfront Plan and 17.30, it became mandatory review and mandatory compliance for everything in the small area that partially encompasses the Historic District, including Point Hudson. Regulated Historic structure: i.e., gets into the area of demolition (one of the toughest things in drafting this ordinance). What becomes a regulated historic structure? Applicability section, 17.30.020.B., basically not new (though it may say new at the end of it) has the same applicability that it does now. What is new -- anybody who wants to partially or completely demolish a building that is on the Port Townsend register of historic places, that lies outside of the Historic Overlay District. The Historic Overlay District is basically going to be a combination of those two -- if you have a structure that lies outside of that Historic Overlay District that is on the local register. The local register -- a site that someone voluntarily requests to be placed on the Port Townsend local register. There is a National register, a State register, and a Local register of historic places. Q Mr. Benskin: Previously you stated that private residences were exempt from this ordinance and HPC. We have a lot of private residences that are not commercial activities that are on the Historic Register. What you are saying here, those private residences are governed by this ordinance? A Mr. McDonagh: Replied NO. You have to make the distinction between a National Register, State Register and a Local Register. A lot of people have the misconception that simply because a building or site is listed on the National Register of Historic places -- unless they are utilizing federal investment tax credits through the IRS or through the Parks Service. All historic preservation guidelines and regulations really come from the local level. It is a common misconception that because a building is on the National Register of historic places, you can't do anything to it. All the regulations related to the those structures, primarily come from local regulatory decisions. Mr. Watts: Clarified that a residence in the Historic District that has a conditional use permit is subject to the provisions of the ordinance, the Bed and Breakfasts, a residence with a conditional use. Q Mr. Benskin: If it doesn't have the conditional use permit; it's just a residence? Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 3 · A Mr. Watts: Then it is not regulated. There is no change from the existing reach of the ordinance. Ms. Thayer: A lot of people did that in the 70's in order to get federal funding for restoration, and that money is now gone. Mr. McDonagh: They were asked to look at the potential for expanding design review in the residential areas; there are a lot of communities that do that. We elected not to. We were also asked to look at changes to such things as the sign ordinance and parking; we decided this was enough. Q Mr. Berg: This does say that if somebody places their house on the local register, it does become subject. A Mr. McDonagh: Correct, they are subject -- they can ask to be taken off the register. Q Mr. Berg: You can ask to be put on, and you can ask to be taken off? A Mr. McDonagh: Absolutely. Q Ms. Thayer: Are there houses that don't have conditional use permits that are on the local register? A Mr. McDonagh: None now. They looked at expansion of the special valuation tax program, another locally adopted Washington State specific law that allows a jurisdiction to decide categories of structures for tax breaks. If someone decided to undertake significant rehabilitation, e.g., 25 percent of the assessed value of the building, you could qualify for a property tax break. They had looked at expanding that to houses in the community that would qualify for listing on the local register, thereby a home owner willing to invest a significant amount of money into their home that is a locally important structure and perhaps there might be a tax break available to do that. He said they never went that far. If somebody wanted to be listed on the register now, they would be doing so strictly as an honorary kind of step. · Q Mr. Berg: Under #2 it seems it is governed by what zone you are in. What about a residence inside a commercial zone? A Mr. McDonagh: Good question. His feeling, but would defer to Counsel, was that if you had a residential structure within the C-III zone, for example, you would be subject to design review. He said they might look at fmding some way to exempt that, if that is what you thought was appropriate. Basically, what's exempt is a demolition of a church, with its own interesting historic reasons, but anything located in the R-II or R-III zoning districts and is listed as a permitted use is exempt from design review. If you are located in one of the commercial zones or the marine manufacturing zones, e.g., Ms. Allen's house in the Pilot House in the Boat Haven area and has undergone at least one or two design review applications with the HPC to change windows and do some things in her building. It is also a business, not just her residence. Q Mr. Benskin: Mr. Berg brought up a good point. It seems like the person who has a residence in C-III and C-II historic districts is burdened with design review for their own home when they are not required to do so in a different zoning category. It seems like an unnecessary burden to them, and there should be some way to opt them out without having to go through a variance or any paperwork, just a matter of statement in the process here. A Mr. McDonagh: Answered Ms. Hersey regarding commercial, that it is by zone and not by property designation. He tried to think of an example of a strictly residential property, not an apartment, duplex or something that is some residential structure within commercial. Q Mr. Berg: Has a lot next to his house that doesn't have anything on it, but is in the C-III zone. A Mr. McDonagh: Was not sure they could construct a house on that as a stand alone permitted use in the C-III zone. Thought, but would have to check, that he would have to get it rezoned if he put a house on it, that the structure is required to be commercial. He thought it can have residential as a component, similar to the Wolcott building downtown, retail below and residential on the top. But it is a commercial building. Q Ms. Hersey: Of the five things they were trying to accomplish, there were only three Issues and Options. Regarding the HPC role within the Urban Waterfront Plan, after reading through, did not see a section where it states a role, but it is pretty much intertwining in this ordinance as to what they can and cannot do. A Mr. McDonagh concurred. Q Ms. Hersey: Secondly, what you were saying before, HPC was changed from a commission to a committee, are you going to have to change it back to a commission? Since a year or so ago all committees have the same rules and recommendations and are advisory to the Council. Are you going to change that? You have given a pretty incredible authority to do this. They are telling Staff what is going to happen, they recommend and you have to do it. A Mr. Watts: Council action a year ago standardized some procedures relating to boards, committees and commissions; there were exceptions for certain ones, including the Planning Commission because it had a specialized function under · Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 4 · State law. HPC was largely left intact because of its special land use advisory recommendations with respect to design review. It has a greater power than the Parks and Recreation Board. So, there won't be any need to go back and revisit the Council action a year ago. Q Mr. Benskin: To follow up regarding the authority of the HPC, you are saying they make a recommendation, put we are being told thatit's mandatory for a person to follow their recommendations. It's not voluntary. For an advisory board to make mandatory suggestions gives them a lot of power. Ms. Hersey: You now go from what Council is supposed to recommend and Staff has to proceed through and do it. A Ms. Thayer: That is the way it has always been. Mr. McDonagh:: Right now they serve an advisory role. They make a recommendation to the BCD Director; that wouldn't change with this ordinance. What changes is the review of projects in the uptown area; they are required to review projects in the uptown area; their recommendations to the BCD Director and to the applicant are voluntary right now. The BCD Director, when the projects are downtown, has, on occasion, overturned or modified their recommendations and sometimes considerably, just reflecting the feeling they didn't recognize a special circumstance involving the project and the property, or perhaps incorrectly interpreted some of the guidelines. HPC's involvement in the review of this ordinance was at the request of City Council. Q Ms. Hersey: 17.30.050 B, page 8, If the director modifies a recommendation. it shall be for I!:ood cause set forth in writinl!:. and the director shall DfomDtlv notify HPC of anv modification. Does that mean HPC gets to come back and talk about it some more? She was concerned about their role and power they will have and also staff time in going back and forth.. A Mr. Watts: Legal authority ofHPC does not change at all in this ordinance. The area or territory of potential matters that could come before HPC doesn't change. Right now commercial projects in uptown come before HPC. Under this ordinance commercial projects in uptown would come before HPC -- no change in the authority ofHPC. HPC now only makes a recommendation to the BCD Director; that authority doesn't change. This sentence was put in here at the request ofHPC, that if the Director modifies a recommendation ofHPC, the Director should have a reason for doing so. That is implicit in the relationship with BCD; it's now made more explicit. · Q Mr. Berg: Currently, and under the new ordinance, the thing that is mandatory is the BCD Director's ruling. Mr. McDonagh interjected it is mandatory to go through the process. Mr. Berg continued it is never mandatory for anybody to comply with anything the HPC says unless the BCD Director adopts their recommendation as a ruling and then it stays, is that correct? . A Mr. McDonagh: concurred. Q Mr. Irvin: The draft ordinance shows a date of 1/10103. Should he assume nothing has been done to revise this text by HPC or the City since January of this year? A Mr. Watts: Believed HPC carried their review through April. He would not assume that the header date is the fmal revision date. Q Mr. Benskin: Issues and Options, page #1, makeup of the staff asked by Council to serve on the HP/DP task force is pretty much HPC participants -- why the business community which this greatly affects, property owners and business owners downtown or in the Historic District weren't included for their input since most of this ordinance deals with historic buildings owned by others, not people regulating how they look? It seems to get a broader spectrum of input, the commission might have been expanded a bit for input. A Mr. McDonagh: Could not give an answer, but indicated Barbara Marseille and Joan Cole are both on the HPC; Eric Toews is a local attorney that operates out of one of the buildings downtown. · Q Ms. Hersey: Issue 3. Regarding her formerly owned vendor cart business, she stated there are standards. Vendor carts; needs to be revisited.. A Mr. McDonagh: He and Ms. Hersey have privately talked about this. He has been unable to find anything regarding this. Chair Thayer: If Ms. Hersey believes there are design standards, they need to get together to find where they are. Ms. Hersey: Pam also. Mc. McDonagh: Clarified that Issue #3 was sort of a laundry list (a. through m.). There is actually residential tear down (n.) that wasn't included, which is one of the things the citizens' committee and the HPC looked at. This was a list of things they questioned needing to look at in the code. They decided to prioritize things they could deal with at one time, which resulted in three of the five being selected for consideration now; the rest will be dealt with later. Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 5 · · · Q Mr. Arthur: Is the intent of this ordinance to stop demolition at Point Hudson or to stimulate redevelopment and improvement of our historic buildings? A Mr. McDonagh: Thought part of it is to better position the City to deal with demolition requests. It is not specific to Point Hudson, or to anyone building. Q Mr. Arthur: His reason for asking, from dealing with people having those buildings, over the years many of them have remained in a fairly rundown state, due to the fmancial burden to bring them up to code. He referred to Page 14 or the draft ordinance, saying to demolish or make a fairly substantial change to a building, you are going to be required to draw new plans, set aside (pretty substantial in 17.30.80.F.2.), some letter of credit, performance bond, escrow agreement -- those things are really expensive. He referred to the previously run down state of the Waterman-Katz building and the funding, coming up with money to create a remodel and restoration. He said the more we put on here that requires fmancial burdens on the property owners, some who no longer even able to buy fire insurance, it's a big problem. Then next those who are too burdened to upgrade and remodel become a real handicap to the rest of the property owners because, what if a disaster happens? There is nothing in here that creates carrots, creates a helpful attitude toward those people. It kind of says you own a historic building, and we are going to make sure you are going to do it our way, and not say here is a handup to do it a particular way. If the City Council has already scheduled public hearings on this; have they already decided to approve it, and are wasting our time here? A Mr. McDonagh: 1) Clarified that City Council hasn't scheduled any public hearing on this; they are presenting to Council a draft calendar of several items BCD has been doing over the past year. 2)There is a difference between renovate, remodel and demolish. The fmancial security provisions referenced on page 14 are tied to a certificate of approval for someone to demolish; someone who goes though the enhanced review and basically proves that they cannot make an economic use of this building in the state it is in; structurally it is a wreck .and cannot be renovated the way it should be and he needs to demolish. Someone who makes that good showing, still has to go through, just as they would today, also showing their replacement design for that building. That needs to be approved, and it seems prudent to the HPC that if you have gone through all of that, the City needs some security you are going to follow through -- if that building comes down, that the replacement design will actually get installed; otherwise we might have a building that otherwise could have been renovated or restored taken down, and that person decides to leave town. That is the reason for that provision; it's not meant to be a hindrance to the person actually doing the renovation or bringing a building that is currently unoccupied or floors that are currently unoccupied up code. 3) There are incentives for those kinds of buildings, both on the federal and local level. Main Street has a modest grant and loan prograrn. That was also something the HPC mentioned that other jurisdictions have, a program of loans and grants to help do that. It is very slow, very costly, and very cumbersome, but is something that could be added to a later work plan. Those provisions referenced are for someone who proves their case that their building won't withstand structurally, can't make a profit, doesn't make economic good sense, it can be demolished, but show us what you want to put up. He gets approval for that; before he demolishes he shows he has the fmancial ability to make a replacement structure happen. Q Mr. Arthur: In come in with a building down here I want to significantly change, maybe take off a floor, maybe remove some floors, add others, etc. That is not going to be considered a demolition? A Mr. McDonagh: Adding floors is new construction, new addition. If you have a two-story building, you want to add a floor to it, that is new addition, that's not a partial demolition. If you have a building that is three stories, and you want to take off the third, or take the top two off, that is partial demolition, and you would be subject to these provisions. Q Mr. Arthur: So this would be one of the documents you would use? A Mr. McDonagh: Concurred. Chair Thayer asked how to proceed with questions, go page by page, or just with concepts and come back for the public hearing. It was decided they are not ready for a public hearing. Mr. Irvin thought it prudent to share their concerns with Mr. McDonagh for more revisions. He cited Page 12, regarding demolition -- e.g., from "factors below" to "criteria below;" "50 years or older," "three of the criteria;" "less than 50 years," "five out of seven." He suggested that none of these criteria are measurable except by subjective judgment, and thought a committee person could very easily take any application and decide what applies or that it applies to everything. It is so subjective. If you have criteria, they need to be measurable. These potentially get HPC and BCD into over-regulation, which Mr. Arthur pointed out gets to be expensive. Mr. Kelety agreed that was his main concern. He asked Mr. Irvin if he meant a term like "detrimental." Mr. Irvin replied he meant such things like "significant," "distinguishable," "special," "cultural," " economic," "political," "etc." He thought "historical character" and "architectural character" are subjective. He did not have a recommendation but suggested a careful reading of the entire document and comparison of the existing sections. He would like to know the additions that were specific to the HPC and why they are pushing them so hard. Mr. Watts explained that the subject of how you determine what is an historic building was the subject of a lot of Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 6 · · · debate at both the citizen committee level and HPC level. The broad framework was whether or not to identify upfront a list of buildings that would be determined from the beginning as historic buildings. It was determined unanimously by both the citizens committee and also the HPC that was not the way to go. To try to do that would be extremely difficult and it would create the need to continually look at updating the list periodically, every 3 or 5 years. The approach of both was to go forward with what has been called this subjective approach. That approach is used by most cities that have historic regulations. There are three other cities in the U.S. that call themselves Victorian Seaports besides Port Townsend. All have a similar approach to identifying which buildings are going to receive special attention in terms of design review, or demolition. LaConnor, Washington, has a similar approach, and they don't identify themselves as a historic seaport. There was concern that a building had to be a specific age 100-75-50 years, and if it didn't have that specific age it couldn't be considered historic. The HPC rejected that approach. Conversely all buildings over a certain age should be considered historic, in a sense creating a non-subjective approach based upon age of building alone, which was also rejected by the HPC. What was settled on was the approach shown here. Granted, it is going to be a group of people applying a community standard, their interpretation as to whether or not a particular building meets the criteria. That recommendation would be reviewed by the BCD Director. If the building owner felt the building still did not meet the standard, even though the City determined it did, the building owner would have the process of appeal. He added, regarding a previous comment made by Mr. Benskin that Edel Sokol is on the HPC; she is a pretty strong businessperson, and she had a lot of difficult and probing questions about the ordinance. She owns an historic structure that would be subject to these provisions in the uptown area, and she came out if favor of the HPC recommendations. There was some business input Mr. Benskin stated he was thinking about the downtown business. Ms. Hersey said she was not comfortable with the material until they had reviewed the original ordinances. It was determined to state general concerns tonight for issues to be considered at a later workshop with a line-by-line review of the draft ordinance. CONCERNS AND OUESTIONS TO BE REVISITED: Ms. Hersey: HPC regulations they follow, e.g., colors, design standards, why are they not used rather than being subjective? She said to Mr. McDonagh she assumed they are expanding on them. Mr. McDonagh: Replied that no, the same guidelines that are in use today by the HPC would be in use by the HPC upon adoption of this. The only difference, there is a specific reference in the ordinance to a preservation guidelines manual, a narrow 3-ring binder that could be handed out. Rather than taking it back to the Planning Commission and Council after HPC has said they need to craft some guidelines for something particular, they don't have to take the entire ordinance back the Planning Commission and Council, they take the design guidelines manual. Ms. Hersey: Maybe we need to look at that also. Chair Thayer: That is not what we are doing tonight. We are combining two sections of the PTMC. . Ms. Hersey: We do not know what the HPC is doing. I would like to know their regulations. Ms. King: Her understanding, particularly in the part Mr. Irvin was just speaking of -- removal of a structure and why it would be detrimental. It's not going to be detrimental if one of the guidelines is something like, you should paint it in natural colors. That is not going to be a bright line that is going to be detrimental to remove it. Thinks we are talking apples and oranges. Mr. McDonagh: The subjectivity guidelines that concern Mr. Irvin are really specific to demolition or partial demolition. Ms. Hersey: The HPC has never done this before. Mr. McDonagh: HPC has not, and honestly they went around downtown trying to determine what they would need to do. They ran a number of test cases by them, and they felt there were enough checks and balances, especially with the BCD Director being the decision maker, and again having the opportunity for having a property owner who felt aggrieved by a recommendation of the HPC and decision by the BCD Director be able to appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Hersey: Felt more comfortable with that explanation. Ms. King: Did not really have concerns. Was looking forward to kind of a cleaner copy, not concerned about what comes from which ordinance. She would like to know what is new and what has been struck. Mr. McDonagh replied they could do that. Mr. Benskin: Agreed with Ms. King -- new, and struck, so they could see it was new language. Has a lot of notes for page-by-page comments. Had some major concerns. On page 3 it starts what this document feels to him -- F and H, "private ownership" is changed to ~ owners and ownership. It takes the individual out of the equation. These buildings are not owned by . . . Mr. McDonagh: Explained that recommendation came from Edel Sokol who asked to have that word struck; although he was not exactly sure why. These purpose and intent statements are from either 17.30 or 17.80 in exactly the Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 7 · · · form they are in, except for striking private. Mr. McDonagh: Disagreed with Ms. Sokol, stating it was subjective, and that is what we are dealing with here. Ms. Thayer: Felt her reasoning for taking out private, is because it is private versus municipal. This applies to both now. Mr. McDonagh: Agreed, and said he thought she wanted it to apply to both. Ms. Thayer: If you just say "ownership" that means any ownership. Mr. Benskin: Page 10 -- he made the assumption that note (17.08.030.D - unsafe conditions; engineering report portion is new) is new and follows. Mr. McDonagh concurred. Mr. Benskin said it seems if this is new information being required for the owner to reveal to the city, it is unnecessarily burdensome and invasive of their privacy in the extent it asks of them here. When he thinks our City Council is asking this much disclosure, we have a hard getting our Councilors to disclose this much information. He thinks it is out of line, and he would like to see this revisited. Ms. Thayer: Did not think she agreed with Mr. Benskin at this point because this is only dealing with properties that are slated for demolition.. Mr. Benskin: Added that it is also a lot of personal information, on the owners and on the new project. Mr. Kelety: The conflict is, how do I take what we have already done by the community as an important structure and I want to blow it away. Now, the City agrees; however, the community standards say it is a vacant lot and we want something to go back in its place; if we are going to take some risks here, we want to have some sense that we are holding back. Mr. Benskin: How would they be holding back other than a perceived loss? Mr. Kelety: We have lost the building without any plan for getting a return. There is risk. He was not sure this was the time to go into the specifics, but he understands the intent. Mr. McDonagh: We are not asking for information on an individual stock portfolio where there are other investments; we are asking them for specific information about the property that they would like to demolish, or partially demolish in order to evaluate whether or not economically it makes sense to have that demolition occur. It is also another tool that is widely employed by other communities that have faced rampant demolition, e.g. Denver, Dallas, places you might think of as a little more conservative. Ken McBride who is very much a private person had some concerns about these with the HPC, and in the end he voted to include these when he suddenly realized this is not about asking for disclosure of a person's private information. It's specific to the project. Mr. Benskin: Appreciated having the clarification. Regarding the 50 year threshold, he was curious how a 50 year historic building came about. He again knows that the choice is subjective, but in the Historic District they have a lot of 50 year old concrete block buildings with flat roofs that have no historical value whatsoever. Mr. McDonagh: 50 years is a magic sort of threshold that has been used by the Park Service and has been adopted by most communities. Generally, it is a building 50 years or older that becomes eligible, doesn't automatically place it, but becomes eligible it for listing on the National Register. Ifwe wanted to pick another, perhaps we could, but places stick with 50 years. We decided to perhaps expand upon that a little bit; if you're older than 50 years, you only have to meet a certain number of these criteria; if younger, you have to meet more for you to be deemed a significant structure in this town. Mr. Benskin: Page 14, F.3 -- "agreed upon removal of materials or artifacts." It seemed odd the City would want to come in and identify what they want. Ms. Thayer agreed the way this is written needs to be clarified. Mr. McDonagh: This is not waste not, want not of the demolition. Mr. Benskin: He hoped not and that there would be some sort of remuneration for the materials or artifacts that are removed from the building before demolition, unless the person wants to donate that. Mr. Watts: It doesn't work that way. The key phrase, and he doesn't think it could be better worded, is "agreed upon." If the owner says it is going to the landfill, the City can't say "no, we have ftrst pick." It is only if the owner agrees. Mr. Kelety: Page 9, 17.30.080.C.(a), The intent of all this -- they were very specific in saying here all the things we need in our fmancial dealings, but then saying, but not "an owner's assets or income. . ." Was that in there as a feel good thing? Mr. Watts: The HPC was very clear they wanted to make sure that the information required by the ordinance did not get into the owner's bank account. They wanted a clarification, and that language on the bottom of page 9 addressed that request for clarification. Mr. Irvin: Page 9, 17.30.080.B.3 -- (On the other end of the spectrum) "The HPC may request additional information necessary for their review and recommendation." We should be able to have a form, list or something, that is very specific as to what the applicant needs to provide, so the HPC doesn't require something else and keep pulling the string in. He had a marked copy of the ordinance with a lot of changes and offered to give it to Mr. McDonagh. Ms. Thayer: What Mr. Irvin thinks may need to be changed may not agree with what the rest feel. She thought it better to discuss when they go through page-by-page. Mr. Arthur: Thought the thing they should keep track of, this is an entire document, not just a demolition document Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 8 · · · on historic preservation. From his experience over the years with these kinds of things with historic preservation, before it was required and after, was that the subjectivity of it is pretty interesting because people would bring in designs of a canopy or a change to their building and the HPC would sit there and make decisions that were, as it ended up, too expensive for the property owner who would say, "This I can afford, and if you want something different, you can pay the difference, but I can only afford to do this." In one case they had to take the whole committee down to Point Hudson and show them the change before they could agree that is was okay. Subjectivity is fairly critical. It is interesting about risk and reward; he knows a little about it. He sees no City risk and lots of City rewards, and that is the kind of thing that creates non-development. He felt there needs to be, as it says on Page 3.H., "Assist, encourage and provide incentives. . ." When the insurance man comes around and says they are not going to let them insure the building anymore, and you have to do something -- he has not found the incentives in there. If they are supposed to be added to this document, he would like to see thern. Mr. Berg: Agreed regarding the line that says HPC may request additional information necessary for their review. He thinks that has been a problem in the past, where HPC does continually request ad infmitum, and that some attempt to clarify both for the HPC what they can request, and for the applicant what they need to provide. He thinks they have been trying to clarify that. He thought an open ended thing in the ordinance here isn't very helpful. Page 11, D. the fIrst sentence says, "The director may request peer review of any documents or reports at the expense of the applicant. . ." and goes on to detail how in some cases it is at the expense of the applicant and other cases, it is not. He thinks that needs to be clarified. Maybe "at the expense of the applicant" doesn't belong up there in that first sentence; later in that paragraph it explains where is it at the expense of the applicant, and where it is not. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS September 11,2003, Canceled September 18, 2003, Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan September 25, 2003, Public Hearing, C-II Design Standards The forthcoming schedule was discussed. Commissioners were surveyed for those who could attend: September 18 -- Commissioners Arthur, Irvin, Berg, Thayer, Benskin September 25 -- Commissioners Arthur, Kelety, Hersey, King, Berg and Thayer. Mr. Arthur expressed concern regarding his participation in some of the Comprehensive Plan items. It was determined that as long as there is a quorum and someone has to partially recuse themselves it would be covered. Chair Thayer said if anyone couldn't attend, please notify Penny. It was determined to tentatively schedule another workshop concerning the Waterfront Overlay District and National Register Historic District for the regular October 9th meeting. There was discussion concerning the lack of participation of the City Council Liaison. Chair Thayer will contact Ms. Sandoval regarding reports. IX. COMMUNICA nONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Hersey and seconded by Mr. Irvin. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. ~~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, August 28, 2003 1 Page 9