Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10022003 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. Unfinished Business 2003 Comp Plan Amendments VII. New Business Open Record Public Hearing C-II Architectural and Site Design Review Standards 1. BCD Staff Introduction 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings: October 9: Joint Meeting with City Council VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment October 2, 2003 · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING October 2, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to continue the open record public hearing from September 18, 2003 to fmalize Findings and Facts for the 2003 proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. This meeting, rescheduled from September 25, 2003, was also to conduct a public hearing on Commercial, Mixed Use and Multi-Family Design Standards. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Richard Berg, JeffKelety, and Alice King; Jim Irvin and Bernie Arthur were excused; Frank Benskin was unexcused. Also present were BCD Planners Judy Surber and Jean Walat. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the agenda; Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- There were none V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There were none VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continuation of Public Hearing 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS At 7:02 p.rn. Chair Thayer opened the public hearing continued from September 18,2003, to consider the Planning Commission Summary Report transmittal to the City Council and to fmalize Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Planning Commission. She asked for Ms. Surber's staff presentation. Ms. Surber noted that City Attorney Watts determined a quorum is needed to approve the Transmittal of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations to City Council, but it did not require the same participants who voted on the individual amendments. Chair Thayer also reported that City Attorney Watts had determined that although Commissioner Irvin is on extended sick leave, he is still a member and it would require five members present to make a quorum. Ms. Surber noted a discrepancy in the draft Summary Report indicating the vote summaries for the Carlson Amendment and the City-owned Lots on Block 52 were transposed. She also reported that City Manager David Timmons has withdrawn the city's application for the Carlson Amendment subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing of the Carlson Amendment. It will not be going forward to the City Council. Chair Thayer asked if there were any additions or corrections of the Summary Report. It was pointed out that Mr. Arthur had recused himself from consideration of the City-owned Lots on Block 52 and the vote summary should be changed to: "4-0-0 with Commissioner Arthur recused." AMEND Planning Commission Summary Report: Carlson Amendment--LUP#03-033: Vote Summary 5-0-0 AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN at the request of City Manager Timmons City-owned Lots on Block 52 Amendment-LUP#03-032 Vote Summary 4-0-0 with Commissioner Arthur recused Planning Commission Minutes, October 2, 2003 / Page 1 · · · MOTION Mr. Berg Approve the Planning Commission Summary Report Transmittal for Year 2003 Comprehensiye Plan Amendments as corrected SECOND Mr. Kelety VOTE PASSED 5 in fayor by yoice yote At 7:05 p.rn. Chair Thayer closed the public hearing on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Cind~~~y~~~~air~"- 7/ l/ .1Z¿t£lt L / 4fJ-~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS October 2, 2003 Chair Thayer continued the meeting, rescheduled from September 25, 2003, with New Business to conduct a public hearing on Commercial, Mixed Use and Multi-Family Design Standards. VII. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Public Hearing COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE AND MUL TI-FAMIL Y DESIGN STANDARDS At 7:05 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for this legislative public hearing rescheduled from September 25,2003 and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Walat stated these standards are the result of more than 3 years of work by an advisory committee updating the existing interim C-II design standards, several meetings with the Planning Commission and a joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop. She stated that if the Planning Commission comes to a recommendation during this public hearing it will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing tentatively scheduled for October 23, 2003. She referenced her memo to the Planning Commission dated September 18, 2003 and discussed the exhibits: Exhibit A: the actual standards with changes to the original standards. Exhibit B: Bulk and Dimensional Table showing maximum building size. She said it does not really reflect changes from the existing, most significantly the current maximum building size, 75,000 sf in the C-II zones. She distributed the existing standards that were entered into the record as Exhibit B-1. She noted in looking at the table there was unfinished business as to how to handle multiple buildings on one site, and stated it is an amendment that probably needs to be made. Exhibit C: the new process as to how you do a review, and establishes the two track process. Staff would handle some projects and others referred to a newly established design review committee. She pointed out that all of the thresholds and how it would be handled have all been moved out of the standards and into Exhibit C putting all of the review process in one place. Exhibit D: establishment of a design review committee is somewhat equivalent to the HPC except for some important differences. HPC was used as a model; any references to HPC will be removed. Exhibit E: miscellaneous changes to other sections of the Municipal Code including the parking sections. She suggested there is an omission in the sign code dependent upon what is done with canopy signs. Planning Commission Minutes, October 2, 2003 / Page 2 · Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony at 7: 10 p.m. There being none, she closed the meeting for public testimony and asked for Planning Commission questions of Staff. Ms. King asked if this reflects Planning Commission changes. Ms. Walat concurred but stated the standards have also been extended to include the hospital commercial and the mixed-use zones. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: EXHIBIT A Illustration No.2 Page 3 Discussion: Ms. King questioned the label "To Be Avoided." She asked if that is prohibited or unacceptable, that it says, ". . .parking and auto access shall be located away from the primary. . ." Ms. Walat concurred stating she thought it should state "Not Acceptable." Cham!e wordin2 "To Be Ayoided" to "Not acceptable." CONSENSUS: 5 in fayor · Tilt-up concrete. Page 9 - 17.44.130 (Ms. Walat to correct page numbers). Discussion: Ms. Thayer asked regarding the deletion and BCD recommendation that it would be safer to leave in the reference to tilt-up concrete. Ms. Walat made the following points: Building articulation is often most difficult to get from the designer if they don't already have that orientation. Ms. Thayer agreed; Mr. Berg was not opposed. Goodwill building is tilt-up concrete but is exempt because it is in the Business Park and not subject to C-II design standards. To apply to the Business Park would require a change to their Planned Unit Development agreement. Ms. Hersey spoke of Henery's with their plantings, overhangs, etc and all the other standards. She felt they should look outside the business park for examples as to where the standards would apply. The committee did not want to restrict to tilt-up. Mr. Kelety asked for clarification as to the purpose precluding tilt-up. It is cheap. Mr. Berg explained it is possible to design a tilt-up structure that has articulation; however, the most common reason for using tilt-up is that it is cheap. The cheapest tilt-up thing to do is a box. He thought the issue is, if someone wants to do a tilt-up building, there is 95% thinking they want to do a cheap box. It is difficult for Staff to work with them to deal with other requirements, e.g. articulation. Mr. Berg commented this would be putting back in prohibition against tilt-up concrete. Reinstate: "Exterior walls shall not be constructed of tilt-up concrete." VOTE: PASSED -- 4 in favor by voice vote; Ms. Hersey opposed Multi-story development encourae:ements Page 10 Discussion: Ms. Walat noted the addition, that now there are two, 1) 60,000 sf maximum -- 20,000 additional square feet for a second floor above the 40,000 sf ground floor maximum; 2) 50% parking requirement for a floor above. Hei2ht Restriction Page 15 - 17.44.180.A.5 Discussion: Ms. Thayer asked if there was a justification for making the height restriction 17 feet as opposed to 15 feet. Ms. Walat answered they looked at existing places, e.g. Henery's at 20 feet that people seemed to like, but that was a pretty big jump. · EXHIBIT B Maximum Ground Floor Size Discussion: Ms. Walat explained she had not adequately make the first draft reflect exactly the changes. She thought the most important changes were 75,000 sf maximum building size under C-II; Maximum Ground Floor Size and Maximum Building Size. She suggested this table could have a footnote stating how to deal with multiple buildings on a single property. She noted there was a question as to whether or not 40,000 sf applied to such places as QFC and all the other buildings attached to each other, whether to count it as one building or as several. She asked if it is several buildings, is it okay they are attached? Mr. Randall had suggested that multiple buildings have Planning Commission Minutes, October 2, 2003 / Page 3 · · · some kind of separation between them if they are on the same property, i.e., 10 feet, at least an alleyway separation. Ms. Walat answered Mr. Berg, it would be required every 40,000 s.f. She said that could be included in the recommendation, and suggested a possible footnote -- multiple buildings on a single property shall be separated by at least 10' (12' feet maybe as an alleywidth) every 40,000 sf. She thought they should be clear about what they need, that if someone is building two small buildings, can they be attached as long as they don't exceed 40,000 sf. Mr. Berg agreed with the suggestion. As long as you don't exceed 40,000 sf on the ground floor, that could be more than one building. Mr. Kelety suggested that then you might create a little strip mall effect. He understood the bulk, but said visually you could end up having a little strip mall because it could cover the whole width of the property even though it was less than 40,000 sf each. Ms. Walat thought that the building Domino's Pizza is in is would fall under 40,000. Mr. Kelety concurred and thought that the idea of separation per building has some merit. Mr. Berg indicated that as long as they have put the parking in the back or on the side, he did not think it was such a big deal. The strip mall with parking in front is what he thinks they want to avoid. He was not bothered so much by a series of store fronts on the sidewalk and attached to each other, with parking in the back, such as downtown. Mr. Kelety asked what was a 40,000 sfbuilding. The reply, 200x200 sf, one city block. He asked if there were any value to lowering the number. Chair Thayer felt it would be hard to lower it when you have the existing maximum; Ms. Walat replied it couldn't be lower than that. Add a footnote statine: multiple buildim!:s may be attached not to exceed 40.000 sf of the e:round floor area: if more than 40.000 sf. with at least a 10 ft separation every 40.000 sf. CONSENSUS: 5 in favor Maximum Floor Area Ratio Discussion: Mr. Berg asked if they had gotten rid of them altogether. Ms. Walat replied they had. He asked if they were redundant. Ms. Walat stated they thought they limited the density, and that was not what they were after. They were really trying to get multiple floor buildings, and a maximum floor area ratio seemed counter to that. Ms. King said you still have the height limit; Ms. Walat concurred that had not changed. Mr. Berg stated it was fine with him. Maximum Fence Hei2ht Discussion: Ms. Surber ask~d if it isn't true that a fence over 6 feet in height requires a building permit. Ms. Walat replied it may. Add: "A fence over 6 foot may reauire a buildine: permit." CONSENSUS: 5 in favor EXHIBIT C No change. Ms. Walat noted the thresholds were moved to this document. EXHIBIT D Composition Discussion: Ms. Hersey asked who supersedes if they go forward with the demolition ordinance, HPC or this committee? Ms. Walat replied they would never be looking at the same proposals. HPC functions only within the historic district; this committee functions only outside the historic district, also multi-family design and mixed use. Mr. Kelety questioned requiring all members being from that list and suggested rewording from "shall" to "should," giving latitude to include some that aren't from that list. He was not sure they would want to restrict it, that the word include means you can have some of these, but you can also have some that aren't. Ms. Thayer pointed out the fIrst sentenc~ says,". . . shall consist of a standing pool of five individuals with architectural design expertise." Ms. Walat stated what she meant to say was the members of the committee, ". . . may include architects, landscape architects or building designers, " that in conjunction with the fIrst sentence, everyone on the committee needs to have building expertise. Ms. Thayer suggested changing the language. Mr. Kelety concurred and said "expertise" in the first sentence is fairly broad. You move on down and are much more restrictive; he thought it should stay a little looser. Mr. Berg said "shall include but not be limited to" ensures that someone on there is somebody that has credentials. Mr. Kelety agreed. Ms. Walat indicated this is rather an experiment, that they have not had many committees where you have a pool, and you select three. You need to include enough design professionals so you can cover each group that convenes for a specific project, only for a short time. Chan2e to read: ". . . The members of the committee shall include but not be limited to architects. landscape architects or building: desi2ners. . ." Planning Commission Minutes, October 2, 2003 / Page 4 · CONSENSUS: 5 in favor EXHIBIT E PTMC 17.72 Off Street Parkin!!: and Loadin!!: 17.72.75 Applicability Discussion: Ms. King noted this is where the parking encouragement is located. Ms. Walat concurred stating she thought Mr. Randall wanted that to say commercial development or redevelopment above the ground floor. She felt he was thinking if you have apartments above a building, which is what they are trying to encourage, that you want to provide for parking -- "commercial development or redevelopment above the ground floor. . . shall require only half the parking spaces. . .," if that is what you want. Chan!!:e to read: "Commercial development or redevelopment above the !!:round floor. . ." CONSENSUS: 5 in favor Table 17.72.085 Maximum Permitted Parkin!!: Discussion: Ms. W alat said this is new but they have had multiple discussions about this all along. It adds maximum permitted parking. She said that is a bit of a big step, that they thought of a number of different ways to do that. She did not think the percent is necessarily the best way, but it is a step. If you have a big project, e.g., Safeway -- 20% of their required parking is a pretty big number. You have a big parking lot and you are allowing it to be a lot bigger, but when they looked at the alternatives, this seemed to be a way to do it. Another approach was to take the minimum parking table and say it is not a minimum parking table, it is a maximum parking table. That seemed like a pretty big step, a bigger step than this. This says there are still some minimums, but there is also a maximum. Mr. Kelety thought it interesting, 120% of the minimum as opposed to stating some sort of maximum. Ms. Walat added that the maximum is 120% of the minimum. PTMC 17.72.120 On-street parkin!!: spaces Discussion: Ms. Walat noted the two credits per one. · PTMC 17.72.190 Par kine: facilities -- Landscapin!!: Discussion: Ms. Walat indicated most is the same, but Mr. Randall made some additions to keep it consistent with the tree ordinance. Canopy Si!!:ns Discussion: Ms. Walat pointed out it is not in here, but there is a place in the sign code that refers to canopy signs. She will make that consistent with what is in the standard. It basically says, "No canopy signs;" she will have to delete them out of the sign code. They are allowing directional signs on canopies. Ms. Walat will add, make consistent with the standard, and forward to City Council CONSENSUS: 5 in favor MOTION Mr. Berg Recommend approval of the C-II Architectural and Site Design Standards with corrections and additional new wording, "No canopy signs" SECOND VOTE Ms. King PASSED 5 in favor by Roll Call Vote Chair Thayer stated this would now go on to City Council. Ms. Walat said with Planning Commission agreement she will make the changes and forward this to City Council stating this is the recommendation of the Planning Commission. VIII UPCOMING MEETINGS October 9, 2003 6:00 p.m. Joint Workshop with City Council regarding the Draft Ordinance to consolidate and amend PTMC Chapters 17.30 (Waterfront Design Guidelines Overlay District) and 17.80 (National Register Historic District) · Planning Commission Minutes, October 2, 2003 / Page 5 · · · IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. x. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Berg and seconded by Mr. Kelety. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.rn. Ms. Pat Scott thanked Commissioners for their patience with the community regarding the proposed Carlson rezone that was withdrawn. Chair Thayer expressed Commission appreciation to Ms. Scott for the community involvement. / / t/ ! .¿f,~ ~ Cindy Thay:r, . air ' ~~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, October 2, 2003 / Page 6 , ",........... ,- 1 //ji/ ¡/ í /if ../,,/' /l--{-4~ /