Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11062003 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm November 6, 2003 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - September 18 & 25, 2003; October 2 & 9, 2003 V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. City Council Liaison Report VII. New Business A. Re-Open Public Hearing, Comp Plan Amendment, Block 52, LUP03-032 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action B. Continued Workshop of Draft Historic Preservation Demolition Ordinance - Brine vour notebooks!! - VIII. Upcoming Meetings - November 13,2003 November 20, 2003 IX. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 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 reopen the open record public hearing from September 18, 2003 for reconsideration and a re-vote on the 2003 proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, City-Owned Lots on Block 52. LUP03-32. This meeting also includes a continued workshop of the Draft Historic Preservation Demolition Ordinance. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Richard Berg, Jeff Kelety, Alice King, Frank Benskin and Bernie Arthur; Jim Irvin was excused. Also present were BCD Planners Judy Surber and John McDonagh, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Public Works Director Ken Clow and City Attorney John Watts. A new Planning Commission member was announced, George Randels. Mr. Randels was not present. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Berg made a motion to accept the agenda; Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motions were made, seconded and passed on minutes as follows: September 18,2003: Motion by Mr. Kelety to accept as corrected; seconded by Mr. Berg. September 25,2003: Motion by Mr. Berg to accept as written; seconded by Ms. Kersey. October 2,2003: Motion by Ms. Kersey to accept as written; seconded by Mr. Berg. October 9,2003: Motion by Mr. Berg to accept as corrected; seconded by Mr. Benskin. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Re-open Public Hearing, Comp Plan Amendment, Block 52, LUP03-032 Chair Thayer explained this is a reopening of the amendment. She asked Mr. Arthur ifhe was wishing to again recuse himself from consideration of Block 52, LUP03-032. Mr. Arthur asked to recuse himself from reconsideration of Block 52 because he owns property nearby, and also to recuse himself from consideration ofthe Historic Preservation draft ordinance due to historic buildings listed for sale. Chair Thayer stated the ordinance is not a quasi-judicial process. City Attorney Watts indicated Mr. Arthur's choice to recuse himself from consideration of Block 52 is a close call, but appropriate. Mr. Watts explained that revisions to the Historic Preservation ordinance is a legislative matter, and Mr. Arthur would not legally be required to recuse himself because of his interest either as an owner of historic properties or as a listing agent. Mr. Watts said he is free to recuse himself but not legally required to. Mr. Arthur recused himself from both issues and left the meeting for the remainder of the evening. Ms. Hersey declared that as member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board participating in overseeing and choice of this parcel, she was advised to recuse herself from consideration of Block 52, LUP03-023. Ms. Hersey recused herself and left the Council Chambers. Chair Thayer asked Ms. Surber if she had any Staff comments. Ms. Surber made a comment, additional to her Staff Presentation on September 18, that the map shows the correct zoning ofP/OS(B), public mixed use; she may have stated it in her written report as PI, public infrastructure. She noted it does not make any difference to Staff s recommendation, because the underlying zoning is not to be changed by this action. The Shorelines Master Program districting and designations would prevail over zoning. Ms. Surber said that Staffs Recommendation stands. She noted she had asked Public Works Director Ken Clow to attend the meeting to address any new information that might arise. Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page I · Chair Thayer pointed out the vote taken at the September 18, 2003 meeting was 4-0 to support the recommendation, but subsequently the vote was declared null and void for lack of a quorum. She stated, at that time without an attorney present, they had determined the Planning Commissioner who was taking a leave of absence was not considered a member. It has since been determined that Planning Commissioner is a member and is required in the count to determine a quorum of 5. At 7:23 p.m., Chair Thayer opened the meeting for new information and public testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY · Larry Crockett, 153 McCurdy Point Road, Port Townsend Executive Director, Port of Port Townsend Mr. Crockett represented the Port of Port Townsend. He spoke of his letters which were included in Commission packets, and said he was not so much opposing redistricting; that is up to the City. He thought they had not done their jobs as governments to find the best place to serve as a skateboard park and serve the dire need for parking. He pointed out the City is going through a parking consultant. He had attended a meeting the day before. Although the study is not complete, it has identified the need for approximately 275 more parking spaces in the coming years with the normal growth, plus all the other things i.e., Maritime Center, the rehabilitation of Point Hudson, etc. His desire as well as the Port Commission is that this parking lot remain a parking lot in total, that there are other areas better suited for the skateboard park. He indicated that should monies be in jeopardy because of the grant, he was sure the grant could be resubmitted, and was sure the Port would be more than happy to co- sponsor with the City to try to get money for the skateboard park. He said they should not be rushing to make a decision now; once that cement is poured in the skateboard park, it is there forever. He cautioned that a Planning Commission or City Council 10 years from now might criticize us for making the wrong decision. He noted the City is going through the Shorelines Master Program (SMP) update, and that the majority ofthe proposed site, if it stays in that parking lot, is still within 200 feet of the water. He said he does not believe that meets the SMP guidelines. · Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend Ms. Dorgan read a letter she drafted for the Planning Commission and submitted for the record. She first noted they are not rushing to build a skateboard park where it is and referenced a letter in Commission packets from the Port dated in year 2002. She stated this has been going on for years, and is fmally about to be built. Her letter stated she had not read the Port's comments at the time of her testimony at the earlier Planning Commission hearing, and was shocked to hear of another effort by the Port to move the skateboard park to Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. Kah Tai is a passive nature park, and needs to remain as it now is. She continued that the area proposed by the Port for the skateboard park is a landscaped berm that was specifically constructed to serve as a visual and sound buffer between the Transit center and the nature park. That berm should not now or ever be removed, especially as for another noisy use. The skateboard park belongs just where it is; the proposed rezone is highly appropriate and should be approved so that construction with lAC grant funds can proceed as scheduled this spring. She again recommended to the Planning Commission that the entire parking lot property owned by the City should be rezoned at this time, that the zoning for the affected lots should not be split based on what mayor may not happen regarding sale to the adjacent property owner or a possible litigation. Any surplus property action by the City should undergo its own public process independent of this rezone. She said in the meantime she feels any portion ofthe site not needed for the skateboard park should be a City-owned buffer. Ms. Dorgan further said the skateboard park rezone has been muddied by recent Staff level discussions regarding relocation to Memorial Field, a move she does not support. She noted she is attaching a very important letter that appeared in The Leader, 11/05/03, that pleads for continued Little League access to Memorial Field in the area proposed for the skateboard park. She also attached the October 28,2003 edition of Boards Official Business which contains a summary of a BOCC discussion about their public process and quoted, "The Board clarified that the County needs to take part in all planning regarding Memorial Field, and any changes to the facility would need to be part of a parks master plan developed jointly by the County and City Parks Advisory Boards." (A long process. ) She asked that they please conclude this rezone as originally proposed so they can get the skateboard park built right where the community, the City Parks Advisory Board and the City's consultant all recommended it should be built. Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 2 · · · Rich Staph Jr., 68 Greenway, Port Townsend Mr. Staph stated he is a resident of Jefferson County. He referenced his letter to City Council, part of the public record, in lieu of being able to attend the City Council meeting October 6,2003. He said he is not affiliated with the skate park or any special interest group. He is essentially a life-long resident of the county, grew up here and in general a supporter of youth activities and places for our youth to go. Mr. Staph does not support the skate park in its present location, although a 110% supporter of the skate park plan or the location of a skate park within the City or Jefferson County. He gave an alternative site in his letter, close to the original site. He suggested another site he walked and looked at today, the Pope Park, and thought a skate park within a City-owned park a feasible option, and close to the present location. He again noted the downtown parking problem that is being studied, and with the building of the Maritime Center, development of the City Hall Annex and its displaced current parking spaces, this corner of town will only get busier. He thought the present location ofthe skate park is a vital place for parking. He is not sure how the way the land is zoned now or is rezoned fits in, and he was not sure the Planning Commission is the body he should be offering his testimony. Dana Roberts, 438 22nd Street, Port Townsend He reminded the Commission regarding his concern of an underlying mistake about tying the question of skateboard park location to a swap of land between the Port and the City. He said ifhis understanding is correct, the land offered by the Port is under lease to the City until 2012. The haste to conclude a swap when the question ofthe skateboard park isn't really fixed seems unnecessary. Mr. Roberts stated we have a Park Commission and other parts of the City, the Port, and perhaps the County as some kind of player that may have a voice or an interest in the whole question. For the City to move the skateboard park from one part of public land ownership to another it seems that doesn't have to require the swap; they already have the land under lease. There seemed to be a way to handle these separately, with the question to move the park, and give them each all the consideration they merit. He did not understand that is a requirement of what the Commission has in front ofthem. David King, 1005 Fir Street, Port Townsend Mr. King is on the Shoreline Advisory Group and on the Maritime Center Board. He thought that in this consideration they should be very careful on reducing the amount of land that is currently designated under the Shoreline provisions for water oriented uses. This area, this designation is within the 200-foot limit of the Shoreline designations. He considered the amount of shoreline in this community that is designated for water oriented uses to be a precious and limited commodity and would not like to see it reduced in any way on a permanent basis. He has no problem with the skateboard park in this location. At 7:31 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the meeting to public testimony. Ms. Surber reassured Mr. Staph and Mr. Crockett that the letters they provided are in Planning Commission packets tonight, as well as the Council meeting minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND ACTION Mr. Berg pointed out that both Ms. Dorgan and Mr. Staph used the word "rezone" in their testimonies when referring to this action. He clarified they are not talking about a change in zoning, only a change in shoreline district designation. Ms. King stated for the record that she had listened to the tape of the last hearing because she wasn't present, had read the minutes and all the material. She was asked to state that for the record. Mr. Benskin asked for Mr. Ken Clow to make clarification. There has been a lot oftalk about where the skateboard park is going to be and what its future is -- moving it to different locations and other uses that have come into play for the parking lot, e.g. Farmer's Market, etc. Mr. Ken Clow, Public Works Director Almost two years ago City Council approved a permanent skate park on the same site as where the temporary park is now. Subsequently, during the following year Staff started the design process. February 2003 Staff fmished preliminary design work with the skate park group and proceeded with the permitting requirements to move on with the park. As they went through the Shorelines permitting review process, Mr. Clow said he was surprised to fmd that it was located in the Point Hudson District, the skate park and also the use of that facility in general. He indicated that initiated this process. Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 3 · · · Mr. Clow said as they have gone through this there has been a lot of discussion about siting. Along the way the City Manager has actively tried to identitY other locations to see if there are other options to bring back to Council, as he was at least informally directed. He and Mr. Clow both talked to the County about the possible use of Memorial Field. It required several other actions involving the high school use ofthe field, and as of this week in discussions with the County the idea of trying to move the skate park across to Memorial Field is closed out. He does not see the County moving ahead on that, certainly not on a time line that would enable the City to maintain the grant that has been received for the skate park. Right now the City has no other sites. If they move to any other site than the one approved right now for the grant, the City would have to go back to the granting agency and basically resubmit. They were told at the time that this site was very attractive to them because of its location. It's highly visible; it is downtown and was one of the reasons why they rated it so highly -- and it was funded. One of the discussions in moving it across the street, all those same considerations seemed to be in play. He pointed out that if they go down the block, go up the hill or across town, clearly it would be different. We don't know what the outcome of that resubmission would be, whether or not the project would remain funded. It's an unknown. Indications are probably it wouldn't rate as high, but that doesn't tell whether or not they would still fall within the list of funded projects. There have been discussions about other uses of that parking lot, not the skateboard end of it, but the existing parking lot, e.g. the Farmers Market. The Farmers Market currently is conducted in the parking lot adjacent to City Hall that will be the site of the new annex. They are looking for both a temporary home and then a permanent home that is a much larger discussion. Neither has reached any conclusions. It has been mentioned as a possible site; there are other sites downtown that are being considered, perhaps proposals to break it up into different components and meet in different areas. Mr. Clow was not aware of any decision being made on any of those. Mr. Kelety asked the funding agency; Mr. Clow replied was the lAC, Inter Agency Committee for outdoor recreation, a state organization. Mr. Kelety asked for elaboration of why the lAC liked the downtown location, why they liked the kids there. Mr. Clow explained it was a visible site both from the opportunity for kids to be seen. Kids like to be seen, to have people watch them. It also enables the City to watch what is going on in an area to make sure that it remains a safe area. It was readily accessible to transportation (the bus route goes right by there) and food with restaurants and concessions nearby, and it seemed to be a vital part ofthe town. He felt the feedback they received focused on those things. Mr. Benskin asked the grant deadline for the park. Mr. Clow said he was not sure there is an absolute drop dead date. Their plan is to be under construction in 2004, the sooner the better. This is a deal where the money could go away at any time if there were a crisis in the state government. The state could redirect funds to something else; he did not know. Mr. Benskin asked if funds the City has to provide have to come from the 2004 new bond issue? Mr. Clow replied the money was in this year's capital budget, and they are budgeting for 2004 because they won't complete it this year. The City Manager has proposed that a bond be issued for several different capital projects in town including this funding. That is a cash flow issue as much as anything. Mr. Clow answered Mr. Benskin's question that they are now in the permitting process for this park. Ms. King stated she is concerned that this is project driven redistricting as opposed to a planning need. Chair Thayer asked ifthis is a question or testimony once they get a motion in place. Ms. King concluded it was not a question and Chair Thayer called for a motion; there were further questions of Staff. Mr. Kelety asked either way the districting goes, if it could still remain parking? Ms. Surber concurred. Mr. Benskin then asked for clarification of parking uses, that there are two different uses for this property in the different districting. He asked if it is correct that parking in the Maritime Center that is in the Civic District cannot be offioaded onto the Maritime Center's parking lot. Ms. Surber replied that there wouldn't need to be a specification, per se. The main thing here is that the parking lot already exists at Block 52, and they are not creating a parking lot on a vacant site. The districting for the existing use is not really in question. It is when a new use is proposed that one has to ask if it is consistent with the districting. Mr. Berg asked with the parking lot located within the Marina District, is there an implication that parking should be a marine related use and is currently informally being used for other things, or is there no such implication? Mr. Surber was not sure there was a way to answer unless you go back to the time of original districting. She reiterated they are not changing parking; it is staying parking and the change in district does not change whether or not it can remain a parking lot. She answered Mr. Berg that it does not change who can park there. To her knowledge, there has never been any restriction on who can use the public parking lot at that location. Mr. Berg asked if there should be, based on the fact it is in the Marina District? Ms. Surber said if they were creating a new use, e.g., constructing a new parking garage at this location, and if in the Marina District, there would Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 4 · · · probably need to be some specification. You would need the parking to be related in some way to the marine related uses at Point Hudson. Mr. Berg asked since it is already there, they don't care? She thought that was correct and explained that it is already there, that none of them can say whether they specifically put it in the Marina District for marine-related parking; if that was the case they would have needed to sign it or in some way make that specification clear. MOTION Mr. Kelety Recommend approval of the amendment as proposed by Staff and as defined by the previous action to change the district for Lots 5,6,7, and 8, leaving Lot 4 in its current district. Mr. Benskin SECOND Discussion: Ms. King indicated she did not think the purpose was to reopen discussion of the location of the skate park location, but she was concerned about waffling she is hearing and also about project redistricting and the limited amount of land designated for water oriented uses. She referred to a recent Planning Commission recommendation for a conditional rezone of a piece of property, that at the time she did not think a very good idea. However, she suggested conditionally redistricting the skateboard park, conditioned on the fact the skateboard park stays at that location. In the event the skateboard park locates elsewhere or in the event the skateboard park is demolished, the district would revert to its current district, Point Hudson Marina District. Mr. Benskin thought that interesting; Mr. Kelety thought it not unreasonable but asked if there is a legal issue. Mr. Watts replied the approach is legal and acceptable, a rezone or redesignation tied to a special use or special development agreement. He explained in that kind of approach, if that is what the governmental agency says is a condition of the approval, it goes back to the applicant to say whether or not they agree with the terms spelled out as part ofthe approval. In this case the City is on both sides, but if the authorizing entity approves with certain conditions, it is up to the applicant, City, if those conditions are or are not acceptable. Ms. Thayer indicated her concern about doing that is if the skateboard park goes away, and they want to put the Farmer's Market there, for example, with the conditional rezone they can't do that and it doesn't leave them any options. Mr. Kelety asked if they could not come back if that doesn't happen, suggesting that nothing effectively happens and does not think that precludes other uses. Ms. Surber noted Mr. Randall pointed out a Farmer's Market would not require a permit and therefore could be there no matter what the district; also Farmer's Markets and other types of festival activities commonly do happen on port properties and other marine related districts. She also pointed out they are updating the Shorelines Master Program and will look at all districts and designations; it is scheduled to be adopted in 2005. This particular area being within that Shorelines jurisdiction will be revisited through that process as well. Mr. Randall added they don't really know the possible things that could go in this lot; but the primary issue is with the current designation, the Shorelines Master Program really wants that use to be a water-enjoyment/water- related type of use. Staff feels pretty strongly that with the distance from the water and orientation to the civic, it is more likely a civic-type use would be there whether it's parking that supports both the Civic District as well as partially supporting Point Hudson uses or the Maritime Center, a skateboard park, or Farmer's Market. He indicated they seem to be the more likely uses, probably orient more toward the landward, civic side of town than Point Hudson, though parking could go both ways. He thought there were other reasons to support the change than just the skateboard park reason being raised as part of this project. Ms. King noted that Ms. Surber pointed out there is a major review of all the shoreline designations; that is not going to be project driven and is going to look at this piece of property. She was more comfortable leaving a permanent change to that group, stating they had not discussed it from that point of view, that it has all been very skateboard park oriented. Friendlv Amendment to the Motion: Ms. King The recommendation for approval be conditioned so that in the event the skateboard park either doesn't happen or happens and moves to a new location, that district would revert to the Point Hudson Marina District. Although Mr. Kelety accepted the Friendly Amendment, Mr. Watts stated a Friendly Amendment is required to be accepted by everybody. If it is not, it has to be voted on as an amendment to the main motion. Friendlv Amendment failed with two objections, Ms. Thayer and Mr. Berg AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: MOTION: Ms. King The recommendation for approval be conditioned so that in the event the skateboard park either doesn't happen or happens and moves to a new location, that district would revert to the Point Hudson Marina District. SECOND: Mr. Benskin Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 5 · · · Discussion: Mr. Berg thought it was a needless complication to their recommendation to Council. His personal opinion is if it gets used as a skateboard park he would like to change the district anyway; and if used as a parking lot, it is more oriented toward the Civic District; he did not see any reason not to change districting. Ms. Thayer concurred. Mr. Benskin's dilemma was that he wants to see the skateboard park happen and thinks this is a good spot for it. There are a lot of other uses for this piece of property that can occur in the Civic District that are not allowed in the Marina District, if the skateboard park does not happen there. There is a hedge of protection. He said if the skateboard park goes away, it doesn't have to remain the parking lot; it can become a lot of different things they don't know how to discuss at this time. He thought as a measure of protection for that piece of property, to see that it is best used for the area it is in, that Ms. King's amendment works well to provide for a protection for the skateboard park to be there, plus it also protects the future use of that property should it not be there. Mr. Kelety agreed and reiterated that his initial concern was that it was in fact project driven. He feels good about this flexibility, that they move in the direction to get the skateboard park here, but because it is close enough to the water, he is happy to leave it for the present as marine use should the skateboard park not make it. VOTE: Passed 3 in favor; Mr. Berg and Ms. Thayer opposed. AMENDED MOTION: Adjust the subdistrict boundaries contained in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan thereby removing Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 Block 52 of the Port Townsend Original Townsite (the City's parking lot and temporary skateboard park site) from the "Point Hudson Marina" district and placing them within the "Civic" District with the provision that if it ceases to be a skateboard park, it reverts to the previous district. Lot 4 is to remain in the Point Hudson Marina District. VOTE: Passed Unanimously, 5 in favor by roll call vote CONSENSUS: Staff will add conditions and recommendations Chair Thayer reported this will go back to City Council with Planning Commission recommend changes. Ms. Surber pointed out for those in attendance from the skateboard park, there won't be any additional public notice, but she will notitY the parties of record directly. She explained City Council can choose to go with the original action and make a motion on the ordinance without any kind of public hearing, or they may choose based on the revision of tonight's decision to reopen their hearing. At 8:05 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the public hearing on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Block 52, LUP-03-032 and called for a briefrecess. Ci~~ .()~ ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 6 · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION ORDINANCE November 6, 2003 Chair Thayer reconvened the meeting at 8: 1 0 p.m. Other Planning Commissioners in attendance were Lyn Hersey, Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, JeffKelety, and Alice King; Bernie Arthur was recused; Jim Irvin and George Randolph were excused. Also in attendance were BCD Associate Planner John McDonagh, City Attorney John Watts and BCD Director Jeff Randall. Committee Members in attendance were Barbara Marseille and Ken McBride. Chair Thayer explained that City Attorney Watts determined the vote on Table IV-2, "The Land Use Map- Acreage Within Each Land Use Development" taken on September 18, 2003, was a housekeeping issue and did not require a revote as discussed in the public hearing earlier in this meeting. VII. New Business B. Continued Workshop on Draft Historic Preservation Demolition Ordinance Mr. McDonagh distributed several pages of petitions: We, the undersigned, friends and neighbors of the Uptown (Port Townsend) community, have signed this petition in opposition to the proposed expansion by the Port Townsend Preservation (Committee), into our unique and diversified neighborhood, with mandatory, regulations. All suggestions should remain voluntary. He also distributed his memorandum to the Planning Commission of November 6, 2003 regarding the November 4 review by the HPC and their suggested changes to the draft ordinance. Mr. McDonagh reported Ms. Hersey had asked regarding e-mailing suggested changes to him for consideration. Ms. Hersey noted she thought the discussion should be part of the public process and had not submitted her comments. · City Attorney Watts asked if the Planning Commission would be proceeding with a page-by-page review of the draft ordinance. He noted Mr. Crockett was in attendance and would like to talk to the ordinance as a whole. Mr. Watts asked if the Planning Commission wanted to allow public comment. Chair Thayer asked for Planning Commission's wishes. Planning Commission consensus was to conduct a page-by-page review of the draft ordinance to be preceded with a public comment period. Public Comment: Larry Crockett, 153 McCurdy, Port Townsend Executive Director, Port of Port Townsend Mr. Crockett referred to the letter from the Port of Port Townsend dated September 25,2003. He apologized for the lateness in Planning Commissioners being furnished copies, but asked them to read the details of the letter. He said the Port has some issues regarding the legal stance impinging on some of the Port's duties as defmed by state law. He read the fmal paragraph of the letter asking, ". . .you carefully consider not making the new regulations applicable to Point Hudson at this time, based on our agreement that the Port will not seek any demolition permits for 'historic' buildings without further planning and City/Port discussion and agreement." He said they are seeking grant money from the state for Point Hudson planning. They are trying to rehabilitate the buildings they can to the amount they can afford, but they are finding some enormous problems, e.g. Shanghi electrical, etc. · Duncan Kellogg, 929 Water Street Mr. Kellogg said he is a relatively new resident and was concerned regarding the ordinance. He said if there were a different procedure for receiving his comments, he would be happy for that direction. He had several concerns and could provide copies of his worksheet. Chair Thayer explained it might be best for him to make that submittal for Planning Commission consideration for their Public Hearing November 20,2003. Mr. Kellogg agreed to provide copies and plan to speak at the public hearing. Barbara Marseille, 1031 Cherry Street Ms. Marseille spoke of the petitions submitted, but had not seen them. She suggested if it was simply people that were approached with a blanket statement and asked to sign, that the man on the street does not really Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 7 · understand much about what is and is not involved in compliance with the HPC. They hardly even know the difference between the Historical Society and the HPC, let alone whether or not residences are even affected by this. She wanted to direct her comments to the Planning Commission as to where the town is with public education concerning what they are doing. Chair Thayer noted the HPC had provided a memorandum of proposed changes. It was determined that as the Planning Commission goes through the draft ordinance it would be appropriate to ask questions ofHPC members. It was also agreed that the Planning Commissioners could bring questions of HPC members to the public hearing. City Attorney Watts asked if the Planning Commission would want copies of the ordinance with revisions. It was determined that the Planning Commission would probably have their own revisions, and they could work from the memo concerning HPC revisions. Chair Thayer opened the meeting for Planning Commission discussion on the draft ordinance. DRAFT. PTMC 17.30 -- HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION ORDINANCE Planning: Commission œCOM) & HPC sug:g:ested chang:es (*John McDonag:h memo 11/6/2003): Pag:e 1 PCOM: No change · Pag:e 2 PCOM: 17.30.010.A -- delete the word(s) "and enhance" Consensus: Delete the word(s) "and enhance" HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.0l0.A -- delete the word(s) "and enhance" Mr. Berg asked for HPC reasoning. Ms. Marseille replied that the Secretary of Interior standards do not condone this for building preservation or rehab. "Enhance" means added to; when you are preserving a building you do not add. Pag:e 3 PCOM: 17.30.010.D Mr. Benskin thought to be personal opinions and very subjective. Mr. Watts noted that Section 010 is purposes and intents, and is in the nature of goals, policies and purposes. These are not the actual criteria used to review a specific application. You wouldn't judge an application by Section D, but these are reasons for having an Historic District and historic preservation. You are trying to achieve a certain character, e.g. what is Port Townsend: a certain district; a certain feel! look, or number of buildings. This is a justification in the event of some legal challenge as to the basis for the regulation, not a criteria at the project level. Mr. Benskin considered it offensive. Mr. Berg thought it meaningless and could be eliminated. Consensus: eliminate D 17.30.010.G&K Consensus: delete the word(s) "and enhance" 17.30.010.H Consensus: delete the word "outstanding" HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.010.G&K -- delete the word(s) "and enhance" 17.30.010.H -- delete the word "outstanding" · Pag:e 4 PCOM: 17.30.020.B.2 Ms. Hersey asked who decides whether or not something is significant, e.g. exterior light fixtures, and who and what does it take for that process? Mr. McDonagh thought the process could take 5-6 days. He explained that not everything fits all, that every building goes through design review. Mr. Watts said the BCD Director is going to make the initial determination as to whether a change is significant. 17.30.020.B.2, mandatory compliance uptown. Mr. Berg did not see where it said it was mandatory. Mr. Watts explained there is no further opting out for mandatory review/voluntary compliance. It is all mandatory review/mandatory compliance if you are a commercial structure or a residential structure that is permitted by conditional use. That is what is proposed. He concurred with Mr. Berg that there used to be a section that opted that Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 8 · district out of mandatory compliance, and now that section has been removed and is not there any more. Mr. Kelety noted that residential is exempted except for conditional use; the existing code essentially says these commercial structures are voluntary. Mr. Watts added, mandatory review/voluntary compliance. It was determined to discuss the issue of mandatory review/voluntary compliance after the page-by-page review. Mr. McDonagh pointed out there is a note regarding this review in 17.30.050.D, page 8 of the draft ordinance. Pal!e 5 PCOM: 17.30.040 -- Mr Berg asked if this section affects whether or not the uptown is mandatory? Mr. McDonagh replied that, no, it is a specific applicability section; you would go back to 020. Mr. Berg asked if whatever got changed in 020 doesn't have to do with this issue? Mr. McDonagh answered that it probably is a combination of both sections; 17.020.B has specific applicability and just calls out the zoning districts within the Historic overlay district. The C· III that is uptown is within the Historic district, and therefore this chapter becomes applicable to it. If you are looking for mandatory compliance uptown, it is 17.020.B.2 on page 4. Pal!e 6 PCOM: No change Pal!e 7 PCOM: No change · Pal!e 8 PCOM: 17.30.050.B -- Ms. Hersey asked if it is just notification of modification. Mr. McDonagh concurred. 17.30.070, Preapplication conference mandatory. Mr. McDonagh's intent, in initially reading the section, someone who wanted to go through design review for a sign, exterior lighting changes, etc. that are perhaps not major, would have to go through a preapplication conference. Consensus: *alter per memo STAFF PROPOSAL: 17.30.070 -- *alter per memo Pal!e 9 PCOM: No change · Pal!e 10 PCOM: 17.30.080.C.2.d Consensus: delete the word "obtained" 17.30.080D "The Director, following recommendation ofHPC. . ." Mr. Benskin questioned the wording. (Also see 17.30.080F(l), page II) Consensus: Reword to claritY 17.30.080D -- "Historic Preservation District" Consensus: Change to make consistent 17.30.080D -- Consensus: Change to: ". . . based on the criteria set forth in paragraph FA, below" HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.080.C.2.d -- delete the word "obtained" 17.30.080.D -- change the last six words ("factors set forth in this section") to "the criteria set forth in subsection F A, below" 17.30.080.E -- Peer Review: *clarifY who pays for per memo Pal!e 11 PCOM: Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 9 · · · 17.30.080F(1) -- Mr. Kelety questioned imminent threat. He referenced the Port letter, and asked for Staff clarification regarding the Port, if they could get caught if it is either imminent threat and demolition or removal. Ms. King also questioned the veracity. Mr. Kelety indicated he understood imminent threat and replacement structures but did not understand the Port's contention. Mr. Watts reported City Council authorized a letter answering the Port directing the Staff and City Manager to see whether or not there was any opportunity for common ground on the issues raised by the Port. He said those discussions have not yet occurred. Ms. King also questioned the truth of the comment in the Port's letter, "Thus, it appears that buildings could never be demolished to create more public open space. .." Mr. Watts responded that the Port is correct, that with the present draft ordinance, you would not be able to demolish an historic structure as defmed. One of the goals of this version of the ordinance is to try to preserve your historic resources. He said one of the Port issues is creating an open space in one place by relocating a building to another place. That is something not allowed by the ordinance, and may be something that could be worked through with the Port. Consensus: Staff to investigate and report back 17.30.080F(l) - Mr. Benskin questioned the wording, "The HPC recommendation and director decision. .: (Also 17.30.080D, page 10), "The Director, following recommendation ofHPC . . ." He thought it rather inappropriate, that the Director makes the decision or recommendation, but it sounds like the Director and HPC make a joint decision. The HPC itself is not allowed to have a regulatory or decision-making process. He suggested changing the wording so the Director is the responsible person. Mr. McDonagh said in deference to the HPC that the Director in making his decision depends them on quite heavily. Mr. Benskin's contention was that when City Council makes a decision based on Planning Commission recommendations, usually it is their decision that goes forth, not the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Watts made a point that it needs to be clarified, that separately the HPC and separately the Director apply these criteria in making their decisions. Consensus: Reword to claritY 17.30.080F(l) -- Mr. Berg thought "unless" perhaps an unnecessary anti attitude and suggested rewording to perhaps "shall be approved if it meets the following criteria," making it a positive statement. Consensus: Change the fmal word, "unless" and make positive. Staff to claritY a common ground decision. Mr. Watts pointed out that HPC also made that plain. HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.080.F(l) -- change the last sentence ("Demolition shall not be granted unless") to "Demolition shall be approved if' 17.30.080.F(1.a) -- change the words ("factors set forth in this section") to "the criteria set forth in subsection FA, above." 17.30.080.(1.b) - *alter per memo 17.30.080.F(2) -- *alter per memo Staff will make housekeeping changes Paee 12 PCOM: 17.30.080.F(3) -- "imminent threat" HPC suggested change of defmition of the words in the text to danger. Consensus: change imminent threat within the text to danger 17.30.080.F(3) -- It was clear to Mr. Kelety that imminent threat means there is no other way to alleviate a health hazard, but it was unclear to him what the relationship is if demolition granted under imminent threat; what is the requirement for replacement, if any? If an owner gets a shot at demolition, there is language that says the replacement has to be in keeping. He asked Staff what happens under imminent threat, a condition for replacement or not? Mr. McDonagh referenced requirement 4 -- the building that is going to fall down is causing a public health, and indicated they would be required to go through design review when they are ready to build the replacement structure, but the immediate imminent threat is removing the public safety hazard. Mr. Kelety stated they go through a separate design review and asked is there no connection to try to get back to a building like that? Mr. McDonagh replied that if it constitutes enough of an imminent public health hazard and needs to be taken down, it gets taken down. Mr. Kelety asked to have this marked as an issue to come back to. Issue to be revisited: Demolition replacement under imminent threat 17.30.080.F(4) -- Mr. Benskin questioned the architectural characteristic of 50 years or older and suggested 75 years. He acknowledged a State Parks idea that 50 years is an historical building, but he did not think it hard and fast. He suggested 75 years. Mr. Watts noted 50 years is not a bright light; it is one measure. Mr. Kelety called for clarification from HPC; Ms. Marseille explained it is a standard of the National Parks throughout the United States (the organization that grants us an Historic District designation). She thought it almost impossible for a building less than 50 years old to meet five of the criteria. She felt any building in our Historic District that is 50 years old has its own special architectural character, and we should respect the diversity we have in this district that is at least 50 Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 10 · · · years old. She said to tear something like that down and build a building that has to comply with a lot of design guidelines to fit in with the Victorian architecture, is tough. She gave examples. Mr. McBride added this is just one of five criteria required from the list, and he thought it should remain at 50; that is very appropriate. Consensus: Leave at 50 years. Change "Historic Preservation District" to be consistent. 17.30.080.G(l) -- Mr. Berg asked for HPC input. Ms. Marseille said from her observation, 2 months is very little time for the public to explore any kind of alternatives and thought it very unfair. She said that once a structure is demolished it doesn't ever come back again, and did not imagine that an applicant would be very interested very often in proposing a longer period, otherwise he wouldn't have applied in the first place. Mr. McBride concurred. Mr. Berg said based on his experience, 60 days is pretty short, and he suggested extending it to 90 days. Mr. Benskin asked if the 60 days is after the applicant has gone through the whole permit process. Mr. McDonagh concurred and said this section is under the certificate of approval. Mr. Benskin added that there has been public process all along that this is not 60 days and they are going to take the building down. He asked Mr. McDonagh for his estimate of time for the public process who replied it was several months from an initial review. If it was deemed to be historic and had to go through a heightened review, had to prepare structural drawings, an economic analysis, and go probably two to three more meetings with HPC, he thought it 2 to 3 months before issuing a certificate for demolition that may include a condition of another 60 day stay. Mr. Benskin thought they were looking at possibly 5 to 6 months at the longest with public involvement all during that time. Ms. Thayer did not think adding another 30 days excessive. Mr. Berg said that it says up to. . .; if it gets to this point, they are talking about a fairly significant historic building that at least some portion of the population thinks is going to be a significant loss to the historic resources of the town. He said if it is a building nobody cares about, you would not see these conditions being imposed. Mr. McDonagh agreed. It made sense to Mr. Berg to make it a reasonable time for the necessary work to happen. Mr. McDonagh made reference to other ordinances they reviewed, saying this would be the low end of the spectrum; Dallas would have up to I year on a stay of issuance of a demolition permit. Consensus: Change to, up to 90 days (Ms. Hersey opposed) 17.30.080.G(2) -- Ms. Thayer thought that a long period of time and suggested 3 with an additional 1 year. Ms. Hersey asked if the time period (5 years with the possibility of2 more years) is at the conclusion of demolition. Mr. McDonagh explained that this reads, built within 5 years of the application. Mr. Watts clarified the intent is that you don't get demolition until you have your application in for replacement; it is a seamless process. You don't get to tear down and think about it for 5 years; you have to show what you are going to do before the demolition. Ms. Marseille noted you also have to show you can pay for it. Mr. Benskin said it allows the time period to build a replacement structure, and asked is this beginning the building with a structure in 5 years, 2 years; or 2 years to do the project, 5 years to do the project? He questioned 2 years. Ms. Thayer said that is why she suggested 3 and maybe an additional I. Mr. Berg suggested accepting the HPC recommendation, changing to 2 years with the possibility of 1 extra year. No consensus to change to HPC proposal. (Ms. Thayer, Ms. Hersey and Mr. Benskin opposed) Mr. Berg then recommended changing to 3 years with the possibility of I more year. Consensus: Change to 3 years with the possibility of 1 more year HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.080.F(3) -- change the words "major and imminent threat" to "danger" 17.30.080.G(l)·- reconsider 60-days "stay" on issuance ofa demolition permit (some members suggested 90-days; others recognized the 60-day stay would be an added time period once all other reviews are completed) 17.30.080.G(2) -- reconsider time period (5 years with the possibility of 2 more years) for a replacement structure once demolition has occurred. (HPC recommended allowing 2 years with the possibility of 1 extra year.) Pal!e 13 PCOM: 17.30.080.H -- Mr. McDonagh said the intent of this section is to provide a "sunset." If someone receives a certificate of approval to demolish a building, has shown a replacement structure for it, and for whatever reason has not acted on it within 6 months, the idea is the certificate becomes null and void for demolition and you start all over. HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.080.H -- clarify the intent to "sunset" an approved demolition permit if it is not acted on within I80-days (6 months) Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 11 · Pal!e 14 PCOM: No change Pal!e 15 PCOM: No change Pal!e 16 PCOM: 17.30.120.B -- Mr. Kelety asked the meaning. Ms. Thayer explained it is a standard disclaimer. Mr. McDonagh indicated it is the Hearings Examiner. · Pal!e 17 PCOM: 17.30.140.4 - Ms. Marseille explained, "Water Street Historic District: A Field Report of the National Trust for Historic Preservation" was prepared before they were ever a district and thought it came from the California Office of the National Trust who worked with our town volunteers. She said parts are great, but other parts are out of date and they do not honor them. Mr. Watts said he was not present when the matter was discussed, and he pointed out from a regulatory standpoint "may" is a problem. What do we mean, that it's up to the applicant? (likely to be interpreted that way, if push comes to shove); or, something more than that? If something more, the language needs to reflect that. Mr. Berg suggested saying something like, "shall be subject to the applicable guidelines." The committee can pick and choose which guidelines they want to apply. Mr. Watts suggested between now and the public hearing in 2 weeks, Staff work with HPC to better understand how they can make this work. Consensus: Staff to work out with HPC 17.30.150. - Mr. Kelety asked regarding all the "shoulds" that were not changed to "shalls." Mr. Watts explained that in this section these are all ofthe currently existing design criteria. It was not proposed to look at those for revision. HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.140.4 - replace the word "shall" with "may" Pal!e 18 PCOM: No change Pal!e 19 PCOM: No change · Pal!e 20 PCOM: 17.30.150.d. Ms. Hersey asked regarding partial demolition of buildings such as the Public House that was originally five stories. Mr. McDonagh explained that there are new building codes and things in effect today that weren't in effect when the Public House was five stories. He said you couldn't build an unreinforced masonry building taller than four stories now. One of the tricks in doing additions to buildings - step it back, make it ofthe same materials, maybe have the windows the same size and shape, but step it back from one facade or the other so you are not fooling anybody that this is a new addition to this building. He thought the annex to the City Hall would be an example of that. You can add onto buildings, and that is what this section is about. Ms. Hersey asked if they looked at the Urban Waterfront Plan, how they stepped down from the center. . . Mr. Watts said this does not change the height limitations that are imposed by other ordinances. Mr. Berg thought this section is interesting, and it seemed to him, using the Public House building as an example, that having stepped back upper floors on that particular building would be a rather inappropriate urban form for that block of Water Street. He thought they were suggesting something here that mayor may not be an appropriate way to add to any given building in Port Townsend, and maybe it's worthwhile to say that new additions should distinguish themselves from the existing building, and one ofthe ways to do that but not necessarily the only way is to step back. Ms. Thayer liked Mr. Berg's suggestion. Suggestion: Reconsider. Also, fIrst line -- change the word sillier to similar. Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 12 · · · Pae:e 21 PCOM: 17.30.150.3(a) - delete all words after "Manual" and insert the word "current" between "the" and Streetscape" Concurred with the deletion 17.30.150.4, Point Hudson Marina District. Mr. Benskin asked regarding jurisdiction of the Point Hudson Marina District, indicating the Port is rather asserting these regulations don't apply to them because of their own jurisdiction over that district. He asked if they were going to resolve this issue before they put this ordinance into effect? Mr. Watts noted the letter from the Port and said the response by the City Council directs the Staff to try to work together to see whether or not there is a resolution of the Port's issues with respect to the draft ordinance. It is unknown if that will come together. If it doesn't, the Port can buy off on the ordinance. It would be up to the Port to assert a legal challenge, if it chose to do so. The only defmitive answer and the only way to achieve that, is if the two sides agree or if a court gets involved. HPC PROPOSAL: 17.30.150.3(a) - delete all words after "Manual" and insert the word "current" between "the" and Streetscape" Pae:e 22 PCOM: No change Pae:e 23 PCOM: No change Discussion ree:ardine: "mandatorv" versus "voluntarv": 17.30.020.B.2, Mandatory compliance uptown Mr. Benskin stated he felt the community seemed to be quite satisfied with having voluntary compliance. He felt it should remain the way it is. He noted the two unique historic districts, downtown and uptown. Part of the unique character of the uptown district is its development; its "unregulated district," has happened is because of compliance to HPC regulations regarding design, color, etc. He thought giving people opportunity to choose is a great idea, leaving the individuality of that area to develop. He noted the petition and the value of what people think and thought they should be considered. Mr. Kelety's understanding was that the conceptual idea was the same, that historical commercial structures both downtown and uptown share the same attributes. Currently we have mandatory review/mandatory compliance for historical commercial structures downtown. He understands people don't like more regulation, but it seems like they are the same entities. He thought it should be the same uptown ifthey are to maintain the character of the historical districts in Port Townsend. Ms. Thayer asked the HPC if historically in the last 5 years there been buildings uptown that have gone through HPC review and not complied? Ms. Marseille concurred. She spoke of the Coho Restaurant and said they had gone through preapplication conferences, but they can do whatever they want. She noted that often in their meetings with the applicant and the architect for the remodel of what she called the Mind over Matter building that someone would rather jokingly say they can do what they want. Ms. Thayer asked if there had been buildings in the uptown that have gone through mandatory review and taken HPC recommendations. Ms. Marseille replied there had been some. She indicated she thinks that people who have been here for a long time forget, because they don't keep reminding them, that we are a Landmark Historic District, a very special designation in this country. There are very few of those, and when we think these things through, they are much more important. Weare not just a group of people in a democracy where we say anybody can do what they please. This is a Landmark designation by the Federal Government. She answered Ms. Hersey that it is in general for the whole area within the borders. Ms. Hersey suggested a solution, maybe for remodel of buildings uptown that are 75 years old rather than 50; loosen the criteria. Mr. Randall thought they were all talking about parts of the puzzle, and that at the public hearing they should spend a little more time going over the history of how they got where they are and why they have mandatory compliance downtown and not uptown. He made the observation that downtown they have specific design guidelines generated by the Urban Waterftont Plan that relate to typically 2 block intervals that each reflect a different character. He said they don't have design guidelines uptown with that much detail. He thinks of the Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 13 · · · uptown as rather having "funkiness" the downtown doesn't have. It also has a different type of building bulk than they have downtown; building sizes tend to be more residential, except for the one block across Tyler Street from Aldrich's that is very built out. The other blocks are more residential in scale, and there is some uniqueness up there that we could reflect through design guidelines. He rather sided with the HPC regarding mandatory compliance, that there is all this process and voluntary compliance; if they are going to make people go through a process, they should make it meaningful. He thought there were things they could do with guidelines that could get at making it more flexible, and could leave some things alone that would allow the "funkiness" to happen, whether the landscaping, fencing, plazas or a paint scheme to recognize wilder colors uptown. Mr. Berg asked if uptown were to remain voluntary, would the whole demolition part of the ordinance be voluntary also? Mr. Watts said that could be separated out; there are distinct portions ofthe ordinance. It would take some work to do that, but it wouldn't be impossible to do. Mr. Berg asked ifthey could say design compliance is voluntary, but if you want to tear down the building, you are conceivably subject to the rules, that we don't automatically loose the demolition part. Mr. Watts replied that you could conceivably. Mr. Watts answered a comment Ms. Hersey made, that design review is related to but is a separate concept from the demolition. The heightened review for demolition ties into whether or not the building is "historic" and therefore should go through design review. Ms. Thayer tended to agree with Mr. Randall that it seems foolish to expect people to go through mandatory review and not have it happen. She was part of the process when they went through the mandatory/voluntary, but she thought they had come to the point where it needs to be mandatory, and maybe with a little more discretion on what is done there might be better. Ms. Hersey asked if the could mark this as a placeholder for further consideration. Mr. Randall said he thought there was some more information they could provide the Planning Commission in terms of the level of activity uptown; proposed demos, building relocations, building rehabs, new structures. He said you may think you have a good feel for up there, but he felt maybe they could provide more information. He also said that historically mandatory review/voluntary compliance in both the downtown and uptown districts were identical, which was done in the 70s and 80s perhaps as an experiment. Requiring design review was a big deal, but his sense of things at that time is that Port Townsend was looking for people to invest in the town, but said that we are not the same place. He thought that was realized downtown in the 90s with some outlandish proposals that got a lot of negative reaction and they recognized the need for some mandatory compliance. They are seeing a lot of economic interest in developing the uptown, and he thinks the days of voluntary compliance and hoping for things to happen are over. He thinks they need to think of more approval authority. Chair Thayer polled Commission members: Leave the draft ordinance as it is -- Mandatory versus Voluntary: Ms. King, Mr. Kelety and Ms. Thayer in favor Change the draft ordinance to Mandatory reviewN oluntary compliance: Mr. Benskin, Mr. Berg and Ms Hersey in favor Ms. Hersey asked for more information on the history. Chair Thayer said if they could get that information they could discuss this further. She said they may agree to have a split vote to pass on to the City Council. Mr. McBride said he does not like a lot of regulations and rules, but being on the HPC, one thing he does like is the historic regulations for the district. He spoke of living in New Orleans and said what we do in Port Townsend is child play compared to New Orleans. He looks at uptown as very important to the city. He gave some examples of things a person could do because they are not mandatory and said he thinks it could be devastating to that area. If you are in a district like that, you have to know you can't do what you want. We need to protect what we have; once it is gone, you can't get it back. Ms. Marseille indicated that with all the community interest this is an amazing place. When the Historic District was formed, there was a great movement to deny it; it was just by luck they got mandatory compliance for the downtown Historic District. It was only that people got so frightened about a proposal for the oil property, now to be the Maritime Center, that they got any kind of compliance. Before that, the only compliance was if people wanted more parking. She agreed with Mr. McBride, if we don't take of our uptown we can lose it. She said this is good business. Mr. Berg said regarding the way he voted last time it was because he liked mandatory compliance, but some customized design guidelines for uptown seemed to make sense to him. He had to fit that vote into the two possibilities that were offered. Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 14 · · · Chair Thayer asked if Mr. Berg was inclined to vote for what is in the draft as long as there are some different guidelines. Mr. Berg pointed out he lives uptown and has talked to some ofthe signers of the petition about their sentiments. He thought they might be more inclined to accept mandatory compliance ifthey had tailored guidelines. He told Mr. McDonagh that even ifhe could be convinced they are not necessary, he thought it still might be a good idea. There was discussion regarding time required to form new guidelines, and Mr. Berg suggested maybe this could be passed without developing the guidelines, if it just said they would be developed. Ms. Hersey suggested with a placeholder in the HPC book, this would be a good recommendation. Chair Thayer asked to withhold voting until the public hearing where they will have more information. Mr. Benskin asked if Mr. Watts would have time before the public hearing to work up a scenario of what those guidelines would be. . It was determined that was not possible but it was suggested that a benchmark could be put in the book stating the design guidelines will follow. VIII UPCOMING MEETINGS November 13,2003 To be announced. November 20, 2003 Public Hearing, Draft Historic Preservation Demolition Ordinance. IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Benskin and seconded by Ms. Hersey. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10: 10 p.m. a· -LJ~,/ Cindy ThaY~ - ~.~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 / Page 15 · · · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Planning Commission Re-Open Public Hearing. Block 52 Historic Demolition Ordinance. Discussion November 6. 2003 Date: Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes/ No -r-.~ ~~ )( ...j .. \ LJ l "\ l.r ~t j){..;\ , M P1l( PJ~ · · · GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Planning Commission Re-Open Public Hearing. Block 52 Historic Demolition Ordinance. Discussion November 6.2003 Date: Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No ¿ ~,... ~ C ~t:? c..,.I-<!! ~ /r/AcC<r~ '~.Ie..~ ~""cr- 7Pt..,-<.-.~d ....- r "'~ 'Yt-.- J ¡D7 ~ /Ì (J Q [-t·; {;.... _. /7 '--.c:- . / I'l/)rý (..///". ~" .- ..,-~I:::,._~/ 1-- /'\ ¡¿¡i/ 07J1/(Jr- /7-/ 1- rD (', ,All. eo;~ 4 ~p'22-1 Ç0" p'f V ~:""'\ r· .f'--' ( ,...Ji' ) ) ¿( ~' (/( / J. ' /{l/? c; (.,,, / (/} I! j"- (j,^ \') v £1\..; C-C- (¡ jCe ~~y 1 Þ9- ~ct' JI, / / ....... .~~