The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11202003 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm November 20, 2003 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - November 6,2003 V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. Unfinished Business Approve Revised Findings & Conclusions for the 2003 Comp Plan Update VII. New Business VII. VIII. IX. Open Record Public Hearing Historic Overlay District - Design Review Ordinance 1. BCD Staff presentation 2. Public Testimony 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action Upcoming Meetings: Communications Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING November 20,2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.rn. in the City Council Chambers. Ms. Thayer introduced new Planning Commissioner George Randels and reported Commissioner Irvin is doing well, but will soon be having surgery II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Richard Berg, JeffKelety, Alice King, Frank Benskin and George Randels; Bernie Arthur and Jim Irvin were excused. Also present were BCD Planners Judy Surber and John McDonagh, and City Attorney John Watts. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the agenda with the omission of minutes from the last meeting; Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- There were none. Chair Thayer called on Mr. Randels who gave a brief biographical sketch. Ms. Surber noted Mr. Randels' involvement in affordable housing, stating she attended the affordable housing task force meeting this month. They pointed out that Michael Hyland is no longer with the Planning Commission and representing the Commission on the task force and asked that another Commissioner consider representing the Planning Commission. It was suggested Mr. Randels consider this position. Mr. Randels was not yet prepared to volunteer. Chair Thayer suggested the issue be raised at the next meeting. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Approve revise Findings & Conclusions for the 2003 Comp Plan Update Ms. Surber explained that City Attorney Watts had noted Findings and Conclusions in the September 25, 2003, Planning Commission Summary Report and Recommendations Regarding Year 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments do not include revisions from the November 6, 2003 re-opened hearing for the Skateboard Park. Ms. Surber presented the proposed November 20, 2003 revisions to the Planning Commission transmittal to City Council. Revisions include explanation of action taken at the November 6, 2003 Planning Commission re- opened hearing on Block 52 LUP03-032 Skateboard Park: · Transmittal Date revision: September 25,2003, revised November 20,2003. · Planning Commission Review: explanation of the null/void vote taken September 18, 2003 and the November 6th Planning Commission vote 5-0-0 to approve the amendment to change the district for Lots 5,6,7 and 8 from Point Hudson Marina to Civic 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 · Planning Commission Review: action to approve the revised transmittal to City Council. · Public Comment: Additional public comment received at the November 6th re-opened public hearing from Larry Crockett, Nancy Dorgan, Richard Staph Jr., Dana Roberts and David King as documented in the minutes. · Recommendation: "Adjust the subdistrict boundaries. . . with the provision that if it ceases to be a skateboard park, it reverts to the previous district." · Vote Summary change: 45-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page I · · · · DiscussionlRationale indication, "If the skateboard park is not implemented, the districting of this site should be revisited to determine the appropriate future uses." Ms. Surber hoped she adequately reflected the recommendations of the Planning Commission and that she can now take the Findings and Conclusions forward to City Council. MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Berg Approve the revised Findings and Conclusions for the 2003 Comp Plan Update Mr. Benskin Passed, 5 in favor by voice vote; Lynn Hersey was recused; George Randels abstained Mr. Berg asked if City Council had voted on the Comp Plan amendments. Ms. Surber explained that City Council voted on all of the amendments, but it was not until after City Council had held their hearing that City Attorney Watts noted there had been an error and they had to come back through the process for the Skateboard Park. Mr. Berg asked if City Council would have to re-open their hearing. Ms. Surber replied they have noticed parties of record and The Leader that City Council is re-opening their hearing on December 15, 2003. Chair Thayer then opened the public hearing on the design review ordinance for the Historic Overlay District. She asked for those wishing to testify to sign in, and she explained the procedures for the hearing. B. Historic Overlay District -- Design Review Ordinance Chair Thayer asked if any Planning Commission members had any interests, [mancial or property, to disclose regarding this matter. Mr. Berg stated he did not have any [mancial or property interests. He disclosed Mr. Duncan Kellogg is his client and he is involved in working on Mr. Kellegg's building in the Historic District. He referred to Mr. Kellogg's written comments and felt they were important to be discussed. He asked Mr. Watt's advice as to whether or not he should recuse himself. Mr. Watts responded that it is a legislative matter and the appearance of fairness rules do not apply. He asked Mr. Berg ifhe stood to have a financial gain or loss as a result of these regulations or his connection to Mr. Kellogg. Mr. Berg said conceivably, depending on what happens here, Mr. Kellogg could for example cancel his contract with Mr. Berg; or he could end up with a lot more work. Mr. Watts asked if Mr. Kellogg had threatened, intimidated or advised Mr. Berg how he should vote in order to retain his relationship with Mr. Kellogg. Mr. Berg replied that, no, he felt he could be impartial about this because he believed Mr. Kellogg respects his position, and how he votes would not affect his relationship with him. Mr. Watts said there did not appear to be any conflict from a [mancial standpoint. The problem he saw would be from the appearance of fairness, which technically does not apply, but the issue is whether or not it could be perceived to affect Mr. Berg's judgment, discretion and consideration of this matter. He reminded, that in this town the decision-maker attempts to try to appear above approach, if possible. Mr. Watt's conclusion was that from a legal standpoint, he did not think Mr. Berg would be required to disqualify himself; but from an appearance standpoint, practical and pragmatic, it would be Mr. Berg's decision if he felt he would be criticized in participating in this decision. He thought legally Mr. Berg is okay; practically he may wish to recuse ifhe feels it is appropriate. Ms. Hersey asked if the job Mr. Kellogg is doing would be grandfathered; no matter whether or not they passed this ordinance, he is grandfathered under the old regulations? Mr. Watts concurred. Ms. Hersey continued by asking that therefore whatever Mr. Berg is doing with Mr. Kellogg now, it doesn't apply to the new ordinance? Mr. Watts replied that the specific current application is for a limited portion of work, and this ordinance does not apply to that work. Mr. McDonagh added that Mr. Kellogg's current proposal would be viewed as an imminent threat under this ordinance and would not be subjected to any of the higher threshold provisions for structural or economic analysis, because he has already provided an engineer's report that his rear shoreline facing wall is in imminent threat of falling down. Ms. Hersey thought she Was hearing that whatever Mr. Berg decided on this ordinance wouldn't affect Mr. Kellogg's property or what he is doing with it. Mr. Watts clarified it would not affect the current phase of the project. Mr. Kelety and other Commissioners thought ifMr. Berg could be objective about it, he has significant input. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 2 ~ · · · Chair Thayer asked if anyone in the audience objected to Mr. Berg's participation based on his disclosure. There was no response. Mr. Berg concluded that he would continue his participation and deal with any criticism that would come his way. Chair Thayer introduced Mr. McDonagh and called for his Staff presentation on the Draft of New PTMC 17.30 dated November 12,2003. Mr. McDonagh, BCD Department, stated that City Attorney John Watts was also participating with him in the Planning Commission consideration of this ordinance that would amend the City's Historic District regulations. Mr. McDonagh summarized the process to date beginning approximately April 2002 with the City Council establishment of a citizens task force (Historic Preservation and Demolition Prevention Committee) to serve as a subcommittee of Council's Community Development and Land Use (CD/LU) Committee. The committee's specific task was to examine the City's current demolition regulations and to provide advice as to whether or not they were adequate. Their broader charge was to examine the City's Historic District regulations in general and provide some guidance or feedback as to whether they were adequate. Port Townsend residents selected to serve on that citizen subcommittee were Barbara Marsaille, Joan Cole, Eric Toews along with City Staff, John McDonagh and City Attorney John Watts. The task force identified three questions to examine: · Are the current regulations with respect to demolition within the Historic District adequate? Option selected by committee: Require additional information from an applicant seeking a partial or complete demolition of a regulated structure. · Should the City's existing Historic District regulations be consolidated and/or revamped to somehow make them more user-friendly? · Yes -- take the two existing chapters that provide overlapping regulation regarding the Historic District, consolidate and make them clearer and more user-friendly. · Beside demolition standards. should the City's design review authority and guidelines be expanded to cover other development areas or issues within the Historic District? They identified issues with respect to the Historic District regulations to be "revamped, re-examined or fixed," and selected three to be included with this process: I) Make mandatory review/mandatory compliance with the design review process in the uptown area effective in the ordinance; 2) Clarify Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) role with respect to the Urban Waterfront Plan; 3) Review, rewrite where necessary, and obtain Council approval of the existing preservation guidelines -- put them all into one packet and present them before Council. That manual with existing guidelines used by HPC was distributed earlier to the Planning Commission and is referenced in the draft ordinance. Subsequently, information was presented to the CD/LU who asked the HPC, the design review body, to review those recommendations and draft ordinance, and make their recommendations. HPC basically concurred unanimously with the recommendations of the citizens committee and made some housekeeping changes to the ordinance as presented to the Planning Commission in the beginning workshop in August. Staff reworked the ordinance with suggestions from the Planning Commission November 6th workshop and HPC suggestions from November 4th. Mr. McDonagh and City Attorney Watts also incorporated some changes to clarify the demolition intent of this ordinance; requiring a higher threshold of review for a building owner or applicant who seeks to totally demolish and replace a building structure, not to prohibit doing an alteration of a building, e.g., the Cannery Building, or an addition to a building, e.g., City Hall. Mr. McDonagh distributed documents that along with other documents were placed into the record as exhibits: 1) Staff memo of November 20,2003 ftom John McDonagh: a) summarizing the record established to date with written materials received; b) suggested language based on the Port's September comment letter and a meeting earlier this week with City Staff and Port representatives. 2) The Secretary of the Interior Standards (referenced in the existing code and in the draft ordinance and inserted into the Design Review Guidelines Manual) for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring or reconstructing a building. Mr. McDonagh explained that those standards are the basis for all the design review that this community and most others would utilize. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 3 · · · Exhibits Port of Port Townsend letter dated September 25,2003 Petitions signed by friends and neighbors of the Uptown area Mr. McDonagh's Staff memo of November 20,2003 Design Review Guidelines Manual Historic Preservation Flow Chart (Draft date, 11-14-03) Written comments by Mr. Duncan Kellogg dated November 20, 2003 Letter dated November 20, 2003 from Mr. Michael Q. Jones, owner of Antique Mall Mr. McDonagh explained that Mr. Crockett was in the audience but had only seen the language this evening in Mr. McDonagh's November 20 memo regarding the Port of Port Townsend and may not be ready to comment. It is the City's attempt to recognize the Port will be undertaking a planning process for its holdings in the Historic District and provides a reference that would include that language in the ordinance. Mr. Watts commended Mr. McDonagh's memo. The City Manager, Mr. Watts, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Senior Planner Judy Surber (Mr. McDonagh was ill and unable to attend) met November 18 with Port officials, Larry Crockett, Jim Pivarnik and Port Attorney Mary Winters to discuss issues the Port raised in their letter about their concern regarding the application of this ordinance to the Port. The City Council had authorized a letter of response to the Port saying the City Council could not really comment on the Port's issues until the planning and public process had gone forward. Mr. Watts suggested their respective staffs meet and consider the issues. At the meeting the City Staff and Port Staff first recognized there is an ongoing comprehensive planning process underway at the Port, and also the City is in a shorelines planning process. The City and the Port have collaborated in seeking to obtain grant monies for further planning processes with respect to shorelines and the Port. With those planning processes and the grant applications, staffs of the City and Port discussed the desirability or possibility of undertaking a joint planning process for Point Hudson that could result in a subarea plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Development Regulations. If that occurred, that subarea plan with its regulations could for that specific area take the place of or modify the regulations of the Historic Preservation Code. Mr. Watts explained this was just a concept, and in the meantime the City regulations would apply to the Port until such time in the future as the City and Port agree to a subarea plan that could modify the provisions of the adopted ordinance. Mr. Watts reiterated these are very preliminary discussions. He brought the concept forward at the City Council's CD/LU committee the day before; they asked questions and seemed to be open to the idea. Mr. Crockett presented the same concept to the Port Commissioners yesterday, and they also seemed favorable to the concept. The question gets down to the details of any planning process and a possible memorandum of agreement that would lead to a planning process and could in the future lead to impacting the city ordinance. Mr. Watts stated that if this Planning Commission determined to recommend going forward with the ordinance to the City Council, it would be Staffs recommendation they include as a place holder the conceptual language that is Mr. McDonagh's memo. That would be to recognize that a future planning process could lead to regulations that could modify the regulation to this ordinance. Mr. Watts distributed copies of the 11/14/03 draft Historic Preservation Flow Chart that had been e-mailed earlier to the Planning Commission. Chair Thayer said for the record it was very difficult for the Planning Commission to receive so much material piled on them at the last minute. In the future they would all like to get their information well ahead of a hearing, if possible. Others concurred. Mr. Watts discussed the Flow Chart as to how an application might proceed through the process under the new regulations. He commented regarding the ordinance that mandatory review uptown is only of commercial structures and the limited number of residential structures having a conditional use permit, e.g. Bed and Breakfast. There is no broadening of the reach beyond the commercial structures or application of the ordinance to residential structures. Questions of Staff: Ms. Hersey referenced the information page of the Staff Memo that Mr. McDonagh indicated he had personally done the lines in and line outs of the current version of the Design Review Guidelines Manual. She asked if this had not gone through City Council for approval. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 4 · · · I Mr. McDonagh explained he had done those lines in and out to match what is in the current draft code, and is what the HPC approved. Ms. Hersey asked if the lines out of Urban Wetland District, et aI, are all gone? Mr. McDonagh concurred those lines were all gone. He stated this gets very complicated and confusing and is why he had not gone into this again. He referred to the Official Zoning map included with Staffs previous materials saying when the Urban Waterftont Plan was adopted in the 90s, it extended both within and outside the Historic District down to the Boat Haven area of Port Townsend, well outside the Historic District. The Urban Waterfront Plan planning area was divided into eight subdistricts, four lying basically within the Historic District, the other four outside. Ms. Hersey then asked Mr. McDonagh regarding the petitions they received at the last Planning Commission meeting signed by people in the uptown area, if he had ever counted the signatures. Mr. McDonagh replied he had not, and Ms. Hersey thought it important they know the number of signatures. Chair Thayer noted they could do that in their deliberations. Mr. Berg asked regarding the Cannery Building if it is not considered partial demolition under this ordinance, because of what was proposed to be put back after everything was demolished and taken away? Mr. Watts concurred saying he is no architect and no planner, and is relying on Mr. McDonagh, HPC and BCD. His understanding of the project review is that the project as proposed, including the removal of the roof and the revamping of the roof lines, met the Secretary guidelines and the City guidelines, and therefore was approved on the basis under the existing regulations, and the work was permitted. Under the new regulations, assuming that HPC and BCD determined that the project was not a substantial alteration, that it preserved the integrity of the building, not preserving every brick, line, angle or feature, but if they determined after the project the building would be substantially preserved, that project would not go through the additional review. If the project met the design review guidelines it would be approved without going through that additional review. Mr. Berg asked if basically, the project met design review guidelines, whatever demolition has to take place in order to do the project is allowed without being subject to the demolition sections of this ordinance. Mr. Watts thought that overstated it a bit, that if the proposed demolition affects the integrity of the architectural feature of the building and is essentially a new project and you are not saving anything, or what you are saving is minor, that could trigger the application of the City ordinance. He gave the example of the Wolcott Building on Washington Street where some but very little of the original building was utilized in the new project. He thought everybody would say what is there now is not what was there before; what was there before is gone; what is there now meets design review but it did not save the integrity or appearance of the previous structure. The way the ordinance works, you can't demolish and rebuild if that would interfere with the structural architecture or historical integrity of the building. That is only limited to buildings determined to be historic. At 8: 10 Chair Thayer opened the meeting for public testimony. Jeanne Moore, 1004 Lawrence Street Ms. Moore said she has lived in Port Townsend 21 years, and lived and worked uptown 17 of those years. This neighborhood, or district, should not so easily relinquish the option of voluntary compliance to these mandates as they have been written. They should not give up the uniqueness and diversity they have in the uptown. She stated this neighborhood is not based on tourism; it is a local Port Townsend population that supports this small business district. She repeated this neighborhood is not based on tourism. She is not adverse to change, but she expects her local government to give them time for thorough discussion, much better communication and possibly suggest a citizens committee made up of about 10 residents, based on the uptown community, to discuss the issue. She questioned what is driving this movement and said control, power and money seem like harsh words but come to her mind. As she read this ordinance, if these suggestions become mandatory compliance, it will be very costly to building and business owners, not to mention frustrating, aggravating and tiring, especially since they were discussing a neighborhood abounding with tax-paying, talented, creative and resourceful residents. She asked if good taste is the issue, who are the judges? She believes in fteedom of choice and that each of us has the privilege of making their creative choices based on their own experiences, time, economy and vision. Ms. Moore suggested that if she or her neighbors are too far over the line, assuredly their neighbor and community would let them know. In the case of the neighborhood white elephant Mind Over Matter Building, the most controversial building uptown, the person behind the remodel was on the Board of the HPC, Nancy Scott Boyer. Ms. Moore lives and works directly across the street and looks at that building, defmitely artistic license there. Yet she would prefer looking at the unusual than have the new ordinance become mandatory. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 5 · · · She was speaking out to prevent the abuse of choice by the judgment of a narrow minority. If a building is on or applying to be on the Historic Register, requesting funding towards a renovation and replicating an original historic structure, then there is a venue for this mandatory regulating. Aldrich's had its own unique style. It was historic; it was classic, but it was defmitely eclectic; even a bit funky, and it was famous. It set a mood like a heart in their neighborhood, and it is sorely missed. She asked how the rebuilding could be more difficult -- by insisting on mandatory compliances? By insisting on costly traditional building materials? And she could only imagine, too much interference? She also indicated that in her imagination there could be a much worse scenario as in perhaps both Jonathan and David throwing up their hands and bailing out of the whole ordeal. Suggestions are important, but voluntary compliance is what is mandatory. She asked that they not so easily give up words used in describing Port Townsend like ''unique and diversified" but strive for words like "supportive and user-friendly." She referenced a petition in her store stating that those who live and work in the Uptown community have signed this petition in opposition to the expansion to the Historic Preservation Committee into our unique and diversified neighborhood with mandatory regulation; all suggestions from this committee should remain voluntary. She noted there were 135 signatures gathered in a very short period time without any canvassing, and she and others are willing to canvass the described neighborhood with that petition. She truly believed the percentage of those who would sign would be very, very high. Ms. Moore asked the Planning Commission to think of their constituents in that neighborhood and vote in their behalf. Vote "no" in accepting this new proposed ordinance as written with all these provisions and regulations, and vote "yes" for much more discussion and better communication with the uptown neighborhood and the general public of Port Townsend. John Baker, 1008B Lawrence Street Mr. Baker indicated he lives in what is known as the Katz Building; the big building that formerly housed the employment office and Lanza's. He has lived there 15 years since 1988, and in Port Townsend for 22 years. The owner of that building is Tony Larson, formerly a resident of Port Townsend now living in Tacoma. Mr. Baker has acted as the residential manager for the Katz building on Mr. Larson's behalf since he has lived out of town. Mr. Baker was representing both Mr. Larson as the owner of that building, and himself as a resident and business owner uptown. He thought primarily Mr. Larson would echo Jeanne's comments in asking this board not make these voluntary design review requirements mandatory. For all the reasons she has stated, he feels very strongly they should remain voluntary. He strongly stated, in that sense the business activity uptown is primarily local business, that if they bring in more regulation in regards to the businesses, it just puts more economic pressure on local business interests uptown. The uptown would like to preserve its sort of different quality from the sort of historic presentation that Port Townsend businesses downtown have wanted to see over these last 10 to 20 years. There are upwards to 11 businesses or self-employed individuals in the Katz Building, as well as four residences, 11 businesses he is representing tonight in a sense in regard to what greater costs would occur as a result of this type of regulation. Mr. Baker feels the HPC has slowly over a period of time been given way too much authority and influence in our community, which he assumed was a sort of quasi-legislative body. He said that as they give this committee more and more influence and discretion, and essentially power in making determinations for businesses and individuals in Port Townsend, he thinks at some point if this is going to be the case in Port Townsend government, this body should become an elected body, that it should not be at the discretion of our leadership as to who should be there. He asserted that committee as a result has too much quasi-political influence in discretion in what is best for community property owners, businesses and individuals. He thought the Planning Commission, City Council, as well as City Staff should take a hard look at just what this particular committee is becoming as more and more regulation and discretion seems to be flowing its way. Mr. Baker said that on behalf ofMr. Larson and himself, particularly in regards to the changes ftom the present document, they are particularly in opposition to the switch from voluntary to mandatory obligations. Joshua Sage, Current Project Manager, former Mind over Matter Building Mr. Sage noted they are putting a silk screening tee shirt business in that building. Jeanne recently approached him telling about the things that are going on. He said he is a bit new to this, but most important he cherishes what happens in the uptown district. During the height of the summer when the whole tourist thing is happening downtown, and he doesn't even want to be down there because it is a bit maddening, he was well aware of what it does for our town and community. He was not about to say we shouldn't have tourism in our town, but he knows he can kind of have the peace of being connected to the rest of the community being uptown. He said there is more than just the reason that it is not as Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 6 . . . crowded, because it can get fairly crowded uptown too, but it has more to do with just the feel up there. He thinks the HPC has its value and also has a good grasp of what goes on in town. He feels occasionally that the town is going to get too cute, although he doesn't think it has yet. Sometimes that can be a borderline feeling. He thought it more important to have a group of people wanting to govern themselves -- let us do a good job, let us present ourselves in a professional and comfortable way that suits ourselves is a great thing to have. He said more than anything that should be supported. It's not about saying they are going to do whatever they want, however they like it, because, as was stated, a recommendation is a great thing. To have it mandatory is much less inviting. He thought most of us feel that in most places in our lives, having some say that this would be a good way to do it, as opposed to you have to do it like this. He said we have enough of that. He does not think they need it uptown, and feels they can manage themselves. Doug Gantenbein, 810 Rose Street Mr. Gantenbein said he is a joumalist and has often written architectural history, architectural design, planning, etc. He said that specifically, it is possible the way the ordinance is written now in defining an historic building, to cast its net too wide. If you read it at all loosely, you could defme anything of a certain age as historic. At any point there is going to be someone who is going to argue that a building is historic regardless of its initial quality or of its quality since then. He encouraged two additional criteria: I) Take into consideration the actual intent of the building when built -- what were the building owner and person building it thinking? He thought it clear downtown that some buildings were meant to be long term, important buildings, and some put up almost as temporary structures. He thought it useful to weight the historic significance of the building with regards to its historic era, and thought that a building pre-1900 in Port Townsend was inherently more valuable than one built in perhaps the 1950s or 1940s. Just to declare a building historic or make the threshold 50 years for example is to throw out too wide a net. At some time they will be discussing whether or not the mini-mall where Swains is located is historic; that at some point will be considered an historic structure. He thought anybody would agree that whole mini-mall was not put up with Port Townsend's best interests at heart. 2) Regarding the amendment that discusses revisions to a building, he does a lot of remodeling and lives in a house that is over 100 years old. He said in very few cases can you economically duplicate what a builder did 100 years ago -- the materials and skills just aren't available. He thought to require or strongly encourage to duplicate how a building was built would not be economically feasible in many cases. He cited Portland, Oregon and the wonderful collection ofpre-1900 Victorian commercial buildings in its downtown area, many of which were built with cast iron decorations, columns, pilasters, etc. He said many were rusting and falling apart in many cases, and you could not begin to afford to recreate them. Fiberglass was used in many cases to duplicate these architectural design elements. These are painted anyway, and you could not tell the difference unless you walked up and tapped on them. He asserted that without the use of a synthetic material they could not have duplicated things that were there originally. Mr. Gantenbien concluded with a broad statement that he feared that by putting too tight a restriction on development in the Historic District there is a good chance of suffocating the City. He said in his time in town, it is his conclusion this town resides in a very narrow economic plane, and it is too easy to disrupt it by putting on too many restrictions, making changes to buildings too expense, especially uptown which has had its share of problems of late with Aldrich's, etc. He thought it was especially important to let uptown be uptown, and rely on peer pressure and a desire to do things right to ensure uptown's quality. Larry Crockett, 153 McCurdy Point Road Executive Director, Port of Port Townsend; citizen and property owner within Port Townsend He first saw the wording in this addition this afternoon 4:30 p.m., and the Port Commissioners haven't seen it. Their next meeting is December 10, and he does not know about real feedback from them before that. Mr. Crockett thinks in concept this is in the right direction; however, the Port is finishing its scheme of harbor improvements as mandated by State law, and should have that wrapped up probably by mid-December with a fmal formal public hearing and possible adoption. The next step, not just with Point Hudson but all of the properties, is to go into more detailed site planning. It looks like they have $20,000 ftom the State to further plan at Point Hudson. To do a formal, full blown plan the are looking at probably a good $100,000 to hire the property consultants, etc. and probably an 18 month to 2 year process, if everything goes well. They don't know if there is going to be more grant money available in 2005; they Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 7 · · · think there might be. If there isn't enough, he asked if the City and the Port be willing at that time to throw into the pot equal shares of money to get up to that level to a job the proper way? He didn't know; the devil is in the details how they go through that process as a joint partnership. There are a lot of unknowns yet about that planning effort; Mr. Crockett's concerns as outlined in his letter from the Port a few weeks back, there are some legal ramifications as a government entity themselves with trying to obey State laws. He agreed wholeheartedly with all of the previous speakers, and some of those same issues apply to the Port; he cited the last speaker regarding intent. Point Hudson was built originally as an immigration center; it was never used for that. Then the military took it over and redid a lot of the buildings for temporary military occupation, and now they are trying to make them restaurants, retail and marine trades and all sorts of other uses, and those buildings are just not working. He said he didn't know how far they go with major rehabilitation before they fall out of guidelines set by the ordinance. He also did not know if that is a legal thing between the Port and the City now, since the Port has their mandate for economic development. He stated he would forward this information to the Commissioners tomorrow, that at least they will see it, but he may not get any feedback until their next regular meeting December 10. As a private citizen, Mr. Crockett concurred with what other speakers have said. He attended virtually every one of the committee meetings that addressed this ordinance and said repeatedly they were not crafting a partnership document, that it is a very draconian document. He feels more buildings in the long run will be preserved and rehabilitated if it is more ofa partnership; you have to put carrots out there not sticks. To demand that you use original materials is ridiculous in today's age. You just can't afford it, and there are better materials available to do the job. He said it goes on and on. He said he would get back to Mr. Watts and Mr. Timmons. Joe Finnie, 536 Clay Street He said he had to ask a question before he testified. He is a sitting member of the Port Townsend City Council, and asked is this ordinance going to come before the City Council before the end of this year? Mr. Watts replied, that it depends on when the Planning Commission concludes its work. If it does not conclude its work within the next week or so, the likelihood of the Council being able to take action in December is probably not there. It really depends on what happens tonight and when they might be a position to take fmal action. Mr. Firmie then said it is very important to him since this is a legislative matter, to be able to speak to this matter as a sitting member of the City Council because he has strong feelings about the effort to date, and ways he believes from his experience he can contribute to the Council's fmal decision. If it is not going to be made this year, if it's not going to appear before the Council, he wanted the Planning Commission to hear his remarks, so he needed to know at least what the probability is that they will move this to the Council this year. Chair Thayer called for Mr. Watts' opinion. Mr. Watts said he and Councilor Finnie had discussion the last year or so about the appropriateness of Mr. Firmie as a sitting Councilmember appearing before the Planning Commission and offering remarks. Mr. Watts subsequently checked with the Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSC) funded by the State to provide general governmental legal advice. He reported that since this is a legislative matter, the appropriateness of a Councilmember appearing before the Planning Commission and giving comments is not in and of itself illegal. He explained it obviously could indicate a prejudgment of this matter when it comes before Council, but because this is a legislative matter, at that time it would not disqualify him. Mr. Watts pointed out a separate issue he and Mr. Finnie had discussed having to do with whether or not Mr. Finnie was in a position to act as a decisionmaker when this matter comes before Council, irrespective of whether or not he testifies here tonight. That is totally separate, and he told Mr. Finnie they could go over that at some other time ifhe wanted. In terms of Mr. Finnie's ability to speak before the Planning Commission tonight, it is not illegal. Mr. Finnie decided to speak to the issue at this meeting and recuse himself if it goes before Council this year, just as has been his behavior pattern in the past. Chair Thayer pointed out an option could be to disclose the matter. Mr. Finnie said he chooses a more restrictive option. He spoke as a citizen heavily invested in commercial buildings in the downtown Historic District, and who has had some 8 years of interaction with the Historic Preservation Commission and the Building Department on renovations and restorations to his properties. He said he read with great respect the specifics of Mike Jones' memo submitted to the Planning Commission. He was unsure if they had opportunity to read it, and he pointed out a couple of key points: Mr. Jones thanks and acknowledges the effort of the Planning Commission. He speaks as the owner of the Antique Mall, and says that while he feels the goals of historic preservation are admirable, he wants to caution the City the ordinance would be restrictive and would result in unintended consequences. Mr. Firmie concurred and said he thinks really that is also where he is coming ftom. As he envisions it, the Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 8 · · · unintended consequence of this ordinance despite its desired intent to protect our historic properties, will be to restrict the improvements to that property and that investment in capital projects by current building owners in Port Townsend and by people that might come to our city to invest. Mr. Jones also suggested that if they do proceed to pass the ordinance, they eliminate from the proposed ordinance all language in Section 17.30.085 that refers to the burden of the applicant to conduct both an engineering and fmancial analysis -- an expensive function. He also suggested eliminating that the last three of the eight subjective criteria that HPC would interpret, that the burden of proof be shifted to the City from the applicant if the applicant bothers to go through the process of doing the expensive engineering and financial analyses. Mr. Finnie added his comment, that he also feels the ordinance has unintended consequences. Commercial investor business owners expect clarity in terms of use and change of use. This ordinance for all practical purposes says that all 50 year old buildings are sacred in this overlay district. He asked the Commissioners to change ftom their view as Planners and imagine they are investors with alternative internal rate ofretum opportunities heavily capital based, to buy and adapt for reuse a Port Townsend historic building. Imagine you have had extensive experience dealing with our City Councils and Historic Preservation Committee. You would ask them to tell you whether or not the building is going to meet the needed three criteria to protect it from demolition. If the political body says, "yes," which in all likelihood it will, you will probably not subject yourself to an expensive exercise to provide structural and financial reports ftom licensed engineers and fmancial analysts -- what is the point? The analyses would be presented to the same politically appointed body. What is more, per the proposed ordinance the HPC would become the review agent evaluating the business case and the engineering cases for and against demolition. Mr. Firmie said okay, that leaves the applicant several other options. He can walk away or employ what preservationists (he sits on the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation) call "adaptive reuse," which means to engineer within the framework of the Secretary ofInterior's Standards a reuse of that building keeping some portion of the building in place while you go about the business of rebuilding it for your use. The contractor will tell you the Delta difference between tearing down a building and building a new building, particularly if you go to a ClIIMU concept, probably as much as $50/ft. It is a significant difference, as much as 35% of the capital cost higher to do a renovation than a teardown/rebuild. Mr. Firmie recommended the Planning Commission put hard, binding text, that determines what the threshold would be that would allow a buyer to make material changes including height, bulk and dimension changes to meet herlhis business criteria for adaptive reuse. He emphasized that they need that clarity. He asked they keep in mind what he again said, that adaptive reuse is more expensive -- the mere fact that they are driving the prospective buyer or renovator to this process as opposed to demolition, He is carrying this higher cost of building construction after you have proposed he pay the higher cost of investing in an engineering! financial analysis. Mr. Finnie concluded by saying he felt they needed to give the businesses a break because the consequence of not doing it will mean we will be restricting investment. He commended the Planning Commission for their long and hard work on this ordinance and said he hoped they took his comments to heart. Duncan Kellogg, 929 Water Street Mr. Duncan referenced his extensive comments submitted in writing to the Planning Commission (included as an exhibit). He said the effort gave him a greater appreciation for the volunteer time given by the Commissioners. He selected comments to highlight: #3 Minimize visual blight -- "Blight" is matter of personal opinion, but also a legal term that has become involved in the abuse of imminent domain in the confiscating of people's property, becoming a rather sensitive word. #4 Promote and encourage continued ownership and use of historic buildings and structures within the overlay district. He did not fmd anything in the ordinance that promotes and encourages ownership. . .(see written comments). #8 Partial or complete demolition. It appeared to him this ordinance is tied to the total demolition of a property. Anytime you tie partial to it, it can be interpreted as any part of a building. There are some ordinances or applications that might remove this from it, but when it is written into the ordinance as being partial or complete it is also impacting the partial portion of it. His suggestion was to delete partial throughout. #12 Mandatory Design Review - Certificates of Approval-- He has a grave concern with the Directors Certificate of Approval and the costs that are involved. ''No development" -- is too restrictive and the requirements of obtaining a Certificate of Approval are much too expensive for the average property owner. He referred to his written suggestion. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 9 · · · #14 Certificates of Approval for Demolition for both the proposed demolition and any proposed replacement development. Again, this ordinance seems to apply to only the complete demolition of a building. Costs of even applying for a Certificate of Approval are so onerous, the property owner could easily be bankrupt before the certificate could be obtained. Suggestion was to delete anything dealing with partial. #15 Various costs required in order to get the Certificate of Approval. He wondered if anyone had given any thought to the actual dollars involved or run any particular kind of survey. He acquired, the old Penneys Building -- a very simple, empty building; columns every 15 feet. It is his intention to divide it into individual smaller spaces for the smaller tenants and business people in the state here. He gave real numbers for his building: (I) Architectural $59,400; (2) Structural Engineering $25,132; (3) MAl Appraisal for a commercial building $3,500 to $4,500; (4) Financial Analyst $5,000 approximately; (5) Consultants $3,318 most tied to trying to interpret the codes; (6) Permits to date $5,800. TOTAL COSTS $102,000 in costs, most of which are tied to trying to interpret -- all consultants were tied to dealing with the codes and trying to resolve those issues. Mr. Kellogg said when you are talking about asking a property owner to come up with an application for a Certificate of Approval, think $100,000. When the citizen learns that, the average person can't proceed. This town doesn't like Rite-Aide, or Wal-Mart, but most people can't afford to comply with this application of Certificate of Approval. Ms. Chair Thayer noted it had been 5 minutes, that the Commissioners have all his material which very complete. Mr. Kellogg understood but asked to go on record with a couple of comments. Mr. Kellogg commented this ordinance is so onerous that he recommended that the City send a letter to each property owner that is affected by it. He thought the response would be significant. He didn't think the property owners received proper notice; a lot of property owners live out of the area and can't be expected to read the local papers. He said he is available to talk at anytime to anybody who is willing to listen; his phone number is listed in his written comments. At 8:45 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony and asked for Staff questions of speakers: Staff Comments/Questions of Speakers: Mr. McDonagh replied regarding: 1) Comments by Misters Gantenbein and Finnie regarding any building over 50 years being set aside or sacred. This ordinance actually does the opposite; it tries not to freeze a building in time but evaluates it based on a set of criteria. A building 50, 75 or 100-year-old might not meet the criteria, that it could be demolished if the owner demonstrated it didn't have certain architectural characteristics that met three of the eight criteria presented in the ordinance. 2) Comments regarding Misters Crockett and Gantenbein that the duplication of a building's original materials was not now cost effective. There are a number of provisions in the Secretary's Standards that allow for the use of modern materials. He cited the fiberglass cornice on top of the Waterman-Katz Building; the Hastings Building, at least one of the black coverings on the brick pilasters was replaced with fiberglass and has some modern materials employed on its facade. Mr. McDonagh said there are opportunities in rehabilitation, renovation and adaptive reuse of our buildings that do allow the use of modern materials. 3) Comments by Mr. Kellogg. Mr. McDonagh had not been able to go through all of the comments but spoke to #15 regarding the cost to obtain a Certificate of Review. He noted Mr. Kellogg's reference is tied to a section of code that already exists in our code. It doesn't necessarily require the full services of an architect for an applicant wanting to make changes to their building or property, to provide a basic site plan, done to a scale, showing some elevations of the building as it exists and how they would like to have the building redone. Mr. Kellogg listed six requirements to obtain a Certificate of Approval. None of that is required for a basic application, e.g., structural engineering, an appraisal, a fmancial analysis. He thought Mr. Kellogg's situation somewhat unique and not exactly tied to cost restrictive measures of our existing code. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20,2003/ Page 10 · · · Mr. Watts commented regarding: 1) Mr. Kellogg's statement of costs. His project was reviewed under the existing provisions of the code. Those provisions of the code are carried forward under the proposed revisions. There is no alteration of those provisions. The new provisions only apply to somebody that would want to demolish a building, in whole or in substantial part. Mr. Kellogg's statement about appraisals being required under the new provisions of the code -- there is no requirement to produce a new appraisal. There is a requirement to provide recent past appraisals, if they have already been obtained. The reference in the ordinance to demolition or partial demolition, the definition of what triggers a demolition application is new language that came out of the last Planning Commission meeting; page 10, section 17.30.085. It seeks to add a definition of demolition and states a very important clarification -- paragraph 4, section A Definition - Demolitions. It says demolition of, or portions of a building or structure that are not important to determining the building's historic character that are done as part of an alteration, modification or remodel are reviewed under the existing design review processes. 2) Mr. Finnie's statement that from a developer/property owner's standpoint, there is a need for clarity. Mr. Watts explained that the existing design review provisions of the Historic Preservation ordinance, as well as the design review provisions for any ordinance, have a certain process aspect to them. Design review is still in place, and design review creates a review process to determine whether or not the proposal meets design review. It is not prescriptive, e.g., a 5 -10 feet setback (if you meet that setback you are in compliance with the prescriptive portion of the code). On the other hand, design review requires that a process be undertaken and a reviewed according to criteria. He made the point there is design review now and will be in future, and makes for the absolute clarity that a developer wants, simply not part of the regulatory framework. Chair Thayer then asked for Planning Commission questions of speakers or Staff: Planning Commission Comments/Questions of Speakers: Q Mr. Kelety to Jeanne Moore: Is your concern for people uptown, alteration versus demolition? Is it your sense and of your colleagues up there to preserve the feel, the uniqueness, the integrity of what it is currently like uptown, that is relative to alterations and mandatory review compliance in changes to buildings versus demolition, or a complete demolition? A Ms. Moore: She was more concerned or aware of the alteration. It is a pretty small area up there. Demolition does not bother her, but the process for alteration as a building owner does. Q Mr. Randels questioned Mr. Crockett and Staff regarding the issue of mandatory replacement of existing structures. As he reads it, there is a clear bias in the draft for replacing anything that is torn down, and apparently no option for a tear-down-and-do-nothing-more alternative. It was raised in the Port's letter, although nowhere else. He could see where there would be instances where that would be undesirable, the missing tooth, but instances where it would clearly be desirable. It seemed that if they were going to have an ordinance that seeks desirable ends, they ought to allow that, since it occasionally will be. A Mr. Crockett: As discussed numerous times with City Staff, at the very end of the point at Point Hudson is a small T-shaped building, looking straight across as you go down Water Street. It was built to be nurse's quarters when the hospital was built as part of the Immigration Center back in the mid-30s. The former owner turned it into a Laundromat, and shower/restroom facility to service the marina and RV park; the Port is continuing that use. That building is totally collapsing, the floor having totally collapsed on them twice. That simple wooden structure was never meant to absorb all that moisture from inside. If there is one building there that simply should be demolished, it is that building. They also have to have restrooms and showers. If they are going to have a transient marina, etc., they have to provide that and laundry facilities. That really needs to be a new structure. A new structure certainly would go through all the building codes, HPC review, and architecturally they can make it fit in. If they were to demolish the existing building, built a new restroom somewhere else on the property in probably a better, more central location -- what if they just want to plant a tree where the current building is sitting? or leave it open since you are going to have that vista? They have already tried to clear off telephone poles and above ground utilities to open the view on the very point. Maybe they don't want to replace that building; they feel there is a very strong bias towards "you can't demolish it until you give us the blueprint of the new building." Maybe they don't want to build one. Why should the taxpayers have to build it? Mr. Watts also concurred with Mr. Crockett's comments that the Port may have special circumstances in the tear-down and allocated replacement, particularly if it is part oflarger plant. The direction then is Planning Commission Minutes, November 20,2003/ Page 11 · · · suggesting an overall plan that could supplement or modify the specific provisions of the ordinance. That would be good planning, planning that would be a good outcome. He thought that was the issue the Port has identified, and the City recognizes. The direction is a masterplan that could supplement the provisions of the code for a specifically planned area. Mr. Watts stated regarding the non-Point Hudson area, it is a policy decision whether to allow somebody to take down a building that is not deteriorated, not dilapidated, not imminently dangerous, and simply take it down for the purposes of having a vacant lot, possibly to use for parking vehicles. That is an issue this body needs to say whether or not it is an okay outcome. Q Mr. Berg: Is there a provision that the Director can waive the requirements for a replacement building? A Mr. Watts: Under existing code, no. He believed the provision referred to allow the Director to not require the proposed replacement structure to be reviewed prior to a demolition, if the Director determines the demolition of an existing building would not be detrimental. Mr. Berg: There is still a requirement to replace? Mr. Watts concurred. Q Ms. Hersey: Mr. Gantenbein is no longer here, but he mentioned looking at a building from its original intent. She asked for comment on where or if it could fit in. A Mr. McDonagh: He thought Mr. Gantenbein's intent in suggesting that as a criteria was good, but fairly problematic, e.g., the Cannery was built for an industrial purpose, industrial use. They used to can fish. It is going to become an office building with a restaurant underneath right now. To solely look at a building in a fixed period of time and say this is what the building was built for, tends to narrow your focus in that if it is not used for that, it is somehow is oflesser importance in today's world. Q Ms. Hersey: She thought Mr. Finney was suggesting it would be cheaper and to the advantage of a building owner to completely demolish and rebuild than to renovate a building. If that were so, wouldn't we be doing more of an injustice with this ordinance than what is really the intent of the ordinance? A Mr. McDonagh: Said he wanted to say preservation is always cheaper than rebuilding, but he thought there were a number of studies done at the national level and locally that show that preservation does make good economic sense, that using the resources of a building that are already there can be cheaper. He cited the old Navy building here. He wished Gary were present, but said he testified on behalf of our certified local government ordinance. Mr. McDonagh paraphrased, saying he was not very happy when he went to the HPC. HPC said to save his wood windows and restore the siding you have. As part of doing that, they were looking to change the code and expected he would be happy in a couple of years when they make his building eligible to go on our local register. He basically saved money in doing the preservation work rather than tearing out the wood windows and putting in vinyl, basically saving money doing that and qualified for a tax credit. Mr. McDonagh did not want to say that happens in every instance, but a lot of studies show that preservation does make good economic sense ftom both the construction standpoint and the overall tax base. People come to real communities that have saved their buildings and restored them. Q Ms. Hersey: Several speakers in the Historic District who own or manage buildings suggested that the restrictions are too tight in trying to renovate building; was that factored in? We have talked about having a building that is going downhill, and you have made it too expensive for them to renovate, and now adding more restrictions and more added cost. Was there anytime in the process, either at the HPC or BCD that you looked at trying to make it more of a positive situation instead of burdening them? They are just going to turn around and pass on the costs to either the businesses or people who are living in them. It is more of an economic issue. A Mr. McDonagh: Obviously, with regulations you try to provide the carrot as well as the restriction or regulation. He said this community does have certified local government status and offers relief for building owners who want to undertake qualified rehabilitation of a building. Changes to our code 1-1/2 years ago quite greatly expanded it so a building owner of a qualified building who spends 25% on qualified expenditures of a building's assessed value (just the building's value, not the land), can deduct that ftom his taxes for a period of 10 years. They can phase those kinds of improvements to spend 25% this year, 25% of the new valuation in 2 years, and continue to roll that over. There is a fairly significant credit. The previous speakers, John Baker representing the building owner might an exception, but Jeanne and Joshua are tenants in those buildings, and whether or not they have tenant improvements they are generally going to be interior. If they want to paint the exterior of the building, that is different. He wondered if they were talking about two different types. He noted the voluntary compliance resulting in the unusual design of the Mind Over Matter building uptown, and said they had discussed reserving a place holder in their guidelines for a set uptown guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 12 · · · Q Ms. Hersey: Mr. Kellogg mentioned not all business owners and property owners of commercial buildings in the Historic District were contacted. A Mr. McDonagh: Not other than numerous articles in The Leader. He thought there had been a fair amount of public knowledge out there, three to four articles in The Leader regarding the development of this ordinance. Q Mr. Berg: Is it true? There really are only two ways this ordinance increases the onerousness of historic design review over what currently exists: 1) If you want to demolish your building and it is found to be historic, there are a lot of new requirements that cost money; 2) Mandatory compliance uptown which could or could not cost extra money. Those are the only two ways in which the onerousness is changing. A Mr. McDonagh agreed that was a fair summary. Q Ms. Hersey: In order to go through a demolition process, can an applicant do that process first, then come in with a building -- two processes? If a process doesn't work or isn't fmancially doable and they have spent all this money, is there a way to do the first process first then go to the second process? A Mr. Watts: That is a good question. The procedures aren't spelled out in the ordinance and would need to be spelled out as part of some sort of HPC policy and procedures. A property owner needs to know early on whether or not their building is an historic building. There will need to be a process that allows an owner to come in and determine whether there's is an historic building under the code and follow the appropriate path. There will also need to be as part of that procedure to give feedback to the owner who makes application as to whether or not that application involves an alteration that triggers the additional design review because it basically counts as a demolition, or whether or not what is being proposed, e.g., the Cannery Building, doesn't so alter the structure that it would trigger the demolition provisions. He answered Ms. Hersey that it is implicit in the ordinance, but it is not spelled out so that you get kind of advance determination before you go through the review of your replacement structure. Suggestion: Mr. Watts suggested they pass that along as a recommendation with whatever other recommendations you might have so it doesn't get back in another cycle of additional language. Mr. McDonagh: Answered Ms. Hersey, that is the intent. Someone who wanted to demolish a particular building and construct something else, he thought their first step is to come the HPC to determine whether or not their building meets the criteria for a regulated historic structure. If yes -- go one path. If no -- another and that person can decide based on that outcome whether to appeal to the Hearing Examiner, with some other choices to make at that point. There are some forks in the road before a person gets too far. Mr. Watts: That is what happens now when somebody wants to try to fmd out the HPC reaction to what they are proposing. They come in for a pre-application type meeting with HPC. It is the same thing Councilor Finnie could do with his project. He could come in and get an idea as to whether or not his proposal is going to meet design review. What they are proposing, if meets design review. Q Mr. Benskin: Does the process for demolition now have built in cost? Mr. Berg asked what is different. In reading this, his understanding is that the new ordinance with requirements for coming up with the owner's burden of proof is not in the two ordinances we are replacing. It is new language, new requirements -- cost for financial consultants, cost analysis, structural engineering, drawings. Costs to the applicant. A Mr. McDonagh: That is the new language. It creates costs to the applicant only if a building is determined to meet the criteria of an historic structure. Q Mr. Benskin: We have demolition provisions for historic buildings that don't have that cost added at this point? A Mr. McDonagh: At least the structural and economic analysis. That is correct. Q Mr. Benskin: These burdens are being placed upon the applicant by this ordinance. He said concerning Mr. Berg's question as to what was changing, is that one of them? A Mr. McDonagh: Concurred, that was what Mr. Berg asked. Mr. Berg agreed, and Mr. McDonagh replied that the answer was yes; in summary the additional two things, perhaps burdens that mayor may not cost money -- demolition of an historic structure would require a higher threshold of review, some higher cost for an applicant seeking to do that to an historic structure; and mandatory review and mandatory compliance uptown he guessed to be another layer of regulation that mayor may not cost an applicant. Mr. Watts: The existing regulations in 17.80.030 on demolition do not prevent demolition of any building in the City so long as you build back a contemporary structure that meets the design review. The basis for one policy of the new ordinance is to, as said before, make it more difficult to remove the historic building. Once Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 13 · · · it's gone, it's gone. Q Mr. Kelety: Cost is a significant part. The additional costs were put in place as a result of this structural, economic analysis. Do we have a sense of that in a percentage of the initial costs of the buildings? Can we quantify this at all so we can have something to hang our hats on here based on the appraised value of the building? -- that we could say today on a $400,000 building if you were to request a demolition, it would cost $.....; now for a $400,000 it would cost $..... A percentage would give them something to hang their hats on. A Mr. Watts: Thought it very difficult to generalize. He knows Mr. Kellogg has put forward some very high costs with his building. He had to provide some structural documentation that the wall that he is currently replacing was in danger of failure. He was able to do that fairly quickly, and Mr. Watts did not think that represented a large portion of total architectural engineering costs. There have been other structural reports, structural reviews that have been done on buildings. The City has had some structural reports done. It is very hard to generalize; you could very likely get structural engineering information ftom an engineer for as little as $5K or depending on the nature of the problem, as much as $10K to $20K. Mr. McDonagh: Concurred -- a building on the shoreline versus an upland building. Q Mr. Kelety: So, cost is an issue. What we are left saying is that we are adding some value we think in terms of community-minded preservation, etc., at some cost to the owner that we can't quantify proportionally at all. Ms. Thayer added that you also look at the tax credit. Mr. Kelety agreed but said that is already in place. So, what they are left with is not being able to make a statement of what the new costs are. Chair Thayer thought they were getting into discussion and asked to come back to clarifying questions. A Mr. McDonagh: It was improbable or unlikely for them to ask a commercial builder building a new building, what its going to cost him to build that building. Q Mr. Randels: Are these additional costs under the tax credit program? A Mr. McDonagh: It would depend. If you would like to use structural engineering to renovate and rehabilitate the building, certainly. Those costs count. Q Mr. Randels: It seemed to him they might want to consider making them a qualifying cost A Mr. McDonagh: An individual building owner who goes through and does structural analysis on their own, has a structural engineer come in and say they need to put steel here, here and here for these reasons, those costs count towards their tax credits, special valuation. If you could use a portion of the structural engineering work that you had done for demolition, you were told the building did not qualify for demolition, and said you would use some of the structural engineering work they had done, go ahead and renovate the building as it sits, a portion of that would qualify. Q Ms. Thayer added a caveat, that none of them are accountants. She has always been taught in her profession that she is not an accountant. In order for them to get true information, they need to have an accountant give them that information. A Mr. McDonagh: Said he could tell them what is a qualified rehabilitation -- structural work associated with the rehabilitation of a building. At 9:28 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the hearing for public testimony and called for Planning Commission discussion and to take action or postpone. She asked if Commissioners wanted to take a short break. Ms. Hersey suggested they ftrst discuss the direction of their deliberation for this evening. Mr. Berg suggested going through the ordinance one more time. He felt that each of Mr. Kellogg's comments should be considered. Mr. Kelety had a hard time coming to a vote tonight and wanted more consideration of all of the public testimony. He suggested that rather than all of the individual items, they consider the broad brush items on a higher level, e.g., uptown's concern about look-feel-design, alteration versus demolition, the fact they can't really say what it will cost in a general level. Mr. Benskin spoke to Misters Jones' and Mr. Finnie's comments regarding analysis of unintended consequences of this ordinance. Going through some of the things that will happen if this ordinance is enacted is not a bad idea; he indicated they need to know the consequences of their actions prior to deciding on their actions. He encouraged further discussion and perhaps set up a vehicle for doing the analysis. He also had concerns for the issue of mandatory versus voluntary compliance uptown; a lot of concerns were presented and he felt the Commission should address their concerns. Ms. Thayer stated they had discussed this at their workshop. Mr. Benskin noted comments received this evening raised valid points, and they need to take action. He felt the way the ordinance is written at this point they need to amend it, or it needs to be altered in some way before it goes to Council. He was Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 14 · · · not comfortable forwarding this motion at all until they do some of those things. Ms. Hersey agreed with Mr. Kelety there were broad issues that need to be discussed. She suggested that maybe they go through broad issues and afterward through nuts and bolts of the ordinance. Chair Thayer was concerned about going through the whole broad picture again; they have had two or three workshops on this. They received the uptown petition before the last meeting and discussed it at length at that workshop. They talked about having different guidelines for uptown and keeping it mandatory; that was their requirement. Now to say when they have more public testimony from people in the uptown, people who had already signed that petition, are they going to revisit the whole document and do it differently? She understood going through some of this, but was not sure about going through the whole document line by line. Mr. Kellogg gave them some good input, and she would like to discuss that, but not revisiting the whole issue when they have already discussed that. Mr. Kelety stated he was not necessarily suggesting changing anything yet. He told Ms. Thayer she had just pointed to one consideration and asked, did they implement the concept of a different set of guidelines? What they were left with was, that it was possible but would take a long time. If there were a provision (we do not have a building owner represented here); it may go down a little easier. Chair Thayer suggested they could add language to the document that addresses the uptown issues and recognizes it is a unique district and needs to have separate guidelines. Mr. Kelety said that was what he meant and was his point. Ms. Hersey suggested taking a break and coming back. Chair Thayer felt they needed a guide to be able to discuss, and she called for further comment. Mr. Benskin said that as the document is written right now, it has none of that language in it. They haven't thought about what the language is going to be as far as how the guidelines are developed, who develops them, what the timetable is for developing them, and if they enact the ordinance, what is left for the uptown folks. Ms. Thayer said she did not think they could do that in this document other than put it in that there will be guidelines. Mr. Berg thought the language proposed about Point Hudson is totally appropriate for an uptown subdistrict as well, which would allow an uptown citizens committee to be formed, etc. All it needs is four lines in the ordinance right now. Mr. McDonagh added that was part of the intent, not just the Port's interests. He referenced the subdistricts in the draft ordinance, e.g., Civic and Ferry Retail subdistrict, and he envisioned an uptown subdistrict added to that section. Mr. Kelety thought to go from "envisioned" to some statement. Ms. Thayer suggested that until the guidelines are done, they not implement this ordinance as far as demolition for uptown. She thought that would help alleviate a lot of the concern. Mr. KeIety said you could do demolition for uptown and not the mandatory compliance. Ms. Thayer added, not mandatory compliance until the new guidelines are done. Mr. Kelety stated that you could keep the demolition part in. Ms. Thayer concurred. Mr. Kelety clarified that there are two parts: 1) one is to demolish the whole building, versus (he was not sure you could tear it apart in the code because it is a partial), 2) compliance to alteration. Mr. Watts said Staff wants clear direction, to tell them what to do. If that is their direction, they can come with the language (maybe tonight is too tall an order) that would implement that language. We want to know what you want. Ms. Thayer thought that was too tall an order to do in that meeting. Mr. Watts indicated if the concept to apply uptown is something similar to what is being talked about at Point Hudson, that is point #1. Point #2 -- with Point Hudson the concept that has been talked about between the two staffs is that the ordinance would apply to Point Hudson, then be supplemented at such time as there was a masterplan or a subarea plan. He said what he was hearing ftom some of the comments the last minute or two was a little bit different -- not to have regulations apply in a mandatory manner uptown until there were regulations in place. Ms. Thayer said that was what they were saying. Mr. Kelety disagreed stating instead that he was trying to get the difference between alteration and demolition. You have to have the language here so if someone comes and wants to tear down a building uptown, we have some provision for that versus removing cornices or changing the paint color. Ms. Thayer said that would be voluntary. Mr. Kelety agreed voluntary, subject to guidelines. He said it is articulated here, but he did not think it is so easily done in the code. Mr. Watts replied that with mandatory review/voluntary compliance, property owners uptown that wanted alteration go through the HPC process, and their proposals are subject to existing regulations that are in the manual and in the guidelines. He thought what was being talked about, maybe those need to be changed so uptown has its own specific guidelines like the Civic District, like the downtown. He said there are regulations in place; it is just not mandatory uptown right now. You do have a choice to recommend mandatory subject to the existing guidelines, plus maybe supplemented at some point with specially tailored specific guidelines; or you have a lot of different options. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20,2003/ Page 15 · · · Mr. Benskin thought they were all rather getting to the same point. The difference was, if the guidelines go through as mandatory and with the regulations uptown, they would basically be based on the downtown area. The guidelines that are there are pretty much developed for the Historic District downtown. He thought the idea for developing uptown guidelines is a very good one, would make a lot of people happy and could maybe solve the problem they have. If they can leave the compliance uptown voluntary until such time as guidelines are developed by a citizen committee of uptown residents and concerned people and then have that implemented in and perhaps become mandatory at that time. Ms. Thayer suggested if they keep it voluntary and say it is mandatory when the guidelines are done, it gives impetus to all to complete the guidelines quickly. Mr. Benskin concurred, stating having citizen input from uptown residents is a key factor. Mr. McDonagh referenced the ordinance, 17.30.050.D., Certific!ite of approval binding upon applicant. He said there is another section that also removes the voluntary compliance in the uptown. He could see language inserted at the end of section D. that would say for the uptown area bordering Lawrence Street, compliance will be voluntary until a formally adopted set of guidelines are enacted. Ms. Thayer concurred and asked for comment. Ms. King asked regarding the demolition section. Mr. McDonagh suggested they could include, "with the exception of demolition." CONSENSUS: Insert language at the end of 17:30.050.D. "With the exception of demolition, compliance with certificates of approval. . . ." (All in favor.) Mr. McDonagh asked if they wanted Staff to prepare language to present to Council? Chair Thayer asked if they are going to need another meeting. Mr. Berg thought maybe not, that maybe they should take a break and fmish their deliberation. Ms. Hersey asked that they fIrst consider some suggestions she thinks might help. Ms. Hersey suggested on Page 5, they add 17.30.040 Historic overlay district, A.l. Uptown District and make the insertion. Chair Thayer pointed out there is not an Uptown District until they make one. Ms. Hersey said to leave it as a suggestion. This talks about what is an Historic overlay district, and she thought helps to define the subdistrict for such things as boundaries, if you are going to have one. Suggestion: Add 1730.040.A.l Uptown District and make language insertion. Mr. Kelety asked regarding the area defined by Mr. McDonagh. Mr. McDonagh said he was basically going to define it by the zoning, C-III zoning bordering Lawrence Street, and he had language. Ms. Hersey said there needs to be a subset boundary, because this section is telling you section locations and giving you specific directional information. You need to reference the uptown subdistrict, and tell what it is. She suggested: add 17.030.040C.5 Uptown District and add boundaries. Mr. Watts and Mr. McDonagh both felt that was a good point. She also suggested adding the Uptown District to the other districts in the Historic Preservation Manual. Ms. Hersey spoke of design guidelines for awnings, et al and suggested maybe they should have design guidelines for the Uptown District. It was determined they would be added when they are developed. Ms. Moore asked where to find notices of these public meetings, that people she knew were unaware of the issues that were being discussed. Chair Thayer noted that Public Notices appear in the back of The Leader. Mr. Kelety added that the notices give specifics of what topics are to be discussed, and said they are also on the Internet. At 9:45 p.m. Chair Thayer called for a short break. She then reconvened the meeting and resumed discussion. Mr. Kelety identified what he felt to be two more broad brush strokes which he said did not necessarily require huge changes: 1) Onerous costs. He thought they would not get a defmition, but that it is entirely reasonable to have an analysis of some of the requirements it is going to take. He asked if they could, as Mr. Randels intimated, carte blanch take the cost directly associated with these new requirements and add them to tax credit -- just do it? He asked if they have the authority to do that? It was determined the Planning Commission does not have that authority. Mr. McDonagh thought they were talking apples and oranges: 1) the added cost they are talking about in terms of structural analysis of why this building is going to fall down; and 2) the economic analysis about why they need to take it down to rehabilitate it, opposite of what the tax credit is for. The tax credit is there for the person who wants to preserve and retain the existing structure. It is not intended to support a person wanting to demolish a building. Mr. Berg said what they are trying to do here is to make it more expensive for someone to tear down an historic building. He said he thought they were succeeding, much to the dismay of some people who may be in a position to want to. He said to recognize that we are trying to make something more expensive here; that is what this whole Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 16 . . . ordinance is about. Ms. King said guessed they are driving people to adaptive reuse. They are saying they really want them to maybe reuse this existing structure rather than tear it down. Mr. Berg stated the whole thing pointed out, it was $50 per square foot less to tear down and rebuild than it is to reuse and is the reason we are doing this, trying to offset some of that difference. There were differences of opinion. Mr. Kelety declared it was good to clarify what they want, costs, etc. Ms. King said she was reiterating, that Mr. McMillan said there were obligations you occurred when you owned property in the Historic District. She said there may also be costs that go along with those obligations. They are not forced to buy the property. Mr. Kelety asked concerning tax credits for rehabilitation, they are crediting that, and helping? They are making rehabilitation cheap and demolition expensive. Mr. Benskin said that actually the Federal Government is doing that; the City is not giving the 25% credit. Mr. McDonagh explained there are two different programs: 1) a special tax valuation enacted at the State level that is optional for jurisdictions to adopt, and Port Townsend has; 2) there is the federal investment tax credit program through the Parks Service and the IRS. Mr. Benskin suggested that when they are talking about taking it off their taxes, in his mind that makes the assumption you are talking about federal taxes. Mr. McDonagh pointed out the federal program does take it off commercial investment property, the commercial taxes you pay. The special valuation, the local tax, takes it off the local property taxes. Mr. Benskin felt that was a good clarification. Mr. Kelety rescinded his suggestion. Chair Thayer asked if they want to continue going through this discussion or do they want to postpone, come back and go through the issues? Mr. Berg was not sure of his answer to Chair Thayer's question but said he wanted to propose one more broad- brush stroke they might want to look at tonight. He spoke regarding a quick conversation he had with Mr. Kellogg on the way out the door, in which he expressed how much more onerous this is. Mr. Berg explained it is only more onerous if you want to tear down the building. Mr. Kellogg remarked there were all those references to partial demolition. Mr. Berg thought one of the big things that worried Mr. Kellogg is that he is going to have to get all this analysis, etc. to do any level of demolition that is involved in some kind of small change he wants to make to his building. One thing about the ordinance that didn't seem very clear to Mr. Berg, goes back to his question the begirming of the meeting about, was The Cannery Building partially demolished or not. He felt it was really unclear in the ordinance and needs to be fixed. Mr. Kelety asked, so what is partial? Mr. McDonagh added, when is an alteration a demolition, and when is it not? Mr. Berg asked what demolitions are subject to the demolition rules, and which parts of demolitions are not subject. Ms. Hersey replied it is black and white in 17.30.020.B.l where it says partial or complete. . . She questioned "significantly affecting" and said you have anything from changing a light bulb to complete demolition. Mr. Berg actually felt it probably is spelled out in there somewhere. Ms. King asked about the comment on the flow chart that says if it doesn't affect architectural or historic character. Maybe it's a judgment call. Mr. Berg thought maybe the flow chart was the most readable information they have about it. Mr. Kelety said what Ms. Hersey pointed out doesn't reflect the quality in the flow chart. Maybe that paragraph needs to be make people feel more comfortable, if you going to take those Gothic columns and turn them into something modern. He suggested maybe that paragraph needed to be reworked. Mr. Watts noted based on previous comments, an attempt was made to do this on page 10, 17.30.085.A. Demolition - Defmitions. Ms. Thayer stated it says in whole or in part. Mr. Watts explained a demolition in whole or in part is a demolition; but, #2 includes demolition of significant features; #3 does not include demolition of features that have been rather add-ons; #4 is not a demolition if it is not a part of an approved alteration. There was discussion and Ms. King suggested cross-referencing page 4 to page 10. Mr. Watts indicated that was fme. Ms. Hersey said you are putting everything together (partial, complete, changes, alteration, modifications, remodeling). Ms. King thought that was not important to defming the building's historic character. Ms. Hersey countered that the application reads that you need to have an application if you are going to do a partial demolition, or a complete demolition, or changing. or altering. Mr. Kelety said he now sees; all of what Ms. Hersey just said that is relative to, if they defme a building's or structure's historic character. He said there is a slight bit of judgment call, because they always have to say what is historic character, but he thought if those two references were tied, they are not saying we are not talking about making your building better, you just can't change the essence of it. There was a little ambiguity in judgment there, but he was okay if they were tied up together as long as they gave them the opportunity of maintenance, of making their building better without changing the character. Mr. Randels did not know whether or not his issue qualified as a broad brush issue and maybe was discussed Planning Commission Minutes, November 20, 2003 / Page 17 . . before he got on board, but one thing that was a real concern to him was about disclosing private fmancial information -- tax returns, rental rates, all those kinds of things a. private business person likes to keep confidential, understandably. He wondered if there was a way they could put into the ordinance some kind of confidentiality requirement for information of that kind that exempts it from the public disclosure rules that otherwise would normally apply. Mr. Watts replied there is no requirement to disclose personal tax returns or personal tax information. There is a specific statement in the draft that says just that. Mr. Randels said he misread it. Mr. Watts referred to a requirement on page 11 of what needs to be produced; it's property specific so it's not bank accounts, not tax returns, not property owned in Florida, etc. He said it is part of the "justification" to show that the building is not capable of economic rehabilitation. He asked if the City can guarantee that a document in its possession will not be released in response to public disclosure? The answer is, no they can't do that. The State law governs its controls preemptive; they are not in a position to say "no." Without a change in law they are not able to say it's confidential. Mr. Berg referred to page 8, 17.30.060.A., General requirements. Prior to the partial or complete demolition. He noted that Mr. Kellogg was having a problem with the word "partial" in many places in the ordinance in that context. He wondered rather than saying "partial or complete demolition" if it would be better to say, "demolition as defined on Page 10" and do it consistently. Mr. Kelety suggested in addition to that defmition of demolition, they change "includes" in #2 to "pertains to." The problem with includes, it can be everything else that doesn't have to do with historical character. Weare defining demolition as it drives to changing the historical structure of the building. Mr. Berg, 17.30.085.A, thought the crux was #4, part of the defmition that contains the clause that lets a lot of demolition off the hook, is very, very difficult to understand. He would like to reword to: "Demolition does not include demolition that is part of alteration, . .." Just make clear what isn't included as a demolition. Mr. Kelety asked ifhe was replacing all of#4 with something. Mr. Berg replied he was not. Mr. McDonagh suggested "Demolition does not include the structural removal or relocation of portions of a building or structure that are not important to defming the historic character . . ." Mr. Benskin asked if he was adding relocation there? Mr. McDonagh said he was basically taking what demolition is in #1 and turning it into what is not in #4; does not include the structural removal or relocation. Ms. King noted a double negative and suggested: "Demolition does include the structural removal or relocation of portions of a building or structure that are important to defining the historic character. . ." Mr. Berg pointed out they had already said that and that they are trying to say what is not included. CONSENSUS: Reword 17.30.085.A.4 to make clear what it pertains to and what is not included in demolitions. Mr. Berg again raised the issue, should they or should they not be requiring these fmancial statements? He thought it worth discussing, but maybe for the next meeting. Mr. Kelety thought to discuss it if they agreed on the general substance, if they are down to the last little issues. Mr. Benskin thought they were not that near the conclusion. Chair Thayer poled the Commissioners. Mr. Berg thought there were places with only one-word changes. Chair Thayer thought they owed it to Mr. Kellogg to go through and answer his concerns, because he went through this pretty specifically. Mr. Benskin concurred and said there were also some other comments given this evening that bring up some questions. He said that basically they had a lot of information that came to this evening they haven't had a chance to look at. He thought there was a lot of information and were a lot of questions they haven't even answered in their own minds. It would be good to postpone this, have some time to chew through it a little bit and address concerns or brush strokes they need to. BROAD BRUSH ISSUES · Add 17:30.050.D. conclude with ... "With the exception of demolition, compliance with certificates of approval . . . ." · Add 17.030.040C.5 Uptown District and add boundaries. · Add Uptown District to the other districts in the Historic Preservation Manual. · Cross reference 17.30.020.B.l. partial or complete demolition, to 17.030.085.A · 17.30.060.A., General requirements. Prior to the partial or complete demolition. Change from "partial or complete demolition" to say, "demolition as defined on Page 10", and say it consistently. · Reword 17.30.085.AA to make clear what it pertains to and what is not included in demolitions. · In a demolition, if a process doesn't work or isn't fmancially doable do the first process fIrst then go to the . second process. (As suggested by Ms. Hersey) Chair Thayer asked to entertain a motion. She also asked about dates for continuing this public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes, November 20,2003/ Page 18 . . . Mr. McDonagh noted that December 11 City Council is having a meeting in the City County Chambers, but the Pope Marine Building would be available. He stated the next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for December 11. Ms. Hersey said she would be unavailable on December 11 and Mr. Randels was unsure of his availability, leaving it to five Commissioners with Mr. Arthur recused. MOTION Mr. Berg Continue the Public Hearing for the Draft Overlay District -- Design Review Ordinance to December 11,2003, in the Pope Marine Building SECOND Mr. Benskin Discussion: Mr. Benskin asked to start the December 11 meeting earlier than 7:00 p.m. It was inconvenient for some and left at 7:00 p.m. VOTE Passed unanimously by voice vote, 7 in favor Mr. McDonagh asked concerning broad brush clarification regarding making the demolition definition clearer, including reference to the Port's concerns and Staffs intent, and including the Uptown District. Mr. Randels noted it is tougher one for Uptown; the Port is almost an equal party and can negotiate. The Uptown almost feels they should be exempted themselves. Mr. McDonagh asked regarding Uptown -- voluntary until such time as guidelines are formally in place. CONSENSUS: Approve as discussed Ms. Hersey mentioned Mr. Watts' suggestion for change to allow for a two step process doing A then B, rather than both processes at once. Mr. Watts concurred. Mr. McDonagh spoke of it as phased review. VIII UPCOMING MEETINGS December 11,2003 Continued Public Hearing, Draft Overlay District -- Design Review Ordinance IX. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to conclude the meeting was made by Mr. Randels and seconded by Mr. Benskin. All were in favor. The meeting ended at 10:20 p.m. The public hearing was continued to 7:00 p.m., December 11,2003, in the Pope Marine Building to continue deliberation and take action on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, November 20,2003/ Page 19 . . . Meeting of: Purpose: Date: GUEST LIST Planning Commission Historic Overlay District - Design Review Ordinance November 20. 2003 Name (please print) Address éJ)r-e VJ ~. ¡: t'íJf' Þ<' /v (J /' T: 9zQ d Sf, J OtJþ L4tJeLJo'¡¿ Sir, \Ùl(;. LA V\JR~LCi Cre, t:A~dd- D v rA/C-G-fJ ,.¿ l( 0 ~\1l$LL Testimon ? Yes No ~. c./' l><.. --- . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Historic Overlay District - Design Review Ordinance November 20. 2003 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No ~bi\k~1J\ ~ g 2288 3S~ St- ?T' V / y( Q v , <JZ,<>-L- , " C'~ <,:'L.. ~ Ct\l1-œ.~~ cl 0 ----- U L..J