Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12112003 Min Ag · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 pm December 11,2003 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - November 20,2003 V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. Unfinished Business Continuation of Open-Record Public Hearing Historic Overlay District - Design Review Ordinance 1. BCD Staff presentation & recap of November 20, 2003 meeting 2. Acceptance of additional written public comments (Exhibits E & F) 3. Planning Commission Deliberation & Action VII. Upcoming Meetings: Tuesday, December 16 - Growth Management Indicators Report VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING December 11, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.rn. in the City Council Chambers rather than the Pope Marine Building as previously scheduled. Notices of relocation were posted at both locations. The purpose of the meeting was to continue the open record public hearing from November 20, 2003 on the Historic Overlay District -- Design Review Ordinance. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Frank Benskin, Richard Berg, JeffKelety, Alice King and George Randels; Bernie Arthur was recused; Lyn Hersey and Jim Irvin were excused. Also present were BCD Planner John McDonagh and City Attorney John Watts. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Berg made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Benskin seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 6, 2003 -- Mr. Kelety made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected; Mr. Randels seconded. All were in favor. November 20, 2003 -- Mr. Randels made a motion to approve the minutes as written; Mr. Kelety seconded. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was none VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continuation of Open Record Public Hearing HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT - DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE Chair Thayer reopened the public hearing continued from November 20, 2003 to receive testimony on any new information and to accept exhibits new to the record of the November 20 meeting. She called for the BCD Staff presentation. Mr. McDonagh noted that at the conclusion of the November 20 meeting it was the consensus of the Planning Commission for Staff to make some revisions to the ordinance. Those revisions and Staff also additions as delineated in the Staff Memo to the Planning Commission of December 5, 2003 include: 1) Uptown area guidelines -- needed before compliance with Design Review applications in this area becomes mandatory. (See 17.30.050.D, page 8; also pages 7 and 24.) Demolition provisions became mandatory for uptown. 2) Demolition defmitions -- Staff provided additional clarifications and references. (See 17.30.085, page 10; also cross-reference to 17.30.085(A) definition on page 4 and throughout.) 3) Port -- Staff incorporated language related to the Port of Port Townsend's concerns specifically geared to Point Hudson, and also to adopting a sub-area plan for some other areas of town (guidelines, goals and policies). 4) Waiver -- Staff added a paragraph on page 12 regarding an applicant seeking demolition. Mr. McDonagh reported the memo clarified the record by delineating exhibits previously presented and including new exhibits from Mr. Finnie and Mr. Kellogg. He also noted enclosure of the Historic Preservation Flow Chart Mr. Watts revised to clarify and include numqers. Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2003 / Page 1 · · · Mr. Watts distributed and explained new exhibits: Exhibit G: E-mail to Mr. Watts from Mary Winters, Attorney to the Port of Port Townsend, indicating that the Port is preliminarily in agreement with the proposed amendment to the ordinance (page 9). The amendment says that if down the road City Council, following public process including Planning Commission recommendation, adopts a sub-area plan or some other plan including development regulations that could apply to a specific area within the Historic District, i.e., Port of Port Townsend, Point Hudson, a new sub- district, etc., that plan would control over the provisions of this ordinance. In the meantime, the provisions of the ordinance control; the provisions are applicable to all structures within the Historic District including Point Hudson. This is essentially a process-type amendment that if certain things happen in the future, those things may override the ordinance without a specific ordinance amendment. Exhibit H: Further proposed amendment to a provision existing on page 12 of the draft ordinance. The bold underlined section between paragraphs C and D is the result ofLyn Hersey's comment that there should be a provision in the ordinance to allow an applicant to obtain a determination from the City whether a proposal to demolish a building is entitled to a waiver. Her concern was that an applicant needs to have that determination made before going through all the design review and expense of preparing architectural drawings to determine whether or not a replacement is or is not going to be approved as an acceptable design review. This addressed Ms. Hersey's very appropriate comments and was a important clarification or addition to the process. Exhibit H is an amendment to that section shown as two additional sentences in bold italics and provides for two things: 1) in addition to the opportunity already provided for a building owner to have a determination whether the building is or is not an historic structure and thereby would go through the heightened review process; 2) allows the applicant, building owner, prospective purchaser to seek a determination whether a demolition or partial demolition constitutes a significant alteration to an historic building. That is important under the way the provisions are set up, because, if the building is historic and if the alteration is significant, the proposed alteration has to go through the heightened design review. This proposal would allow for a determination as to whether or not the building is historic and also whether or not the proposed alteration is or is not significant. If not an historic building and if not a significant alteration, the existing design review procedures apply. Sentence 2 addresses another concern. Once a determination is made, that decision under this proposed language would be binding for a period of 5 years to allow some predictability and certainty for purposes of allowing the owner to engage in further planning as to what the owner should do. This is a different from the other time requirement in the draft ordinance that says if an owner proposes and obtains a permit for demolition, the BCD Director can approve the demolishing because the ordinance requirements for demolition have been met, but you need to rebuild within a specified timeframe. That is a different section of the ordinance. This is a different concept. This handout came about from conversations today with Joe Finnie as a potential purchaser and the need for purchasers to have an opportunity to determine whether or not the draft ordinance applies to the building in question and also for some predictability and certainty in their future planning. Mr. Watts noted that Mr. Finnie was present and has indicated he is comfortable with these additions being an improvement to the ordinance. Mr. Finnie will take the opportunity to address the Commission. Planning Commission Ouestions: Q Mr. Randels to Mr. Watts: On that point you just made, does the definition of applicant, if there is one, include a contract purchaser? A Mr. Watts: The application provisions say that in order for an application to be processed, it has to be processed with approval of the owner. If the owner gives permission to a purchaser, that would allow the purchaser's application to be submitted. Q Mr. Kelety: Does it have to be for sale? A Mr. Watts: The owner, himself/herself can come in and say they are thinking of some future alterations to this building and need to know whether or not they are going to go through existing design review, or may be required to go through heightened design review. So, the owner can submit an application for a determination on that issue, or the owner's agent or representative, including somebody to whom the owner might be contemplating a sale. Q Mr. Kelety: It is the owner who has to initiate it? A Mr. Watts: Concurred saying the owner has to either initiate or give written statement saying this person has their permission to process an application. Chair Thayer accepted the new exhibits and entered into the record Exhibit G, the Port's e-mail from Attorney Planning Commission Minutes, December 11,2003/ Page 2 · Mary Winters; and Exhibit H, Staffs draft revised language to 17.30.085.C. She opened the hearing for public testimony on any new issues and called for Mr. Finnie's testimony. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Joe Finnie, 546 Clay Street, Port Townsend Mr. Finnie read his comments and submitted them for the record that were entered as Exhibit I. He recommended approval of the City Attorney's draft amendment to the proposed ordinance as presented at this meeting. · Malcom Dorn, 760 Beach Street, Port Townsend Mr. Dorn is a business owner and property owner in the Uptown business district in Port Townsend (1027 Lawrence Street). This ordinance being considered affects his property. He said he has the dubious distinction of paying the mortgage on some funky old buildings that house the Boiler Room, Sweet Laurette, Insight Bodywork, Puffin Shoe Repair, Wallyworks Construction, Oracle Children's Theater, and Jefferson Land Trust. He said regarding the mandatory overlay for the HPC, mandatory review versus mandatory compliance, he wanted to state his opposition to the proposed amendment as it stands. He said to the City's credit, he wished to respect and appreciate the workshop that was put on a year ago that Mr. McDonagh was a part of, that it was very helpful for business owners and property owners to be apprised of the opportunities that exist for historic preservation in our community by applying tax breaks, lower interest rate loans, etc. He believed that much can be done to promote and preserve historic values of our community, but was concerned that the legislative method of compliance is not so much in keeping with the spirit of the community as are the incentives and opportunities that exist. He went on record stating his opposition to the mandatory HPC requirement. He appreciated the HPC's involvement in terms of recommendations, recently having gone through a process where he participated through the HPC in making some alterations to the exterior of some buildings; it was a fme process and he appreciated being a part of it. He said, however, for the HPC to take it to the next step and making those absolutely mandatory, he felt was counter-productive to the creative spirit of our community. Uptown, in particular, has enjoyed a freedom of spirit, and a creative spirit that many of the Uptown businesses and property owners enjoy. They would like to continue to enjoy those freedoms. He said, basically, he could appreciate that the HPC has done a fme job of encouraging compliance. He would like to see that continue, but he would also like to see the quality creative projects that are possible not be kibashed through the HPC process from here on out. Chair Thayer asked Mr. Dorn if he was at the last meeting. Mr. Dorn said he had planned to attend but had a family emergency. She explained that they drafted some new language they are going to talk about tonight, making the Uptown voluntary compliance until some there are some guidelines for design review. Mr. Dorn thanked Ms. Thayer and said he had seen that. Mr. Dorn answered Mr. Kelety regarding his concerns that he had conversation with Mr. McDonagh who made him aware to the fact this (voluntary) was just interim until the guidelines are developed. He affirmed that his concerns still stand, that basically even if we establish new guidelines for mandatory compliance, he still feels like it closes the door to the creative expression he enjoys being part of in the Uptown business community. Exhibits for the Record Exhibits presented as of the November 20,2003 public hearing: Exhibit A -- Letter from the Port of Port Townsend (dated September 25,2003 and provided at the October 6, 2003 Workshop) Exhibit B -- Letter from Duncan Kellogg (received by BCD November 17, 2003 and mailed to Commission members the same date) Exhibit C -- A Petition signed by Uptown area "friends and neighbors" (dated November 3,2003 and presented at the November 6,2003 workshop) Exhibit D -- Memorandum from Michael Jones, dated and received November 20, 2003 Exhibits presented in the December 5, 2003 Staff Memo: Exhibit E -- Letter from Joe Finnie, dated November 21, 2003 and forwarded in Commission packets · Exhibit F -- E-mail from Duncan Kellogg, dated November 27,2003 and forwarded in Commission packets Exhibits presented at the December 11, 2003 continued public hearing: Planning Commission Minutes, December 11,2003/ Page 3 · Exhibit G -- E-mail to City Attorney Watts from Mary Winters, Attorney to the Port of Port Townsend, dated December 11, 2003 Exhibit H -- Staffs draft revision to 17.30.085.C (page 12 of December 5, 2003 Draft Ordinance) dated December 11,2003, Exhibit I -- Written comments read by Mr. Joe Finnie in public testimony December 11,2003 At 7:30 p.rn. Chair Thayer closed public testimony and opened the meeting to Planning Commission deliberation and action. Deliberation of the draft ordinance was conducted page by page. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Mr. Watts explained that the only changes from the previous version that are in either the December 3rd or December 5 version are ones noted in the December 5,2003 Staff Memo to the Planning Commission. Those changes stated in the memo are shown in the current draft as bold and underlined. Page 2 Mr. Berg asked regarding the only things bold and not underlined. Mr. Watts explained that on Pages 2 and 3 the only things bold and underlined are headings and are not new, not changes. Any text that is bold and underlined is new. The first change is on page 4. Chair Thayer reiterated they were going through this draft page by page whether or not there is a change. Mr. McDonagh said he thought specifically they were concerned about Mr. Kellogg's letter. Chair Thayer agreed those were some of the things they wanted to address. Page 3 Mr. Randels asked to hear Staffs response to Mr. Kellogg's concerns, i.e., "enhance," "blight," "poor quality of design," "outstanding," and "certain types." Mr. Berg explained the changes were already made. Mr. McDonagh concurred that was done at a meeting previous to Mr. Randels involvement. He thought that was the rather the essence of Mr. Kellogg's letter of November 27, that a lot of the work he put into his November 20 submittal he felt had been addressed, but his November 27 letter still raised some concerns. · Page 4 B.l & 2 -- Mr. McDonagh noted (as defined in 17.30.085(A)), were additions as a result of the last meeting, and in the memo. Page 6 C. -- Mr. McDonagh noted Waterfront was deleted because of the addition of#5 on the bottom of page 7, Uptown Subdistrict. Mr. Berg pointed out that Waterfront in the text, in the sentence should also be deleted. Page 7 5. -- Mr. Benskin asked regarding the Uptown Subdistrict, what the process is for developing that subdistrict's defmition and everything that goes along with it. Mr. McDonagh replied that is yet to be determined. Assuming Council adopts a recommendation like they are looking at to direct Staff to form an Uptown subcommittee, probably the Mayor and the CD/LU Committee would be charged with inviting applicants or selecting participants, obviously inviting Uptown business owners, building owners, community citizens and leaders. They would then go about holding public task force meetings to do that work. Ms. Thayer said the good thing about this is that it would remain voluntary until then. Mr. Benskin asked if there is a timeframe. Mr. McDonagh replied that seeing this has taken from April 2002 until now, and the easy part of this work was that they weren't really dealing with guidelines, more or less using existing guidelines already adopted either in code or by formality of use with the HPC, he would see it being at least the first two, possibly three, quarters of2004, if they got on it right away. Mr. Watts explained the Council would determine what the process is and would then delegate that to appropriate committee, if any. Whatever the process, it would come back through the Planning Commission, most likely through HPC, and ultimately back through the Council. · Page 8 (Issue #1) D. Mr. Randels was confused regarding the wording in the Uptown section. He asked for clarification in this Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2003 / Page 4 . . . thinking that D.2. eliminates D.l. Ms. Thayer replied that D.2. is for demolition. D.l. is for change, alteration, or remodel. Mr. Watts concurred that is the clear intent. Mr. Randels asked if it then means that an application for a demolition of an Uptown structure falls under the same guidelines that presently apply downtown? Ms. Thayer replied affirmatively. Mr. McDonagh concurred, but that would apply downtown if the provisions of this code were adopted. Mr. Randels asked why he understood they decided to defer that at the last meeting. Ms. King replied they specifically decided not to defer the demolition part; it's the historic guidelines that say such things as how you will rebuild or how you remodel, what kind of facade or siding you will use. She thought they were quite specific regarding demolition, saying they wanted that part of the ordinance to apply. Mr. McDonagh noted that was also the direction Staff heard. Mr. Randels asked if someone wants to demolish a building Uptown, they have to demonstrate that they can't meet the criteria, economic or whatever -- standards in the ordinance. Mr. McDonagh explained that they would first have to go through a process. Since Mr. Dorn was in attendance he specifically referenced the building on the corner of the Oracle complex, the Puffm Shoe building. If Mr. Dorn decided he wished to demolish that building, his first step would be to go to the HPC and request a decision or recommendation from them as to whether or not that building constituted an historic structure. HPC would make a recommendation on that before he would go to any expense in plans, other designs or replacement structures. IfHPC determined it was an historic building per the criteria spelled out in the draft code, he would be subject to heightened review for the structural and economic analysis. If not deemed to be an historic structure, didn't meet enough of those criteria, it would be design review as usual -- show us a replacement structure; show us what you want to do. Mr. Randels said to suppose it was decided to be historic, the owner demonstrates the economic and feasibility of continuing with that structure, and gets a permit. He can then tear it down and building anything in its place, or leave it empty; is that correct or not? Mr. McDonagh replied it would require design review approval by the HPC. Ifhe went through and could meet the structural and economic threshold and HPC agrees, BCD agrees with HPC, the next step would be for the owner to show a replacement structure that meets the design guidelines. Ms. King interjected, voluntary design guidelines. Mr. McDonagh clarified this section means it would be mandatory. Mr. Randels said he was then back to the question, D.2 obviates D.l? Ms. Thayer replied D.l says change, alteration or remodel; D.2 says demolition. Mr. Randels said his conclusion from the explanation he just heard was that they have not done with this change what he thought at the last meeting they were going to do, not to have mandatory design review for anything Uptown until the guidelines were put in place. Mr. Watts explained the direction Staff took was in the very limited circumstance where there was a demolition or an significant alteration to an historic building, in those narrow circumstances the provisions of the new ordinance would apply, even Uptown. Mr. Kelety asked if there were an empty lot Uptown next to the Puffin building, and they wanted to build a new building there, what design standards would apply. Mr. Watts replied it would be the existing ones, mandatory review/voluntary compliance. Mr. Randels said what that indicates for this narrow circumstance, the building in question is deemed to be historic and the building would no longer be voluntary compliance Mr. Kelety stated if you start with something historical, it has to come back historical. Mr. Benskin expressed concern regarding Mr. Watts' comment regarding significant alteration and lumping it in with demolition as triggering mandatory regulations Uptown. As he understood, the only thing they talked about mandatory regulations kicking in Uptown was demolition, not a significant alteration. He asked if he were correct that as it sits now, significant alteration compliance is voluntary there? Mr. Watts replied that maybe this needs to be clarified to Staff, but the way this is drafted, is what he and Mr. McDonagh understood from the comments at the last meeting. He explained the way it reads, if it is a demolition the provisions that apply Downtown apply Uptown. He then asked, "What is a demolition?" The demolition provisions only apply if the building is "historic." He said the example they have been talking about Downtown is that if Burrito Depot came in for demolition, would the demolition provisions apply? Probably not, because most people would say that is not a building that is "historic," That is rather the first step you go through. The second step is that if you are proposing a significant alteration to an historic building, the demolition guidelines apply because you are basically demolishing significant features of an historic building. If somebody wanted to propose a significant alteration to Burrito Depot, the building probably not historic, you would go through existing design review and not care if the alteration is or is not significant. If you are proposing a significant alteration to City Hall, that significant alteration is the equivalent of a demolition because you are basically affecting in a substantial way the historic features, and you would go through the demolition procedures. Mr. Watts said if that is not what the Commission wants for Uptown, they can qualify that now in the next draft. Mr. Benskin indicated that would not be his choice. Chair Thayer asked for show of hands if that is what they meant at the last meeting. Ms. King, Mr. Berg, and Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2003 / Page 5 · · · Mr. Kelety concurred. Mr. Kelety said he had very specifically asked someone giving testimony previously who said she was not talking about demolition, but talking about wanting such things as to change a window. He said that is why he precisely asked that, and he feels very confident that they made the distinction of demolition versus remodel even uptown. Ms. King noted they added the defmition of demolition, "Demolition (or partial demolition) does not include the destruction or removal of portions of a buildine: or structure that are not sie:nificant to definine: its historic character. . . ." If it is determined to be historic and someone wants to knock off the cupola of the Cupola House, or whatever, that is significant to defming the historic character of that building. That is part of the demolition to which this ordinance would apply. She thought that a long time ago they had this discussion. Ms. Thayer added her vote to the previous show of hands as also remembering that. Mr. Berg thought what they meant and what his intent was, that demolition was defined by section 17.30.085 and every time they say demolition, they are in accordance that is what that means. It is not what it means three, four or some times. He thinks it is important that they say what the defmition is and the definition is consistent. Chair Thayer said four of them agree that is what was said, and suggested they continue on. Page 8 (Issue #2) Mr. Berg said to suppose Mr. Dorn proposes to tear down Puffin, and if deemed to be historic, the demolition requirements apply and he has to prove that it is either going to fall down, or he can't make any money on it, in order to get a permit to tear it down. Say, he proves that, is given permission to tear it down, and he has to propose a replacement structure under this ordinance. The question, is the design review of that replacement structure mandatory or not? Chair Thayer stated that is the question she had just previously asked. Mr. Benskin thought they all agreed on it. Chair Thayer restated the question that if you have demolition and you rebuild, is that mandatory? Staff interpreted that as the Commission believing that reverts to what was Downtown and it would be mandatory review/mandatory compliance. Mr. Berg questioned if they were talking about demolishing a whole building or partially demolishing a building and demolishing historic features. Mr. Kelety asked if they hadn't defined demolition. He said they are now saying two different things: 1) the defmition of demolition; 2) if demolished what do you do? Mr. Randels thought they said for Uptown they would defer imposing the mandatory compliance portion until guidelines were adopted. Mr. Watts said he thought the problem articulated, what is a demolition? He thought it easy to understand if it is a total demolition; everybody understands what that is. Ms. Thayer said that is not their question. Some thought it was mandatory review/voluntary compliance. Staff interpreted it as being mandatory review/mandatory compliance. She said that is what they need to decide. She said they know demolition. Mr. Watts asked to clarify that if it is a partial demolition of an historic structure, say the removal of the cupola on the Cupola House, and is determined to be a significant alteration to an historic building and therefore you have to go through heightened review to show whether or not you can do it. Let's say you satisfy the heightened review, that is a necessary alteration. If that is a partial demolition only, if the provisions on review are voluntary, can you do anything you want with the building thereafter? Is that the follow-up? Mr. Randels replied, absolutely, until the guidelines are in place. Mr. Benskin concurred. Ms. Thayer said they wanted mandatory review/voluntary compliance until the new guidelines are in place. Mr. Kelety thought maybe they get hung up on the term demolition. Mr. Randels said it is the same in both cases; you can't comply with guidelines that don't exist. Mr. Watts clarified there are guidelines; they are not Uptown guidelines. There are historic guidelines per the Secretary of Interior; they are just not specific district guidelines. Chair Thayer called for a vote by show of hands: How many are favor of mandatory review/mandatory compliance for rebuilding after demolition. Ms. King and Mr. Kelety were in favor How many are for mandatory review/voluntary compliance until guidelines are in place? Mr. Benskin, Ms. Thayer, Mr. Randels and Mr. Berg were in favor. Ms. King said referenced the part on demolition that says "conceptual approval for new replacement structure," and asked where to fmd the part that says Uptown. Mr. McDonagh replied it is in D.l on page 8, Certificate of review is not binding. .. Ms. Thayer said they need to add that as well to D.2. Mr. Benskin thought perhaps a Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2003 / Page 6 . . e definition was needed for a partial demolition, and where it turns into a significant alteration would be helpful. He thought there was a gray area where they got hung up. Mr. Berg referred to the defmition at the bottom of page 10. Mr. Kelety said basically they have no demolition ordinance. Mr. Berg said you still can't tear something down unless you can prove it is falling down. .. Ms. Thayer concurred saying they still have that; it's the rebuilding. Mr. Watts asked that on the chance the ordinance gets forwarded tonight with a recommendation "yea" or "nay," they need to clarify the vote the Commission just took. Uptown there will remain the mandatory review and will remain the voluntary compliance whether or not it is a simple alteration changing out a window or whether a demolition. Mr. McDonagh said D.2 becomes superfluous. Mr. Watts said there is no mandatory provision applicable. Ms. King countered, if it is a perfectly viable historic structure with economic use and there is nothing wrong with it. Mr. Watts said that is one place that if it is a total demolition of an historic structure or an historic feature, they would have to preserve it if the rules governing the Downtown are met. Ms. Thayer said they are talking about after demolition. Mr. Watts asked, so you still go through the process of mandatory review and a determination is reached as to whether the building that is proposed for demolition is or is not historic, or whether the feature that is proposed for demolition or alteration is or is not historic. If it is determined to be historic, and you cannot satisfy or show that you need to demolish or remove it per the guidelines, you are stuck. If on the other hand you satisfy the requirements to show that it can be demolished or remove, you get to do it and you are not subject to the review process afterwards. Mr. Berg asked mandatory review of the replacement structure? Mr. McDonagh clarified, mandatory review but voluntary compliance. Page 11 B.l -- Mr. Benskin spoke of unsafe conditions and the BCD Director's decision. Ms. Thayer asked how the Director can know the building is unsafe; he has to have some basis. Mr. McDonagh concurred, saying absent something falling and hurting someone, or some obvious conditions. B.2 -- Mr. Berg raised the issue of requiring an engineer's report, a financial analyst report, etc. Ms. Thayer reminded that they also included where you can get an immediate determination. Mr. Berg asked whether they should be asking for this at all. Mr. Randels thought it was worth talking about because it is the heart of the whole issue; if you don't talk about that, you are ignoring the heart of the issue. He said last time someone said one of the things they are doing (and they shouldn't do it unconsciously) is increasing the cost of demolishing or substantially changing historic structures, but that is what they are doing, and this drives that home. It does increase the cost, not just by making someone hire a consultant, but in effect by saying the economics of that structure is different from the economics of the burrito place. Ms. King stated they are encouraging adaptive reuse, that if this is an historic structure, they would rather look at other ways of using it than just tear it down or say it is cheaper to tear it down. Increasing the cost may be an unintended consequence, but it is not the reason. The reason is to look at this building to see whether or not it is a viable building. Mr. Kelety indicated the idea had been presented that they intend demolition to be a little more difficult. One person testifying said it is more expensive to do historical preservation than it is to raze the thing and put up a replica or whatever. Ms. King thought the cost should be necessary in making the determination. Mr. Kelety said that it should not be just for the purpose of just raising some money. Ms. King added, if they need the information in order to determine whether or not it is a viable building. Mr. Kelety suggested if it is superfluous, don't do it, but if this information is important and contains real information they need, they ought to keep it. Mr. Benskin thought one of the unintended consequences ofleaving that in is that it actually encourages people to let their buildings become dilapidated and fall down or seek a demolition permit because they are a danger to the public safety. Mr. Kelety countered, not a danger because that has already been included, but an imminent threat. Mr. Benskin indicated they can become an imminent threat as an avoidance to paying all these costs to demolish the building; this is a lot of money to spend out of pocket for an application. Ms. Kingreplied they are spending a lot anyway, and Mr. Benskin replied it seemed to him they are real loose with spending other people's money to preserve not necessarily their building, but the illusion of what their building brings to our community. We are willing to add the cost to the individual to preserve that portion of our community, but we are not willing to share the cost dollar for dollar. He thought they needed to look at this carefully, how they add the cost on the individual who owns the building. Mr. Kelety responded that he thought they were in agreement that they look at it, but he wouldn't like them to say that it costs more and get rid of it without asking if it is valuable. Mr. Benskin thought the determination of its being valuable is necessary, but at what point do they bankrupt the person that is trying to either do something with Planning Commission Minutes, December 11,2003/ Page 7 · · · a white elephant they have and replace it or fIx it? If they make the cost of fixing the building unapproachable for the person, they will let it deteriorate and it will be demolished because it is a health hazard. Mr. Berg said all you have to do is apply for a building permit and an HPC review. If you want to demolish it, you have to do all this. Mr. Kelety stated maintenance is not the issue. Chair Thayer asked how many feel they need to back off from this. Five voted to leave B.2 as written, Mr. Benskin opposed. Page 12 C. Waiver -- Exhibit H, change requested by Mr. Finnie (see Exhibit I). Consensus was to accept the change. Page 13 D. last paragraph. Ms. Thayer had some concern regarding, ". . .not accurate to a material degree, . .." She tended to agree with Mr. Kellogg it is really subjective and how do you defme material. Mr. Watts replied the concept of peer review, and figuring out who pays for it, is not unique to this ordinance. This is common in various types of regulations, whether environmental review, or such things as wetland or habitat review. This language "to a material degree" is used somewhat commonly in this kind of situation. If there is an issue about whether or not the owner's report is inaccurate to a material degree, is challenged and is inaccurate, that issue will ultimately go to the Hearings Examiner or to the court. He said if the word is changed to "substantial" it means different things to different people, but the concept is the same. Ms. King stated that a couple of times it has been noted that you cannot demolish and leave open space, as it is proposed. Mr. Watts answered, that issue is addressed on page 15. Page 15 F.2 -- Chair Thayer referenced Mr. Kellogg's comments (Exhibit F), and asked if this is the demolition or the permit, and if they hadn't talked about it being the permit. Ms. King noted this is under Certificate of Approval. Mr. Watts asked if they want it to read 3 years of approval. Ms. Thayer asked what approval -- 3 years of building permit or demolition? There was discussion of the sentence structure. Mr. Watts asked for clarification of what the Commission wanted. Mr. Randels thought the timeframe of a building permit is different from what they are saying here and that approval of the design would be appropriate. Mr. Watts agreed that once you get the approval of your design, you can go ahead with the demolition; you have to do the replacement within "X" years once you get your demolition permit -- that is tied to the replacement. Mr. Berg thought "of the replacement design" was the appropriate benchmark. Mr. McDonagh pointed out the heading of the Section F is Certificate of Approval for Demolition - Conditions. He stated these are conditions the Director can place on an approved demolition, and he suggested inserting under F.2. the second condition: A Certificate of approval for a replacement building design including establishment. . . Mr. Watts suggested a change that was agreed to: Consensus: Change as follows -- 2. Certificate of approval for a replacement building design; 3. Establishment of a fmancial arrangement or assurance acceptable to the city that ensures or provides reasonable assurance the approved replacement structure will be built within (3) ~ years of approval of the replacement design (provided, ...., 4. Conditions. . . Mr. Benskin spoke regarding the period of time from the approval of the design and the issuance of certificate of demolition, and asked about a set period of time that can be opened for public comment. He said they also don't know how long it is going to take to get the building permit for the project. He was concerned trying to set a benchmark of approval of the building design by HPC and all of the other processes. He thought 3 years to get the building done was a short period of time. Mr. Watts clarified the steps suggested by Mr. Benskin, that you start by making an application for demolition based on structural, why you can't feasibly build, etc. That process may take months. He suggested that perhaps at month three, you obtain a certificate of demolition; in order to do that you have to meet those requirements, and in order to get your certificate of demolition you also have to show the replacement structure in a conceptual form. You then have your certificate of demolition that is only granted based on the replacement. Now you can start the demolition process, actually demolish. Mr. Benskin asked if there isn't a period of time that could be set aside for public comment? Mr. Watts replied it would only be if there was an appeal. If there is an appeal, it means that the determination isn't fmal until the appeal is resolved. Planning Commission Minutes, December 11,2003/ Page 8 · · · Ms. King said her concern about open space is just a delay in the rebuilding. You just said demolition was granted partially based on what you are going to replace it with, not a scenario that doesn't exist. You couldn't propose a park, an open space or propose to replace your historic building with trees and shrubs. Mr. McDonagh explained that you could not, as it is currently written. The provisions regarding Point Hudson is sort of an attempt to address that because some of the Port's potential scenarios involve relocating a building and having nothing there, If a sub-area plan is adopted it clarifies that and says that is a good result; these guidelines would be changed to reflect that sub-area plan. Mr. Randels shared the same concern. He showed a picture from The Leader of the Nomura barn that had recently collapsed in a windstorm. Chair Thayer noted it was not in the Historic Overlay District, and Mr. Randels explained he wanted to use it as an example of what might occur somewhere else. He said we have a land use map that shows a lot of green; it is a dream that we all hope might some day come to fruition. He indicated that might be the case if there were not provision giving latitude for that rare occasion when a proposed demolition and no replacement make sense. He thought they really ought to think about it. Mr. Watts thought one "out" that may address, that pretty remote hypothetical, was that it was hard for him to believe that someone was just going to want to tear something down and plant a tree; unless, it's the Port because they have a kind of different mission than the private owner. If suggested if someone wanted to do something like that, he thought the out is to propose either a sub-area plan or a type of plan that could be approved by the Council as part of an over-ride to these regulations, e.g., one Mr. Timmons talked about, not a sub-area plan but it could be broadened, the Back Ally area on Tyler Street. Maybe it could be a sub-area with planning, development regulations and guidelines that would allow either park and structure, possibly a parking structure, that could go in there as part of a sub-area plan. That is not demolition and really doesn't talk about that issue, but he thought something similar to that could accomplish perhaps what you are talking about. You would apply for a plan, and if the plan were approved it could conceivably occur. Mr. Berg asked if there were a waiver clause. Mr. Watts pointed out the waiver was not intended to apply if the proposal is to demolish an historic building or for something somebody just wants to create, the missing tooth, Mr. Berg asked about the building that houses the Nifty Fifty's, if they were given approval to demolish and they wanted their legacy to possibly be replacement with an expanded Adams Street park. Mr. Watts said that was a perfect example of someone stating the conditions in their will. You would need to do a "sub-area" for that block and state what the vision is for say the next 20 years; that is the concept of Point Hudson. That is theoretically possible, not directly through this ordinance. The ordinance has kind of a place holder for the possibility of a sub-area plan taking precedence over the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Kelety asked if this ordinance does not preclude that happening? Mr. Watts concurred. Page 22 4.d. -- Mr. Benskin said sometimes utilizing traditional materials and craftsmanship is not possible on an historic structure. Ms. Thayer would consider eliminating this, and said in the City Hall meeting they talked about replication and how many times it is so much cheaper now to do that. Mr. Benskin said there are a lot of materials today that replicate Victorian detail and their costs are a lot less. Mr. Kelety did not disagree, but said the language doesn't preclude that. Mr. Berg pointed out this sections is talking about new buildings; Mr. Benskin spoke about traditional methods. Ms. Thayer indicated it is discouraged but not prohibited. Mr. Berg thought the main point is replicating historic things using traditional materials in designing a new building in an Historic District. It was his opinion that this makes sense. 5.b Note -- Wording, "Substantially sillier." Page 23 B.3.a. -- Mr. Benskin asked regarding the reference to Norway Maples. Mr. McDonagh pointed out HPC indicated the Norway Maples were selected many years ago in the Streetscape Design Manual; their features are not the type of tree desired downtown, and they wanted this struck from the guidelines. Page 24 17.30.160 -- Mr. Benskin asked why this manual is in the ordinance, that it seems to be a separate subject. We use it, but it has never been adopted as an official manual. Mr. McDonagh explained they were tasked by City Council to determine what was right or wrong with our preservation codes, and what they would propose to do with them. One thing, they felt their demolition standards were not correct, that having them in two separate codes wasn't user friendly. One suggestion from both the citizen's committee and HPC was getting all of the guidelines, some formally adopted and some not, together into one manual, something reasonably thin, to be able to provide to building owners or prospective purchasers, etc. It is separate from the demolition ordinance, but it was an assigned Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2003 / Page 9 · · · task of both the citizen's committee and HPC. The intent is to be able to pull this out as they want to be pull this out to change the guidelines and not have to go back and revisit the entire ordinance e.g., review the Uptown guidelines independently and insert them. Mr. Watts clarified this is not just a demolition ordinance, but a demolition section which is placed into the Historic Preservation codes. This is way broader than the demolition ordinance. Mr. Benskin said he understood, but what they were doing is a standard for all construction for the district as decided by the HPC, the guidelines for alterations. It has a broader effect. Mr. Berg asked if this manual existed before, or was it put together to go with this? Mr. McDonagh, replied it was a little of both. It has been put together to go with this, but the previous manual was three times thicker with terminology, glossaries, and also these guidelines. He answered Mr. Berg's question regarding the purpose, that some of the guidelines HPC used were not formally adopted by Council; others were. The ones that are in this code that are not underlined, existing text taken from one of the existing chapters, were formally adopted guidelines; the Streets cape Guidelines Manual was formally adopted and referenced by code, but certain guidelines, i.e., the mural guidelines were not adopted by Council; paint and font guidelines are not. Mr. Randels asked if they then would be approved, and Mr. McDonagh concurred. Chair Thayer asked if they should be going through this as well. Mr. McDonagh replied that these are guidelines in use by HPC, whether or not they have been formally adopted by Councilor adopted for use by HPC, many since the late 80's and/or early 90's, in use and in affect for over 10 years except for the mechanical guidelines that were changed last year. Mr. Berg asked if he could get a copy if he were proposing building changes. Mr. McDonagh said, that would be the intent for a cost of$4 -$5, or whatever. Mr. Berg asked if this is the version the committee would use? Mr. McDonagh replied he thought they would still have a broader, thicker second notebook that would have a glossary of terms, a full binder of the Secretary's guidelines rather than a 4-page summary. He indicated this manual would have everything that might have to deal with design review in terms of municipal code, as well as Historic building codes in the HPC manual, a set of State's Historical regulations. It is intended to be what the public gets their hands on. Mr, Kelety asked if the manual would be on the website. Mr. McDonagh concurred. Mr. Benskin suggested they should also go through the manual, that there might be changes. Mr. Kelety asked if they could take it as a second item for review, so they could get this ordinance out separately. He said it sounds as if they feel comfortable with everything above this, and he feels it is important to get this to Council quickly. Then they can review this separately. Mr. Benskin asked about taking out 17.30.060 and come back and look at this as a separate issue? Mr. Berg disagreed saying it says, ". . . as it now exists or is later amended." Mr. Benskin said that leaves it very open. 17.30.160 C. -- Mr. Benskin also questioned the process for amending the manual, "Upon recommendation from the HPC, the director is authorized to make minor, non-substantial changes. . ." He questioned, ". . . although such changes must still be forwarded to the city council, Such changes shall be effective upon filing with the city clerk. . ." He said without further City Council approval for adoption, just filing with the city clerk, seems to be bypassing the process. He was concerned that this ordinance would be affecting the lives of our community. Mr. McDonagh replied that very rarely in his experience here were they interested in imposing additional design standards or regulations that would be more prohibitive or restrictive without having some due process as opposed to developing or crafting additional guidelines that might be more expansive, e.g. adding Windows fonts for WORD without going through HPC review and making it easier for business or building owners to use. Ms. Thayer pointed out changes would be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Watts said the purpose of that is when a Councilmember gets the proposed change, that Councilrnember can say it is too restrictive, or whatever, and get a Council vote as to whether or not the matter should be approved or deleted. If the Council does noting, it becomes an approved change; or if they choose, they could say to back off or take it through a process. Mr. Watts suggested they could take action on the ordinance noting the Commission has not reviewed the manual in detail, or reviewed at all the provisions of the manual, and you either endorse the concept of the manual, or state you haven't reviewed it. If others share Mr. Benskin's concern about the amendment process, you could take a vote on whether or not that amendment process should stay in or not. He pointed out that with just a couple of exceptions, one -- the Norway maples, the existing design review guidelines were not reviewed by HPC, the three-member citizen's task force, or the CD/LU Committee and have not been part of the review process. It could be reviewed as part of a future process. The goal would simply be to get a manual adopted by Council as part of the existing regulations. Ms. King agreed and said she did not want to get into looking at the guideline standards; that was not what they were asked to do. This is a process document; he is right, it hasn't gone through all the kinds oflevels of review it would normally go through. You have been using this for 10 years. If there is a problem, City Council can delegate Planning Commission Minutes, December 11,2003/ Page 10 · and say they want it looked at, but for the Commission to open it up now, she is not interested it that. Chair Thayer recommended they take the ordinance as it is, vote on it with the recommendation stated by Mr. Watts that they have not reviewed the Historic Preservation Manual and suggest that City Council in the future might want to go through that process. It is at their discretion that it comes back to the Commission. Mr. Watts said that it would be a tasking. Ms. Thayer said it would be the City Council pleasure. PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE FOLLOWING PAGES: (Dec. 11. 2003) Pae:e 6, 17.30.040.C -- Chane:e sentence to read: "The specific Waterfront Subdistricts lying within the Historic Overlay District. . ." Pae:e 8, D.l -- reflect previous discussion Pae:e 8. D.2 -- delete in its entirety Pae:e 12, Addition to C -- Add text in accordance with Exhibit H Pae:e 15, Chane:e F.2 to read, 2. "Certificate of Approval of a replacement building design." Pae:e 15, Eliminate the word includine: and start a new parae:raph 3. "Establishment ofa fmancial arrangement. . ." Pae:e 15. Chane:e to read, ". .will be built within three (3) fWe...fB years of approval of the replacement design " Pae:e 22, 5.b Note -- Change wording, "Substantially sillier." Pae:e 24, 17.30.160 -- City Council be responsible forreview of the Historic preservation standards manual. Chair Thayer called for a vote. · MOTION Mr. Randels Recommend City Council approve the Draft Historic District Overlay -- Design Review Ordinance with the proposed changes and with the caveat the Commission has not reviewed the Historic Preservation Manual and the suggestion City Council might want to revisit the manual at some future date SECOND VOTE Mr. Kelety PASSED by Roll Call Vote,S in favor, Mr. Benskin opposed Chair Thayer noted they have recommended approval of the ordinance with corrections and suggestions to the City Council which will consider the ordinance after the new year, She thanked everyone for their participation in this most difficult ordinance in recent years. Mr. McDonagh pointed out the City Council would hold an open record public hearing on the ordinance. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS December 16, 2003 Growth Management Indicators Report VIII. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Berg and seconded by Mr. Kelety. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.rn. /"2 . ' L.";tn Cindy Th;/ ' Chair · ~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker Planning Commission Minutes, December 11, 2003 / Page 11