Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061506 Minutes City of Port Townsend Joint CDLU and Planning Commission Workshop Fire Hall June 15, 20062:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. I Agenda EXH. 2 Issne Matrix, Draft 06115106 I. CALL TO ORDER: Councilor Michelle Sandoval called the CDLU meeting to order at 2:00 PM. II. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Randels called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 2:00 PM. There was a brief round of introductions. III. ROLL CALL: City Council/CDLU members present were: Laurie Medlicott, Catherine Robinson and Michelle Sandoval. Planning Commission members present were: Steve Emery, Roger Lizut, George Ranclels, and George Unterseher. Harriet Capron, Liesl Slabaugh, and Cindy Thayer were unable to attend. There was not a quorum present. However, the agenda contained no actionable items for the Planning Commission. There were no changes to the agenda. IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2006 WORK PLAN Copies ofEXH. 2 were provided. Mr. Sepler explained that in order to best support the Council and Commission in this planning effort, he would suggest going through each issue and deciding which body or committee is the most appropriate to consider it. Any outstanding thoughts or information should be voiced in order to help scope each item. After all these are allocated, and this group has indicated what the priorities should be, staff will bring a work piau to the meeting in July, which will spell out the schedule and process steps for each issue - the work plan for the next six months. Mr. Randels added one comment. He said that if there are items that can and should be moved forward in the interim, between now and late July, he suggested that we not feel constrained to wait to begin work on such items. Sign Code Advisory Group: Ms. Sandoval asked staff if work had begun to put that together. Ms. Surber said that the advertisement had been published, there had ,been one response, and that there may be a second person applying. She said that she had not yet made phone calls. Mr. Randels said that the Planning Commission had appointed its designee, Roger Lizut. Mr. Sepler said that, in support of Joint COLD/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2006 Page 1 of8 this, based on the minutes of the City Council meeting wherein this was discussed as a work item, staff was creating a base document summarizing what is in the code and identifying the issues that have been raised. That document will be ready when the advisory group convenes. Regarding the committees in the Process column, Mr. Randels asked if the order listed (SCAG to CDLU to PCOM to CC) was correct. Ms. Robinson responded that she would reverse the CDLU and the Planning Commission in the process. Ms. Sandoval said that what had been done on occasion was to have the CDLU be the oversight committee, which receives a report or conversation from the Advisory Group as a progress or status update. Ms. Robinson suggested that the AG be asked to present updates to both the CDLU and Planning Commission when they came to appropriate segments or milestones of the project. She said it could be a body of questions or suggestions. Several Councilors and Commissioners voiced their agreement, and Ms. Sandoval added that keeping a group of Councilors involved throughout would likely decrease the time spent by Council at the end of the process. This would provide the opportunity for CDLU Councilors to bring up issues that had not been thought of or addressed, andJor to take issues back to the full Council, as necessary, during the project. Mrs. Medlicott asked how many members the Sign Code Advisory Group would have. Several others responded that it was a fairly large and diverse group, probably with about 15 members. Mr. Sepler summarized: The Advisory Group \vould be semi-autonomous; there would be frequent status/issue check points with CDLU/PCOM, and course corrections, as needed. Mr. Lizut asked if the HPC would have a representative on the Sign Code Advisory Group. Councilor Robinson said that was her recollection. Mr. Sepler said that C-I1 Design Committee would also have a designee. Mrs. MedJicott said that this was her first experience in working witb the CDLU or the Planning Commission. She asked how the Sign Advisory Group would know what to look at and include in their purview. Ms. Sandoval responded that we (CDLU) are directing them. She said that the scope had been outlined during meetings that Mrs. Medlicott may have missed. She said that they had gone back through the Council Meeting minutes and highlighted what some of the concerns were from citizen testimony and the sessions that we had about the sign code; they also went back through notes that Jean Walat had had, complaints or concerns about sign code, and in addition the issues that the C-Il Design Standard had high-lighted. All of that was compiled into a list. Ms. Robinson said that work had started last year. Mr. Sepler said that Council had expressed concern at that meeting about sandwich board signs in the downtown, and that had been added to the list. He said the issues are identified, but in order to support the AG, staff is preparing a summary of each issue, the current standard, and a description of the problems, and possible solutions or remedies. Mr. Randels asked about the meaning of the "Lead" column. Mr. Sepler said that for certain items, either CDLU or Planning Commission will be indicated. (This is not a designator for the lead staff person, but rather for the body or committee with primary responsibility for the work.) For the Sign Code item, it would be the Advisory Group, who will give periodic updates to CDLUlPJanning Commission jointly. Dovvntovvn Streetscape ~ Phase 2 Councilors Sandoval and Robinson said they did not recall what had been included in Phase]. Councilor Medlicott suggested the Fountain, and Mr. Sepler said that he thought the Maritime Center sidewalks, Water St. and Madison St. (under the federal grant) were also part of it. There was a brief discussion about what had been covered during City Council meetings, and Mrs. Medlicott said that Phase 2 included the Wave Gallery, the Tidal Bowl, and that she had proposed that LT AC funds be used in the construction of a visitors' plaza and new public bathrooms when the Police Station moves. Mr. Sepler said that having read the minutes, it still seemed somewhat undefined. He said there were about four things happening right now. After several questions about which components were included and who was doing what, he suggested that the name Downtown Streetscape be used to deal with the whole group of items, and that staff may need to Joint CDLU/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 8 put them into sequence, prepare a white paper and come back with a status update. The sub- projects mentioned include the 1989 Streetscape Manual, the Maritime Center designs relating to parking~ curbs and sidewalks, the Fountain area, and Taylor Street. It was suggested that research be done on the Uptown Streetscape issues, as well, although they would not be combined into one project. Mr. Lizut suggested that an issues list or punch list be created that identifies which groups (HPC, Mainstreet, C-Il Design, CDLU, etc) have an interest, role or responsibility in each. Mr. Sepler suggested that staff do the following: I. identify the status of all these pieces, so everyone knows where we are on the timeline; 2. map out a quick strategy that would include asking for input and information from HPC and other groups in similar meetings such as this one; frame the issues beforehand; 3. posit a recommendation on how to approach each. This would provide a starting point and hopefully result in a roadmap of what should to be accomplished. Ms. Robinson asked if the 1989 Streetscape Plan was now defunct and unusable, or should it be revised? Mr. Sepler recalled that it called for many very specific standards that may no longer be viable. Mr. Lizut said that he thought the expectation of having all the same light fixtures or door knobs was the real issue. Mr. Unterseher asked why uptown and downtown should have distinctly different standards. There was a brief discussion about that question and the recognition that there are at least several schools of thought regarding one standard versus several standards for areas of town or neighborhoods. In response to a question from Mrs. Medlicott, Mr. Sepler said that the input from the business owners must be an integral 'part of any scheme. Mr. Septer noted that so much of this item is related to design that it may be well to get the input of the soon to be selected urban design consultant. He mentioned that standard parts can mean cost savings, and still allow for aesthetically interesting and appealing streetscapes. Mrs. Medlicott voiced her concern that business/property owners should not be asked to pay for standards without the opportunity for input in their development. There was a brief discussion about the installation of a pergola on the sidewalk by a property owner, and how such a situation could be prevented in the future. Mr. Sepler added that since the same resources need to be applied, he suggested that the Uptown and Downtown Streetscape needs be considered together - even though tbey may be different. He again stated that the action plan would be for staff to do some research, come hack with status, and a suggested process; it will be a CDLU item, with the Planning Commission involved if there is need to modify codes or standards. Mr. Emery asked about the Living Sidewalk concept, i.e. the woonerf. Mr. Sepler gave a brief description, and mentioned its relationship to the Transportation Plan. Mrs. Medlicott said that that item was very low on the priority list. Mr. Sepler said that elements of the concept might work on Taylor Street, but that each instance must be evaluated to determine what works. Library Renovation Ms. Sandoval asked how the CDLU might be involved. Mr. Sepler said that there is an ongoing discussion. He said that Library staff had had some discussion with city staff to talk about the zoning and what is feasible, as well as the steps needed to design for space needs. He said that perhaps this group should just hear an npdate on the process to consider any possible policy changes, commonalities, opportunities for co:-location, or economies of scale. Or, is there a need that could be met elsewhere? (For example, a computer lab for Peninsula College co-located with the Library.) Ms. Robinson said that the Library's process this far has been, more or less, their own. There was agreement that an update would be appropriate, and the role of the CDLU would be limited for the time being. Housing Needs Assessment Joint CDLU/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2006 Page 3 of8 Ms. Surber reported that the Housing Advisory Group contiuues to meet. There will be an Open House on June 28 for both County and City residents at the Jefferson County Library, Humphrey Room. At that time the consultant will be showing various packages of options that are prototypes of development tbat could occur in rural and in urban areas. This will be an opportunity to collect feedback from tbe community regarding their preferences and sense of feasibility for their neighborhoods. The Advisory Group is awaiting a complete draft of the consultant's report; certain pieces of the report have been reviewed. At the point that the Advisory Group has considered and endorsed the report, including any recommendations, there would be presentations! updates to the CDLU and Planning Commission; sbe said tbat that could be a joint meeting or separate meetings. There would then be a report to the full City Council for action on the plan. Ms. Sandoval said that she and Mr. Emery both served on the Task Force, and she said that the work is almost done. They are conducting surveys now, or will be shortly; the recipients will receive a fairly lengthy written survey, which they are asked to complete before providing their responses during a follow up phone call. The results will be included in the presentations before CDLU, Planning Commission and City Council. From there, she said, there w1l1 be more work after it is blessed by the County Commissioners and the City Council. The Planning Commission will then consider possible zoning changes or other types of incentives, based on policy decisions by the County Commissioners and City Council. She said that a suggestion will be forthcoming that a blended county/city Housing Needs oversight group be established to work with the non- profit organizations and government entities in implementation of the plan. She and Ms. Surber estimated that report to be "Titten by October, 2006. Mrs. Medlicott noted that several citizens had spoken with her about the outstanding performance of the Advisory Group leader(s): Ms. Surber gave full credit to the consultant. Ms. Sandoval said that she and Ms. Surber had met with the Real Estate Association Government Affairs Committee, and heard very positive comments from Terry Jeffrey's about the draft, including that they would like to be more involved in the future. Ms. Surber added that the report and update coming to the CDLU and Planning Commission was with the hope for their approval on the action plan, and that once the action plan is approved, they would be responsible for specific actions, as well. Infrastructure Policy Mr. Sepler explained that this item pertains to the standards for new development and dealing with new growth and is related to the Impact Fees item, which deals with the cumulative impact of growth. Both are important policy choices that City Council will make, with land use implications arising from them. He suggested ajoint meeting with the Public Works and Finance and Budgeting committees, who are working on the mechanics of these issues, to talk about what the implications might be, on the ground. Would this discourage permit applications and what is the balance between achieving the infrastructure and keeping the growth we anticipate? Mr. Unterseber said that tbis really affects housing needs. He said that he had seen first hand what is required from a builder "at the whim of the city". He cited an example of a $27 ,000 bus shelter operational for less than a month, which is now not needed due to a change in the bus route. He said that these things really affect the cost ofbouses, and that must be considered in detennining requirements. Mr. Emery said that there would be suggestions coming out of the Housing Task Force, including impact fee reduction especially for affordable housing. Mrs. Medlicott added that the long term impacts must be considered. There was discussion about the need to factor in the increased service demands and costs for not only roads, but also police, fire, water/sewer hookup and other senrices. Ms. Sandoval said some of the cost may be passed on to individuals as they come and use the services of our city, or it needs to be born by the increases in taxes for everyone. Mr. Unterseher said that he had built in other places and that he was surprised that Port Townsend had not yet had an impact fee. Ms. Sandoval said that developers are well aware that the current situation is advantageous for them financially, although they may publicly complain about City policies and rules. She added that if we want to encourage affordable housing, land banks and similar things, that the City needs the funds to accomplish that. Joint CDLU/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2006 Page 4 of8 Ms. Sandoval said that some initial information has been received from John Watts, and that this item is her number one priority on this list. Mrs. Medlicott concurred, indicating that it was also her top priority. Mr. Sepler said that he would recommend getting an update from the other committees and understanding how they operate. He noted that there would likely be a tiered fee structure, or possibly have designated areas with "incentives" fees. For example, this may be a way to encourage growth in the Gateway area. Ms. Sandoval noted that when this topic had been discussed at a recent City Council meeting related to the budget, she had suggested incentives for the commercial district since that would have a better pay back in taxes. She had asked whether there could be duplication of the LID process (i.e. for the Howard St. Corridor) to be in place along the Sims Way corridor, in support of infrastructure development by property owners there. She also suggested a less cumbersome approach might be to implement the tiering approach already in the Comp Plan. However, she said that has only been funded to the amount of$25,000. Ms. Robinson asked for consideration of how these various committees would be meshed or coordinated; what would be role of CDLU and when would their role begin? She said that there may be so much overlap that there is, in effect, full Council participation. Mr. Sepler said that the best way may be to promote a general strategy, then parse out the pieces. For example, the CDLU and Planning Commission could consider the tiering options and select the most appropriate structure. Ms. Sandoval said that she believed the Planning Commission could get started on this almost immediately, as discussed at the last Council meeting. Mr. Sepler summarized: the Planning Commission will look at tiering and approaches that can be used in terms of land use, identify areas that are likely to develop because of utilities, and try to weigh the differences in return on commercial and residential to achieve the best balance in growth, cost, viable economy and quality oflife. Village Rezones Ms. Sandoval said she had heard that the Planning Commission had had some discussion about Upper Sims Way and mixed use. She said that she thought that could lend itselfto the changes that many would like to see in the Upper Sims area, particularly with regard to appearance and aesthetic appeal. Also, she said she thought it would give the developers more flexibility in being able to accommodate a variety of different uses there. She added that the notion would need to go back up to Council, because Sims Way is one of the top Council priorities. There would need.to be a discussion about that as a Village Rezone area. Ms. Robinson asked what Ms. Sandoval had in mind originally when she brought up Village Rezones in Council. She said that she had thought of additional village mixed use centers scattered throughout the city, and of taking action now, before the option is lost to other forms of development. It can also lend itself to more affordable housing because of reduced distance to stores and routine services. She noted that because of unfamiliarity and for lack of convincing precedents in this town, there has been some negative response to the idea, for example at F and San Juan Streets. There is some reluctance to development of remaining open space within the town. On the other hand, there has been high interest in some kind of commercial sub-area in North Beach by some residents. Ms. Robinson asked if this might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to work on. Mr. Randels and Ms. Surber responded that this had been on the Planning Commission's list of suggested endeavors. Mrs. Medlicott interjected that she felt quite strongly that the matter must go through the Council to task the Planning Commission to work on it. She disagreed that Village Rezones and the assignment to the PlalU1ing Commission, had been discussed by the COW1cil. There was further discussion among Councilors Medlicott, Robinson and Sandoval about what Council had discussed, about priorities and decisions. Ms. Robinson recalled that the entire Jist had been discussed and adopted, with the understanding that the Planning Commission could pursue items on the list. Ms. Sandoval said that her advice would be to go back to the Mayor and Council for a fOffilaI action, especially if that is what Mrs. Medlicott deemed necessary. Ms. Sandoval said she was quite certain that the issue had been specifically addressed by the Council, particularly so that the Plarming Commission could begin work on some items as soon as possible. She said that there had not been a formal vote but there had been agreement that it was a good Joint CDLU/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - June IS, 2006 Page 5 of 8 idea. Also, that when she had spoken with Councilor Masci a few days earlier, he had the same recollection. In summary, Mr. Sepler said that if Council considers it, the steps wonld be: first, to develop criteria, i.e. what must be done to make it work; second, examine the locations and select candidate sites, in accordance v.rith the criteria. Ms. Sandoval added that she assumed this would be a somewhat lengthy process, with provisions for plenty of public input. Mr. Emery added that he understood that the F and San Juan intersection was likely to be the first test case. Mr. Randels added that, in tbe context of Upper Sims, it was the strip of Howard St, between Sims and Discovery Road -- How could we maximize the urban design and the returns from that particular site? The thought was that mixed use might make more sense there. Mr. Sepler added that just doing streetscapes was not going to change it -- a lesson learned from other communities; it would take streetscapes and use together. Mr. Randels added that was not inconsistent with the advice from the consultant brought in for the charette. Teardmvns in Historic District Ms. Sandoval said this was about what is worth saving in the Historic District and the teardO"wns that are beginning to occur. Mr. Septer said that in other communities, jt has been common to see secondary or tertiary, smaller Victorian structures on highly desirable/valuable lots be removed in order to build larger structures. The erosion of these background buildings can have an overaJJ deleterious effect on the district. There are schemes that guide expansions and preservation of buildings with certain add-ons. He said that a significant enough body of ordinances has been developed as framework, which could be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration. Ms. Sandoval said that it was important to at least do the discovery work on this, and to package it in a way that can be easily considered. Mr. Lizut asked if this was related to the McMansion issue, and whether this should be included in the scope. Ms. Sandoval said that it was, in that the most desirable lots, with good views and central locations, are those that were built on first, and are the most common sites for older Victorian homes. Mr. Sepler said that staff can very quickly compile information, include input from the HPC, and have the Planning Commission consider it and compile a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Sandoval and Mrs. Medlicott brought up the height and grade issue. Ms. Surber said that was under the Public Works committee. Mrs. Medlicott said that alteration of elevation is presently not covered under any policy, and she considers it urgent. Mr. Randels offered his opinion that these. several issues ought to be dealt with comprehensively, not in pieces by different entities. Ms. Sandoval said that she agreed, noting that view equity was also very much related, but had been stricken from the list to be addressed. Ms. Surber noted that under the Public Works committee, it said height and grade (also CDLU). Mr. Sepler summarized: The intention is for the Planning Commission to include intrusions, teardowns (both overly large and diminishment) and alterations to site. They will look at the current body of knowledge, frame the issue and come forward with a scheme/approach prior to an ordinance, a first blush kind of thing. If agreed by Council, they will then take more time to craft an ordinance. Councilors noted that the foHowing last four items had relatively low priorities. WoodslolleJ Smoke Control There was no additional discussion on this item. Taylor Street Woonerf Councilor Medlicott said that she would like to see Public Safety included in this project. Councilor Robinson said that the preliminary design had already been done. Mrs. Medlicott said that the Public Safety committee had not been involved. She said that Police and Fire have to be included at the beginning of planning. There was further discussion about the overlap between the Joint CDLUlPlanning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15,2006 Page 6 of8 woonerf concept and the streetscape design. Ms. Robinson recalled that the Taylor Street part had been put off, while dealing with the Fountain area. Mr. Sepler said that this would be bronght out as part of Streetscape, and staff would ensure that the appropriate parties and components are included. Mrs. Medlicott reminded that the woonerf is low priority. Mr. Sepler asked whether the priority would change if the $800,000 grant money is awarded. Mrs. Medlicott said she did not recall Council discussions or authorization for grant applications for this endeavor. Mr. Sepler said that he understood the monies to be linked to the second phase of funding to do the rest of the streetscape; this was an application for federal funding from the Northwest Maritime Center and the City. He said that it was not specifically directed at the woonerf, but that if those funds came in, there would be greater urgency to look at the streetscape issue. Ms. Robinson added that a specific desigu had not yet been adopted. Cottage Housing There was some uncertainly about the scope and intent of this item. Several Councilors recalled that Mr. Benskin had placed this on the list. However, they were not certain of the particular issues he wished to address. Mr. Sepler said that he would find that out, and report on it. "Steve Corra" Park Ms. Sandoval noted that this item would come up under the streetscape discussion. Ms. Robinson added that the funding for this was in process and that a group was already working on that. Mr. Sepler said that he would include this in the report "With a reference to the funding arrangements. V. GENERAL DISCUSSION Mr. Randels asked about several items that were not on the list. He said that since Upper Sims Way was a high priority for City Council and the Planning Commission, it should be added to the list. The second item was "ordinance tweaking". He said that staff is in the process of identifying issues and problems in the code, mainly minor but some more significant, that are projected for attention in the falL Mr. Sepler added, for clarification, that a number of minor procedural changes and inconsistencies had been identified by staff. When ready, they would like to bring forward suggested changes and clarifications, including the SMP-related changes, as an omnibus code bundle. Mr. Randels mentioned the density issue. Mr. Sepler said that presently, there is no minimum density in the multi-family zoning districts, so there is single-family development there. Ms. Sandoval said that that would also come out as part of the Housing Needs assessment; that is a problem because the available acreage is being used up. Mr. Sepler sununarized: The CDLU has indicated that their number one priority, in conjunction with other committees, is infrastructure policies and fees. The Sign Code is also high priority but also has its own track, as does Streetscape and all associated issues. We need to sort out all the pieces and statuses within their various processes, and knit them together. The committee will be involved in other things that are more informational than action-oriented. The Village Rezone will be given greater clarification. For the Planning Commission, the main items are teardowns in the Historic District, Upper Sims Way, the Sign Code, and ordinance t\tveaking. Whatever comes out of the Committee ultimately will reside with the Planning Commission to start and then go forward to City Council. Ms. Robinson asked if the height and grade would be coupled with the teardowns in the Planning Commission. Mr. Sepler said it would be considered there, but also with the Public Works committee. He said that the next time he attends the CDLU meeting, staff would bring clarifications on Streetscape, CDLU would provide better direction on Village Rezones, and there would be more information on the Sign Code, with issues identified. The next meeting for CDLU in scheduled for Jrme 27th, on Impact Fees, to receive a briefing from John Watts. Ms. Sandoval said she would not be able to attend that meeting. Mr. Sepler indicated he would return and see the CDLU on July 25", with the Streetscape information prepared. Joint CDLUlPlanning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2006 Page 7 of8 The next meeting for the Planning Commission is scheduled for June 22; this is a public hearing on the Shannon-Elder zoning change. Mr. Sepler said he would attend the July meeting with the consultant to follow up on the Upper Sims discussion. Mrs. MedJicott asked ifHPC communicates with Plarming Commission. Mr. Randels responded that they sometimes did, and that Roger Lizut is a member of both bodies. She said that she understood that HPC has done a lot of investigation on alternatives to the sandwich board type signs. Mr. Lizut said they had done some research on that, but they did not have a definitive answer. She said that it was an issue with the LTAC (Lodging Tax Advisory Committee), particularly safety concerns. She brought up the need for Main Street, HPC, L T AC and other committees to work together. She said that as Chair of LT AC, she would like to attend an HPC meeting, and Mr. Lizut said the HPC would welcome her. Mr. Lizut said he would like to thank the CDLU and Mr. Sepler for arranging the joint meeting, which had been very useful. Ms. Sandoval noted that it was well to save staffs time by disseminating information all at once and for everyone to hear the same information. Mrs. Medlicott offered a factoid from the L T AC meeting. She reported that while Seattle, Tacoma and Portland are all down significantly with their tourist income, (i.e. 20+ percent), Port TO"W11send is up 13 percent so far this year. VI. ADJOURNMENT Ms Sandoval adjourned the meeting at 3: 15 PM > George Randels ~~ Gail Bernhard, Recorder Joint CDLU/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 15, 2006 Page 8 of8