Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110206 Minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Tbird Floor Conference Room Tbursday, November 2, 2006, 7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. 1 Agenda for November 2, 2006 EXH. 2 Excerpt of Ordinance 2928: Section 3 - Revised Method of Measuring Building Height EXH. 3 Makers Architects, October 25, 2006 Uptown Charette reference materials: Issues, Measures and Participant Evaluations EXH.4 DOE letter to Mayor Mark Welch, Port Townsend SMP - Approval of Comprehensive Update, dated October 27, 2006. EXH. 5 Summary Report of Single Family Attached Dwellings since 2002, prepared by Scottie Foster EXH.4 Guest List (None) I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL: The following Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, George Randels, Julian Ray, and Cindy Thayer. Liesl Slabaugh and George Unterseher were excused. Mr. Lizut reported that Mr. Unterseher is recovering from knee replacement surgery, and may also be unable to attend the November 9 meeting. Staff: Rick Sepler, Planning Director; Leonard Yarberry, DSD Director III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as written, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of October 12, 2006: There were no corrections. 11/... Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as written, and Mr. Lizut seconded. The minutes of October 12, 2006 were approved, as written, all in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2006 Page 1 of6 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Interim Ordinance Worksbop (continued) Means of Measuring Building Heigbts - Leonard Yarberry, DSD Director Mr. Sepler reminded that the entirety of the Interim Ordinance had been broken into pieces and covered during a series of workshops. He introduced Mr. Yarberry, who was on hand to review the background and explain the building height measurement issues. Previous method - Mr. Yarberry began by drawing a generic elevation diagram of a house and sloped lot. He pointed out how, in the old method of measuring building height, they measured to the top of a flat roof, or to the midpoint for a hipped roof, i.e., from a reference point to the highest point of the coping ofa flat roof, or to the average height of the highest gable, whichever is higher. They measured from the elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface, unless the vertical distance from that point to the lowest point is greater than 10 feet. (This may occur on very steep slopes or where intensive land movement or regrading has been done.) In that case, the height would be determined by measuring from the lowest point plus 10 feet to the top of the building, as defined above. The ground surface reference point is 5 feet outward from the building. Ms. Capron asked why a new method had been sought? Mr. Yarberry said that part ofthe concern was that the previous method did not adequately limit the height of buildings on slopes. People would build up or alter part of the site to artificially establish a higher base line. Interim method - In this method, described in EXH. 2, measurement is made from the average finished grade. The average finished grade is defined as a reference established by averaging the grade elevations at the four comers surrounding the building. Mr. Yarberry demonstrated the pertinent reference points on a similar drawing on the board. The five feet distance from the building becomes 10 feet. He said that if someone moves that much dirt around, then the situation can be addressed through SEP A. The definition of building height in the interim ordinance reads 'The vertical distance from the average finished grade or the average natural pre-existing grade .. ..". He said he had a concern about the or clause, and gave an example where a grade is built up. Ms. Thayer asked why building a berm is allowed at all. There was a discussion about the various scenarios that may occur, the possible ways in which builders may attempt to gain height, and the difficulty of determining the natural pre-existing grade in some situations. Ms. Thayer asked if it is true that builders may not excavate a site until the building permit is issued, therefore making it possible to measure the original grade or pre-existing elevations. She also noted that a survey is needed. There was a review of the process that must be followed, and several Commissioners noted that there seemed to be ample opportunities for enforcing the height limitation. Mr. Yarberry said he thought there were instances where developers would attempt to exceed the height limitation by artificially altering the grade under the guise of landscaping. Mr. Sepler said it was quite common to have neighbors concerned with heights of new buildings, especially on very steep grades, where depending on the measurement method, a four story building might be within the height limit. Mr. Yarberry said that the interim method was changed to address those situations. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2006 Page 2 of6 Mr. Lizut asked for clarification on the or language ofthe interim ordinance. Mr. Yarberry suggested that the language about the alternative pre-existing grade could be removed, leaving simply "the average natural pre-existing grade". Ms. Thayer pointed out that that point should be flagged to be dealt with in the deliberations. VII. NEW BUSINESS: Update on Uptown Charette (Rick Sepler for Judy Surber) Mr. Sepler explained that Ms. Surber was ill, and that he would brief the Commission about the Charette. He distributed copies of EXH. 3, a 15 page handout from the Charette, summarizing background and relevant issues. Chair Randels, Mr. Ray and Mr. Lizut had attended the Charette. Mr. Sepler said that certain things were uncontested. He said that most people thought that "uptown worked", that they liked the mix of things that are there now, and they would like to try to keep what is there now. They described the present character as "funky". He said that people differed as to what would or should happen over time, as new development occurs. There were concerns about traffic and parking, with a range of perspectives on what was acceptable or troublesome. One particular "trouble spot" was identified and photographed: parking on Polk Street west of Lawrence St., which is regularly loaded with cars. Mr. Sepler said that he personally counted 47 cars on one morning. Mr. Sepler surmised that employees oflocal businesses are using this area to park. Overall, the parking status is not as clear cut as previously thought. Some business owners said there was ample parking and some homeowners were disturbed that they could often not find parking space near their own homes. He said that the discussion was helpful in bringing out both points of view. The solutions may be found in speaking with business owners, or in road improvements such as installation of curbs and gutters. Mr. Sepler said there was considerable discussion about both the vitality ofthe district, as well as its fragility. People were concerned when they saw simulations where selective properties were improved. He explained the distinctions between primary or pivotal, secondary, and tertiary properties. There were five properties identified as having improvements that were very low, actually one to one as compared to the cost ofthe land, and therefore ripe for improvement. He said that the rule of thumb is that those where the ratio is less than 2:1 are considered likely for redevelopment. That short list includes the Key City property and the Brandt orthodontics clinic (4 lots) on Lawrence, the Sturdivant dental clinic on Polk St., half of the Qwest building, and the vacant Rienstra site. People were concerned with traffic, parking, and the character if everything was filled out to the extent allowed. On the other hand, many people recognized the presence of businesses such as Sweet Laurette's as positive to the area, and could foresee other new commercial entities as equally beneficial. Mr. Sepler said that another issue was scale. If all the properties were developed, that could amount to 40 units. However, based on the Aldrich's example, not all units would necessarily have multiple occupants. One key issue is the nature of the transition between the new buildings and the adjacent residential areas. Various options were discussed: set height at 35 feet and allow additional height in exchange for certain public amenities and concessions; set height at 35 feet maximum; allow 50 feet selectively or only for a certain number of cases. He reported that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 2,2006 Page 3 of6 attendees said the C-III use table was not appropriate for uptown. Many of those uses, such as an appliance store, should not be permitted. Mr. Randels said that meant setting up a special district, and Mr. Sepler agreed that was the tone of the meeting. People wished to restrict other than neighborhood type businesses. Mr. Randels noted that that may preclude light-industrial businesses, such as Badd Habit. Mr. Ray stated that about 60% of the meeting was spent on parking, and the related topic of alternative transportation. Mr. Sepler listed ideas considered: municipal lots, reinstatement of off-street parking requirements, allowing ground level parking in higher buildings; establishing a BID (business improvement district) for collection of in lieu fees to be spent on multimodal improvements in the district such as flex cars, bike barns, curb/sidewalk improvements. He said that businesses realize that they need to share in the investments that are required to help the Uptown area thrive. Mr. Ray mentioned that parking limit (two hours) enforcement was also discussed with recognition that this requires some funds for personnel. Mr. Lizut asked whether or not the situation of the Key City organization was discussed. Mr. Sepler referred to an 18 month time frame (for the parking requirements) and explained the notion of development based expectations, which is one of the keys used to assess takings. If, for example, a 35 foot maximum height is established and Key City CaIUlot implement its intended use, their case might be as follows. They could sue the City for a partial taking, showing that the decision to purchase the property was based on an expectation of 50 feet, and that the use cannot be implemented otherwise. He said that the court mayor may not find in their favor, and may rule that they must find another way.to do it. He said that, to their credit, Key City has been working with offices and churches in the area about use of their lots in off hours, and are conveying that they wish to be good neighbors. However, the objections that were voiced at the Charette were based on traffic and parking considerations. Mr. Emery brought up the idea of residential zone permit parking, as in Seattle. Mr. Sepler said that was brought up but still carries the issue of enforcement and expense. He referred to the U. District example which issued stickers for customers. Those not patronizing their businesses were ticketed. He noted that this method must be done thoughtfully, so as not to impede business activity instead of supporting it. Regarding the Farmer's Market, which has been so successful that it is outgrowing its space, residents are supportive, but find the weekly parking/traffic problems inconvenient. Memorial Field was suggested as an alternative location. Mr. Sepler said that he would mail out the simulations. He urged Planning Commissioners to attend the next meeting (January 23), and anticipate receiving the "marching orders" to follow, which is likely to include a parking approach, some revision to the use table, and possibly bulk and scale. Update on SMP Status (Rick Sepler for Judy Surber) Mr. Sepler distributed the SMP approval letter from DOE, EXH. 4. He described the process to be followed. In order to actuate the plan, the City must make required changes to the document. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2006 Page 4 of 6 The plan is to hold a public hearing on the changes, as early as November 30, 2006. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the DOE recommendations at their November 9 meeting. Ms. Thayer was pleased with the specific recognition in the letter of Ms. Surber and her leadership on the SMP Plan. Mr. Sepler agreed that she had done a fine job, as had the Planning Commission. He reported that Ms. Surber had spent many hours on the draft letter, constructed a matrix, and consulted with many people to answer open questions. Her intention had been to walk through the issues with the Planning Commission at this meeting, but was unable to attend due to i1Iness. Mr. Randels asked ifthere were any controversial or difficult issues. Mr. Sepler mentioned that there were issues related to existing historic pier sheds and heights of buildings on pier sheds. An application from the Surf is not yet vested, and it may be useful to look at that language. He said there were a number of other items about which she had consulted with City Attorney, John Watts. Mr. Emery asked about the status of the Indian Point development. Mr. Sepler and Mr. Yarberry noted that the concept for that project is based on the SMP Update, and they are seeking to start the review of their plan and design at this time. It was reported that the site clean up has been completed, but the developer is awaiting review and approval by DOE. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS a. November 9, 2006 - SMP Workshop b. November 30, 2006 - The intention for this meeting is to deal with a workshop on Bedrooms as a Measure of Density in R-III and R-IV Districts. Mr. Sepler said that due to the extent of public interest, he would schedule this at the Fire Hall and have all materials mailed out a week in advance. A portion of the agenda will be devoted to the SMP hearing. In addition, he proposed having the Interim Ordinance Public Hearing on December 21 to be followed by a Planning Commission Holiday Party. Mr. Randels asked about December 7 as an alternative, but that date had been held for a Planning Commission Training session. It was agreed that the December 21 would be acceptable. IX. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Sepler distributed EXH. 5, the summary report of the multiplexes that have been built. After some discussion, Mr. Yarberry suggested that a more detailed report could be prepared by using census codes, and Mr. Sepler said he would follow up on that. Mr. Emery advised that he would be serving as City Council video recording operator on November 9, so would be absent from the Planning Commission Meeting. He also informed that he had submitted a letter to City Council expressing his willingness to be reappointed to the Commission for another term. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2006 Page 5 of6 Ms. Thayer reported that she had also submitted her letter of resignation, indicating she would be stepping down from the Planning Commission after 15 years. There were many expressions of regrets and appreciation from fellow Commissioners. X. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved and Mr. Ray seconded that the meeting be adjourned, and all were in favor. Chair Rande/s adjourned the meeting at 8:05 PM. ( .. ;z /;! ;' .7~/~~-...... George Rarldels, Chair M~~~ Gait Bernhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 2,2006 Page 6 of 6