Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120105 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, Decemher 1, 2005 Cedar Room, Waterman and Katz Building Meetiug Materials: EXH I. Randall, Memo to Planning Commission: Public Hearing on December 1, 2006 Commercial Design Review Update EXH 2. Attaclnnent A - Proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Port Townsend Amending Certain Sections of Title 17 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, Zoning, Commercial and Mixed Use Architectural and Site Design Standards and Process ... dated 11/28/05 EXH 3. Attaclnnent B - Green Sheet EXH 4. Attaclnnent C - Letter/e-mai! from David Goldman to Sheila Spears, dated July 29,2005. EXH 5. Agenda - Planning Commission, December 1, 2005 EXH 6. Guest List - December 1, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 PM by Chair Randels. II. ROLL CALL: Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, and Cindy Thayer. Harriet Capron and Liesl Slabaugh were excused, and Jeff Kelety continues to be on leave of absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Mr. Randels asked if anyone wished to make a motion regarding a change to the agenda. Ms. Thayer requested a brief report on the status of the City Council SMP hearings, which was then placed at the end of the agenda. Mr. Randels noted that the September 15 and October 27 draft minutes should be reviewed, in addition to the November 10, 2005 minutes. Mr. Randels moved that the agenda be accepted as amended; Mr. Emery seconded; all were in favor. The agenda was approved, as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Septemher 15, 2005: There were no changes to the draft minutes. Mr. Randels moved that the September 15, 2005 minutes be approved, as written. Mr. Lizut seconded; all were in favor. October 27, 2005: Page 6 3Td paragraph, line The last word should be "by", not "to". I Page 8 Last paragraph, Delete I1the": with #te regard to ... line 1 Page 9 2nd paragraph, ..how they may... ; ( printer spacing error) next to last line Mr. Randels moved that the October 27, 2005 minutes be approved, as amended. .lv/r. Emery seconded; all were in favor. November 10,2005: There were no changes to the draft minutes. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 1 . . . Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes of November 10, 2005 be approved, as written. Mr. Randels seconded. All were in favor. Planning Commission Minutes for September 15, October 2 7 and November 10, 2005 were approved, as amended. V. NEW BUSINESS Public Heariug: Update to Commercial and Mixed Use Design Standards Chair Randels opeoed the Public Hearing, stating that the purpose was to consider the proposed Update of the Commercial and Mixed Use Design Standards. Mr. Randels read the rules for public testimony aloud. He then asked if any Commissioners had interests, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this hearing. They were none. Chair Randels then introduced Jeff Randall, Director of Planning for the City, who handled the staff presentation. Staff Presentation: Mr. Randall briefly reviewed the packet of materials, listed above under Meeting Materials. He referred to the green sheet as Exhibit B (labeled EXH. 3 above), noting that although it had been referred to by the subcommittee, the draft was just completed earlier in the day. Mr. Randall said he would step through it later in the presentation. Referring to Exhibit C (labeled EXH. 4 above), Mr. Randall explained that he was uncertain if the Commissioners had been given copies earlier, hut that he wished to be certain that Mr. Goldman's written suggestions regarding formulas for departures are included in the record. He reviewed the Planning Commission subcommittee's process and the choices they had made. The subcommittee, comprised of George Randels, Roger Lizut, and Steve Emery, had met November 11, following the Workshop on October 27. At that meeting, Mr. Randall had identified a series of items, with optjons/alternatives, for consideration by the subcommittee; these are described in Exhibit 1. The actual language drafted by Mr. Randall would be considered during the Deliberation period later in the meeting. Item A Review design standards and process applied to buildings that will not comply with all the design guidelines. He reported that the subcommittee had selected Alteruative #1 (departure-type process), with additional stipulations: I. requiring a supertuajority for departure approvals, and 2. prohibiting departures where a case meets criteria for" substantial alteration." Item B. Consider departure process to allow commercial signs to exceed 17-foot height limit of sign code. The choice was to allow such "departures" in specified commercial and commercial/mixed use zones, only with the unanimous recommendation of the Design Review Advisory Committee. Item C. Review applicability of design review process to any building alteration. Mr. Randall reported that the subcommittee had decided to retain the existing applicability, seeing no compelling reason to change at this time. However, he noted that in Exhibit 2., page 8, line 33 -34 (Attaclnnent A), certain new language appears that should be deleted, if the entire committee accepts the recommendation. Item D. Create new design guidelines for alterations to pre-existing structures. Noting that there had been some overlap in the set of items, Mr. Randall said that the subcommittee presumed that the revised departure process would adequately address this issue. They found no need for new design guidelines. Item E. Situations where buildings will provide 0 ft. setbacks from streets -~ sidewalk and street tree issues. The subcommittee selected alternative #1, requiring applicants to submit plans for sidewalk and street cross~section with the design review process. He noted that this was intended to ensure coordination and compatibility among the building, sidewalk/tree, infrastructure/street planning designs and processes. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2005 Page 2 . Item F. Building separation for multiple buildings on the same site (C-II zone, where combined area exceeds 40,00 s.l). The subcommittee recommended alternative #1, increasing the separation to 60 feet, and certain revised standards for subdivisions regarding minimum lot sizes, street frontage, etc. This is implemented in Exhibit A, pages 11-12, Commercial zoning table footnote, and in the sub-division code, Exhibit 3, green sheet. Item G. Establish standards for the maximum number of formula retail establishments allowed per lot and maximum formnla retail establishment density. The subcommittee selected Alternative #1, which would establishes maximum densities for formula retail establishments based on lot size, in addition to the current "one per lot" basis. This is implemented in Exhibit A, pages 12 and 13. Mr. Randall mentioned that the City Council had asked that the Planning Commission review this proposed change before it would be approved by the City Council. Item H. Review public notification process and appeal process. The subcommittee chose Alternative #1, which would provide a lO-day notice posted on site for projects subject to committee design review. This is implemented on page 6 of Exhibit A, 17.46.050. Item 1. Consider adding a process to allow fIling of requests for "reconsideration" by aggrieved parties to the DSD Director without filing a formal appeal. The subcommittee recommended that a 7- day v.rindow be provided after the Design Review Committee recommendation for interested parties to file a request for "reconsideration". This is implemented in Exhibit A., page 6, 17.46.090. . Item J. Review consisteucy with the parking code. The subcommittee directed staff to furtherresearch this issue. Mr. Randall reported that the city engineer recommended that the parking code be modified to explicitly allow ADA parking on the street, if such a design meets ADA standards and would better serve the public. At present, Public Works Department has the authQrity to allow on-street spaces to be signed for ADA parking, the parking code does not explicitly state that off-street ADA parking spaces may be located on-street, if available. This change is implemented in Exhibit A, page 7,17.72.100/120. hem K. Reviel'\o' oversight and enforcement process. The subconunittee recommended Alternative # 1, which provides a specific link between the design review process and the building permit review to ensure consistency. This is implemented on page 8 of Exhibit A, at 17.46.095. Item L. Consider adding design guidelines for electric utilities, service lines, meter locations. The subcommittee recommended Alternative #1, which provides an amendment to the design guidelines requiring that these support elements be integrated with the overall architecture of the building or screened from ground level view. This is implemented in Exhibit A, pages 10-11, under 17.44.190. Mr. Randall also identified Exhibit 4, David Goldman's letter and proposed language for quantifying the criteria related to "departures I'. He said the subcommittee had considered and discussed this material. Mr. Randall noted that Mr. Goldman may wish to provide additional testimony on this. Public Testimony: . Ian Keith, 1224 Garfield St., Port Townsend (Design Review Committee) Mr. Keith noted that he had three items to discuss. First, he asked if there was a definition of "aggrieved parties" as mentioned on page 6, Exhibit A, under 17.46.090 Outcome of Review. He said it was unclear to him whether a party was required to have some standing with regard to a particular review decision, or whether the process was open to anyone who expressed interest. Second, Mr. Keith expressed confusion about Item A, departures. He said, l'If you reach the standard for substantial alteration, you cannot use the departure approach. My recollection of what we were talking about, was that you could use it on a new project. Is that the way it is being considered now?" He said that it seemed odd that the departure could be used for a new building, or for a minor alteration, but not for a substantial alteration. Third, he said that the primary concern for him was Item C. He said that his concern was the possibility of a significant change to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2005 Page 3 . the fa~ade of a building without hitting the 60% standard. He could imagine a scenario in which a property owner could give a ftface lift" to the exterior of the building, and then, after the specified time period of one year, remodel the interior -- thereby slipping through without a design review. He said he didn't know what threshold, higher than a building permit, but lower than 60 % standard, should be specified, but that this was a concern. Richard Berg, 727 Taylor St., Port Townsend ( Commercial Design Review Committee) Mr. Berg said that one of his concerns was the applicability of the design review process to changes to building facades, one of the issues raised by Mr. Keith in the previous testimony. He said, " I canlt emphasize enough how important I think this provision is, and I think Ian (Mr. Keith) pretty much stated the reasons, so I don't need to go further into that -- I just agree with everything that he said. n "On the issue about increasing separation between 40,000 s.f. hunks of building on large pieces of property, I think that going to a standard of something bigger than 10 feet is a really good idea. But, I'm just thinking about places that I have seen in all kinds of places iu the world, including Post Alley in Seattle, and streets in Perugia, Italy and in Boston etc., where there are buildings that are less than an auto-oriented street right-of- way distance apart, and create rather great pedestrian-feeling, shopping-type situations that I can imagine a developer wanting to emulate. So, it occurred to me that maybe this standard could be 60 feet if there is vehicular traffic included, but something less than 60 feet, if only pedestrian traffic --maybe, 30 or 40 feet. I don't know what the right dimension would be, but I just wanted to throw that idea out on the table." He next asked, in regard to Item G, if the intent was to allow multiple fonnula stores to be grouped together on a large property, or whether they needed to be dispersed over 20,000 s.f. chunks. Mr. Berg said he did not necessarily have recommendation on that, but he thought it should be clarified in the proposed code. His last comments were with regard to Item A in Exhibit I. He said that the disallowance of departures for substantial alterations seemed totally inexplicable and ridiculous to him, because these were exactly the kind of projects wherc the departure process would be the most helpful. He said he could not imagine why we would want to "tie our hands'! with a rule like that. . Mr. Randels then asked Mr. Gary Kennedy and Mr. Ian Hinkle, listed next on the sign-in sheet, if either wished to testify. Both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Hinkle declined. . David Goldman, 2514 Thomas Street, Port Townsend Mr. Goldman began by thanking the subcommittee and staff on the process on the design code changes. He said that it was very open and useful, and that he thought the result was good. He referred to Item H in Exhibit 1, page 4. He noted that the corresponding text in Exhibit A was on page 6, line 17-27. He said, 'The concern that we had about notice was that the public would both know that a design review process would be underway, at some point in the life of the project proposed, and that the public would be informed of when the design committee would meet and consider that departure. He noted that, as presented, item H did not yet address the issue of when the design committee would meet to review the particular project or application for departure. He suggested that "some significant portion of the lineout should be brought back in" to accomplish this (lines 25-27 on page 6, Exhibit A). He proposed that the text read something like 'tMeetings of the design review advisory committee require 24 hour notice to the newspaper on record, which notice includes reference to the project and issue. It Referring to Exhibit A, page 10, lines 19-20, he said that in order for the committee to take public comment, adequate notice must be given about the meeting time and topic. Mr. Goldman mentioned several other "housekeeping items" in Exhibit A. On page 3, line 18, he suggested the section be labeled the "GRSM Standard" (George Randels Supermajority Standard). At the bottom of the same page, he referred to the definition of "substantial alterationt!, stating that it incorporates some of what he was trying to suggest in his memo (Exhibit 4). "In considering the value of the property and application of the standard to the value of the property, that it consider both the tax assessor's improvement valuation and a private appraisal at fair-market value, because they could be very different depending on the point in the cycle.'t He stated that, as such, the provision would lead to more adaptive reuse than not -- Le., it allows a developer to use a standard which applies against the higher value, which means more properties would be subject to adaptive reuse rather than application of the code, strictly. On line 5, page 7, he pointed out that what is labeled "E." should be "D." On page 9, line 4, he wondered if "2" should be letter tle.1t On page 6, 17.46.090 Outcome of Review, there is a reference to the certificate of review. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2005 Page 4 . Goldman asked that a definition be included, if there was not already one elsewhere in the code. He added his opinion that new buildings should be subject to code. He said that although his primary interest in code revision had been on its application to existing buildings, he could see no reason why new buildings shon1d not conform to the code. He restated his intention of promoting some objective standard, rather than risk utterly discretionary and/or arbitrary application of the standard. Another member of the Design Review Committee, Mr. Guy Hupy, attended the hearing, but indicated that the essential points had been covered by the other conunittee members who testified earlier. .Mr. Randels then granted Mr. Berg's request to make additional comments. Mr. Berg: "In light ofMr. Goldman's testimony, I decided that I would like to say one more thing. From the viewpoint of a designer who has to deal with these standards, strict application of the code is synonymous with the lowest common denominator. The code was written to try to take into account all pieces of property and all situations, and can't possibly so do. So, by definition, strict application of the code will lead to lowest common denominator design work. There is not a single potential project out there, whether it's a new project or adaptive reuse, where there is not a better solution than what would come out of strict application of the code. And, I think that the very best reason to have a departure process is that we always want to give the designer the opportunity to present a better solution than what would come of strict application of the code, and to be able to evaluate it and say yes, jf it is better. I have no argument with the idea of supermajorities or unanimous approval, or whatever -- I think that standard should be high when it needs to be high, but we always want to be able to have a better solution presented, and say Yes ifit is a better solution. And, so thatls precisely the reason for my objection to the idea that we should place a limit to the use of the departure process anywhere, based on any kind of monetary value or anything. . Ian Keith was then granted additional time to comment. He said, lIMy concern is that as this is being re\\oTitten, we have lost the alternative design process, and if departures canlt be applied broadly, then it's actually become less flexible than it was before. And, one thing we have talked about a lot on the committee is what if a really inventive designer comes with a project and we say nwow, that's a great idea...., but you can't do it, we can't go there. fl I donlt think it is possible to Vlrite a set of objective standards, that are going to be applied to every building in the C _II zone, that could produce anything but abysmal architecture. So, if we are going to take the alternative design process out of there, and replace it with departures, the departures have to be broadly applicable.tl After determining that there was no further testimony, Mr. Randels then thanked those who testified, and asked if staff had any response to the public testimony. Staff Response: . Mr. Randall said that he would try to trame the issues for the consideration ofllie Commissioners. He said, "In looking through the issues raised, Ian (Keith) brought up the question of whether "aggrieved parties" had been defined, and the answer is "No". Referring to the language on page 6, Exhibit A lines 39-40, he read: "Interested citizens or aggrieved parties may request in writing a consideration of the advisory committee recommendation. '1 He said, "In that situation, interested citizen is intended to be open and encompassing -- I guess we were thinking that that wouldnlt need a definition. If someone had taken an interest and was at the committee meeting, or heard about the committee meeting and wanted to write a letter, they would be allowed to do so. So, it wouldn't be a "high standing standard"; it would be open to anyone who took the time and effort to \Vfite a reconsideration request. If we wanted to change that, there is a definition of a 'party of record' that is in Title 20 that talks about people who participate in hearings, or submit a written comment letter (or whatever). If we felt that we wanted to tighten that up we could change that to party of record, and add that definition to Title XVII; I don't think we need to, but if the Planning Commission thinks that is appropriate. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 5 . Mr. Randall said that on the issue of substantial alteration, he thought that those testitying had framed the issue fairly well, and there could be additional dialogue during this hearing. Regarding Ian's comment about facelifts of less than 60% of value needing review and Richard (Berg) also sharing that opinion, I think the Planning Commission should have some dialogue with those individuals about some suggested language, if you wish to pursue that. I do not have additional suggestions on issue. Regarding the testimony of Mr. Berg on building separation distances, Mr. Randall said that the idea of having different requirements for vehicular versus pedestrian oriented use made sense functionally, and could be pursued. Mr. Randall addressed Mr. Berg's question about formula stores, particularly the intention with regard to grouping or clustering of formula stores together on a large property versus dispersing them rather evenly, i.e. one per 20,000 s.1. He explained the way the formula store ordinance works: if you have more than 20,000 s.f, multiple standards would apply. Multiple attached buildings can only be 40,000 s.f. in size. The formula store ordinance says there may only be one formula store per building. That would be the key way of keeping them separated. I suppose you could say 'one per building or attached buildings' if you wauted to say no more than one per 40,000 s.1. block. But I think the effect of this is that now you could only get one per 20,000 s.1. and they couldn't be in the same building, and they couldn't be on a corner. If you wish to discuss that further, J'd be happy to do so. Regarding substantial alterations and departures, that should be discussed further. . Regarding David Goldman's conunents about notice, I did strike out language that was conflicting with the updated language above it. However, he is correct that a certain part of that, " ...meetings of the design review advisory committee require 24-hour notice... n, is relevant and is covered elsewhere in the code. However, I would not have a problem with restoring that statement, possibly adding "Meetiugs.. .also require 24-hour notice to the newspaper of record, which notice includes reference to the project in question", since this is the second reference to the notice in this section. And Mr. Goldman said something that made me think we should include additional language on line 19: "Notice of application for design review, including the time and place of meeting and any departures requested, shall be posted... 11 Planning Commission Questions: Mr. Randels: Since we just talked about notice, is there a way under present rules that people can let the committee or the system know that they are interested in a particular project, so that they are placed on a list for automatic notification? If there is such a system, could that be incorporated here? Mr. Randall said that there was no formal mechanism. Typically, an interested person will call the City and find out the planner assigned to the project. If they request that they be kept abreast of meetings or other process, the planner will give them a call or send an e-mail before such events. It is informal and not addressed in the code. He mentioned, as example, that he had sent packets for this evening's meeting to Mr. Goldman and Mr. HinkJe since he knew that they were very interested in this topic. He noted that the other extreme is the situation where someone wishes to know about every connnercial design review project that happens, period. He said that there is no formal way to handle that now, and that no single staff person assigned to that committee who could automatically send out personal notices. He added that such a mechanjsm was not impossible to develop, but there is no system currently in place. Ms. Thayer said she wished to recognize that the Commission had received some very good input from several people who have been really involved in this issue, and their suggestions should be taken into consideration. Mr. Randels said that he definitely agreed. . Mr. Lizut brought up the issue of design freedom versus limits on departures. He noted that although he had not been a designer, he had worked with designers, mechanical engineers and electrical engineersj where his role was to develop system requirements. He recalled the difficulty of holding designers back from inventing solutions, either before the requirements were fully defined or understood, or that did not Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2005 Page 6 . adequately address the true requirements. He said that while he did not like the idea of restricting creativity, he wished to discuss how a balance could be achieved between meeting the overarching requirements ( that is, sustaining the look and feel of Port Townsend), and allowing the design freedom that the speakers were requesting. Mr. Randels recognized Mr. Berg. Mr. Berg said he thought that there was a provision in the proposed code that states that a departure must demonstrate that it exceeds the standard or better serves the public interest. Mr. Randall read aloud the language from Exhibit A, page 2, lines 16-21: "In order for a departure from development standards to be allowed, an applicant must demonstrate that the overall development, including deportures from design standards, would better serve the public interest and a finding made sholl be made in the affirmative that each proposed departure meets or exceeds the intent of the respective design guideline as compared to a strict application of the established standard. If Mr. Berg continued: So, in other words somebody has to go through a process of thinking out how the departures make it better than it would have been. Without that process, I would be worried about what you are worried about. In this process, if you put do"WIl in words that it's better and you don't say how, then you haven't done it, and if you say how and nobody agrees with you, then you still haven't done it. He said he that with that provision, there is a good chance that the requirements, at least, will be met. Me. Keith added that the standards were drafted with the intention of communicating what we are trying to achieve, and just some of the ways that can be'used to get there. He emphasized that whatever the design or means to accomplish the intended end result, the designer/developer still has to get there, i.e. meet (or exceed) the standard. Mr. Lizut raised the issue of how to preserve that philosophy as the composition of the Design Review Committee changes in future years. Mr. Keith responded that applicants will still need to demonstrate that their design meets or exceeds the standard. . Ms. King spoke about the "meets or exceeds" premise, and conveyed that that she did not see that as a problem. She said that she questioned early on whether this applied to new buildings. She noted that the fIrst draft documents had referenced adaptive reuse, but that this code draft (Exhibit A) does not reference adaptive reuse, She said that although that was confusing at first, she now understands that the intention is to encourage creative solutions that will meet or exceed these standards that are written, She added that she is not now concerned about the committee being taken over (by those of unsound mind) years down the road. Mr. Randels inteJjected that he had heard tonight that "the code produces bad design", and that was certainly bothersome. He said he hoped that was not true, and that good design can come from the existing code. He said that if it canlt, then we should revise the existing code. Assuming that the only way to get good design is to have a departure process, then shouldn't we then review everything? Othenvise, those who just comply with the code will produce bad designs. He said that for him, if the testimony was true, this was a dichotomy that needed to be reckoned with. Mr. Keith said he saw these standards as a floor, and that the ceiling should be left undefIned. Mr. Goldman joined the discussion, saying that he apologized for his "inartful" expression earlier. He said that the group was not disagreeing about what he had referred to as "the strict application of the codetl, considering that the language tlmeets or exceedsll does cover that. He recalled the PT Retail (formerly PT Lumber property) instance, where "we allowed them not to meet the minimum standard, and that was detrimental to the look and feel of Washington Street. And I don't think that was of benefit to the community. " He mentioned that they weren't required to put in the parapets, for instance, and he recalled that Ian ( Keith?) had outlines at least seven departures from the code, which they went ahead and built into the building. He said, "But, we are not actually having a disagreement about how it ought to be applied. I'm assuming there was/is agreement that we ought to at least have the code as a minimum, as the floor. The second part is that the advisory committee is not making the decision that there should be a departure. The committee is reviewing the departure and giving their opinion about whether it meets or exceeds the code to a decisionmaker, who is the DSD Director, in most cases. But, the main thing is whether everybody ought to design down to code -- I wouldn't agree with that. 1 agree with Ian, and 1 agree with ... (inaudible). . Mr. Randels: So, if their interpretation is correct, and the draft does exclude new buildings, then you would agree that it ought to be amended. Mr. Goldman: What it says is: 'lIf there is a substantial alteration, no departure should be approved. I don't see how that applies to a new building.1I A1r. Keith: It's just not clear, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 7 . it's silent on the new building... Mr. Goldman: I agree. Ms. Thayer: What you are saying is that we should make it clear. Mr. Randels: ...add some clarifYing language. Mr. Randall: "substantial alterations to existing buildings", is that what we are taking about? Mr. Keith: I still do not understand why it would apply to a new building and to a minor alteration, but not to a substantial alteration. That doesn't make any sense to me. (I would say it should apply to anything.) Mr. Randels said that the discussion had been useful. Mr. Keith added, and several others acknowledged, that the process is always going to involve opinion, no matter who populates the committee, and regardless of their credentials. . Mr. Emery returned to the notice requirements on page 6, Exhibit A. He wished to know how far along in the design stage a project was likely to be, when the public notice and Deign Review occurs. Mr. Randall recapped the usual sequence: Application Packet to the project owner; a meeting with the assigned city planner, including advise, feedback, check to see that the application is complete and has a reasonable case for departure approval; application is forwarded to Design Review committee; schedule the review, and post the notice. For the public, the application file is available to inspect in the notice/posting period before the review meeting. Mr. Randels asked if the committee meetings allow for public comment. The answer was yes; the meetings have regular format and agenda, but are less formal than Planning Commission hearings. Mr. Keith added that, ideally, the review happened at the concept stage, so that there were not yet detailed drawings, or significant investment in the design. There was agreement that there would be some visual representation of the concept available, an idea of how the building would look, bulk and dimension information, site plan and elevation. Mr. Emery suggested that such a three-dimensional drawing (perspective) should be posted at the site along with the meeting notice. He suggested that that some provision be inserted at MC 20.01,060 (AA). The expense of perspective drawings was discussed, and most agreed that currently it was more typical to have only site plans and elevations at this stage. Mr. Randall suggested that the Commissioners decide what representations are needed, and that could be included in the changes. Mr. Keith cautioned that for each requirement or step that is added, the applicant becomes more invested in the original design and is likely to be less receptive to modifYing it. Mr. Hupy added that until elevations, etc are approved by the committee and have gone through the SEP A process, it makes no sense to post them for public view. Mr. Randels closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. He thanked everyone for attending and participating in the process. Commission Deliberation: Mr. Randall suggested that the Conmtissioners step through the items A to L, in order. Exhibit A. Page 2: Line 10 -- delete the word "amendments" Page 3: As a starting point, Mr. Randels offered this summary: If we concede that the code has inherent limits, but that the philosopher king approach is not desired, and not every project should be subject to mandatory review; then, we want the code to provide for a minimum, but we want to encourage designers of all capabilities to strive for better than that minimum. So, if they are designing a new structure, or modifYing an old one, they should present the basic code-compliant design, and their "better" way. . Ms. Thayer: So, I would say we strike D. (lines 23-25) Mr. Randels asked Mr. Randall for comment. Mr. Randall said that no one objected to applying departures to new construction, provided they are meeting the "floor requirements", and showing that there is a better way. And, there did not seem to be a valid reason to prohibit substantial alterations. What we have changed is the process, not the requirements. He agreed that D. should be deleted. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 8 . Mr. Randels: Before we leave page 3, I know that I must have concurred with the unanimity on the height limit, but I don't recall the rationale for that, and I am concerned about the ability of one person to block everything. Mr. Randall said he thought the reasoning was based on the fact that signs are a sensitive issue: signs are commercial advertising, sign code is explicit. Mr. Berg was recognized to speak. He recalled that he had sent an e-mail to Mr. Randall at some point. He noted that building height is not in the list, so departures are not allowed, except for cottage developments. He said that in the historic district, towers of no more than 100 s.1. (lOx 10) are allowed and indeed encouraged: turrets, towers, etc. Outside of the historic district in the C-II area, without a departure from the building height, they could not be approved. He said he is not clear why towers would not be appropriate outside the historic district. Ms. Thayer then recommended that the qualifier !tin cottage housing developments" be deleted from A.I3 on page 3. Ms. King asked if the intention was to anow exceptions to building height, or just to allow towers. There was further comment that it would be unwise to allow departures to building height in a blanket fashion, due to the complications and implications for massing, bulk and dimension. It was agreed that a separate item, using language similar to that in the HPC guidelines. . When recognized by Mr. Randels, Mr. Keith then returned to the signs issue. He said that because of the sensitivity about this issue in Port Townsend, any departure approved on signs needs to be bulletproof. He expressed a preference for a unanimity requirement. He said that if one exception is granted, then others who had to comply will be extremely upset, and this will trigger a host of other applications. After some other discussion about the Henery Hardware example, Mr. Randels asked why a unanimous approval was called for in tltis one case. Mr. Goldman offered that this was so sensitive and potentially controversial, that this would demonstrate that the professionals aU agreed that it was a proper decision, i.e. departure. Mr. Rande/s then proposed that the unanimity be changed to the supennajority (for Design Review committee approvals of departures for sign heights). Mr. Lizut said that he seconded that. Mr. Randels, Mr. Lizut and ~Vr. Emery voted in favor; Ms. Thayer and Ms. King were opposed. The change to supennajodty was approved: 3/2/0. Ms. Thayer stated that the information regarding the split vote should be passed to City Council; Mr. Randels agreed that it should. Mr. Randall said that he would add the additional item for towers, based on HPC guidelines, and also provide a reference to it near the text dealing with signs. Page 5: lines 20-21: update the "unanimous recommendation" to reflect the motion above. Mr. Randall said he would also correct the inconsistent numbering. Page 6: line 19 Add the site plan as a minimum posting requirement. Correct to PTMC 20.01. (A.IA& B) line 26 - Restore and modify the stricken sentence beginning with "Meetings... " line 46 - "Certificate of review" - Include an addition to the existing defmition to include the final report of the Design Review Committee. Page 7: line 5 - Change E. to D. line 18 - delete extra period after parking. line 20 - Change reference to On-street parking spaces . Page 8: There was a brief discussion about whether and what to include regarding facades. line 33 - Exterior changes that require a building permit, not including ordinary repair and maintenance (replacing like with like). Page 9: line 2 - Indent the 2- line 5 ,. restore the word "perl! Page 10: line 24 - Indent Page 11: There was discussion about the building separation requirements for vehicular versus pedestrian traffic situations. Pull the current reference. Mr. Randall will draft language stating: Multiple structures with ground floor area exceeding Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 9 . . . 40,000 s.f. shall be separated by a minimum of 60 feet where designed for vehicular use, this separation may be reduced where designed for pedestrian use only, upon approval of a departure. Page 13:Delete item 6, line 32 (redundant) Green Sheet Mr. Randall explained that he followed the format of identifying an objective (what is intended to be accomplished), followed by how you are trying to accomplish it. After reading the text of the objective, he stated that he would add a reference to building separation to cover what had just been discussed. He asked the commissioners ifhe had adequately captured the objective, and they agreed that he had done so. Mr. Berg asked to make a comment about the 40,000 s.f. block size. He said that most of the town is laid out with that block size ( 8 lots of 50 x 100), but that all the uptown lots and some of the downto'Wn is 55 x 110. Mr. Randall then said, 220 x 110ft.. Mr. Berg said they were much easier to work with. He wondered if a rule could be created to set a standard for any future platting. Mr. Raudall then explained that he had initially set a range to accommodate the various sizes found in the city, but realized that the maximum square footage for a ground floor area is 40,000 s.f. It was then realized that Mr. Berg was referring to residential lots, and that this code applied to commercial only. There was no further discussion. Mr. Randels questioned the use of the word "triangular" in section 3. Mr. Randall and several commissioners believed that it was an appropriate inclusion, recognizing the variance in lot shapes and sizes, and the implications for building design. Ms. Thayer mOl-'ed that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Exhibit A as amended. Mr. Rande/s seconded. All were in/avor. Motion passed 5/0/0. Mr. Randall said that he would include the vote result ( 3/2/0) on the sign height departure issue, as well. He noted that he would amend by inserting a series of whereas clauses, indicating why these changes are needed and appropriate. It was agreed that the subcommittee would review the final language. Mr. Randall said that the amendment was scheduled for the December 12 City Council Meeting. He also asked if representatives from the Design Review Committee would be attending the Council meeting. Ms. Thayer then moved that the whereas clauses be r~rerred to the subcommittee for final review and approval. Afr. Lizut seconded. All were in favor. Motion passed 5/0/0. Shoreline Master Program Recommendations -- There was a brief discussion about the status of the SMP Update process in progress in City Council. Mr. Randall said that a set of errata sheet corrections had been approved. Indian Point had not yet been discussed. The Point Hudson mixed used facility idea had not been approved, and there was some portion of Point Hudson yet to be discussed. One commissioner wondered why parties opposed to the mixed use facility compromise had not taken the time and opportunity to provide input in the previous months and years. Another commissioner noted that perbaps this was a public process that had to happen, and that despite the apparent inefficiency, this allowed everyone to work through and really understand the whole issue. It was noted that the supporters of the compromise were not the parties to the compromise, but the brokers. There was also a suggestion that there may be a problem with the interface of the Planning Commission and the City CounciL Conunissioners suggested that they should possibly brainstorm about improving that situation, including following up on how to have more frequent contact with the City Council liaison. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 10 . . . VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS 12/8/05: Planning for 20067:00 PM IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Emery moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Lizut seconded; all were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:18 PM George Randels, Chair ~~ Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 1,2005 Page 11