Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031008CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session the tenth day of March, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend City Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Michelle Sandoval presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were, Brent Butler, David King, George Randels, and Michelle Sandoval. Catharine Robinson, Laurie Medlicott and Mark Welch were excused. Planning Commission Members present were Steve Emery, Kristen Nelson, Bill LeMaster, Jerauld Frye, Harriet Capon, Julian Ray, and George Unterseher. Staff members present were City Attorney John Watts, Planning Director Rick Sepler, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. Consultant John Owen of Makers Architecture and Urban Design was also present. Planning Director Rick Sepler reviewed the packet materials. He noted that a number of Uptown Design Strategy and Uptown Parking Strategies Committee members were present. He stated that if the Council and Planning Commission determine that the committee recommendations are on track, the process will be to move the recommendations to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendations and then to the City Council for public hearing and decision. UPTOWN DESIGN RELATED STATEGIES -COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Mr. Sepler introduced John Owen of Makers consulting firm. He noted that the Uptown Design Strategies committee met several times during the last few months and stated that the recommendations before the Council tonight are a tweaking of the current C-II regulations. The committee did not try to re-invent the wheel but to adapt existing guidelines to fit the Uptown context. Some general comments and clarifications were made on the Residential Transition 2 paragraph on page 2 (shade and loss of privacy impacts to adjacent single-family residences). Mr. Owen noted that if the abutting residential property owner agrees, a commercial building can be built on the lot line under certain conditions. It may be that a blank wall built on the property line would be more quiet and preferable to a setback containing a parking lot, garbage can storage, etc. in some cases. City Council/Planning Comm Workshop Page 1 March 10, 2008 Mr. Randels inquired as to whether multi-family and commercial buildings would be treated under the same guidelines; Mr. Owen confirmed. Mr. Owen noted that many of the guidelines deal with quality in materials, colors, etc. The recommended guidelines are congruent with the C-II guidelines but there are some changes. Instead of mathematical modulation (a change in building face every so many feet) it is felt that buildings in the Uptown area should have to be required to have a major architectural element somewhere on the building. He also noted that the recommendations are not presented in municipal code language; once it is decided which recommendations will be incorporated, the changes to the code language will be presented. For existing buildings, the Historic Preservation Committee review would be retained, but the review would be based on the Uptown design related guidelines. Staff review and administrative approval would be all that is needed for some projects; it is possible that Uptown residents or business owners would sit in on the review as well as some with architecture or urban design expertise. It is proposed that there be mandatory review and mandatory compliance, but that the standards will have quite a bit of flexibility. An appeal process will also be in place. It is recommended that a record of applications be kept for a year so the results can be reviewed and changes made to the regulations in response to those results if necessary, The group then reviewed the recommendations page by page. Discussion items included: Definition of "pedestrian oriented" -noted that this would be included in the code language. View corridors - Mr. Owen showed some computer modeled images; it is apparent that the tallest buildings are at the top of the hill but a concern was whether there might be a "tunnel vision" down Lawrence. Mr. Sepler noted there are no identified view corridors Uptown. Residential transition -concern expressed about requirement that adjacent property owner must agree to "no setback" under stated conditions (page 2). This may establish a situation where good of the neighborhood could be compromised by an individual. Confirmation that the roof of a setback portion of a building could be used for plantings, roof gardens, etc. Concern that the parapet allows a higher wall which could end up 3 or 4 feet above the 20 foot limit; suggestion to set height at 15 feet and allow a deck on top. City Council/Planning Comm Workshop Page 2 March 10, 2008 It was noted that the height of screening walls is inconsistent through the document; Mr. Owens stated that the height should be six, not eight feet throughout. Ms. Sandoval asked how many properties would be affected under "Residential Transition 1"- Mr. Owen estimated about 15 would be affected. He added thatjust one property is designated P/OS and that is the Girl Scout House. In reply to a question from Mr. Randels, Mr. Owen stated there had been no discussion of the possibility a six foot high and obscure the sight line of drivers. Mr. had not been consulted at this point. screening wall might occur at a corner Owen also stated that the tree committee In response to a question from Ms. Nelson, Mr. Owen confirmed that Clay Street is specified (page 4) because it is the only street which has commercial use on one side and residential on the other In response to Mr. King's question about preventing "intrusions" to the pedestrian environment, Mr. Owen noted that there should be room for sidewalk or trees and we are assuming that garbage handling etc. would be on private property. There was further discussion on the veto right of the adjacent property owner and Mr. Owen confirmed that is the way it is currently written into the regulations. Mr. Owen stated there is no conflict within these recommended guidelines with green building principles. Mr. Randels asked for clarification about including the secondary street on corner lots in the "transparency' section and also why windows are required to be 12 inches above grade. Mr. Owen stated that requiring a windowed fagade on the secondary street gives much greater transparency to the building and the 12 inch above grade requirement keeps architects from designing windows that reach all the way to the bottom of the building. Regarding a question about the color palette, Mr. Owen confirmed that if a proposed color doesn't meet the palette it is considered "unusual" and needs special approval. He said the committee did not want to lock step into palette colors but wanted to provide some flexibility. Ms. Sandoval asked how mechanical equipment could be concealed from ground level views without a parapet. Mr. Owen stated the location of the equipment could also help conceal it from ground level view. Mr. Butler asked about the three roof planes; Mr. Owen stated that it was taken out of the current code so he is not sure what the driver was. Mr. Randels suggested there be more discussion about that requirement. City Council/Planning Comm Workshop Page 3 March 10, 2008 Regarding vinyl windows, Mr. Owen stated these were not addressed. Committee member Richard Berg stated that the Historic Preservation Committee's opinion of vinyl windows is that they are seen as appropriate modern technology that are fine to use on new buildings but are not appropriate as replacement windows on historic buildings. In response to Mr. Ray's question about artwork, Mr. Randels noted there is a policy for public art, which would be anything placed in the sidewalk or other right of way. Mr. Owen noted that this is a menu for designers to choose from and it would be up to the review board as to what works for the particular building or not. Mr. Randels suggested that at the end of Quality 7(d) (page 11) the last sentence read "either multiple colors or other siding materials" for clarity. Ms. Sandoval asked how we go about making sure the landscaping requirement of 80% coverage will still be in place in two years; Mr. Sepler stated there could be a performance bond if there are concerns and that usually there is a replacement condition in the permit. Mr. Randels pointed out that there is some mixed language in the existing code sections presented where "may" and "shall" are used interchangeably. Mr. Sepler stated this will be addressed. Mr. Butler noted that a fence is defined as being of masonry or wood; he stated he has seen "live" walls that are innovative and attractive and he would hate to rule those out. After the round of questions, discussion was opened and focused on the following: Concern that one neighbor could "scuttle" a block or a project according to "Residential Transition 2" guideline. Mr. Owen noted that this language was considered prior to the discussion about a review process; it would probably be preferable to have these issues under the purview of the review committee, with a mandated public comment period. Generally agreed that one neighbor should not be able to veto a project based on the proposed setback. Mixed use areas. Mr. Sepler noted that this particular process looked at design characteristics, not uses. Ms. Sandoval noted that it would not be feasible to have this sort of intensity in other mixed use areas. Mr. Randels stated he could definitely see this kind of bulk and dimension on Howard Street, where a new "uptown" would make sense. Mr. Randels stated concerns about potential unintended consequences of over- restrictive constraints on design; for example the requirement for three slopes on roof. He stated a good architect could design an acceptable two slope roof. He City Council/Planning Comm Workshop Page 4 March 10, 2008 favors erring on the side of flexibility so designers can design according to their expertise. Ms. Sandoval expressed concerns about less flexible design standards impacting building costs. She stated at some point in the process she would like to have a test case worked out in best and worst case scenarios in terms of a pro forma. Mr. Randels noted that the land economics in Port Townsend may mean that setbacks won't work here. Ms. Sandoval stated that she does not want overly restrictive design standards to reduce the possibility for affordable housing in mixed use centers and planned unit developments. Ms. Nelson stated the need to know which regulations are mandatory and which are suggestions. Mr. Owen stated this is not a regulatory document and that is an aspect that needs to be carefully refined as the city goes forward. He agreed with the idea of looking at examples for testing for affordability and fiscal reasonability. Mr. Randels confirmed this is a change from mandatory review/voluntary compliance to mandatory review/mandatory compliance for the uptown district. Mr. Butler noted that the alternative to enforcement is some sort of "carrot;" an offer of increased density be made for those developers who provide some community development such as affordable housing, open space, or a gathering space for the community. Mr. King asked if overall this plan provides for greater development than could currently be done. Mr. Sepler answered no; the restriction on development was largely driven by parking. RECESS Mayor Sandoval declared a recess at 8:06 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:17 p.m UPTOWN PARKING STRATEGIES -COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Mr. Sepler referred to the matrix in the packet materials showing the recommendations developed by the Uptown Parking Strategies Committee He noted that when commercial parking is left without intervention, residential uses are compromised and residents may go to the legislative body and ask for a residential parking zone; there are national standards for this type of zone. The goal is not to let the situation degrade enough so that a residential parking zone is City Counci!/Planning Comm Workshop Page 5 March 10, 2008 necessary. The committee has proposed intervention measures to reduce the need to pursue a residential parking zone. He then preceded through the matrix of suggested implementation strategies. He noted that an uptown parking study was conducted in January, 2008, to get a baseline count and the result was that the daily average utilization of parking spaces was 41 %. The next step is to get a peak average in July. Typical residential parking zone processes require a finding of use of 75% or greater parking capacity during an 8 hour period for a subject area and at least 60% of affected area residents must agree before establishment of a zone. Mr. Sepler confirmed that there are two hour limit parking spaces in the uptown area. Mr. Randels asked whether the traffic demand management preparation is a specific recommendation and asked whether there is a definition of what would constitute what a "larger° commercial or mixed use would be. Mr. Sepler suggested that the SEPA threshold be used. Mr. Randels also asked if once the threshold is reached, could employees be mandated to park outside the area. Mr. Sepler stated that could be written into the plan when the maximum is reached. Mr. Butler noted there are successful commute trip reduction procedures that are used by some employers including subsidies for using public transportation, and the city could provide improved bicycle and pedestrian amenities. He added that because of the high cost of living in Port Townsend, many workers commute from outside the city. Ms. Nelson stated that when you reach 75% capacity, then it becomes self-enforcing and most employees will find another way to get to work. Mr. Randels asked if an interim threshold should be established at which time further actions would be taken to put off the major threshold. Mr. King noted that there are mandatory issues implicit in a residential parking zone; it is important to improve the situation now, then promote voluntary collaboration among resident businesses before having to impose a zone. Ms. Sandoval noted that many people use potential parking areas for other uses such as landscaping, storage, etc., and also put up barricades so that people can't park there. Mr. Sepler noted that some in the residential community demand the ability to park in front of their house any time they want; at 65% it is hard to find that place and it is a burden that you have to bear if you don't provide off street parking. Mr. Randels suggested moving the establishment of a neighborhood parking association up the ladder of priorities so that is done well before the 65% threshold City Council/P/anning Comm Workshop Page 6 March 10, 2008 is reached; then buy in can start in a meaningful way before a high capacity is reached. Mr. LeMaster said that the town meeting reaffirmed the value of a walkable community and he believes we put too much emphasis on using valuable real estate to park cars. Mr. Randels noted Port Townsend is an aging community and people are less able to be on foot all the time so those two features counteract each other in terms of the need for parking. Mr. Butler stated that health statistics show greater mobility in the city than in the county; the City must be aware of the ADA component of parking so that people who need parking spaces near their homes can have those. It was noted also that, for example, that no one would be able to get a bus home after this meeting. Ms. Sandoval stated that transit is an issue, noting that Jefferson Transit has a tight budget as well; she suggested a community conversation about setting up travel boards to share rides, etc. Mr. Sepler noted that Public Works student interns do the parking surveys each year so there is no additional cost to the city. Mr. Sepler stated that staff will take the workshop comments into consideration and begin to move forward with the process. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m Attest: 0`E~ ~~~ Pam Kolacy, MMC City Clerk City Council/Planning Comm Workshop Page 7 March 70, 2008