HomeMy WebLinkAbout110320 PacketAgenda
Historic Preservation Committee
Regular Meeting
3:00 PM, November 3, 2020
3rd Floor Conference Room, 250 Madison Street
**** The State of Emergency declared by Governor Inslee temporarily prohibits in-
person contacts with the public required by the Open Public Meetings Act. The May 29,
2020 Public Health Order by Jefferson County Health Officer Thomas Locke prohibits in-
person contacts with the public. members will be participating by teleconference****
Submit public comment emails to be read aloud (up to three minutes per person) to:
publiccomment@cityofpt.us or join in person via computer or tablet at
http://joinwebinar.com enter the 9 digit Webinar ID 481-191-955 or by phone (listen
only) United States: +1 (562) 247-8321 access code: 495-335-302#
Local Dial In – (360) 390-5064 access code: 495-335-302#
1. Roll Call: Richard Berg, (Chair), Craig Britton (Vice Chair), Kathleen Croston,
George Randels, Kathleen Knoblock, Walter Galitzki and Michael D’Alessandro;
Monica MickHager (Council Liaison)
2. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of October 6, 2020
3. Approval of Agenda:
4. Correspondence/Attachments: NAPC’s The Alliance Review, Spring 2020 (sent via
email)
5. Appearance of Fairness:
6. Public Comment (for items not on the Agenda there is 3-minute limit per person)
7. Old Business:
A. HPC20-019, NW Maritime Center monument signage
Jeff Hogue, NWMC Facilities Manager
Staff & Applicant Presentation
Applicable Guidelines:
• Sign Guidelines;
• East Downtown Streetscape Design Manual (limited
applicability)
Public Comment (3-minute limit per person
HPC Questions, Deliberation and Recommendation
8. New Business:
None
9. Other Business:
A. Report on recent Main Street CDBG/HUD loan reviews
HPC member G. Randels
B. Continued Review or draft Guidelines for:
• Windows; and,
• Non-Residential Exterior Lighting
10. Announcements:
11. Adjournment: Next Regular scheduled meeting is December 1, 2020.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Date: Oct. 6, 2020 Time: 3:00 pm Location: City Hall Conference Rm. #3 (for staff) and virtually via GoToMeeting webinar (for all others)
Members Present: Richard Berg (Chair), Craig Britton (Vice-chair), Kathleen Croston, George Randels, Kathleen Knoblock, Walter Galitzki and
Michael D’Alessandro. City Council member/HPC liaison Monica Mickhager
Members Absent: Michael D’Alessandro was excused from the meeting at 4 pm Staff Present: Senior Planner John McDonagh
Topic Motions/Recommendation/Action
Approval of Minutes Minutes for the Sept. 1, 2020 Regular meeting approved (6 in favor, none opposed; 1
abstention -K. Croston was absent/excused from the Sept. 1 meeting).
Approval of the Agenda The Oct. 6, 2020 meeting Agenda was approved unanimously (7-0).
Correspondence/Attachments: None.
Appearance of Fairness: None.
Public Comment (for any non-Agenda items) No public comment was offered for any non-Agenda item.
New Business
A. HPC20-019, NW Maritime Center monument
signage
Jeff Hogue and Anika Colvin of the NW Maritime Center (NWMC) presented their
proposal for a new monument sign. This effort is one part of an overall “refreshing” of
the NWMC campus including re-painting of the buildings (which is done) and other
directional signage still under development.
The monument sign’s location in the Water St. right-of-way (ROW) was specifically
chosen to draw people into the breezeway between the 2 NWMC buildings and based
on mapping of pedestrian movements. Sign height had been lowered from 19’ to 18’
in order to comply with adopted sign guidelines and code. Sign would be made from
aluminum and be internally lit using dimmable LED.
HPC members raised questions and concerns about:
• Possible competition with the S’Klallam totem pole;
• Lighting;
Topic Motions/Recommendation/Action
• Diminished public space on the sidewalk (especially but not solely related to
COVID distancing);
• Precedent for such a large sign being placed in the ROW (this was directed
more at DSD staff than the applicants);
• A more effective means to achieve NWMC’s stated goals w/o having to use the
ROW?
Prior to completing their review and providing a recommendation, HPC requested (and
applicants agreed) to re-establish a mock-up of the sign so all interested parties could
physically view the installation. Staff would advise members of the sign demonstration
date & time. HPC complete further review and a recommendation at their next
meeting (Nov. 3). For the Nov. 3 meeting, staff agreed to report on the specific sign
code provisions that allow for sign placement in the ROW to be considered. No action
by HPC was taken at the Oct. 6 meeting.
B. HPC20-021, Aldrich’s Market, new mural
signage and streetscape benches
Yos Ligtenberg, new owner of Aldrich’s Market (with 2 other family members) presented their
proposal for new wall signage (6’ x 10’ in size) and the installation of new streetscape benches
and planters. The new signage and streetscape installations were shown via hand drawn
sketches included with the application.
Staff’s recommendation was to approve the project as presented subject to securing
associated City permits for conducting work in the respective Tyler and Lawrence St. rights-of-
way (i.e. staging for painting the new sign; anchoring benches to sidewalk). HPC
recommended approval as presented (6-0).
C. HPC20-022, American Legion rooftop solar
project
Dave Campbell of Frederickson Electric/Cascadia Solar presented their proposal, on behalf of
property owner American Legion Post #26, to install a series of solar panel arrays on the
Legion’s south facing roof plane at 209 Monroe St.
Staff’s recommended approval for the project as presented, noting written public comment
received in support of the proposal including favorable input from the WA State Department
of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). HPC recommended approval per staff’s
recommendation (6-0).
D. HPC20-023, 820 Tyler St. – Side, rear and
vertical additions
Seb Eggert of Rain Shadow Woodworks presented on behalf of property owner Mindy Paresi
their conceptual (i.e. schematic) proposal to construct new side, rear and vertical additions to
Topic Motions/Recommendation/Action
a Secondary historic home at 820 Tyler St.
Staff described how the review of Secondary home alterations is normally done
administratively without HPC review; however, code still allows the DSD Director to seek HPC’s
review and recommendation. As the new vertical addition (roughly 12’ x 12’ in size) was a
feature that staff had not previously dealt with, HPC was being consulted.
After a series of questions and answers, HPC recommended approval of the concept
plans with further detailed review to be done administratively (6-0).
Old Business None.
Other Business None.
Announcements: None.
Next Scheduled Meeting: November 3, 2020
Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.
From:Ron Moller
To:John McDonagh
Cc:Anika Colvin; Kate Philbrick; Jeff Hogue
Subject:NWMC Sign Materials--for HPC consideration
Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 9:52:27 AM
CAUTION: External Email
Good morning John.
Our crew at NWMC wants to be sure that Richard Berg and the HPC team have any questions
answered, any concerns addressed prior to the November 3rd meeting.
Below is a link to a DropBox folder which Anika created (the files are too large to include directly in this email). Folder has four photos and four short (approx 15 seconds each) videos.
The videos in particular show our proposed monument sign in realistic context from the four most important visual directions. We’re confident that these answer most of the concerns
raised at last HPC review (and we hope that members went to see the mock-up in person when Jeff arranged to have it standing for a day).
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ufsmywym4lfgkj9/AACaxqZUivYdOYq1v46PeFAja?dl=0
A minor note, so it’s not a distraction: The originally planned sign was 19’ tall, and the mock-
up was made accordingly. At City’s request to keep the sign below second story windowsills, that height was reduced to 18’ and for this process review we simply cut a foot off the bottom
of the mock-up… which means the lettering now appears odd at the bottom, (ORTHWEST instead of NORTHWEST). Of course that is all being re-scaled for the actual design.
Also the lettering message up the side of the sign, which raised a question at last review, has
been updated to our familiar NWMC tagline:BECAUSE THE SEA IS THE MOST POWERFUL TEACHER WE KNOW
Please distribute this email to the HPC today and we welcome any additional questions or
comments from you or that team; will do our best to answer prior to the meeting.
very best,
Ron MollerNWMC Board
Facilities Liaison408-202-5421
1 Design Guidelines for Windows.8.27.20
City of Port Townsend
Design Guidelines for Windows
In Historic Structures
Purpose
These Design Guidelines are established for the following purposes:
1. To supplement land use regulations which encourage and promote public health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of Port Townsend.
2. To provide guidance to urban design decisions that will promote development of high
environmental and visual quality throughout the City.
3. To assist applicants in the preparation of development applications.
4. To provide for administrative review by the Development Services Department (DSD) of
routine window permit applications that satisfy guidelines adopted by the Historic
Preservation Committee (HPC) and the City Council.
Introduction
Windows have four basic functions: (1) admitting light to the interior spaces; (2) providing fresh
air, ventilation and potential emergency egress to the interior; (3) providing a visual link to the
outside world; and, (4) enhancing the appearance of the building. Windows are one of the most
a character defining features of a building. Their pattern, arrangement, materials, size and shape
all contribute to the historic significance of the structure they serve.
In Port Townsend, most original historic residential windows are rectangular wooden, double-
hung sash, as are those on the upper floors of commercial buildings. Sashes are frequently
further divided into individual panes, or “lights.” Commercial buildings frequently have large
fixed “picture” windows on the ground floor raised above the sidewalk via a “kickplate.” These
windows are often accented by separate fixed transom windows located immediately above.
Fixed “fan” windows in arched openings also are found above the upper floor double-hung
windows in several buildings in the commercial downtown. Less frequent, but still employed,
are bay windows on the upper floors.
Windows are a frequently target blamed for energy loss. Historic building owners commonly
seek to replace their original wood windows on with the expectation that replacement ones is are
an environmentally correct improvement and that it will save them time and money. However,
experts indicate that only between 10-25% of energy loss actually comes from windows. In
reality, most heat loss comes from a poorly insulated attic or an inefficient fireplace damper.
Replacement windows frequently have a limited lifespan of 20 years, while a properly
maintained historic wood window can last up to 200 years. In many cases, in the time span of
time it takes to “save” enough money due to energy savings, it is likely that “new” windows will
have to be replaced again. Over the long term, greater savings can be achieved through proper
Commented [JM1]: 6-6-17 HPC meeting edit
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Commented [JM2]: c. britton 9/16/20
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Commented [JM3]: c britton 9/16/20
Formatted: No underline
Commented [JM4]: 6-6-17 HPC meeting edit
Commented [JM5]: C britton 9/16/20m
Commented [JM6]: 6-6-17 HPC suggested deletion
Commented [JM7]: 6-6-17 HPC suggested deletion
Commented [JM8]: 8-26-20 staff edit
Commented [JM9]: 6-6-17 HPC suggested deletion. Staff suggests replacing with “recoup the investment in”
Formatted: No underline
Commented [JM10]: 6-6-17 HPC suggested deletion.
Formatted: No underline
2 Design Guidelines for Windows.8.27.20
maintenance and weather stripping of historic windows, combined with a well fitting storm
window.
Review Process
1. All building permit applications for window replacement on historic residences
designated as Secondary contributing structures shall be reviewed administratively by
DSD staff with a decision made by the DSD Director. Said review shall not require a
separate design review application but findings regarding appropriateness of the proposed
window replacement shall be made as part of the building permit application itself.
2. Building permit applications for window replacement on all other structures subject to
PTMC 17.30 (i.e. Pivotal and Primary residences, all other commercial, public, religious
and maritime trade buildings within the historic overlay district, other historic structures
lying outside the historic overlay district) shall be subject to Type I-A review and
recommendation by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) with a final decision
made by the DSD Director in a formal Certificate of Approval.
Guidelines
1. Original wood windows shall be maintained and repaired when possible rather than
replaced. DSD staff shall inspect existing windows sought for replacement to determine
if they are original and to what degree deterioration would make their repair prohibitive.
Where original wood windows are allowed to be replaced, the replacement windows shall
match the historic window style closely (as described above in the Introduction).
2. If non-original windows are sought to be replaced, the replacement windows shall match
the historic window style closely (as described above in the Introduction).
3. Original window opening sizes shall be maintained. The closing down of an original
opening to accommodate a smaller window is inappropriate.
4. Vinyl windows are strongly discouraged on all historic structures except in limited
situations such as, but not limited to, wet locations (i.e. bathrooms). Their use on Pivotal
or Primary residences is prohibited.
5. Wood windows are the preferred material in all historic structures. Wood windows given
proper treatment with a penetrating epoxy and a quality primer (if painting is desired)
will provide years of use. Replacement windows often have a reflective finish quality
that is inappropriate with historic structures.
6. Windows should not have shutters unless there is physical or pictorial evidence they
originally existed on the building.
7. Replacement windows which have flush or snap-in muntins are prohibited. True divided
lite or simulated divided lite (SDL) windows are encouraged. SDL windows have
permanent exterior and interior muntins and an integral spacer bar.
Commented [JM11]: 9-5-14 staff notes: Should this review process always be the case – HPC recommendation
B4 DSD decision? What about replacement/resizing when
the circumstances involve non-historic windows?
Commented [JM12]: 6-6-17 HPC discussion. Consider language that provides for a departure process for relief?
Make allowance for when window is not visible from a
public ROW?
Commented [JM13]: 9-5-14 staff note: What about re-sizing of previously altered openings or the addition of new
window openings? In either case, when done to make the
building more conforming, this should be OK but under what
review process? Staff/Admin or HPC review/recommendation?
Commented [JM14]: 6-6-17 HPC suggested language
Commented [JM15]: 6-6-17 HPC suggested addition
(with staff alteration).
Commented [JM16]: c. briiton suggest move to 3rd para
on prvs pg.
3 Design Guidelines for Windows.8.27.20
8. The addition of new window openings on principal facades of historic residences is
prohibited. The addition of new window openings on principal facades of non-residential
historic structures may be permitted as part of an approved rehabilitation project so long
as the new openings do not penetrate a historic mural.
9. The use of weather stripping and proper fitting storm windows is strongly encouraged.
Sources: provide a list of window repair sources; window economics, try to include a sketch of
the “anatomy” of a wood double hung. window, etc.
Design Guidelines for 1 Non-Residential Exterior Lighting
City of Port Townsend
Design Guidelines for
Exterior Lighting of Non-Residential Properties
Subject to Historic Design Review.
Purpose
These Design Guidelines are established for the following purposes:
1. To supplement land use regulations which encourage and promote public health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Port Townsend.
2. To provide guidance to urban design decisions that will promote development of high
environmental and visual quality throughout the City.
3. To assist applicants in the preparation of development applications as part of the City's
Historic Design Review process.
4. To provide for administrative review by the Development Services Department (DSD) of
exterior lighting proposals that are subject to Historic Design Review and which comply with
guidelines adopted by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) and the City Council.
Introduction
Within Port Townsend's National Landmark Historic District (NHLD), the appropriate use of
external lighting for non-residential buildings and private open areas (such as parking lots) is
important to maintaining overall character.
Historically, lighting was only provided at a building's main entry using lamp oil or kerosene.
Today, the uses put to buildings often require more than one entrance (or exit) be lit using
electricity. The use of subdued lighting in street level storefronts is preferable to having them
dark during evening hours, especially during months where darkness arrives earlier. With
modern lighting technology constantly evolving, the range of fixture types, color spectrum, and
bulb intensity only continues to broaden.
Good exterior lighting is good for business; however, excessive lighting can easily degrade
pedestrian experience. Safely, well-lit buildings can benefit and enhance architecture; yet,
nighttime views of the sky and stars are valued by residents and visitors as well. The goals of
these guidelines are to describe exterior lighting use that is both appropriate and fosters an
inviting, nighttime atmosphere without creating unnecessary glare and light pollution.
Review Process
1. Consistent with PTMC 17.30.050, Historic Design Review requests for all non-residential
exterior lighting that are consistent with these guidelines may be reviewed administratively
by DSD staff as a Type I-A permit application, with a decision made by the DSD Director
via a Certificate of Review.
Commented [JM1]: Staff would suggest amended language which allows for issuance of a Waiver from Design
Review if new lighting is consistent with these guidelines.
Design Guidelines for 2 Non-Residential Exterior Lighting
Guidelines
A. Objective. All exterior commercial lighting, including that used to illuminate signs and
parking areas, shall be designed to reduce glare impacts to adjacent properties and public rights-
of-way, to use energy efficiently, and to reduce nighttime “light pollution.”
1. An exterior lighting plan, that includes specification sheets for each type of fixture
proposed, shall be included with all Historic Design Review applications where new or
revised lighting would be installed.
2. a. All exterior lighting, including that to illuminate signs, shall be pointed downward
and shielded from direct observation from the air, adjacent properties, and public
rights-of-way. Lighting “spillover” to adjacent properties shall be minimized. Lamps
shall use recessed or flat lenses. Light fixtures, shall be “full cutoff” fixtures as defined
by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
b. Alternative. If use of fixtures which do not meet the “full cutoff” definition are
proposed, other fixtures may be used if it is determined by the DSD director that no
significant light pollution or trespass will result and if the maximum initial lumens
generated by each fixture does not exceed 1,500 lumens in total (approximately
equivalent to an 18-watt compact fluorescent or 100-watt incandescent bulb).
3. Lighting in exterior canopies shall be recessed so that the lens does not drop below the
level of the canopy.
4. Except at Memorial Field, exterior light poles shall not exceed a height of 17 feet above
grade, including the base.
5. When lighting is used for security, the use of motion sensors and/or timers is required.
6. Exterior lighting shall be limited to nighttime business hours only. Lighting shall be
located near the activity needing illumination. Walkways, entrances, and parking areas may
be lit during nighttime business hours, but such lighting shall be the minimum necessary
for safety. Lighting in parking lots should be of uniform intensity, since the eye cannot
easily adapt to areas of darkness and brightness in proximity to one another.
7. Buildings shall not be outlined with neon or other lighting, except seasonal lighting. The
use of storefront window lighting that conforms with these guideline (directed downward,
does not spill outward, etc.) is encouraged.
8. If, once installed, lighting is found to be performing in violation of these standards, the
City may require the business owner to take corrective action to bring the lighting into
compliance.
Commented [JM2]: Staff question – how to deal with
LED bulbs such as those installed on Aldrich’s awning?
Commented [JM3]: Does this language adequately address & allow for permitting of the Aldrich’s awning
lights?
Commented [JM4]: Does this language provide latitude
for circumstances like the Aldrich’s awning lights?
Commented [JM5R4]:
Design Guidelines for 3 Non-Residential Exterior Lighting
9. Lighting shall be maintained to meet these standards at all times.
10. Nighttime lighting of the American flag is exempt from the provisions of this chapter,
except that such lighting shall not provide direct glare to neighboring properties or traffic.
Examples
Design Guidelines for 4 Non-Residential Exterior Lighting