Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05272004CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF MAY 27, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this twenty- seventh day of May 2004, at 3:07 p.m. in the Port Townsend Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Freida Fenn, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, BCD Director Jeff Randall, Planner John McDonagh, and Legal Assistant Bobbie Usselman. ORDINANCE 2859 - REVISIONS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE Ms. Robinson indicated the goal today is to review the five areas set out in the agenda bill concerning the draft ordinance to find what areas of the draft ordinance Council can agree on and move forward with, and what areas need additional work. Also mentioned was whether a task force should be appointed for creating a similar ordinance for Uptown Historic District. The first issue is the merger of existing chapters 17.30 and 17.80 of PTMC into 1 chapter. Mr. Masci indicated that he prefers to see documents shown with line-in/line-out changes at all times as changes are hard to follow he can be confusing. He will bring this issue up at the next business meeting. Mr. Watts explained the materials they have received show a comparison of the existing code and proposed code changes. He stated at times line- in/line-out edits are not possible to use due to formatting. Mr. Watts stated after the public hearing on May 17, 2004, he and John McDonagh met with Duncan Kellogg who suggested some useful changes. The code indicates full architectural drawings of the entire building are required even if they are proposing a minor alteration of a door, for example. Mr. Watts said the requirement exists now, but has never been interpreted that way. It was decided to change the language to be clearer about requiring drawings of only the area being altered. It was confirmed that there is no change in the Historic Preservation Committee's role in the draft code. City Council Workshop Page 1 May 27, 2004 Mr. Masci, referring to the Comparison document, indicated on page 21, paragraph D, "Additional HPC Meetings," that HPC should not act independently without arranging a meeting which includes the applicant. There were no objections to that change. The suggested language is, "HPC, in coordination with the applicant, may schedule additional meetings .... " Mrs. Medlicott asked why we were adding the word "hardware" to section 17.30.080, and what was the definition of "hardware"? Mr. Watts stated the hardware would be such things as doorknobs. Mr. McDonagh agreed and stated this reference was more for a new building as opposed to an existing building. It was recommended that it should be made clear by stating "exterior hardware." Mr. Watts indicated change of drawings, the exterior hardware, and coordination of BCD and HPC would all be added. Moving on to the HPC Design Guidelines Manual, Mr. Watts said the issue came out of Council comments whether or not to adopt the booklet known as the HPC Manual at this time as an interim regulation as Mr. Timmons recommended. Council previously adopted some sections and a couple are in use by HPC but have not been adopted formally. The question at this time is whether Council wants to go forward to provide guidelines to apply or not adopt at this time and look at review and adoption following the review process. Mr. Timmons stated he recommends adoption in the interim and sending it to the Planning Commission to report back to Council. Ms. Fenn is in agreement that it should be adopted because if they did not, she wasn't clear on how HPC would function in the meantime. Mr. Timmons said we would do as we do now, but without authority in some areas. Without adopting these now, it would leave the City and applicant vulnerable. Mr. Benskin feels it would be out of step to adopt the manual now without review. Mr. Timmons stated this topic has been the subject of complaints as to what authority HPC has to impose guidelines and provisions. It would be good to formally recognize them so it isn't an issue. The concern was primarily that the Planning Commission didn't review it and passed it forward. We don't want to leave a potential risk of exposure to the applicant or us because we don't have that piece in place. The Planning Commission could get through it quickly. From a risk management point of view, it is prudent to have something in place. Mr. Kolff stated it makes sense to follow Mr. Timmons' recommendation. We want to be fair to HPC and the applicant, to give guidance and backup. He agreed that it made sense from a risk management point of view. Mr. Benskin indicated most of the concerns he hears are about HPC and their actions and guidelines. There are concerns and complaints about the guidelines and that in turn City Council Workshop Page 2 May 27, 2004 triggers concerns that they have not been formally reviewed and adopted. He feels changes to the guidelines could be made which would improve them. Mrs. Medlicott asked which of the guidelines have been adopted. Mr. McDonagh indicates of the 11 items listed in the guidelines, Council formally adopted items 1, 3, 10 and 11. Numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 have not been adopted by Council, but have been adopted by HPC. Mr. Watts indicated they were adopted by administration to provide consistent treatment, but they don't have the force of law. Applicants have gone along with that and there have been no legal challenges. Mr. Masci asked concerning item 2, draft design guidelines, whether the line-in is the only portion not adopted. Mr. McDonagh indicated it was adopted by HPC only. Mr. Masci does not want to adopt the guidelines. He has had issues with long-term members on HPC and doesn't want to perpetuate that by creating an interim ordinance placing in play things that are not legally enforceable. He feels this needs public input and should go through the process properly. Ms. Sandoval stated that had we had not brought up the historic preservation (HP) ordinance, we would not have realized the guidelines were not adopted. She feels we should use them on an interim basis and continue on until we have time to review them. Mrs. Medlicott feels we should not be in a hm'ry to adopt interim guidelines. Mr. Randall indicated when the HP ordinance originally passed, HPC had mandatory review of projects. Compliance was voluntary until the Urban Waterfront Plan was adopted; then compliance became mandatory. The benefit of the guidelines is that they make the process easier for certain applications, such as vents and propane tanks. Mr. Timmons stated if Council does not act, we could no longer enforce guidelines until they are adopted. If HPC doesn't have authority to do that, it will put it at risk until that is done. The concern from the Harris report regarding HPC was that it lacked adopted guidelines. Mr. Benskin stated the HPC doesn't have authority to act on its own to enforce guidelines; they make recommendations. Mr. Timmons indicated BCD would not have authority to act under the guidelines either. Mr. Kolff said it is not just a risk management issue, but it would be better for staff in order to expedite their ability to process applications. If we don't adopt the guidelines, staff will have to change what they do and it will take more time. He recommends we adopt the interim guidelines. Mr. Masci reiterates that he feels the guidelines need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Fenn suggests a vote be taken at the next meeting and we move on. City Council IVorkshop Page 3 May 27, 2004 Ms. Robinson indicated her concern is that there is a mandatory review and compliance that is difficult to do without guidelines. She asked what the timeline would be for the Planning Commission to review the guidelines. Mr. Randall indicated it should probably take six-plus months to cover all of the guidelines. Ms. Robinson stated this would be brought back to Council for decision at the earliest possible convenience. Concerning the guidelines for Uptown Historic District, the Planning Commission recommended the design review process become mandatory for Uptown, but not until the system guidelines are adopted. It is recommended this issue go to Council for a motion to authorize the Mayor to appoint a task force of interested persons that would formulate draft guidelines to HPC, Planning Commission and Council. This would probably be a 12-month process. Mr. Kolff, Mr. Benskin and Mrs. Medlicott spoke in support of that process. Ms. Fenn stated it would be useful for the committee to have something from HPC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Benskin indicated it would be difficult for HPC and the Planning Commission to have a member on the citizen committee, and then be involved in the review process. Mr. Watts stated it would not taint the process. Mr. Masci stated he has lived Uptown and would not like to have a mandatory code for Uptown. He feels we need to create a commercial overlay interest as a professional zone, and then have an area in which to preserve. He believes unless you have all persons who are going to be impacted economically or in a statutory manner, you shouldn't create a task force. Ms. Sandoval stated they are asking for this in the Uptown commercial district, and they want to be included in the parking task force, too. The task force should include them. Mr. Benskin stated that Uptown rallied for voluntary compliance. He indicated there was a petition circulated from Uptown businesses concerning mandatory guidelines and compliance because of the unique nature of Uptown and how it has grown in an unguided fashion. He doesn't feel they want mandatory guidelines and enforcement. Mr. Watts indicated the next issue is the heightened review of demolition of historic buildings. The driver for the ordinance at every level of review was that currently there is no regulation existing in the historic preservation code regarding demolition. Mr. Watts provided a handout concerning section 17.80.030D that basically says the only criteria is that if you demolish, the replacement building must meet design review. It is possible there could be some regulatory review under SEPA, but that is uncertain. Substantive authority is not clear as it allows mitigation of impacts but doesn't allow denying approval to an applicant. During discussions with Council, the City Manager City Council l~orkshop Page 4 May 27, 2004 suggested the review process be altered from the current process. Currently HPC makes a recommendation on alteration and the BCD director provides a decision that can be appealed to a heatings examiner. Mr. Timmons' recommendation is that the review process be altered and taken out of HPC and from the BCD Director and be referred to an outside independent expert who has experience in historic preservation issues, and financial and structural issues. HPC would still be involved in issues of whether or not demolition of a building has met the criteria or not. For example, if they wanted to tear down the Burrito Depot, HPC would be involved as to whether it needed to go through the conditional review process because it is not historic. HPC would be involved in reviewing its replacement, but not involved in review of structural or financial data presented to justify the demolition. That would go to an expert. The specific proposal is on the last page of the materials submitted today and provides for a new section. Mr. Masci stated part of his concern is the twenty-day comment period built into the new section. These are issues that are fine for commercial buildings and timing elements could be critical. In this situation there should be something saying this process should last no longer than xxx number of days. Mr. Watts indicated Section 7 of the draft ties it into the existing time frame, which is 45 days from the date of application to final determination. Mr. Masci asked what would the remedy be if the permit were not issued on the 46th day? Mr. Watts indicated that point might need to be revisited. Mrs. Medlicott feels it is reasonable and she can support it. She asked who would pay for the independent expert; Mr. Watts indicated it would be the City. Ms. Sandoval asked how the expert would be retained. Mr. Timmons indicated experts would be interviewed and put on a short list until needed. Someone like Michael Sullivan at the Washington Trust would be a good resource. Ms. Fenn is concerned about appointing someone from outside the community. This person might be neutral, but oftentimes citizens are looking for who would be accountable. She is concerned with a large decision being made by one person. She likes the accountability to the community. The current code, if challenged, would go to a hearings examiner. She likes the community review and Council making decisions, with challenges going to a hearings examiner. She hopes we can split the ordinance out procedurally. Mr. Kolff agrees with Ms. Fenn, that we use our HPC Committee of local experts, and if there is no expert in that area, take it to a consultant. Mr. Timmons stated there are many qualified people in the community and believes it would work if the expert worked with HPC. Mr. Watts stated HPC should stay involved in making recommendations. The only role where HPC is limited is in the financial and structural review area. If you wanted to let HPC make a recommendation as to whether or not the applicant has made a case on financial and structural elements met, they could consult with an expert. It wouldn't be difficult to plug in a recommendation from HPC. City Council Workshop Page 5 May 27, 2004 Mr. Masci likes what Mr. Timmons wrote with Ms. Fenn and Mr. KolW s suggestions. Mr. Masci feels local experts are influenceable and decisions could be made on an emotional basis and believes it would be prejudicial for those in front of the HPC. He prefers an arms length situation and believes it would work well with a hearing examiner with other appealable recourses. Ms. Robinson believes the financial and structural issues in the draft demolition code should go to an expert in that area and not the HPC. Mr. Benskin agrees with her and believes Mr. Timmons' idea is fair and equitable. Mr. Timmons stated his concept of arms length in decision-making would not be something to pull from the Seattle area, but from outside the community. We do not want the City to appear it is acting with bias. Mr. Watts said the last issue is whether or not to include a provision that a City-approved sub area plan would control over the demolition ordinance provisions. The City received a letter from the Port that included some argmnents in favor of that paragraph. A sub area or master plan would relate to a specific area; for example, Point Hudson, or a part of it. Substantive elements of the plan are defined as part of a planning process. For Point Hudson we could deal with issues such as mixed use. During the roundtable with the Washington Trust group, they spoke positively about the master plan process of Foss Waterway that incorporated historic preservation uses, public uses, residential uses, commercial uses, all of which were part of a master plan process approved by the Department of Ecology, even though some were not water oriented. We could look at environmental impacts and look at the area on a comprehensive basis. The plan could be based on an extensive public process similar to a comp plan amendment process. You cannot do it without public process as Council ultimately approves any sub area plan. The Port's letter alluded to the City and Port working together in a further planning process. The paragraph in the ordinance would make sense as it applies to the entire historic district, including Point Hudson, until there is an approved sub area plan. Mr. Timmons stated we came up with this approach to be able to look at it from a bigger picture; to broaden the stakeholders' interest in the public process, rather than looking at a specific building. We created two paths: you can choose as it relates to a particular building, or expand to more than a specific building. Point Hudson is not the only area, but the Baker Block Building and the ferry terminal may become sub area plans. You can incorporate these elements into urban renewal. If you have a bigger process, you will have more public involvement. He stated the primary concern with Point Hudson is that it is a public entity. We are trying to create and encourage a master plan and joint planning efforts with Point Hudson. Ms. Fenn disclosed she is part owner of Pygmy Boats in Point Hudson. She has supported a sub area planning process with the City and Port since it first came up. She is open to considering a planned unit development. She has reviewed the paragraph about exempting sub area plans from the demolition prevention guidelines and sees problems with it by removing some entities of needing to operate under the law we are City Council Workshop Page 6 May 27, 2004 passing. She feels there should be an equal application of the law. If she were a downtown property owner she'd feel angry that she would have to operate under guidelines when the City or Port could be exempt. If preservation is of value and we want that in our historic district, it makes sense for sub area planning to go under the guidance of the ordinance and not outside of it. We should look at this ordinance prior to the sub area planning process so we can have a cooler view of the issues. Master planning and sub area planning go hand-in-hand, and a proposal for demolition should come through the City's process. The Point Hudson buildings come under the shorelines plan and that is an appropriate place for uses to be considered. The sub area plan needs to be consistent with the Shorelines Master Plan (SMP). Mr. Timmons stated you could have a sub area plan under the SMP. Ms. Fenn stated the Port attorney objected to item 4 because she thought it made the ordinance apply to Point Hudson. Ms. Fenn has not had citizens contact her for changes of uses in Point Hudson. The Port has made it clear they want to move toward general uses and move away from all marine-related uses. She objects to the process of how this paragraph was inserted as she had not received a copy of the new language and didn't learn about it until this spring. At 5:00, there was then discussion concerning extending the meeting. It was agreed to meet until 5:15. Mr. Masci stated people in the marina areas want the uses changed. He believes paragraph C is equitable and should be left in. Mr. Kolff questioned Option B and asked about the disadvantage of keeping the ordinance without that section and doing the sub area planning process later if it is agreed upon. Mr. Watts stated any future action by Council to amend the ordinance to provide for a sub area plan would work. The downside is set forth in the Port's letter as they see it as a step backward. Mr. Timmons suggested breaking it into two areas, leaving the ordinance as is with any demolition subject to the provisions of the ordinance as drafted; or adopting it without a sub area plan and adding it later. Mr. Kolff stated he had no objection to the expanded description of Sections 3, 4 and 5. The Port does have some concerns. Mr. Watts said the language is very preliminary to provide guidelines and details of what a master plan could or could not include. It was sent to Ms. Winters for comment that was not to be interpreted as an official Port position. The Port has not yet discussed it at its meeting. City Council Workshop Page 7 May 27, 2004 Ms. Robinson wanted to follow-up on Ms. Fenn's question about process. The document went to the Planning Commission on November 20, 2003 and the CD/LU Committee was given an update. Mr. McDonagh believes it went through the proper process. Mr. Watts stated the Planning Commission could entertain changes to the ordinance before it goes to Council. It received and discussed it on November 20 and took final action on December 11. If Council isn't comfortable with the process, we need to change it. Mr. Benskin stated it did go through a fair amount of discussion and the Planning Commission chose to insert the language. It received full review and then went to Council to weigh the issue. Ms. Sandoval stated the CD/LU Committee did not see this change. She indicated the Port stopped coming to its meetings, and then bypassed CD/LU, HPC and went to the Planning Commission. She feels it would have been a common courtesy to come through the proper chain of command. Ms. Robinson encourages Council to continue to respect each other throughout all processes, and to respect entities, committees, Council and staff. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:19 p.m. Minutes by Bobbie Usselman, Legal Assistant Attest: Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council Workshop Page 8 May 27, 2004