Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101404 Ag Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Building #204, Fort Worden State Park & Conference Center 7:00 pm (Note change in location) October 14,2004 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes ~ September 2, 2004 V. Unfinished Business VII. New Business Staff Update: 7-year Comprehensive Plan/PTMC Review & Amendments Planning Commission Discussion Presentation & Discussion: Key Policy Issues - Parking Code Amendments Planning Commission Discussion Planning Commission Schedule for Fall/Winter 2004/2005 Planning Commission Discussion VI. Upcoming Meetings 1. 2. 3. 1. 10/28/04 - Work Study Session on Parking 2. 11/10/04 - Special Public Hearing on Parking 3. 1212/04 - Continuation of 11/10 Hearing; Deliberations 4. 12/9/04 - Public Open House & Workshop - ESAslBAS VII. Communications VIII. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 14,2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Berg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Building 204, Fort Worden State Park & Conference Center. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Alice King, Jeff Kelety, Liesl Slabaugh and Steven Emery; Lyn Hersey, Jim Irvin, Cindy Thayer, and George Randels were excused. Also present was Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall and Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, Consultant for the Comprehensive Plan Update. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Kelety made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Since they were not received in advance, Chair Berg requested approval of the minutes of September 2, 2004 be deferred until the next meeting. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VI. NEW BUSINESS -- Workshop Comprehensive Plan -- 7-Year Review (PTMC and Amendments) Staff Update Mr. Toews, Consultant, reported on recent action where City Council considered Planning Commission recommendations: September l1. 2004. Work Study Session LUP 04-0i9 (Fort Worden State Park and Conference Center amendments) LUP 04-021 (Site specific rezone proposal for Wilson/22nd Pocket Park) LUP 04-025 (Plan/Code Legislative Amendments) September £Q... 2004 Public hearing and first reading on adoption ordinances Mr. Toews noted the City Council made only extremely minor amendments to LUP 04095, legislative Plan and Code amendment, essentially modifying to restore some language that was proposed for strikeout related in particular to the unincorporated Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). With the exception of two very minor amendments, they accepted the Planning Commission's recommendations on all three proposals without substantive modification. However, based upon the advice of the City Attorney, the Council determined it was best to take one unified action on all of the 7-year update amendments. Though they have a draft adoption ordinance before them and have had the first reading and public hearing, they don't want to actually take the formal step of adopting that ordinance until the Planning Commission has held their own public hearing and Council has the Commission's recommendations on the Parking Code amendments and the Criticà Areas ordinance amendments. Essentially, Council has ordinances that are very near to adoption, but are going to wait until they can take one action in its entirety to make sure the City is consistent with the statutory requirement not to amend the Com¡øehensive Plan more often than once annually, rather than in increments which could be construed to violate that requirement. Chair Berg reiterated the City Council actions. Mr. Toews corrected himself stating City Council did, in fact, take final action and adopt the Fort Worden State Park and Conference Center amendments. He indicated Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2004 / Page 1 · · · Council would fmalize the quasi-judicial, site-speCific rezone on Wilson/22nd Street and the Plan/Code Legislative amendments when they take fmal action on the Rirking Code and Critical Areas amendments. Chair Berg asked if amendments they considered earlier were just updating the code language? Mr. Toews concurred saying there was one proposed adoption ordinance for all of those regulatory amendments, that Cœncil had the first reading but are not actually going to approve it until probably end of the first quarter 2005. Mr. Berg asked where the LAMIRD language was inall of that, if it was proposed to be taken out because it was not part of Port Townsend? Mr. Toews replied they were sections that related principally to the population projection and allocation process that included a lot of that language, some of whidl was obsolete. Drawing the line in trying to determine what was a substantive and non-substantive change, his effort was to make that as clearly related to population as possible. The Council felt some of that language had been incorporated into the Pial in amendments since initial adoption in 1996, that there were individuals in the community that really wanted to see that language in the Plan. Council felt uncomfortable striking that language without specifically calling it out and docketing it as a separate item. Mr. Toews answered Ms. Slabaugh, that the LAMIRD language related to establishing the final Urban Growth Area boundary for the City of Port Townsend and the outcome for Glen Cove had been folded into the Plan with amendments following Plan aloption in 1996. Being prior discreet amendments and not under the general docket heading of updated population language, Council felt it wasn't called out specifically enough to make them feel comfortable the language was appropriate to delete. Mr. Toew.; stated Council did not add new language; they reinstated the language proposed for strikeout that he had felt was not relevant to the population discussion and was a moot point, that the UGA discussions had resolved that. Off Street Parking Mr. Toews discussed the Comp Plan policy direction for parking management and key issues for offstreet parking, and asked for feedback. He noted there is a decided emphasis throughout both the Plan Narrative and Goal & Policy language trying to remove impediments to new development, redevelopment and adaptive reuse both in the downtown Commercial Historic District (CHD) as well as other historic districts within the city. There is clear policy direction to reexamine the standards that for downtCM'n were done in part in 1997 with some Band-Aid fixes. In the. early 90s there was no parking code and parking was regulated solely through development proposals that triggered SEPA thresholds. Port Townsend's parking ordinance was modeled after the Ciy of Auburn's parking code which was developed in the early 1970s, is now archaic and not a model for smartgrowth, new urbanism. The parking ratios still in effect are out of step. It identifies and lists uses that are not defined in definitions Chapter 17.08 of Title 17, Zoning; and in Use Tables throughout the balance of Title 17. On a broader policy level, there is Plan direction that attempted to remove impediments in all city commercial zones, and for environmental reasons help reduce the creåion of new development impervious surfaces. In C-II areas the current code would set aside 50% or more for off street parking and loading for a typical development site (language in the existing Plan). In its current form, it does not fit City objectivlS to promote a natural drainage system's approach, reduce impervious surfaces. Policy Direction. Parking Management 1. (Both Narrative and Goals & Policy) Encourages use of alternative transportation modes and promotes Transportation Demand Management (fDM) techniques as alternatives to providing new offstreet parking in the CHD, e.g. use of the Haines Place park and ride facility and taking the shuttle; riding . bikes to work. 2. Encourages bicycle parking. 3. Recommends use of both minimums and maximumsin the new or amended code. Many jurisdictions have gone along for years with parking minimums that really affect maximums, and more and more are lowering substantially minimum thresholds for parking and also setting maximum parking thresholds to reduce the amount of impervious surface created. Caution is needed to allow the market to provide adequate parking consistent with what lenders require, but not build parking lots that lie dormant and are only occupied for a few hours during the year. 4. Regulations need to distinguish between various areas of the city, areas where alternative modes are promoted and are more pedestrian friendly, e.g., downtown CHD, and other areas more autøoriented ·while still being pedestrian friendly, e.g., Gateway corridor. Different standards may be required for: 1) CHD or Gateway commercial corridor; 2) Mixed Use Centers (MUCs); 3) Commercial development within C-I and C-II MUCs. The code now works as a huge barrier to development of Planning Commission Minutes, October 14,2004/ Page 2 · · · those MUCs, requiring a majority of the property to be devoted for off-street parking and loading, particularly with the encouragement ofmult~story development within MUCs (e.g. San Juan and F Street). Ms. Slabaugh asked if maximums are in the current code? Mr. Randall replied they are rot except for retail; minimum -- 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. of retail floor space; maximum -- 1 parking space per 200 sq.ft., e.g. Safeway. There is no limit on office buildings and restaurants. Ms. Slabaugh asked if Mr. Toews felt that was out ofline with the spirit of the narrative of the Comp Plan? Mr. Toews replied he felt it is too low and is only one of the uses having that maximum. Discussion ensued regarding parking situations throughout various areas. Mr. Toews reiterated the current version of the Parking Code was amended in 1997 fairly significantly establishing within the CHD an exemption threshold in spaces for new development, and redevelopment and adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. He is trying to get numbers that willhelp show what that meant in terms of actual redevelopment and reuse within the CHD, because many projects a lot of people point to as examples of things that have happened in Port Townsend in the past few years are probably related to those code changes that eliminated that barrier. A real even playing field for new development within the CHD has not happened. The exemption threshold helps to a degree, but doesn't help with some situations, e.g., the vacant parcel next to the Green Eyeshade; Dogs-A-Foot vacant lot; Northwest Maritime Center. Off Street Parking -- Key Policy Issues A. Has the City done enough to promote development/redevelopment within the Commercial Historic District (CHD)? Potential regulatory options: 1. Eliminate all off-street parking requirements in the CHD (e.g. in historic cities with established historic districts where they want to see efficient use of land and infill development on the few remaining parcels). 2. Raise the exemption threshold for new development in the CHD (to foster infill development). 3. Raise the exemption threshold (now 10) for new development in the CHD in concert with lowering the fees-in-lieu amount (approximately $3,600 per space). Mr. Randall answered Mr. Kelety that theyhad never received fees, but they would be put into an account that would be spent for something related to reducing parking -- current cost, structure per car space, is approximately $30,000. Mr. Toews noted with the threshold and fee-in-lieu provision they have right now, it has effectively structured it so that they don't get either the development or the fee-in-lieu. He suggested perhaps a combination of adjusting the thresholds upward, and lowering the fee-in-lieu provision would at least generate some revenues to make parking-related and alternative mode-type improvements in the CHD and at .the same time allow some development to proceed. Mr. Randall answered Mr. Kelety that it would be in both Downtown Historic and Uptown Commercial Districts. He mted there are not many lots left. He cited a few and made the point, why have these parking standards where there is very little . development to be done that would result in very little parking impact? Mr. Kelety suggested doing variances. Ms. Slabaugh pointed out there is Uptown too. Mr. Toews stated they are not only talking ábout infill development. Mr. Emery mentioned infill development would also include vacant second and third story space already there. Mr. Toews explained that development is exmpt. Mr. Berg asked if the Swains building were historic could they tear it down, build a three story building there and still be completely exempt under the current exemption? Mr. Randall replied that it could not, if you tore it down. He said the parking code is complicated, especially in the CHD. Mr. Toews felt it ·would be wise to have a clear standard to apply, and thought that throughout the Comp Plan you find a real effort to make efficient use of the land and promote the vitality of the City's ccmmercial districts. His inclination at this point in time is to recommend an exemption for new development; the only problem he sees is that it would be nice to generate at least some monies to promote parkingrelated &nd non-motorized improvements within the CHD. He would propose either an outright exemption or a significantly raised threshold coupled with a much lower fee-in-lieu provision so you might generate some revenues. Ms. Slabaugh asked about the threshold. Mr. Toews explained that it depends on the type of use and how it's calculated on the parking table, e.g., a use requiring 1 parking space per 200 sq.ft. of floor space would currently be exempt in the CHD up to 10 spaces for new development. Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2004 / Page 3 · · · B. If maximum offstreet parking requirements are to be established for development outside the CHD, what is a reasonable and rational basis for the standards? Potential options: 1. Regional averages from surveyed jurisdictions (not always best because a lot have archaic parking codes). 2. National data on actual parking demand measured for various use categories (not what is required in codes, but what actually happens. May not translate well to Port Townsend). 3. Examples from "new urbanism" jurisdictions (not confident of what they deri'e from the maximum thresholds they are choosing). Mr. Toews pointed out the balance they need to strike is between having adequate off-street parking, particularly in areas where they do not have on-street parking, at the same time not setting the maximußB so low that lenders are reluctant to loan new development . projects. You want to make sure there is adequate parking. C. Should bicycle parking and rideshare parking spaces be required of new development/ redevelopment in and out of the CHD (MU and C-II areas also)? Mr. Toews stated rideshare parking spaces might not make that much sense in the context of the Gateway Corridor. If they were going to save some of the raised threshold in the downtown, it might make sense to require that some ofthoæ parking spaces be essentially carpool spaces. He thought it was anticipated at the time of Plan adoption as something that would be included in a revised code. Mr. Randall indicated they do that now through SEPA; but if it is in the code, they won't hare to do it every time. He thought it logical to look at a parking code for at least commercial, mult~family and mixed use development to require bicycle parking be established where it needs to be near the front door, encouraged covered, and to set some ratios. Ms. Slabaugh mentioned Jean Walat presented this in the C-II design standards. Mr. Randall thought they may have covered that sufficiently in that process. They don't cover all situations, don't apply in the historic districts uptown and have some exemptions, also change of use. Bike racks proposed to HPC by the Non-Motorized Committee are going in, but are typically on the right-of-way, not on private property. Ms. Slabaugh said she would like to look at that. Mr. Toews said certainly in the context of the CHD it makes good sense to include it as a requirement, particularly if you are going to significantly raise the threshold for, or eliminate, offstreet parking requirements. C. Should the code provide for an administrathe process whereby the required number of parking spaces may be reduced if a parking mitigation plan is submitted that meets certain basic criteria? (May be more complexity than they want to include at this time.) Mr. Toews stated this relates more to MUG; and C-II, establishes criteria and an administrative process where they prepare a parking mitigation plan that satisfies the criteria, and maybe also reduce the number of off-street parking spaces. In a more auto-oriented part of town, if the developmert was configured in such a way located by a transit stop, and they worked out an agreement with Jefferson Transit to use a certain amount of spaces at the park and ride facility, or TDM strategies, carpool or alternatives, for their employees, it might be possible with a parking mitigation plan to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces they are required in the code. Mr. Kelety asked if they weren't already doing that with such things as variances, e.g. doing the credits for Aldriches. Mr. Toews replied it is the net effect, but is different because there were specific code provisions that provided that 10-space credit. He said he would be very hesitant to use a variance process. A variance process is intended for situations that are truly unique md have more to do with specific constraints of a particular parcel. They are talking about an administrative process where they can have a parking minimum lowered further by demonstrating and committing in terms of the permit approval to some other meansto get workers there and not add to the parking congestion problem. Mr. Emery said regarding bicycles, it seems to be more than a fad, a trend in personal transportation units (electric units and Segways). He thought in the future that wouldbecome a more common mode of transportation. He asked if any future things like bike racks would be part of this mix for things taking up less space getting to work? Mr. Randall realized there is a lesser dependence on the car-- transit, people doing more walking or bicycling, or these other odd means of transportation. The City has the ability of regulating the oDstreet parking, e.g. motorcycle spaces or locking scooter bikes up to bike racks. He thought there were various ways that can be done. Mr. Toews suggested they revisit the actual space requirements for parking spaces to make sure they are appropriately sized, e.g. compact spaces are truly compact. Mr. Emery suggested some people in the downtown area have always wanted to see Taylor Street Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2004 / Page 4 · · · eventually become motor-vehicle-free, and he thought this may be a way to get to this end. Regarding the future, saying the gravel parking lot at April Fool and Penny Too may go away, he did not know how long the Bishop Victorian will keep that a gravel parking lot. Over time they may have a net loss of parking in the downtown area. Mr. Randall noted some suggested underground parking was being thought about. He mentioned Taylor Street and said some of these issues were being talked about by the City PErking Committee. The Parking Committee has been reporting to City Council and Mr. Toews will be talking to the Parking Committee regarding some overlap. The Parking Committee is considering various issues. There was discussion regarding parking meters. Mr. Randall said the Parking Committee is considering . parking meters at least in the core area because those businesses trying to make a living need to have turnover. Meters will get turnover, and the consuiants said that would be the biggest one thing they could to change the perception and availability of parking for customers. Mr. Emery also asked if they discussed loading zones, parking in the middle of the street. Mr. Randall said the Police Department and the insurance authorities did have some concerns, but have basically been convinced it has been done safely. Mr. Emery raised the issue of parking for the disabled saying it is hard to fmd open disabled spaces. Mr. Randall said regarding off-street parking for new development, national standards are very stringent; oDstreet becomes a City policy and they always have the ability to decide if they need more spaces. Mr. Kelety asked ifthey are dealing with the Canp Plan; if it is linear and if they can make these decisions in a vacuum of theoretical or if there is some phasing in of each particular strategy. Mr. Toews thought that has already been happening, started to happen in 1997 with amendments to the On'Street Parking and Loading Code. There is explicit policy direction for much of what the Parking Committee is doing in terms of such things as pricing on-street parking and establishing concentric circles with shorter time periods and spaces in the core andlonger as you go outward from the center of the CHD. He felt all of what the Parking Committee is currently working on is related to policy direction of the Plan. Mr. Randall stated they are not proposing changes to the Comp Plan, but are proposhg implementing the. Comp Plan. They are handling this proposed code change now because the Comp Plan process encourages them to do major implementation steps at this time. He thought the issue of parking meters is an independent issue that needs to be addressed because it deals with availability of parking in downtown core commercial areas. The parking code is dealing with barriers to the developing the last few spots downtown; both need to be addressed. Mr. Toews did not know if the outcome of the parking meter discussion would influence their policy decisions regarding such things as raising thresholds in the CHD. Mr. Emery asked if they would be looking at what the Parking Committee is doing? Mr. Randall replied it would only be to the extent they would have recommendations dealing with the code. The committee is basically reporting directly to City Council. Mr. Toews clarified, the committee would be reporting to the City Manager and Council for things like policy proposals implementing meter parking, work that is not involving things like amendments to the code. They intend to go tothe Parking Committee with a draft of the Off Street Parking and Loading Code to solicit their advice and input. Mr. Randall said they want to lring the Parking Committee into this process if there is overlap. In response to Staff request. Chair Berg asked for ª show of hands to consider: 1. Parking for bicycles and alternative forms of transportation. (Consensus) 2. Administrative process whereby the required number of parking spaces may be reduced if a parking mitigation plan is submitted. (Good, but low priority) 3. If maximum offstreet parking requirements are to be established for development outside the CHD, what is a reasonable and rational basis for the standards? (No opinion) Mr. Kelety asked if there were some way to get people out of their cars? Mr. Randall answered, parking meters and good bike racks. Planning Commission Minutes, October 14,2004/ Page 5 · · · Ms. Slabaugh asked if they would cover both inside and outside the CHD? Mr. Toews replied they would have separate proposals -- 1) a proposal to either exempt or raise the exemption threshold within the CHD; 2) new proposed standards or ratios related to land uses for C- I, C-II mixed use, setting minimum and maximum parking requirements for those districts. Mr. Berg asked if there were going to be consideration of residential standards. Mr. Toews replied, for multi-family. Mr. Randall added occasionally there are situations regarding residential parking on steep slopes where he wished they could waive or reduce the requirements. Mr. Berg questioned off-street parking requirements for every new house, when it works fme for all of uptown to have no off-street parking. (Consensus) Mr. Emery asked if that would pertain to cottage housing. Mr. Randall replied they would have to be careful with a developer doing that. Mr. Randall thought residential might be bit complex. They might not be able to take it all on. Mr. Toews suggested they might want to have different requirements for infill development in established neighborhoods and new subdivisions. Planning Commission schedule Mr. Randall has extended invitations to the Shoreline Advisory Group, City Comcil, Planning Commission, Port of Port Townsend to a Staff presentation at a Point Hudson informational workshop, October 21, 2004, 6:00 p.m., same room in Building 204, Fort Worden. The workshop will cover: 1. Things most relevant to the current Shorelile Master Plan update, key policies/recommendations (elicited from all the past Point Hudson planning documents). 2. Consultant's oral report, Q&As and recommendations (to complete master planning at Point Hudson). 3. Historic Preservation Expert, President of Washington Historic Trust. What he has seen other communities do with similar property with historic resources. Mr. Toews stated objective of the Plan/Code Update schedule is to get through Council adoption revisions of both the Parking Code and Critical Areas ordinance by end of winter, beginning of spring of 2005; completion of Council process in March. The schedule was discussed and agreed to: Fall/Winter 2004/2005 Plan/Code Update 10/28/04Initial work-study session to review Draft Off-Street Parking and Loading Code recommendations 12/2/04 Informal public open house and work-study session to review Draft ESA Ordinance recommendations (review of "white paper" memorandum on BAS) 12/9/04 Continuation of review ofDraftESA Ordinance (jfneeded) 1/6/05 Informal public open house and work-study session to review Draft ESA Ordinance recommendations (12/16/04 to be used to review the proposed line-inlline-out amendments to Chapter 19.04 PTMC) 1/13/05 Consolidated open record public hearings to accept testimony on both the Off Street Parking and Loading Code Amendments and Draft ESA Ordinance Amendments 1/20/05 Hearing on the Off-Street Parking and Loading Code Amendments and Draft ESA Ordinance Amendments continued (if necessary) deliberations upon testimony; formulation of findings, conclusions and recommendations for City Council 1/27/05 Deliberations workshop -- fmdings, conclusions and recommendations on the Off Street Parking and Loading Code Amendments and Draft ESA Ordinance Amendments fmalized 2/3/05 Deliberations workshop continued (!f needed) Ms. Slabaugh asked if the Planning Commission is going to see the Shoreline Master Program? Mr. Randall replied they would see it, but not until the Shoreline Advisory Group has fmished their work. It will come to the Planning Commission as a completed draft document. It will take the Planning Commission several workshops before conducting their public hearing and passing recommendations t> Council, which he projected as July/August with Council adoption required by December 1,2005. Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2004 / Page 6 . Mr. Toews reported they are trying to piggy back on the work of the consultants for the Shorelines Master Program, dovetail with science recommendations they are making for the S.P. critical areas and apply those to the Critical Areas Ordinance. He identified two substantive issues where the current code is somewhat lacking and is going to have them focus their efforts on literature review and providng new substantive recommendations: 1) sef backs particularly in landslide/hazard areas, geo-tech reports; 2) wetland setbacks that are not consistent with what ecology is currently recommending. They are trying to keep things as simple as they can, spellling their time and money wisely to fix what needs to be done without extensive literature review. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS October 28, 2004 Parking Code, work study session Chair Berg postponed an agenda item he had waned to discuss regarding how particularly new Commission m~mbers perceived things to be working and any suggestions there might be. A January Saturday Planning Commission retreat was proposed for the beginning of the new term. Discussion will be forthcomig. VIII. COMMUNICA nONS -- There were none IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Kelety and seconded by Mr. Emery. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 12- ÁJ r1.- ...... Richard Berg, Chair .~~ Sheila A vis, Minute Taker . Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2004 / Page 7