Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05081997 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting May 8, 1997 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 20, 1997 March 27, 1997 April 10, 1997 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. First Amendment to the Hamilton Heights Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) 1. Staff Report, (Colette Kostelec) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Paul Beusnel Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit #LUP97-0001O 1. Staff Report, (Tim Woolett) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Boles/Enarson) 4. Commission Discussion and conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings Ma.y 29 r 1997 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Parking Variance (Erickson/Sherwood) VII. ADJOURN · · · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting May 8, 1997 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson and John Boles. Lois Sherwood was excused. Staff members present were Colette Kostelec and Tim Woolett. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Boles and seconded by Erickson to approve the minutes of March 20 and March 25, 1997, as written; March 27 and April 10, 1997, as written and amended. All were in favor. Ill. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail Thayer expressed sorrow at the passing of Planning Commissioner Linda Clifton. She explained the Planning Commission collected money for flowers which could not be delivered, so instead donated the money to Head Start in Linda's honor. There was no additional current maiL IV. OLD BUSINESS A First Amendment to the Hamilton Heights Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) 1. Staff Report (Colette Kostelec) Kostelec gave the staff report for Ms. Judy Surber who was unavailable. She noted Messrs. Ken Forssen and Rick Sepler were in attendance. Kostelec pointed out the City entered into a Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) with Forssen in November 1996 for development of a permit for a 101-residential development called Hamilton Heights. She reported originally construction was to have occurred in two phases (I and II), but Forssen has since requested an amendment to a1terPhase 1 into Phases IA and IB. Phase IA would accommodate development of 18 lots for which a final plat has been submitted. The remaining 40 lots in Phase IB and 43 lots in Phase II will be completed at a later date. She said the applicant is requesting Planning Commission apP:t"oval to make this a minor amendment to the PUDA that would not require another public hearing. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 2 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Boles referred to the last page of the amendment, #2, and asked if Conditions 1-9 and 24- 42 as they pertain to Phase IA are still in effect? Kostelec replied affirmatively. Enarson asked if City engineers will be reviewing the infrastructure installed prior to the final plat. She also asked if the engineers have viewed the situation as it is now and agreed with Mr. Sepler's analysis. Kostelec responded she has had inspectors on the site consistently during construction. Erickson asked the applicant if all 18 lots are completed at this time and when do they expect Phase IB to be started. Mr. Forssen indicated infrastructure is all in for all 18 lots. They planned to complete all of Phase IB, but the soil was flooded from the unusual winter storms. Mr. Sepler responded regarding a question if the project would sustain itself with 18 lots, that time is of the essence. MOTION Enarson Planning Commission recommend to City Council the proposed amendment to the Hamilton Heights Planned Unit Development does not constitute a substantial alteration of the original plan and no public hearing is required. SECOND VOTE: Boles Unanimous, 4 in favor B. Paul Buesnel -- Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit #LUP97-000lO Thayer said she has eaten at the restaurant since it opened but feels she can make a fair judgment; however, she would gladly recuse herself ifthere were objections. There were none. 1. Staff Report (Tim Woolett) The applicants proposed to construct a deck as an addition to an existing commercial building. Woolett noted the deck would have stairs on the west side down to the walkway, also part of the proposal, which will connect with the public sidewalk along the west side of the building. The project is on the south side of Water Street at the Flagship Landing Mall, 1009 Water Street. The restaurant is in the C-III zoning district and the use is permitted outright, within the Urban Shoreline designation which is dedicated to high intensity use, and also within the Historic Commercial District of the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District overlay zone of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Woolett requested rewording in Findings of Fact #7 to ". . . the Port Townsend Historic · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 3 Preservation Committee (HPC)." He noted the HPC issued a determination that the project "contributes as conditioned" to the Port Townsend Historic District and imposed the following condition: (1) Prior to issuance of the shoreline substantial development permit, the issue of blockage of pedestrian access along the shoreline should be addressed W oolett said the project is located at Tyler on the east side, the west side the Landmark park. He noted the map on Page 68 of the Urban Waterfront Plan shows the Waterwalk across the ferry landing, then waterward of the Plaza Building, heads inland at the Flagship Landing, and along the shoreline to the street-end park and on Water Street. He said Figure 5.b shows a little different configuration, but a description of the trail in the Urban Waterfront Plan clarifies the conflict: "access continues along the alley behind the Plaza [from the Ferry Dock], where access points [stairways, etc.] along the rip-rap extend to the water. The Waterwalk continues to the Flagship Landing Park and returns to Water Street." Woolett declared this description indicates the condition of the HPC has been satisfied, as well as the SMP. Woolett said all references to Section 17.72 of the PTMC in Findings of Fact #11 should be changed to 17.30, i.e., Section 17.30; Section 17.30.015.C; Section 17.30.100. Delete (PTMC 17.30.050.A and E). He said there is no change of use but expansion of existing use. Woolett proposed in the Analysis of "Urban Designation" Section 4.105, following "adjacent to the west side of the Flagship Landing building"adding a sentence to read, "This walkway must be developed and dedicated for public use in accordance with the applicable performance standards of the Shoreline Master Program." The sentence would later be added as a condition. Woolett was asked what dedications would be recorded with the County Auditor indicated in Section 4.105; he answered the recording would be the easement of the walkway (from the deck to the main walkway). Analysis of #3 was amended to capitalize "Urban" designation. Woolett suggested amending Condition #2 and renumbering the subsequent conditions. Proposed Amendment to . Condition #2 -- "The pedestrian walkway connecting the proposed deck with the public sidewalk at the west end of the building shall be developed in accordance with the applicable public access provisions as follows: a. Be of a permanent nature and shall be dedicated or otherwise protected, including recording with the Jefferson County Auditor. b. Consider in design and availability measures to protect private property from trespass, vandalism, littering, and the like. c. Be suitably marked so as to inform the public as to the extent, location, and availability of the access. d. Be completed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the development. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 4 Commission questions: Enarson asked if the applicant owned the property of the proposed easement. W oolett replied it is in the legal description. Boles questioned if the stamped concrete walk and the benches in the park is city property? Woolett replied that is shown to be on the applicant's property, the portion immediately behind the building. Mr. Guy Hupy, representative for Mr. Buesnel, was questioned. Chair Thayer asked Mr. Hupy if he would swear and affirm that the testimony he was about to give is true. Mr. Hupy affirmed he did. Hupy said regarding the question of the stamped walkway and benches, that to the best of his knowledge from the plat map, that is on the property of the Swain's building. He pointed out the Flagship Landing is leasing parking spaces. Enarson noted on Page 3 of7, paragraph 11, a typographical error in the first line; correct to "usable." She indicated that one permit required is a building permit, and in the drawings there are steps going down from the dining room to the deck and then down to the shore. She said this is not accessible and asked if dining rooms in public facilities are required to be wheelchair accessible. It was pointed out this is not part of the consideration at this time. Thayer pointed out a discrepancy in the legal description (Pages 1 and 2). Reference to Lots 1,2,3, and 4 should precede reference to Block 10. Erickson asked staff regarding Condition # 1 reference to lighting fixtures being the same as used at Union Wharf Woolett said Union Wharf is the most recent development along the waterfront, that the most intense review went into it, and a lot of documentation. He said that rather than have the applicant repeat that, it was used to be consistent. Boles asked Woolett regarding the statement on Page 3 of7, paragraph #10, that the condition set forth by the HPC has been satisfied, if that was staff conclusion or ifHPC said it has been satisfied. W oolett replied it was staff conclusion from their understanding of the situation. Boles asked if reference to presenting a safety hazard and about being discouraged on Page 5 of7, paragraph #4, Analysis, last line, was also staff conclusion. Woolett concurred. Boles also asked if wind blowing litter on the beach from the restaurant was considered. Woolett replied it was not considered. W oolett answered Thayer that her name shown as Chair of the Review Committee should be corrected to John Boles. 2. Public Testimony Mr. Guy Hupy, representing Mr. Paul Buesnel. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Hupy said he has not seen the new condition nor the wording proposed to be added to the i\nalysis of Section 4.105, "Urban Designation," top of Page 5 of7, but does not want to hold up the process. He expressed concern about adding another condition without the applicant or the Planning Commission going over it, and did not feel the condition is necessary. Hupy commented that if the waterwalk was being broken up and recorded as easements, he could see it as secondary, but thought it a strange place to start the process of recording easements for public use of private property. Hupy offered to answer questions. He commented there would be a considerable amount of public access involved, that the rear of the building would be used as commercial, with a lot of public access at the rear of the building. Questions from Planning Commissioners: .. Erickson -- Asked the length of the sidewalk (which is proposed for easement), to the deck. Hupy -- Answered, 37 feet, 42 feet including the stairs. .. Boles -- Asked regarding a statement that the applicant would be willing to participate with what the City has in mind for the access, and what was anticipated. Hupy -- To allow public use of the Flagship Landing park. Boles -- Asked if the intention is to maintain the 30' x 135' open area public access? And that could be a condition or part of this? Hupy -- Staff has not made any request for mitigation, but that would be a possible mitigation for anything that might come up for the shoreline. Staff has not required it. .. Enarson -- Asked in Exhibit 2, with the high tide line curving around the proposed deck, will there be room for people to walk on the shoreline at low tide without getting up on the deck? Hupy -- Replied, definitely. At low tide the whole beach is available. What they are talking about is obstruction in the upper level on the rip rap during high tide. Chair Thayer asked for further testimony from those in favor and from those opposed or anyone wishing to speak. There was no further testimony, and the Chair closed the hearing to the public. 3. Committee Report (BolesÆnarson) Boles stated he had looked at the site from what he thought was public sidewalk, but apparently was the Swain's parking lot property. He indicated it looks like an appropriate proposal except he is very concerned about what seems is the confusion about public access and various uses ofthat in referring to the Waterfront Plan, the Walkway and the Shorelines Master Plan. He said he has difficulty in that there is clearly beach you can walk on, and you can access various points; by walking over the rip rap you can continue on. Or you can go in the area where the proposed deck is and walk over to the Tyler Street end park. He said he has difficulty that · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 6 the deck clearly would block that. He could not see that the proposed sidewalk even with the proposed amendment would in any way increase the access. He would have hoped there would have been some kind of stairway or walkway or an extension out around the deck that was proposed. He said he is troubled by the fact that none of this seems to be in writing or through an access that is put down in here. He said he has trouble with two things: 1) It does provide more access to the waterfront for patrons and the benefit of the restaurant, but he is concerned that it does restrict access that otherwise wouldn't be restricted; 2) possible littering, by paper produ.cts being blown from restaurant use. He would like that addressed. Enarson said she thought the Staff report was quite clear, that it was quite a complicated application because of dealing with four different plans. She said she follows the logic and general conclusions, but has a couple of major problems: 1) with the amendment Staff has added; 2) disagrees with Staff in requiring a public easement. On Page 3 of7, paragraph 10, after delineating the conflict with two different maps about the two different water walks, it is indicated in addressing the HPC concern that pedestrian access not be blocked, that, a) one map shows that the waterwalk goes in front of the Flagship Landing and on the Water Street side in granting the deck, and, b) at the same time, to accommodate a dedicated public access, use the rationale from Page 56 of the SMP referring to new substantial developments or change of the principal use. She said she cannot see this is a substantial development and is not sure of the City requesting a public easement. She said she understands the City's concerns in public access. The proposal in front ofthem does permit, except at very high tides, public access to the beach. Enarson recommended that the Planning Commission disregard Staffs latest amendments on the easement. She also said that if Boles could find something in the Findings that would have a language for a condition about littering, she would be willing to include it. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Erickson noted that anything over $1,500 is considered a substantial change. She said the same conditions exist for a deck as for a 60-unit motel, and the SMP needs a good working over. She indicated the enjoyment of the deck is enough, and for that small amount does not think it needs to be recorded in City ownership and then under private responsibility. Thayer said she has some of the same kinds of concerns and questioned the justification here, remembering a Supreme Court Decision regarding making a mitigation measure for access to shorelines as a condition of approv~l. She requested that regardless of tonight's decision, they forward this to the City Attorney for review. Thayer said she also feels it is not a substantial development, but they have to deal with it because of how it is addressed in the Urban Waterfront Plan. She indicated she sees the deck and access to the water with the stairs as a real · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 7 improvement. She did not agree \\lith recording, only because it has not been done before and would be putting undue hardship on a small development. Erickson said she has a problem with going from private to private and having 27 feet in between. She explained the Waterwalk and said she understands it is not something hard and fast, because it can also be changed depending on development. Thayer marked Figure 5.B as Exhibit 9, and Page 68 as Exhibit 10. W oolett said he understands Commission concern with dedication, and regarding the statement Public access "shall," and approximately 37 feet of walkway. Erickson said she is not comfortable with lighting that has to be consistent with Union Wharf, and suggested striking, "consistent with those proposed for Union Wharf' from Condition #1. She noted another problem she has with the new proposed recommendation; how you have a public easement and do a design to protect the private property from trespass. Thayer said she is hearing that concerns are not necessarily to the project as whole but to recommendations that came before the Commission tonight. She said they need to discuss this and come to some agreement, or open it to a motion. Boles said his concern general1y is the piecemeal loss of access. He pointed out the open area for public access, that continues along through the shelf where the deck will be built; the continuation of that open area is no longer there. He indicated one does not have to go down the rip rap to walk along behind the building, but that is not an attractive place to be and not likely a place where people would go. He asked that if there is a sense of access that is to be preserved under the Shorelines, where are they going to preserve it. He said he agrees for different reasons that protecting that bit of sidewalk is possibly unnecessary, especially if the stamped concrete walk and the benches are not an integral part of the comprehensive city plan that relates to this open area and public use. Erickson said she does not look at it as a loss of public access; it will be open to the public or they will not have patrons, that unless the City owns it, there will not be public use. She said they walk the beaches an the time and the City owns hardly any of it. She does not think the City has to have deeds for the public to use it, and does not feel there is a loss of anything; they are gaining and thinks the project is great. Boles referred to Page 4 of 7, Section 4.105 last sentence, "should be attractive from the water, and shan include measures to protect water quality" pertaining to littering and public enjoyment. He suggested including it under existing paragraph 2, page 6 of7. Erickson also suggested eliminating the word "public," to read "sidewalk at the west side of the building. . . " Thayer opened it for page by page changes. Amendments follow. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 8 Amendments: · Legal Description be changed to read, "Lots 1,2,3, and 4, Block 10, of the Port Townsend Original Townsite, Section 11, Township 30 N, Range 1 West, \\T.M., Port Townsend, Washington. · Findings of Fact #1, line 5, delete, " . . . and adjacent beach. . ." · Findings of Fact #7, change to Historic Preservation "Committee" in both instances. · Findings of Fact #11, all references to Section 17.72 change to Section 17.30, and at the end of#11 delete (PTA1C 17.30.050 A and E). · Change all references to public sidewalk to "sidewalk." · Page 4 of7, Section 4.105 delete "Public access provisions include dedications recorded with the County Auditor." Replace with, "Public access provisions shall be of a permanent nature and shall be dedicated or otherwise protected, including recorded \vith the Jefferson County Auditor." · Page 5 of7, #3 Analysis, capitalize Urban designation. · Page 6 of7, Conclusion #4 add "substantially" to read" . . will not substantially alter. . ." · Page 6 of7, Recommendation #1 strike, " . . . and use of lighting fixtures consistent with those proposed for Union Wharf" · Page 6 of7, Recommendation #2 to read, "The property owner shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of the pedestrian walkway connecting the deck with the sidewalk at the west side of the building and for trash pickup as needed in the rip-rap and beach areas." · Page 7 of7, Replace the name of Cindy Thayer, Chair of the Review Committee to John Boles. MOTION Enarson Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Shoreline Management Permit (SDP) Application No. LUP 97-00010 as amended. SECOND Erickson Discussion: Enarson and Erickson agreed to Page 4, of 7, 4.105, wording to be included in the amendments. VOTE Unanimous, 4 in favor Kostelec asked for clarification to the Hamilton Heights Conclusions 1 and 2, that in their recommendation for approval for Council that this is a minor amendment, and under Conclusion #2 that the proposed amendment is not likely to cause environmental impacts of a manner or degree not considered in the original review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and therefore would not require supplementary review under SEPA. Enarson apologized that she inadvertently omitted this in her motion, but it was intended. · · · Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1997 Page 9 V. NEW BUSINESS Chair Thayer announced the Planning Commission would no longer be meeting in Council Chambers. She canvassed the Planning Commission and Minute Taker regarding the use of the Pope Marine park building for Planning Commission meetings for the duration of Council Chambers use as office space, approximately 6 months. No one objected. Chair Thayer also recommended they send a memorandum to the Mayor encouraging her to fill vacancies on the Planning Commission. She questioned the fairness to the public in having no quorum. Mr. Craig Johnson spoke and said he was observing the Planning Commission deliberations at Mayor McCulloch's request as a potential Commission Member. \Xloolett advised that only the new codes should be used and if anyone does not have them to contact Sheila Spears. Kostelec announced that May 12 they would be holding a workshop to go over the Engineering Design Standards (EDS), street codes and utility codes, and the Engineering Design Standards Manual. Thayer said she had received numerous complaints regarding costs resulting from the new EDS. There was discussion as to the quickness in having to approve the codes and changes implicit in working that quickly. Kostelec noted it is not necessary to go back to Council if changes are not substantive. Thayer indicated another concern is that Port Townsend is the only Urban Growth Area in the County, that we are driving people outside the city to build. Kostelec referred to a tiering strategy and said they hope to clarify that in the workshop. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings May 29. 1997 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Parking Variance (Erickson/Sherwood) · · · Planning Commission May 8, 1997 Page 10 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Erickson and seconded by Boles All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:05 p.m. (1,' ¿ ~c~r k~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker