Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01091997 Min Ag v . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 6:00 PM NOTE: Change in time Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 24, 1996 and October 31, 1996 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Shoreline Management -- a "Crash Course," Tim McMahan January 9, 1997 B. William and Kathleen Massey, Shorelines Conditional Use/Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP) 96-00053 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report, (Judy Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Thayer/Enarson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings Janua(}' 31 r 1997 VII. ADJOURN · · · Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Amended) Council Chambers, 6:00 PM NOTE: Change in time II. ELECTION OF CHAIR III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 24, 1996 and October 31, 1996 IV. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail V. OLD BUSINESS A. Shoreline Management -- a "Crash Course," Tim McMahan January 9, 1997 B. William and Kathleen Massey, Shorelines Conditional Use/Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP) 96-00053 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report, (Judy Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Thayer/Enarson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings JanUa(}' 31, 1997 VIII. ADJOURN · · · 5 '-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting January 9, 1997 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Linda Clifton, Cindy Thayer and John Boles. Karen Erickson's absence was unexcused. One position is now vacant due to Mark Welch's appointment to the City Council. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Michael Hildt, Tim McMahan and Colette Kostelec. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Grammatical errors were noted in the minutes, and it was requested they be corrected as well as a substantive change in the October 24th minutes on Page 10 under Limitations to add the word "same" to read, ", , . , you only need one permit with the same limits of one home occupation," MOTION SECOND VOTE Boles Approve the minutes of October 24,1996 as amended. Thayer Unanimous, 5 in favor MOTION SECOND VOTE Enarson Approve the minutes of October 31, 1996 as amended. Boles Unanimous, 5 in favor III. COMMUNICA nONS: Current Mail There was nothing other than current mail Chair Sherwood gave an open invitation to a symposium put on by her Oceanography Cla-ss January 15th in the Port Townsend High School Auditorium, 7:00 p.m. She noted the French keynote speaker is an internationally known oceanographer who has worked with Robert Ballard on the Jason project. IV. OLD BUSINESS Frustration was expressed with the manner in which the three ordinances were recently processed with the Planning Commission hearing the public testimony and forwarding it to the · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 2 City Council. It was felt there appeared a lack of import to the process, lack of consideration of Planning Commission comments, and that the process resulted in an inordinate amount of time spent by staff and others. It was suggested that to save some time, they not cover the same ground. McMahan discussed the process. He commented that Commission's product and their revisions of Staff drafts that went to Council reflected all the public input and the Commission's good involvement in the process. He said the results were pretty close to what the Planning Commission sent to Council. He noted they are attempting to process new development regulations with difficult policy direction through the Land Use Committee first. The Planning Commission would then hear the pubJic testimony and forward it to the City Council. Hildt noted the Public Works Trust Fund and the water obligations under state and federal law. He said they would schedule discussion with the Planning Commission soon, in time to meet the April 9 deadline. Boles asked if it would be possible to have a joint committee to hammer out some sub-sections, McMahan replied that might be a good idea and noted a January 21st meeting of the Land Use Committee 1:30 to 5:00 p.m. to discuss the new Subdivision and PUD Codes A. Shoreline Management -- a "Crash Course," Tim McMahan McMahan commented on Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice by Richard L. Settle, He said although a lot has changed since it was published in 1983, the information on Shoreline Management is relatively up-to-date and a good source of information, He discussed the Legislative Findings of the Shoreline Management Act, noting that Washington State was one of the first in the country and a model when this was written in 1971, He said a unique component of the law merges both state and local control as well as planning and regulation, and that all goes to Ecology. He said the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is both plan and regulation; it is pretty easy to follow and a good working document. He outlined the structure of Legislative Findings and pointed out key components of any permitting action -- environmental protection of the unique attributes of the shoreline and adequate public access. He noted various kinds of permits that will come before the Planning Commission: Substantial Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances. He said the way the City writes Staff reports on shoreline permits is to pull goal and policy statements and performance criteria, pretty much verbatim, from the SMP. He responded to questions about the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) that the HPC is no longer quasi-judicial, that it is now authorized to review and make design recommendations to the Staff regarding the design components of the Urban Waterfront Plan, The SMP deals more with regulatory issues and some design issues from the Urban Waterfront Plan. He explained that the Growth Management Act took the Shorelines Hearing Board out of reviewing actions on permitting that might come through the Planning Commission and Council · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 3 B. William and Kathleen Massey, Shorelines Conditional Use/Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP) 96-00053 Chair Sherwood opened the Public Hearing: 1. Staff Report, Judy Surber Graphics submitted by the applicant were distributed as: Elevations, Exhibits lOa and lOb (clear prints of Exhibit 4); and Site Plan, Exhibit 11 (clear print of Exhibit 3). A duplicate print of the Assessor's map (Exhibit 1) was also included, Surber reported the following: Findings of Fact The applicants are proposing a one-story commercial building on a site approximately 76 feet north of the ordinary high water mark of Port Townsend Bay. Surber noted the project is within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark, falls within the Shorelines jurisdiction, and therefore is subject to the Shorelines Management Act and to the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Exhibit 1 shows the subject property location along the north side of Water Street across from the Keystone/Port Townsend ferry dock, described as Lots 1,3,5 and 7, Block 36, ofthe Original Townsite of Port Townsend together with the vacated portion of Harrison Street. The proposed building would have a total floor area of approximately 6,600 square feet, have a flat roof, exterior materials of split-face concrete block with glass and metal store-fronts and metal canopies. The rear of the building would be sheathed with fiber-cement lap siding. There are 36 parking spaces shown including compact and handicapped parking spaces. The proposed landscaping would provide screening of the parking lot and would consist of low growing bushes along the existing sidewalk facing Water Street with street trees intended to repeat the existing theme ofthe main street. A new sidewalk is proposed along the parking lot's northeastern boundary between the proposed development and the Windermere office building. The subject property is designated as commercial, is zoned (C-III), and lies within three special overlay districts: Special Overlay Design Review District (which requires design review by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)); Urban Waterfront Special District (HPC design review is guided by the design guidelines set forth in the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Plan- - see Exhibit 5); and Special Height Overlay District (recommended a maximum height of 40 feet for this site -- the building being a single story building would be well within that height limit. ) The HPC in Exhibit 5 recommended that the project proposal does contribute as conditioned to the Port Townsend Historic District (conditions 11a, through 11.c shown on Page 3 of 13 of the application). . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 4 Although the project is not required as a segment of the waterwalk, the crosswalk at the project's southeastern corner from the Windermere Real Estate office across the signalized intersection at the ferry dock provides connection to the waterwalk. It is also recommended that a crosswalk be painted across the driveway access to the property. An environmental checklist was submitted for review pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Following the applicant's agreement to recommendations and conditions to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts, a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on October 30, 1996. The project will require an Environmentally Sensitive Area permit to address the fact that the project is located at the base of a vertical bluff, and ensure that any grading at the base of the bluff does not create any stability problems. Written Testimony -- Two public comment letters were received: ~ Dr. G.T. "Chuck" Chuljian (Exhibit 8a) -- resides atop the bluff which forms the project's southern boundary and is concerned regarding bluff stability, (To be addressed during the ESA permit process. It will require a geotechnical engineer to review the site and determine the potential impacts, any mitigation measures associated with it, and need to conclude there will be no adverse i:fIlpact to the bluff stability in order for the project to go forward.) ~ Washington State Department of Transportation -- due to the fact this project accesses onto Water Street which is also SR20 and within their jurisdiction. (They had no comment; there was a traffic report prepared for access to this property which was copied to the Department of Transportation. Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation. (Policies and Performance Standards) ~ Project is infil1; ~ Compatible with surrounding commercial development; ~ Would visually enhance the site; ~ Compatible with the Port Townsend Historic District. Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District. (Policies and Performance Standards) ~ Ferry Retail District (one of eight sub-districts). Community-oriented retail shops and water enjoyment uses (e.g., restaurants) are encouraged. ~ Compatible with and supportive of the architectural qualities of the National Historic District and should enhance the character and flavor of the urban waterfront. Conditional Uses. (Criteria) Applicant has burden of proof that the project meets the criteria (Exhibit 9), ~ Consistent with the policies of the RCWs and Master Program -- It is physically separated from the shoreline by Water StreetlSR-20; enhances the public's enjoyment of the shoreline by providing street trees, store-front windows along the sidewalk, canopies over the store- fronts and a bench at the SE corner of the parking lot; proposed use is encouraged within the Ferry Retail District. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 5 .. Proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines -- It is not located directly on the shoreline, and, therefore, would not interrupt the normal public use. .. Proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted uses within the area -- It is a commercial building within a commercial district, and commercial zone. .. Proposed use will not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment -- It is located landward of Water Street and with mitigated measures for water quality provided in the MDNS; there are no anticipated impacts to the shoreline. .. Public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect -- The project has been found compatible with surrounding uses; features have been incorporated to enhance the public's enjoyment of the shoreline; the public's normal use of the shoreline would not be impacted. Commercial Development, (Policies and Performance Standards) ~ Prüject slwuld be consistent with local plans, codes, and ordinances and provide adequate païkingfacilities -- It is a C-HI Zone, designated commercial, in a Ferry Retail District and is a commercial use with 36 parking spaces provided (33 parking spaces required under the cürrent code if the 6,600 square feet is occupied by ietail shops). Utilities. (Policies and Performance Standards) .. Should be installed adjacent to rights-of-way, and be placed underground and should not affect water quality or marine habitat -- The project wil1 connect with sewer and water ""ithin Water Street. Water lines and sewer lines would be placed within existing street rights-of-way; .. Power and telephone lines shall be placed underground where feasible -- A mitigation measure is in the MDNS; .. Should not affect water quality or marine habitat --It is landward of Water Street/SR-20; water issues are covered by MDNS; there are no anticipated impacts to water quality. Conclusions, (Summary) .. The applicant has demonstrated that the project meets the conditional use criteria; .. The proposal is consistent with the Urban Waterfront Plan's policies and programs for the Ferry Retail District; .. The project is not required to provide public access improvements to the shoreline in association with the waterwalk as it is on the north side of Water Street; however, it is required that the applicant maintain the existing sidewalk, provide landscaping, and provide a crosswalk across the parking lot access. .. The subject property being upland of\Vater Street would not interfere ""ith any existing public enjoyment of the shoreline and not interfere with any existing public use of adjacent properties; .. As conditioned, proposed parking would be consistent with the PTMC; .. The project wil1 not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline as the MDNS has shown the applicant is agreeable to mitigation; . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 6 ~ The proposed project would not have a substantial detrimental effect on the public interest: a) nature of the use is compatible; b) it is consistent with the Urban Waterfront plan; c) the possibility of cumulative impacts for similar proposals is limited due to the fact it is an infill site and within an urban environment (not many infill sites remain); d) construction ofthe proposed commercial building would not displace any water-oriented uses -- separated from the shoreline, the site is unsuitable for water-oriented uses; ~ The proposal as conditioned is consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Shoreline Master Program. Recommendations. . ~ Staff recommends that the project be approved as conditioned. Conditions. ~ (1) The applicant should be held responsible for the Required Mitigation Measures of the MDNS; ~ (2) Power and telephone lines shall be placed underground where feasible as determined by the Director ofPubJic Works; ~ (3, 4, 5) -- HPC recommendations; ~ (6) The applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage to existing curbs, sidewalks, or adjacent asphalt pavement sustained during construction of the proposed project; all repairs necessary shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; ~ (7) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shan provide a pedestrian crosswalk across the parking lot access; ~ (8) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan; ~ (9) The owner/management of the organization shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of that landscaping, as well as the interior parking lot and abutting sidewalks; ~ (10) Parking shall be provided consistent with Chapter 17.30 PTMC as currently codified and hereafter amended; ~ (11) Construction may not begin until 21 days after the permit decision is filed with the Department of Ecology; ~ (12) Construction or substantial progress toward construction shall begin within two years and completed with five years. Surber noted Ms, Colette Kostelec, Development Review Engineer, was also in attendance and available to answer questions regarding drainage, the bluff, bluff sloughing, and impacts to the property at that time. ~ Clifton If a substantial amount of space is leased as a restaurant, would it up the parking; or would this limit the size of the restaurant? · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 7 ~ Surber Perhaps it would be addressed through restriping; number of compact spaces adjusted in accordance with the code; shared use of parking lots; Transportation Demand Management. The parking area does limit it. ., Sherwood The Audubon Sensitive Areas study document cited in the SEP A notes that bluff is a nesting habitat for pigeon gui11emots, That was not mentioned and perhaps it should be researched. ~ Surber It can be researched, and if they are found there, potential mitigation would be to limit the construction period to the time when the guillemots are not in that area, ~ Enarson The MDNS references other shore birds, is this not adequate? ~ Sherwood Nesting in the bluff is a significant fact. Dealing with seasons of construction is appropriate and maybe possible vegetation screening, ~ Boles Page 1 says this is a one-story building with a flat roof; the MDNS says that the applicants propose a two-story commercial building, ~ Surber The SEP A document was written on the original proposal, and through the HPC design process it was reduced to a one-story building, ~ Boles That is the proposal; there is no intention to come back? ~ Surber The proposal now is a one-story building. ~ Enarson In the cover letter you describe it as 20 feet high, and that would certainly be adequate for two stories. ~ Surber HPC was trying to give the effect of height to go along with the architecture of the Historic District. Although it is only one story, it would give the effect of the facade being higher than one story, ~ Thayer Regarding the legal description, according to the Assessor's map, it is lots 1,3,5 and 7, block 36, but it appears it is only half of the vacated portion of Harrison Street, the west half. ~ Surber We wil1 investigate that. ~ Mark Saugen It is half, the west half of the vacated portion of Harrison Street. ~ Boles Under required permits, in the MDNS there is a question about a closure letter from the Department of Ecology with regards to the previous removals. What is the status of that? It says, "At this date, to the City's knowledge, Chevron or the property owners have not received a "closure" letter from the Department of Ecology regarding the clean-up activities," I did not see further reference to that; is that something the City would put in here as a specific requirement? ~ Surber I understand that it is a voluntary thing. The voluntary mitigation that Chevron is going through would continue, with implementation of this project. . ~ Thayer I understand from a previous project, the State wil1 never give closure.k~ Boles On Page 5 it says, "Parking shall be located no closer than fifteen feet from bluffs." Does thát mean on the upper level of the bluff? · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 9, ] 997 Page 8 · Surber I did not see anywbere that it said edge vs. toe of the bluff I took it conservatively to mean the face of the bluff, and, therefore, it does encroach within ]5 feet of the bluff I was trying to point out that due to it being so limited in depth, there was no way of avoiding it; there is not much room between Water Street and the bluff · Boles It says here, "Parking shall be located no closer. , . " Is that O,K.? · Surber Perhaps we can check that and make sure it's a "shaU" and not a "should," · Hildt Performance standard 6 on Page 30 of the Shoreline Master Program, ..,. "Parking shall be located no closer than 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark or unique natural features, such as bluffs, dunes or wetland areas." It looks as if tbeir concern is esthetics or preserving a view, rather than buffers, etc, , , , I have been told tbat , . , it's glacial -- vertical and a very stable position and has less erosion in the rain, , , " You wouldn't want to cut into the toe of a slope; I suppose you would say ] 5 feet from face of the bluff · Boles On Page 11 of 13, bottom of paragraph 1, I didn't see any reference back to the oil/water separator mentioned on Page 5 of 15 of the MDNS, or a fire hydrant mentioned on Page 11 of 15, · Surber This was intended to incorporate the recommended measures. as a whole. The only reason it was puUed out on the power and telephone lines is because it did not specify that it was the Director of Public Works wbo determined it was underground. Otherwise, they are aU incorporated as presented in the MDNS. · Boles On Page 5 of the MDNS, is it just talking about water run-off in general? It says, "An oil/water separator at the outlet ofthe on-site drainage system should be instaUed and maintained by the property owner." I didn't see that, and the same for the fire hydrant · Surber I assume that the mitigation measure requiring stormwater run-off needs to submit a final drainage plan. The oil/water separator would be part of tÞ..at draiI1..age plan. · Boles Would it be the same thing as the MDNS, Page 11 with regard to, "As the nearest fire hydrant is greater than 250 feet from the site, a hydrant is required to be installed at the east side of the parking lot entrance." · Surber It would be covered under, "A final utilities plan shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a street development permit or a building permit." [MDNS, Pg. 15 of I 5] · Thayer Page 5 of 13, Written Testimony -- Isn't Dr. Chiljian's property on the northern boundary? The front of the property is the southern boundary, · Surber Yes, sorry. · Enarson Condition 10, Page 12, " . . . . as currently codified and hereafter amended." In your synopsis of this, YOlJ said "hereafter amended" was intended to make sure that if a restaurant or IJse other than retail is proposed that parking would have to adjust. That is not the way I would read 1.l1is condition; I would read this as consistent with it as currently codified, and you are going to comply with wbatever we amend this to in the future, . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 9 ~ Surber I confused the issue, The intent that I was talking about during my staff report was that the number of parking spaces needs to be consistent with future leases of the site, I may have to rethink what I have written here, that if Chapter 17.30 is ever amended, and those future leases come in, would they be subject to the old code or subject to the code that is at the time when they are coming in. ~ Enarson I would need more explanation. Where in the codes and ordinances do we have the right to require an applicant to agree to amend their parking within the future codes'? Discussion ensued. ~ Surber When change of use applications come in, the parking requirements are not determined on when the building was constructed, but when that change of use application comes m. ~ Enarson Haven't you said that by saying, " . . . . consistent with Chapter 17.30 PTMC",? ~ Surber If it was left that way only, we would be saying Chapter 17.30 as it now exists; therefore, 10 years from now, if a new lease holder comes in, we would have to go back to how the code was written at that time. ~ Hildt Uses change. Since the building proponent doesn't know who the tenants are going to be in time to get a building permit, they wi11 have to show uses that they expect it to be, so that we can have a parking plan that goes with that building. Even after they get it built, if there is any change of use with that, they have to go through that code and come up with the additional parking one way or another. There are a lot of ways to do that. The parking requirements and the parking code are ongoing. McMahan can tell if "hereafter amended" is needed or not. ~ McMahan You can say consistent with the Port Townsend parking code, it will be clear it is the existing code; or you can leave it as is, ~ Enarson I would appreciate the more simple statement that parking will be consistent with the code, and then that would address in the future it would be with the code as it exists at the time. Chair Sherwood opened the meeting to public testimony: 2. Public Testimony -- Mr. Mark Saugen testified for the applicants. Chair Sherwood asked Mr. Saugen, "Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give is true'?" Mr, Saugen replied, "1 do," Mr. Saugen stated that Ms. Surber's presentation was so thorough there was little to add. He said the plants they are looking at for the site are drought tolerant and hardy, He pointed out a specific plan that was put together by a landscape architect and said the idea is to keep the . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 10 street tree concept going and to provide a buffer between the street, sidewalk and parking. He said the plan was presented to HPC and they liked the concept. He said the property was purchased in December 1994 and they weren't sure exactly what they were going to do with the property, In March of 1996 they came to the City to try to find a concept that they thought would work. He said they got on a track that didn't turn out to be the right approach and after making their application met with HPC several times, which was a very constructive process that provided some very good brainstorming ideas for what would work. He said he was very impressed with the citizen input. He said they do not have tenants at this time, that what is important is to find out what it is you have to sell first; after it is approved there is a certain marketing time where hopeful1y you can get some tenants to sign up and design some things around their specific criteria. He said the best thing about the facade is it allows for some flexibility, e.g, five entrances, or it could be three or maybe six or seven, that aU of those openings are on 4/4 grids. He said the three canopies are still out front, like the photograph, He noted one minor thing in the HPC report, Page 9 of9 item V.3., "Prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, applicant should provide the details for review and approval of the signage in a sign master plan. . . " With all the variations on Page 12 of 13, item 5, it is stated that it is to coincide with the building permit Prior to that it was the certificate of occupancy, ~ Clifton You can't very well do it with a building permit if you don't know who is going to be there, ~ Thayer I see one monitoring well northeast of the Windermere Real Estate sign, and I know there are others, Are they on this map? ~ Saugen He clarified the map and noted there are seven monitoring wel1s near Windermere and some across the street. Three of them have been removed. What they have done is test many times and when there is no change they will reduce the scope of the number of monitoring wel1s they actual1y check. (Exhibit 2) ~ Boles Do you have anything further on lighting? ~ Saugen It is one of the things we discussed with HPc. We feel we would like to keep the site modestly lit. At this time we do not see a need to have additional lighting other than what's provided from the normal light reflection of the windows, etc. and the light fixture. There may be a hidden indirect light in the signage. HPC liked that idea, ~ Boles Have you considered anything with regard to safety at night, walking down the sidewalk between the parking lot and the Windermere building? ~ Saugen The general lighting in the area is adequate. In studying Port Townsend, we realized there isn't much light; it's quite subdued. Our approach is to make it more of the same, HPC rather looked at it the same way, We may have some indirect lighting that might actually illuminate an object, a shrub or a tree that is esthetically pleasing. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 11 · Boles Did you have any other· schemes for alignmeJ)t of the intersection with the access into the property? Limiting that to a right turn access, won't that leave people driving past the building on Water Street, needin~ to go into the downtown or into the variety parking lot or something to turn aTðund and come back and make that turn? With the right turn only access, won't there be some additional impact, because people will have to fined a turnaround sO:Q1ewhere? I am concerned that any traffic coming in there from the west, has to go beyond it and has to turn around. I am concemed with the congestion downtown. I am afraid it will lead to some strange strategies. . Saugen There is a reasonably low impact on the intersectien. Other than with the ferry there is not much going on. · Boles lv1.y concern is not as much at the intersection, It is because it is not allowing the' signalization for a left turn and people have to go beyond it. I am concerned with safety of people trying to sneak a left turn in there, or getting down and getting sideways at an intersection. · Saugen The point I am making is the number of trips we are talking ·about is not that significant. · Sherwood I would think it would be more the-applicant's concern as to people's ease of access into his business. · Boles But, we are requiring that there be no left turn. Is there a way we can remove that restriction? . Saugen This has also already been addressed in the SEP A and the City's findings on it. · Hildt The point is wel1 Ui.ken, but it may not be a shorelines issue at aU, There isn't enough room for a left turn pocket lane on Water Street. If we allow people to queue up to make a left turn there, when it's busy, it's going to congest Water Street. It is less than ideal, but there is no other solution that has presented itself for the limited space there. · Hildt Regarding the conditions for the sign peI11lÎt timing, when I reviewed Surber's draft, it was my suggestion to change-that to the building permit time. You don't have to know the names of the businesses, but it is a matter of placement of signs. It is for their benefit they do the sign plan before they build, before they get the final approval, so they aren't surprised by the sign code requirements of where you can and cannot place signs. The text is not important; it is the size and placement of the signs that is really important for them to understand when they do their final design. · Enarson Having come in for a signing permit application recently, it requires the text. Maybe a sign master plan does not. · Hildt That is right, Maybe in this case you could say Certificate of Occupancy, because I know Mr. Saugen is smart enough to make sure his people look at that when they do a final design. · Hildt Page 11, Recommendation, add "and Conditional Use Permit" to read "Issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) and Conditional Use Permit. . . ." . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 12 Chair Sherwood closed the hearing to the public. · Thayer I would like to hear from Kostelec regarding the bluff as it relates to this project and understanding that there has been some additional sloughing, but also recognizing this was a 100-year storm, · Kostelec Regarding our storm drainage system up on Washington Street, the main issue related to this project is there is a catch basin near the Post Office that directs water to two places, into the sanitary sewer in Washington Street and overflows from that direct water through a cross-over which comes out at the top of the bluff above this site. This whole issue of the connection to the sanitary sewer up on Washington Street needs to be addressed as part of our wastewater comprehensive plan, which we are working on. At that time, we probably will be addressing this overflow out of the culvert above the bluff, above this Harrison Street right-of-way. The long-term plan will not have water flowing over the bluff like it does today in big storms; I am not sure when and what the planned solution win be for stormwater. · Clifton Do you have any idea how often that's actual1y used? · Kostelec My understanding is that it is very rarely. There is a fundamental problem with where it is going; we need to address that problem. · Clifton I am interested in what Hildt was explaining that this is a safer bluff than many, because it's quite vertical. To me it looks horrendous; every year I see things coming down off it. It looks like those houses up there in 5 to 10 years are going to be exposed. · Kostelec I don't think any Geo-technical Engineer will tell you that those bluffs won't change their profile over 5, 10, or 100 years. The issue about whether material at the base of the bluff actually aids in its stability or nor, I think will be better addressed by the Geo- technical Engineer when they do the ESA for this site. No one guarantees that those bluffs won't change. · Hildt According to what geologists have told me, the face of those bluffs will be continual1y eroding. Photos show it has not been a very fast erosion, Situations like this are fast periods; most of the time it is a gradual erosion, All of those houses up there are perpetually going to be threatened; the question is, how long. Some of them are pretty close. What I am told, because it is glacial and its stability, we are not likely to have a major failure of a slide someday, where the whole thing is going to suddenly cave in. The bigger threat is what we had for a little while there, actual overflow of drainage water; then you can get a major erosion, and that should be dealt with. · Saugen It was explained to me that it is rather like concrete, very hard and very compacted and therefore reasonably stable, Like Mr. Hildt was saying, it is water going over the edge that is the problem that enhances that. Further down, it appears more water is running off the streets and going north and south, and because those areas are reasonably steep, you can see the erosion running right down. In viewing this particular site, it seemed · · · Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 13 to have the least amount of impact. When the drainage does hit and overflow, it is further to the east. 3. Committee Report, Thayer/Enarson Thayer commended Staff and the applicant for a very thorough application, She said a lot of her concerns have already been addressed; other than a few typos, everything was covered and there was nothing to object to, Enarson agreed. After their recent training, she said she carefully reviewed this, reminding herself that she was the judge, and that she could judge this conditional use permit based solely on the facts presented. She said Staff has done excellent job of showing the criteria. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas permit which the applicant is required to go through addresses a lot of the drainage issues; the permits are beyond the Commission's purview. She sáid based on the criteria on which they do have something to say, other than Condition 10 on the parking (which she hopes they can discuss a little more) and a few little typos, she would recommend approva1. Amendments: · Page 1, January 2 Permit Application, Proposal Description -- changed the legal description · Page 3 of 13, 8.b. -- (T)he Port Townsend. . . . · Page 5 of 13, Written Testimony -- change to northern boundary · Page 6 of 13, second paragraph from bottom -- add "to" to read, "agreed to submit" · Page 7 of 13, paragraph 1 -- mixture of uses "is,"or a variety "is"; or mixture and variety of uses "are" encouraged · Page 9 of 13, (5) last line -- would not "be" impacted, or would not have "been" impacted · Page 10 of 13, (3) -- and provide a crosswalk "across" (same as in Condition 7) · Page 10 of 13, (5) -- change to, "As conditioned, proposed parking would be consistent with the Port Townsend Parking Code." (Consensus after discussion.) · Page 11 of 13, Recommendation -- Issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) and "Conditional Use Permit" · Page 11 of 13, Condition 1 last line -- change to "and/or" · Page 12 of 13, Condition 5 -- Thayer recommended changing to conform to HPC recommendations, Certificate of Occupancy · Page 12 of 13, Condition 9 -- change to "shall be replaced within 60 days in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plan." (Eliminate "death or damage") · Sherwood -- Pigeon guillemot. Hildt agreed to check before it goes to Council. Surber said it would be covered under shoreline and marine environment. If it is a problem, the Staff report can recommend to City Council that they add a finding regarding the presence of the pigeon guillemot and the condition of avoidance; perhaps we can find it in the SMP, . Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1997 Page 14 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions MOTION Thayer Recommend approval of Shoreline Management Conditional Use/ Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP) 96-00053 as amended SECOND VOTE Clifton Unanimous -- 5 in favor Newly elected Chair Thayer will sign the amended Findings and Conclusions, V. NEW BUSINESS Election of officers: The position of treasurer was discussed and determined to be unnecessary and eliminated from the vote. Recommendations are that elections will be held yearly with terms not to exceed 2 years. . Chair . Enarson expressed appreciation for the work of Chair Sherwood and nominated Cindy Thayer as the new Chair which was seconded by Clifton. Boles asked that nominations be closed. Vice-Chair Thayer nominated Enarson as Vice-Chair which was seconded by Clifton, MOTION Boles Close nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Thayer as Chair and Enarson as Vice-Chair. SECOND VOTE Clifton Unanimous-5 in favor Hildt also added appreciation for Sherwood's work. .. -. . Planning Commission January 9, 1997 Page 15 VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings January 31. 1997 Surber announced an AP A national conference in San Diego, April 5 to 9 and noted there are a couple öf sessions for Planning Commissioners, Enarson requested advance information to allow a new member the opportunity to attend. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Boles and seconded by Enarson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 8:48 PM. \~ ~ ~~ é-___ ýJNr..-r'~ Lois Sherwood, Chair .~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker .