HomeMy WebLinkAbout11101999 Min Ag
.
.
.
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m.
Business Meeting
WEDNESDAY, November 10, 1999
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Acceptance of Agenda
IV. Election of Officers
V. Approval of Minutes: October 28, 1999
VI. Unfinished Business
A.
Port of Port Townsend, Zoning Code Text Amendment (LUP99-72)
(continued open-record public hearing)
1. Public.Testimony (new testimony only)
2. Commission discussion and conclusions
VII. New Business
VIII. Other Business: Next Scheduled Meetings
December 9 t 1999
IX.
Communications
X.
Adjournment
WPCOIOI
~ q lOP¡
.
.
c,
~/
/'
MINUTES OF TIlE NOVEMBER 10, 1999 CONTINUED SESSION
OF TIlE OCTOBER 28, 1999 MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
I.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7: 10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair
Cindy Thayer. The delayed time for calling the meeting to order was to give Planning
Commission members time to read new exhibits presented by Mr. Randall.
The purpose of this November 10th meeting is to continue deliberations on the Port of Port
Townsend, Zoning Code Text Amendment (LUP99-72) open-record public hearing held on
October 28, 1999, and to elect Planning Commission officers for the coming year.
II. ROLL CALL
Other members in attendance and answering roll were Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Larry
Harbison, Len Mandelbaum, and Christine Ota. Staff members present were BCD Director Bob
Leedy and Jeff Randall, BCD. City Council representative present was Alan Youse.
m. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
Motion was made by Mr. Worden to move Election of Officers to the end of the meeting and to
accept the agenda as changed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor.
IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Moved to the end of the meeting.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve the minutes of October 28, 1999 as written and amended was made by Mr.
Harbison and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. All were in favor.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Port of Port Townsend, Zoning Code Text Amendment (LUP99-72)
(Continued open-record public hearing)
Chair Thayer noted this is a continuation of the hearing the Planning Commission held
October 28,1999 on the Port of Port Townsend, Zoning Code Text Amendment (LUP99-72).
She pointed out any new testimony that has come up since the October hearing will be allowed
tonight, but the same sorts of things pieviously stated will not be allowed.
'.
.
.
, '
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 2
Fairness Doctrine, according to the Legislature, does not apply. Site specific proceedings that
come before the Planning Commission, e.g. if Platypus Marine had come before the Planning
Commission for just their site, are considered quasi-judicial and the Appearance ofPaimess does
apply. She clarified that since the only proceeding tonight by the Port of Port Townsend is
legislative, the Appearance ofPaimess does not apply.
Chair Thayer noted the following order of testimony: first the applicant will speak; then,
those speaking in favor of the proposal; those speaking in opposition to the proposal; and finally
those speaking without an opinion either way. Each testimony will be limited to 5 minutes per
person.
1. Staff presentation (Mr. Jeff Randall)
Mr. Randall, Port Townsend Planning Department, referenced his Staff Report of
October 21, 1999 indicating that on August 20, 1999 the Port of Port Townsend submitted a
proposal to amend the text of the zoning code to create a height overlay district in the northwest
portion of the Boat Haven M-II(A) Marine Related Uses Zoning District. The proposal was later
revised to include only 5.6 acres of that northwest portion of the Port. The proposal would allow
buildings to exceed the 50 foot height limit within the affected area and be built up to 78 feet in
height over a maximum of 1.2 acres (20 percent ofthat 5.6 acre area).
Just prior to that submittal, Platypus Marine submitted a separate project related
environmental review application for marine trades complex and structures. One structure
would have consisted of 17,500 square feet of building and would be built to the maximum
building height permissible. Mr. Randall said currently the maximum building height
permissible is 50 feet; the Platypus proposal indicated if the zoning code amendment that was
going to be submitted by the Port was successful, the building would be extended up in height to
78 feet. He said the Platypus proposal, if the Port proposal would be approved as it is currently
written, would consume approximately one-third of that 20 percent ofthe over-height area.
A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review was conducted and environmental
determinations were issued on October 6, 1999. Mr. Randall said they received many letters in
response to these proposals -- to date 43 letters (38 expressing opposition to at least part of the
proposal, either the project and the zoning, or part of the zoning; 5 in favor of both aspects of the
proposal).
Mr. Randall said a determination of nonsignificance was issued on the zoning text
amendments with the rationale that some environmental impacts were identified, primarily view
impacts; however, it was determined that those impacts did not rise to the level of significant
adverse environmental impacts requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS). He
indicated they were really policy issues which need to be addressed with the zoning code
amendment process. A mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) was issued to
Platypus Marine and included mitigations for light and noise impacts.
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 3
The comment and appeal period has expired on both projects; there were no appeals.
Mr. Randall reported BCD received a few letters, and said at the end of the comment period they
will be issuing an addendum on the Platypus project to make some minor modifications to the
noise mitigation and reference applicable state noise standards. He said those changes will be
quite insignificant, and they do not expect an additional comment period.
Public notice was provided on both projects. Notification included the Port Townsend
Leader, notice posted on site, and a 300 foot notice provided around the boundaries of the whole
Boat Haven zoning district and extended to 600 feet into the residential areas that would be most
impacted by large buildings.
Mr. Randall stated that in the Boat Haven prior to 1997, the building height in the whole
area was 35 feet. During the 1996 Comprehensive Plan process, it was recognized that
development of the Port would require larger buildings, require additional infrastructure, and
that a heavy haulout was needed -- that all these things added together necessitated an increase
in the building height. The tallest building in the Port at that time was the Admiral Marine
building, now owned by Townsend Bay Marine, which is reported to be 50' 1/4". The
Comprehensive Plan at that time recommended amending the zoning code allowing a 50 foot
building height to avoid the need for future variances for large buildings. In 1997 the zoning
code was amended to that effect.
Mr. Randall noted at the October 14th meeting the Planning Commission requested Staff
to analyze Comprehensive Plan policies, especially for compatibility with the proposal and for
consistency, and to present alternatives to the proposed amendment submitted by the Port. He
clarified that today they are hearing a zoning code amendment, that this is not a project review
of the Platypus proposal; however, because Platypus is the fIrst beneficiary of the zoning code
amendment, infonnation about their proposal is legitimate. He then reviewed some of the plans
and policies identified in his Staff Report:
Comprehensive Plan Lanq Use Element -- Manufacturing Lands
.. Goal 9. To provide opportunities for manufacturing development and diversification of
the local economy in a manner which efficiently uses community attributes and
natural resources, and has minimal impacts on the environment.
Analysis: The proposed height amendment would allow taller buildings designed specifically to
serve the heavy haulout which is new infrastructure and designed to efficiently utilize
community attributes. However, the same large buildings have potential concerns regarding
impacts to the environment, creating large industrial-looking buildings that would impact
views in that area.
.. Policy 9.4 Review, and if necessary, revise development regulations to ensure that
manufacturing development will be designed, built, landscaped, and operated in
a manner which maintains the value and desirability of surrounding lands.
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 4
Analysis: Even in the manufacturing areas, people of Port Townsend when they were going
through the Comprehensive Plan process were concerned about aesthetics. However, to date
there are no design standards, per se' for the manufacturing districts, including Boat Haven.
Comprehepsive Plan Lanq Use Elem.~t -- Port Related Uses
... Policy 9.8 Work closely with the Port of Port Townsend to provide for the development of
the Boat Haven and Point Hudson properties in a way that ensures the viability
of long-term marine uses, the vitality of the areaforport-related uses, and
compatibility with surrounding areas.
Analysis: With this proposal City Staffhas worked closely with the port trying to identifY ahead
of time areas in the Port which would be best suited for tall buildings if they were to be
approved. They tried to give special notice to people in the area, walked out on their decks
and took pictures when a visual analysis was conducted, and tried to craft an amendment as
carefully as possible, given the fact they are still dealing with large buildings. Mr. Randall
noted, however, the compatibility is what they are here to discuss.
Comprehensive PI~ Economic DevelQpme~t - M@lÍne Trades
... Goal 3 To strengthen the marine trades economy while protecting the natural
environment and balancing public use of shoreline areas.
Analysis: There are no conflicts with the Shoreline 35 foot maximum building height since this
Port project, the Platypus project, and the whole height overlay area is outside the Shoreline
jurisdiction. Buildings that would be built in this area would be water dependent uses
consistent with the Shoreline Program.
... Policy 3.4 Promote the skill, motivation and availability of Port Townsend's marine trades
workforce as a regional resource of major importance to the City's economic
future.
Analysis: Recognizes the importance of marine trades in Port Townsend's economy.
... Policy 3.6 Encourage the creation of marine trades jobs that are dependent upon traditional
skills, construction techniques, and materials, such as: sail and canvas accessory
manufacture; spar and rigging construction; marine-oriented carpentry;
construction of wooden boats; blacksmithing; and block-making casting.
Analysis: A little more specific policy, recognizing the importance of traditional wooden-boat-
type and sailing-type marine trades in Boat Haven. Mr. Randall's understanding is the
Platypus proposal would primarilly be work on fiberglass boats, and probably other boats.
He said hopefully it would be addressed how Platypus would interact, as an example with
current businesses in the Boat Haven, perhaps as traditional boats would interact.
·
·
·
¡
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 5
Comprehensive PlaD- Land, Use ßlement
· Table IV-l of Land Use Designations - Suggested Uses, Densities and Building Heights
M-ll(A) Building District, maximum building height of 50 feet was listed as a
recommendation. However, the table's footnote indicates it was to provide information
and guidance only and is not prescriptive.
Analysis: This proposal does not require a Comprehens,ive Plan amendment, because this is not
prescriptive and there are actually variations ftom this table in the zoning code.
Gat~way Development Plan
· Adopted in 1993. Provides recommendations for streetscape improvements and general
development guidelines for projects adjacent to Sims Way. The Gateway Development Plan
is adopted by reference and is considered an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The height
overlay district is adjacent to and near the "S" curve corridor.
Quotation from the "S" curve corridor guidelines:
The views of the bay along this section of the corridor create a significant and lasting
impression for visitors traveling eastbound into Port Townsend. These views could be
enhanced by selective removal of vegetation which obscures distant views. Building
heights should be limited to protect views.
AlUllysis: Again indicates the importance of aesthetics to the people of Port Townsend and
identifies the view corridors as being important. However, to date the vegetation removal
has not taken place, and would probably be controversial. The Gateway Plan is not
recommending a certain building height to limit things in the Port. It is a document that
existed at the time the Comprehensive Plan was drafted and was considered when the 50 foot
building height was adopted. One thing that was not in existence when the Comprehensive
Plan was drafted was the heavy haulout as it exists today, which is approximately 46 feet tall.
The Planning Commission and City Council did not have the benefit of knowing the size of
that facility and its needs as far as fitting in and out of doorways, and is something to take
into consideration.
Comprehensive Plan Eco\}omiç D~velopment Strategy
· "The potential for expansion of the marine trades sector of our local economy is
considerable. The largest obstacles to growth of this industrial sector include: a lack of
appropriately located and zoned vacant land; and a lack of Port infrastructure to serve
larger and increased numbers of boats. As long ago as 1985, the Economic Development
Council's (EDC) economic development strategy indicated that added moorage, water side
work space, large capacity lifts and haulout facilities and port area improvements were
necessary to allow expansion. Completion of the 200 ton enhanced haul-out facility will go
a long way towards alleviating existing infrastructure needs.
"The City should play a key role in encouraging the marine trades economy. One
.
.
.
"
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 6
important step the City should take is to plan and zone to promote marine-related commerce
and industry in specific shoreline areas. Equally important is the City's role in cooperating
with the Port to develop and implement master plans for Port properties which are
consistent and coordinated with City plans and programs. Finally, the City should take a
leadership role in promQting the skills available in Port Townsend's marine trades
worliforce. "
Policy Conclusions - Mr. Randall reviewed the following:
· Policy language of the Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents incorporated with
the Comprehensive Plan makes it clear that development of the marine trades in Port
Townsend is a primary economic and land use concern.
.. The Plan also puts emphasis on supporting those marine trades which utilize traditional
construction practices.
· While the marine trades sector of the economy is important to the future growth of the city,
the Comprehensive Plan and Gateway Plan clearly state that Port Townsend's sense of place,
picturesque viewscapes, and livabìlity are of equal importance. The Plan does not support
economic development "at all costs" or "development for development's sake," but rather
development which is sensitive to the needs and values of the community.
· The fact that 50 foot buildings do not efficiently and safely accommodate the heavy haulout
travel lift as evidenced by both Townsend Bay Marine's information at the last workshop,
Platypus Marine's information, and information provided by the Port is new information that
was not available to the Planning Commission and City Council when the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code were adopted.
· Because the Plan supports additional infrastructure such as the heavy haulout, the Plan
should also support those buildings needed to accommodate the vessels served by the heavy
haulout
· Building heights and other necessary design standards should be carefully crafted to allow a
limited number of such large buildings while protecting public and private views of Port
Townsend Bay and surrounding vistas.
PQs$jble Qptions fOf Tecommen~tions to City Council:
A. Recommend approval of the proposal as submitted.
B. Recommend modiflcadons to the proposal for approval:
Mr. Randall said to the Planning Commission that basically the parameters you can work
with are as wide as you want to make them; you are not limited to the proposal as submitted
by the Port. This is a legislative matter; the City takes ownership when it adopts legislation
like this, and it can be modified in any way. Increases to the proposal beyond what has been
applied for would probably require additional public notice; decreases probably would not.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11, 1999
Page 7
community are like the people who buy into an airport area; I think the circumstances are
quite different. If you buy into an area already impacted by an airport, you know, given the
history of airport development, that there will be extensions; there will be additional growth.
I think it is quite different here. Most people bought in at a 35 foot limit; then the limit was
raised to 50, and some people may have bought in after that with the reasonable expectation
that was it. I don't think that the community is in a good position morally to go ahead and
accept this development without considering either some reconfiguration of design and
change it, or some mitigation to the group that is directly effected. However, I do think we
ought to try to make it happen. That is to say that we ought to recommend to the City
Council that efforts be made to approve this project, to support it, but to do so in one of
several ways that might have less negative impact.
Mr. Mandelbaum suggested several possibilities and said he appreciates the alternatives
Staff has submitted to the Planning Commission:
· Ask the parties, particularly the Port and Platypus, but maybe with the help of the City, to
develop for the City Council some detailed estimates of what it would cost to expand the
Port area, which is going to have to happen some day, to buy up that Class 3 wetland, and to
possibly route the water from runoff on Sims Way to some other area. I would be curious to
see how much that would cost.
· Push the new proposed facility against the bluff I don't know that it could happen, but I am
not so sure we have really sweated that one out.
· I am also not sure there might not be the technology available to do the below-grade option.
Maybe there isn't, but I am not sure that a serious explanation has been made of that
possibility.
· If those two technological approaches turn out to be not feasible, then I would tend to favor
going ahead with the project and taking some of the revenue from the County and from the
City's share of the increased incremental revenue taxes and distributing it through a citizen's
committee to people who prove impact. I just think it would be unconscionable not to.
Governments do this all the time. In Rainier Valley, for example, if the light rail goes
through, the transit people will be spending millions, if not tens of millions, in providing
additional community libraries, etc. to soften the impact. We do this time and time again.
· I am in favor of conditional approval, if the rest of the Commission found those first two
options too complicated, I would consider the option submitted by Staff of a smaller facility.
I tend to be uncomfortable with that, but I would find that more acceptable than just an
unconditional "yes" approval.
Mr. Worden: In my mind there is very little doubt that there is a need here to allow an increase
in the building height in order to make the potential, that is offered by the haulout, real. It is
pretty clear to me that the kind of industry that Platypus represents is beneficial to Port
Townsend.
It is also pretty clear to me that the Comprehensive Plan encourages us to support
development of this kind:
Planning Commission Meeting
~ ~~~~b:r28, 1999
C. Recommend Denial of Propo$lll: Suggested justification: a) negative visual impacts
outweigh the possible positive economic stimulus provided by businesses conducting indoor
marine trades work utilizing the heavy hamout, b) the Boat Haven should be used primarily
for traditional marine trades businesses and the building of large new buildings for work on
large modem vessels is not consistent with the city's future vision of Boat Haven, and c)
significant public opposition by neighboring residents to the proposal to increase the height
limit. (Mr. Randall noted the area they are getting comments from is rather confined.)
Analysis: Staff does not recommend absolute denial of this proposal as evidence has been
brought forward that the heavy hamout cannot now be efficiently utilized indoors. This is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage efficient use of the
Port; however, Staff feels a 78 foot building height is not necessarily justified either, and a
compelling case needs to be brought forth to justify the visual impacts that go along with a
building of that size.
~
EXHIB~TS:
Exhibit A: Draft Findings and Conclusions ( draft Ordinance)
Exhibit B: Revised Port of Port Townsend Zoning Code Text Amendment Application (LUP99-
72)
Exhibit C: Revised Platypus Building Elevations
Exhibit D: Vessel Diagram, Sample Platypus Customer
Exhibit E: Application by Port of Port Townsend for Zoning Code Text Amendment
Exhibit F: SEP A Checklist
Exhibit G: SEPA MDNS
Exhibit H: Public Comment Letters (37)
Exhibit I: Visual Simulation Photographs (2 boards)
Exhibit J: Map of Revised Height District Overlay with Photo Sites Locations and Topography
Exhibit K: Port of Port Townsend Letter Regarding Participation of Ms. Thayer
Exhibit L: Letter from City Attorney: Response to Port Letter
Additional Exhíþits (Received at the me~ting October 28):
Exhibit M: Yacht Photo Submitted by Platypus Marine
Exhibit N: Yacht Photo Submitted by Platypus Marine
Exhibit 0: Yacht Photo Submitted by Platypus Marine
Exhibit P: Yacht Photo Submitted by Platypus Marine
Exhibit Q: Yacht Photo Submitted by Platypus Marine
Exhibit R: Magazine Article Submitted by Platypus Marine
Exhibit S: Mark Grant Letter, dated 10/28:/99
Exhibit T: W.A. Boothroyd Letter, dated 10/28/99
Exhibit U: Photo Board Submitted by Don MiHer
~
.'-
.
.
.¡;
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11, 1999
Page 9
Ms. Thayer said this is really a tough call for all of us. We are asked to consider the economic
viability of the Port versus the community concerns for view encroachment~ and the small
town atmosphere. Living above the Port, it is really fun to watch the boats, and no one was
more excited that I when the Evviva came out of the building when it was first being
launched, and how exciting it was to watch that process. I was a member of the Planning
Commission when Admiral Marine came before us for the 50 foot height restriction. So, I
am one of the ones to blame for increasing the height to 50 feet.
She stated she has concerns:
~ I am concerned that the effect in raising this height to 75 feet is the equivalent of taking
every residential lot in town that has a 30 foot height restriction and raising it to 45 feet.
Yes, we have a lot of people in a specific area complaining about this, but you had better
believe if we did that with residential zoning, the whole town would be in an uproar, and we
would have to hire a gymnasium to handle the uproar. I feel that is basically what we are
being asked to do.
~ There are people on Jackman, and Mrs. Younce was one, that came before the Planning
Commission (you new Planning Commissioners don't remember), but she came before us
for a variance of the setback to build her house, and although she could build a house 30 feet
tall, she was willing to set height restrictions on her house so that no one else would be
impacted by blockage of view. I think that was the same case with her neighbor.
.. I also believe that the houses on Jackman, Hill and Hill Place from 10th all the way to 14th,
have height restrictions on them protecting views of the people behind them. That whole
neighborhood that is complaining has done their work in trying to set limits on their
neighborhood so that everybody's view is protected. When we built our house, we have no
height restriction on our property, we could have built to 30 feet, but we wanted to be a good
neighbor, and we didn't. I don't think there was any house in the neighborhood that was
impacted by our building.
.. Not only is there a view concern, but coming down Sims Way looking at an 8-story building.
When this first came up, I really thought there has to be some way that we can tuck this into
the bluff and that it wouldn't make impacts on people, even though I saw the topo map that
showed Jackman was at 80 feet. In spite of what Mr. Crockett says, I really believed there
was some kind of compromise we could do, until I saw the crane up there and saw the
impact it makes, not only in that specific area but in all of town coming down Sims Way.
Kah Tai - I have driven down into the Port and tried to envision what it was going to be like
with a 78 foot building up there.
.. I cannot favor this proposal. I am not sure that I could be willing to compromise on
something less than that, although I do understand that the travel lift really has to squeeze
into those 50 foot buildings. I find it really amazing that they didn't plan ahead for this.
.. The minutes that were shown us where Mr. Cahoon said he made those same comments to
the Planning Commission about wanting higher buildings in the future, I do not recollect
that. That never came before us.
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 10
Mr. Larry Crockett, General Manager, Port of Port Townsend - Citizen, 150827th Street
He referred to the aerial photograph used at the workshop and gave additional history to
what Mr. Randall presented. He said the Port of Port Townsend is one of76 ports in the State of
Washington, founded in 1924, started by the State; RCW 53 gives them a mandate, one of which
is economic development, and that is what his purpose in life is.
He said it is no surprise he is a proponent of economic development, and will be as long
as he is in this job, a proponent of sensible growth. One of the citizen letters he read today made
a statement that the Port over the years kept on growing. He said, Yes, and next year they will
grow again, and the year after that grow some more. He said the Port is límited as the
Comprehensive Plan said by their area, shoreline, Sims Way, etc., but he said within that they
are going to maximize as much growth as they can to promote the marine trades, which is in
compliance with the Comp Plan.
A Port Townsend Leader article nom January 1964 talked about the enlargement of the
marina; at that time it was just a small marina where the Harborside Inn is now. The large
marina wasn't built yet; it was talking about that project. There was an aerial photograph of the
entire Port area. There was no Safeway or Henery's and the poplars were all little trees. Up on
the hillside there were very, very few residences; it was still pristine forest. And the Port was
growing; it has been a continuous effort since then. Mr. Crockett said in the late '80s the
enhanced haulout was starting to be discussed; by the mid '90s the planning and funding of that
project was underway. Many ofthese homes we are discussing that are potentially impacted by
more buildings were built in the late '80s and early '90s. He said he can sympathize, but not
necessarily empathize. It is what he calls the airport syndrome, the issues with airport neighbors
-- an airport built 50 years ago, and the neighbors who built their homes in the last few years and
complain about the airplane noises. He said they have almost the same case here; however, he
said he does sympathize. People tend to buy property on the spur of the moment, see the
beautiful view on a nice day, etc. and not think about what it will look like next year, 10 or 20
years nom now.
Regarding the Enhanced Haulout -- the Comp Plan recommended enhancing the
structure of the port to enhance the marine trades. The 300-ton-capable lift was the ultimate
result, and thus they built the field of dreams; just like in the movie when they built the baseball
field, and the ball players came. He said now the ball players are showing up, except for marine
trades. He said as he stands before the Commission tonight, he has seven companies of different
magnitude that want to relocate into the Port. Some want to build, some just want to rent space,
etc.; it is happening as the city envisioned and as the Port envisioned.
He gave a little bit of history on the zoning code amendment they are presenting tonight
to the Commission. Initially, when Platypus Marine approached the Port wanting to relocate
nom Seattle (they have been working in the Port for the last 8 or 9 months in rented facilities,
but unable to do all of their work) the Port proposed to do a one-time variance. At the request of
both the BCD Staff and City Attorney who personally called Mr. Crockett on this and suggested
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11, 1999
Page 11
zone from 30 feet to 45 feet. These homes do abut marine manufacturing (Ms. Thayer
interjected, "Where there has been a height restriction of35 or 50 feet.") Mr. Harbison
continued, "Where there has been a height restriction that has been addressed as needed to
accommodate growth in the Port.
He stated his concern, and has been for a while as we have been listening to the testimony:
IÞ I am concerned we didn't see more foresight on the part of the City and the Port to anticipate
that this would be a realistic need for the Port. This is growth the Port has been working
towards for almost a decade, it seems, so I didn't really understand why we hadn't seen more
evidence that they anticipated that this building height, some increase in building height,
would not be needed. Over the past few weeks we have heard that, in fact, there had been
some discussion, and we see that some of those did come up in the City Council about the
realistic need of a larger facility.
IÞ I don't really think it is difficult to foresee this is a need, even for a lay person; we are
talking about ongoing need for economic growth. I feel that this proposal is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan in the way that it addresses economic growth.
IÞ Some of the concerns that this is a trade off, that somehow the City is putting its attention
towards the Port while streets and other infrastructure concerns go unaddressed, I feel is
erroneous. A healthy city economy is based on a healthy economy, so it's much easier for
the City to address some of the concerns that the neighbors have raised if we have a healthy
economy, a healthy city economy. I believe that is augmented if we develop the Port
business.
IÞ I think this issue has become further confused as we talked about the specific needs of
Platypus. If! understand, this is a request for a zone change by the Port, and I feel that what
the Port needs may not necessarily be the same needs that Platypus has. I would urge us to
look at this request in that light, that there may be things the Port can do to address this
height, and lower the height somewhat, that still meets the Port's needs, although it may not
necessarily meet all of the Platypus needs. I think that is important for us to remember,
because the discussion has really rather woven these two pieces together. I am concerned
that we look at that carefully.
... I think the piece that makes it most difficult for all of this is that it does affect people
personally - affects their lives, what their expectations were, their relationship with the City,
because, in some cases they certainly feel that the City is letting them down by not being
consistent. Again, that raises the questions of how responsible was the City over time in
anticipating that this is a realistic need for a larger building, and that more was not done to
anticipate that need when purchasing the large haulout.
... It is a very difficult situation, but it seems that the most difficult part for us to deal with is
how people who are directly affected by this height change, wherever it ends up being, how
those issues are addressed. I don't know how mitigation would work in this circumstance,
and I don't know what position the Planning Commission can take in terms of
recommending those things. I would like advice on that, and if it is even appropriate for us
to address possible ways of mitigation. (Chair Thayer said she does not see how the
·
·
·
i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 12
boats here in town), he spoke of the craft capability in this town. He said that needs to be kept
and preserved, and the other marine trades, and he thought the Comp Plan said that as well.
Comp Plan Policy 3.6.1 also says we should be supporting educational and vocational
training efforts. Mr. Crockett said recently Scott Wilson approached the Port to link them up
with Matt Lyons from Peninsula College to do just that, with a large meeting set up in a couple
of weeks at the Port to start a possible apprenticeship-type vocational working relationship with
as many businesses as they can. Mr. Crockett told Matt Lyons and Scott Wilson to really
effectively do that, they need larger marine trades. He said it is very difficult for a small marine
trade with only one or two employees to take that young worker right out of high school, let
them work for him or her a half a day and go to school half a day. They can't afford to not have
the person work all day. Some of the larger marine trades where they have 50 - 75 workers,
could have several young workers going to school and working on a half-day basis. He said they
are moving ahead on that policy, as well.
He made a quick review of some of the letters noting there are several trains of thought
that came up and that some of the same concerns came up over and over again, many are
perceptions:
~ "Tall buildings would prove to be unsafe in this area due to earthquakes, it is all dredge
glacial till." RespolJ,se: Mr. Crockett said he is afraid all of Port Townsend and the entire
Quimper Peninsula is on dredge glacial till. He talked with emergency management people,
and since this would all be built to modem codes it would be as safe if not safer than any
other building currently in Port Townsend.
~ "In terms of environmental health issues, no doubt the risk of exposure to toxic chemicals,
fire and explosion; there will the use of fiberglass resins, paint and adhesives. " (Several
letters.) Response: Mr. Crockett said he would like to find a marine trade in Port Townsend
that doesn't use fiberglass, resin, paint and adhesives. You cannot work on boats without
using those substances; they are being used day in and day out by every marine trade,
including private boat owners. He said he talked to the Fire Department and they are fully
prepared and capable to handle any such issue.
~ "] believe these ordinances will increase noise from the shipyard." ~~&ponse: Mr. Crockett
said, keep in mind the work that is currently going on in the shipyard (including Platypus--
although we are not talking Platypus, specifically, but they are already doing work in the
shipyard). He said, actually, putting this work in a building will be reduce the noise. Mr.
Crockett said he saw a letter today talking about 60 dB; in the letter they claimed they did
not know what 60 dB was, but were certain that 60 dB, which is what the municipal code
allows, was pretty horrendous. Mr. Crockett said 60 dB is what you are listening to right
now as he speaks; the human voice is 60 dB.
~ How many people will work there? ResPQnse: Mr. Crockett, "Platypus, possibly 70 - 75."
~ Views affected by Mr. Randall's alternatives and by the photos on the board. Response: Mr.
Crockett cautioned, he was with Mr. Randall when they took the photographs you see on the
·
·
·
"
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 13
board, and Mrs. Thayer you Tather alluded to on Holcomb, a lot of these views are very
panoramic. The photographs you see on the board were photographs taken at the target they
raised to the 79 foot level on that day, but left or right you could have another 90 to 100
degrees of view, so it is not a total impact for most of the homes. He said he would dare say
that lowering to 65 feet, from Mr. Randall's estiIllate -- probably 24 give or take, either
houses or lots (keeping in mind that most of the homes are built on multiple lots -- so it is not
one for one on the vacant lots) he would still say the ones that are significantly iIllpacted by
78 feet of building, are significantly impacted by a 65 foot building, and that both of those
are significantly impacted by a 50 foot building. He said he thinks the pictures show that.
· "1 believe there will be no impact of fire protection. The city Fire Department does not have
enough or the right equipment. " Response: Mr. Crockett repeated that he had talked to the
Fire Chief personally; the Fire Chief said he can easily handle any fire on structures this size,
and, in fact, went to say that since they will be built to current fire code with sprinkler
systems, etc., these were not his worries. His worries are more buildings built down in the
old part of town.
· "The proposed 75 foot height building would be built right up to the water'8 edge. "
Re&ppnse: Mr. Crockett said he thought Mr. Randall had already articulated that; there is no
intent to build next to the water -- he said they can't; it is against the law. It is a 35 foot liIllit
within 200 feet of the water, and besides movement of the travel lift won't allow it.
Mr. Crockett said they have a very unique facility in Port Townsend, probably the most
environmentally sound facility. He said they walked the ground numerous times with Mr.
Randall, did map exercises, cut outs of buildings, put them on the maps and moved them around.
He thought from both the least impact on views, from an environmental standpoint, from an
economic standpoint in that the company would be able to conduct their work, this 5.6 acre area
of which we are only talking 1.2 acres, is, in fact, the only place we can put any large buildings
and stay within the stormwater system, the sand filters, all the walls to collect the sediment, etc.
and protect our environment.
Mr. Crockett said one thÌng that worries him about Mr. Randall's Alternative 1, we only
have about 50 acres, and it is already down to about 1I50th of that. He went on to say he knows
we are talking about a wide area, but at one point it does become quite specific. If we take that
1.2 acres, and essentially half that again, that is pretty small-- you are talking one business in
each half. This is no longer a wide area. He said you are talking site specific, so he is not sure
what the legal ramifications are there.
He referenced an article in the Seattle PI, August 29th, "Floating Dreams." He said it
talks about the large vessels in Puget Sound, and how they are growing in numbers. Mr.
Crockett said these are vessels exactly like the ones we are talking about trying to attract to
Port Townsend. He said, 10 and behold in the very last sentence of the last paragraph, Port
Townsend is mentioned as the premier port for these vessels to go to be worked on, and he
·
·
·
~
~
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 14
declared, so, they are coming. The businesses are coming because they know the boats are
there; they know Port Townsend is an environmentally sound facility; they know we have the
300-ton-capacity lift. If it is not a Platypus; ifit's not a Townsend Bay Marine, it is going to be
somebody. He said at some point we have to make a political decision, if we are going to
support the Comp Plan we have already developed, to support marine trades or not. He said it is
a tough issue; there is no doubt about it, and told the Commission he does not envy their position
tonight and does not envy the City Council. He said this is really a key event in deciding
probably what direction Port Townsend and the County is going to go, and keep in mind the Port
is not a City asset; we are a County asset, and provide service for the entire county. He said
most of the marine trade workers are from throughout the county, not just Port Townsend.
Mr. Crockett said they have been discussing many marine trades, not just Platypus. He
said he feels the 78 foot height limit is a required height limit, and that is the case he will be
making to the City Council. He told the Commission he appreciated the fact they wanted
alternatives, that is certainly their right to come up with alternatives, and he appreciated Mr.
Randall's and Mr. Leedy's efforts in coming up with alternatives -- that was a tough job. He
said, however, with the Port we have, and the Comp Plan that we have, 78 foot height limit is
where we need to go. He noted that members of Platypus are in the audience, not to speak on
their application, but to be illustrative of the type of business with these requirements.
Chair Thayer called for public testimony for those in favor of the project and stated that
she would be trying to limit testimony to 5 minutes, because of the large number of people
wishing to speak. If there is time left over, she said she would allow more public testimony.
THOSE SPEAKING IN FA VO~:
Mr. Jim Castino, Registered Architect with the Pacific Design Group, Tacoma W A
Mr. Castino said his firm is a specialist in the design of manufacturing facilities, many of
which are for the boating industry -- boat manufacturing. He said they have done several
projects for the Port of Tacoma for example, and also probably a couple of hundred thousand
square feet for all different kinds of manufacturing uses.
He said he is here mainly to give some credence to the technical part of the Platypus
building, again to be illustrative of what a typical use would be. He said to the Planning
Commission that in each packet they have Exhibit C which he thought to be the same cross
section they saw at the last workshop, but showing a yacht in it rather than a sail boat. He
repeated some statistics for the benefit of the audience:
· The Platypus building would be 75 feet to the eave height, having arrived at that
scientifically. They started from Platypus Marine's need for an overhead crane inside the
building, the crane to be used for the purpose of placing heavy objects virtually anywhere on
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 15
decks of the yachts. He said they must have that capability, because they are working with
all kinds of mechanical devices, engine parts, etc. and they have to place those on any given
spot on the yacht. So they have two 5 ton overhead bridge cranes in each half of the
building.
~ Platypus directed them to design the building to clear the height of 65 feet through the
doorway. They started with that premise, 65 feet to get the yachts in the buildings. Mr.
Castino said they consulted with a. number of overhead crane manufactures to see how large
the space was they had to allow for the bridge itself. One response from a crane
manufacturer, Cuna Crane, stated that from the hook up to the top of the bridge is 4' 7-3/8"
and added 4" of clearance for safety. Above that Mr. Castino allowed about 3-112' for the
structure itself totaling 75 feet; he said frankly there may be 6" for play, since these are
preliminary drawings at this point. He is confident that, given the need, for a 65' clearance
they would have to have a building height of75 feet.
~ Concerning earthquake compliance, he said any building built today has to meet very
stringent standards for seismic resistance, standards that get tighter and tighter every time
there is a "shaker" in California. He said this structure being a metal building is a very
forgiving structure in the engineering trade. It is O.K. if it moves a little. He said that
coupled with adequate foundation design, this structure is safer than probably half of the
buildings in Port Townsend.
Mr. Bruce Bryant, General Manager, Platypus Marine, Inc.
Gave a brief history of Platypus Marine stating it pertains to a. lot of companies in
Seattle, or other companies interested in using Port Townsend and the 300-ton facility. Platypus
Marine was started in 1992 in Seattle with four employees and now employs 34 people. He said
they had been subcontractors in just about every yard in the northwest and a few in Canada.
They had discussions concerning their own facility in 1998, and at that time contacted the Port
of Olympia, the Port of Tacoma and the Port of Port Townsend; he said the Port of Port
Townsend is the port of our choice at this time with the main reason of the 300-ton haulout.
Mr. Bryant went on to say the haul out is the key to a successful marine business. He had
a photograph showing the way they pick up large vessels in Seattle and in other places requiring
two cranes, a 300-ton crane and a 150-ton crane, and said the cranes shown are extremely
expensive to rent. He said the vessel in that picture was charged almost $20,000 to have it put
back into the water because it used two cranes, not just one. A 300-ton haulout eliminates that
completely. Nobody is allowed in the vessel when it is being picked up and put into the water.
Heretofore people have watched a boat launch, and he said in his opinion it is a much safer way
to launch a vessel.
The building being rented from Townsend Bay Marine has a 43 foot clearance, and, as
Mr. Crockett mentioned, the 43 feet is just within an inch or inches of getting the 300-ton travel
lift in and out. Mr. Bryant said it is rather remarkable how they drive that lift in with such little
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11, 1999
Page 16
evaluating that risk. I guess that is why I addressed to the Port the suggestion that if
what we come up with does not work, the only thing I can see is for them to come back
with a different proposal and offer some mitigation of the impact that aetually does
dimensionally meet their needs. All we can do with this one, as I said, is "yes, no" or
"yes, but."
.. Ms. Erickson: I am not sure just what information they would come back with that we
have not seen.
.. Mr. Worden: Not information - a different proposal. They could propose mitigation of
some kind, which we can't impose on them, but they could propose it.
.. Mr. Mandelbaum: I think what Mr. Worden may be suggesting is that if advice we have
been giving is not suitable to the Port proposal, they might develop one of the other
mitigation options, either one of design or conceivably even the thought of mitigating
individuals who are impacted, and given the sense to do that, they might consider that.
VOTE
Passed 4 in favor by voice vote; Ms. Erickson and Ms. Thayer opposed
Chair Thayer said at this time the Planning Commission recommends an alternative of a
62 foot height limit to the Port's recommendation. That will go on to City Council. She told the
audience that there will be another open record public hearing where you will able to testify
again in front of City Council. It is ultimately their decision to make. That public hearing will
be on November 22, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. in Council chambers. She thanked all for their testimony
stating it was a pleasure to listen to everyone.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of officers.
Chair Thayer pointed out that according to the Planning Commission Rules and
Regulations, the Planning Commission is to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman at the last
November meeting of each year. Chair Thayer then opened nominations for Chairman.
I. Chairman - nominations
Ms. Erickson nominated Cindy Thayer for Chairman. Mr. Mandelbaum
made the motion to close nominations, which was seconded by Ms. Erickson. Ms. Thayer was
elected 5 in favor, Ms. Thayer abstaining.
2.
Vice Chairman -- nominations
Chair Thayer opened nominations for Vice Chairman.
Mr. Mandelbaum nominated Nik Worden for Vice Chairman. Mr.
·
·
·
~
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 17
Mr. Steve Brown, 1435 Logan Street, Citizen and Manager, Admiral Ship Supply (the legacy of
Admiral Marine)
Mr. Brown said this brings him back to when Admiral was making requests. He said we
were here then, and had we known what was going to happen with the heavy haulout and
everything, we would probably still be here and we would be asking for a taller building too. He
said the machine does not fit into that 50 foot building the way it should.
He said as a citizen, he can say he understands what it feels like to have the view taken
away. Although I don't have the opportunity to live in a neighborhood with a wonderful view
like some of you who may be impacted, I live on a small lot up the hill a little bit farther at the
end of a cuI de sac. When I moved in a couple of years ago, we were one of the only houses
there and were surrounded by a nice, beautiful garden of trees and wild flowers, spent a lot of
time carving it out and it really looked like a park. About two months ago it all got mowed
down and houses are going up; so I understand what that feels like, but I also understand that I
live in a community -- that wasn't my property and people have the right to do what they want.
Mr. Brown said with the marine trades, it has been up and down. Some of the concerns
are businesses come and go, and we could all come and go, but the point is that in the meantime
we all pay taxes, we all earn livings and we all support families who support Safeway, Henery
Hardware and all the other businesses in town who pay taxes and that sort of thing -- it goes
round and round.
He said the impact this particular project has on my business, regardless of whether it is
Platypus Marine or any other business, the more times that heavy haulout machine gets used, the
less chance to me as a taxpayer might be that I would have to buy a bond to help pay it off. The
more it gets used, the better chance it is going to pay for itself, and we all don't have to do that.
He said, as for my selfish interests having Admiral Ship Supply, a kind of business like
Townsend Bay Marine or Platypus Marine brings significant business into my business.
Mr. Brown said having an in-port facility, a lot of times my business is very seasonal,
because the better the weather gets, the more the other people come into town and can work
outside. During the good months our business does fairly well; during the winter months we
don't do as well because people can't do the work outside. The kinds of businesses like this and
like Townsend Bay Marine that have tried and not been as successful here, it seems it would be
evident to anybody that looked, the businesses with the infrastructure down there for year-round
business, are the ones that stay. The ones that don't have it, struggle.
He suggested you look at putting an opportunity for business to build the infrastructure,
so that we can stay year-round, and provide us with work
Mr. Mark Grant, 75 Haada Laas Rd -- Read his testimony into the record as Exhibit S.
"I am speaking here tonight in support of the Proposed M-ll(B) Zoning Code Height
Amendment and in support of the Platypus Marine Development ProposaL On September 5,
1999, I submitted a letter to the City Planner Jeff Randall for the public record expressing my
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 18
supportive views relating to the previously mentioned zoning code. In that letter I discussed how
vital it is to help establish and enhance the efforts of the Port of Port Townsend in their efforts to
promote Port based marine trades, thus improving the economic conditions for all the citizens of
Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. I also stated the need to fully utilize the
investment the Port has made in the construction of the enhanced haul-out facility. I attended
the October 14th Planning Commission Workshop and asked to receive, in preparation for this
meeting, a copy of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. I have also read all of the
letters that were submitted for public record pertaining to this Zoning Code Amendment.
"Based on this information, my comments tonight state that the focus of the review
process and the information that the Planning Commission must consider in its making report!
findings to the Port Townsend City Council, must take into consideration what is truly the needs
of the many and not just the needs of the few. From the letters written to the file, it is very
apparent that the focus is to give the impression that the voice is of those of the many, when in
reality, the letters are speaking on behalf of those of the few, who have to face the possibility of
having some of their views impeded by the developments at the Port It is my opinion that the
true majority voice is fur the height amendment and the positive things that the amendment
would bring to the City and Jefferson County as a whole.
"There is no doubt that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend need to provide
more opportunities to help stabilize our economy. The stability is needed to ensure that family
wage base employment will always be available to maintain the character and diversity of its
citizens. It is important to realize that not only marine trades stand to benefit ftom the
improvements made under the zoning code amendment. Other benefits will no doubt trickle
down to help stabilize our economy. The tax base generated from the increased use of the
enhanced haul out and from businesses who would prosper from the Port of Port Townsend's
unique facility, would go a long way to help stabilize property taxes, improve our schools,
maintain our streets and sewerage disposal systems, provide for better fire and polîce protection,
etc. The majority of citìzens of Jefferson County and the City can not continue to face the
burden of increased property taxes to support all of these needs. The family wage earning
majority needs desperately that our public officials are inaking the right decisions pertaining to
growth in our community.
"'Platypus Marine's development, as well a few others would benefit from what is
essentially under 50,000 square feet of building footprint improvements to the Port, in
conjunction with the enhanced haul-out facility, is a reasonably small improvement that will go
a long way to help stabìlize our economy. This is historical1y-based growth with eyes to the
future in marine trades. If there was any type of growth that would be appropriate to the City of
Port Townsend and Jefferson County, this is it.
"Again, the true majority of citizens of Jefferson County and the City need desperately
for our public officials to act appropriately in helping to approve measures that will help to gain
economic stability for J1l its citizens. It is important for the Planning Commission to remember
---'~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 19
that it is truly the few that is against the zoning code amendment in question.
(Mr. Grant asked to be excused for his next comments:)
"Finally, I would like to state that the continued involvement of Mrs. Thayer in the
planning process on this issue is quite surprising. Mrs. Thayer has shown bias in her letter to
public record regarding real estate interest at stake and, I believe, in her handling of the October
14th workshop. I do not believe that she can, as a public official and as a representative of the
people of Port Townsend, make an unbiased decision as pertains to the issues of this zoning code
amendment. I believe she has tainted the process and should have taken the higher road and
stepped down, at least in matters that pertain to this amendment and/or any future issues with
regards to Platypus Marine. Let's put this into perspective. What if a member of Platypus
Marine was on the planning commission? What do you think the outcry from the hill would be
regarding impropriety for that member of that Planning Commission? I understand the time and
commitment that Mrs. Thayer has devoted as a member of the Planning Commission, and
commend her for her past performance, but her continued involvement as a member of the
Planning Commission as it pertains to this amendment, is unethical and should not continue.
"For those of you who would remain on the Planning Commission to pass their findings
on to the City Council, I ask you to strongly support, on behalf of the majority of citizens of the
City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, the proposed Boat Haven M-II(B) Zoning Code
Height Amendment and the efforts of the Port of Port Townsend and Platypus Marine."
Chair Thayer thanked Mr. Grant She reiterated that this is a legislative process, and it is
perfectly appropriate for her to continue to serve.
Mr. Brad Long, 929 Maple Street
Mr. Long said he is an employee of Platypus Marine, the person responsible for taking
apart the front of that building and putting it back together every time the heavy haul out is used.
He said it is a hassle; the taller building would really benefit the company I work for, and I really
believe benefit the community.
Mr. Bobby Hollis, 523 19th Street
Mr. Hollis said he definitely is in favor. He spoke of the 300-ton haulout and friends
who work on boats and said they can't do really extensive repairs and refits because there is no
place to do it. He wondered what the future of fishing would be in the community and would
like to see more of the yachts come here. All boats are different; if a person wants a kayak, he
doesn't want a canoe.
Mr. Hollis said when you look up at the top of the hill, turn into that subdivision and see
what is going on, that is a huge vista; he thought looking down on that is not going to make a
huge difference, but to home owners.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 20
Mr. David McChesney, 102 No Name Rd, Port Ludlow
He is also an employee of Platypus Marine and he said he goes a little way back with Mr.
Sokol and Mr. Pimer. He sat through a lot of court meetings when they came up with this idea
about enhanced haul out and started working on all that; now it is kind of a dream come true.
One big thing he remembered Mr. Sokol saying is once we get this here, then the business is
going to hit here. Mr. McChesney said we have it here, the business is here, and the Port is
going to keep growing. He said he has been working up in Alaska and in Seattle for several
years in the marine trades, and the Port of Port Townsend, basically is the talk of the town now
because of the facilities.
He said Mr. Bryant has plans to keep building the company with employees; we have a
lot of young men working that have young children, and they are going to be afforded a chance
to buy a house, establish themselves in the community. They are not going to be hanging out at
the QFC in Port Hadlock; there are a lot of opportunities for younger people, too. It is a real
going thing. He said he works there and is completely in favor.
Mr. Conrad Pimer, Port Commissioner, Port of Port Townsend District #2 (7441 Oak Bay Rd.)
Mr. Pimer said in his previous career, we had a saying that good planners plan in pencil,
because things change. He said when we planned to build the heavy haulout, we planned for a
commercial dominance for the heavy haulout, planned for it to be our bread and butter. As it
~tums out, we are very attractive to mega yachts which has far different working conditions than
the commercial types. Weare very attractive because of our space, skilled manpower and
location, location, location; we need buildings to complete the formula. He said our plans are
not what they originally were. and it is a good thing we planned in pencil; now we have the
opportunity to capitalize on the situation to provide for the well being of all Jefferson County
residents. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the height variance.
Mr. David King, 1005 Fir Street
Mr. King said he is also a principal of Townsend Bay Marine, and has the problematic 50
foot building. He emphasized that he honors the Commission for dealing with this knotty
problem and thinks that what is lost in a piecemeal quote of the Comprehensive Plan is the
general thrust of the Comprehensive Plan, the thrust of the Comprehensive Plan which is honor
and nurture diversity of the community. He said from my perspective of 23 years in the
community, the players in our local economy are the paper mill, tourism, marine trades, and
increasingly the economy is based on those from outside, retirees, etc. He said that clearly,
because he is in the marine trades, it has one of the largest potentials for . . . . very labor
intensive activities. He said their current payroll is about 30 by bringing Bruce and Scott on; the
average wage is about $12 per hour -- a $750,000 payroll we are pumping into the economy,
three months after our inception. The Evviva when it was here brought more than $20 million
into the economy when it was under construction. People that we are dealing with will be the
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 21
same as Mr. Bryant's, except I would add McDonalds - we have a lot of traffic over to
McDonalds.
Mr. King said he thinks the Port's proposal is a very modest proposal in light of the
benefit and contribution of marine trades in this community; it is a very small percentage of a
small area restricted to the shipyard, tucking under the bluff to minimize the impacts on the
community. There is no potential in the proposal on the table for spreading out into a large area,
and it should be enthusiastically endorsed by the community. He thinks marine trades is a
worthy bastion against the other influences this community is struggling with.
Mr. Bob Sokol, Port Commissioner, Port of Port Townsend, 1005 Quincy Street
Mr. Sokol said 13-1/2 years ago my wife and I were out here and found a very
magnificent building in the old town site, right up the bluff here; we made an offer on the
property, went back to Iowa and continued to negotiate on it over that summer. In October,
thirteen years ago, we came back out here to close on the house. As we were driving out we
talked about an empty lot across the street which was directly between us and Puget Sound; we
thought that maybe we would find out who owned it and make them an offer on that so we could
control the property. He said 10 and behold we got back here and the basement of the
Ravenscroft was being dug. This was a legally permitted 3S foot building right across the street.
Impacting the view? You bet. He said the reason I mention this is because I understand from
personal experience how something like this can happen and impact a view. We moved out, got
a house of our own that has a view, and every year we watch as the trees grow up and grow up
and again impact the view. The point of all this, when you purchase a piece of property, there is
nothing in the Port Townsend municipal code or anything else that says that view will be your
view forever. As I mentioned, I do understand what impact views are; this has happened to me
twice, and I understand that people don't like this and why.
He said he would like to talk about some of the things that were brought during the Staff
presentation mostly, and he made the following points:
þo It Was mentioned that there would be large industrial type buildings in the Port if this
proposal was to be approved. The Port of Port Townsend, the Boat Haven, is the only major
heavy industrial zoned property in the city of Port Townsend. The views we are talking
about are views down over maybe an industrial area, the only one, and as Mr. Crockett
mentioned out of 50 acres of Boat Haven we are talking about 1.2 acres in the scaled back
proposal. The original proposal as it came forward included a significant portion of the Boat
Haven, a shipyard area, but it was scaled back when we realized how big it is and the
impacts - to 20 percent of 5.6 acres (1.2 acres).
ÞO The mention of traditional types of ship building and repair, Commissioner Erickson
addressed that from the Comp Plan, but as I remember when Admiral Marine was here, they
were pioneers in the use of composites and fiberglass in the construction of boats, so that
tradition has actually started here. To continue on with that tradition of using composite and
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 22
fiberglass boats could arguably be traditional types of boat construction and repair.
.. One of the things that is troubling to me with Alternative 1 that Staff presented, there is an
arbitrary height of65 feet. You have heard from the architect that 65 feet doesn't really
work. One of the things you have to understand, we talked about getting the travel lift in and
out of a 50 foot building, but the vessels the travel lift carries typically will extend higher
than the travel lifts. We are talking much higher than 50 feet and what you haven't been
told, is when we took the travel lift in, set the boat down, the weight that came off the travel
lift raised it up to where we had to let air out of the tires to get it out of the building. That is
how tight it is. So you say 65 feet close to the bluff, 60 feet close to the water. The height of
the building should be dependent on the use ofthe building, not where it is built. If you are
building a building to accommodate business, which this is, what we want people to do, (we
have talked about Platypus and they have become basically the test case) they need to build a
building where they can do the business they are looking forward to do. He said it reminds
me of a family of five coming in for a building permit and are told where you are you can
only have one bedroom. It doesn't suit their needs. These 60 and 65 foot heights that were
proposed wouldn't fit the needs.
Mr. Sokol said Mr. Mandelbaum asked a very pertinent question - how many pieces of
property would be impacted. The question he didn't say, though, is what is the magnitude ofthe
impact? There will be some that will be a pie shape; looking out on the "right or the left" you
might have wide open views. Or it might be just over this way that it's impacted and you still
have views the other way. Or, in some cases, it may be totally impacted. The major amount of
impact will vary from property to property.
OPPOSING VIEWS:
Mr. William Boothroyd, 1202 Jackman Street
Mr. Boothroyd submitted a copy of what he anticipated saying which was entered as
Exhibit T.
He said he was here tonight to ask the Planning Commission to recommend disapproval
of the zoning proposal. He said before he started that discussion he would like to talk about
alternatives.
Mr. Boothroyd said I have sympathy for a Platypus or Platypus-like business in Port
Townsend, even though it is not maybe a traditional marine trade. He suggested possible
support for a one-time variance with some big "ifs," one of the "ifs" being some mitigation. He
said there will be impacts and there can be mitigation along the line of improving the view along
the remaining parts of the boat yard, e.g. with the Sims Way modification, taking out trees
adjacent to the boat yard and replacing them with trees that would maintain a mature height of
something like 35 feet as the buildings were required to. He said possibly reverting to a 35 foot
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 23
in the part of the boat yard that does not have the 50 foot heavy haulout building. As mentioned
at the last meeting, there are customers looking to build or to rent, but don't need more than 35
feet, and better to continue on. The height of the building should be minimized to the degree
possible, and with that I mean it should be placed as close into the bluff, minimizing the impact
of people.
He said, I found it very difficult to accept an overhead crane that travels the full length of
the building, with the largest boat that will go in there, for surely as you let thë doors open to let
the yacht in so too will the doors open to let a mobile crane move in, should they be too heavy
lifting one portion of the yacht. Also, there are sidewall cranes that can be used for wider lifting.
Mr. Boothroyd continued with the reasons he would recommend against the zone
amendment:
.. The zonè amendment speaks to the entire area, not to one place; 20 percent of that 5.6 acres
is the "tall portion." Platypus is less that 36 percent of that, and it is located in an area where
its impact is minimal, and the Staff's analysis was based on the Platypus building. Over and
over it is referred to.
.. The remaining part of that 5.6 acres, another 30 percent can also be filled with buildings that
are 50 foot high. The impact of that collection of large windowless buildings will be very
unattractive as seen by people coming into town. It is going to have every bit of the
unattractiveness of the paper mill right on the road. I don't think our town needs that. I
think a lot of our town is based on tourism, on people who have moved here for one reason
, or another because of the quality of life in the town.
.. As far as pollution, fire and health hazards, no one plans a disaster from those standpoints,
unless it is a terrorist. But they happen, even in Japan where people were "very careful" they
had an accidental nuclear reaction; it was a human error. Human errors will happen here;
equipment failures will happen here; natural disasters can happen here. He spoke of finishes
Platypus and others will be using and indicated the difference is in quantity, i.e., gallons, or
barrels. He said if we talk about the entire 5.6 acres, we are talking about several buildings
having barrels. As far as the Fire Department being able to respond, I am sure they could,
but I doubt they could to the full scope that could be the result of the zoning change.
.. Visual impacts. He said they were evaluated against one building and stopped the evaluation
at 12th Street. Truly, if you were to look at a topographical map, and all the elevations at a
55 foot level in the whole Kah Tai Lagoon area, both sides, you would see where you would
have visual impact. It is not just the buildings on the bluff; in fact they may be the most
immune to impact. It is not to be expected that a view deteriorate; in many cases it will
improve as trees are taken out and new construction occurs.
Mr. Don Miller, 835 Jackman Street
Mr. Miller presented photographs and a map which were entered as Exhibits U and V.
He explained the exhibit as: 1) images from their house that show the impact of the height at the
.
.
.
..
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 24
Boat Haven; 2} images showing both the Platypus building and also effects if you move it out to
Boat Street; 3) a topographical map showing a cross sectional layout and the impact on the view
linearly from their place.
Mr. Miller requested permission of and referenced the letter from Terry and Louise
Smith, whom he said contacted a consultant to appraise their property. He read an excerpt from
the attached letter of Consultants NW:
"According to the photos which I reviewed, the proposed building near the boat harbor
would probably cut off any southerly view of the water and the mountain from your deck and
living room. Loosing [stet] that portion of the view would most likely have some negative
impact on the value of your property.
"There is probably going to be another negative impact. If the view was lost due to
growing trees, etc., the trees would provide a natural view and some privacy. In the market,
this might be seen as having some partial offsetting positive value. However, if the lost view
is replaced by the view of a large industrial building, the value of the property could further
be reduced. A building of that size will probably not be used only during the normal work
day, there will probably be exterior lighting for work after dark or, at least, security. Like the
former Admiral Marine building, light from the interior may also be visible from the
exterior. (Mr. Miller's point and emphasis added.) All of this might very well raise the
awareness of almost living in an industrial zone and that could affect the whole
neighborhood.
"In addition to whatever impact there is on value, the proposed building could affect
marketing time. Extended marketing time does three primary things. It affects the ability of
the seller to move on to the next phase of their life, there is additional mortgage interest,
taxes, insurance, etc. that would be incurred beyond what might have been normally
expected and realtors become less interested in actively marketing a property if prospective
buyers have negative feelings about it and there is not much interest within the first few
weeks of being listed."
Mr. Miller then summarized the letter he had previously submitted stating the following as facts:
~ There is proposed change in the height rules for the Port of Port Townsend.
> The citizens of Port Townsend deserve fair treatment.
~ The proposed changes would significantly affect spectacular public and private views.
~ The proposed changes affect the views adversely.
~ There is nothing that can be done to reduce this effect in the current proposals.
> There will be more if this proposal is approved.
> There will be significantly more people in this community if this proposal is approved and
their projections are correct (20 employees now, but what about 70 - 75).
~ These people will require more infrastructure; there will be more congestion if this proposal
is approved. The increase in infrastructure will cost more.
~ There has been no economic analysis of the impact of this proposal on the community.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 25
.. The city has difficulty maintaining its current infrastructure.
.. There is much evidence that the current proposal is not consistent with current properties and
planning.
.. The implications of approving this plan open the door to more changes which add adverse
impacts to the community.
.. There are alternatives to approving the proposal.
.. There are still many things in question.
.. Platypus is not the only fish in the sea.
Mr. Miller said he has several rebuttal points, positions already expressed -- one in
particular is the decibel level expressed here, and speaking of 60 decibels we have a graduate
speech and hearing therapist present. He said we also know that the pledge is not to stay put but
to continue to grow. He suggested that the land adjacent and the land across Sims Way will all
support that.
Mr. Bruce McComas, 830 Gise Street
Mr. McComas said he submitted a letter to the Commission, but in addition wanted to
make a few CQmments. He said the proposed change won't affect my view; I have a great view.
This won't affect that; my neighbors took care of that. He continued, when I bought my
property, contrary to what was said, most people do check to see what the restrictions are, what
building height limits are and what the code is; I knew it was 35 feet. So, I knew the trees will
grow up, and this neighborhood fill, but most of the people that buy property along the bluff, the
code was either 35 feet in the Port, or it was 50 feet; it was not 18 feet.
He said part of what you own is the view. The assessor puts a value on that; they charge
you based on the kind of property you have; part of what they figure value on is the view. If that
view is taken away from you, by a change you have no control over, that is a taking of property
just a surely as if you took away somebody's detached garage. It has value to it
Mr. McComas asked how tall is tall enough. He said there are always going to be ships
that are bigger than what the haulout can handle; there are always going to be boats that are
taller than what this building, or a 50 foot building, or a 90 foot building can handle. How tall is
tall enough? Before 1997,35 feet was tall enough; since then it has been 50 feet, now they want
another basically 50 percent increase. Three years from now are they going to ask for 120 feet?
He said this is a pretty slippery slope.
He said the pictures show the impact - this is a tourist community too. The first thing
they are going to see when they come around the "S" curve is this huge building; the last thing
they see when they are headed out of town is this huge building. He asked is.that the thing we
want people to remember Port Townsend by? There are a lot of things that happen in a
community that affect its character and uniqueness, that we don't have control over. This is one
that we do have control over. He asked to leave the code the way it is.
·
·
·
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 26
Ms. Marcella Younce, 828 Jackman Street
Ms. Younce submitted photographs which were entered as Exhibit W. She said, I take
exception to EDC Director Erik Andersson's statement, Mr. Crockett's statement and Mr.
Sokol's statement that the impact of a 78 foot building in that portion of the Port would be
insignificant. It will certainly be significant to me, as you can see by the picture, and to lots of
others who in good faith go out and build homes with the understanding that the height of
buildings at the Port would not be over 50 feet. She said, since a picture is worth a thousand
words, I will not go on about my particular situation, except to say that if this request were
approved, I would be one of those, and there would be many, who have to pay dearly for it every
time I look out my window.
She noted Erik Andersson also said that this community's origins are based on the
commercial activities of its waterfront; she said, I agree that a boat yard, which is what we have
always had here, is fitting for a Victorian seaport. But a boat yard is a vastly different thing from
a shipyard with huge, big metal buildings half again higher than the Admiral Marine building.
She said the Port officials are thinking only of the Port, and that is their job. But there is
a much bigger picture here. As you know we are one of only three Victorian seaports in the
whole United States, and on top of that we have been blessed with an unusually beautiful
approach to our town. Coming down the "S" curve with the water and boats on one side, and the
city ahead on the hill is something unique and wonderful that we were given. We have been
working hard for a long time on our Gateway Plan to make it easier for people to be able to
enjoy our beautiful entrance, and we finally have the wheels in motion to make it a reality.
Think how it would look to come down the "s" curve and see those huge metal, ugly buildings
instead of the boats and water. This would have an impact on every citizen who loves and takes
pride in Port Townsend.
Ms. Younce said of course we want livable wage jobs here, and we will get them. Mr.
Crockett told me last week, and repeated it tonight, that he had received applications from seven
boat related companies wanting to relocate here, and he had given permission to five, none of
whom want to build buildings over the height limit. She said, I believe there are plenty of boats
smaller than the Evviva, which as you know was built in the Admiral Marine building, that will
be coming here for repairs or whatever because we have very fine craftsmen here. Let's let
those huge ships go to a large shipyard somewhere else. We want jobs, but we surely don't have
to sacrifice Our beauty and our citizens to get them. She said, please don't approve this request.
Mr. Jerry Osbourne, 918 Holcomb Street
He said as one of his predecessor's indicated about his property, I must say I am not one
who would be terribly adversely affected by this one way or the other. I am affected by what
happens to the community, and therefore I want to speak tonight.
Mr. Osbourne said two weeks ago, and then also this evening, I sat here and listened
attentively as the Port and Platypus people explained in great detail of their need. They say they
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 27
need a new eight-story building. (Well, I think this about the equivalent of an eight-story
building, if you figure 10 feet per story.) I am not sure we have any buildings anywhere in town,
or even in the community, maybe even on the peninsula that are eight stories; I don't know of
very many that are that big. How many of you would like to have the biggest building we have
ever seen around these parts built right in front of your living room window. He asked, could
anyone here honestly say they would be willing to accept that? He said most of the people who
were proponents seem to have a vested interest in this project, either an employee or work for
the Port or something, but they have a financial interest in making this thing go. I just wanted
that to be kept in consideration, too.
He said we are not talking about an attractive building here either, not one that graces the
skyline of Seattle that is architecturally beautiful, etc. We are talking about a metal, industrial
building, and it has been pointed out by some of the people who spoke earlier that when you
have friends visiting here, you want to show them the magnificence of our community, the first
thing you are going to do is not take them down to the industrial district and show that off With
this complete out-of-place building, they say the big difference compared to what they have now,
is they can accommodate the new breed of super yachts. I am not sure how many of US here
relate to the problem of where to take our super yachts for a quicky lube. They do tell us that the
customers of these boats will greatly increase their revenue. I think therein lies the real issue.
Mr. Osbourne suggested, I am sure it would, if you were only in it for the cash and didn't
regard the circumstances. It would be interesting to construct a nuclear waste dump here; there
is some empty land at Fort Worden; perhaps that would be a possibility. He said to the Planning
Commission, we trust you to not let that happen. If the money was all that matters, what was all
the fuss about Rite-Aid? It was because we were concerned about the quality of life; that was
the issue. He said, most of you know that what the Port and Platypus people are describing as a
need, isn't really a need -- air, water, food are needs; these are wants. Making more money is
not really a need, but is something that rhymes with need; it is greed. He said for the record I
also haven't heard of any offers on the part of the proponents to financially offset the people
who would be hanned by this, like the lady who just spoke before me. You can see by the
photos she would be definitely harmed, and you can tell by the letter from the appraiser that was
read earlier, many others would probably be hanned by this. Perhaps an offer on their part to
offset that would be appropriate.
He said, regardless, it is really O.K. to want for more. Free enterprise is great; it is the
American way, so we certainly favor that. But it is simply not O.K. if the home owners, the
folks who were here first are impacted in a negative way; and you know it is not O.K. when an
entire neighborhood objects so strongly as to write letters and show up for meetings such as this
one, just to make sure that those making the decisions know how destructive this would be for
our community. We are here so that you can see us, and you can hear us. He said, after all it is
the responsibility of commissions and councils to represent us; our welfare is supposed to be
your concern. We depend on you not to hurt us, just because someone else wants or needs more
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 28
money. To them we are expendable; that is clear from these meetings. We are a sacrifice that
they are wil1ìng to make. I think it has been pretty clearly established that their pursuit for
increased cash flow irreparably damaging 30 or so families is an acceptable sacrifice. I don't
agree that it is. It would be immoral, unethical, even if it were just one family, even if were just
the lady who spoke before me, it would be immoral to do that.
Mr. Osbourne gave one final thought. He said, imagine this gets built and like Admiral,
and like a lot of other businesses in town, one day they pack up and leave, for whatever reason.
We would be left with something to admire.
Mr. Jim Marshall, 939 Gise Street
Mr. Marshall said, I too am in favor of economic development, and I am here to ask you
to deny this request. I think it is interesting that you are being asked to agree to this request by a
whole bunch of planners, planners that arranged to bring the heavy haulout equipment to town
after Admiral Marine left, and have it sent to a building it doesn't fit into. And now they are
saying they have it all together. As soon as they get a 78 foot building they are going to be all
set. I don't think that is true.
He said, I bought my property in the early 90's and it was a 35 foot zoning requirement.
When I got to town it was 50, and now I hope it will stay 50. It is an interesting example, but to
use an analogy, it would be as if the airport were doubled in length and: they started landing 737s
there as opposed to doubling the height of 35 feet to 78 feet.
Mr. Marshan said to the Planning Commission, I think you ought to ask for a little more
forthcomingness of the Platypus people. They had a couple of exhibits here how these yachts
are going to be retrofitted in early year 2000; are they going to have that building built in any
way in the year 2oo0? It is a blue sky notion. They are not giving you facts to deal with; they are
giving you a whole bunch of suppositions and what if s and no facts on which to base decisions.
I sympathize with you, because you aren't getting facts to make a decision. How many yachts
additionally win they have for sure? I haven't heard a number; we need it bigger because we
can get more. Sounds good to me -- I'm for apple pie in the sky, too, but what are the numbers;
what are you really dealing with? They talked about how many properties will be affected. How
many boats are we talking about -- one, two, three, 50? We are talking 34 jobs - full time? part
time? seasonal? I don't know; I haven't heard the answer. Platypus should be a little more
forthcoming with you people, so you can make an accurate decision based on some accurate
facts, rather than this bunch of suppositions we are dealing with.
He said we don't really know where it is going to go, the property potentially up for sale
in the next few years in the Boat Haven, where it is going to go and what it will lead to in the
future. He said he thought the Planning Commission has been put in less than a good position,
because you don't have proper guidance as far as the plans; it talks about plans in here and he
quoted from the Staff Report, "Port Townsend currently has no design standards for
manufacturing or marine trades zoning districts." "The Port of Port Townsend currently has no
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 29
. . . master plan for the Boat Haven." He continued, and now everybody is asking you to be put
into the middle of this to make the decisions. That is why I think it should be denied; it should
be denied until these things are decided. I am in favor of economic development, but I would
like to see it done in a rational way. I don't like to see myself being blind sided by a building
being put up over twice what the zoning height was at the time I bought my property.
Mr. Bob Gibson, 928 7th Street
Mr. Gibson submitted an alternative building design which was entered as Exhibit X. He
said, the impact zone in this project is any place you can see it; it is not down to any specific
area. Any place you can see Admiral Marine, you can see the impact, you can see the impact of
Admiral Marine as being out of scale relative to the rest of the area.
He said, another point is the 50 foot height limit and the failure of the City Council and
the Planning Commission to anticipate the greater heights for this machine -- let's turn that
around where it belongs. The 50 foot height limit was in place at the request of the Port and was
in place when they ordered the machine. So, let's clear the record there.
Getting back to the Platypus project, Mr. Gibson said they want to put up the building,
fix the boats and make some money. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. The
problem is the height of the proposed structure. Maybe it would be possible to accomplish most
of what Platypus wants in a shorter building. He said one thing they might be able to do, looking
at this drawing on the wall that shows their overhead crane -- if they could get rid of that and put
in an alternate lifting system, there are a lot of them around from fixed to portable. They are
going to have a large forklift capacity onsite anyway to deal with incoming materials. There are
different ways to lift things besides a bridge crane; if it was out of there, the building would
accommodate a higher vessel.
Mr. Gibson said maybe they could develop more efficient systems to remove and replace
masts and electronics~ that is traditional skills. The added cost of removal is relatively small
when compared to the total of any significant repair job; the added cost is not unique to the Port
Townsend shipyards. The Port's lower haulout rates give the local shipyards substantial
competitive advantage. That $8 million that the taxpayers spent is doing some good. That 300-
ton travel lift is a success on its own, without this project. He said, I would like to see them
built, but I would like to see them build something we can live with.
He said another thing, we have a mild, dry climate here; they can perform an occasional
task outdoors. The Port Townsend annual rainfall is about 19 inches, compared to 36 - 38 inches
for Seattle, and 60 inches for the South Sound area.
He said this is an alternate that would involve spending some money; I am aware there
are some complications. If you want to shoot it down, you can do that as long as you study it
and see how you can adapt and get some good out of it. It is based on a two level work floor.
The crane does not go down an incline to get in there~ it stays up on the upper level, lowers the
boat to the lower level, just as when going out on a launching dock to launch or retrieve a vessel.
.
.
.
..
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 30
As he addressed Mr. Crockett, Mr Gibson said this might have some advantage in that it
gives you a two-level work area. One obvious disadvantage to it is, it requires a lead in area. He
asked if everyone understands what this is and explained it is similar to a grease pit in a garage.
It would require a lead in area outside the building; you have to lower the boat before taking it in
to take to the lower level. The lead in area is going to require cooperation with the Port.
Mr. Gibson concluded by referring to the dimensions.
Mr. Dean Nelson, 933 Jackman Street
He said, I can't add anything to all of the points that have been made against the proposal
except that I concur with all of them. I encóurage you to deny this proposal.
Mr. Nelson spoke of the analogy of being a large corporation and having a lot employees
to take advantage of training, students to be trained. He said we had a small three-person flower
shop in 1970, and we used that training facility with the school to our advantage. We put it to
very good use; we didn't have 75 employees.
Mr. Victor Coster, 909 7th Street
He said, I have lived in Port Townsend. since 1929~ I came out here when I was 14 years
old, and I played where all that stuff is now. I now live on the comer of 7th and Gise Streets,
near the Castle.
Mr. Coster said, I have a beautiful view~ I can look out now and can see anything I want
to look at I sit on my davenport and look off to the left and I see the golf course and Mt. Baker
on the left; off to the right almost to the paper mìll and down to the Castle to Mt Rainier. He
said we have a situation here now that is kind of going to extreme. They had that Admiral
Marine, 50 foot, and then they are going to put another one that is going to be 78 feet. As I am
standing up looking out my window (if! am sitting down I wouldn't be able to see what I see
now), looking out across there, the height it is going to be, all I will be able to see across that
whole valley is the bottom of the courthouse; everything to the left I won't be able to see at that
height. Admiral Marine is to the right of that. Mr. Coster made a projection about the new
building and the future of the Admiral Marine building, and said, then when I look out there my
entire view will be gone, and even cut out the ferry coming; I won't be able to see any of that
anymore. I have been paying high taxes there, and I have been working in Port Townsend and
have helped to build Port Townsend, had a grocery store and did a lot of work in town. You
couldn't get me out of Port Townsend; the only way you could drive me out if you hurt my
feelings too bad.
He said, I believe there are now about 30 houses still along that bluff and another 20 - 30
more lots there that are going to be built on in the future. That is high taxes. We have been
paying high taxes on that all these years; it is beautiful view property. When you do that, it
seems also that our taxes should drop; they won't because of the property value where all that
machinery and everything is will sky rocket like in thése big cities, and they will cut this right
.
.
.
..
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 31
off the bluff because probably so much big time win come in. He said people that have lived
here now have enjoyed this place; we love it -. to sit back there and see all this beautiful stuff
and all the good neighbors, it is beautiful.
He said, but when you get that going down there - now there is a lot of noise; you can
hear it, I don't mind the noise. The more they build up the more the noise is going to be. We
are not going to have anything, really. in the future. Now it is getting quite congested. I pull up
at the stop sign going down the hill and have to wait what seems like 5 minutes before I can get
out now. What is going to happen if development increases?
In the future, we know from experience, with a 78 foot building in there -- Admiral
Marine will go in there and everybody else will build all the way down. They will tear down
those little places and they will rebuild all these places. You won't be able to see anything there
besides the buildings. When I first came here in 1929, I was 14 years old, we came down around
the "SO> curve at night and sawall the lights of Port Townsend; we thought what a beautiful, big
community and it has been beautiful ever since. I can even look over right now and see the golf
course, and see if there is anybody out there playing or not; I lìke to play golf. This is paradise, a
good place to retire, a good place to raise your children and have people come to visit us. But
when people come into town now, they can see the town; later on it will be all congested, just
like was said here tonight, just this big wall of buildings -- th¡¡t's all you will see when you come
down around and drive out across. He said, I beg of you for all concerned; we are getting
congested now. Why build it up where we are going to have twice that many people in the same
area; it is to not have anything but a lot of trouble.
Ms. Schen Callahan, 1071 Landes Court
Ms. Callahan said she lives in the three· story peach colored building behind Safeway.
and is against the Port raising any building. She said, when we built our home, we checked out
the area in front to make sure there was a limit on building height. We could have built
anywhere. We chose this site beca.use of the view and built our home up to the proper height
limit to take full advantage of that view, and she said, I do not want to loose it.
Ms. Judy Miller. 835 Jackman Street
She said, I wasn't going to speak and don't have anything prepared; I have a couple of
concerns. Obviously, I am against the proposal, but I would like to know what percentage of the
time is Platypus really going to need that much ofa building, 90 percent of the time of your .
business, 90 percent of your business, or 90 percent of the time you are building boats you are
going to need a building that tall? I don't know, but I would like to know. She said, if it's one
percent, then I don't think you need it; I don't think that you need it anyway, no matter what,
because it impacts a lot of people and our way of life here in Port Townsend. I am against it,
and I hope you will agree with me.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 32
Mr. Ken Shaver, 1103 Logan Street
He said, I have property on Hill Avenue, lots 10, 11 and 12. I just recently had this
property surveyed including a survey of the height, and my property on Hill Avenue, the Hill
Avenue level is 108 feet; I don't know where they get the 85 feet.
Mr. Shaver said, I am in agreement with everyone, and I don't think I can jump and say
anything as well as they have, but I picked this up off the Internet last night This little lady was
talking to the man at the counter at the newspaper, filing an obituary. The fellow asked her what
she wanted to say. She said, "Oh, Ole died." The man behind the counter was a little bit
amused at it, but he said, "But, really, you could say a little bit more than that, that Ole died."
She thought a minute and said, "Well, Ole died, boat for sale." Mr. Shaver said, so I can say,
"My dream has died, lot for sale."
Mr. Walter Van Blom, 708 Holcomb Street
We came to Port Townsend to help a friend pick up a boat from the Skookum building
and sail it back south. I came around and could see what a great place this is, so we were
working on our own and moved up here and bought a house. When another came for sale, we
thought somebody is going to build on it and mess up our view; we bought the lot, then we built
the house on it. So, now somebody wants to build an 8-story building in front of us.
Ms. Tava Daetz, 999 Sims Way
She said, my view is not obstructed. I have a lot of trees, one of the things about this
house; I have always thought Port Townsend is just gorgeous. She said, I just moved, so I
haven't been involved. I would like to make a few points here:
~ This is one of76 ports in Washington, according to Mr. Crockett. However, it is one out of
three Victorian ports in the USA. Tourism is big here; it is one of the three industries - the
Port, the paper mill, and tourism. Tourism brings money -- it brings hotels and inns, many
restaurants and many who work here. These things will be affected.
~ The Port area is limited according to Mr. Crockett. Ms. Daetz said, well plan ahead. Mr.
Crockett says that more businesses are going to be coming in, but if their area is small then
they really cannot get into it. Ms. Daetz said, why not put these things out in the industrial
zone, out towards the paper mill. Heathrow Airport is one where they made the airport with
all the runways around; you can no longer expand. We are putting an industrial area in this
heart of a tourism town. She said, it seems a little absurd. As the town gets larger, we have
industries in the center of the town; why not put the industries out on the edges where they
can always get larger. There is plenty of space; no one is impacted. Why not use this for the
pretty part.
~ They have been talking about views. It is not just view. It is also noise, lights, 24-hours-day
industry. You talk about 60 decibels as being the sound of one person speaking. Well we
are going to have 75 people and a lot of machinery; I cannot believe that the building is only
·
·
·
.
"
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 33
going to have the sound of only one person speaking.
... We are talking about scale. We are talking about much larger amounts on everything;
quantity is a big part. We are not talking about a presentation, but an industry with many
toxic things happening. She said, this has to be brought out.
... Discussion on how to change the rules - height limitations that many people counted on.
These things have to be brought in, too.
Chair Thayer asked the Commission if they wanted to take more testimony from those
who had already spoken? It was determined to continue the hearing at a later meeting but to
take all of the public testimony tonight Mr. Mandelbaum asked if it is possible to have rebuttal
focus on certain things he would like people to respond to. Mr. Worden said he thinks we need
to make a decision based on information we have, and would be happy to have new information.
He said that we need all the information we can get, but we are not taking a vote of the citizens.
Chair Thayer then called for new information that hasn't already been stated tonight.
NEWINFO~TION:
Mr. William Boothroyd
He said, there is one formula I would like to add. There are a couple of statistics from
the Washington State Department of Licensing that comes toward the question that we should
really be dealing with from a quantitative standpoint. There are 65 fiberglass reinforced plastic
yachts over 65 feet. There are 2,621 fiberglass reinforced plastic yachts over 40 feet. He said, I
believe that gives you some perspective at the more than exponential decay in this number as the
size gets bigger.
Mr. Boothroyd said there is information available at a small charge from the Department
of Licensing, and on yacht sizes; there is also information available on boats that are
documented, again at a small charge. He said, I for one would like to see a decision made based
on quantitative information and some real justification. We are talking about taking from a
number of people, not just a few, for the benefit of one business, one or two businesses. I think
the majority of business would still continue to be served by a much shorter building. I certaitlly
have some feeling that taking a travel lift into a building that it doesn't fit into is a problem.
Choosing the travel lift might have been a mistake, not the building, but it is as it is.
Mr. Jim Marshall
Mr. Marshall said, I am not quite sure how much this does impact me; I didn't say that
before. He said, I got a note on my door that the Port was going to put a crane up at 1 :00 0' clock
in the afternoon, and they didn't do it When I got back the crane was down; I wasn't out very
·
·
·
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 34
long, so I really don't how much it is going to impact me.
He said another thing he heard was that some of this infrastructure can be removed. I
believe there is an exhibit there that has some comment about immoveable infrastructure. He
said, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't -- I don't know. Again, I question the forthcomingness
sometimes of Platypus Marine.
Mr. Mandelbaum commented, this has been a most clarifying, helpful and civil
discussion on both sides, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Mandelbaum asked if Mr. Crockett could respond particularly to the two mitigation
strategies that were submitted; one was the rather macro-strategy -- move it against the bluff, put
in some trees, design, whatever, presented by Mr. Boothroyd in his first presentation. Then there
was the mitigation strategy that was a specific design of the building in another presentation.
REBUITALS:
Mr. Larry Crockett, General Manager, Port of Port Townsend
Mr. Crockett made the followini points if! reþu~l:
.. He referred again to their picture exhibit and said, I cannot tell you how many hours Mr.
Randall and I spent physically walking the grounds, using photographs, doing scale cutouts
as you would do with your living room to see where the sofa would fit, doing the same kind
of thing with the building. He pointed it out and said, what you see here, this white colored
area is the sand filter which is part of the environmental filtration system to keep any
stormwater, etc., inside the Port property. He again pointed it out and said, this green space
out here is private property, approximately 1.5 acres that is privately owned, and the whole
half of that· is wetland. If you go down, you will see the metal stakes with the white tops
designating a 50 foot bumper, etc. He pointed out an area and said, this whole comer of the
shipyard is as close to the bluff as we can get this; the property that the Port owns currently.
He said even if we owned this (and pointed it out) we would not build any closer to the bluff
than this; it wouldn't be good if we could, because, it is hard to see in the photograph, it does
rise very quickly at this point. He said with the trees along here, it would be nice if we could
get closer, but we just physically can't We don't own the land and because of the wetlands,
environmentally that would not be a sound choice. (He also showed the picture and
explained it to the audience.)
.. Certainly, more trees could be planted; the one gentleman suggested taking out the poplars.
Mr. Crockett said someone else can do that; I am not even going to touch that. He said they
would welcome any ideas for planting trees that might help in that area.
.. In response to Ms. Thayer's question if the Port is planning to buy properties south of there,
fill in the wetlands and build, Mr. Crockett replied they have offered to sell that to the Port at
·
·
·
..
. .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 35
~ very high price. He said, I just want to note, I can't spend that much of the taxpayer's
dollars for land that is not usable when I don't even know for sure if we could fill in the
wetlands. The original mitigation aspect, since we do own 20 acres on Kah Tai, DOE might
let us enhance wetlands over at Kah Tai since it could be determined to be in the drainage
basin, thereby lessening the wetlands here. Ms. Thayer asked, but isn't that a stormwater
drainage system? Mr. Crockett replied, yes, all the stormwater off of Sims Way flows right
into this property. The City has been working on that; I have talked to them. The owners are
concerned about that; if you look at photographs from about 30 years ago, this was totally
dry. It has been made wetlands by man's effort to channel the stormwater off of Sims Way.
He said, the fear we are having, as you can see on the wall the Sim's Way project starts next
summer; we have asked that question a number of times about the stormwater. You are
going to widen Sims Way, you create that much more impervious surface, still downhill, that
is going to get even more saturated. Ms. Thayer said, but they are not widening along that
area. Mr. Crockett was uncertain regarding the ultimate project, and said, we are not
prepared to buy it; they are asking too much money, and I am getting a lot of opposition from
various environmental groups with that wetland, so I am not too eager.
" Regarding the gentleman's idea for reeningeering the building. Mr. Crockett said he shared
that with me a couple of weeks ago and passed it on to Mr. Castino, the architect. That and a
number of other citizens that have come up with other ideas, everything from a Safeco field-
type of structure. He said that is fine, everything is possible. This has merit; I kind of like
this grease-pit idea. You would have to extend it outside the building to lower the ship first
and travel into the building. The problem is we are at an elevation of 10 feet, and again we
run into some very severe environmental problems with the water surface level; I don't see
that as an economical design. He said, it probably could work if we weren't so close to the
water table level down there. We did pass that on; we also passed on various ideas about
cranes -- telescoping cranes out to the side, multiple smaller cranes positioned around the
building that might be able to go up against the side of the wall and move out. Even if you
took the crane out, you are talking 4 feet; that is all you are really going to gain because of
that high beam the crane rides on. You are not talking about a lot of height. He said they
will continue to look at any other design; I will tell you Mr. Castino has really tried
researching, tying to get every inch out of this thing. Mr. Mandelbaum asked if he thinks
time is going to help; Mr. Crockett replied, no they have done so much research, I just don't
see any options given the type of things we have to work with at the Port, and the water
table. I just don't see any other option. We only have the one shipyard.
" The gentleman's comment about the crane. The crane was actually up before 1:00 p.m. up to
about 3:30 p.m.; we moved it several times from one end of the area to the other, and due to
the request of Mr. Miller we actually moved it all the way down to the far end, which at that
time was part of the proposed area, and due to compromise that whole area was eliminated.
" Why not put these structures outside of town? We are dealing with marine trades. I don't
·
·
·
.
..
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 36
think a 300...ton lift traveling up Sims Way and outside of town would benefit anybody.
~ Concern in Port Townsend about growth. He said a couple more businesses, even if they
aren't as large as Platypus' 75 feet, that is not what is going to be noticed here in Port
Townsend; he projected this town is going to have 12,000 people in it in the next few years,
even if nobody else moves into that shipyard. He said that is just fact; that's business,
enunciated innumerable times on the survey.
~ Rainfall of 19 inches per year (thought we got about 3 inches today). These are long-term
projects on these large ships, even ifthey aren't the yachts. He said, even the commercial
fishing vessels, when you are doing these types of rehabs you don't do these in a few days.
Most if it is done in the winter, when they are not out fishing, etc. They are not pleasure
boats and you don have the place to put these in -- 3, 4 or 5 month-long projects. You will
never be able to do the job.
~ Removable superstructure. He said this is no different than taking the top of a car to get the
oil changed.
~ Jobs are full time.
~ We do appreciate any ideas on designs; the architect has been very amenable to looking at
those and assessing them.
~ Timeline for building the building. He said, if the permit is granted later this faU, the
building will be up before summer. The buildings do not take a lot of time to construct.
~ What would happen if the Platypus or another business like that went out of business like
Admiral? He answered, the same thing that happened with Admiral. Townsend Bay rises
out of the ashes and hires 30 people overnight. He said we did not loose a single penny on
this bankruptcy. The taxpayers didn't lose anything; we got all the back rent and everything
out of the bankruptcy courts.
~ Home owners were here first.. He said the gentleman that was here in 1929 was close; the
Port has been here since 1924.
~ The gentleman mentioned that air, water and food are the only things people need. Mr.
Crockett said, I didn't see "views" on that list.
~ Tourists. He said, you would be surprised how many people call me and ask when is the
next big boat coming up ... my family is coming; my brother is coming into town on
Saturday, are you going to do anything on Saturday? He declared, "We are a tourist
attraction. "
ÇOlpmission Question:
~ Ms. Thayer asked Mr. Bryant, "You mentioned that you worked on a number oflarge boats.
Can you tell me what percentage of those you have worked on that have been inside a
building?" Mr. Bryant replied, "Probably 95 percent of them."
·
·
·
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1999
Page 37
Mr. Bruce Bryant, General Manager, Platypus Marine
He said some of the people were mentioning that we would house a lot of chemicals; that
is not true. Henery Hardware probably houses more chemicals than Platypus Marine would. We
are not in the business to store chemicals; it is to use them, and move on.
Mr. Bryant said currently we have four jobs that we are looking at getting that would
need this building. Ifwe don't have this building, they will not fit the building we are renting
now. He said, we can't predict the size of the jobs that we get. Somebody was asking me,
"Well, in the future how many big jobs are you going to get?" We don't control that; they come
as they do.
<;ommissiQn OuestiQ;n:
· Mr. Mandelbaum asked how much the Platypus investment would be in the new building.
Mr. Bryant replied, for Platypus Marine, I think we are looking at close to $1 million.
At 10:07 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the meeting to public testimony. She again reopened
the hearing to allow comment from Mr. Sokol who said he had tried to get the Chair's attention.
Mr. Bob Sokol, Port Commissioner, Port of Port Townsend
Mr. Sokol noted, one person testified, I think that I had said, "it was insignificant." If I
said that, I truly apologize; I don't consider it to be insignificant. As I was talking about having
lost views, I was trying to make the point that I understand what it feels like, not saying it was
insignificant. I would like to get that on the record.
Chair Thayer again closed the public hearing at 10:09 p.m. and asked for the Planning
Commission pleasure in proceeding with Commission deliberations. Discussion ensued
regarding available, suitable times to continue the meeting.
MOTION Mr. Mandelbaum Continue the hearing to November 10, 1999, 7:00 p.m.,
City Council Chambers in City Hall
SECOND
VOTE
Mr. Harbison
Passed by voice vote - 5 in favor, Mr. Worden opposed
Chair Thayer reported if there is any new information, the hearing will be reopened to
receive that new information on November 10th. She said the Planning Commission
recommendation will then go to City Council for Council action where there will be an open
record public hearing at that time as welL
·
·
·
.
"
,;;
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 1999
Page 38
Mr. Worden expressed appreciation for the thoughtfulness of people in discussing issues
and the thoughtfulness of people with each other.
VII. OTIIER BUSINESS
Motion to approve the minutes of September 23, 1999 as written and corrected was made
by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Harbison. All were in favor.
Motion to approve the minutes of September 29, 1999 as written and corrected was made
by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
Next ~çheduled Meetin~s
Wednesday, November 10, 1999
Continued meeting to complete deliberations;
election of officers
December 9, 1999
IX.
COMMUNICATIONS - Current Mail
x.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Ms. Ota.
All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
~
~
' ¡,A~
C' dy Thayer, Chair
~~
Sheila Avis, Minute Taker
.
.
".
Guest List
Meeting of:
Purpose:
Date: /1
I Name I,leu. "'0<'
.Address I T~=~mrn~~ I
/.rer~ ¿ '>~~ ~ ¿.---
)
¡
-
85;.1- J~
1/
I {
I
/
~
~
....----
/'
~
~/
-----
v
x
'f
I [ I