Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10141999 Min Ag . . . I I I l CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Workshop Meeting October 14, 1999 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: September 23, 1999 and September 30, 1999 V. Unfinished Business A. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - finalize Findings & Conclusions 1. Staff presentation (Judy Surber) 2. Commission discussion and conclusions B. Port of Port Townsend, Zoning Code Text Amendment (LUP99-72) 1. Staff presentation (Jeff Randall) 2. Commission discussion VI. New Business VII. October 28t 1999 . Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open-record public hearing) VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment , . · -., CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting October 14, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison, Len Mandelbaum and Christine Ota. Staff members present BCD Director Bob Leedy, Judy Surber, and Jeff Randall. Messrs. GeoffMasci, Sidney Lipton, Allen Youse, and Vem Garrison were present from City Council. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Thayer requested to add information regarding a public hearing on October 25th as an item to the agenda under New Business' Motion to accept the agenda was made by Mr. Harbison and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. · IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES · Minutes of September 23, 1999 were not included in Commission packets and approval was delayed to another meeting. Mr. Mandelbaum noted for the record on page 14 of the September 30th minutes regarding the term "backlash," the point he was making was that the proposed change would not necessarily increase affordable housing. Motion to approve the minutes of September 30, 1999 as written and amended was made by Mr. Mandelbaum and seconded by Mr. Worden. All were in favor. V UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Thayer explained two items of Unfinished Business were carried forward from the September 30th Public Hearing so more information could be brought for consideration. A. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments·- finalize Findings & ConclusioQS . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 2 . Text Amendment (Item 6) Revise Table IV..2 of the l.snd Use Element tq Reflee. Recent Land UseIZonbJ& Changes Desaiptioø: Table IV-2 has not been updated to reflect rezones which occurred through the 1997 and 1998 Comprehensive Plan Updl).te. ~ommendatioa: Approve FúuJbefl: Circumstances have changed since the 1996 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would update Table W-2 to reflect rezones approved in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 annual amendment process. CoIrdIIsions: The flllfeØtItnmt would møke the Table within the Comprehmsive PItm consistent with the fIdopted Land Use Map. Actjon of Sept~mber 30, 1999: Ms. Surber stated this table has not been changed since 1996 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; in 1997 and 1998 there were. some changes to the zoning which need to be reflected in the table. She mentioned she bas been working with the GIS Statf, but they have fowd other mistakes and they are still working out a few of those. Staff recommendation is to approve the changes to Table VI-2 to reflect the rezones and to revise the map as needed; however. she does not have the revised table tonight. The recommended Findings and Conclusions are presented in the Staff Report. Ms. Erickson asked Ms. Surber if she would have the table ready in two weeks for the next Planning Commission meeting October 14th? Ms. Surber replied that is her goal. Public Testimonv - There was none. MOTION SECOND Discussion: Hold for deliberation until die oat meeting on October 14, 1999 Ms. Erickson Mr. Mandelbaum Mr. Worden questioned why this is being considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. City Attorney McMahan replied that this is a Comp Plan Table. VOTE Unanimous -- 6 in favor by voice vote Action of October 14.1999: 1. Staff Presentation Ms. Surber noted that Exhibit 7 which was not available at the Public Hearing on September 30th has now been included in Commission Packets. She said the information was provided by the GIS staff, and that any changes from the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update approved by City Council can also be incorporated into that table to reflect acreage in each designation. Questions ~ Comments: Mr. Worden: Asked if his understanding is correct that this reflects an accounting of changes . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 3 made in the map, and there were no other changes. Ms. Surber: Pointed out one other change when Mr. Tyler Johnson was calculating acreage and trying to figure out how to place the planned unit developments (PUD) that have been recently approved, e.g., Hamilton Heights and Lynnsfield. The PUD overlay takes precedence over the underlying zoning, and in some cases allows higher densities. Ms. Surber indicated that rather than trying to decide whether it fit more in R-II or R-IV and divide up a PUD, it was decided that the maps should reflect that a PUD as been adopted for those areas. The maps, themselves, would show a PUD designation on proposals, e.g., as Hamilton Heights and Lynnsfield. You can see in the table that on the last page it indicates R-PUD and C/M-PUD (i.e., Port Townsend Business Park). She said that is a different way of reflecting those PUDs. Mr. Worden: Asked if that acreage has been taken out of the other zones. Ms. Surber: Affirmed. She said this will also help potential buyers and City Staff when looking at the land use map to realize there is planned unit development with specific requirements they need to refer to in the tables. Mr. Worden: Asked if that means we will have new maps as well. Ms. Surber affirmed. 2. Commission discussion and conclusions MOTION Recommend approval of revisions to Table 1V-2 in the Land Use Element Mr. Worden SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Unanimous - 6 in favor by roll caD vote . Pro1)Osed Policy Amendments to the Comprehensive PIa... and/or Amendments to the DtveJQpment Regulati~ns C-ll Upper-Story Residential Description: The proposal is to allow upper-story residential development in the city's C-H, General Commercial, zoning district. This district "provides for those commercial uses and activities which are most heavily dependent on convenient vehicular access, and is located on sites: having safe and efficient access to major transportation routes. .. This district occupies more area of the city than any other commercial district, and occurs in various locations along Sims Way, washington Street and Water Street, and in the triangular area bounded by SR 20 to the south, Howard Street to the east, and Discovery Road to the northwest" Currently, residential development within the C-ll district is limited to owner/operator residences. Ootio~ 1: Aoorove the p~posal Pros: The amendment could provide more affOrdable housing to City residents. Cons: Residential development may not be compatible with the intense commercial uses permitted in this zone nor with the higher traffic volumes on the adjacent arterial! collector streets. {See Exhibit 8 for a . . . " Planning Commissíon Mínutes October 14, 1999 Page 4 summary of comments from other jurisdictions regarding their experience wi1h allowing residential in the general commercial zone.) Optiøn 1: ~. the oroposat Pros: Compatibility between uses would not be an issue. Cons: An opportunity to provide affordable housing may be missed. Reco,,"mendation: Deny the proposal at this time. Staff is not opposed to further consideration of mixed use in this zoning distrid; however. proper desip is kef to its uItùnate success. The idea sbould he given further discussion during the public workshopslbearings for the C-ll design standards. r",dhtp: A. Circumstances have not changed since the development of the 1996 Comprehen8ive Plan. Design Standards which would ensure proper design to overcome the potential conflicts between residelltial and commercia/development and residential development adjacent to arterialslcollectors carrying heavy traffic volumes, have not been changed. B. 1ñe assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are still valid and no new information has been presented C. No need or urgency for the amendment has been identijied. 1ñe city currently accommodates a mix of commercial and residential uses in the C-III, CllMU, and CIIIMU zoning districts. ~nclusions: The amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Action of Se,ptember 30. 1999: Proposal: To allow upper story residential in the City's general commercial zoning district. primarily located along Sims Way. arterials and larger collectors. Ms. Surber: Although Staff does not feel the idea should be rejected outright. they are going through the C-ll design standards process and having public input in workshops on developing C-ll design standards. Staff feels this idea may be something to further explore through that forum before making an outright recommendation. that it is a good idea. She referred to her phone survey in Exhibit 8, problems with traffic volume. and being more of an auto- oriented zone than a pedestrian-friendly zone. She said the overriding conunent seemed to be, it can work if designed appropriately. Staff recommendation: Deny the proposal with reconnnendatíons presented Reason cited: Staff strongly felt they could look at potentially incorporating design standards for such a mix of uses through the C-ll design standards forum at that time. Commission Questions: (See minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 30, 1999) Publk Testimony: (See minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 30, 1999) Commission Discussion: (See minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting September 30, 1999 for full report) Ms. Thayer: Asked about directing Staff to make recommendations. findings and conclusions for Option 1. and address it at the October 14th meeting. Mr. Worden: Said that would be his prefetence. Consensus: Delay to the October 14th meeting. Ms. Surber: Asked if they had any indication for Staff what the change in circumstance would be. Mr, Worden: There doesn't need to be one. Said what he is asking is for Staff to confirm there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that precludes this change in the zoning ordinance, Ms. Surber: Said she was thinking about the criteria. has there been a change of circumstance or new information presented that was not available in 1996. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 5 Mr. McMahan: Pointed out that those criteria primarily target Comprehensive Plan amendments, Ifa zoning code amendment is not at all inconsistent with the Complement Plan, in fact implements certain Plan policies, he did not think that finding needs to be made. It is a much more critical finding if there is inconsistency with the Comp Plan. Ms. Surber: Concurred, but stated that Option 1 is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include upper story residential in general commercial; not to make a conclusions that there is no need to change the Comp Plan; we can make a zoning code amendment later. If we are going to adopt Option 1 and amend the Comp Plan at this point in time, then we will be able to draft findings. Mr. Worden: Suggested, after review ofbotb ordinances and the Comp Plan. he would like Staff to tell them if they need to amend the Comp Plan in order to do this, which would take it off their docket now, but could still be accomplished. Action of October 14. 1~: 1. Staff Presentation Ms. Surber indicated the Commission held off voting on this proposal to allow Staff time to research whether or not a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be necessary for the City to allow upper story residential development later this year as part of the C-II Design Standards workshops and public hearings. She read through the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comp Plan, and although residential in the general commercial zone is not ever specifically mentioned, there are policies regarding a variety of housing, housing next to busines~, etc. Her recommendation was that if later in the year they decide to recommend upper story residential in C-II general commercial, do a text amendment~ however, in a subsequent Comp Plan review, you might want to add some text to state that it also allows for upper story residential. Basically, there is no conflict~ just cleaning it up at a later date. Qu~tions and COI111Uen~: Ms. Erickson: Asked Ms. Surber if they would leave it for an applicant to come for a text amendment, or if it would be the City. Ms. Surber: Replied it would most likely be through the C-II Design Standards workshop and public hearing process, that the design standards also include a text amendment, e.g., upper story residential. 2. Commission discussion and conclusions Mr. Worden: Said in checking the land use tables, it seemed Table IV -1 would have to be amended, but these are suggested not mandatory. Ms. Surber affirmed. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Worden Recommend that (he Comprehensive Plan not be amended to specifically allow residential on the upper story of the C-ll zone and to adopt Staff findings SECOND Mr. Harbison Friendly Amendment: by Mr. Mandelbaum, accepted by Messrs. Worden and Harbison that the Design Standards Committee take this up as an issue. Recommend that the Comprehensive Plan not be amended to specifically allow residential on the upper story of the C-ll zone; to adopt Staff findings; and that the Design Standards Committee will take this up as an issue AMENDED MOTION: VOTE Unanimous - 6 in favor Ms. Surber noted the motion to recommend changes to the Bulk, Height and Dimensional Requirements, Table 17.18.030, in the C-I/MU zone passed 6-0 in favor at the September 30th meeting. She reminded that the definition of Leasable Space needed to be reviewed and that it is now brought as Exhibit 11. Misspellings were corrected. MOTION Mr. Worden Approve the new definition of Leasable Space as in Exhibit 11 SECOND VOTE Mr. Harbison Unanimous - 6 in favor by voice vote ******************************************************************************** At 7:20 p.m. Ms. Thayer opened the workshop portion of the meeting stating they would not be taking public testimony at this workshop. She asked the Commission what their feeling was about taking public input. It was suggested that input from the public would give them useful information to look at before the public hearing in 2 weeks. Ms. Thayer reiterated that this is not public testimony and there will be ample opportunity for the public to testify at the October 28th meeting and subsequently at the City Council open record public hearing. Mr. Mandelbaum thought the priority is to get infonnation, so that to the extent the input is information, you would concur. Consensus: Allow public input to the extent that it is information. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 7 B. Port of Port Townsend, Zoning Cooe Text Amendment (LTJP99-72) Mr. Randall pointed out that the architect for the Platypus Marine building., the Port Manager, and several ~mploy~s of Platypus Marine were also present to offer information and explain the .need of these buildings, how their businesses work, et.c. 1. Staff presentation Mr Randall discussed the following: Commission pack~ts included: · a short summary .. SEPA Determination ofNonsignifie.a.DCe -Port.beigbtamendments · SEP A nete.n:ninatio.n -- PJatypusMarine projects (at 50 foot height; could be increased if height amendment, issued as a Mitigated Detennination ofNonsignifk.anœ (MONS) with conditions, is approved) The last two item~ tagether with all the lelters received up 1¡mil prepara!ian of Commission packet maferinÜ on Thursday, October 21st, will be exhibits in the Staff Report for the October 28th public hearing. Port revisions to the pT9J.'IQsed ovenay a~ sin",.e submission of th~jr applk.atiQl1 include' · size -- reduced not quite hy h~lf, to approximately 5.6 acres · height - no portion of a fOQfwithin this area allowed to exceed 7$ feet (reads a little differently than how they currently measure_building heights~ buildings in the Port don't have a lot of slopes - saying average gable heights does not have a lot of meaning here) · limited area where buildings could go - allow only 20 percent of the 5.6 acres to be used for buildings which would exceed the 50 foot height Process: Public comment period on the zoning code amendment runs all the way through the time it is heard by City Council. Mr. Randall again stated the purpose of this workshop is to gather information. Chair Thayer explained what the Planning Commission and City Council will be deciding is a legislative amendment that is not site specific, but for a general area. · They will nQ1 be addressing the Platypus Marine building; · They will be addressing the portion of the Port that will be redone for proposed height limit. Mr. Randall stressed that importance. He said for those wanting to comment on the way . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 8 the SEPA Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance addressed issues of the Platypus project, e.g., noise and lìghting, those are separate comments. The Planning Commission will only be hearing how tall the buildings should be in that area. He referenced City policies, e.g. . policies in the Comprehensive Plan - many of which support marine trades, economic development, recognize the heavy haul-out as an important investment in the Port and promotes economic development; ... somewhat competing policies, e.g. - the Gateway Plan (talks about importance of our views along Sims Way, vîews of the water, small town atmosphere) and explained that some of the issues in SEPA were to a great extent political issues and not really environmental issues -- except that esthetics of our environment affect us. He recounted some of the political issues: what kind of development do we want to see there; how big will the buildings be we want to see there; what loss of esthetic views are we willing to compromise for a certain amount ·of economic development. Mr. Randall said representatives of the Port and Platypus Marine were present for discussion, not so much for examining Platypus, but as an example of the kind of business that wants to utilize these larger buildings. He discussed and circulated a visual analysis the proponents conducted of what the building would look like and a map prepared to show the height overlay. The Port and Platypus erected a crane that at that time was raised to a height of 79 feet (knowing a building would be no higher) located at peak ends of the proposed building. They took photographs from different sites they had chosen trying to get representative views of the hillside, the crane first at one end then in the same position at the other end. Ms. Thayer asked if any photographs were taken of the crane when it was at the furthest area, and it was stated there may be some of those photographs available. The crane also indicated a height of 50 feet, the current maximum building height, to give the Planning Commission and Council the idea of a 50 foot tall building. 2. Commission Discussion Mr. Worden asked if Mr. Randall could give a history of building height limitations at the Port. Mr. Randall stated the earliest reference he could find was a limit of 35 feet; the current height limit within the 200-foot area of the shoreline is still 35 feet. At the time ofthe Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1996 the height limit was raised to 50 feet for those areas outside the shorelines area. He indicated there is evidence in the minutes that at some point during the Comprehensive Plan hearings, perhaps toward the end, the issue was brought up about the heavy haul-out. That process began in 1994; the Port knew the heavy haul-out was coming and they would be able to serve larger ships. He said that apparently the Admiral Marine issues were happenin& and the height limit was raised to 50 feet. During the end of the Comp Plan process or the implementing zoning code process, the Port indicated they wanted a · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14. 1999 Page 9 75 foot maximum buílding height forthe whole Port, but that was rejected and the 50 foot height limit was incorporated. Chair Thayer added that a request for 75 feet had never come before the Planning Commission. She clarified for the record that Admiral Marine had come before the Planning Commission first for a site-specific proposal to increase the height of their building to 50 feet; that was approved before they built the building. At that time it was only the Admiral Marine building; the rest of the area was 35 feet. She specifically remembered when Admiral Marine came before the Planning Commission for a 50 foot height restriction, they were asked if that was enough and they affirmed that it was; when it was asked in front of the City Council the next day, the person who was Port Director decided maybe he could prop<)se more, but it did not ever get to anything more than 50 feet. Mr. Worden asked if the table which shows 50 feet as a suggested height has been modìfied. Mr. Randall replied that Table IV is part of the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thayer said that was what they adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 1996. A member of the audience asked if the ex-Admiral Marine 50-foot building height was site-specific just for that building. Ms. Thayer replied that it was site-specific at the time they built their building, but when the Comp Plan was approved that area of the Port was increased to reflect the 50 feet. Mr. Randall indicated everything outside the shoreline area was raised to 50 feet; Admiral Marine was processed through variance. Ms. Erickson asked the rational regarding the maximum 20 percent of the area for the building height overlay. Mr. Randall replied that letters received during the initial public comment period overwhelmingly indicated people were very concerned, particularly for the future of the whole area -- raising the height of the whole area to 75 feet. He said BCD Staff had discussions with the Port and they detennined there is a realistic potential for bigger buildings. The Port has much land tied up in long-term leases; many buildings are relatively new and are not going to be tom down. They encouraged the Port to reduce the proposed area to somethìng more minimal recognizing that it was going to impact a lot of people. which resulted in the 20 percent. Once the proposed Platypus building was deducted, it left a little over 30,000 square feet for buildings that could be over 50 feet. The Port felt that was adequate. A member of the audience understood the 30,000 square feet represents approximately two additional buildings approximately the size of Platypus. Mr. Crockett replied. Larry Crockett, General Manager, Port of Port Townsend. Mr. Crockett welcomed people to come to his Port office to talk, see more photographs and to walk the site if desired. Their initial consideration was to request a site specific variance for the Platypus building beyond 50 feet. He expressed appreciation to Messrs. Leedy and Randall and said after their discussion they decided to go with a legislative procedure for a zoning code amendment. The City asked them to identify the shipyard, and he noted the Port includes three areas - boat · · · Planning CO'mmission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 10' yard, shipyard, and marina., aU different· and. distinct areas with different infrastructures. He pointed out the shipyard, the only area that can handle large vessels all ballasted with additional gravel compressed to' handleenormoos weight, i.e., the travel lift with up to' 300 tons worth of vessel, at a cost of aver $8 million. He spoke of the $2 million stO'rmwater area, special walls on the wash down pad to collect all the sediment and. take the water·offso that only fresh water goes back into the bay. He said. the Port identified the whole area~ and immediately people started saying they did not want any buildings around the shoreline, and neither does the Port -- they can't afford to, and the Shoreline Master Plan woo't let them; he indicated they need the whole shoreline open for the travel lift to go back and forth. He pointed out the only areas where they park the big vessels with their outside-type wbarf~ and indicated that is what they want to continue to do. Mr. Crockett also spoke of the meeting with BCD to determine where the big buildings would go and said the area is really very limited; they only have a 5 ~ acres. He pointed out the defined new area; space that is private property; sand filters the Port put in as part of their environmental protection to make sure nothing gets into the wetlands; the cut back due to the 200 foot shoreline limit; old Admiral buildings -- the one building he said is at 55 feet and approved for 55 feet. He said they discussed it~ compromised back and forth and decided on 20' percent of the 5 ~ acres, a little over I acre (approximately 48.000 total square foot footprint). He pointed out the proposed site of the Platypus building and said it is a very wide building, 100 feet wide, because they are trying to get two super jobs in together. That would leave room for one more building af that size. or two single-bay buildings; he showed the approximate type fO'otprint -- the old Admiral building 3, now Townsend Bay Marine. He spoke of the area that is 00 a loog-term lease to Port Townsend Lumber and. does not come up for renewal until 2007; it is essentially untouchable unless they come to the Port and want to negotiate something different. He also showed Townsend Bay Marine and again stated he could not see getting more than two single-bay type buildings or one more double-bay building. He projected the rest of the Port is not going to' change; all the buildings seen are not the Port's buildings; they lease the land, but the developer's build the buildings - a combinatiO'n of 25 to 40 year leases. He said you will see more buildings built throughout the Port, but they win all be within current codes; they have already approved requests from two of seven companies to build one-story buildings inside the Port. He pointed to more photographs on the wall taken September 15th and pointed out the area at the Port he had just shown - Jakes. Jackman Street and Holcomb Street on up. He showed the nine different houses where they took photographs from such places as decks, kitchen windows, etc. He noted the hill climbs quickly behind Jakes and he pointed out · Jackman is about a *90 foot elevation -- most homes are built into the sides so depths are maybe another 10' to 12 feet and have very panoramic views. *(Corrected to' 80 feet by Ms. Thayer and Mr. Worden.) · One house he felt was the most impacted; he indicated that house is so low it would be . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 11 impacted by a 40 foot building. · He showed a magnified picture of the house at 828 Jackman. noted where the proposed building would be built and commented on the tremendous remaining view. · Up the hilt on Holcomb~ there is the same type of scenario - approximately another 20 feet higher~ he pointed out the proposed building and views. · Up to Wilson - higher stiU~ looking back at the Port~ he pointed out that the proposed building is almost obscure, and you can see out toward Indian Island, Mr. Crockett said the enhanced haul-out was completed in· 1997 at a cost of over $8 million and was designed to bring into the Port exactly the type ofbusÌness as Platypus Marine and Townsend Bay Marine, etc. to handle the large vessel- commercial fishing vessel or pleasure craft, commonly referred to as super yachts. He said there are a lot of misconceptions and referred to what he said was an excellent Letter to the Editor in The Leader this week because it represents a lot of misconceptions about this effort. He read from the l~tter entitled. "Don't support height variance at the Port" regarding tall buildings in the area being unsafe during an earthquake, a lot of dredge glacial till. Mr.. Crockett declared that all of Port Townsend is built on dredge glacial till, the entire peninsula is glacial till. Chair Thayer asked the Commission if this is. getting into testimony. Mr. Mandelbaum replied, "Yes and No," He felt it would be most helpful to have Staff evaluation. Mr.. Randall referred to the SEP A document and said he basically broke down the areas he felt logically fell together as far as the land areas, and he said Mr. Crockett also reviewed them: · Areas of lowest elevation along Hill Street had the most impact. The SEP A document concluded that because of their low elevation~ almost anything occurring in that corridor~ a tree, 30 or 40 foot building, would have similar view impacts of the water and Marrowstone Island; it wouldn't block as much sky in the distance. · Homes above Jackman Street, if they could see the building, generally would lose views within the Port area or maybe a little bit of the marina. They generally didn't lose views of the water and generally those homes are high enough they have a pretty expansive view of downtown; they could see the bay and it wasn't a really significant impact. · Those questionable to him, were along Jackman Street at heights of approximately 60 to 10 feet based on topographical maps. (He said Jackman may be at one height~ but with the houses below Jackman you lose elevation pretty quickly.) Chair Thayer pointed out that because of the fog these pictures do not show the mountain views you get from there. · · · ÞlanningCommission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 12 Ms. Erickson felt in response to Chair Thayer's earlier question, they are still getting information they need to consider~ she opposed public testimony but welcomed explanation of mŒe Înfonnation they need and more misinformation they are receiving. Mr~ Mandelbaum said he thought their tradition was othearing staff evaluation first, and he would lîke to hear that. Chair Thayer suggested the purpose of the workshop is fŒ the Commission to give Mr. Randall staff direction. Mr. Randall said he does oot yet have a full analysis of the competing planning policies, that will be available tor the hearing. He continued with the last category ofland areas impacted: ÞOO Properties lying along Jackman Street, generally upland north of Sims Way before 12th Street at an elevation of 10 t090 teet. He said, if the building on the Platypus site were at 50 feet it would probably block some views, but wouldn~t block water views. If it was extended up to 78 feet, really above 50 feet, it is starting to block water views. He said in some houses it didn~t; it depended on the orientation. Regarding views they are talking about along.Sims Way and different places, if a home is aimed atMarrowstone Island and maybe the building is in one comer, it might not have such a great impact. He referred to a house of Marcella Younce at 828 Jackman which is aimed straight on. (Ms. Younce showed pictures taken on a nice day.) Mr. Randall said it all depends on your perspective, that most of the homes aren~t impacted Chair Thayer suggested they may want to give Staff a recommendation of a number of options, A,B or C, to present for the public hearing, like recommending approval of this as it is befŒe them, recommending a smaller site, recommending denial, or a number of options they can consider. Mr. Leedy indicated they can assess different options the Commission wishes to have assessec:L but in the end they are going to make a recommendation based on their professional opinion and the applicationbefore the Commission. Ms. Thayer said they have the option to approve or deny and asked if they have the option to set different standards. Mr. Leedy said they have the option to recommend to Council. Mr. Randa11 said he would check with the City Attorney, and 'Ms. Thayer noted previously they have had different options. Mr. Randall said at the end of the meeting when they have heard as much information as they can, if they want to give him feedback, he would be happy to try to focus his analysis on it. Mr. Mandelbaum questioned the structure of the meetings taken together. He said he thought this would be Staff taking them through policy issues and taking questions as to how much additional information they would need with respect to options, possibly questions from people, additional information coming from people. Chair Thayer conc~ that it is with the idea the Commission give Staff some direction of what they want for the public hearing~ they would be getting that next week. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Randall replied that basically what he has given Commission is a rather brief analysis of the applicable codes and policies in the SEP A document. He did not go as far as he will with the Staff Report· on concluding whether a certain policy is or is not recommending to go to a certain height; he did not feel that was appropriate in SEP A. He thought the Commission is looking for the rest of the information, and he will have more information at the hearing. Mr. Mandelbaum said he would like the issue of need to be addressed, and Mr. Randall said he thought the Port and Platypus would present more on that. Mr. Mandelbaum said he would be happy to hear that, what the impacts are, and positive or negative options. Wìlliam Boothroyd Believed they are considering a general rezoning proposal, not the Platypus. specific request. He commented that anything at the Kah Tai basin above 50 feet in elevation, as can be detennined from the map and a Mer, has potential ofbemg impacted by this height amendment, including properties north of 12 Street going out, and also on the side of Morgan Hill going out. He said many of these homes have a remaining view of the water only through the west end of the Port. The other views of the water are more or less blocked by the Poplars on both sides of Sims Way. He thought that should be seriously considered as part of the rezoning application. Chair Thayer called for addressing "need." Mr. Crockett said that he didn't realize the Commission did not have all of the letters and assumed they had more information. He said letters raised environmental issues, e.g.., ftre hazards, hazardous chemicals, fiberglass resins, Fire Department issues, etc. He said they can discuss those tonight if they wish. He then caned on Mr. Castino to discuss the "need." Jim Castino, Platypus Marine Architect (AmericTech, Tacoma W A) Pointed out that in considering an area-wide zone change, he felt Platypus represented a typical use within that overlay zone. He enumerated physical needs for the Platypus building: . Need 100 feet wide and 175 feet long, eave height right now is at 75 feet. He distributed a drawing of the building cross section. (The drawings will be in packets as an exhibit; Chair Thayer also requested Ms. Younce' photograph be returned to her as a possible exhibit at the hearing. ) . He pointed out on the drawing a metal building with tapered steel columns. He said Mr. Byrant would be discussing this, but it starts with the basic requirement for 65 feet clear (the building is designed for two large vessels to be worked on simultaneously) so those two boats are picked up with a travel lift and can come into building. .. Above the 65 feet they have to make room for two overhead bridge cranes with hydraulic hooks; there is a column in the middle of the building, a bridge crane on each the left half and right half with a lift. He said you can see in the cross section they have very carefully started at 65 feet and have made height allowances for the bridges after consulting with a . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 14 number of bridge crane suppliers. . They need 2 to 3 inches of clearance room, and a height allowance for the structure itself, roof beams, and added together comes to 75 feet. He said it is very straight forward; he has been asked a number of times by BCD staff, and even the Port staff if they could get the building any lower. He said technically as an industrial architect, based on the owner~ s requirement for a 65 foot door, 75 foot in his professional opinion would be as low as he can get the roof. * He said he thought they had taken that down to a % or 12 pitch, and he calculated the building at 100 feet wide, 50 feet to the center for a rise, just shy of 78 feet. The question has been asked if they can excavate; his answer was that it was not economically feasible, that in his professional opinion since they are close to sea level, there would be a lot of engineering problems trying to keep water out of the building. *Chair Thayer said his chart showed assembled; she noted the sail boat in the picture and questioned if they couldn't work on the boats without the masts. Mr. Castino deferred the question to Mr. Bryant for an answer. ... Being as objective as he could, said when you study the photographs, it appeared to him that in the majority of cases, the existing 50 foot height already obstructs the view. (The public disagreed.) Questions from the Audience: Q Is. the length of the building parallel to Sims or toward the water? A Sims toward the water. Bruce Bryant: For a matter of scale, Building 3 of the old Admiral Marine is 165 feet long, essentially the same length. QWith the bridge crane in the building, you need a 65 foot height limit? Asked regarding the travel lift picking up and moving a boat. A (Bruce Bryant to answer.) Bruce Byrant, General Manager, Platypus Marine Not every boat is built the same. He discussed two photographs showing boats: 1) 85 foot length with a height of over 50 feet - would not fit in the building; 2) 118 feet - fit in the building after they took the mast down. He said not every boat is the same depending on a combination of things. He circulated a book in which he listed a few boats the Port can pick up weight-wise and width-wise that will not fit into the building they have right now. · He spoke of the market and that people are currently building much larger boats, that 10 years ago they probably would not hear of a 150 foot fiberglass boat. Today it is very common. With these boats being longer, they are also taller. He said depending on the design and the builder, the masts and the hard systems cannot be removed on a lot of these vessels; it is up and a permanent fixture. He said with this in mind the 65 feet is what they need. Some of the vessels the Port can pick up are 60 to 65 feet tall; he said these boats . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 15 would not fit into their building. .. With permanently installed masts minus the electronic accessories, bridge cranes need to travel back and forth, and they use them on a daily basis. Some of the vessels have tenders on the front; the cranes cannot go back and forth and are not usable to them. He had some that were 60 feet tall and a couple they had to cut part off to get into the building. He said that is a very expensive way to do business; you are talking electronics, radar, satellite systems, etc. · The travel lift the Port has put in is a magnet to these large yachts. He indicated that in Washington State there is no more than one facility that can pick up a large yacht. He estimated the cost to pick up a 130 foot yacht at $10/foot would be $1,300 - $1,400; in Seattle that could cost $2,000 because of the way they pick them up. .. You could go with a dry dock system, which costs a lot and there are very few facilities that can get the large yachts into buìldings. He said some of their jobs range from 1 week to 9 months or 1 year. They can attract people who would not pay $20,000 to paint their hull or pull their motors out; they will go to California, Florida or somewhere else. · The haul-out facility is the key and is why Platypus Marine has come to Port Townsend; we have tried the facility and know it works. The Port has helped them on every issue presented to them; the community has been very supportive. · The workforce is very strong here; there a lot of very qualified, ex-Admiral employees, people that have been in the boat haven for a long time; it is quality workmanship they are looking for and these people can provide it. · A lot of captains are experienced with yards. When they see a quality yard, the word is going to' spread; he thought that is where the Port Townsend facility is going to thrive. These boats generate a lot of money - some boats that are worth $5 million to $20 million, and when they come to town they bring money with them buying food, having canvas made, etc.; they touch everybody, e.g., with taxes. Mr. Bryant said letters received have said Platypus will bring in Seattle people, but that is untrue. He is the only person from Seattle and is only there part time; everyone else has been hired through the Port Townsend newspaper or by word of mouth. Regarding views, he felt the building is put in the best place it could be; there are not a lot of options. Mr. Mandelbaum said he is very interested in the last remark. He addressed Mr. Byrant and Mr. Crockett and said they were doing a lot of things, obviously retooling the whole Port, putting a lot of new buildings in, etc. He asked in using this application, have they thought of musical chairs, where the optimal place might be located, and if they were to do it lessening an impact point of view. Mr. Crockett replied he cannot imagine another point within the Port, there is only a portion of the Port that is balasted for the heavy haul-out; this is the closest to the bluff they can get and be on Port property and within the enhanced haul-out area that has been protected . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 16 environmentally with all stormwater systems, sand filters, etc. He did not think you could find a more environmentally safe place to build this. As far as the visual impact, they walked the grounds together with the City Staff and looked at it, and within that confined space (they only have a few acres to deal with and meet the environmental requirements), this has the least impact. There is no place that would not impact public views. Mr. Mandelbaum replied that it is lìkely that if the lumber company property were available to them, it probably wouldn't make a significant difference. Mr. Crockett concurred and said you could move it closer to Sims Way, but he was not sure they wanted to do that; he said he couldn't imagine another place for the building. Mr. Worden asked for discussion of what kinds of work they do inside a building that cannot be done outside, what advantage to have an enclosure to do the work? Mr. Bryant answered that putting a vessel outside to sand and grind, etc. is not environmentally recommended. He said it would cost a fortune to erect a temporary structure around a vessel of this size to try to contain dust, etc., not to mention that it would not look good in the Port with a boat covered with plastic tarps. Environmental control is the key to there business; you have to deal with a controlled environment otherwise a lot can go wrong -- epoxies may not cure properly; the top coat can be affected by high humidity; he said it is just not feasible for their business to work outside. It is not cost effective; in the winter it would cost thousands of dollars to build a tent. Port Townsend is a very windy area and he could not . imagine working outside with an entire covering of plastic. Mr. Worden said he was not thinking of a covering, but just how much work could be done outside. Mr. Crockett stated that some basic work could be done outside; woodwork would have to be done inside. With our winters there would be no productivity for 5 to 6 months of the year. He also said from a safety standpoint, it is a very hazardous operation and he discussed problems involved in picking up boats and moving them inside the building. David King -- Townsend Bay Marina Reported the chronology is quite correct; the building was built before the heavy haul-out was purchased. He pointed out there is a lot of room between 50 and 78 feet, but it is important to recognize 50 feet. is inadequate. He stated that all of what was said is correct that a SO foot access into the building is simply not possible easily, not cost effective. He said they would also like to expand; they employ about 35 people. He said most of their business is construction and consequently they do not need as much height as Platypus legitimately requires, but it is a fact in both cases 50 feet is inadequate. He said they should be doing everything they can to maximize Port investments. His personal preference would be to see Platypus proceed and for his company to be able to expand so they can use the heavy haul-out for the kinds of benefits the heavy haul-out has made possible. He said the Port has not currently managed to realize the market on these large yachts.. · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 17 Chair Thayer closed discussion assuring people they would have opportunity to testify at the public hearing. She then received questions from the audience. Qµestions from the Audience: Q Has seen what he thinks are called jib cranes in steel fabrication locations that come out from the wall and make a. half circle; would that be usable instead of a bridge crane and save 10 feet of height? A Mr. Bryant: The bridge crane they are proposing will be able to go in every comer of that shop. The crane they are using now in Townsend Bay's facility travels everywhere. They have a jib crane that swings out, but doesn't think that is what they are looking for; they are looking for something that goes up, down, back and forth. Q It was stated they need a 65 foot opening in order to do the business that has been planned. He questioned the percentage of business that requires that height in terms of the number of ships, the dollar volume or whatever determined that to be the maximum height; has a study been done? A Mr. Bryant: Said he did not know of any study, but the way boats are being built they are getting larger and larger. Q So this is a forecast; that maybe in the next few years you will have boats that require those heights? A Mr~ Bryant: They already have boats that require the height; the numbers are growing and growing. He said right now not every boat is going to require 65 feet. Chair Thayer asked for recommendations for Staff: Recommendations/Suß(:estions: Ms. Thayer suggested some options, 1) to approve, if they so decide; 2) to deny based on the Comp Plan under 4.26, Policy 9.8, " . . . work closely with the Port of Port Townsend to provide for the development of the boat haven. . . . in a way that ensures the viability of long- term maime uses, the viability of the area for Port related uses and compatibility of surrounding areas;" Gateway Plan, Streetscape recommendations, page 20, ~è.. . . The views of the bay along this section of corridor create a significant and lasting impression for visitors traveling eastbound into Port Townsend. . . . building heights should be limited to protect views. . . .'!> Mr. Randall said he had touched on those in SEPA, but hadn't done a big analysis. Mr. Mandelbaum said assuming for the moment there is a nee~ and the visual impacts are there, he questioned whether for the community and the entire city to have the benefit of this economic growth, all the impact has to be on a handful of people. He had a question as to what - . . . Nanning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 18 you can do about that, particularly people who may have bought property after the Gateway Plan, whether there is any precedent in other communities for uS considering setting some portion of the incremental tax revenues for those who have the severe impacts. Ms. Erickson responded they would have to go retroactively, and she thinks of all the homes and people who have come the last 10 years before the Planning Commission complaining of their views being impacted by a neighbor or business. She said they have never guaranteed views through height limitations. Ms. Thayer qualified that statement to remind that heights of residences have been limited to 30 feet, and people rely on that. If somebody builds in front of them and obstructs their view but still stays within that 30 foot limitation, it is correct, but those heights have not been increased after people have built. Ms. Erickson was unsure about looking into a financial consideration of those impacted. Mr. Mandelbaum said he had his own ambivalence, but thought they should be looking at it. Mr. Harbison noted there had been consideration of orientation to building on a site and said part of what they are looking at is best efforts in seeing that this is the best. Mr. Randall concurred and said initially when these folks came in with a request for a building Mr. Crockett put a lot of thought into the least impact a very large building can have and had been riding around his neighborhood looking to try to find the orientation. A lot of that has been done, and limitations of where when you have a big long boat and have turning room, it restricts the orientation a lot. He said he thinks probably this is the best location for the building; the question is the height in relation to the citizens of Port Townsend. Mr. Worden said to Mr. Crockett that it looked to him in the aerial photograph if the opening of the building is pointed essentially at a curve and that the access of the building and orientation shown is going to be a little awkward, assuming you have to travel a certain distance in a straight line to get into the building. Mr. Crockett illustrated by pointing out on the photograph. There was discussion regarding researching the impact of other policies and plans. Ms. Thayer stated there is a lot of testimony anticipated and that initially they will limit testimony to 5 minutes each and allow more time at the end if there is time. VI. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Mandelbaum asked if the Planning Commission could take the initiative to address affordable housing. Chair Thayer suggested they address the issue after the first of the year. Mr. Mandelbaum said in anticipation of a large volume of public testimony on this Port · · · Planning Commission Minutes October 14. 1999 Page 19 issue, he wondered if people could use e-mail as an alternative. The issue of having to identify exhibits was raised. Chair Thayer announced the October 25th stun improvement project public hearing at City Hall, and suggested some might want to attend. Mr. Leedy answered questioning that if there is material available he would provide it to Commissioners. Mr. Dave Peterson is the lead person. Mr. Larry Crockett, Port Manager, read his objections to a personal letter Planning Commission Chair Thayer sent to the Port regarding the issues surrounding the request to raise the building height limit within the Port. He spoke of the impropriety and that she should have recused herself, stating that what is legislative may become judicial. He felt she did not "take the high road." Ms. Thayer responded that she was addressing the SEPA issues only, that it was a separation of issues. She explained that the matter will not have an impact on her property, and that as a Planning Commission member she serves the community as a whole. She pointed out for the record that she had thoroughly discussed her participation with the City Attorney beforehand, and he had advised her regarding her rights. Ms. Erickson stated that she and Ms. Thayer had both been on the Planning Commission for approximately 10 years, that in a small town like this it is very hard not to have an opinion. She pointed out that all of the Commissioners come from different areas and their diverse perspectives are important to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harbison indicated they had discussed this at a previous meeting and concluded it was appropriate for her to participate. Mr. Mandelbaum stated that these issues were upfront and it has helped him to make evaluations. He said he would rather have Ms. Thayer here for her input, and he did not feel uncomfortable with her participation. Mr. Crockett stated he had felt the need to express his concern that Mr~ Thayer had not taken the high road. CommeJ1t from the Audi~nce: Q Said he keeps hearing the issue of the Platypus building and 5 acre plus rezoning. He said he believed this issue today was about rezoning, and believed the directions to City Staff were in seveml cases directed toward the Platypus building.. A Chair Thayer said that was not their intent if that was the direction to City Staff. Q Has to be considered ftom anyplace within the rezoning. A Chair Thayer concurred and said they are aware of that. Ms. Erickson said she thought they were using that as a sample of need to build at that height. Q Accepted there is a need, but did not accept the 5 acre area. A Suggested that could be brought up at the hearing. " . ",. " Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 20 Mr. Sokol made the point this is not a rezone but a request for height change. Chair Thayer concurred the zoning stays the same. VII. October 28. 1999 Port of Port Townsend (LUP99-72) Zoning Code Text Amendment - height limit (open-record public hearing) VIII. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting waS made by Ms. Erickson and seconded by Ms. Ota. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m. a~~~~ Cindy Thay · Chair .~~ . Sheila Avis" Minute Taker ~. . . Guest List Meeting of: ¡)¿/; /V/F>'>VÇj tON .A1/55/0/{/ Purpose: Date: /O/¡<//qCj I Name (,Ie," ,rind ~ I Address I T~=~ìon~~ I /Fo/ 2.?....~ ~rT X 8,5.1"" I ( ?i. ~ 9~~ r4c.Æ~ 4,"\ ~ -7J( ~ q 1'1 HAINes fLAc-e ". x /' ~~ l' ", x.. x LJ~J/ ----------:-.:.;¡¡¡