HomeMy WebLinkAbout060806 Minutes
e
e
e
City of Port Townsend
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 6:00 PM
Fire Hall
Meeting Materials:
EXH. I Planning Conunission Agenda - June 8, 2006
EXH. 2 Matt Elder letter to Planning Commission, undated, Re: Zoning Text Amendment
Request (Sharron-Elder Yachts letterhead)
EXH. 3 Point Hudson Area Maps and support materials packet
EXH. 4 SEP A Checklist, June 6, 2006 - Shannon-Elder Proposed Code Amendments,
Attachment A
EXH.5 Draft of proposed ordinance, amending Table 17.22.020
EXH. 6 Handout: Bellingham and Anacortes waterfront zoning examples, from Mary Winters
EXH. 7 Guest Sign-in Sheet
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. He explained that there had been an error in the
newspaper announcement, which stated that the meeting would begin at 7:00 PM. He said that anyone
arriving at or before 7 :00 PM would be given an opportunity to speak.
II.
ROLL CALL:
Planning Conunission members present were: Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels,
Liesl Slabaugh, Cindy Thayer and George Vnterseher. Harriet Capron was excused.
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
Chair Randels asked if anyone wished to suggest changes to the agenda; there were none. Chair Randels
moved that agenda be adopted, The agenda was approved, all in favor.
IV.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None. There were no guests in attendance at this meeting.
V. NEW BUSINESS:
Proposed Text Amendment
Mr. Sepler said that when City Council had met on Monday, June 5 they requested a text amendment that
would affect narrowly C-II and C- III conunercial properties adjacent to the Point Hudson Malina. This
matter was remanded for the Planning Commission to consider and hold a public hearing on, and to
forward reconunendations back to City Council.
He said that the purpose of this meeting was to hear from the proponents, and to discuss the implications
and the issues that would result from the proposed amendment. The SEP A review process has been
initiated and the state has been contacted for an expedited review on a minor amendment for zoning. The
draft amendment delineates the issue clearly. He said, however, it would be appropriate to allow some
time for the proponents to provide some background and to request the amendment, to describe its need,
and for the Planning Conunission to hear how it would be implemented on their site, and on other sites
affected by the change.
Ms. Thayer asked if Mary Winters was representing the client or the Port. Ms. Winters replied that the
clients had requested her help, and that she had consulted with the Port to ensure that there was no
e
conflict of interest. She said that she sees this as a narrow zoning code issue that does not impact the
Port other than the need for a sign.
Ms. Winters introduced Josh Greene, long term Port Townsend resident and wood craftsman/draftsman
working with Shannon-Elder, who had agreed to help represent them at this meeting. She thanked the
Commissioners for arranging and moving the meeting time. She said that the president, Matt Elder, had
been expected to attend, but was unable to make the arrangements to fly back from California with his
family in time for the meeting. She said that Pat Shannon, the other full partner of Shannon-Elder
Yachts, resides in Portland and also has a different business there.
Ms. Winters referred to Exh. 2, a letter from Mr. Elder that describes the formation, hackground and
plans for the business. Conunissioners reviewed the letter silently before Ms. Winters continued with
her remarks.
Ms. Winters said that she believes that this business is a great use for this site. Her clients had asked her
about the zoning code. She said that the current zoning allows boat sales and rentals, and that presently
Fleet Marine is doing repairs, yacht brokerage and retail. This client, Shannon-Elder, wishes to do boat
building. She said that the City was very inclined to work with the client, noting that the use was close
enongh to the type of activity done in the past, while acknowledging this to be non-conforming use in the
C-II zone. However, she said that for any manufacturer to buy a business that was at capacity was too
great a risk. The non-conforming use sections of the Port Townsend code say that a con-conforming use
cannot be expanded, intensified or changed in any way. Her advice to the client was that although the
City was very receptive, they would be buying with the risk of constraints in the code.
e
She said that City staff; when consulted, also saw them as a good purchaser. Regarding the location, she
brought up the nearby Northwest Maritime Center, which is in the C-III zone (historic- conunercial),
where boat building is not allowed. The business would be part of Point Hudson, with the Shoreline
(SMP) overlay, where boat building is allowed. So, this would be a case where the zoning code and the
SMP regulations did not mesh. Therefore, the decision was made to ask for an amendment to the C-II
zoning code, which would have the obvious problem of applying to C-II everywhere in the City. Would
boat building, repair, and manufacturing really be appropriate for every C-II zone? She said they were
also aware of the spot zoning issue. In working with staff, they concluded that a sensible way to limit the
use amendment would be to specify areas that are adjacent or contiguous with the M-llB zone, which has
been designed to be highly supportive of marine trades.
She said that her client also needs to make clear why changing to M-IIB would not be a more appropriate
step. There were two problems with that solution. It would require a comp plan amendment for the map
change and the closing date is the end of July. Second, the client is paying for the highest and the best
use: commercial, retail and mixed use, not marine trades; tbey do have a lease with the Port to use the
travel lift, but if that ever went away, for whatever reason, or if there were storm water issues, it is
possible that they could not build boats and repair boats there. In summary, this would not be a viable
investment under those conditions. The amendment, however, does seem to meet everybody's needs.
Ms. Winters reminded that this is a small scale business, with plans to build just one boat in the first year,
thereby doubling the income (less costs). The ultimate goal is to increase to five boats per year, staying
within the size and scale ofthe site. She said that fiberglass is quieter and less intrusive environmentally
than steel or wood. She then asked if Josh Greene had anything to add.
e
Mr. Greene said that he thought the letter and Ms. Winters had covered the topic, and that he would be
happy to answer questions. He said that the group was hoping for the ability to expand at some point, or
rather that they have been known as a "boutique boatyard"; there are hundreds of such businesses on the
East Coast, but not quite as many here on the West Coast. Eventually, they would like to reach the five
boat per year projection, including some other small boats. He said that the fiberglass techniques that are
used now are much less intrusive than those of the past.
e
Ms. Thayer asked if the intention for this meeting was to ask questions and not to raise concerns. Chair
Randels suggested that it might be appropriate to voice any concerns so that Ms. Winters and her clients
could be prepared to deal with them at the upcoming hearing. Ms. Thayer said that her only concern
would be the noise factor. Mr. Unterseher said that he did not believe noise would be a problem but that
fiberglass itself might be problematic. Ms. Thayer mentioned that Townsend Bay handles fiberglass, and
that it is not noisy. However, she lives above the Boat Haven, and wished to raise noise as a potential
problem. Ms. Winters responded that any potential expansion, beyond the current use, would be subject
to SEPA review, which would cover any noise issues. She then asked Mr. Greene if the current facility
was large enough for more than one boat. Mr. Greene said that the believed there was space sufficient
for two boats, and possibly a third, depending on the stages of production. Regarding the noise, he said
there would be no change from what is going on there now. He said that he thinks there may be more
grinding of fiberglass in repair processes than would occur in building boats. Currently the intrusion
process involves satorating the fiberglass rather than repeatedly applying and grinding.
Mr. Unterseher asked about the air quality issues. Mr. Greene said that he thought SEP A would address
that, and that the business would be using filters that meet the evolving requirements, and defmitely not
releasing fiberglass into the neighborhood. Mr. Vnterseher said that this was a big issue, and described
problems in other locales such as Seattle and Kent. He said that similar businesses were being forced to
move outward from city centers, away from residential areas, due to the air quality issues. He noted that
the location is "right downtown", and fiberglass smells really bad. Ms. Slabaugh asked for clarification
on whether the problem is fumes or particles; Mr. Unterseher replied, "Fumes", and Mr. Emery further
specified that it was the VOCs (volatile organic compounds). He asked if there would be improvements
to the building itself; he said the building was built in 1962. Mr. Green said that he was unable to answer
that question, that there had been some talk of changes but that the space planning was ongoing. Mr.
Emery said that, basically, he was concerned about how well the building was sealed, and how much
intrusion to the environment there might be.
e
Mr. Unterseher clarified that the current lift is capable of handling 48 foot vessels, and Mr. Greene
agreed.
Mr. Randels, referring to the statement in the letter about ''the addition of five living wage jobs...", asked
about the current number of Fleet employees. Ms. Winters and Mr. Greene both responded that there are
currently twelve (12) employees. Mr. Randels stated that this would mean 17 employees by the end of
the first year and as many as 36 total in year 5.
Ms. Winters noted that if Mr. Elder were present he could prohably speak more to the fiberglass issue.
She noted that, per the letter, due to space constraints, some of the current repair work would be
displaced by the manufacturing. Mr. Emery said that the yard in front would still be available for repairs,
in any case. Ms. Thayer asked if Matt Elder would be present for the hearing and Ms. Winters said that
he would.
Mr. Unterseher then asked for an explanation on how the Northwest Maritime Center was involved or
related to all of this. Mr. Sepler responded that the current zoning for C-III (i.e., applies to the Northwest
Maritime Center) does not permit boat building. However, it is within the Shoreline Overlay, and that
would take precedence over the zoning. This proposed amendment would insure consistency. He noted
that the adoption of the SMP could be many months away, and it would be well to get this change on the
books. Ms. Slabaugh asked if the Maritime Center property overlaps with this property. The answer was
no, but that the NWMC will have certain boat building, and related classes and functions. Although
these uses are consistent with the SMP, they are not currently permitted by the C-III zoning code. The
NWMC also does not have the non-conformity exception that Fleet has.
e
Mr. Sepler noted that one of the challenges is the acknowledgement that, generally, boat-building is more
economical upland, away from water, due to the availability and price of land, transportation options, etc.
However, much of the character of Port Townsend is based on having it in close proximity, hence the
e
idea oflooking for the adjacencies, so that anything that could be establisbed there would be supportive
of the character. Also, if an existing use can be maintained, it would be in the public interest.
Ms. Slabaugh: "I know you said, Mary, that the whole rationale of why this property is currently C-11 is
irrelevant, but is there some public interest aspect embedded in that zoning non-conforming designation
that should be brought out here." Ms. Winters replied that when she first came to the City in 1994, there
was litigation over the G2B site, which was then owned by others besides the current owners, e.g. Bernie
Arthur, Patty Sullivan and John . It was related to SMP issues, and was then zone d P-I, Public
Infrastructure. The City prevailed in that litigation, but the issue didn't die because poI was not an
appropriate zoning for it. She said she did not have clear recollections about how it came to be zoned C-
11, although she thought there had been threats of litigation because the zoning did not coincide with the
use. It may have been that it was too difficult for a business to survive with just repair. G2B had worked
long and hard to bring the marine trades to the conununity but they did not see that as the highest and the
best use, so they looked for the best fit in terms of zoning that could and should be there. She did not
recall if there was actually litigation, but it ultimately became C-II.
Ms. Thayer said that, having been on the Planning Commission at that time, she had the same
recollection. The owners wanted to build a condominium or a mixed use project, and it was a very
volatile issue for a number of years. Ms. Winters said that it is still a volatile issue for the current
owners, and that Shannon-Elder had done a fantastic job of working with them, and all parties.
e
Mr. Randels returned to an earlier remark by Mr. Sepler, wherein he had noted that the SMP may not be
adopted for several months. He asked if there was any new information. Mr. Sepler said no, that there
would be a hearing on June 15, but that the DOE conunents had not been provided in advance. He said
that the DOE had informed Judy Surber that they wished to treat it as a celebration. There was a brief
discussion as to whether or not that was an appropriate process for the DOE to follow. Mr. Sepler
reported that, in his understanding, the DOE would hold a hearing in every jurisdiction for consistency.
Ms. Winters said that, to her dismay, a review of the WACS revealed that the DOE is not required to give
their comments in advance. Also, they mayor may not hold a hearing; and they must give their
conunents to the City within the 30 day conunent period, If the City accepts or modifies them, there is
no requirement to have public input on that portion of the process. Mr. Randels added that the DOE
should be informed that there is a significant segment of the Port Townsend citizenry that strongly
disapproves of that process.
Returning to the concerns raised about noise and air quality, Ms. Winters posed a question for the
Conunission. She noted that this amendment would be a legislative decision, applying to a limited
number of sites. She said that any specific impacts would be dealt with by the SEP A review process, at
the building perntit stage. So, if the change were enacted, there wouldn't be any SEP A review for the
existing building. She said she would like to know of anything that the client could provide that would
assure the Commission that this would be an appropriate use of the site. She noted that they could not do
a whole environmental review for a site specific project, because there is no development project at this
point. Mr. Vnterseher said, "What if the State imposes some air quality standards that preclude this type
of operation here, as they seem to be doing in Kent. In such a case, what happens to the property?"
Mr. Sepler said, "That could occur now, to be fair." "It is subject to SEPA review; there is a SEPA
conunent period now. One of the things that we could consider is to specify, for any of these properties,
that best management practices be applied, consistent with all of the available policies and state
guidelines that we have towards air quality, construction materials, things of that nature. That is a
requirement that would run with any of these properties, and I don't think the applicant would not be
amenable to that... it is standard operating procedure. Clearly, you should have some reasonable plan to
address it, and it should meet all the requirements that are there."
e
Mr. Greene said he would like to add that there are currently filters in the building, and which are
monitored by the EP A; this includes information on V OCs (volatile organic compounds) and HAPs
(hazardous air pollutants). He said that the company wholeheartedly wishes to stay within the standards.
e
He again added that the upcoming work and impacts would not be much more than what is currently
happening.
Mr. Randels asked Mr. Vnterseher if the government guidelines mentioned in relation to Kent were
federal or state. Mr. Unterseher replied that state guidelines, as they have become more and more
stringent, are affecting fiberglass boat businesses to the extent that it is no longer feasible for them to
remain in their current locations. In response to Mr. Randels' follow up question, he said he did not
know whether state guidelines were more stringent than federal guidelines.
Ms. Thayer requested a review ofthe locations ofC-II zones, currently. Mr. Sepler said he would
describe the generalized areas as those along the shoreline going up to Gateway; and, for Gateway, the
area between Discovery Bay Road and Rte.20. (The Business Park is a PUD, so it has its own zoning,
but it is adjacent to a ColI zone). He referred to the first page ofExh. 3, a map highlighting the four
properties to which this amendment would apply. He explained that the area marked as the G2B parking
lot is actually the Skate Board Park. The Williams Property is the site of the Rienstra Monroe Street
Clinic. He said that in considering this amendment, it should be noted that we are not denying a use that
is already allowed, and we are trying to encourage a use that is consistent with what the people of the
City have envisioned for that end of town. While the other properties, such as the Skate Board Park will
not convert, the Maritime Center might have some uses. They certainly will be covered by Shorelines,
this would provide consistency, and perhaps there would be some opportunities at these other parcels.
He said that one could imagine any of those converted, and that would provide a good transition from the
historic district into the Point Hudson area.
e
Ms. Winters said that, in response to a discussion with Judy Surber about other jurisdictions, she had
brought materials regarding zoning in Bellingham and Anacones (Exh. 6). She noted that these cities
seemed quite comfortable with manufacturing/industrial uses located around other uses, even residential.
Ms. Thayer asked if these documents would be in the packet for the hearing. Ms. Winters replied that
since they would be part of the record for this meeting, she had not intended to provide duplicate copies
for the hearing on June 22, 2006.
Chair Randels invited Ms. Thayer to funnel any questions or concerns to himself or any other
Commissioner, since she is scheduled to be out oftown at the time of the hearing. She said that she had
no further concerns than those raised during this meeting.
Mr. Randels asked if Mr. Greene or Ms. Winters had any further conunents. Mr. Greene said that he was
very excited to be part of the project. He said that the Point Hudson area lends itself very well to what
Shannon-Elder is doing. He noted that he and Matt Elder had discussed on several occasions, the
desirability of maintaining and rejuvenating the "scene" that is Point Hudson, and that along with the
Maritime Center, they would be a great addition to the area. He said that those who are not boaters may
not realize it, but that Point Hudson is a gateway to this conununity. He said that they hoped to be there
to help welcome people arriving in Port Townsend from Seattle, the San Juans, and elsewhere. Ms.
Winters added a few remarks that she had heard from Matt Elders. Regarding Fleet Marine, he had said
they were the right people redeveloping it to the highest and best use they could see within the marine
trades, and that that is a rare conunodity. The opportunity and talent present in Port Townsend has to be
developed. She said there is a tension between the smaller "funky" sides of the marine trades, and the
bigger, more business-like instances at the Boat Haven. Fleet Marine has been somewhat "in the
middle". This business is what Mr. Greene has termed a "boutique developmenf', and what seems to her
as being the right size, as fitting in, as bringing professionalism, a business plan, people with capital to
invest in local talent, and what seems to be a really good organization. She added that in changing the
zoning code, we don't know who will be there in the future, but that these people are quite conunitted to
Port Townsend. And, if it didn't work out, nothing is hurt; you have a use that you prefer there, and that
is then allowed for any different owner.
e
Chair Randels noted that the schedule requested by Ms. Winters had been met, although there remained
the dilenuna of having finished before the published start time of the meeting. Mr. Sepler said that he
e
e
e
had hoped to have the consultant for Upper Sims Way in attendance at this meeting (which would have
extended the duration of the meeting). He explained, however, that the selection process was running
about two weeks behind schedule, and that the consultant would be on hand for the next meeting on
Upper Sims Way. He offered to stay until at least 7:05 PM to greet and brief any members of the public
who may arrive, and to answer any questions that they may have about the proposed zoning amendment.
He said that if any issues are raised, he would send out that information bye-mail the following day.
Chair Randels said that he would supplement that by agreeing to stay as well.
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be mijourned Mr. Emery seconded the motion, and all were in
favor. Chair Randels mijourned the meeting at 6: 45 PM
( /?f
'7 // ./...//
/ //7 '--
,/2-/' /;:Yr"
George Ran~, Chair
/ /l '
"1 ,/. I
,';-;;7~( IdikJ~
Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder