Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110906 Minutes CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Third Floor Conference Room Thnrsday, November 9, 2006, 7:00 PM Meeting Materials: EXH. I Agenda for November 9, 2006 EXH. 2 Attachment 2, Ecology Required Changes to SMP Draft December 2 I, 2005 EXH.3 Attachment 3, Recommended Changes to SMP Draft December 21,2005 EXH.4 J. Surber, Memo to R. Sepler, Background on Bedrooms as Measure of Density in the R-II1 and R-IV Zoning Districts, November 9,2006 EXH. 5 R. Sepler, Memo to Planning Conunission, DweIling Units versus Bedrooms as a Measure of Density in Single Family Attached Housing in R-II1 and R-IV Zoning Districts, November 9,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair George Randels caIled the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL: The foIlowing Planning Commission members were present: Harriet Capron, Alice King, Roger Lizut, George Randels, Julian Ray, Lies\ Slabaugh and Cindy Thayer. Steve Emery and George Unterseher were excused. Staff: Judy Surber, Senior Planner III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Ms. Thayer moved that the agenda be approved, and Mr. Ray seconded. The agenda was approved as written, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of minutes for November 2, 2006 was deferred to allow more time for Commissioners to review them. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2006 Page I 01'8 VII. NEW BUSINESS: Workshop on Ecology Required and Recommended Changes to the Draft SMP (Judy Surber, Senior Planner) Ms. Surber explained that she had sent out, electronically, additional attachments 2 and 3 (EXH. 2 and 3) to the DOE's letter of October 27,2006 regarding the approval of the SMP Comprehensive Update. She acknowledged that the review and approval process had been somewhat prolonged and disjointed on the part of the DOE. Additionally, the primary contact Jeffree Stewart had left on paternity leave in the midst of this period. On a positive note, the DOE had accepted Ms. Surber's suggested table fonnat, which was of some help in moving the process along. The required changes are limited to those that were absolutely necessary to be in compliance with State WAC (Washington Administrative Code) and RCW (Revised Code of Washington) provisions. The set of recommended changes was based on suggestions from City of Port Townsend staff to clarify ambiguous areas or apparent inconsistencies in the SMP document, thereby avoiding administrative problems and possibly amendments at a later date. She reminded that this evening's meeting was to orient the Planning Commission to the required and recommended changes, to be followed by a public hearing noticed for November 30 at the Fire Hall. In the interim, she said she had sent out an e-mail with attachments to the original SMP distribution list inviting all to discuss any issues they may have with the proposed changes. She said she also called Larry Crockett, Port of Port Townsend, to arrange a meeting to review the changes. Following the Planning Commissjon process and recommendation, the revisjons will go to City Council for the final decision. The intention is that the entire SMP Update becomes effective at the date of a letter from City Council to the DOE accepting the changes. However, Ms. Surber noted that some time is needed to incorporate the edits into the draft, and to prepare printed copies for the public and staff. AJso, there is an appeal period after the letter of acceptance, after which the SMP Update is tinally done. Mr. Lizut asked if Ms. Surber could estimate how much time may be needed for City Council's process once they have received the Planning Commission recommendations. She said she did not anticipate any major obstacles and that she was still hoping everything would be completed by December (2006). Attachment I, Findings and Conclusions (EXH. 4 from November 2, 2006 meeting): Mr. Randels said that he had several questions regarding the "findings". For example, on page 5, he questioned the DOE comments in reference to "spot zoning" under the Responsiveness Summary - Mixed Use Development/Overwater Structures. Ms. Surber explained that during the public comment period, Hastings Estate Company, owners of the Surf Restaurant, submitted a proposal that showed a five-story building in place of the existing one-story building; the uses were not water dependent. The City had advised Hastings to create a design that scaled back and went up, but their written request did not do that. Ms. Surber read from her letter of August 7, 2006 to DOE regarding the City of Port Townsend response to comments: 'Turning now to the request from the Hastings Estate Company, the City is concerned with the scale and precedent of the proposed revision. We have met with the proponent on several occasions over the last few months and we will continue to work with the Hastings Estate Company on reasonable alternatives for the redevelopment of the property. Our discussions may weIl result in a request Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2006 Page 2 of8 to amend the City's SMP. However, at this point in the process, it is not in the public's best interest to further delay adoption of the SMP as a whole by intCIjecting a potentiaIly controversial site specific amendment." Mr. Randels said that he did not disagree, but that he had not understood why the DOE would voice their opinion on a zoning issue. Ms. Surber said that the allowed uses on overwater structures must be approved under both the existing and updated SMP programs. She added that she had been asking for their input on redevelopment options for the Surf (Restaurant) all along, given that the WACs are very specific on the point that a non- conforming use can be replaced in kind, meaning a one-story building. Tms redevelopment request is for a five-story building, including residential use, but the WACs do not permit residential overwater uses. Therefore, this issue is potentially more complex and time- consuming that can be accommodated witmn the adoption of the SMP Update process. Mr. Lizut referred to the e-mail he had sent Ms. Surber about the status and guidelines for redevelopment, in tms case. Ms. Surber said that the structure itself is deteriorating, and so the horizontal surface, the pier, must be completely replaced. As a non-conforming structure, it can be repaired or replaced with the existing square footage, and that also applies to the building. The requirement is that the footprint must be the same, and in kind is interpreted to mean that no additional floors or stories may be added. However, if the applicant can demonstrate public or environmental benefit by pulling back (from the water) and up, with an equivalent square footage, then the City and DOE may be able to agree to this as part of the SMP. However, the proposed design is not within negotiable bounds. Mr. Randels asked when the building became non-conforming. Ms. Surber said she did not know for certain, but that the old SMP allows for water enjoyment uses on historic listed overwater structures; the Surf is not a registered mstoric structure. The downtown is a historic landmark district but certain buildings witmn it are specifically listed as mstoric. Mr. Lizut said there was an open question that he and the HPC had had difficulty in answering: What are the boundaries of the Historic Overlay District with respect to the water? If some structure extends out into the water, is it subject to design review under the mstoric district or not? There was mention of Union Wharf and the Cannery being subject to that review. Chair Randels said he believed that any structure within the Historic Overlay District, regardless of its own mstoric status, would be subject to it. Ms. Surber said that she would attempt to follow up on the question with Mr. Watts, City Attorney. Several Connnissioners expressed their desire to move on with reviewing the SMP changes. Mr. Randels suggested that the group deal with the Recommended Changes ( EXH. 3) before the required changes, and there were no objections. Mr. Randels asked Ms. Surber if she was comfortable with and in support of all the recommended changes, since she had suggested many ofthem herself. Ms. Surber called attention to the following items, and eXplained the siguificance. Page 2, #10: She explained that for residential type development, if a conditional use was required, say for a Bed and Breakfast, then it would be required even if located within Shorelines jurisdiction. The original made sense for the downtown historic district but not for residential districts. Page 2, #14: Ms. Surber said that a graphic will be provided at the November 30 meeting, so that this item can be more easily understood. She drew a diagram on the board and Commissioners recognized the issue, with Indian Point as an example. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9,2006 Page 301'8 Page 2, #15: Text rewording for clarity, to make consistent with the zoning code. Page 2, #16: This is to clarify when a shoreline variance is needed. Page 2, #17: AU refers to the Adjacent Upland and will be listed in the table legend. Page 2, #18: This change clarifies temporary use and lists certain types in Table 5, elirnjnating the need to obtain DOE final approval on these permits. Page 2, # 19: Mr. Randels asked if private femes are accounted for. Ms. Surber said this addresses the public holding areas only; private ferries would be permitted. Page 3, #20 and 21: Ms. Surber explained that the coordination process of two consultants dealing with Critical Areas and SMP had gotten out of synch in terms of the language consistency. These changes eliminate redundant sections in the SMP that can be referenced in the CAO. Page 4, #22: This is to clarify public/private separation and the applicability to new multi-family residential development, not to single-family. Chair Randels questioned how this may impact Indian Point, for example, and Ms. Surber said she would make a note to research the issue. Page 4, #23: Chair Randels asked if the Kiwanis signs along the curve on the bluff approaching Fort Worden would be disallowed, as well. Ms. Surber said that she did not believe those would be considered advertising signs, and Ms. Thayer pointed out that they were more than 200 feet from the shoreline. (Mr. Lizut noted, as an aside, that he had leamed that the Sign advisory group would not likely be convened until early 2007.) Page 4, #24: Clarifies recreational stairways and landings. Page 4, #28: Clarifies rules for underground utilities and allows for flexibility, based on cost and practicality considerations. Page 5, #29-3 I: Clarifies clearing and grading issues, particularly with regard to differences in CAO buffer areas versus setback areas. Mr. Randels pointed out a word transposition in 3 I. Page 5, #34-35: Ms. Surber pointed out an inconsistency with the WACs regarding stabilization, and explained the associated textual changes. Page 5, #33: Chair Randels suggested that perhaps tms should allow a partial waiver by the administrator. Ms. Surber mghlighted tms item for further review. Page 6, #41-42: Addresses notification and consistency with the Municipal Code. Page 7, #44: Changes defrnjtion of buffer to be consistent with CAO. Page 7, #25: Clarifies defmition of commercial development. Page 7, #46: This is to clarify the SMP definition of single family dwelling, particularly its difference from the PTMC definition. Page 7, #47: Definitions of Height and Grade Plane are deleted, defemng to the PTMC. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9,2006 Page 4 of8 Page 8, #48: Clarifies, by exclusion, the definition of Residential Development With regard to the Housekeeping Items, pages 9 - 10, Ms. Surber pointed out the following: Page 9, #58: Adds Mooring Buoys to the Use Table, to make consistent with section 8.1 O. Page 10, #64: Changes a specification regarding bulkhead construction to make it consistent with RCW 77.55.1 41. Page 10, #66: Chair Randels asked ifthis item limits the ability to change the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Surber responded that, in her opinion, it did not. Page 10, #67-68: These items are intended to clean up the criteria for granting variances, and eliminating superfluous language. Ms. Surber said she will reread and re-verify before the next meeting. In moving on to Required Changes (EXH. 2), Ms. Thayer noted that Ms. Surber had received praise from several quarters regarding her work on the SMP project. Ms. Surber said she very much enjoyed the overall process. She clarified that should there be disagreement with any of the required items the City would need to offer an altemative to the DOE change. Item 2: Exemptions are not allowed for temporary uses. Item 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: All deal with overwater structures. This is to be very explicit that water dependent uses, public access, and restoration are all that are allowed on new overwater structures. DOE allowed for historic buildings in Port Townsend to have emergency exits at the back, in some cases, to comply with the building code. Regarding the permitting of water enjoyment uses, the draft SMP Update had continued the rules of the previous SMP, allowed adaptive reuse, and encouraged the City to turn its face to the shoreline for those historic structures. For piers, docks and wharfs, the City wanted to have water enjoyment uses, but the DOE said those uses should be only "in", not "on", historic buildings. In the definitions, the definition of an overwater building under the SMP was explicit, in order to limit the applicability. Mr. Randels questioned the phrase "mixed use on an over water structure". Ms. Surber gave the example of a water dependent use, such as a passenger ferry, with a small kiosk selling beverages as a mixed use. There was a brief discussion of what is or is not allowed by the WACs. She explained that the Sirens upper deck, if new, or the commercial use of a portion of the Cannery with outdoor tables would not be permitted under the SMP Update. If a deck is for public access to the water, it is allowed. Conunissioners cited several other examples to clarify their understanding of what constitutes public access. In response to a question, Ms. Surber explained the acronyms, MLL W (Mean lower low water) and MHHW (Mean higher high water). Ms. Surber said that in the preceding examples that pertain to overwater structures, the changes allowed are specific to water dependent public access, restoration and emergency access, but not water enjoyment uses unless part of a mixed use development. Upper story decks and balconies are allowed only for public access, not for water enjoyment. Refemng to item 6, Mr. Randels asked if and why the DOE had specific jurisdiction over mstoric structures. Ms. Surber explained that in different sections of the draft, different terms had been used: "historic Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2006 Page 501'8 structures" and "buildings legally established prior to 2006". Mr. Randels asked why tills language could not be applied to a non-historic building? Ms. Surber said that it would apply to an existing building, but not to a new one. Ms. Surber said that she would illghlight that item for discussion, as well as the question of whether new buildings could or should, rather than having their public access component on the upland side, push out over the beach for providing the public access component. Mr. Randels requested clarification on item 9. DR-5.6.7. Ms. Surber said that the intent is to allow anyone of a, b, c, or d to occur on overwater structures, and she would also illghlight that item for the hearing. Items I I - 17: Ms. Surber said that this group of items deals with mixed use development. During the SMP Update process, the definition from the 1994 Guidebook that says mixed use development means a water dependent or water related use combined with non-water oriented etc. The new guidelines say water dependent only. Therefore, the terminology had to be changed, but not the intent. To avoid having to change all the sections of the SMP Update that would be affected (e.g. Boat Haven and Point Hudson) she had suggested to the DOE that a different descriptive phrase such as "a mix of uses" or "a combination of uses" would be used. Chair Randels questioned the reference to the Landfall Restaurant maximum square footage (1400 square feet) in item 16. He said his recollection was that the maximum was 7000 square feet, with the restaurant being 50%, or 3500 square feet. Ms. Surber said that a restaurant is a water enjoyment use, and the maximum square footage for restaurants is 4,000 square feet. The non-water oriented uses (not restaurants) could not exceed 20%, or 1400 square feet. He also pointed out a reference to the Boat Haven which should have read Point Hudson or Hudson Point. Items 18, 20-23, 29 and 34: Tills group of items is related to Critical Areas. The main change has to deal with reasonable use exceptions. Ms. Surber noted that the DOE wished to eliminate tills exception, willIe the City maintained that that would constitute a "takings". The DOE said that there is no provision for reasonable use exceptions, and they would ueed to be processed through DOE. Therefore, the City's suggestion to require a Shoreline Variance was accepted by the Attomey General's office. Practically speaking, for a reasonable use exception under the CAO, a Shoreline Variance is required. It must be processed with a public hearing and approval at the local level, then on to DOE for approval. Mr. Randels pointed out that with tills arrangement, the SMP prevails rather than the stricter CAO provision, and that he did not see that as appropriate. Ms. Surber noted, however, that a lessening of the regulations would require a change to the City's SMP. Item 24: Minor number change from 6 to 5. Item 25: Tills involves a clarification under Clearing and Grading. There are circumstances where this would be allowed over a steep bluff, such as the public stairs to the beach at Fort Worden. Item 27-28: These items are intended to clarify geo-technical report requirements and the rights of the shoreline property owners. Item 3 I: This adds language to clarify what repairs and alterations can be made to a non- conforming structure. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9,2006 Page 6 01'8 Item 32: Tills refers to Table 14.7-1 Restoration Opportunjties, that was not among the exhibits for the meeting. Ms. Surber said that the WACs require prioritization of the list, and that the City compromised by designating each Restoration Opportunity as High, Medium or Low priority. A list will be provided in advance ofthe Hearing on November 30. Item 33: Chair Randels questioned why the "truism" was being added, and was informed that the change was intended to eliminate any possible ambiguity regarding commercial versus not for profit activity in relation to Public Access. Item 35: Chair Randels asked for clarification on whether this would permit moving of the Wave Viewing Gallery. He also questioned the inclusion of the historic structures reference. Ms. Surber confirmed that the gallery could be moved back, but that the overall purpose here was to clarify which historic structures are not considered overwater structures under this Shoreline Master Program. After a brief discussion, Ms. Surber agreed to illghlight tills item for the hearing. Ms. Surber asked that any further questions or comments be e-mailed to her before the hearing on November 30, so that she can be prepared. Chair Randels suggested that the PC and audio-visual equipment be available again at the hearing for showing changes in context, even though its use had not been necessary during this workshop. Mr. Lizut asked Ms. Surber if she was satisfied with the overall SMP process, and believes that it will meet its intended purposes. Ms. Surber expressed one concern that some of the WACs are not entirely realistic, and that enforcement is left to the local jurisdictions. She noted that proving "no net loss" is a particular challenge. As to the question of whether or not Port Townsend will be the very first adopter, Ms. Surber said that Marysville may be the very first, but that Port Townsend is the first with any significant shoreline jurisdiction. The DOE is still interested in having some sort of celebration related to Port Townsend. Mr. Lizut and other Commissioners again thanked Ms. Surber for her work. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS a. November 30, 2006 - The intention for tills meeting is to deal with a workshop on Bedrooms as a Measure of Density in R-III and R-IV Districts. Ms. Surber distributed materials (EXH. 4 and 5) from Mr. Sepler for that meeting. Also, a portion of the agenda will be devoted to the SMP hearing; additional materials will be mailed in advance. b. December 7, 2006 - Possible CTED Course Deferred After a brief discussion about the options, Commissioners decided to put this off rather than ask for a substitute for the planned instructor, who is not available. lX. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Thayer mentioned that any suggestions or recommendations for Planning Commission members should be given to Pam Kolacy. Ms. Thayer will not be renewing her membersillp willch expires at the end of December. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9,2006 Page 701'8 X. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Ray moved and Ms. Thayer seconded that the meeting be adjourned, and all were in favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:20 PM. ~ I ~.J- Gail emhard, Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9,2006 Page 8 of8 ~~""""'..,7 . . .. 4/ ./--2/,;/ George Rlllldels, Chair .........7/ /. ~~