Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021005 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building to continue Deliberations/Report and Recommendation to the City Council on the OffStreet Parking & Loading Code Amendments. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Alice King, Liesel Slabaugh, JeffKelety, Steve Emery, Harriet Capron, and Roger Lizut; Cindy Thayer was excused. Also present were Consultant Eric Toews, and Department of Community Development Director Jeff Randall. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Randels asked to add three housekeeping type items after approval of the agenda. Ms. Hersey made a motion to accept the agenda with changes; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Chair Randels' changes to the agenda: I) Introduction of new members, Harriet Capron and Roger Lizut, including their comments regarding their background; 2) Commending of Sheila Avis, Minute Taker 3) Request from Mayor Robinson for an appointment to replace Ms. Hersey on the Affordable Housing Committee. Chair Randels noted the urgency for affordable housing, particularly in light of proposed cuts to the Federal Budget. Mr. Jeff Randall reported that the City has received preliminary approval to apply for a Community Development Block Grant to conduct a special housing needs assessment for Port Townsend and Eastern Jefferson County. Once they have a consultant on board, the Affordable Housing Committ:e will be assisting in passing on recommendations to Council. Mr. Emery volunteered to serve on the Affordable Housing Committee. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Januarv U. 2005: Mr. Randels made a motion to approve the minutes of January 13,2005 as amended; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Minutes of Januarv 'JL 2005: Mr. Randels made a motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2005 as amended; Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Proposed Revisions to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations (Chapter 17.72 PTMC): Chair Randels pointed out this part oftonight's business is to complete the continuation ofthe Jllblic hearing, review and discuss recommendations on the proposed Off Street Parking & Loading section of the code. He also stated that Staff was requested to review some items and come back with more information. Mr. Toews noted that areas shaded in gray in the text of Attachment A, bill format ofChaprer 17.72 PTMC, are sections that were changed (highlighted changes based on what they understood Planning Commission directions to be). He also mentioned a change 1hat was not made that had come up in a previous workshop although not in deliberations 2 weeks ago, a recommendation from the Public Works Department that the exemption, at least within the commercial historic district (CHO) for all new development, be mare contingent upon signing a no-protest agreement for a parking and business improvement district, if one is formed in the future. He was not sure that was something that received a lot of discussion; his notes had not reflected that it had. Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 / Page I . . . Chair Randels, thought it had not come up last time, but they had discussed it briefly before. It was his sense they felt it was something that perhaps ought to be put off to another time, e.g., perhaps an extra effort to provide notice to people who would be affected by something like that. Ms. Slabaugh remembered there was an issue of equity between existing businesses and new development, because this would apply only to new development. She thought, however, Staff had clarified that it would affect everyore equally. Chair Randels pointed out it would affect everyone equally in the sense that you were proposing a major change to an existing building. Mr. Toews interjected, also a change of use. Chair Randels went on to say it wouldn't be equitable in the sense that most existing buildings would not be changing uses or making major changes and wouldn't be affected by it, whereas vacant properties obviously would be if they are proposed to be developed. Ms. Slabaugh asked if they had said it would have b be voted on by the entire district, everyone affected by it? Mr. Randall said it was basically a vote "yes." By signing the agreement, that is your vote "yes" to form the district -- you still have the right to protest the valuation that is determined for your property through the local improvement district. Mr. Toews stated there are changes of use on a fairly recurrent basis; businesses come and go. At the time a clothing store becomes an art gallery, the change of use would trigger that provisim. Mr. Randall indicated they would at least need a building permit for tentative improvements to the space, major change in use that involves significant interior changes, probably the minimum threshold. Ms. Hersey suggested that most builders, commercii or residential, usually have to sign no-protest agreements, e.g., upgrading streets or public right,,"of-way. Mr. Randall replied, if there is a substandard condition that currently exists that is being waived and not having to upgrade it -- most typically they would be required to sign a no-protest with residential construction on a gravel road; or sign a no-protest to a sewer extension where there is no sewer available and they install a septic system. Usually there has to be some City standard that hasn't been met; signing the no-protest waiver basically is the condition. Ms. Randall replied to Ms. Hersey, that this would not be the first, it would be the first in this downtown area. Chair Randels asked if they did not include thi~ would that somehow impair their ability to do it later? Mr. Randall replied that Council could add it if they chose; the Planning Commission could propose it as a code amendment in the future. He answered Mr. Randels that the people who would have alr..dy done something would be grandfathered and could not go back. Chair Randels was willing to take that minimal risk, because he did not think it fair to add without an extra notice provision. He thought they would be open to criticism for sneaking something in. Ms. Slabaugh asked regarding the extra notice. Chair Randels, not speaking to the proposal but to the procedure, felt for all property owners, certainly in the downtown area although not sure how widely you cast the net, they ought to make a real substantial effort to make sure people understand that they will be asked to sign this waiver, something that will impair their rights down the pike should they decide to develop or change the use of their property in a significant way. Some may not obpct to that, but some might and they have the right to be heard. He did not think they had given enough of an effort that they understand that. Ms. Hersey spoke of her experience, that when Roger built, did a gravel road and signed a m'protest agreement, he spent $2,000 - $3,000 between the gravel, crowning it, et al. Six months later the City graded with a tractor trying to push the rock further up the road, most ending up in gutters and in people's property. He could not say anything because he had signed a no-protest agreement. Ms. Hersey feels it is something that is needed, but he had felt once he signed the agreement he had lost the right to protest it. Mr. Toews clarified that the purpose of including such a provision would be m attempt to generate a critical mass essentially to form a new taxing district downtown to pay for parking and nOHffiotorized improvements, in essence to offset at least from a theoretical loss of offstreet parking spaces through the exemption. Ms. Hersey thought this is putting the cart before the horse and referenced a question raised at an earlier meeting by Ms. Thayer asking where the plan is for all the other parking that needs to be done. They are supposed to get up to 300 parking spaces in "){" amount of years; they are throwing out offstreet parking, but haven't even had a plan for what is supposed to happen for the extra parking we need; yet you want us to throw in a naprotest so that a new development, however small or large, now has to pay forparking somehow. She was not sure that was equitably minded. Chair Randels understood what Mr. Toews was saying, but thought the number d' property owners that are going to be impacted by the no-protest is relatively small compared to the universe of property owners that would or ought to be part of that district. At the first vote, you might have 5,12,20 voteS because of this naprotest, but you still have a huge number you are going to have to persuade to do it because it makes sense, for some oher reason they won't be forced into agreeing to. He thought if you end up with 20 votes through a process some might say was not as open as they thought it should be, we are going to end up with a harder sell with the others. We have to sell them if we are going to get it. He asked if the Parking Advisory Committee had addressed the issue. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 / Page 2 . . . Mr. Toews thought he recalled that Dave Peterson mentioned it, at least in passing, at an Advisory Board Meeting but he did not think it had been discussed in any kind of detail. He said, however, that they had discussed the notion of this parking and business improvement district and the need for its creation to provide a source of revenue for much needed non-motorized and parking improvements within the CHD. He did not believe the mechanism for making that happen had received much attention. Ms. Hersey thought it was a whole new issue, that it is real important rather than sliding it into the document. Mr. Toews said he raised the issue, because it wasn l explicitly discussed 2 weeks ago, and he wanted to make sure they were aware of it and had intended to not include it. Chair Randels appreciated it being brought up, and he asked if they needed to take a vote or if there were other comments. Ms. Slabalgh said it is not in the current document; so if they do nothing, take no action, that means it is not included. Basically, somebody would have to make a motion to bring it back in. Chair Randels suggested that hearing no motion, they move on. Chair Randels asked Mr. Toews to discuss the issues the Planning Commission requested be reviewed and brought back for their consideration. Mr. Toews discussed the following issue" Table 17.72.080 I) Service Uses. Health = Offices. medical and dental Regarding Dr. McCarron's testimony (if the proposed revised standard as it applied to medical and dental offices resulted in a requirement to provide more offstreet parking than was the case under the current code )-- as he recalled, when they ran a hypothetical it was 25 under the old code and 29 under the new code. Based on that they rather went with the Commission's tentative direction of2 weeks ago to lower that standard (1.5 to I) based on exam rooms. Mr. Randall indicated it was 25 spaces under the old code and 32 under the new. Chair Randels asked the results under the revised new; Mr. Randall replied it was 23. Chair Randels noted that was 2 less than the old statute would have required. He did not think they had seen any major instances of prdJlems under the old. Mr. Randall talked to personnel at the Madrona Clinic, a very intense building in terms of exam rooms, staff, and customer visitors. He asked about their parking lot; they immediately talked about the problems they had with the parking lot. The problems did not relate to how many spaces they had provided, but sounded like they had about the number of spaces they needed. The big problem was the dimension of the travel lanes, I.e., the design. The architect squeezed it too tight. They felt the numbers weren't excessive, that they didn't have a bunch of empty parking spaces. Ms. Hersey asked if rather than the number of exam rooms, isn't it the number of doctors that are working on an average day? If you have an office where doctors are fluctuating, some in surgery on certain days, others take over and you are not using all of the exam rooms. She asked if it shouldn't be more like averaging of doctors per day. Chair Randels suggested that would be difficult to do because they \\QuId not know that. Ms. Hersey stated they are basing it on all the exam rooms being full, but you might have an office space that is only running 21 doctors on an average. Chair Randels replied they wuld not legislate based on how doctors mayor may rot be working on a given day. They do not have that information, but what they do have is an idea of how many rooms there are. Mr. Randall explained that basically it is a balance of both; two doctors splitting shifts will only count as one doctor. It is based on: I) the highest ful~time staffmg level; and 2) the number of exam rooms. 2) Residential Uses = Age restricted Multi-familv housing develoDments Mr. Toews' research of this was not as much field research as review of literature and other codes, and the rationales for those provisions. He stated that particularly in a host of California parking codes, mainly northern California and Bay Area communities, they had significaDtly lower offstreet parking requirements for multHamily housing in general, but typically also included age restricted as well as disabled housing. He said based on that and the direction of 2 weeks ago, they included a new row to call rut age-restricted and disabled multi-family housing separately, and suggested a lower offstreet parking requirement of 1 space per dwelling unit. Chair Randels suggested that if a given developer believes that is too high, he can come in, make his case and suggest something lower. Mr. Toews concurred. Chair Randels indicated that might deal with such things as congregate. 3) Service Uses. Health = Hosoitals (also nursing. rest or convalescent homes) Changed to link the number of spaces to the nunber of staff members on the largest shift; Mr. Toews reviewed new changes in Attachment "A"; DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, February 10,2005/ Page 3 . . . 17.72 -- Housekeeping changes: renumbering and section titles; 17.72.030C -- correction of reference to deleted section .150; 17.72.060 -- housekeeping correction of math; Table 17.72.080 -- Restaurants: both with or without drive through service treated the same; -- Multi-family dwellings (see above) -- Single family dwellings: lowered offstreet parking requirements to I space Table 17.72.080, Single-family dwellings. Chair Randels pointed out that Mr. Emery asked to have the lowered offstreet parking requirements defined as to unitlduplex/triplex/fourplex-- e.g., I space per unit; duplex 2, spaces, etc. ADUs were also discussed; there is no requirement. Ms. Capron asked for the rationale between multiple units and an ADU that might be rented out. Mr. Randall thought initially ADUs did not require parking because the primary house had to have parking, and people felt with an ADU parking could be on the street. They were not required to create parking. He thought they did not want to create disincentives, that they strongly encouraged ADUs. Ms. Slabaugh thought ADUs are infill and lots would not necessarily be able D accommodate that and be pretty burdensome. Chair Randels suggested it could also create an impervious issue. Mr. Toews will clarify the language and use the same terminology for all the residential uses to make sure they are referring to spaces/per dwelling units. Table 17.72.080 -- Service Uses, Health, Hospitals (also nursing, rest or convalescent homes): changed to link the number of spaces to the number of staff members on the largest shift; -- Service Uses, Health, Offices, medical and dental: Changed based on Dr. McCarron's testimony; 17.72.150, 17.72.160, Parking facilities Mr. Toews noted the discussion he had with Dave Peterson that many of these requirements were already within the Engineering Design StandaJds (EDS) Manual, that they were different standards, and it was unnecessary and confusing to have them located within 17.72. He stated that further investigation shows not all of them are within the EDS, and in order to ensure they actually have the stanchrds, they would need to develop or recommend to Council that a corollary ordinance be prepared that would amend the EDS Manual to fold these standards into the EDS in situations where they are not present. Chair Randels asked if they couldn1 amend the EDS in this statute? Mr. Randall stated that although the Planning Commission felt these standards were more appropriate in the EDS, the Engineering Design Standards relate to improvements in public right,,"of-way. It is really not going to be an easy mater just to slide these in, because specifically the coverage of the EDS is public streets, public improvements, things going to the property line. They don't really cover going onto private property. He thought it would be premature to remove all these things; right now they don't have standards for offstreet parking lots in the EDS. He answered Ms. Hersey that they are not covered in C-II commercial parking, that they covered some things like walkways and did talk some about design, but did not specify dimension. Mr. Randall indicated this is the only place right now where they have dimensional requirements. He reiterated that he thought it premature to repeal these. Chair Randels asked regarding the shaded areas. Mr. Toews replied it is to highlight that these are changes to the line-in/line-out langnage from two weeks ago, that based upon Mr. Randall's direction and further investigation of what is currently within the EDS Manual, it would be best to retain these provisions. Mr. Randal and Mr. Toews clarified, sections to be retained are renumbered Sections .150 Parking facilities- Plan required; .160 Parking facilities - Design requirements; .170 Parking facilities - Landscaping; and .180 Bicycle parking facilities- Design Standards. Chair Randels commented this opens all the verbiage, since 2 weeks ago they basically struck it all and didn't discuss any policy issues within it. He asked if they wanted to accept or do they have any proposed amendments. Ms. King asked if this is existing language, and is not new? Mr. Toews clarified that from the renumbered .150, .160, and .170 there were no substantive changes proposed to those sections until 2 weeks ago when the direction was to potentially omit them. He said .180, Bicycle P.,.king is different; new provisions were recommended for inclusion in the ordinance that have now gone away in favor of this revised language thaI would refer the reader to the EDS where the standards do not yet exist. Chair Randels proposed: I) consider reinserting all the language that was stricken last time, and 2) open that language for discussion and possible amendment. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 / Page 4 . . . MOTION Mr. Randels Reiosert all the langnage that was stricken last time and open that langnage for discussion and possible amendment SECOND Mr. Emery Friendly Amendment Ms. Hersey Add, Language of renumbered sections .150 to .170 Discussion: Mr. Toews clarified that none of the substantive lin.,.in/line-out language in those sections was proposed for amendment. Chair Randels said that was so at that time; some who might have had such an amendment didn't have to worry about it because they were going to throw it all in the hands of the Public Works Department. Now, someone might have a change to propose and ought to have an olPortunity to do so. Friendly Amendment was accepted by Mr. Randels and Mr. Emery AMENDED MOTION Reinsert all the language of renumbered sections .150 to .170 that was stricken last time and open tbat language for discussion and possible ameudment Passed, 8 in favor by voice vote VOTE Chair Randels declared that language reinstated and now open to amendment. Ms. Hersey asked Mr. Randall if it is correct that he is going to take this verbiage from .150 to .170, and eventually it is going to ~ into the EDS? Mr. Randall replied that was discussion that started with the Planning Commission, and maybe he did not assert himself into that discussion as much as he should have. These are currently not set up to deal with improvements on private pr<perty. He feels this is the right place for them to be, at least for now. In terms of how our code is currently set up, this is the only place that deals with offstreet parking. Ms. Hersey asked Mr. Randall if his staff made these recommendations ard standards, and/or is this his? Mr. Randall replied that Mr. Toews made thes.e changes based upon his understanding. Ms. Slabaughasked if all this original is in the code. Mr. Randall stated that the only changes to these sections are just to the numbering m the title; the actual text is totally unchanged. Ms. Hersey then asked Mr. Randall, that since Mr. Toews chose to leave them in, how does the City feel about these standards; does this meet what the City feels is a good standard? Mr. Randall replied hat the substance of what is in here is not proposed to be changed by the Parking Code Amendment. The Parking Code Amendment was intended to address reductions in the number of spaces, not changes to the dimensions of whatever spaces are provided. He did not feel there were any perceived problems with any of these dimensional requirements. Chair Randels raised what he said was a substantive issue, and then is prepared to drop it if the sense of the Commission is that they should for now. He did not thhk it makes any sense to differentiate in terms of size of space between regular and compact, particularly when you are trying to allocate based on what he did not know- universe of cars in the city, or whatever. He cited Ms. Capron's reference last time to a garage in Seattle where a whole floor sits empty because it is designated for compact cars only, and the compact cars park in the regular spaces. He said that is always going to happen, and happen everywhere. He thought the City would be well advisd to eliminate the differentiation between regular and compact and come up with a definition of a space that may be somewhere in between, maybe lean a little closer to the regular than the compact. Ms. Hersey asked the difference and was referred to the deleted Table 17.72.180 -- 90 degree, 1 foot narrower, 3 feet shorter. Ms. Slabaugh asked if the code requires that you have both, a certain number of each? Mr. Randall quoted Section .160.C.I, "When more than 10 parking spaces are required for a parti::ular use, one-half of the parking spaces may be designated as "compact" . .." It is an option. Chair Randels suggested if you are talking about a development on a site that is otherwise tight, the option is always going to be taken. They are going to reduce the amount of space devoted to parking to the absolute minimum possible. Both Ms. Slabaugh and Chair Randels agreed the market would impact it. Chair Randels said maybe they should just let the market do it. Mr. Emery stated that wherever he IRs been, any urban area has these designated compact spaces. He asked if there is an ethos? What prompted this? Was this to get people out of bigger cars? Mr. Toews replied that it requires less land area; you can get more cars in less area. Chair Randels thought it was also rather the Jimmy Carter energy saving kind of thing. It seemed to Mr. Emery to have become a universal standard in urban parking; he knows there is no enforcement, but maybe there is a benefit to offering it. The question wasraised if there was complaint or praise on the issue. Mr. Randall noted it boils down to design and whether or not they want to cram in as many as possible; right now it gives the option. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 / Page 5 . . . Mr. Scott Walker said to Chair Randels they were revisitiog something that was not going to be, and therefore there is no public comment. He felt he was being left out of giving public comment. Chair Randels explained that language was in draft they considered 2 weeks ago and was open for discussion at that time. They are bringing it back in tonight, after the public participation portion of that. Chair Randels stated that is legitimate, and that he or anyone else could have commented on it 2 weeks ago. Mr. Walker noted that last week's directive was to throw it out. Chair Randels responded that was correct, but after the public comment. Ms. Slabaugh wished to make a motion to leave it in as it is so the developer has the option of designing it this way. She did not think it does anything restrictive. MOTION SECOND VOTE Ms. Slabaugh Leave in as recommended Ms. Capron Passed, 8 in favor by voice vote Mr. Randall thanked the Commission for their indulgmce. He thought there was a little miscommunication between himself, Public Works and Mr. Toews in understanding the real meaning. Chair Randels noted a problem with the Chart B. in 17.72.200, a gap between 40,000 and 50,000 square feet and suggested changing line 2 to read: "40,000 to 59;;99". Mr. Randall questioned if the current code also had that same figure. Mr. Toews replied if it does they would correct it as a typo. Mr. Lizut raised a housekeeping renumbering issue with 17.72.150.M, whim cites PTMC 17.72.190, which has been reinstated aod is now 17.72.170. Mr. Toews said he would look at the earlier draft, because he had indicated there have been no substantive changes to these sections, but thought they had gone through and tried to fix some of the erroneous cross references. The earlier draft may have already shown that Chair Randels said he figured it was standing operating procedure that Staff could fix things like section numbers to correspond. Mr. Lizut asked, for his information, coming from a preconceived notion that municipal code would talk about what needs to be done, and how things would be done would be engineering design standard..- if someone decides to change something from 6" to 10", it would take an act of Co unci to change it? He then asked Mr. Randall is there some plan in the City to make situations so they won't have design detail requirements buried in municipal code? Every time someone wants to change something, can we fix the problem, or does it take an ut of the City Council? Mr. Randall thought it was rather a perceived problem, but he felt it was quite convenient for developers now. They just give them the parking chapter; it has everything they need to design their parking lot. Chair Randels stated if this were a part of the bigger volume of engineering design standards that applied to both oastreet and off- street, you would just give them the standards. Mr. Randall indicated they could move the whole chapter to the design standards, but it is more traditional to have the parking standards. Ms. Slabaugh asked if there aren't lots of dimensions and other specifics in other parts of the code? Mr. Randall replied affirmatively; it is a little more like engineering standards than most of the cha)ters. Commercial design standards have standards, and the sign code. Mr. Randall checked the original code and the error Chair Randels found also existed in it. Mr. Toews asked clarification for the annotation. Chair Randels made a motion to correct it. MOTION SECOND VOTE Mr. Randels Change line 2 of Chart B in 17.72.200 to read "40,000 to 59,999" Mr. Emery Passed, 8 in favor by voice vote Mr. Toews asked if there were any issues with the draft Findings and Conclusions? They tried with the report to draw from the initial memo to the Planning Commission in October and added to that a little to provide some context for City Council. Chair Randels stated he didn't have any major issues with the draft transmittal, but dil have several suggested non-substantive edits. He said he would seek his fellow Commissioners-- would seek their permission to communicate those kinds of things to Mr. Toews outside of the meeting, and let the two of them work out whether or not to incorporate them. He noted it is going to Council over his signature. Mr. Randall asked if his comments related more to format and providing a short executive summary at the beginoing? Chair Randels thoughtthe DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 / Page 6 . . . executive summary approval was something for the future, for other similar tlings. He said now he was suggesting some minor editing suggestions. CONSENSUS: Chair Randels and Mr. Toews to edit the Traosmittal to City Council. Mr. Toews pointed out that Section .180 was revised assuming that the standards for bicycle facilitieswere go into the EDS. Since they are not, they need to reinstate the language that was there 2 weeks ago, and also the change to that language that were discussed to make clear that such racks need to support the frame of the bicycle. If they are not going to have it in the EDS, they need to reinstitute it with that change. Ms. Hersey said they would need to change the language because it conforms to the City's EDS. Ms. Slabaugh asked if a motion were needed. MOTION Reinstate the language of Section .180 with the edit that racks ueed to support the frame ofthe bicycle Ms. Slabaugh SECOND VOTE Mr. Emery Passed, 8 in favor by voice vote Additional chanl!es to incornorate into the Amendments to Chanter 17.72 PTMC . Table 17.72.080 -- Single-family dwellings. Clarify the language; use the same terminology for all the residential uses making sure they are referring to spaces/per dwelling units. . Reinsert all the language of renumbered sections .150 to .170 that was stricken last time . Change line 2 of Chart B in 17.72.200 to read "40,000 to 59,999" . Mr. Toews to check 17.72.150M. If appropriate, renumber PTMC 17.72.190, which has been reinstated and is now 17.72.170. . Reinstate the language of Section .180 with the edit that racks need to support the frame of the bicycle MOTION Ms. Slabaugh Recommend the draft transmittal with edits discussed in this meeting, forward to City Council with Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions, recommending adoption of amendments to Chapter 17.72 PTMC Off-Street Parking & Loading SECOND VOTE Mr. Emery Passed 7 in favor by roll call vote, Ms. Hersey opposed; Ms. Thayer (excused absence) Chair Randels declared deliberations complete and closed the Public hearing. Continuation of the meeting of January 27, 2005, to deliberate and make recommendation to C' Council on the Proposed Revisions to Off -, ,.",,, C,."" R'"",,;o~ (0""" n" "MC) """"~ 'L @~j )J'IJ1'ijLdjrf-/~ SheilaAv' inuteTaker I r '- DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 / Page 7 . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC WORKSHOP February 10,2005 At the conclusion of the public hearing for the Off Street Parking ordinance, at 8: 10 p.m. in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, Chair George Randels commenced the public workshop on the Environmentally Sensitive Area code amendments. Other members present were Lyn Hersey, Alice King, Liesel Slabaugh, Jeff Kelety, Steve Emery, Harriet Capron, and Roger Lizut. Cindy Thayer was excused. Also present were Consultant Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, and Department of CommunityDevelopment Director Jeff Randall VI. NEW BUSINESS Proposed Revisions to Chapter 19.05 PTMC, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chair Randels pointed out this is another workshop on this issue. Ms. Capron asked regarding the meaning of workshop; Mr. Kelety responded it is where Staff presents more information to the Commission. Chair Randels explained it is a term of art, a discussion of an issue short of the formality of a public hearing. Mr. Toews gave an overview of what they have been halring from peer review comments. The list of people who have been contacted is quite extensive; agency professionals, and other professionals whose stock in trade is helping applicants -- geologically hazardous area consultants, geo-techs, wetlands delineation specialists, etc. Of the list of approximately 32, they have had meaningful comment from about onethird, mainly from State agencies, most notably Department of Ecology (DOE) wetlands specialists Donna Bunton, and Gretchen Lux. Mr. Toews noted their comments have been almost uniformly positive about the proposed changes to the wetlands section of the code, and that they have trying to work through some hypothetical with them about how these would actually apply on the ground. Ms. Lux is planning a trip to Port Townsend next week to look at a couple of sites in town and help determine what the net result of these new regulations would be. Mr. Toews said they would be able to have a more informed presentation at their next workshop; e.g., the effect of Kah Tai Lagoon, how Ecology thinks it would actually be categorized, the range of the point value and what it would mean in terms of the buffer width under the new regime. Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) folks are trying to get some infcrmal written comments to them by the time ofthe next workshop. DOE and DFW reaction so far has been that they are headed in the right direction; these are good substantive changes; you have identified the real weak areas of the code and are taking stepsto address them, which is good. Mr. Toews stated that whatever they receive in writing, comments that are not just submitted orally, they will provide the Commissioners in packets for the next meeting. The most substantive and involved comments received so far have been from City Staff and from the consultant working on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. Changes from City Staff are largely to sections not proposed for amendment but relate to process and administration under the code and in parti::ular confusion in .030 and .040 identifying the applicability of the code-- development, minor development, exemptions and waivers. Waivers really are minor development subject to slightly different standards; these provisions are throughout the variouscode sections in extremely confusing fashion. They intend to clarify this section. Chair Randels asked if these apply only to these environmentally sensitive issues, but other things as well? Mr. Toews explained these are administrative provisions ~thin the ESA Ordinance that confuse the reader as to whether the proposal in an environmentally sensitive area is regulated development of a major sort, minor exem~d or minor with a waiver of some requirements. Chair Randels asked if they apply only tothe environmentally sensitive things, so it would not be inappropriate to consider changes in those procedural things at the same time they are looking at sensitive things. Mr. Toews agreed, saying these changes were not made initially, because they were not part of his charge, primarily to bring the code into conformance with and make reflective of Best Available Science (BAS). Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 Continuance / Page I . . . Mr. Toews used overheads to highlight some of the major changes they are currently contemplating based on comments they received. Procedural Changes I. Clarify, Simplify, Streamline those two sections of the code so Staff and applicants canknow what it means; 2. Within the SMP jurisdiction -- apply standards proposed in the current draft relative to geologically hazardous areas (steep slopes 40% and greater; marine bluffs, primarily). Outside the SMP jurisdiction -- have a lower regulatory standard for the same steep slopes iffound in upland areas. (Raised by Paullngrahm, Berryman & Henigar, SMP update team.) Obviously, the hazards are greater in a high-bluff waterfront situation, as are the environmental processes they are attempting to protect by establishing a larger setback, feeder bluffs. They want to make sure building is not done in a way that disrupts the natural functions and values of those feeder bluffs. That is a reason regulations are as stringent for these overlapping pwposes -- to protect public health and safety, and also to protect environmental processes within the Shoreline jurisdiction. Both the safety issue as well as environmental processes issue are not as apparent in upland areas, so they are contemplating esUblishing a separate and lower requirement. 3. Expand the regulatory reach of the current code in 05.080C-- Fish & Wildlife habitat conservation areas designations. The current code does not identify and clearly designate for regulation t1Ese areas lying waterward of the ordinarily high watermark -- kelp and ellgrass beds, sandlands and surface small spawning areas, shellfish beds, commercial and recreational shellfish harvest areas. It is recommended by Ecology that these areas be specifcally identified and desigoated for protection within the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Mr. Emery was under the impression the State hadjurisdiction over anything beyond the highwater mark, and asked if the City is allowed? Mr. Toews said it is not always the case. Mr. Randall clarified that is actually overlapping jurisdiction; the DFW has jurisdiction over what is called the hydraulic project approval. He stated under our SMP we are required to make sure these areas are being protected. DFWalso has some overlapping jurisdiction; they are looking at some slightly different things. The City is required to identify and protect these resources. Chair Randels asked if the Port has been part of the peer review, or if they have been consulted inany other way? Mr. Randall answered that the Port had a seat on the Shoreline advisory group, that they have been heavily involved in the SMP update, and will continue to do so. Chair Randels asked if they are aware of this proposal? Mr. Randall stated that they are aware of the requirement that the City protect these things in the SMP. There has been discussion of the overlap of the ESA ordinance and the SMP at the Shoreline advisory group level; they know we have to protect these things. Chair Randels suggested that they specifically contact whoever is their representative and tell them this ESA ordinance is oow being proposed for contemplation within a month. Ms. Slabaugh asked about this not becoming a whole other sensitive area category. Mr. Trews answered that it adds to the defmition of what is a designated and regulated Fish and Wildlife conservation area within the city of Port Townsend. He showed maps pointing out they are informational-- red flags, not regulatory; what is controlling is the designation language in the code in .080C which describes the areas to be protected. If a development comes through that doesn't necessarily raise a red flag, e.g., a smelt spawning area hasn't been accurately identified and mapped, nevertheless a bblogical survey of the property indic.ates that is happening in the near shore areas, that would trigger application ofthe City's CAD. Ms. Slabaugh asked if for example someone wanted to build a dock out on his or her property; it is discovered there is eelgrass there, would that be subject in the process to be rejected? Mr. Toews replied that would be subject to the City's SMP as well as the ESA ordinance. Mr. Toews clarified that the City's current ESA ordinance explicitly does not apply waterward of the ordinary highwater mark. One of the changes proposed in the initial draft in early December, based on recommendations of John Campbell of the Puget Sound Action Team, is that until the City adopts its updated SMP, there needs to be some local mechanism for reviewing and mitigating projects more effectively in that area, and there's no reason why that can't be the ESA ordinance. Tha is one change already in the proposed code language. This actually clarifies that further by noting that those areas waterward of the ordinary highwater mark that include these certain characteristics are specifically regulated and protected under this code. Planning Commission Minutes, February 10,2005 Continuance / Page2 . . . Mr. Emery indicated there was talk of expansion of Boat Haven and redredging this marina, for any of that work or process (it has already gone through State guidelines), does that mean it has to be run through the City as well? Mr. Randall answered that it does currently. Unless it is a federal project on federal land, city permits would be required. Chair Randels thought Mr. Toews had said the City is not involved because we have not finished the SMP. Mr. Randall explained the ESA ordinance doesn't apply to those areas; the SMP does apply. The SMP currently, because it's an older version, doesn't have the specific detailed protections for sandlands and other things; it's more general. It is likely there would be the same end result. We have a requirement to make sure we are protecting the resource. What we would be adopting now, would basically temporarily apply until the SMP is updated, and more specifically applies waterward. Chair Randels asked ifhe is wrong to be worried that this is another incidence like we just tiUked about in the taxing district, where we would be doing something like a couple of things that came along in the last couple of years, e.g., the alleged shipbuilder who is now talkingto some other city; or the graving yard? The graving yard is going to happen somewhere; he thought the Planning Commission should be careful about doing something that would, or could be, alleged to "scotch" a project such as that. Ms. King commented that they have to protect these areas. Mr. Toews did not think the operation of the regulation would be to prohibit the project; it would be to review and mitigate the project. Mr. Randall pointed out is part of the mitigation scheme. They cannot through the effect of these regulations conduct a takings. Chair Randels understood that, and said there is still the competitive situation of Port Townsend visa ve other communities. Unless the State just takes us over and basically says they will take everyone off the hook, be the bad or good gljY, they will regulate this. Until that happens, and he did not think it will happen, they have to ask themselves if they are getting way out front; if so are they doing it knowledgeably -- do we know that is what we are doing; do we really want to do it? He said that was all he asked; he was not making a judgment on the substance of this. He just thought it ought to be right upfronl-- this is an issue that is on the table, legitimately on the table, then let people come and take their shot. Mr. Randall thought Staff's job was to convince the Commission they were not going overboard, not exposing the City to excessive risk in terms of over-regulation. He thought part of the Commission's job is let them know some of their concerns, like naming this ore, projects that could occur. In some of our commercial or industrial areas, how would these regulations apply, could they possibly prevent some that could be good, or foreseen in other parts of our plan? They could help identify those things, their con"'ms. Staffs job will be to run through the scenarios, show how they can work out, and show the Commission the effect of the regulations. Chair Randels said for this moment, the more important concern he is trying to raise is that you don't just have to convince them; they have to interact with allparts of the community, and that means making sure the community knows what they are doing, or are being asked to do, so they have a chance to either come or not. He was very uncomfortable with t:re issue of the taxing district, because they didn't have a chance to take their shots at it, and that is what a public hearing process is all about. Mr. Randall explained all they can do is try to get across the effect of some these things and hope people will show up. Ms. Slabaugh felt it sounded as ifit were going to have an effect, if you are concerned about it. Chair Randels posed, if we were complying with the best available science provisions of State law reasonably well, other communities are notand they are able to compete with us on a less than level playing field-- it is a political situation that worries him. We have seen what happens, and he cited an incident with the former mayor. Whether that was good or bad, he does not want to set upa situation where that happens again; he would like it done differently so it would be done better. Mr. Toews wanted to be clear that his personal view is that this particular suggested change is not over- reaching by any stretch of imagination. Theprovisions in .080B classify what are fish and wildlife habitat areas within the City of Port Townsend. They include classification, not in terms of designating this as regulated development, but we are defining this as a critical fish and wildlife cons<rvation area. It already includes kelp and eelgrass beds, includes herring and smelt spawning areas, as well as public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest. All these areas are classified as environmentally sensitive areas inthe City of Port Townsend, but are not specifically regulated. He suggested that is a problem from the standpoint of protecting critical areas under GMA. The fact that we have an SMP that is old and doesn't yet have specific regulatory provisions that rdate to these areas, was the reason the action team suggested that in the intervening period the ESA ordinance be used as the vehicle for providing those protections, at least for now; protections that will ultimately have to be incorporated within the City's SMP. Once those are incorporated within the SMP, the policies in the SMP become part and parcel of the City's Comprehensive Plan; the regulations within the SMP are part and parcel of the City's code. What we are really talking about are provisions 1hat need to be amended into the code for a limited duration until we have an updated SMP that is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the new Shoreline guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes, February 10,2005 Continuance / Page3 . . . Mr. Randall thought at the next workshop it might be helpful to spend a wry brief time to explain the overlap of the SMP, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and ESA ordinance. It is still confusing for him-- somebody who deals with it all the time. He explained, ifthey had that project come in and their codes weren't fixed, the SMP and ESA ordinance more vague like they are today, they would fill out applications and checklists, and would find out what resources are there; they would fmd out if there are fish spawning areas, kelp beds, etc.. By their project they would tell Staff those things are going to be impacted, and they would figure out mitigation, probably through the SEPA process. They would be protected, but it's less specific upfront what those standards are. This code allows them to rely less on SEP A and pits in the code what those protections are; it is more predictable. It makes it better for Staff and the applicants. For him it is rather the difference in what is happening with the Port Angeles graving yard right now. If they had had their act together they would have known there were Indian things; they probably could have dealt with it better, as opposed to going in blindly and not having the code and things figured out. We are trying to have things done properly, because everybody has to mitigate;everybody has to identifY resources and prevent damage; mitigate or avoid. This is trying to be more upfront. Mr. Toews noted the draft from early December already has performance standards to regulate development in these areas, but they failed to spa::ifically call them out as regulated. The performance standards already address marine habitats and species; required habitat analysis; required mitigation sequencing (basically attempt to avoid the impact if possible, if not, minimize the impact, etc.);mitigate to achieve that loss of habitat function; prepare a habitat management plan consistent with Fish & Wildlife recommendations; meet the requirements of the hydraulic project approval process administered by Fish & Wildlife. He did not feel they are particularly onerous standards, but certainly ones that are going to be necessary to amend ioto the City's SMP in order for it to become compliant. Mr. Randall concurred and stated this is really a placeholder until the SMP is done. If they have a pDject that is potentially triggering more than one permit, an ESA permit and a Shorelines permit, they will just require one. They will use the standards out of both, make sure that all the standards apply, but they won't make people go through two separate permit processes. 4. Vegetation retention standards within .080.E.5 (another issue rather like the one discussed under #2): recommendation of Paul Ingraham on SMP team is that the standard for vegetation retention in areas outside the Shoreline jurisdiction be somewhat lower than that within the Shoreline jurisdiction. Chair Randels said he did not understand that rationale; e.g., why is scotch broom better upland than on the shore? Mr. Toews did not think they were talking about scotch broom, but said it because of different requirements under the GMA versus under the SMP. In somewhat of a sidebar, State requirement is to achieve no net loss of wetland functions and values. So, we have everything in the Shcrelines jurisdiction -- no net loss; wetlands (whether or not within in the Shorelines jurisdiction)-- no net loss. All other critical areas landward of the Shorelines jurisdiction, protect. Mr. Randall stated basically the standard isn't as high. Mr. Toews explained the standard within GMA critical areas that are upland, is a bit lower. Chair Randels felt he had trouble digesting that BAS ought to give you the same result regardless of where you are. Mr. Randall added that resources are different; you don't have spawning beaches at the bottom of the inland bluff; it is not reeding a shoreline beach somewhere with a sediment that is going out there. It's not doing the same things; so you don't have the same protection. 5. Try to clarifY language in .080 and make it more analogous to language in the wetlands section to address mitigation (Staff suggestion). Basically: compensatory mitigation in the event that fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are, in fact, degraded; mitigation sequen:ing to make clearer what the preferred hierarchy is to obviously avoid, reduce, minimize; type and location ofmitigation-- if you are going to have to diminish the functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat in one area, how do you mitigate for tlat? Do you have to mitigate ansite? Can you mitigate offsite? Do you have to mitigate within the same suebasin with the City? How do you go about doing that? Mitigation ratios; mitigation banks; language included from wetlands, but not for fish and wildlife areas. These are Staff suggestions at this point that warrant further research to see if some these can, in fact, be carried out in an analogous fashion for fish and wildlife habitat areas; or whether some of them vere really comparing apples to oranges, and it doesn't make sense to include. Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 Continuance / Page4 . . . Chair Randels asked if they included any of their earlier discussion with regard to banks and that concept of having mitigation even occur outside City Limits? Mr. Toews irdicated there had been discussion about that. He heard back expressly from a couple of members of the peerreview group saying that's offsite mitigation. Mitigation banking is all well and good; you really need to do what you can to retain fuoctions andvalues within the same sub- basin. That means degrading a Class IV, or filling a small Class IV (e.g. within the northwest part of the city) cannot be effectively mitigated by building a Class IV, 3 miles outside of town on land trust property in unincorporated Jefferson County. Chair Randels laughingly asked if they thought it might be, if they build a Class III out there? Mr. Toews stated the comment was to try to keep mitigation within the same watershed or subbasin boundary wherever possible. Chair Randels did not know if anyone else heard some recidivism, but said he did. Mr. Randall stated they are saying one is an apple and one is an orange. Chair Randels countered they are saying, "the best thing to do would be. . ." and that should become the rule. He felt the whole concept of mitigating banking is to give you a way to relax the rule and still come up with an environment that is as good as, or better, than that with which you started. Mr. Toews stated the watershed limitation tends to mace a lot more sense in a rural, unincorporated setting, than in an urban setting where it is very difficult to allow urban intensity development and still preserve the totality of functions and values within a sub-basin, basin or basins. He said he was just relaying a comment that they are going to look and see what makes sense. He wanted to make clear the language that has been recommended is not included in the current, initial draft. Mr. Randall added, this is one section that would give us an advantlge, if we were looking for an advantage as a community. Ifwe can figure out how to help developments that can't mitigate, avoid or whatever, onsite and do it acceptably science-wise, this could really help; that it would help our resources. The goveruor's declaration that there will be no net loss of wetlands, how realistic is that in an urban area? He thinks it helps them address more realistically what they can do as an urban area to protect those wetland resources. Mr. Emery gave the example; the ffimmunity by the Northgate shopping center is seeking to literally open up the parking lot and expose a stream that was covered up years ago. He said that would be a good example of putting back something in near history that had been filled in and coveredup. The banking could work toward that end as well. Mr. Randall spoke of outright acquisition protection of areas that are swampy and wet now, are going to be horribly expensive to develop, and he would rather just see them set them aside. Build in theareas that are much more buildable and closer in; protect the areas that are more pristine and remote. Mr. Emery thought as far as anything in the tidelands, the State would have the final say as far as mitigation offerings, would be the ultimate yes or no. Mr. Randall noted they definitely have a dual role. 6. Geologically hazardous areas, Section 100 (a fairly minor change). Recommend to include language analogous to that within the SMP explicitly requiring that surface drainage be directed away fromsteep slopes. Mr. Toews could not imagine it would be permissible, even under the existing code, but it's not specifically prohibited. This is language that Paul Ingrahrn has folded into the SMP language. Mr. Toews presented those as peer review comments and some of the changes to the language they already have. He emphasized there are going to be a raft of other changes. This is an evolving document, and they are receiving a lot of good commeot-- a lot of comment that doesn't relate so much tothe substantive protection standards per se, i.e., buffer widths or establishing specific performance standards for marine species, but more administrative procedural issues that are rather laced throughout the entire code they are trying to fix as they I!,l. He is working on that draft now and hopes to have that to the Commission by their workshop meeting in 2 weeks, so they will be looking then at essentially what he thinks is rather a recommended hearing draft based on what they have heard. Then, based on what the Commissioners hear at that workshop, and by way of peer review comment, they can look at it and determine whether or not to retaio the suggested changes, or make additional changes. Mr. Toews showed an overhead and discussed some hypotheticals to make sure people have at least a basic understanding of the way the proposed code language would work compared to the existing language. Hvootheticals: I. Construction of a new home on 10.000 s.L northwest auadrant off Cook A venue-- someone wants to build a new home on a 10,000 sf lot that contains a 500 sf Category IV wetland. Under the current code, that wetland is entirely exempt. If they wish to, they could fill that wetland, and put the house on top of it. Planning Commission Minutes, February 10,2005 Continuance / PageS . Under the proposed language, this would no longer be exempt; it would be a regulated wetland. All jurisdictional wetlands would be regulated wetlands. This would be subject to buffer provisions set forth in Section .110: . Category IV wetlands -- buffer widths range anywhere from 25 ft- 50 ft. Almost all developments would be categorized as high intensity. Almost certainly construction of a single family dwelling would be a high intensity development; therefore, the 50 ft buffer requirenent would pertain to that small, isolated, depressional wetland. That is a new change from the current code. . Ms. Hersey asked that is 50 ft from what spot? Mr. Toews replied, 50 ft from the delineated edge. Mr. Randall added, 50 ft from nearest edge of the wetland. That is as close as you get. Ms. Hersey asked if your whole property is categorized as IV, you couldn't get around it? Mr. Toews indicated it is very unlikely you would have a Category IV that large; they tend to be smaller, isolated ""tlands -- he thought gen~rally 5,000 sf and smaller would be typical in the northwest quadrant. Category IV is a really degraded wetland, or alternately a very small wetland. Ms. Hersey asked regarding that range, 500 sf- 5000 sf. Mr. Toews explained it depends -- you have to rely on the wetland experts to tell you how it should be categorized, and based on its category what buffer width should apply. Ms. Hersey then asked that in setting up the delineations, depending on the person's property, intheory you could condemn the property from building anything; or could they mitigate something? Mr. Toews stated that the thing that is always rather the escape hatch is the reasonable use exception. We cannot prevent all reasonable use of the property; we have an obligation, constitutionally, to allow some use of that property. We have established proposed new criteria for granting a reasonable use exception that makes it clearer when we are going to grant those exceptions, so that it doesn't just become an administrative variance process but is tailored more specifically to address that constitutional issue. Mr. Emery added, if you wanted to fill you can mitigate it. Mr. Randall stated it is more if you needed to; if you can't avoid it. Mr. Toews said if you have applied the mitigation sequencing-- avoid, reduce, minimize, and there is no way you can build the home on the lot without taking some of the function and value, then you would have to go through the reasonable use exception process. Hesaid assuming we are not in that situation, they are going to have to stay very likely 50 ft away from the delineated edge of this 500 sf wetland, and that can obviously have a significant impact on the location of the home on that lot. 2. Construction of a new home on 5.000 sf that lies within 200n 50 feet of delineated boundarv of Kah Tai Lagoon -- a smaller lot in an area platted pretty much to the maximum, right around KahTai Lagoon where you have many 50 x 100 sf lots (or even smaller in some cases) wherethe entirety of the lot would fall within 200 ft of the delineated wetland edge. Mr. Randall said waterward, potentially that is literally four lots deep; you may be three lots away from the wetland edge. Ms. Gretchen Lux is coming here from Olympia nexnveek to help answer this question. . Mr. Toews stated it depends upon a couple of things: I) is it Category I or Category II; 2) is it estuary or is it a lagoon. One representative of DOE says it is a lagoon; Gretchen Lux says it is estuary. Chair Randelsdid not know the definitions of those words and thought others might not; Mr. Toews declared he also did not. Mr. Emery indicated estuary means ebb and flow; someone added, a river. Mr. Toews pointed out a lagoon actually has a tidal influence, typically, a tidal exchange. Chair Randels indicated that Kah Tai used to have that. Mr. Toews added what he felt was a fmallayer of complexity, but reflects conversations he had with people at DOE, and may be somewhat instructive. The tables in the draftshow: . Category I wetlands include both estuary and wetlands in coastal lagoons. . Category II wetlands include estuary -- do not include lagoons. DOE says they have never run into a lagoon that is Class II and so did not include it in their recommendations. Mr. Toews then asked it how would rate on the points for habitat value. DOE reply was that for habitat function (Table, page 54 of the draft); those point values do not apply to lagoons. Chair Randels asked why? Mr. Toews stated that was also not made clear in the DOE recommendations, and there was no way to have ever known that without talking with them. Mr. Toews stated basically Gretchen's view is that Kah Tai is a Category II, that it is significantly degraded, thinks it is estuary; for 1hat reason it's most likely that a 150 foot buffer would apply to the construction of a new single family dwelling on this lot that lies within 200 feet. That means essentially the landward 50 feet would be the area where you would try to the greatest fea;ibility, outside of the buffer area, locate the structure. Because of that circumscribed area, you might still potentially be in a limited reasonable use exception situation. Planning Commission Minutes, February lO, 2005 Continuance / Page6 . . . Chair Randels asked if Mr. Toews was saying the 5,000 sflot is entirely within... Mr. Toews answered that it lies within 200 feet, and that now we are saying the buffer is going to be 150 ft. He answered Mr. Randels, the lot is 50 x 100. Chair Randels said that it could be 200 x 25. You would have the same number of square feet; you said you would need to get it on the landward 50 feet. Mr. Randall said typically the lots are 50 x 100. Mr. Toews was picturing a 50 x 100 foot lot, and depending on how it isoriented. Mr. Randall showed the orientation: north side of the lagoon, south of 19th. Mr. Kelety asked if the buffer area being discussed (Mr. Toews said not to touch), they have platted and sold at Kah Tai? He answered Mr. Toews that he knew they were platted, but asked if they are privately owned right now. Mr. Randall concurred, saying that much ofKah Tai has been purchased, mainly on the north side. Mr. Kelety asked ifthey had significant acreage there that is privately owned and developed Mr. Randall replied affIrmatively. Mr. Randall drew imaginative 50 ft wide lots with 200 ft buffers (250 ft is better for everybody out there); potentially it is covering 3 - 4 lots deep, with an east/west orientation on the lots. Mr. Toews pointed rut the issue, that if you have essentially a northerly strip of one of these lots that is configured rather east/west, where you have a sliver that may be outside the 150 ft buffer, what can you do with that? You are probably going to have to do some buffer width averaging where you encroach on the 150 ft buffer to build a home, and bump out the buffer elsewhere on the lot to make up the difference. 10 some instances where the lots are configured more perpendicular to the wetland edge, you might find YOUfielf unable to do that -- potentially in a reasonable use exception situation, where you simply cannot locate the improvements on the remainder of the lot outside the buffer. Mr. Randall pointed out suggestions that he said are alkncompassing. They will question Gretchen regarding various scenarios for feedback as to what the science would dictate, e.g., where they are one to two houses away, what is the effect of buffering? What if you happen to have a road between you and the wetland? Mr. Lizut believed he heard that one expert defined it as 200 feet, because of the way they define Kah Tai, and the other came up with the defmition of 100 feet. How would you resolve which expert to use when it comes time to make a decision? Mr. Toews replied he thought you would go with the expert who has rank and seniority at DOE. Chair Randels did not agree that you give the ranking bureaucrat the say. Mr. Toews had said he did not want to be glib, and made the point that ultimately what he thought they were g>ing to do is talk it through (they are both biologists) and come through with what they believe to be most consistent with the science, and what makes the most sense. The issue was raised to demonstrate how science does not provide one answer. He though different experts are going to provide different professional opinions. There obviously are peer review provisions that are already included within the ordinance. When you have the situation where an applicant has clearly solicited the assistance of someone who is rather "pushing the envelope" (forum shopping, looking for the answer that is going to allow them to do the development), the City has the ability to send it out for peer review and determine whether or not it is science. Even with that, the answers are not as clear cut as we all would like them to be. Mr. Randall thought Mr. Toews was talking about Kah Tai, saying Kah Tai is a little unique because it is huge and has been heavily modified. Chair Randels added that it has a lot of privae ownership. Mr. Randall concurred and said they are calling DOE in early because they haven't had one developer who has delineated all of Kah Tal; it would be very expensive. They are trying to figure it out ahead of time and trying to use DOE as a resource to help them get there. lt is probably ooe of two classifications. If they can figure that out, it will lift a burden on the people who are dealing with it. Smaller wetland situations will hire professionals who can delineate it. As long as there is nothing strange about what they have done, that report is it; they won't go to DOE. Chair Randels asked if there is any pressure for those land owners to move on this front? Mr. Randall stated they have had nibbles, but not so much in formal applimtions in that area. They have had a few homes built on the Landes, northwest, side of Kah Tal. He said they will bring other maps that show the public and private ownership in that particular area. The goal is to acquire as much of this as possible. Right now they have a proposal by Kah Tai Care Center for a major expansion. It's possible that entire property is buffer; it has urban looking landscaping, etc.; that is the biggest pressure right now and is going through the permitting process. These a. all potentials. You look at the value of the property, near wildlife and all those sorts of things. If it isn't purchased, eventually you are going to see development there. Ms. Hersey asked why that area wasn't designated &1 like North Beach, and why aren't you looking at that now, changing it? Mr. Randall said oftentimes R-I is because ofESA presence. Mr. Toews explained that &1 applies exclusively within one drainage basin of the city. The reason, because there was a specific scientific drainage basin study in providing the basis for the downzone; there was no way to control storm water impacts of development in that area of the city, unless development was limited to no more than four units per acre. This is why the downzone happened in the first place; there simply wasn't a cogent, science-based rationale, or any other rationale, that had been formulated to justify such a downzoning in other areas of the city. The City, obviously aside from some rezones for multi-family upzones and mixed-use centers, was trying to retain to the extent possible, the Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 Continuance / Page7 . . . old zoning pattern; trying to keep things the same, unless there was a really persuasive reason to do otherwise. Mr. Randall said one thing to remember under the ESA ordinance, if you have apiece of property that is entirely within an ESA, a lot size automatically becomes 10,000 sf. If you own two ofthese lots, you don't own two anymore; they are effectively one building site. If all you own is one and don't own the other one, they can't mke you merge with your neighbor and fight over it as to who gets it. He agreed with Ms. Hersey that if you own three it is still one building site, because it is ownership that regulates. Mr. Randall said that effectively they do have a 10,000 sf minimum in the area through the ESA. That may be another reason they didn't do it. 3. Construction of new high-bluffwatemont home on east side of Jackson Street near the crest of Morgan Hill-- a lot that was platted in the 1890s -- 50 x 100, a good portion bluff face and beach; the remainder is sandwiched in on the east side of Jackson. The current code allows for the buffer to essentially go down to as little as 25 feet. Under the proposed language, they have established a management zone (page 45) .1 00D2.f. ". . . shall require a geotechnical report. . . " Mr. Toews said they are dealing with about the highest bluff along the eastern perimeter of Port Townsend, probably in excess of 150 feet; therefore, the homesite clearly would be well within the mmagement zone which extends into the street and maybe even to some of the lots on the west side of Jackson. It requires a geotechnical report prepared by a licensed engineering geologist, which is a far more stringent requirement than in the current code. There is no setback requirement, per se, but a requirement that the buffer established be of sufficient width to guarantee the lack of a structure for 75 years (now 40 suggested by Ms. Surber based on talks with Mr. Ingrahm). Ms. Hersey asked if you are going to pay, e.g., NT! to come out, do a bluff study, and say where you want to locate your property will last up to 75 years without dropping off? Mr. Randall indicated the person who develops it would be responsible for that. Mr. Toews had previously said that was his cousin's house. The house was removed from the site; a new house went in and it's about 25 feet from a slumping bluff that continues to slump. It won't be waterfront much longer; it will be beachfront. Ms. Hersey is uncomfortable with this, depending on what company you hire as to what they are going to say. There is no real baseline standard set. You are saying we are not going to stick our necks out and give it a footage; we are going to let a private company come and stick tkir neck out, and in 75 years the grandkids can sue the company. Mr. Toews said he understood completely; part of the reason-- there is no one buffer width that will take into account the soil, geology and runoff characteristics of the property, or the wave action occurring at the base of the slope. Mr. Randall said that properties are not created equal; they are trying to create an equal standard that as you apply it to different properties will end up with different results; but the standard is the same. Ms. Hersey had seen the reports, and they specifically the same page verbiage in each study, and will say it will hold for "x" amount of years. She was concerned what it is based on. Ms. Slabaugh noted the late time and asked if they could conlinue deliberation next time. Mr. Randall asked if they might phrase that in terms ofa question; what he was hearing her say, "Have you run this by engineers to ask them what they are going to do with this? Can you certify this will stand up for 75 years?" Ms. Hersey was unsure. Contracting out to any engineering fIrm-- if you get 10 engineering firms, you are going to get 10 different answers. She asked them what they would do then. Mr. Toews pointed out the standard for the geo-tech report is different than the current code. It is required to be prepared by a professional; he thought the qualifIcation standard is much higher than the current code. The person has to have a Washington specialty license in engineering geology as specified in RCW18220.; the report has to be based on the BSA existing in proposed uses, risk of slope failure, and coastal erosion rates. The standard for preparation of the report and who prepares the report has gone up. He said there is no way they can establish one buffer width, with the differences in soils, geology, run-off, characteristics that will apply citywide. That is pretty much why they are deferring to their judgment. Ms. Hersey said they might consider in asking for a geo-tech study to be done, that there are more specific things. They are really general. Mr. Randall explained they are trying to make them not as general any more, but more specifIc. Mr. Randall asked if there were allergic reactions to this meeting room; there was considerable sneezing and coughing. Some people had been ill; others were unsure. Planning Commission Minutes, February 10, 2005 Continuance / Page8 . . . UPCOMING MEETINGS February 24, 2005 Public Workshop Meeting -- Proposed ESA Code Amendments March 10, 2005 Open Record Public Hearing -- Proposed ESA Code Amendments March 24, 2005 Deliberations/Report & Recommendation on ESA Code Amendments VII. VIII. COMMUNICA nONS -- There were none X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Slabaugh and seconded by Mr. Emery. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. @~UJ~diJ,k if'J F Sheila Av' inute Taker r Planning Commission Minutes, February 10,2005 Continuance / Page9 L---~