Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071405 Minutes . . . IV. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, July 14, 2005 Meeting materials: I. July 14,2005 Agenda 2. SMP Update: Overview of the Draft Master Program 3, Staff Report: June 28, 2005 Schedule for Review of Draft Shoreline Master Program 4, Sepler: July 7,2005 Memo: Proposed Zoning Code Revision - Restaurant Size in Point Hudson 5. Shoreline Management Act: Introduction ( www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st~de/intro.html) 6. What is lIdevelopment"? ( www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/administrationldevelopment.html) 7. June 2005 Public Management article "Have it Your Way" from David Timmons I. CALL TO ORDER Chair George Randels called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building. II. ROLLCALL Other members answering roll were: Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, and Cindy Thayer. Roger Lizut (arrived at 7:23 PM) and Liesl Slabaugh arrived at 7:12 PM) were excused from the early part of the meeting. Mr. Randels announced that Jeff Kelety would be on leave of absence for about 4 months due to his wife's illness. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Randels requested acceptance of the agenda. Ms. Thayer moved that the agenda be approved. Mr. Randall requested the addition of two items of business. He wished to offer conunission members the opportunity to work with staff on the first draft for two issues: the formula bnsiness ordinance, including the CIl design standards update, and the statutory street vacation ordinance. He noted that normally the staff develops a preliminary draft to present to the planning conunission. In these cases, following up on what was learned $ough the adult business ordinance process, a few commissioners would be involved earlier with the development of the first draft. For both issues, there is an interim ordinance in place. This would not constitute an actual sub-committee. Ms. Thayer expressed interest in the statutory street vacation issue; Mr. Randels expressed interest in both, and reported that Mr. Lizut was interested in the formula business ordinance. Mr. Emery offered to work with Mr. Lizut on that issue. It was agreed that Ms. Thayer and Mr. RandeIs would assist with the statutory street vacation issue, and Mr. Lizut and Mr. Emery would assist with the formula business/CIl issue. Mr. Randall said he would check with the city attorney as to whether more than two members would constitute a sub-committee. The agenda, as amended, was then approved by all present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 9, 2005 Minutes: Ms. Capron noted that on page 9, the result of the vote on the motion was ntissing. The motion results summary, as follows, will be reinserted in the ntinutes: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofJuly 14, 2005 Page 1 . "Motion by Ms. Thayer, seconded by Ms. Hersey That we consider having the adult entertainment zoue in the downtown area, and that we continue this hearing so that will we have time to get information on separation of businesses and residential, and the possihility for continued public testimony. Roll Call Vote: Thayer and Lizut in favor; RandeIs, Capron, Hersey, Kelety, King, and Slabaugh against, with Emery abstaining. Motion failed: 2/6/1" Mr. Randels noted several typographical corrections, which have been corrected for the permanent record. Ms. Thayer moved that the June 9, 2005 minutes be approved, as amended Mr. Emery seconded; all were in favor. June 16, 2005 Minutes: Ms. Thayer moved that the June 16, 2005 minutes be approved as written. Mr. Emery seconded; all were in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Zoning Cnde Revision - Restaurant Size in Point Hudson Mr. Randels introduced Ms. Judy Surber, Senior Planner. She said that she would later be talking about the Shoreline Master Program Update, started in 2002: Why we are doing it, what is included, the area that is covered, and relevant terminology. All of this is preparatory to the reading and consideration of the full document draft in subsequent weeks, As to where it applies, she noted "all of our marine shorelines, Kai Tai and Chinese Gardens, all the water surface, as well as 200 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark (vegetation line) and Point Hudson". . At this point, she introduced Mr. Richard Sepler, Contract Planner, who was present to discuss the related item of business: Zoning Code Revision, Mr. Sepler stepped through the contents of his July 7,2005 memo I1Proposed Zoning Code Revision - Restaurant Size in Point Hudsonll ( in packet). The purpose for this evening is to solicit questions and information needs from the Commissioners in preparation for the public hearing on this topic scheduled for August 4, 2005. He explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Conunission to consider and recommend potential policy revisions regarding restaurants within the M-Il (B) zoning district and also to propose code amendments with regard to square footage. This should be in advance of the full SMP review. Per Mr. Sepler's memo, the text of the Council motion is: In conjunction with the Planning Commission's review of the draft SMP requirements, priortize and return a recommendation to Council as soon as practical ( and in advance of the balance of the Planning Commission review of the draft SMP) regarding: (1) SMP policies concerning restaurants within the M-11 ( B) zoning, and (2) M-ll ( B) zoning code amendments with regard to square footage requirements for restaurants. The background, current status for existing restaurants, and two possible approaches are described within the memo. He noted that the Shoreline Advisory Group (SAG) and Port of Port Townsend have already considered this issue, the Port has recommended that a 3,500 sq. ft. limit per restaurant would be appropriate. The SAG has discussed that an aggregate for multiple restaurants or total number for all would be appropriate. He noted that formula restaurants are significantly larger than the limits now being considered, and would not be a major consideration. Briefly, two approaches to consider are: (I.)lncrease permitted restaurant size; and/or (2.) Establish Use and/or Limitations on Aggregate Square Footage. Prior to the public hearing, Mr. Sepler will provide a copy of a list of restaurant sizes in the city, jointly prepared by the city and the Port. . In preparation for the hearing, Mr. Sepler asked for questions and research issues from the Conunission members. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2005 Page 2 . 1. Mr. Emery: "Would a bar or lounge associated with a restaurant be included/covered? I' Mr. Septer: "Yes, I think the current code deftnition does consider that as integral -- provided it does have food service." He added that he would like to verifY that. 2. Mr. Randels: "Is it correct that it is our charge to look at the entirety of Point Hudson, not just sub- districts, not just the SMP-related areas?" Mr. Sepler: "Specifically, City Council has asked you to look at the M-II (B) district; that is all of the Point Hudson district. 3. Ms. Capron: "What is the aggregate squarefaotage we are talking about here?" Ms. Surber and others: "II, 500 sq. ft. is the figure in the draft SMP." "Was there a limit on the number alrestaurants as well?" No, just aggregate sq. ft, in conjunction with the individual restaurant size (3500 now proposed); this could be broken up in any number of pieces. Ms. Thayer and Ms. Surber then recalled that most recently, the SAG had discussed a variation, in the event the Parade Grounds are developed as a resort, with a restaurant at Point Hudson. Any individual restaurant would be held to the 3500 sq. ft. maximum, but not be counted in the current aggregate limit. Ms. Surber also noted the need for defInitions, i.e. 'lrestaurant" to be consistent across Title XVII and SMP regulations. 4. Mr. Randels: "Is there any magic to these specific numbers, e.g. 3,000 or 3,500 sq.fi.?; if there is background or history or special empirical information supporting these numbers, we would like to have that infonnation. " . 5. Ms. Capron: "If these three existing restaurants decide to expand to 3,500 sq.fi. each, then are we actually talking about no new restaurants?" Mr. Sepler: "The code is now silent on the number of restaurants." Ms. Surber added that Mary Winters, Port Atty., had reminded her that the SMP actually specified 11,000 sq. ft.: up to 3,500 each for the existing restaurants, plus 500 sq. ft for the Maritime Center, i.e. a snack bar type facility. It was agreed that for the hearing, it would be well to have history of how the figure "1,500" was established originally, and why 3,500 sq. ft- is now proposed. Is this some norm from a trade association or the like? Similarly, the updated list of restaurant sizes in town would be relevant to this question, as well. 6. Ms. Slabaugh: Noting that the goal of Camp plans, SMP etc. is to achieve balance among various values, interests and uses, is there any wisdom from other communities? "How do we incentivize"? Are there incentives or ways to encourage various parties versus using restrictions to achieve the goal? 7. Mr. Emery: "What about Boat Haven, since these decisions may ultimately impact other areas.?" (Mr. Randels and others said: The Boat Haven is an entirely different district, and the timing is different.) 8. Ms. Thayer: "Are you expecting a recommendation from us on direction/approach now?" Mr. Sepler responded that he could structure the proposal in various ways, and to the extent that there is agreement about approach, he could tailor the draft to that. Ms. King stated that she would prefer a hybrid approach including both maximum restaurant size and an aggregate maximum. After some other discussion about the hybrid approach, Mr. Sepler said that with the commission's agreement, he would draft a hybrid ordinance (text amendment): strike out! replace the sq. ft. limit, add a footnote about aggregate limit, do a SEP A review and have public comment on August 4. From that, the connnission could further consider. modify, recommend as it sees fit. 9. Mr. RandeIs also requested any aids to dealing with massing: visuals, site plans, elevations, perspectives that would assist in interpreting distances and areas for structures or planned structures within Point Hudson and adjacent to it, such as the Maritime Center. . Mr. Sepler stated that he would endeavor to provide all of the information and the draft proposal well in advance of the August 4 hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofJuly 14, 2005 Page 3 . B. Overview of Shoreline Planning and Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program Update Ms. Surber resumed her presentation on the SMP Update. She stepped through the remaining schedule, referring to the Schedule for Review, dated June 28, which included a copy of the SMP table of contents ( in packet). Noting that the draft SMP document is over 200 pages in length, she described the planned number of meetings/workshops with chapter/topics for each, to give the Commission members the opportunity to pace their reading and preparation accordingly. On July 28, the SAG members will be present to review the process they followed and to help identify key remaining issues that the Planning Commission may wish to focus aD. She also invited members to the July 20 Shoreline Planning Public Open House to be held at Fort Worden. This will be hosted jointly by the PT Planning Department and People for Puget Sound, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, and WSU Water Watchers. In addition to newspaper press releases, the presentations will be filmed by PTTV and shown on multiple dates after the Open House. Mr. Randels asked whether the appendices would be available. Ms. Surber said that she would be showing most of them during this presentation, and noted that reproduction in quantities may be difficult due to format and size. All are available for review in the office. Mr. Randels said that he would defer to her decision about which if any of the appendices would be copied for the Planning Conunission. SMP UpdateTutorial- Slide Presentation [A sununary copy of the presentation slides are attached to these ntinutes; slide identifiers are shown in bold italics below.] . Shorelines are a valuable resource. ill addition to the obvious major ecological importance of the shorelines, there are economic factors of note. Economically, marine trades represent the largest private employers in Jefferson County and wages in these trades rank among the highest in the area. In contrast, tourist-related jobs typically do not pay ufamily wages". Shoreline Management Act The three pillars of the Shoreline Management Act are: Uses Public access and recreation Protection and restoration of natural environment Early shoreline planning was initiated by citizen groups in bottom up fashion, in response to growth and loss of the natural environment. Special shoreline plans were ratified in 1972. Upon adoption of the Shoreline Management Act in RCWs, the state directed the Department of Ecology to work with local jurisdictions to adopt their own Master Plans consistent with the state regulations. The plans are administered jointly, as partnership between state and local jurisdictions. This plan is different from the Comprehensive plan in that it is adopted at the local level and must be approved by the state; it is not effective until it is approved. Mr. Randels asked "If we adopt local zoning changes, in the context of the SMP, would those actions remain effective even if the SMP is sent back or is not totally approved? Ms. Surber replied that the SMP trumps local rules, and if the SMP is silent, then the local zoning takes effect. The two must be made consistent. Mr. Lizut: "Haw long does it take the state to review and approve?" Ms. Surber: n It is impossible to predict, but we expect about 3-4 months". Mr. Randall added that the state staff had been participating in SAG, and kept abreast. They also have fairly tight strictures on how long approval processes may take. Mr. Lizut - "Would it be advisable to hold off on local changes until approved?" Mr. Randels noted that it would be his suggestion to do the opposite, and that where possible, issues should be pulled out and dealt with separately. . Ms. Thayer rentinded that the state has already been involved with questions and issues. Ms. Surber noted another difference: SMP has both policy and regulations, so it is more like a combination of comprehensive plan and zoning all in one document. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2005 Page 4 . Where does it apply? Generally, all of the water surface and 200 ft inland; this is basically a vegetation line rather than a high water mark. Aerial view of Port Townsend. SMP applicable areas are shown by a purple line around Kai Tai, Chinese Gardens, along the north, east and south shorelines. (Mr. Randall added that Fort Worden is included, although not obvious from the map.) The current guidelines are really 30 years old. In the 1970's there was a program adopted j ointly by the city and county; much of the original language remains; it was only amended and modified specifically for the downtown. Meanwhile, the state has found that shoreline resources have declined rapidly; that the old guidelines have not been effective in protecting the shorelines. In looking at parameters and regulations, new scientific knowledge has been applied. The new goal is No Net Loss; we cannot create or permit a net loss of ecological functions. The bar is set at the SMP adoption stage date; environments must not be allowed to get any worse. In the next part of the tutorial, Ms. Surber discussed the three pillars of the SMP in more depth. She pointed out basic concepts, categories, distinctions, and key definitions for each: Shoreline Use Defming and applying the concept of preferred use, and reserving shorelines for 11 water- oriented" uses, including "water-dependent", It water-related: and lIwater-enjoyment't uses. Public Access and Recreation Ensuring that the overarching policy of preserving the public's opportunities to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural environment is followed. Environment Enhancement In addition to protecting shoreline natural resources, and mitigating adverse impacts to the maximum extent feasible, master programs must identifY and address opportunities for remedy and restoration wherever possible. . How do we update an SMP? The Guidelines are brand new; there are not always clear answers or explicit process guidelines to follow. The slide shows a high level overview of the process components. As one of the five early adopters, Port Townsend started this process in 2002 before the new guidelines became effective. (Although the state began the process in 1995, the guidelines were not adopted until late 2003, to be effective in 2004.) Shoreline Inventory Port Townsend, having realized that the existing SMP guidelines and Critical Areas ordinance were broken, started with an Inventory of Shorelines (land use patterns, ecological functions, shoreline resources, public access, etc.) in 2002. The state requires that all available information be used, that gaps are filled if possible, but does not insist on local jurisdictions funding major scientific research/analysis. Ms. Surber then walked through the large paper Inventory/Atlas, showing various components and layers of the Inventory. Mr. Emery asked if the Inventory was digitized? Ms. Surber and Mr. Randall said that it was but that the special software may be needed to view the maps online. She explained that the new guidelines also require Shoreline Characterization to accompany the Inventory. Due to the timing of the requirement, a separate report will be issued; it focuses on which ecological functions are doing well, which are at risk and which are not properly functioning. This study forms the basis for "no net loss" determination. The next level of work was done with the Shorelines Advisory Group, which focused on policies (what you may and may not do). The SAG was intentionally configured to be a higWy knowledgeable and diverse cross-section. It included 17 people; among them were a homeowner, a business owner; a council member, recreational interests; a Port representative; DNR; a tribes representative; stafLlplanners, Marine trades; and a Planning Conunission member. The group began work in 2003 and ended July 7,2005. . Key planning dates coming up for the Planning Conunission and the City Council were reviewed. The project deadline, set by the state, at the local level is December, 2005. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofJuly 14, 2005 Page 5 . Environment Enhancement: The SAG has looked at restoration opportunities in our jurisdiction: bulk- heading, railroad trestle, wetland areas -- especially where funding or partnering with other entities may be possible. Regarding the Point Wilson lighthouse, it is generally agreed that it must be moved eventually. Meanwhile, the federal government is attempting to surplus it; there are important open issues of ongoing riprap impact, and high maintenance cost Policies and regulations: This example shows a policy, and a specific regulation. In some cases, policies with broader implications may state goals or strategies without specifying corresponding development regulations. How is it implemented? The process involves a series of questions that must be answered. I. Is this development (within SMP)? (See also the Handout - "What is development?", where the definitions of "Development" and other key terms is specified in detail.) 2. If so (i.e. it is subject to the SMP guidelines), is it an "exempt" development? (i.e. exempt from a substantial development pennit). This is essentially a minor development permit - for certain types of proposals (e.g. under $5,000, residences, etc.) which are still subject to fee of$75, a defined process, and may be conditioned to ensure that all the SMP requirements are met. Ms. Thayer: Do you need a permit in order to survey a property? Ms. Surber stated that yes, a permit is required; this would likely be an exemption ( i.e. minor development permit), and that it ntight be conditional with restrictions against using any equipment that would alter the landscape. Mr. Randels intetjected: "Why don't we change that wording? If the use of the word exempt is confusing, we should remedy that." . 3. What type afShoreline Environment is it? The next question and detennination in the process is to identiJy the land designation of the area where development is intended to take place. These are known as Shoreline Environments, e.g. Aquatic, Natural, Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, Urban, Historic Waterfront, Boat Haven Marine Trades, and Point Hudson (has 3 sub-areas). Policies and regulations are specific to the enviromnent or designation. Using a map, Ms. Surber pointed out and briefly explained each of the environments. 4. What is the proposed use of the property or resource? 5. And what modification is involved? Within the particular environment, one must look at the proposed use, and then the particular modification that is under consideration. Outside of shorelines environments, the request for development permits is much simpler. Mr. Randall added that with Shorelines, even if no development is being done, compliance with the use tables is still mandatory. Moreover, if the proposed use is conditional use, or if a variance is required, the state has ultimate approval authority. 6. The last question is 11 Is the proposal within a Critical Area?" The shoreline guidelines specify that you must provide equal to or better than protection than your critical areas ordinance. The intention is to place the recently updated ESA ordinance in the SMP. Then, if the ESA ordinance changes, those changes would need to go through an SMP change approval process in addition. In summary, looking at the Table of Contents, chapter 2, chapter 5, chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 would all be applicable and necessary in the above process. . Mr. Randall noted that because of the more complex structure of the new SMP guidelines, it is much more difficult to answer an inquiry from a property owner as to what may be done with a piece of property. One needs to approach the regulations with a proposed use, in order to make a determination as to what is allowed and under what conditions. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2005 Page 6 . . . At the end of Ms. Surber's presentation, Ms. Thayer noted that the SAG (Shoreline Advisory Group) conunittee had many knowledgeable and qualified individuals. Mr. Randels asked if any of the visitors present would like to add comments; there were no comments at that time. (Guests present were: Mary Winters, Eric Toews, David and Charlotte Goldman, Tony and Betty Harriman, and Jim Pivarnik.) As to status and next steps, Ms. Surber again mentioned that the SAG would be on hand at the next workshop on July 28. She recalled that the SMP draft had been reformatted since it was reviewed and edited by the SAG. The edits from the previous version are being applied to the newly formatted version before distribution to the Planning Conunissioners. She will also need to apply the staff edits, and when available the input from legal consultant, Richard Settle. A version, with at least the SAG edits, should be available by July 21, about one week before the next workshop. Mr. Randall noted that due to the bulk of the copies, it ntight be helpful if conunissioners would pick up their copies from the office. Ms. Slabaugh asked a background question as to how the Port's own plan relates to the SMP, in terms of authority. Ms. Surber and Mr. Randall explained that every Port is required to have its own Comprehensive Scheme, and it must be in compliance with the SMP. Ms. Winters, attorney for the Port, noted that although the Port's plan is more of a business plan than a comprehensive plan, it does contain policy and goals. She noted that there is a WAC that instructs policy developers to take existing port plans into consideration. The two plans should be complimentary and, further, any major development or expansion by the Port would be subject to many other state and federal permitting processes, in addition to the SMP. Ms. Thayer and Mr. Randall mentioned examples of continuing attempts to include participation from all the agencies and entities with possible interest in the SMP, including a talk by the state on the proposed Ferry Expansion and consultation with Fort Worden State Park to understand their plans. Ms. Thayer noted that the process of working with the Port on Point Hudson had gone very smoothly, despite potential for disagreement. Ms. Surber added that a sub-conunittee of marine trades and the Port provided their edits and suggestions for changes to the May 5 draft -- the effort went quite smoothly. Ms. Surber also referred everyone to the state Ecology website for more details on the permitting process and regulations: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/administrationl.../. Ms. Thayer asked if Port Townsend would be one of the fIrst to develop the SMP guidelines. Ms. Surber noted that Port Townsend is among the earliest. Bellingham, Watcom County, and Snohomish County, also early adopters, each of which has been given some funding and an early deadline. Everett, the first to fntish the project, is involved in a lawsuit with the state. Port Townsend had an advantage in terms of its smaller size, and having a good Comprehensive Plan prior to this effort. In closing, Mr. Randels noted that the implications of the SMP goal of "protecting the status quo" from this point in time forward are enormous. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNJCATIONS There were no Communications items. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS 7/28/05: Public Workshop -- Shoreline Master Program Update 8/04/05: Public Hearing - Shoreline Master Program Update, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofJuly 14, 2005 Page 7 . . . including Point Hudson ( MIl -B)restaurant size zoning amendment 8/11105: Public Heating -- Shoreline Master Program Update 8125/05: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update IX. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mr. Emery seconded. Mr. Randels adjourned the meeting at 8:42PM. d G Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofJuly 14, 2005 Page 8