Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072805 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, July 28, 2005 Meeting Materials: 1. Shoreline Master Program July 21,2005 Draft (except section 5.13 and Chapter 14)) 2. July 27 e-mail: SMP Section 5.13 Point Hudson and Chapter 14 Restoration 3. July 26,2005 Memo from Winters! Toews Re: Shoreline Master Program Update 4. July 28 e-mail and hardcopy handout: SMP Chapter 5.13 Point Hudson 5. Shoreline Advisory Group: Description, membership list and photograph) 6. Summary of Shoreline Advisory Group Meetings (Table format) 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM II. ROLL CALL All commissioners (Mr. Randels, Ms. Capron, Mr. Emery, Ms. Hersey, Ms. King, Mr. Lizut, Ms. Slabaugh, Ms. Thayer) were present, except Mr. Kelety who is on Leave of Absence. Other participants: Planners - Jeff Randall, Judy Surher; SAG Representatives - Gary Kennedy, David Robison, Ted Labbe, Steve Chapin, Mary Winters, and Eric Toews. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA There was pre-notice of this meeting as the second of five SMP Workshops/Public Hearings. There was no additional written agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. V. NEW BUSINESS Shoreline Master Plan Update: Workshop and Public Hearing Shoreline Advisory Group Review of SMP Update Process & Status Chair Randels welcomed SAG members and other guests. The meeting began with a prelintinary discussion about the status of the SMP draft copies that had been mailed the prior week (7/22/05), and the additional sections e-mailed to commissioners on July 26 and July 27 with cover memos identifYing updates, revisions, and outstanding material. Judy Surber, Senior Planner, also reviewed the sQtus of the SAG edits and answered questions from commissioners about the versions of chapters they had received. There was some consideration and discussion of the process by which the commissioners would submit edits and comments. Mr. Randels inquired as to whether each commissioner might e-mail their minor edits and corrections directly to Ms. Surher. Mr. Randall stated that all comments and edits should be reviewed aloud within the meetings for completeness of the record and to avoid overlap and confusion in reconciling possibly conflicting edits. Ms. Surber agreed that that method had been followed with success by the Shoreline Advisory Group. She also referred to the binder containing the record of SAG meetings; bulleted items and highlights of all SAG business. It is the official record of what happened, when and who was responsible. She noted that most of the information can also be found at the website. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page I . Ms. Surber then explained that the main purpose of the meeting was for SAG representatives to talk about the process followed by the Shorelines Advisory Group over the last two to three years, and to highlight the results of their work. She introduced each of the members of the advisory group present. Chair Randels cougratulated the Shoreline Advisory Group. He said that he was very impressed with the effort and the result; he applauded the work of the SAG and the planners, and said that he looks forward to completing the project. Ms. Surber then invited the SAG members to each speak in turn about the process, and to give their perspectives the SMP draft they delivered. Mr. Randels asked each person to state their name, address, and role/interest on the SAG. Shoreline Advisory Group speakers: GarvKennedy, 1034 57th Street, Port Townsend, WA (representing Homeowners) Mr. Kennedy began by thanking Ms. Surber for choosing such a representative and inclusive group, enabling input from aU sides. He said he was pleased with the work and results on maJor issues, such as Kah Tai and Point Hudson. He thought there was a lot of consensus on Kah Tai. Aside from the private homes and the nursing home areas, their task was to decide between Natural or Conservancy designations for various sub-areas. Considering that some of the area already had trails and restrooms, Conservancy made the most sense there. On the other hand, overwater structures or water vehicles were not permitted in the water area designated as Natural. Mr. Kennedy thought a good compromise had been achieved. . Concerning Point Hudson, aside from the few sticking points, consensus is very close to being achieved -- at least the shorelines portion. As background, Mr. Kennedy cited his own house on the bluff; it was built in 1945, and zero setbacks are grand-fathered in, as for his neighbor's house next door. Where there is an in-fill lot, it can be treated with a little less setback by using the averaging method. Mr. Randels interjected that this issue had come up with Critical Areas and the decision had "gone the other way". Mr. Toews responded that the SMP does not provide for such instances in the same way as the Critical Areas ordinance; the CA regulations do not address this particular instance, nor allow for setback averaging, but imposes certain requiremel!ts regardless of the adjacent or surrounding lots. Ms. Surber added that the issue of how to apply residential setbacks is one of the most complex in the SMP. After a clarification from Mr. Kennedy about his intended point (i.e. that there is some differentiation between m-fiIllots and a major sub-division.), Ms_ Hersey asked about the maximum SMP height limitation for residences. Ms. Surber responded that 30 feet was used based on the existing zoning code. In closing, Mr. Kennedy said that the overall experience and process was very positive; participants learned the spirit of compromise, and most issues were resolved with consensus, rather than voting over the wishes of the others. Ms. Hersey also asked if new staircases are permitted. Ms. Surber said that no new single home staircases are allowed, but public ones may be permitted if located at a street end and are shared by all. Mr. Kennedy added that tramways or funiculars had been considered because they are deemed by some to be less destructive, but that in the end they were not allowed. Mr. Randels thanked Mr. Kennedy, and each of the guest speakers thereafter. . David King 1005 Fir St., Port Townsend (Business Owner in Boat Haven) Mr. King was involved with the SMP phases two & three and the comprehensive scheme for the Port; he has a business in the Boat Haven. He noted that because the Shoreline Advisory Group concentrated on certain things, he doesn't know the whole document as well as those special sections. He added that they had done a lot of background work and tutorials, and took on extra meetings in order to complete as much as possible. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 2 . Mr. King identified a linkage of two Point Hudson issues. He mentioned the provisions to remove the RVs from the spit area of Point Hudson in the long term, although there is no commitment as to time frame. There is also a statement of adherence to the six points or goals of the original (Point Hudson) Master Plan. In this case, the goal is that the Point be self-supporting; there is a provision for the possibility of a small, appropriately sized resort or hotel. Mr. King said he feels strongly about the original provision that Point Hudson be self-sustaining, and that those things are tied together. Before the Port can be expected to remove something that is a vital part of its ability to pay for itself, they need another source of income. He said that although it was discussed the SAG never got to ways in which we might look to a particular timeframe for accomplishment. Therefore, he suggested the commissioners be aware of issues for which the SMP is incomplete or still somewhat open. He stated that a clean reading by those that have not been in the process all along might see things that were missed or not addressed. He ended by saying that he had a great time while involved with the Comprehensive Scheme committee; with phases one, two and three; and was now looking forward to "phase Outll. . At this point, Ms_ Capron asked why the City of Port Townsend had gone first in updating the SMP, why they agreed or volunteered to be an early adopter. Were there any particular benefits for doing so? Mr. Randall responded that Port Townsend had been invited to be an early adopter partially because it fit the profile the state was looking for: a jurisdiction that would encounter and need to deal with some complexity, and one that was likely of success. The city had already received two coastal zone grants and had somewhat of a head start with the Inventory. He noted that of the two cities and two counties selected, Port Townsend would likely be first to complete, far ahead of the others. He said the benefits included the advantage of managing development, going forward, based on all available science and on the principle of no net loss, and being able to take advantage of funding while it is available. The old rules were problematic, and although there are areas of contention with the new guidelines, the Everett lawsuit/appeal as example, there is an expectatiou that the issues will be settled. He noted that the goals were better public access and environmental protection standards, as well as better predictability from an economic standpoint. Mr. Randels added that there was the psychic benefit of doing the right thing. Ms. Surber noted that it may he desirable to review the plan within a year or two to evaluate and fine tune. Dave Robison 652 56th St. (RecreationiPublic Access) Mr. Robison said that he would limit his comments to the Point Hudson Marina district because that is where he put most of his emphasis. He said the document is good example of the compromise work done by the SAG members. He noted the contentious history of Point Hudson and said that the future of Point Hudson has been very controversial for the last 15 years. He recalled that previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have grappled with it. This is truly a compromise that will allow appropriate development within the Point Hudson district. It is important to recognize that the previous SMP only allowed water-oriented uses (those truly water dependent, i.e. in the water; or that require close proximity to the water; and water enjoyment, those that facilitate public access and recreational uses). The existing SMP is much narrower and more restrictive than the new chapters. What this new draft does provide for the conununity are some opportunities for redevelopment and fe-use to OCCUf. This draft does provide a host of policies issues that you may want to consider. It does expand the possible range of uses that could be allowed in Point Hudson. "Some would argue that Point Hudson is the soul and character of Port Townsend, and is one of the last remnants of its funk factor. It is very hard to preserve and protect funk, if not impossible." He said that part of its special character arose because its uses were so restricted. Over 15 or 20 years, it has enabled a variety of small-scale maritime artisans and maritime trades a place to flourish. He cited three examples: e.g. Steve Chapin and Paul at the Boat Shop, Carol Haase, and the Artful Dodger. . This draft identifies Point Hudson in three sub-areas; the one is to recognize that the small scale maritime trades are essential to the character of our working waterfront, our local economy, and our character as a working seaport; it provides some protections to those businesses on the west side of the Marina, and recognizes these uses as important. The coming of the Maritime Center at the old Thomas Oil site will continue to promote and hopefully preserve and protect those types of uses. From the Maritime center side Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 3 . along the west side of the Marina to the cupola house would be the Maritime heritage activity. Those are really important businesses for a variety in the community. Those are what the community fought over for the seven years worked for the city, both as the shoreline administrator of the SMP project as well as the Urban Waterfrout project manager. The new draft does allow some newer and higher uses: potentially restaurants, potentially a new resort, and then adaptive fe-use on the east side of Point Hudson. We have heard from the community that we need to do adaptive reuse of those historic buildings to make them more useable and profitable; Ihere's been this kind of give and take between the Port and the SAG to really figure out a balance that makes sense. So, Point Hudson must be economically viable and sustainable over the long term. That will be the real crux of the issue that we will face as we go forward with development and redevelopment in the Point Hudson district -- whether or not there will be an encroaclnnent of non-water oriented uses into the Point Hudson district that will gentrify Point Hudson to the point where the Maritime Heritage corridor is in jeopardy, whether some of the small scale artisans will have a hard time staying there. Mr. Robison said that is the key issue and uncertainty with this draft, but it is a good compromise draft because it will allow for Point Hudson to continue to evolve and redevelop as we go forward, to meet the long term needs of the community public access directives, and the needs of the Port to have financial incentives so that they can do the improvements of the Marina. The public access walkways and the like will definitely serve visitors and community on the east side by providing better utilization of those historic buildings--as well as meeting the historic preservation goals of the city. So, again, this is a compromise proposal, a much better document than the 1994 Point Hudson plan that was basically a no change plan. . Ted Labbe, 1036 Blaine St. (Ex-officio, non-voting SAG member) Mr. Labbe identified himself as a biologist with the Port Gamble S'Klallam tribe in Kingston who works with the Natural Resources Dept. and other tribes around Puget Sound. Mr. Labbe said one advantage of early adopters is to have more flexibility. He said the group worked well together and approved of the composition of the group. He said he served on other committees for Jefferson County and noticed that staff reports usually seem so positive, so he will talk about the things that didn't go quite as well. However, there was agreement on most things. Mr. Labbe praised the early preparatory work and the Inventory document; he said that it is really excellent and that Port Townsend put a lot of effort into it. He was frustrated by how much time was spent on Boat Haven, Kah Tai and Point Hudson. He feels that the Restoration plan is one of the most important parts of the SMP -- that more emphasis and time should have been spent on it. He said that the Restoration plan was done at the last minute and is not finished. "If you look at the new guidelines from the state, this is a really important part of the SMP". Mr. Labbe said he would like to work with Judy Surber and Paul Ingram and stay engaged in that. "It really should have been integrated and discussed throughout; it is not just an add- on". He added that to some extent it is voluntary; and there is a lot of disagreement about how to approach and structure it. Lyn Hersey asked Mr. Labbe to define "restoration" Mr. Labbe answered: Yes, typically within a project, there must be mitigation of any identified impact. Restoration is completely different -- it is based on the notion that over time we are putting back functions and processes to the shoreline that have been lost over the years. To some extent it is voluntary, and is other than what is happening at the permitting stage, separate from the permitting. There are opportunities to link various parts of the SMP, but so far they are treated separately. Part of the Inventory was an identification of all the potential restoration work that could happen around Port Townsend; with the shorelines armoring, with pilings that have creosote, we haven't yet prioritized them. These are some important issues of disagreement. There were other things too, but these are the pithy things you folks might want to talk about. . Ms. Thayer asked if Mr. Labbe was still working with Ms. Surber on the restoration plan? Mr. Labbe: Yes, but not lately; and now we no longer have the whole team to work on it -- since SAG has more or less completed its meetings. He agreed that he would like to suggest language and work with Paul on some of the details. Mr. Randels asked about other points of disagreement. Mr. Labbe said he would not wish to get into all the small issues, but that one was buffer averaging. He said that not all the members, particularly Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 4 . the non-voting members, were in favor; there was some heartache about that and on some other issues. It is a very important to document, that the shorelines belong to all the people, uot just to the Port or shoreline frontage property owners only. He said he didn't agree that shoreline property owners should have a greater say than people who are not fortunate enough to be there; the shoreline is part of the cultural landscape and belongs to all the residents. He cited the example of the S'Klallam canners arriving, those who have been coming here for many, many years. He said that this year a wedding is planned where they usually land so they have to move and that is significant. He ended by saying this is not just about property; the shoreline is part of the cultural landscape! Mr. Emery: What about the long house idea and reserving a place for such a use? Reply. There is nothing in the short term, and maybe it should be more than one tribe. Mr. Labbe said it would probably be more long term and involve more than one tribe. Mr. Emery: Should we preserve the space for future use? Reply. some of the language in the Point Hudson section has changed; maybe you could take a look at that. Ms. Thayer: Ted, did you come to the meeting on buffer averaging? Reply: yes; I was opposed to it and spoke to that. Mr. Lizut pointed out the Restoration Opportunities table from the Restoration chapter, and asked who developed it. Ms. Surber reported that Paul Ingram had put it together, along with the Atlas. Mr. Lizut said that it was very useful and that they had done a nice job on it. Ms. Surber added that the data had come from the work by Geo- Engineers. . Ms. Slabaugh: What specifically is the state saying about how much you need to do? Mr. Labbe said it isn't just about planning for restoration, not just a wish list; the language in the guidelines talks about encouraging explicit steps and talks abut developing mechanisms -- not just taking Inventory and planning for the projects. What is missing is to develop the mechanisms. Ms. Slabaugh here suggested that the biggest mechanism is money! Mr. Labbe agreed. He said, for example, that Jefferson County now has a Conservation Futures fund taken from real estate transaction excise fees that is used to defme open space and fish and wildlife habitat conservation. Port Townsend could do something similar with shorelines development, given that people who develop the shoreline have a lot of money -- some of that could be garnered to improve public access and fund restoration. If such an account could be created and maintained by the city, then non-profits such as North Olympic Salmon Coalition could apply for matching funds here. Ms. Surber returned to Mr. Emery's question: She said the tribal long house idea was raised at the Keith Guemee public open houses. There was a list of "what you could possibly envision" for that Point Hudson area. The interest in a casino was poor (covered with red dots) compared to a long house ( covered with green dots). One person from the tribes was very excited and spoke in favor of the long house idea for its historic and cultural value. The Port had concerns about specifically saying "a long house" in the SMP document, but the area that is north ofB & B's and residential is shown as public open space in the Port Comprehensive Scheme and the SMP does not envision new development in that area. . Ms. Surber added her remarks on restoration. She stated that one reason for the seemingly late timing of work on restoration is that it was very difficult to get explicit direction from the state ecology team. With limited funds, the group did not want to submit something that was not appropriate or acceptable, and need to redo it. After waiting for some months, meetings with the ecology team did not result in clear direction on how to proceed. She said they are focusing more on Inventory because that is where the other counties need help right now. As Ted explained, restoration is above and beyond maintaining the status quo, and there is a big focus on coordinating the non-profits and agencies that have restoration goals and funding, and looking for those opportunities along our shoreline. Ted also referred to incentive opportunities, either funding through sales or excise tax or encouraging developers to do restoration. Legally you can only require them to mitigate for what impact they have; for restoration, they can either voluntarily do it, or e.g. if they are removing creosote logs as part of their project, we could seek funding to have more logs removed while they are mobilized with that equipment, or you could give more flexibility in exchange for more restoration along the shorelines. She cited the example of Indian Point where the possibility of different uses and/or different bulk and height might be offered in exchange for the greater public benefit of Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 5 . restoration and public access. She also offered to share a paper by Eric Laschever, prepared for King County suggesting ways to provide incentives. Mr. Randels: The phrase that came to mind as Ted was speaking was "unfunded mandate", i.e. insufficiently defined or insufficiently funded directives. Ms. Surber: They say things like prioritize, give a timeline and monitor. First, prioritizing takes a lot of time and resources, and can also backfire when targeted grants or funding opportunities do not arise in the same order or do not match the priority list. As for monitoring, what are the most important things to monitor or track? We do not have a habitat biologist; some things require special expertise and considerable expense. Mr. Kennedy added the example of the Kah Tai culvert. He said that most agreed that it would be highly desirable to "daylight" the culvert, but there is the issue of how to deal with the technical issues and expense. Mr. Randall brought up the SMP process and WACs written by the Department of Ecology. There is a balance needed between the scientists who would fully support/fund these ( restoration) opportunities, but they are weighed back by the politics. So, the guidelines are a compromise from that. With some creative incentives, if shoreline restoration opportunities are identified, commercial developers will be interested -- especially if there is public support for the projects. . Steve Chapin 833 Roosevelt St., Port Townsend (Marine trades - Owner of a Point Hudson boat building shop) Marine trades are concerned about being able to continue to do their work in Boat Haven and Point Hudson. This document is a compromise; there is still more work to be done. He agreed that a lot of time had been spent on Point Hudson, somewhat less on the Boat Haven. He said he was pleased with the chapter on restoration, and thought it provided a measure of hope for improving our shorelines, even though it is still incomplete. He credited Mr. Labbe on promoting the idea of developing mechanisms for encouraging and ensuring improvements and results, despite funding constraints. Also, there should be further work on land use, and at integrating these mechanisms with permitting and other ongoing processes. He said that the SMP is short on monitoring and on ensuring continuing compliance with permitted uses. Mr. Randels agreed that this might turn out to be a really tough problem -- that monitoring is not easy. Mary Winters; 71 0 Reed St., Port Townsend (Port Attorney) Ms. Winters stated that she was a latecomer to the SAG meetings; she has been involved from the time of the (May 2005) draft. Speaking for Mr. Crockett, she noted his frustration about the fast pace at the end, and the difficulty of keeping the commissioners abreast of the issues and progress along the way due to lack of time. She acknowledged the hard work and time of staff and SAG. She said she was frustrated that she hadn't yet read the whole document, and doesn't know what other issues may yet surface. Regarding the restoration plan, she noted that the Port felt it necessary to convey their point of view. She said this was an example of where the DOE and WACs mandate actions, but without funding. The only option is to just continue to develop the plan. With regard to the Port as property owner, there is always some tension and there had been strong positions. She said the Port is different than other property owners and stakeholders; it has statutory duties and lots of responsibilities, especially making it all work on a day-to-day basis -- which has been difficult under the current SMP. The Port has its own plamting processes; their view is/ needs to be different and needs to carry some weight. She said the Port was pleased that the city had taken on the SMP update and that the Port has a real interest in having a plan that works. . She recalled Mr. Robison speaking of adaptive reuse, and emphasized that this is very important, arising out of the fact that these are historic buildings; this is a way to make them vibrant and suited. Although it looks like you are now changing the uses to non-water oriented use, they actually have not been used for marine trades (water oriented uses). We are not talking about a spreading of non-water uses at Point Hudson. And, we are only talking about three adaptive re-use bnildings: the shower, the main and the hospital, in addition Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 6 . to a limited amount of mixed re-use. The Port proposed 40 % adaptive re-use, and that was lessened to 30% by the SAG. She said Mr. Toews would speak to the restaurant size, an issue that was difficult because of the dual tracks of the SAG work and the zoning code revision. Initially, they tried to keep it separate from the SMP draft, letting the Planning Commission handle it, but the issues were so integral to the Port plans that it was discussed. More information will be provided to the Planning Commission on restaurant sizes and all of that. Another big issue was the RVs in Point Hudson, and that was probably the biggest compromise. The Port would have preferred them to be allowed, as a good source of income and for all the other reasons that were laid out. She referred to a lengthy original memo from the Port, and the July 26 version (listed in meeting materials above). She described the compromise ofpermitled use. There can never be expansion or any more RVs; there is the inclusion of policy language indicating that if the revenue source can be replaced, then the RVs can be removed form the Point. And further, if the mixed-use shoreline resort ever came in, then it would obviously displace this one at the parade grounds. She said that that ended up being a good compromise. Ms. Winters stated that she herself hadn't initially realized the importance of the income brought in by the RVs, what it means to the Marina renovation, and that removal would be disastrous. She noted the idea that the boat haven and other port resources should not support Point Hudson; that is one of the six goals -- for Point Hudson to be fmancially self-supporting. She added that to keep the buildings, and not redevelop the rest of Point Hudson, there must be some way to make it work financially. She referred to the memo from the Port, which discusses the Port plans; the Port Comprehensive Scheme also spills over into the question about the long house. The Port Comprehensive Scheme had identified that area as a pocket park, and did not want different entities potentially competing -- it didn't want to single out just one use. Some other historic, interpretive, cultural use would be appropriate, and consistent with the Comp Scheme. . She explained that they were asking for the Planning Commission to look at the Port's planning documents in conjunction with the SMP document. "That's also huge, if you move over to the boat haven with their marina expansion, and the proposal there is to just recognize that area as part of the Shoreline, so it would not have to go through ... an SMP amendment, ... not buying off on the Marina expansion at all, just recognizing that as part of the Port's comp scheme, it would take a huge amount of process and many, many years to ever get that done. - but it's a way of making the two plans mesh. And you'll hear us talk about that throughout. " She said that Eric Toews might speak more on the Boat Haven. She noted how the Point and the Boat Haven have been carved up into sub-districts. Some are really more suited to water-related and water - dependent and some not -- in order to not loosen restrictions in the whole area. It requires you to read the text with a map and with the defmitions (noting that Dave Robison had done a great job of taking state WACs and making them more appropriate to Port Townsend) to understand the areas and boundaries being referred to. Ms. Surber said that she would provide some color maps and reductions of the maps showing sub-districts. As to definitions, Ms. Surher apologized that the changes discussed at the June 21 meeting included the defmitions from Dave Robison as well as the track changes, but inadvertently had not been sent to the Port/SAG members, and would be sent shortly. Mr. Emery then asked about Rawley Corporation He was told that they were no longer involved in any way with Point Hudson, that the Port is owner and manager. . Lyn Hersey asked "What about revenue? Why did they get rid of the long term RVs, considering that they were a source of reliable revenue? Answer per Ms. Winters: the Port felt the use should be transient and not dominated by long term/resident use; they were inappropriate uses despite the revenue; the current arrangement allows more people to use the shoreline. Regarding additional questions about revenue, there was no detailed financial information about how the current situation compares with the previous long-term use arrangement. Ms. Winters did say that she knew that each year the revenues are increasing, due to the general popularity and rise in the use of R V s nationwide; the trend in parks is to accommodate more R V s. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 7 . . . Eric Toews: 914 Washington St.. (Consultant, Cascadia Planning) Following on points made by Dave Robison and Mary Winters, Mr. Toews said there was broad recognition from the SAG and others that they did not want Point Hudson to become "Restaurant Row". Regarding the zoning code and the genesis of the number 1500 as the sq. ft. limitation, he recalled that as the draftsman of Title XVII regulations back in 1977, there was little discussion on that particular cap by the Planning Commission. After two years work on the comprehensive plan, the zoning code went through quickly without a great deal of discussion such as there had been over the policy language. The 1500 was just a place holder intended for further deliberation, but it was accepted without change. W hat is now under consideration (latest SAG draft) is more restrictive than the original May staff draft; he said it was a cap within a cap within a cap. There is a cap of 11,500 sq. ft for the Point Hudson area - which does not include the possible new resort; a cap of 4,000 sq. ft. for the maritime heritage corridor sub-area; and the individual restaurant cap of3,500 sq. ft. This is believed to allow reasonable restaurant use and space, yet preventing over-development of the area for restaurants. With regard to the Boat Haven, he referred to a map of the area. What is proposed is two sub-districts: in the area east of the spit adjacent to urban waterfront, there is a different character and long established use. There is a desire to ensure that Port Townsend's marine trades/industries have certainty that the Boat Haven is reserved exclusively for those uses for the long-term future. So there is virtually no water- enjoyment or non-water oriented use that would be permitted within the shoreline district in this area. That contrasts somewhat with the recommendation of the SAG draft, which allows some flexibility permitting water- enjoyment and narrowly limited non-water oriented uses in the NE Boat Basin-- i.e. the current port offices and some new mixed-use development. Overall, there is still priority given to water -dependent and water- related uses, even in the NE boat basin. Ms. Hersey asked about the size of the blue area. Answer was 200 feet. Also, is the little restaurant in the big building grand-fathered? Mr. Toews answered that, yes, the exception is a small-scale deli there. Mr. Randels asked for clarification about the area of possible expansion, to be certain it was included in the SMP. He was told that the leading option for expansion was" going outward"; it does not change the shoreline. The second option was to make the shoreline longer, but this was seen as less likely to be approved. Mr. Randels asked "Don't we need to include the map as description?" Ms. Surber said that the area needs to be designated as Boat Haven, versus Aquatic, which would apply if not otherwise designated. Several people noted that the city and state already have established code jurisdiction there. Mr. Randels then asked if there were questions from the public, and hearing none, requested that planning commissioners raise their questions. Mr. Emery: What is bathymetry? The definition given was measurement of under-water depths. It was agreed that "bathymetry" would be added to the definitions. Mr. Randels asked if acronyms are defined there. Answer: yes, but we may have missed a few. Ms. Thayer asked if commissioners had received a list of what happens on what days? The answer was Yes -- the June 28 memo from Judy Surber. Mr. Emery asked if there were three or four boat ramps? Mr. Randall clarified that the Salmon Club used the street right of way, that they did not own it. Ms. King asked where to find the setback infonnation. Ms. Surber pointed out Chapter 5, especially the table at the end. However, she noted that one needs to consult several passages and consider them together; she said she hopes that some language changes could be made to simplify understanding of the interplay between the CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance) and the SMP. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 8 . . . . Ms. King: Are there minimum setbacks for bluffs? After some discussion and research, Mr. Randall pointed out that there are three pertinent sections: Chapter 5, section 5.9, refers to the Environmental Critical Areas ordinance -- a minimum of 50 ft. from marine bluffs; a reduction requires a supporting geoteclmical report. There are three different references for management zone, residential sub-division, and existing platted lots. He said that they would attempt to simplify the various references and cross- references. In response to Ms. Thayer's question as to whether there would be more new infonnation before next week, Ms Surber verified that she would be sending the following for the August 4 meeting: the section on Point Hudson, the Definitions, color maps, Eric Lashever's Restoration Incentives, track changes of the flISt few chapters. Restoration is also on the list (Ms. Surber will talk with Paul about the July 7 draft to clarify if the sub-committee has made progress with it.) Ms. Winters noted that the Port would have more comments on the Boat Haven section. Mr. Randall stated that there must be some cut-off date, because there is so little time to incorporate changes and distribute new versions. Ms. Slabaugh asked for clarification about the versions of the Point Hudson chapter. Ms. Surber said she will start with the clean copy based on SAG consensus for Point Hudson and Boat Haven, and then show staff and legal comments!changes for the next version. However, regarding the markings of the current copy (July 21,2005) and outstanding issues: shade means 6/14 meeting changes and underline means 6/21 changes. Other changes and open issues in the July 2 I, 2005 draft are as follows: There is a page overlap between sections 5.12 (ends on page 40) and 5.13, which should begin on page 41, not 40. On the second page (currently page 41) of5.13 at RVs: "substantial number of people" should be stricken. Page 45, policy 5.13.3; language with regard to restoration. Page 46, policy 5.13.10 -- neW language under discussion. Page 47, policy 5.13.13: work with Port of Port Townsend on interfaces is under discussion. Definitions will be reviewed again and re-updated. Mr. Lizut added that he was once in a similar role, as the coordinating editor for technical requirements associated with a nuclear waste repository. He stated that this coordination is very hard work, and complemented Ms. Surber on the job she had done. He suggested that once the changes are in, it would be well to build a keyword searchable index. Ms. Slabaugh asked what process could be followed for those who need to miss one of the SMP review meetings? Suggestions included: listening to the recorded tapes, or using a very rough draft of the minutes; the recorder will endeavor to make these available quickly. Mr. RandeIs stated that commissioners would not be required or expected to take extraordinary steps to compensate for missing a meeting. Ms. Slabaugh will not be present for the August 4 meeting. Mr. Randels will be not be present for the August I I meeting. Ms. King will not be present for the August 25 meeting. Mr. Randall noted that a small buffer has been built into the schedule so that, if necessary, the review time can be extended slightly before turn over to the City Council. However, he suggested that August 18 not be added to the Plamting Commission schedule, due to other SMP commitments already scheduled. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 9 . . . . VI. VII. VIII. IX. Ms. Surher added that the SEP A notice was out (publicly noticed) and that the comment period ends on August 11,200. Copies are available at the office, at the City Clerk's floor, and at the public web-site. For the Critical Areas ordinance, a parallel track is going on, so that needs to be inserted. Because of the large volume of SMP related material, not all has been distribnted to the commissioners. Ms. Surber requested that connnissioners let her know if they see something missing or need any other particular documents. They may use the web site, and if not there, it will be made available in paper form. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 11,2005: SMP Update Public Hearing - continued August 25, 2005: SMP Update Public Hearing - continued ADJOURNMENT Ms_ Thayer moved that the meeting be adjourned, and Mr. Emery4ded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15PM. /7 / C .4~/~~ dail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 28, 2005 Page 10 ~