Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080405 Minutes . . tt CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, August 4, 2005 Meeting Materials: 1. SMP Chapter I (08-04-05); e-mail & paper replaces 07-21-05 2. SMP Chapter 2 (08-04-05); paper replaces 07-21-05 3. SMP Chapter 4 (08-04-05); replaces 07-21-05 4. SMP Chapter 5,5.1-5.6,5.13,5.14 (08-04-05); replaces 07-21-05 5. SMP Chapter 14 (08-04-05); new 6. SMP Chapter 15 (08-04-05); replaces 07-21-05 7. Sepler e-mail: Research - Planning Commission Questions 8. Sepler e-mail: Proposed Zoning Code Revision - Restaurant Size in Point Hudson M-II(B) Zoning District 9. Sepler e-mail: Proposed Ordinance Amending Table 17.20.020 10. Sepler IDO: Severability - Replacement Language 11. Sepler IDO: Large Schematic - NW Maritime Center, 3 pages 12. Sepler IDO: Proposed Landfall Building elevation ( 081005) 13. Sepler IDO Preliminary Massing Study A. Sepler IDO Full Service Restaurant Sizes Comparison B. Point Hudson Restaurant Usage at Theoretical Build Out 14. SMP 080405 Toews Hearing Exhibit A: "Planning Commission Testimony: Proposed Amendments to Table 17.22.020 PTMC - Restaurant Size Limitations in the M-ll(B) Zoning District" B. "Limiting the Size and Scale ofRestauraut Uses; Policy Guidance from Adopted Plans and Codes" 15. Draft Minutes: 07-14-05 Planning Commission Meeting (for approvaI08-11-05) 16. Resignation letter from Lynn Hersey, 080105 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Randels called the meeting to order at 7: 00 PM II. ROLLCALL The following commissioners were present: Mr. Randels Ms. Capron Mr. Emery Ms. King Mr. Lizut Ms. Thayer Ms. Slabaugh and Mr. Kelety (Leave of Absence) were excused. Ms. Hersey had resigned effective August 1,2005. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer suggested moving the Point Hudson text amendment item to follow immediately after the staff reports, befOre the SMP document review and edits. She then made a motion to that effect, which was seconded by Mr. Emery. Agenda revision was approved by unanimous consent. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 EXHIBIT 1,1. Page 1 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. Copies of Draft Minutes of July 14, 2005 meeting were distributed for approval at a future meeting. .' V. NEW BUSINESS Open Record Pnbllc Hearings Hearings on the following two items are to run concurrently: A. Proposed Revisions to Shoreline Master Program B. Text Amendments to Chapter 17 PTMC Regarding Restaurants in the M-Il (8) Point Hudson Marine Related Uses Zoning District I. Staff Presentation ( Surber, Item A; Sepler, Item B) 2. Public Testimony for A and B 3. Planning Commission Deliberation on Item B 4. Planning Commission Action on Item B Chair Randels explained that there would be essentially two concurrent topics and public hearings during this meeting, with the SMP hearing to be continued for at least two more meetings. Before reading the Rules of Order, he explained that the reading would suffice for all three SMP meetings, as well as to the smaller hearing this evening dealing with the proposed Text Amendment regarding Restaurants in the M- II(B) zone. He then read aloud the Rules in their entirety. He requested that the Planning commission members hold their questions until after the public had an opportunity to speak. Following the reading, he asked if any planning commission member had interests, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this matter. There were none. He explained the purpose of the meeting. He explained that the order of speaking would be: 1. staff presentation, 2. comments from the public, 3. response from staff, 4. questions from the commission. Next, Ms. Judy Surber, staff planner, introduced Paul Ingram, consultant with Berryman and Henigar, who has been working ",ith SAG and attending their meetings since 2003. .. Staff Reoort - SMP After distributing a set of new material, Ms. Surber gave a chapter by chapter update, and for each identified the latest version to make certain each commissioner was in possession of all the materials needed for the evening. The itemized list is included in Meeting Materials above. She said that all members should now have a binder dated July 21,2005 w/ all SAG edits incorporated, plus the update with footer date of Aug. 4, 2005. Except for Chapter 3, which is still being written, section 5.13 Point Hudson was the oulyoutstanding chapter/sections of the July 21 draft mailed to commissioners last week. SAG revisions to that, per the most recent meeting on August 3 to finish language changes, have now been incorporated. Note the footer dates: the August 4 version shows strikeout langnage and insertions from staff and from Richard Settle, advisory environmental attorney. Mr. Settle is also finalizing a memorandum oflegal review. Ms. Surber said she would next briefly touch on each chapter to give the main points and intent She stressed that intent does not always to get into the texts; therefore, commissioners should alert her to any discrepancies, weaknesses or sections where text does not reflect the intent. Chapter I - Introduction The main point is to defme and emphasize the three primary goals of the Shoreline Master Program: 1. To promote appropriate uses and those that depend on the water. 2. To promote public access, both visnal and physical; and 3. To foster environmental protections, functions and values. There must be "No Net Loss" and maintenance of the status quo. She said that the edits for this chapter appear to be lengthy, but this is mostly additional background information, not new policy. There were also a few things added to the table at the end of chapter I. This table is intended to raise a red flag to developers ljlJd to show what other permits might apply in addition to local permits. Ou page 11, regarding the relationship to other plans, it is important to know that if a conflict occurs between this plan . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 2 e . . and other plans or codes, the more restrictive requirement shall be applied. This represents recognition of the fragile nature of shorelines. Ms. Thayer pointed out that the page numbering has changed in chapter 1; page II in the August 4 draft is page 8 on her copy of the July 2 I draft. (This may be caused by local printing defaults or variations in margin settings. ) Chapter 2 - Scope, Jurisdictions and Exemptions Ms. Surber noted that legal counsel has advised that more gnidance be added on activities in the absence of development. For example, would use of pesticides on shoreline property be monitored and enforced? She said that they were still having discussions about implications and that there would be more changes from legal counsel on this section. Exemptions are described, starting on page 4, line 30. Ms. Snrher pointed out this language: "the fOllowing shall not be considered substantial development for the purposes of this master program". She said, "So, these are activities and developments that could get a letter of exemption rather than going through the substantial development pennit process; these are based on the WACS except for a few new local exemptions that are not in the WACs. " (Acceptance by the Dept. of Ecology is pending.) She cited Chapter 2, page 6, no. 8, line 27 regarding activities of a temporary nature such as filming for movies, carnivals, erection oflarge tents, etc. The intention was to find an appropriate process, a way to do a letter of exemption, and/or condition a letter of exemption. This is a simpler process, but still subject to the SMP regulations and rules. Mr. Emery asked for clarification: "Js a city permit needed for a filming?" Ms. Surber offered that possibly a request involving the "right of way" would trigger the process. These need to be reviewed on a case by case basis for the SMP, depending on the extent of potential impact, timing, etc. (Mr. RandeIs then rentinded commissioners to hold questions until after the public hearing portion.) Another local exemption is no.3, construction of soft bank revetment; this is different than the WACs; normal WAC exemption is "protection of a normal bulkhead", so this is more restrictive. Chapter 4 - Master Program Elements This chapter will read most like a comp plan, because these are general goals that are supposed to permeate throughout the entire master program. In fact, some are taken directly out of the Comp Plan, such as the econornic goals for the marine trades. On page 7, under the Restoration Element, we added the Purpose, which had been overlooked. On page 8 , there is a new policy that reflects discussions at the Restoration Subcommittee level on preferential tax incentives to encourage people to preserve shoreline resources that are particularly fragile, or to reward restoration projects with tax relief for the restored area. Chapter 5 - Shoreline Environments There were no changes at the beginning of the chapter. On page 5 under Aquatic, additional language is based on discussions at the Development Services Department level with regard to adaptive reuse of historic structures and the need to provide emergency egress. The code requires egress to street right of way (street level); not to a beach that might be under water. We have run into the issue of having to provide egress on the back of a building that is over water, where you need to get to a street end. This language and some policy edits that follow are intended to address that egress issue with regard to historic structures. The Over-water Structures section is similar to the existing SMP; we do not want to see proliferation of over-water structures. They are restricted to the southern shoreline, and restricted to water dependent and public access uses, For new over-water structures, you could not have a new water enjoyment use, like restaurant decks over the water. However, if there is restoration of an existing structure, it might be allowed provided there is some sort of public access element included; there would be more flexibility. For new structures, the policies are much more restrictive regarding uses that would be allowed. Section 5.12 - Boat Haven Marine Trades District, p.32. Ms. Snrher asked that everyone look at the large photo maps; page 6 at the top. The Boat Haven is divided into two sub districts: Main Boat Basin and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 3 Northeast Boat Basin. The Boat Haven is significant as being the location/core of our water dependent uses, and the marine trades make an important contribution to Port Townsend's economy. Thlirefore, we want to protect this area for water dependent and water related uses. However, through the SAG discussions, it was noted that the NE Boat Basin was bordering on hotel nses, restaurants, and other visitor serving uses in the adjacent, more urban areas; this is more of a transition area. So, the nses that are allowed in these two subdistricts are water dependent and water related, but with more flexibility in the NE basin. In addition, the shaded area shows a Boat Haven Marina expansion area. The Port had gone through the Comprehensive Scheme planning process, and looked at alternatives for expansion areas. They had a public process and identified a preferred alternative that, of course, would need to continue with environmental review and design, public comment, etc. In the SMP, SAG was able to recognize that plan for Marina expansion by including a policy in this section. Also within the Boat Haven, under Development Regulations, Uses, page 38 and page 39, please see D.R.5.I2.I.b.iii. For the NE Boat Basin Sub-district, two existing non-water oriented uses and limited new mixed use development are conditionally permitted, "provided they are not incompatible with the preferred uses within the subdistrict" . Also note that on page 40, line 7; we are having the port provide a list of non- water oriented uses, as we did for Point Hudson. This will allow us to identify which of those are suitable for that transitional area of the NE Boat Basin; and the Planning Commission will review that to decide which are most appropriate. 5.13 Point Hudson Marina District- SAG spent a lot of time on this area. There is stili some wording to be sorted out and refined. Viewing the map, page 5 at the top, notice the district is divided into 3 sub-districts. Originally, there were more divisions in Point Hudson, but we simplified things by having NW Maritime Center included in the Maritime Heritage corridor. Point Hudson has a similar marine dependent and related emphasis as the Boat Haven, but at a different scale and with the added feature of historic structures. That is why the zoning is different. This is intended to recognize the smaller scale character of Point Hudson, that you could not have the heavier industrial work on larger boats, and that you want to promote the adaptive reuse of historic structures rather than new. In the Maritime Heritage Corridor, the emphasis here is to preserve small scale marine trades and to inteJject an educational component for maritime heritage, so that goes well with the Wooden Boat Foundation and the NW Maritime Center. There was recognition by SAG, that the Landfall Restaurant has proposed remocleling and a new building, so that was included as a use within the Heritage Corridor. Otherwise, water -enjoyment type uses are not preferred in this subdistrict. For . Point Hudson East, where there are lots of historic bnildings that are not as adaptable; there is more . flexibility for water enjoyment and some specific non-water oriented uses. What we were trying to achieve was a type of synergy and energy that was welcoming and economically supportive of other uses in the district. The Marina designation is self-explanatory; it has emphasis on transient boaters, but also recognizes the link between the slips and the water related businesses. The Port is also here to talk about this in the public hearing. RVs (recreational vehicles) currently exist on the Point, as well as on the parade ground. The long term vision that SAG shared was that the RVs would eventually go away. For the present, they are economically critical. RVs are listed as a pennitted use, but are limited to the same areas and numbers as uow. The parade ground has been identified as an area where R V s could be replaced by a mixed use resort. There is also a long-term policy that when the economic need has been replaced, the RVs at the Point will be e1iminated. There was a suggestion after these discussions that a mixed use resort might be better located to the north, a.k.a. in the "Back Forty". The Port has stated that, in that case, it would be willing to put the parade ground back to its original use. To the staff, this seems to be a good idea, but it did not come up in SAG discussions. Chapter 15 - Definitions There were a few changes of note: "bathymetry" is now in the definitions, as requested at our last meeting. I1water dependent", "water enjoyment"; "water oriented"; "water related'l are defmed. SAG had discussed this at length, and received comments from ecology advisors that these definitions are l1etter than those found in other Shoreline Master Plans. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 4 e . . e "height"; page 22, is based on the IDC, and all other definitions were deleted, a suggestion from buiJding technician. However, Ms. Surber would prefer to reinstate the definition for personal wireless service facilities (stet), page 23, line 24. "restaurants", page 38, may qnalify as a water enjoyment use; intention is to deal with these on a case by case basis. There is a typo change of 'quality' to 'qualify'. Note: a thive through restaurant is not considered water related. Ms. Surber then turned the walk though over to Mr. Ingram, who explained that he would go through Chapter 6, Enviromnental Protection (July 21 version;) and then talk about Chapter 14, Restoration (new). Chapter 6 - Environmental Protection Mr. Ingram recalled that the Planning Commission had recently been through the amendment process to the environmentally sensitive areas ordinance, and noted the parallel between the two. (Mr. Randels inteJjected that the Planning Commission had changed the name late in the game to Critical Areas Ordinance.) Mr. Ingram referred to the theme that runs through the SMP, how the designations of different environments are applied, in that more sensitive areas are designated Natural or Conservancy, and how they discourage incompatible uses within the more sensitive areas. The higher intensity use areas are designated Urban or Boat Haven. In speaking of impacts, bonding, monitoring, mitigation requirements, and measurement, etc., there is the theme that any development must comply with the standard of "No Net Loss "to ecological function, and that there must be mitigation, which means bringing back resources to at least the pre-development or baseline condition. There are also specific enviromnental regulatiolls about the specific types of impacts that parallel SEP A, such as noise, use of chemicals, public health safety. On page 8, in Critical Areas, there are specific management policies that relate Critical Areas to their protection in the shoreline jurisdiction. Here, the text deals with salt water habitats, geologically hazardous areas and wetlands in some detail; there are references back and forth to the CAO. . As Ms. Surber rose to display a photo map showing obliques of the shoreline, Mr. Ingram explained that he .will go over how that applies in the shoreline area,. What we've tried to do is to establish for marine bluffs, a buffer distance and a management zone that is distance related to the height of the bluff. We've tried to use science as a basis, rather than just specify an arbitrary distance, by making the requirement appropriate to the nature of the bluff; there are some that are relatively short, and others that are quite tall. First, there is a management zone; the area to trigger a geotechnical review happens a distance back from the top of the bluff that is equal to the height of the bluff, up to 100 ft., and with a minimum of 50 feet. Between 50 and 100 feet, this is variable and related to the height of the bluff. So, that is to determine if they need a geotechnical review. The geotechnical review looks at slope characteristics, rate of erosion over at least a 75 year time peripd and makes recommendations for a buffer; they are slightly different as to whether its a new lot (there are examples here), compared to an existing in-fill lot; etc. For a new lot, there is a standard 50 foot buffer that could be reduced to the height of the slope down to a minimum of 20 feet. With high bluffs, the buffer could be larger than 50 feet. Ou in fill lots, the minimum does not apply, but any reduction below 50 feet must be verified by the geotechnical review that it does not increase risk. This is a more complex buffer system, the reason being to acknowledge! realize differences between the large and small bluff conditions. Those are from the CAO; and could become part of the SMP. Next week, we will talk more about setback distance. In addition to the buffer from the bluff for protection from erosion and slides, there is also a setback distance depending on the shoreline environment. That is the one thing that I wanted to higWight in Environmental. Protection. . Chapter 14- Restoration Mr. Ingram began by saying that in many ways Restoration is an isolated component of shoreline master programs in that it is not directly related to development. For development, we talk about requiring mitigation; any impact must be mitigated, it must be 'restored'. A restoration Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 5 project could be private or public; could be linked in some way to development, so the restoration chapter goes throngh the restomtion planning requirements for identifying the restoration opportunities. It looks back to the shoreline inventory that was completed in 2002, and the characterization report of 2004 that identified areas that are at risk, degraded, or impaired in different ways. Then, it establishes restoration goals of improving water quality, restoring degraded habitat and improving connectivity of shoreline environments in terms of both space and time. Table t lists out those goals and specific objectives, such as removing creosote pilings, which can be used to attain those goals. It describes how they relate to the ecological functions and processes. Table 2 lists specific restoration opportunities broken down by the different segments. For example, on the southern shoreline, you see treating stonn water and reconnecting wetlands adjacent to the Larry Scott Memorial Trail to the bay. A very significant piece, in the 8/4 version onpage 18, goes through existing and ongoing programs. Oupage 2S in 14.9, there are specific strategies recommended. Allowing for cost, it delineates what strategies the City can take to try to fulfill some of these restoration opportunities by levemging outside resources. Mr. Ingram also highlighted a number of tangible opportunities covered in the chapter such as the uunsed boat ramp at North beach; the Point Wilson lighthouse, and using a soft bank protection alternative at Chetzemoka Park instead ofbulkheading. He noted that the Table 2 list is not exhaustive, but includes the most important potential restoration opportunities. When Mr. Ingram finished, Mr. Randels asked Mr. Sepler to address the Point Hudson restaurant size issue. StaffRtlPort - Zonin. Code Text Amendment Rick Sepler said that he was a Consulting Planner, assisting the city in the review of the zoning code amendment, and thanked the commissioners for the opportunity to present this proposal to change the zoning code. He offered copies of the proposed ordinance and previous e-mails as well as other presentation materials. (Meeting Materials, EXH. 7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14A, t4B, 15A, 15 B) He then read aloud the memorandum, the proposed ordinance, and answers to questions asked at the previous meeting. He also went over the information in the set of supporting visuals, all of which are listed in Meeting Materials above. He noted one piece of additional infonnation: Based on the total square footage in the Point Hudson area, compared to the cap of 11,000 s.f. for restaurants, the percentage of total use for restaurants would be 14%, if this ordinance is approved. He reminded that the topic under discussion was not to consider an amendment to the shoreline plan - it is essentially silent on restaurant sizes. The current Port Townsend Municipal Code limits the individual restaurant size in the M-II(B) zone to 1500 sq. ft. and makes all of those restaurants conditional. The issue to be considered deals with size only and would not affect the conditioual use at all. All three existing restaurants in Point Hudson are non- conforming as to the size limitation; they are all bigger. In looking at restaurant size, two things bring it to the fore. The first is that, in reviewing theSMP, the Planning Commission is reviewing Point Hudson as well as all the waterfront areas. The second is that a proposal to expand or rebuild the Landfall Restaurant is being developed. No applications have been filed to date, although the city has had preliminary discussions with the applicants regarding what process would be used, and what rules would apply towards that application. The City Council, by motion, directed the Planning commission in its review of the Shoreline Master Program, to prioritize and recommend as soon as practical: 1. SMP policies concerning restaurants in M- II(B) zoning, and 2. M-II(B) zoning code amendments with regard to square footage requirements for restaurants. Hence, the reason for this integrated public hearing, and the previous briefmg on this issue. When the Planning Commission discussed the issue on 7/14, a number of questions were raised, which have been researched, documented and incorporated into the recommendation. .. .. Why 1500 square feet?~ Mr. Sepler read from his memo: " The regulatory purpose associated with the size requirement appears to be based on the desire to ensure the prirnscy and continued viability of marine- related and water dependent uses in Point Hudson and maintain the small scale character of the property." A . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 6 .' . . number of jrnisdictions were assessed; in the memorandum, Mr. Sepler reported the information gathered for Anacortes, Bainbridge Island, Everett, and Seattle. He summarized by saying that there are no truly comparable areas to Point Hudson, but that the most similar would be the Seattle North Lake Union areas where restaurants are allowed, with size restrictions, and where they are conditional. Mr. Sepler then quickly stepped through several points also documented in his memo. First, the SAG deliberations and suggestion from the Port of Port Townsend for a cap of3500 s.f Second, the desirability of1imiting the overall number of restaurants and the overall space allotted to them. He quoted the SAG recommendation that would limit the size of an individual restaurant to 3500 s. f and the total area to 11,000 s.f, with the exception that any new restaurant that is part of a shoreline mixed use resort is not applied to the 11,000 sJ. maximum. The full text of the draft ordinance that Mr. Sepler presented is documented in the draft Ordinance distributed ( Meeting Materials Exh. 9). Mr. Sepler explained that, since this is a draft amendment, he has reproduced only those portions of the PTMC (port Townsend Municipal Code) that are relevant to this issue. He also provided a current severability clause (Exh. 10) to replace the outdated one that had inadvertently been included in his draft Ordinance. Following Mr. Sepler's presentation, Mr. Randels opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Public testimony: Chair Randels invited any late arrivers to sign in if they wished to speak. The first speaker on the list, Nancv Dorgl!!!, had no comments on this topic. Eric Toews: 914 Washington Street. Port Townsend W A Cascadia Planning Services Mr. Toews s stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Harrimans, who were also in the audience. ML Toews read from his prepared statement (see Exbibit 15.A~ Meeting Materials above). He began by stating that "the Hartimans strongly support the recommendation of Mr. Sepler, the DSD staff, and the Shoreline Advisory Group, and urge the Planning commission to adopt the amendments as proposed, without modification, except for the severability modification mentioned by Rick" (Mr. Sepler) "a few moments ago. II After reading the text of the statement in its entirety, Mr. Toews added: "And for those reasons we strongly urge you to adopt the proposal as forwarded to you, and we thank you for your time. I would like to make a couple of brief comments on the points that Rick made. The first is with regard to restaurant limitations in other jurisdictions. As we understand the North Lake Union limitations in the Seattle zoning code, those really are square footage triggers for different processes, rather than caps on restaurant size. So, a restaurant under "x s.f" would be pennitted outright, a restaurant over that same limit would be processed conditionally. So, it's not an absolute cap on the permissible building size." With regard to the issue of decks, it should be pointed out that decks are available only on a seasonal basis here, and it depends entirely upon the season just how much use can be made of such an improvement. In terms of bulk and dimensions of the structure, it would be argued that outside decks would have a m;n;m.! impact on the scale of the structure and, at the same time, providing such decks would add vibrancy and vitality to the area by attracting people to the shore, which is really the purpose ofhavlng some of these water enjoyment uses to locate within the area. I brought some handouts that summarize the testimony we've provided. I have also provided some relevant excerpts from the Comp Plan, the Urban Waterfront Plan and the Code, and I'd like to enter those into the record. Thank you for your time." Mary Winters. 213 Tavlor St.. Port Townsend, Port Attorney "Mr. Chair, jnst to be clear, is the testimony now to be on both the zoning change and the overall SMP, or is Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 7 that going to be a separate testimony period?" Chair Randels: "We are having a joint hearing, it's open for you to speak to either or both, and as I said before, if time permits and people want to testify a second time, that will be accommodated. It looks like time will permit, so if you want to bifurcate your presentation, feel free." . "Thank you. On the restaurant issue, I wanted to express support for the zoning code amendment. We believe that it supports existing businesses ability to remodel and expand and sustain their business into the long term, as well as we strongly support eliminating the non-conformity as Rick (Sepler) pointed out. That has never made sense to us -- there hasu't been problem with the current size, so that's something that should not be reflected in the Port Townsend zoning code. With regard to the actual 3500 s.f., it is large enough to support the businesses but modest enough to keep the character of Point Hudson strong; and to be compatible with other restaurants in the vicinity. So we felt there was a lot of thought put into that size limitation and it made a lot of sense. The three(3)- tiered approach with the overall square footage limitation, and the 3500 s.f. individual restaurant limitation, and the overall 4000 s.f. limitation within the Maritime Corridor seemed to give a strong layer of protection to avoid, as we talked about it at the workshop, the Restaurant Row concem So that seemed again to be a really good compromise amongst the various parties and the concerns expressed. Excluding the shoreline mixed use resort, that was done partly because there just won't be much square footage left if the existing restaurants did ever expand, and even if they didn't. When you see a shoreline mixed nse resort, a water enjoyment use (and we can't forget that restaurants are still a water enjoyment use, althongh we may want to limit the number and the square footage), that that helps make it viable; and when you look at the definition of mixed use resort which has been put before you, I.e. the language "designed to bring the general public to the shoreline", it's the kind of language that you see for water enjoyment uses that include restaurants. So, that made sense to us." "I think I will move away from restaurants and talk about Point Hudson: I spoke about it at the workshop, so I will not repeat what I said there - I think you all are well aware of why SAG recommended what it did. I just want to reiterate that Judy Surber did a good job of explaining the draft; and the rationale, and this is really a fine example of different interests and stakeholders coming together in compromise. So, I would urge that if you are going to deviate from the policy direction and the SAG draft that you do it very carefully, and really consider the compromise that went into it." . "Briefly, on two specific issues: There are some minor changes ( remember, Judy said at the workshop that there were line-inlhighlighted sections that SAG was still working on). I just wanted you to know that we support those fairly minor changes ( but, to us, much better language) made when the mini-committee of the Shoreline Advisory Group met, and we don't have any issues with the language before you, as drafted." "Judy also alluded to the issue about the shoreline mixed use resort on the parade grounds, and I want to be clear that we are not saying that would not be an appropriate site for it. It's just that as we thought and talked about it more from a property management perspective, and talking with the property manager, we thought, well, if there is flexibility to go on that back forty (40), some of which is in shorelines jurisdiction and some of which isn't, it might ultimately be a better development if you had some more open space out front. I mean, it felt a little cramped from a property management perspective. We are not saying that the move of the RVs at the parade ground would not happen, but if there was some flexibility, the development might have a better chance of happening. We understand that one of the reasons to limit, essentially, the foot print to the parade grounds, is that by definition that would limit the size, so we are not opposed if there were greater flexibility to some direction to develop bulk and dimensional restrictions. We just don't have any for you; we wanted to see what the planning commission thought about it. I mean, to have it at the parade grounds is better than not having it at all, but we would eucourage you to think about whether flexibility might make the development, if it occurred in the future, a better fit with the character of Point Hudson, and with the open space. It jnst seemed so early to make that decision right now. We haven't gotten anywhere near how that would be designed, but again you can direct, as you often see, you can direct the zoning code to deal with bulk and dimensional issues. That's all I have for now." Mr. Randels noted that no one else had signed up to provide testimony, but offered the opportunity again. . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 8 . . . Seeing that there were no others, Mr. Randels requested Ms. Surber to coordinate any staff response. Staff Resoonse to Public Testimonv: Ms. Surber said she had heard nothing inconsistent with staff comments, and therefore had no additional comments. Neither Mr. Sepler nor Mr. Randall had additional comment, so Mr. Randels said he would like to close the public testimony on the text amendment. Ms. Thayer raised a question on procedure. "Can we do the text amendments, before we do any of the provisional recommendations?" Ms. Surber: "The main thing is that you feel comfortable that you have the context of Point Hudson in your minds, and the uses that SAG was wanting to protect in that area. So, you've obviously had the Point Hudson section and read it, and if you feel comfortable moving into the text amendment.... you certainly could do that." Ms. Thayer: "So, the Planning Commission needs to decide whether we want to go through Point Hudson flfSt." Mr. Randall advised: "Yes, just do not close testimony on SMP -- that will continue. If there is no other testimony on the restaurant issue (text amendment), then you could close that tonight and make recommendations to City COWl.cil." Mr. Randels: I propose that we close the public testimony on the text amendment and proceed to deliberate on that subject. leaving open the other public hearing that we started tonight, and that we do it in the context that Ms. Surber just alluded to. Mr. Emery so moved and Ms, Thayer seconded; the motion passed unanimously. Commission Deliberation on the Text Amendment: Mr. Randels: We have a process. We will consider the text amendment that Rick ( Sepler) prepared along with his new proposed severability language. We are now open for questions from Planning Commissioners for any witnesses Of staff, and for discussion: Ms. King: "Question: Is a mixed use resOlt, by definition. only in Point Hudson East? Mr. Sepler: "As I understand it....it is no where else in the Shoreline Plan Or Comp Plan ( partially inaudible); Mr. Ingram added: "That's correct, and it's only at the parade grounds. " Ms. King: '7s there any limit on the number of mixed use resorts in Point Hudson. in that Point Hudson subdistrict? Mr. Sepler: 111 would defer to (inaudible); I mean, it refers to n~" mixed use resort, but that's not the same as saying one." Panl Ingram: "It refers to one, but I don't think there was any intent to explicitly limit it to a single one, but I think there was recognition that.... (sentence not completed) Mr. Randels: " Yes, there was exactly that intent". Ms. Surber: "Only one, at the parade grounds. And that's why I specifically mentioned that if the Port is in favor of putting it somewhere else, as long as the RVs go away, staff would support that. " Mr. Randels: "but there would still be ouly one. " Ms. King: "".so!think that that could be more explicit; that there be ouly one. " Mr. Randels:" And that, of course, pertains to the SMP, rather than the zoning change." Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Thayer: " ... the text amendment, because the text amendment is in a whole different...." Ms. King: "Well, I gness my concern is that in the zoning change, it refers to the 3500, the restaurant in the mixed use resort, not being pat! of the 11,000 ..." Mr. Randels: "Y ou are right; that's correct, I beg your pardon...." Ms. King: "OK, so my concern was that we are ouly exempting one 3500 s.f. restaurant..." Mr. Sepler: "The langnage I incorporated, to be dutiful to the SAG, was their langnage. However, this text amendment will precede it, and it might be in the Planning Commission's best interest to c.onsider taking that section out in the short term.... because, basically, if you adopted this, there is no use table, definition, or anything else adopted for what that would be." Mr. Randels: Yes, I think we all understand that but, ... I would rather deal with it in the subjunctive than to be silent on it. I think it's important that we address it. Mr. Sepler: I was thinking as a subsequent amendment..... Mr. Randels: I believe we can do it in one action, and that we ought to, otherwise it leaves an uncertainty that we would be well advised not to leave. .... One way that occurred to me to deal with it: we want it to be single restaurant in a single mixed use resort. Those are the parameters that we are talking about, and I suggest adding the word "single" to modiJY both restaurant and resort I would hope that adding that word would make that clear: i.e. to a single restaurant in a single mixed use resort, it's defmitely my assumption and I think it's staffs assumption and it's definitely SAG's assumption, that is, one resort with one restaurant. in that resort. Mr. Emery: Do we need a formal amendment for that? Ms. Thayer and Mr. Randels: We do, at some point, after these discussions have been completed. Ms. Capron asked which lines ( in the text) would be affected. Mr. Randels answered "in the table". Mr. Randels asked, "Similarly, where is the 4000 s.f limitation on restaurant uses in the Maritime Corridor? Mr. Sepler: The text amendment is silent on that. That is a restriction proposed in the shoreline plan (?_. partially inaudible). Mr. Randels: I know that it is there, I just think maybe it ought to be both places. Is there any reason why it shouldu't be in the text amendment as well as the SMP? Surber: Well, as Rick described, the districts and the subdistricts are described in the zoning code, and so, you would read that and be at a loss as to what it means. Ms. Thayer: "But the City Council has directed us to take this up, so ifwe don't include it, we need to include it as a text amendment after we pass .... Ms. Surber: No, it can be dealt with through the Shoreline Master Program; the limitation for a subdistrict that is ouly within shorelines jurisdiction... Mr. Randels: But, what if the text amendment is passed, and the process for the SMP continues apace, but is not yet complete....... or is delayed for years, or is never enacted? Meanwhile, what if a developer tries to take advantage of the new zoning? There is a risk there that we should trY to avoid if we can. Ms. Thayer: But, we still have the 11,000 gross s.f. total. Mr. Randels: The theoretical risk is that one or both of the other existing restaurants go out of business and then all of this square footage is available... to be used anywhere in Point Hudson including the Maritime Heritage corridor. Mr. Sepler: If you have a concern, one option you could consider: Youcould adopt a map of the area that is referred to in the text, that is pat! of the zoning and shows the delineated areas. '" (Mr. Randels: So we could create these districts as pat! of the zoning as well as the SMP?) Yes, a chapter has been established in the Municipal Code that allows for overlay districts... to be established." Mr. Randall: It can be done that way, .or another way is to describe it legally by blocks. Ms. King: Are the 4000 sff.or restaurants in the Maritime Heritage Corridor part of the 11,000 sf .overall? Mr. Randels and Mr. Sepler answered in the affirmative. Ms. Surber: I wanted to note, that if in the text of the Municipal Code you are including the subdistrict description of the Maritime Heritage Corridor, then we need to discuss the division between the Maritime Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 10 ~} . ., . . . . Heritage Corridor and Point Hudson East, because there was a minority vote at the SAG as to where that division lies. Mr. Randels said that the commissioners should talk about this. Ms. Thayer: Do we need to, ifwe are only doing a single restaurant in a single resort? Mr. Ingram: You need to define that area that you are applying the 4,000 s.t: limit to, one way or another. After a brief discussion about what process would be best, and what exactly needed to be clarified, Ms. Thayer moved to recommend approval of the ordinance with the new severability clause and the insert of the language "shall not apply to a single restaurant that is part of a single new shoreline mixed use development"; the motion was seconded by Ms. King Mr. Randels: I oppose the motion; I wish to deal with the 4,000 s.f. sub-limitation. Is there any reason not to do it now? It will take time, but it will need to be dealt with at some point. Mr. Lizut stated that there should be a coherent response to the text amendment, and that he supported Mr. Randels' position that it would be best to address the 4,000 s.f. issue now. Ms. Thayer repeated her assertion that the overall 11,000 s.f. limitation was adequate to cover the situation. Mr. Randels said that the risk was low, but that he would prefer to ensure that the 4,000 s.f. limit was dealt with explicitly in the amendment, and not left to the SMP process. To establish an overlay zone, there needs to be discussion about the border. The question was called by Ms. Thayer_ In favor: Thayerand Emery. Opposed: Randels. Capron, King, and Lizut. Motion failed: 2/4/0 Mr. Randels then suggested that the boundaries of the sub areas in Point Hudson be discussed. Ms. Surber noted that Mary Winters may have wanted to comment if she had known we were going to talk about this point. Mr. Lizut: Before we get into this, one option that was pointed out in the staff presentation is to give direction to staff to bring back the appropriate language on August 11. We could ask them to describe whatever is needed to deal with the line, etc. Ms. Surber stated that the Port had requested time to talk with her. Mr. Randels called a short recess of five minutes. After a five minute recess, as the discussion on subdistrict borders was beginning, Mr. SepIer said he would like to clarify that a deck, with regard to restaurants, means outdoor seating. [There was no follow up on this.] With regard to the borders issue, Mr. Sepler first restated that it is possible to establish an overlay district. It is allowed by code, and it could provide the limitations discussed earlier. Second, if it is established, it would no longer be useful upon adoption of the SMP Update. Therefore, he respectfully requested that, if adopted, a sunset provision be included ensuring that it would be retired if and when the revised SMP takes effect. [Recorder's note: During the hearing, smff referred to a visual display, correctly outlining the area of discussion. However, staffhad mistakenly refelTed to the easterly boundary as "Hudson Street" when in reality it is "Clallam Street". In the following discussion of Point Hudson subdistrict boundaries references to Hudson Street have been changed to Clallam Street, based on post meeting verification of the street names per the map and consultation with Ms. Surber. ] To provide background on the borders of the subdistricts, Ms. Surber referred to page five (5) of the map set. She said that there had been three alternatives discussed by the SAG regarding the border or division line Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 11 between the Maritime Heritage Corridor and Point Hudson East: I. Originally, the line was shown on Illi<lson Clallam Street - a bit more to the east. 2. The Port suggested a change that had the line right next to the Wooden Boat Foundation, just to the east of the Wooden Boat Building. . 3. During those discussions, Ms. Surber had raised the concern that with alternative 2, assuming there would be a new facility constructed on the comer, there may be insufficient space for moving boats from storage, i.e. from the back forty area and behind the duplex building, to the marina. So, a SAG recommendation arose that the line be moved 30 feet to the east ( alternative 3) of Clallam Street. She said Mr. Robison, for the Wooden Boat Foundation, and the Port, then argued that, if it needs to be moved, then why not just leave it where it was originally, on Hudson Clallam Street. She said that the SAG retained alternative 3, but Hudson Clallam Street might be even better, because if there is development on the comer, it might potentially be stradd1ing the line between the two subdistricts. - Mr. Randels: If it was moved back, would it go along Hud:ftm Cla/lam Street to Jefferson Street, back to where it appears on the map? Ms. Surber: Yes. In any case, Mr. Robison and the Port said they would accommodate the Wooden Boat Foundation's needs to get boats to the water. Mr. Randels asked which choice was the preference of the majority and the minority? The minority preferred bringing the line back to Illi<lsonClallam Street; the majority preferred the "30 feet to the east" compromise. Mr. Randels said that if the Port shares that concern about getting boats to the water, they can always reserve an easement for that purpose; its their land. Ms. Surber said, yes, they were working with Mr. Robison and Wooden Boat. Ms. King asked Ms. Thayer if; as the Planning Commission/SAG representative, she saw any problem. Ms Thayer said she did not see an issue any longer. Mr. Randels then moved that the overlay district border be designated as it was originally, at nt/lisen Clallam Street as far as Jefferson, and what is seen on the map. Ms. Thayer: "Do we need to ask for public discussion. including any input Ms. Winters might have? Mr. Randels said he did not see that as necessary. .., Mr. Lizut seconded the motion. The motion was approved, all in favor. Mr. Randels: Are there any other amendments to \he proposed text amendment? Ms. Thayer then asked Mr. Sepler if there was discussion about the M-II(B) district with regard to the overlay zone? Mr. Sepler said that the issue was if the overlay approach is taken, then M-II(B) _ limitations (inaudible) of the M-II(B) into the overlay district, and that he would craft pre1iminary language on establishing the overlay district. Ms Thayer then made a new motion: Recommend that we pass on to City Council approval of the ordinance text amendment with the appropriate severability clause, a sunset clause, and an overlay map, with the changes "excluding outdoor seating" (in place of decks) and "shall not apply to a single restaurant that is part of a single mixed use resort. .. Mr. Lizut seconded the motion, which passed, all in favor. Mr. Randels said that with that action on the ordinance, the business on the text amendment portion of the hearing was completed, and that portion of the public hearing was closed. Public Testimonv: - SMP He \hen reminded that the SMP portion of the public testimony was still open, and recognized Ms. Dorgan to testifY. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 . Page 12 /.---~ . . . Nancv Doman. 2137 Wa<hinlrton Street. Port Townsend Ms. Dorgan said that she would like the Planning Commission to remove the word "resort" from the Point Hudson chapter. "I fmd it really offensive and contrary to my conoept of what Point Hudson is all about. It is not, and should not be, a resort." She said that she understood that the word was Mr. Robison's, and that that made sense, considering his affiliation with a conference center and the need for guests to have a place to stay. She restated that the word was offensive to her; and would like to hear some discussion about that. Mr. Randels thanked Ms. Dorgan, asked for other testimony, received none, and declared the public testimony portion closed for the evening. Staff resDonse to Public Testimonv - SMP Ms. Surber, in response to Ms. Dorgan, explained that during the SAG discussions, there was an emphasis on trYing to elinrinate RVs. Since it was a revenue source for the Port, they considered what incentives might be possible to help bring that about. Originally, the city suggested that a mixed used resort, since it had been mentioned by Dave Robison as a feasible project for Point Hudson, could be built in exchange for removing RVs completely from Point Hudson, at the point and the parade grounds. However, through further discussions, it became a mixed use resort at the parade grounds, and of course the RVs go away at the parade grounds in that instance. So, that's the genesis as I recall it, of a mixed use resort. Mr. Ingram said that the defInition "transient accommodations combined 'With water oriented or other uses" does fit the term "resort'. Ms. Surber added, "and it's not applying (the tenn) to Point Hudson, it's applying it to none mixed use development" . Mr. Randall: We've also had a long standing issue in the current SMP. At the end there is an appendix that describes examples of water dependent, water related, water enjoyment uses_ One of the examples in the water enjoyment section is "resort". He said that neither he nor others involved could at that moment verify if and where IImixed use resorttl appears anywhere in the draft S:MP. However, the term IIresort" has been used in the past, and a similar appendix may be attached to the updated version. If we are going to have this term, is it going to be defined? And, referring to a previous statement by Ms. Surber, how will we deal with the issue of a mixed use resort specific development? Plannin~ Commission Draft SMP Review/Revisions Mr. Randels suggested that the commission follow the order defmed earlier by Ms. Surber, starting with Chapter 15 Definitions, page by page. The group agreed to work from the August 4 version, but to refer to notes on previous versions. Page 2 line 5: building and used, not sued Page 4 line 11: Means should be capitalized, strike e from ande, channelizing not challelizing; line 30: strike '"or other use"? No; should be adjusted to "other pertinent structures". The word "use" is in the both lines 29 and 30; add function instead of use in the first instance. Page 7 line 29: Root wads, not rood wads Add definition for t'Best available sciencet' Page.8 line 19: boating facility should be bold and at margin Page 9 line 31: building height at margin line 39: would this include gabions; should rip rap be included? Staff will get back to that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 2005 Page 13 Page 11 line 16: stump, not stumps line 29: Comp Plan should be capitalized - Page 12 "conditional use" is used to define itself; Mr. Randall will check the WAC Page 14: Discussed Single family dwelling: underline language at the end is consistent with WACs versus the Port Townsend code; we don't want 2 different sets of rules. Mr. Randels asked "if it has more than one unit, how can it be single family?" It was mentioned that the purpose for the unusual distinction in the Port Townsend code is to encourage attached family dwellings as affordable housing; also, there is a different definition for "townhouse". Mr. Randall urged consideration that up to an attached 4-plex be processed as an exemption, but as a conditional use. Mr. Ingram suggested to make it consistent with local code; then modify the exemption by saying "a single family dwelling" or say "occupied by a single family". If the WAC definition is used, then what about an ADD (additional dwelling unit)? Mr. Randall agrees that it is not going to happen much on the shoreline; ouly for residences; the difficulty is for set backs; it might force them through extra processes. The consensus was to focus on the local code, and determine if is there some clarifying language to.deal with current WACs. Regarding " Require public access for more than four(4) units "; include a note that for four (4)-plexes, public access may be required. " There was an question from the audience: "Is it a single family dwelling if there are not walls in common? It is two dwelling units, and in our municipal code they would need to be on their own lots. Page 15 .1ine 8: Under ecological functions, change processes to ecological function . Page16 line 15 and 16 -there should be a defInition for "resource creation" Page 16 Add esplanade: means walkway Page 17 line 3: should be exempt and are therefore exempt (Note: There was a lengthy discussion about the use of the terms and the definitions of exempt and exemption. Ms. King suggested that as these various references are encountered in the draft chapters, the group should decide on consistent and explicit terms e.g., call "shoreline exemptions" shoreline exemption permits; make them all consistent in name; exempt means do nothing and they have to do something; shoreline exemption is a permit; put it into chapters where it fIts. She suggested this added language: "must still be carried out in compliance with policies and standards of the Act, and the local master program and may still require a shoreline exemption permitll. Also, should the term 1I1etter of exemption" be used? Following more research into the WAC language and defInitions by Mr. Randall, there was significant follow up discussion about the term "letter of exemption", "conditional exemptions", and how to be consistent with WAC language and provisions. Mr. Randels wished to eliminate the word exemption altogether. Mr. Randall suggested inserting the language used by the state, even though Port Townsend intends to condition exemptions. The tentative decision, at the end of the discussion, was to take up' the whole letter of exemption issue in the appropriate chapter(s). Page 18 line 29: Change to In cases where the applicant believes it to be infeasible Pagel9 line 9: "Float": change to "a floating structure, not connected to the shoreline,.... ..." Planning Commission Meeting 11nautesfori\ugust4,2005 . Page 14 /"m, .. . . Page 21 line 29; Delete spur dyke (rock weir is OK in the sentence). Page 22 line 13: Height - remove all the secondary definitions except that about towers. (Towers are part of the structure; see provision in the regulation -this definition should include towers as part of the structures.) Also, leave in information for Personal Wireless Services, per Surber Page 23 Hydraulic continuity should be added. hydrology and hydrophytes should they be in ? ( see Marshes reference) Page 24 define shall, should you defme mayor should?? skip it sub-district is also done differeutly though out; settled as one word: subdistrict Live aboard: hyphen?, Should we skip it altogether? Delete Page 25 defines hydrophytes as part of Marshes Page 27 Resort: functional equivalent of a mixed use hotel; after considerable discussion it was decided to put it aside until concept is discussed within tbe chapters. Page 28 add Near-shore management zone and other Near- terms Page 29 line 22: should be a period within a reasonable time; and then semi-colon in accepting that repair; small e; NWMC should be defined? Page 29 noxious weed; should say any plant that is invasive, Page 30 OHWM: define ordinary high water mark, put in ( ) line 33 --line of Higher high tides Mr. Randall: make note about noxious weeds; list just Himalayan blackberries? Page 32:PFC: (see chapter 6, page 2, line 24). Properly functioning conditions and PTEs. If term ouly comes up once, don't use it at all or define in place. Page 34 What is a refugia? should be refuge? Also, what are talus slopes? Decision: take out because there are none in Port Townsend Page35 PTE? (see above) already defined here Page36 line 26, RV is crossed out Page 37 residence: see dwelling Page 38 Qualify; not quality What are the .. in restore? line 14: capital M for Mean in line 14 Page 39 rock weir; bulkheads line 6, period goes inside the quote Page 41 shall: Mr. Randels prefers "should" instead; however, there are standing conventions: policy is should and regulation is shall. This is explained on page 1 of this chapter.) Page 43 Putresible and non- putresible should be defmed Page 44 success standards and success criteria are discussed in chapter 6, page 4, lines I and 4; should they be defmed? Mr. Randels: Since they are value laden, they ought to be defmed. Page 45 Should there be a definition of "takings? Staff: There is new langnage; we want to use other Plarming Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4,2005 Page 15 phrases. The new 1anguage is "constitutional and slatutory limitations"; King suggested "does not leave .~.) reasonable use"; decision was to go back and delete all referenCllll per the Original intention. Page 46 line 29: has 2 periods; line 30, vegetatillD. stabifuatioo; bold and on margin Page 47 line 39: may qualify; and next page, line 3, offi:rs instead ofoffer Page 48 correct font sizes here and where ever inconsistent ecological beaches should be over one notch under water enjoyment uses; line up properly last box a, b, c, should be indented. Mr. Randels reminded that for the next meeting, a qnonnn of five is needed - a majOrity of commission full complement --not of the sitting mnnber. Mr. Randels will be absent, Mr. Kelety is on leave, and Ms. Hersey has resigned. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS 081105 Open Record Public Hearing - SMP Update (continued) 082505 Open Record Public Hearing - SMP Update ( continued) 090105 Open Record Public Hearing - SMP Update (continued) including discussions specific to Indian Point VIlI. ADJOURNMENT Ms Thayer moved that the hearing be continued and the meeting be atfjoumed All were in favor. Chair Randels atfjoumed the meeting at 10:12 PM /~ / George Ran s, Chair ~~ Gall Bernhard, Meeting Recorder PI::lnnl11L: ('O!lJl1liSS!OIl 0,ieeT; !\-1111Utt'~; fell 4.2\-'/- 16 ., .