Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090805 Minutes . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, September 8, 2005 Meeting Materials: EXH I. Winters/Toews Memorandum to Planning Commission, Draft SMP - Key Policy Issues Requiring Planning Commission Attention, dated September 8, EXH 2. Capron Statement, NO RESORT, undated, distributed at 090805 Planning Commission meeting EXH 3. Surber, Staff Report, SMP Section 5.13 and Chapter 7 Public Access, dated 090805 EXH 4. Julie Jaman E-mail RE: Indian Point, dated 090 I 05 EXH 5. Bill WooJcott E-Mail RE: Indian Point, dated 090605 EXH 6. Excerpt of Point Hudson Master Plan Draft (proposed), dated June 27, 1994, submitted by Nancy Dorgan EXH 7. Agenda - September 8, 2005 EXH 8. Guest List - September 8,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chair Randels. II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were: George RandeIs, Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, Liesl Slabaugh and Cindy Thayer (excused 6:00 to 6:30PM). Jeff Ke1ety continues to be on leave of absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels asked if there were any proposed chauges to the agenda. Mr. Lizut moved that Section 5.13 be first, after the Staff Report.. Mr. Emery seconded; the agenda was approved, as amended, all in favor. . IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following corrections were noted for the draft minutes for August 4,2005: Page 3 Paragraph 3 Add ending quote mark to sentence "So, these are.......in the WACs." Paragraph 6 Change semicolon to comma Subcommittee should be one word ...egress issue with regard to histonc structures. Paragraph 8 The Over-water Structures section Page 4 Paragraph 0 subdistricts should be one word Paragraph I ... .development are instead of is Paragraph I Add within the subdistrict Paragraph 2 Line 7, change wanted to want Line 12, subdistrict one word Paragraph 3 Line 3, make area and number plural Page 6 Paragraph 0 adjacent to the Lany Scott Memorial Trail Bulkheading is one word Page 7 Toews: North Lake Union Toews: de minimus Page 8 Paragraph 2 ...businesses '..; Line 13, restaurants -- plural Paragraph 4 mini-committee Page 11 Paragraph 5 Randels' Last paragraph subdistricts . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 1 Page 14 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 5 At Page 44 Mr. Randall agrees, instead of he agrees processes., not process, Public access for more than 4 units, not 4 or more ... ought to be defined.... . Page 15 Mr. Randels moved that the minutes be approved; seconded by Mr. Emery. All in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program Update Public Hearing (Continued from September I, 2005 and previous meetings.) Mr. Randels opened this portion of the meeting by stating that the public hearing was continued from previous meetings, and that the rules read at the first meeting remain in effect. He asked commission members to state if any circumstances had chauged with regard to conflicts of interest or other relevant items. There were none. Staff Presentation Judy Surber, Senior Planner, said that she would fIrst verify that Commissioners had all materials for this meeting, in hand: Exhibit 6 from 090105: Boat Haven Use Table, dated August 4,2005 Exhibit 5 from 090105: Chapter 7, Shoreline Public Access Section 5.12 Point Hudson Marina District, Draft 3, dated August 4, 2005 EXH. I 090805 Memorandum from Cascadia: from Winters and Toews, dated Sept. 8,2005 EXH. 2 090805 "NO RESORT' Memorandum from H. Capron, undated EXH. 3 090805 Surber, Staff Report on SMP EXH. 4 090805 E-mail fromJulieJaman.dated090105.re: Indian Point EXH. 5 090805 E-Mail fromBillWoolcott.dated090605.re: Indian Point . Based on the discussions of Sept. I, Ms. Surber said she drafted a development regulation to reflect the residential/transient accommodations deliberation, and sent copies to Mr. Randall and Mr. Inghram for their review; this will be forwarded to the Commissioners as soon as they have reviewed it. Ms. Surber then provided background and orientation on each of the exhibits. EXH. 6 Boat Haven Use Table represents work done with Eric Toews on the limited range of non-water- oriented uses allowed, and includes one edit by Jean Walat on Advertising Signs, which now simply points to the PTMC. She advised that the review should focus on the non-water -oriented uses that would be allowed by the criteria. EXH 3 Staff Report will be used to run through the key issues for Point Hudson discussed by the SAG. She noted that the outline submitted tonight (EXH.I) by the Port is a very shnilar outline of the key issues. Ms. Surber read and described a series of policy questions/answers and rationale including: evaluation of the six goals for this district, purpose and designation criteria, subdistricts and uses. She described the special issues related to new buildings, RVs, liveaboards, and critical areas. Mr. Emery noted that the "back forty" area seemed to be a source of confusion to the City Council and others. Mr. Randall inteIjected that the back forty is regulated by the Point Hudson zoning regulations, but since it is not within 200 feet of the shoreline, it is not subject to the SMP regulations. Mr. Randels asked if the subdistricting constituted an overlay? Mr. Randall responded that the whole shoreline plan is, in effect, an overlay. . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 2 . Ms. Surber then offered the options of either a brief introduction to Chapter 7, Public Access, before public testimony and deliberation on Point Hudson, or holding that presentation until after completion of Point Hudson deliberation. Mr. Randels suggested the latter option would be more convenient, especially for those who were waiting to testify on Point Hudson. Chair Randels then briefly described the protocol for public testimony, and called the flrst speaker. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Nancv Donlan. Port Townsend First, a comment on the Boat Haven Use Table. I have spoken here before in terms of the Boat Haven groceryl deli. I would like to comment tonight in terms of the even more significant business professional offlces, non-water-oriented uses that are listed in this table. This is my neighborhood, I live just down the street, about a block and half, I'm very familiar with how it feels, how it works, who is there, what is good for it. I don't see any need at all to create some kind of so-called transition zone on that spit between the commercial basin where we keep our boat, and the motel. That is on the water; that is where we need to preserve water-dependent uses. The idea of putting a non-water-related offlce building there, to me, is just bizarre and absurd. Put them up there on upper Sims Way where they belong -- you don't put them right there next to boats on precious land. [Ms. Capron inteIjected a question here, asking Ms. Dorgan, to what part of the Table she was referring. Response: second page of the Table, Professional Offlces. Ms. Capron said she didn't see the term transitional. Mr. Randels said "That's the subdisrrict, the Northeastern subdistrict, i.e. it's referred to in the text.] Ms. Dorgan said that Ms. Surber had used that term in her presentation, and it's been used before; that's the purpose, somehow, to create a transitional zone, new uses for a new area. Whereas before, this was just where the Boat Haven ended. She restated that this area is for water uses, and that office space is clearly not an appropriate use. . Regarding Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6, of the August 4 draft, Ms. Dorgan said that she would be looking very carefully at consistency between the Comprehensive Plan policies and whatever is adopted here. She said that there is "a lot of really good language about the marine trades in there", and that she didn't think the hotel/resort concept "is going to fly". She noted that within that section, there is mention of development of a plan for Point Hudson. "So, the Urban Waterfront Plan was 1990,... and it had some really beautiful goals and characterizations of the Point Hudson area. One of them was: The goal of the Urban Maritime District would be to establish an educationally oriented working seaport that enhances and preserves the marine trades.( this is an adopted policy, this is what you are looking to be consistent with). And then it goes on to anticipate that a plan would be prepared pursuant of this -- so that was the Point Hudson master plan. And so this was a blast from the past for Cindy; this was the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan, June of 1996. And the Planning Commission, at that point, had recommendations for future Comp Plan amendments. One of them was adoption of the Point Hudson Master Plan. It was very important to the Planning Commission at that time that the Master Plan be adopted. But instead, it was just shoved on the shelf... I brought a few pages for you tonight from Phase III of that Master Plan (later entered as EXH. 6, 090805), in case you are not familiar with it. And, I've been mulling over quite a bit of what they came up with... as I've been thinking about the whole resort thing, which to me is just a pivotal problem with the current draft of the shorelines plan. What they had in mind was recognizing the revenue stream for the Port, their suggestion was that around D and (inaudible), 50 RV spaces be created. See, they are grand-fathered where they are now, and the Port can keep them there forever. But, with the cooperation of the Port, in this respect, to relocate them over to this area. And that opens up this beautiful open space, especially if you are walking here, right across Admiralty Inlet. Instead of seeing, what?, a two or three-story hotel blocking views... ..through the center of Point Hudson. So, as much as I dislike having R V s around, this is not a bad concept, and believe me they ( Planning Commission) spent a lot of time working on this, and that provides the revenue stream. I would much rather see a new building built for people to make things related to boats, but that maybe won't happen. I was delighted to see the No Resort concept, the idea of a retreat center. I want to reiterate that the NW Maritime Center is a conference center, wearing a sailor suit, but this proposal really intrigues me because it provides accommodations for people that are doing (inaudible) whereas the NW Maritime Center would . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 3 not. This warrants some real consideration, but again, it doesn't solve the problem of (inaudible) needs. . [Pause] There is one other thing I wanted to say. When my husband and I took our boat down the coast of California, into all the ports, including Dana Point. We walked by one of these fancy port things, and there was a perflnne shop. Ms. Dorgan said that she and her husband found that to be quite funny in its irrelevancy and inappropriateness to the setting. She noted that she at fIrst found comfort in the expectation that that would never happen in Port Townsend, but now wonders if she spoke too soon, because "now we are talking about a resort." She asked, "What sort of non-water-oriented use do you see around motel lobbies?" Thank you. Eric Toews. 914 Washinlrton Street. Port Townsend. (aDDearin~ on behaIf of the Port of Port Townsend) Mr. Toews said he would like make a few points relative to the resort issue that has been raised this evening. First, I think the record needs to show that the terminology or the nomenclature employed is vastly less important that the concept and the defInition. The Port of Port Townsend did not conceive of either the concept or the nomenclature used, although we definitely support the concept, as one potential alternative to replace the revenue stream provided by the RVs and potentially to have those RVs go away in the future. I should point out that I spent the last week at a "resort" on Salt Spring Island, a resort that contained no paved surfaces, with 8 cabins on a lake, with no TV or phone. So, clearly resort can mean relatively low intensity development. What's more important than the terminology used, are the bulk, dimensional and intensity limitations contained within the both the zoning code and the SMP, as well as the range of uses permitted in such a development, under the defmition. I think in the instance that we have here, with a potential future mixed use resort development being limited to the parade ground site, the site characteristics, in combination with the height limit with both the current and proposed SMP, that the potential for large scale resort development of the type identifIed by Nancy ( Dorgan), simply is not possible. Instead, I think, what you are likely to see is a much more modest development in size and scale. A three-story hotel development is simply not possible under the limitations that are currently in effect, and that are proposed in the SMP draft. As a cautionary note, I think that the Planning Commission and DSD staff need to understand that if the range and intensity of uses are so severely constrained as to essentially . preclude any real development of that site, the potential for having a revenue stream that is sufficient to replace that provided by the R V s is severely diminished. And, I think that would be an unfortunate outcome. I'd like to make a few additional comments regarding Nancy's testimony with regard to the issue of the transition zone in the NE subbasin between the main basin subdistrict and the Urban Waterfront District. I would simply point out that at the outset, the SAG took a different view, and recognized that that area has a different scale, a different character of uses, than hard core larger scale marine trade uses that are permitted within the main basin area. The non-water-oriented office building that she makes reference to is limited to one location and that location currently is an office -- the Port offices on the west side of Benedict Street. With regard to the Urban Waterfront piau, that is currently adopted city policy and, in large measure, it is reflected, kind of subsumed, in the policies that you have in the draft recommended before you. The SMP is obviously going to be adopted policy as well as regulation, and in large part, the policies of the Waterfront Plan are accurately reflected the draft you have before you. As you are well aware, you are in the process of making city policy, and policy is not and need not remain static. The policies of the Comprehensive PIau, even those of the Urban Waterfront Plan, were not handed down from Sinai, chiseled in stone. And, I think, this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to do the right thing for the community, as a whole and, where necessary, to recommend some minor recommendations to previously adopted city policy. Thank you. Marv Winters. 213 Tavlor Street. Port Townsend. Port Attornev Speaking to the issue of the Point Hudson resort, Ms. Winters said she was sorry that Dave Robison was not present to give more background, since others were debating what she called his term, "resort". She said she thought its use had been based on other shoreline plans and his experience as a planner, as well as the executive director of the Maritime Center. As Eric (Toews) said, we really waut to point you to the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 4 . . definition, because that's the policy that you are making: the idea of a mixed use resort that combines transient accommodations, a limited amount, but with one or more water-oriented uses, in a manner that takes advantage of shoreline location, and which as a general characteristic, provides shoreline recreational and aesthetic enjoyment for a substantial number of people. The whole idea is that it is in keeping with the shoreline uses that are there. It goes on to talk about protecting views, being open to the general public, and devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline enjoyment. (In response to a question from Ms. Slabaugh as to the location of the defmition in the draft, she said "in the back, under mixed use resort".) If the concern is the word "resort", we are not wedded to that word. The idea is what the SAG spent a lot of rime on and that is what we do support. I look at some of these options, which.. retreat center is awfully narrow -- that would require a new definition of what mixed use shoreline development was allowed there, as would a water-related retail complex. That's not what the vision was. If, at a policy level, the definition narrows down to just one thing that is allowed there, the chances of it happening are greatly diminished. On the subject of restaurants, prompted by the City Council meeting, restaurants are a water-enjoyment use, a typical and classic water-enjoyment use. In the zoning code you have now, the SDP regulations chart, just notice that restaurants are a W/O, so they are no longer a conditional use. They are allowed outright as long as they are water-oriented use. Again, that definition is more restrictive than under the current SMP, because there's a big bonus on public access. To our mind, as long as you restrict the number, it is a fully appropriate use within the shoreline jurisdiction. On non-water-oriented uses, I've had to look at the percentages, and I'mjust trying to remind you that the 30% non-water-oriented, and its really its too broad, its really the uses that are AiR. which are much more lintited. Again, 30% in the Main, the hospital and the shower building, that's based on the fact that they are historic buildings. That's the number we have all agreed is possible. Ms. Winters went on to remind the Commissioners of other percentages specified in the draft. . She noted that the Port and staff have disagreed on whether the RVs should be considered a water- enjoyment use. The Port's view has been that it wouldn't open the doors since we are only talking about a public RV park, not private. She said she didn't know where another RV park could be located in the City of Port Townsend. That being said, the Port has said that with all the financial information we have given you, and as long they are permitted as they exist, we understand the reasoning for not saying they are water enjoyment, although we may disagree. Lastly, regarding Ms. Dorgan's reference to an II-year old Point Hudson Master Plan. Noting that she had worked at the City, and was conscious of the tendency to forget the past, she still recognizes that that document is quite dated. She reiterated Mr. Toews point that the Planning Commission is planning, now, for the future, and should not be bound by older documents. Thank you. Larry Crockett. 153 McCurdv Point Road. Port Townsend Mr. Crockett said he wished to speak about the RVs, the economic aspects, and to introduce a new idea about that. He stated he was not wedded to the term 'resort". He said that the term has been used in conjunction with Point Hudson for many years, on signs and in travel guides. . With regard to marine trades, he said an annual survey, done in conjunction with the EDC, has shown a trend, and that now 75% of work is done on recreational vessels. The commercial fishing industry is shrinking because of forces well beyond our control. He said that because the Port has the facilities to do haul out on large vessels, and a safe and properly equipped environment, they still do quite a bit of that work every year. However, every year, the Port reevaluates its business, and plans how to best serve its boating community as that profile changes. On the 1994 plan, he added that the long term vision called for a total build out of the parade field, multiple buildings, with all sorts of uses. However, that plan was never adopted by the Port or the City, and he said that due to changes in environmental law, many of its provisions are illegal now. He said the one good thing is the set of six goals adopted by both the City and Port. The Port then readopted them two years ago when the new Comprehensive Scheme of harbor improvements was developed. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Crockett reported that the Port is preparing to issue a general obligation bond of about 4.5 million dollars. The plan is to build a whole new marina at Point Hudson, with environmentally safe materials, .- public access, the esplanade, public restrooms, ADA compliant gangways, increased moorage, creosote removal, restoration of the lift pier which will enable a long term lease with Fleet Marine. To service this debt, Mr. Crockett said they will need abnut $340,000 from Point Hudson. This year, in the 2005 budget, the total projected revenues for Point Hudson are $656,000. Of the total, $206,000 is expected from the RV revenues. As of August, the actual revenues are about $30,000 ahead of budget, and RVs represent about 31.5% of the total revenue for the year. That turns out to be more revenue than from the boaters. He cited Money magazine's estimate that a dollar of outside revenue turns over 3 rimes in the local economy. He said that he realizes there is concern whether the R V s will ever be phased out. Even though there will be a 20-year bond, within that time period, the restoration and maintenance costs for Point Hudson will amount to about $10 million. One idea is to arrange for a formal economic survey and assessment of Point Hudson abnut every ten years by an independent economic consultant. He acknowledged that it is impossible to predict either significant growth or decline, given the number of variables, and span of time. He suggested that perhaps some mutual agreement such as this would be worth exploring. Regarding adaptive reuse, he quoted Michael Sullivan, as having said, "You've got to allow Point Hudson to live, if you are going to save it." The buildings must be readapted to serve other needs than they were originally built for. Mr. Randels noted that he had not enforced the three minute rule for any of the speakers, but would need to do so, if any wished to make follow up comments. Nancv Dor~an said she just wished to leave a copy of the excerpt from the 1994 Point Hudson Master Plan (EXH. 6, 090805) that depicts the location on of the relocated RVs, which she thought would be preferable to the present location. She also said she stands corrected on the office space at the Boat Haven; she said she hadn't realized the offices pennitted in the SMP draft were actually those in use currently. Lastly, she . mentioned that she once heard a Port official mention RVs in Kah Tai, and she noted that such uses should not be allowed to creep into other areas of the City. Staff Resoonse: Ms. Surber said that, first, she would like to mention that those unable to attend tonight because of the Wooden Boat Festival are welcome to attend a future meeting, to submit their comments in writing, and lor to view or listen to the proceedings on video tape. In response to Nancy Dorgan's comments, she said that she would limit her response to those things that Mr. Toews had not already covered in his remarks. She noted that it was her understanding that the 1994 proposal to move the RVs closer to the residential zone drew a great deal of opposition from neighbors, who anticipated noise and other issues associated with camping and R V s. That was one reason why the SAG did not pursue the relocation idea. It was mentioned by Jim Pvarnik at the Port that the parade ground is just one of several sites that could be considered for the single mixed use resort. Another location that might be appropriate is that northern area, thereby leaving the parade ground for some sort of open space use. The draft shoreline master plan does set a limit on resorts, i.e. oulyone, at the parade ground. The transitional zone in the Boat Haven became its own subdistrict because of its unique characteristics. In addition to scale and character, mentioned by Mr.Toews, the euhauced haul out facility is not available to this particular area of the Boat Haven. Also, there is no equivalent storm water facility to that of the main basin, which results in some restrictions. Mr. Randall added that a workshop featuring Michael Sullivan held at F ort Worden in October 2004 dealt . with Point Hudson at great length. He said that the staffhad identified the unresolved issues in that draft of the Point Hudson Master Plan, and attempted to gather community input on those issues. The SAG spent Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 6 - . . . more time on Point Hudson than on any other part of the city. The recommendations of the Master Plan draft were one of the bases for the options considered on many issues, such as parking, R V s, types of uses, subdistricts. On the issue of "resort", he stated that the details of what could and should happen in Point Hudson are probably as well thought out and worked out as it can be, at this time, especially considering its history of unregulated development, and its unique and difficult to define character. Planninl:! Commission Deliberation: Mr. Randels said that the Commission would now shift to deliberations, taking straw votes from time to time, as appropriate. He said they would begin with Point Hudson, asking members to raise any general subjects before the page by page review of the draft. Ms. Capron referred to the one page comment that she had distributed ( EXH. 2, 090805). She raised the issue of replacing the income from RVs, as well as her negative reaction to the term "resort". She referred to testimony from Eric Toews and Mary Winters regarding the need to differentiate between the concept and the term for the so-called 'resort', and to consider the definition of 'mixed use' as defmed by the draft SMP. She suggested that there be a clear pointer or reference to the definition. She suggested a new term: "mixed use complex", instead of '''mixed use resort", She also suggested the addition of a more explicit sentence in the appropriate development regulation that would refer to the north forty, as an alternative, leaving the parade grounds as open space. [See also text of the original suggested change, shown in red near the end ofEXH. 2.] Mr. Randels asked if there is a difference between the "back forty" and the "north forty". Ms. Thayer said one was east and the other west. Ms. Surber said that it was one area, referred to by both names; she pointed out the open area on the map, that includes, but is not limited to, the portion within the shorelines jurisdiction behind the Commander's House. Ms. King suggested that if the alternative location was to be somehow included, a size limitation should be specified, since the parade grounds square footage would be the de facto limit, as originally conceived. Mr. Raudels said that perhaps the back forty could be allowed in lieu of the parade grounds, but only as a replacement for the RVs. If the development occurs in the north, the RVs leave, and the parade grounds become open space. Ms. Thayer stated that she preferred that the north forty area be a requirement, rather than a choice, so that the parade grounds open space is ensured. She then asked if the Port could be allowed a voice on this question. Mr. Crockett said that he could not speak for the Port Commissioners, but that, personally, he would like to see the parade grounds left as open space. However, from a business standpoint, any area closer to the water is preferable, and the farther away from the shoreline, the greater the risk of not being able to recover the investment and to replace the RV revenue. Ms. Winters again spoke in favor of preserving flexibility in the SMP language. Mr. Lizut referred to Policy 5.13.2, page 44 of Section 5.13, dated August 4,2005. He said the policy about removal of the RVs was so general, so non-specific, as to be meaningless in tenus of ensuring that the desired end would ever occur. He noted that there were neither timing or fmancial parameters, or any suggestion as to when, who and how. Ms. Thayer reported that during SAG discussions she had suggested some time limit such as 20 or 25 years, but that had not been fully explored during the SAG meetings. Mr.Randall suggested that the Commission consider the major issues outlined in the staff report Ms. Surber had prepared (EXH 3.). Mr. Raudels led the group through the series of questions and discussions. Q. Are the six goals adopted by the City of Port Townsen and the Port of Port Townsend through the Joint Resolution 94-148 on December 19, 1994, still valid? A. Yes (No objection or discussion.) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 7 Q. Are the purpose and designation criteria for Point Hudson District clear and consistent with the six ._ adopted goals, Camp plan, and goals of the Shoreline Guidelines? Is the area designated supported by the designation criteria? Mr. Randels referred to the suggestion by Ms. Dorgan that portions of this SMP draft were not consistent with the Comp Plan and the Urban Waterfront Plan. He asked for clarification on the degree to which earlier standing plans are locked in. Ms. Surber responded that this is actually a Comp Plan amendment process, thereby allowing chauge of policy through this process. A. Yes. (No objection or further discussion.) Q. Do the unique characteristics of Point Hudson warrant division of the area into specific subdistricts? A. Yes (Consensus and no fUrther discussion) Q. Should permitted uses vary depending on the subdistrict? A. Yes (Consensus and no fUrther discussion.) Q. What types of non-water oriented commercial uses should be allowed in Point Hudson? A. Discussion was deferred to be dealt with when reviewing the Table of Uses. Q. Should restaurants and transient accommodations be permitted outright in Point Hudson? Should they be allowed only in the original Point Hudson station buildings? A. Mr. Randels noted that the prior actions of the Planning Commission with regard to restaurant size regulations indicate No, at least in terms of which buildings they would be in. (Consensus, and no fUrther discussion.) Q. Should permanent residences ( condominiums, apartments, etc.) be allowed in Point Hudson? A. No, with the exception of a caretaker. (Consensus, and no fUrther discussion.) Q. Should steps be taken in the SMP to reduce fUture concerns of residents to the north of Point Hudson about incompatible uses on the north side of Point Hudson? Ms. Thayer suggested that buffering was the ouly measure necessary. Mr. Emery noted that SAG had recommended buffering. Ms. Capron asked for review ofDR-5.13.18. Neither she nor any other commissioners had objections. A. Only buffering. That option is appropriate and sufficient. . Q. Should new buildings be allowed in Point Hudson? If so, should they be limited to water-dependent or water-related uses? A. Pending Section 5.13 detailed review. Ms. Thayer said that yes, new buildings should be allowed. Commissioners briefly reviewed the SAG recommendations. Mr. Raudels said that there would be more discussion when the specific regulations and Table of Uses are edited. Q. Should RVs be allowed in Point Hudson? Prohibited in the station area? Permitted in the vacant north field area ( outside shoreline jurisdiction)? Should additional R V spaces be allowed? A. Pending Section 5.13 detailed review. Q. Should liveaboards be permitted at the Point Hudson Marina? Should it be on a time of year basis? A. Yes, and the current compromise of the off season allowance is appropriate. Q. What development regulations should apply along the eastern shoreline to protect critical areas and sensitive species? A. There was agreement with the SAG provisions, including a 5.Joot setback along Hudson Street. Next, the group moved on to the August 4 draft of Section 5.13 Suggested chauges, edits and comments are itemized in the table below. . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 8 . . . 40 All 42 43 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 Line 16 Line 9 Footnotes 35 8 5.13.2 Line 13; Policy 5.13.5... Line 9 Line 42 Line 24 Line 3 Line 11 DR-5.13.2 Line 15; DR- 5.13.3 Line 16 Line 11 DR-5.13.6.1.3 and 5.13.7.c Delete italics for 'most' Delete dash before Point Hudson Delete staff/commentary notes; leave those intended as references for all readers No do not insert Ie al descri tions instead Suggestion to delete repetitive sentence not acce ted b ma' on Change all policies to start with verbs. Possible language: "Encourage the removal ofRVs by allowing adaptive reuse and new compatible development that provides for replacement of the RV income stream to the PoIt...". Reiected: Encourage the removal ofRVs from the shoreline by allowing adaptive reuse and new compatible development that provides for replacement of the RV income stream to the Port...", Rei ected: addition of some target time parameter for eliminating the R V s, such as 20 or 25 ears Proposed: "A mixed use (see definition) complex development on the existing parade grounds may also be ... ...use." "Alternatively, such a mixed use complex development could possibly be placed on the north forty, leaving the parade grounds a o en ace." Approved: use tenn/acility instead of com lex above. Approved: Ask staff to draft rewording. Find a way to limit alternative to a size no larger or more intensive than that allowed by the parade ground option. No ca s for laundramat Check renumberin Correct subdistric s Add alon the beach Add Protect and enhance before public; verb chao e Water-oriented uses are priority uses in this district. ...apply to a single restaurant in a single new shoreline mixed use facili ... Allow staff to recommend, in conjunction with rewriting policy above. Make this DR consistent with the Policy rewritin above No a ostro he in RVs Add A single new shoreline mixed use acili Is clarification on the 4,000 s.t: as part of the 11 000 ,.f. needed? NO Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 9 No change Long discussion referring back to Mr. Lizut's earlier objection to lack of specificity; how to periodically assess or evaluate revenue information and ability to replace RVs; timing incentives; is the impending bond tied to RV revenues? Intention is to allow as much flexibility as possible for Port to negotiate bond. Time constraints considered but not resolved Mr. Emery proposed specifying RV removal from shorelines; strong objections from Mr. Crockett. Capron goals: define mixed use; replace the word "resort"; add alternative location Desire flexibility but specificity at least equal to the reference to mixed use resort at the parade grounds; mixed use facility will be define by the definition formerl used for mixed use resort Should there be a reference to clarify or reconsider where this regulation is laced in the SMP document. Use single whenever this mixed use facili occurs Gen- Ms. Capron Are there any provisions for the R V s on the Discussion and disagreement on the eral question.; waterfront? Only specifies R V s at this intention, per the SAG DR-5.B.3 location (parade grounds), After various recommendations, and the policies. suggestions to reword, staff was asked to GR: In total, the adaptive reuse and clarify in all the DRs and policies. the mixed use facility is intended to Add a development regulation tbat allow replacement for ALL the RVs. implements the intention to eliminate all RVs MW: No, more flexibility is needed eventually. and policy can't preclude doing only the narade 2Tounds first. 51 Table Define all abbreviations such as W/O, M/U etc. in a le1lend Apparel Is there a specific reference? Should be % Staff asked to check if data dropped guidelines (Now, must look at page 49. out of first right most cell. number 4) Boat building No change Mr. Emery questioned the allowed use for P.H East, for storage and for moving: vessels. 52 Boat Repair Why is this conditional when boat building Environmentally compatibility is dealt is not? No change with in other processes. RV Table shows that the 48 spaces are the Camh<mlunds max. and cannot be exoanded. 58 Unlisted non- % limitations should apply; AIR and MIUF water oriented but also conditional uses 51- Delete Blank column and M(II) B Ref. 58 columns 59 Line 20 Add slash to and/or Line 3 Delete leading dash 60 Line 7 No change Discussed wind powered generators should be specified as allowed; considered size and imoacts 61 Line 19 Issue has been referred to City Attorney. Should the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines be included as Appendix? Does a reference or inclusion encumber the referenced material and subject it to DOE interference? Ms. Thayer asked when Chapter 1 would be reviewed. Ms. Surber said she had could prepare a presentation at the following meeting. EXH 6 - 090105, Boat Haven Use Boat Haven Use Table, Draft 3, August 30, 2005 Page Advertising No change I Signs Discussion about whether the reference to PTMC gives DOE edit rights to our code. 2-6 Gen- eral No changes See Mr.RandaU's question about sub-district boundaries below. Mr. Randall noticed that the Port Office is now shown as part of the Urban district on the map. However, in the Tables and text, it is shown as part of the Northeast Boat Basin. Should the line end at the street (Benedict Street)? Mr. Crockett said he had noticed that. The maps will need to be corrected. Ch ter 7 Shoreline Public Access Draft 3 Au st 4 2005 Pa e Line 27 Add commas after that, access, and access Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 10 . . . . . . 4 she would check ifit was already covered elsewhere. 5 7.3.11,12,13 Chanfle to verbs 6 7.3.23 Chanp"e to verbs: 6 Design and Rewrite the heading; leave all as separate following Dolicies 9 Lines 15-17 Is this a bank? What is RCW 82.02.020? GR: Note to talk about banks ete next JR: not a bank; but a payment process. year and rationalize our position. No chan2:C here. DR-7.4.9 No change Note to address the timing issue in another chaDter if not already done. iO Line 6 Chanl7e wide to width Line 34 Rejected, as not needed (After shall, add tvnicallv) 12 Lines 30-32 Strike sentence that includes "pathways may be covered if theY are intelITated... .. .." Chapter I was deferred until the following week. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS 09/15/05: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update, to start at 6:00 PM IX. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer made a motion to adjourn. All were in favor. / ~ Chair Randels adjourned the meetzng at 9:40 PM L~ / . . / /. . ~" /?z/~ ~ ~0 1i..~1 J}€orge Rande , Chair Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2005 Page 11 tt ~ . .