Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101305 Minutes r . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, October 13,2005 Cedar Room, Waterman and Katz Building Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Fiodil1gs and Conclusions of the Port TOWllSend Planniog Commission, Re: Recommendations that the City Council approve amendments to the Shorelioe Master Program (SMP) and Comprehensive Plan, October 13, 2005 (DRAFT October 7, 2005) EXH 2. Section 5.13 Poiot Hudson, selected changes, draft 101305 EXH 3. Agenda - Planniog Commission, October 13,2005 EXH 4. Guest List - October 13, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meetiog was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Randels. II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Harriet Capron, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, and.Liesl Slabaugh. Ciody Thayer was excused, and Jeff Kelety continues to be on leave of absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels asked if there were any comments or proposed changes to the agenda, other than the upcoming meetiog schedule, which will be discussed later if that is acceptable to everyone. Mr. Emery asked if the minutes would be moved to later io the meeting. Mr. Randel. said, yes, that would be considered as a change, and, in fact, the minutes may need to be postponed to another date. Mr. Emery moved that the agenda be accepted, as amended. Ms. Slabaugh seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were deferred, at least until after New Business. V. NEW BUSINESS Chair Randels said that the Commission would now resume the SMP Update Heariog, noting that the 12- meeting heariog may be a record breaker, and that this would be the last SMP meeting. He stated that the rules read at the fIrst meeting remain in effect. He asked commission members to state if any circumstances had changed with regard to conflicts of ioterest or other relevant items. There were none. Mr. Randels then asked Ms. Surber and Mr. Randall to begin the staff presentation. Staff Presentation: Ms. Surber iodicated she would just give a brief update on events and progress sioce the previous week. She described her visit to the special Historic Preservation Committee meeting. City council had directed the HPC to review the specific chapters or sections of the Shorelioe Master Program that were withio the Historic Landmark District. They looked at the Historic Watemont and at Poiot Hudson. For the Historic Watemont, they made no comment. For Point Hudson, they had two maio comments that they will be passiog on in a letter to the City Council for their consideration. The first was io regards to the parade ground, io its historic context, as open space and the arrangement ofbuildiogs around the parade ground. They would prefer to see no new development on the parade ground. If there was any new water- dependent, water-related or a mixed use facility, it would only be allowed on the back forty. The parade Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 1 1 ground would be iotended to revert to open space. The other recommendation was that if there are any expansions or additions to the historic buildings io Pont Hudson East, that they would only be allowed for . water-dependent or water-related uses. A restaurant, for example, would not be able to expand the size of those historic structures, if the HPC recommendation is approved by Council. She reported that the other meeting that she attended was the Port Commissioners' Workshop, and that went extremely well. (She also iovited Larry Crockett to talk about his impressions of the meetiog at some poiot, ifhe cared to.) She then introduced Mr. David Roberts, from the Department of Natural Resources, who was io the audience. She said he would touch on one of the topics io the Fiodiogs (EXH. I), coordination with the DNR on harbor areas. She said he would also have a comment on Aquaculture. She said that 25 bioders containiog clean copy (October 13 version) of the Shorelioe Master Program had been prepared for City Council, as of earlier io the day. They will also receive the Findings and Conclusion, and meeting mioutes, once approved. Any formal comments from other agencies or persons, on official letterhead, will also be forwarded. She asked Commissioners to suggest any other documents that they think should be iocluded io the packet. The maps have been revised. The NE Boat Basio now correctly reflects the boundary and the Port office withio it. The division between the Historic Watemont and the Commercial District has also been revised. She confirmed, io response to Mr. Randels' question, that the changed boundaries of the subareas ofPoiot Hudson are also reflected io the new maps. Ms. Surber called attention to EXH. 2 which is yet another version of the Poiot Hudson Marioa District. She explaioed that, while sittiog with Mary Wioters at the Port Commissioners meeting, she noticed a few ioconsistencies. This version of selected sections of Section 5.13 ( EXH. 2) contaios the strikeout! underlioe language for the items that they identified as ioconsistencies, and which needs to be re-reviewed tonight. During the PIanniog Conunission proceedings, there was a map revision to change the division between Poiot Hudson East and the Maritime Heritage Corridor, such that it follows the road iostead of . cuttiog right next to the Wooden Boat Foundation building. That means that the new planned moorage office, shower and laundromat would be io the Maritime Heritage Corridor, not io Poiot Hudson East. So, we moved that language ioto the appropriate district. We needed clarification, on page 55, lioe 38, that any shoreline mixed use facility, whether it be located at the back forty or the parade ground, shall be subject to size limitations, io other words, the footprint and square footage applicable to any development on the parade ground site. That is because we recognize that there is a height difference between the parade ground and the back forty. So, we wanted to make sure that actual square footage and footprint was the same but that the height may be different. [At this time, additional copies of EXH. 2 and EXH I, F iodiogs and Conclusions, were distributed to those who had not received them.] .. Per our definitions io the Shorelioe Master Program, a moorage office/showerllaundromat is considered a water-related use, and so could actually go io either one of those districts. On page 56, the language associated with the mappiog change has been moved ioto the appropriate district. On page 58, lioe 28, a clarification: "the following development uses and activities are permitted:" (Sioce there was some question as to whether or not new water-oriented- use buildings could go up, we just clarified). Page 60: this is the maio change that I had wanted to bring to your attention. It had stated that the following uses and activities are permitted: one new mixed use at the Landfall site, and io the next regulation: the following uses may be permitted as a conditional use, and item c. says: mixed use developments ... This is where I identified the problem: Was it meant to be two, or what was the iotention? I checked with the Port representatives (Wioters, Crockett, and Toews) and with David King, who all said it was meant to be one new mixed use at the Landfall. We deleted it io DR-5.13.6. and combioed language ioto DR-5.13.5, item c. Fioally, on the use table, we simply changed the MUIR (resort) to MUIF for facility. Mr. RandeIs asked if the Use chart had been changed to reflect the Landfall mixed use change? Ms. Surber said that restaurants are conditional, but water-oriented restaurants in Poiot Hudson East are permitted. . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 2 , . . . However, this is the Maritime Heritage Corridor. He said that it may need to be discussed anyway, so the commission can decide. Ms. Surber agreed that the Use Table should be reviewed to see if it reflects the collective understanding of the Commission. Public Testimonv: David Roberts. Asst. Re"ional Mana"er io char"e of Aauatic Lands. Department of Natural Resources Mr. Roberts said that he resides io Belliogham, and works out of the Sedro- Wooley office. He said that he attended one of these meetings early io the process to talk about harbor areas. This is a state land use designation that is, basically, a management approach that the DNR was charged to follow through with early io statehood. Harbor areas were established in port tOWllS, typically, io the 1890s. A harbor area was established to provide a zone in front of communities that was available for navigation and commerce. In many cases, various companies ( timber and railroad were mentioned) were gobbliog up the bay shore with docks and piers and raillioes, so the state adopted a harbor lioe commission charged v,ith helpiog communities establish commerce and navigation corridors around all the major communities in the state. The idea was to defme the ioner harbor line, to establish the state ownership. The outer boundary was to set the limit to the maximum extent that docks or structures could be built out in the water. That, along with waterv.rays, which is another designation the state has, was to allow commerce the ability to get into these areas. Waterways, in particular, were designed to allow ships to come right into the streets along the watemonl. Tbis band can be relatively narrow, or fairly wide, up to 2,000 feet, dependiog on the community. He said it is not that wide in this community. Using a map to show the shoreline, Mr. Roberts explaioed that the Port Townsend harbor area starts out at the light bouse (Point Wilson), and extends along the shorelioe, endiog up "back around the far side of the bay". He said that tbe harbor area still makes some sense, and is a constitutionally dictated thing (designation?). He said that the DNR is struggling with the policy implications of elirninatiog such a harbor area designation. That is, would it be necessary to "go back to the legislature and say 'Please take it out of the constitution', which is not necessarily an easy thing to do?" He said that they don't make sense when you have them in front of areas that are designated as Natural or Conservancy. He referred to an earlier recommendation: "Once you have fmished your SMP process, write a letter to the DNR requestiog a review of the harbor area, with the idea that it (the harbor area designation) be removed io these areas ( SMP Natural or Conservancy designations)." "There are two changes that would occur. In a harbor area, there are no preference rights. It may have some effect on the Marine Center ( PT MSC). There is a special dispensation for aquariums that are bnilt over harbor areas -- that ( dispensation) might go away. It affects whether we charge them or not, so we'll have to work out how that will be dealt with. The only other consideration is that if we left it io front of the more commercial and industrial part of the watemont, as the marioa is to be expanded, we may have to move the outer harbor line out to make certain there is adequate space for the marioa to be built. " "If this is somethiog you would like to pursue, although not somethiog we could get to right away, it could be put io the queue for the long term. It isn't goiog to affect thiogs too mucb. The presence of the harbor line along here ( poioting to map ?) does give you a boundary beyond which the state would not allow any structures to be built. The ferry is always a strange thiog, because they have a designation all their own, which we don't have a lot of authority over. I would also assume your shorelioe rules have somethiog about the extent to which you want to build docks and how far out, and thiogs like that. What I see across the state, now, is that mostly the shoreline rules are takiog over where the harbor area was the historical approach to controlliog industrial and commercial development waterways. So, that's basically what I had to say on that. I gave you some maps early on, but I'll send another one that shows how the harbor lioe actually looks and the width of it. Along the watemont here ( poioting), most of this is private tidelands. So, I'll send that, and then we can talk about whether and how to apply for harbor lioe adjustment." Mr. Roberts then asked for questions. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 3 , Mr. Randall asked if there was a prohibition on extension of public docks, or commercial docks, beyond the inner harbor line. Mr. Roberts said no, that was what they were designed for; you just can't go past the . outer harbor lioe (unless we change it). When asked more specifically about our (Port Townsend's) outer harbor lioe, he said he didn't know what the distance was, but that it was narrower than the maximum 2,000 feet allowed by law. He said, "What you could do io your proposal is to vacate this harbor area (poioting northwestward ofPoiot Hudson) and, by the way, there is a waterway, as well, so there must have been some kiod offacility, lumber or something... (Mr. Randall confirmed that there was a mill there.) So, there is a waterway that is platted right through the Port's property. Mr. Emery asked, "In the back forty there?" Mr. Randels asked, " It's a paper canal, the equivalent of a paper street?" Mr. Roberts said that, yes, it was. Waterways were where only transitory moorage was allowed: arrive, unload/load, depart. Around the state, there are waterways that, today, are a completely lost land use designation -- where they are not really needed at all anymore, where we have transient moorage, and all sorts ofthiogs. It doesn't need to be restricted today. Mr. Randels asked if the Navy facility on Indian Island was part of the harbor area. Mr. Roberts said, no, it comes around to about Port TOWllSend, about to the park edge [not further specified]. Mr. Randall asked, io effect, whether the harbor area could be ioterrupted or segmented by the presence of a Natural or Conservancy designation, bounded on either side by the harbor area. For example, leave the Marioe Science Center pier io the harbor area, but remove a segment of the shorelioe to the east of that. Mr. Roberts said he saw no need to do that, and that he knew of no other iostance. He noted that the DNR issues leases only after the shorelioe permit, the Corps' permit, and the hydraulics permit have all been approved. The DNR will never approve unless the rest of the paperwork is io place. Ms. Slabaugh asked about DNR permits needed for aquaculture, and how it related to the harbor area designation. He said aquacnlture is allowed io the harbor area, citing Port Angeles as an example. Typically, however, water quality is an issue, and "you don't see that happen." It is just a lease, with a number, from the DNR standpoiot. "Agaio, your rules are goiog to supercede our rules." Mr. Randels said, " I thought that was not the case, Judy. I thought we were required to iocIude some aquaculture opportunities." Ms. Surber said that we had been told that to state io the SMP that we prohibited aquaculture io a DNR tract, that we may be required to pay DNR what the resource was worth. Mr. Roberts said he was uncertaio whether that had ever been worked out io any particular case. "Kitsap County has told us for years that we could not harvest io Kitsap County, where there are about 30% of the geodncks io the state. It was a financial burden for the state, and they have since gone through all the heariogs boards; they have agreed to allowed us to go io there, under a permit." . "And this was the other thiog that I wanted to talk to you about. When it comes to shellfish, there are three buckets or ways to look at it. In one case, there are structures, like io Port Angeles, with floating aquaculture for fish or shellfish -- clearly a structure out on the ground, or a floatiog structure that is visible. Second, there is aquaculture on the beds, deliberately planted and managed as an agricnltural product. These types are done under a lease from us (DNR). So that wonld ioclude clams, oysters, and the latest is geoduck aquacnlture, which is different from the third type: wild stock geoduck harvest. This is not under a lease. We have sales or auctions of geoducks that are managed under the most stringent of any agricultural or fishery (regnlations) that there is out there. There is a fundamental difference between aquacnlture and a fishery that's called wild stock geoduck. The geoduck program has a statewide management plan that dictates exactly where/whenlhow harvest occurs. And its done io conjunction with the tribes and with state Fish And Wildlife, who manage the resource and make sure we're meeting our obligations io terms of the long term reproduction, and that type ofthiog. Our hope is that we can talk to communities (about this), and we were late io getting io to this question with you. You talk about geoducks io your plan, but there is really goiog to be "geoduck aquaculture, io the future, and there is "wild stock harvest", which are two very different things io terms of impacts, visibility, ioteusity of the use on the land. So, our hope was that we conld get to a point where the wild stock, which is treated as a fishery by the Dept of Fisheries, would be somethiog that didu't require a permit. And, then, anythiog that was operating on the beach, and had structure associated with it, or activity to develop the beach, would be a permitted activity. So, may I . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 4 , . answer any questions about that -- are you all clear about how thiogs look differently from a management standpoint? Clearly to us, the beach activities and the floating aquaculture are defmitely substantial development, in most cases, although some aquacultures can be fairly unobtrusive.. e.g. clams -- nothing visible, and very little disturbance, other than at harvest time. In conclusion, to let you know, our folks will probably look at this, and write a letter to Council, to see if there is some way to separate those out io their thinkiog. And, see if there is a way we can treat the wild stock, as a fishery. It may only require geoducks aquaculture to be added to your list. Mr. Randels said that he believed that we had left enough room for DNR to have its say, and it sounded like we could have been more stringent than we were, so he was hopeful that Mr. Roberts and his colleagues would decide that the letter would not request that they ( Council) amend this. He noted that "the Council will have enough to wrestle with and, as you say, this is kiod of/ate." "If we early adopters make a few mioor mistakes along the way, well, that's goiog to happen. And, I would urge you to be very cautious about askiog Council to deal with, quite frankly, a relatively mioor matter. With that, I appreciate your coming, and we thank you for your input." Larrv Crockett. 123 McCurdv Poiot Road. Port Townsend Before beginniog his prepared comments, Mr. Crockett noted that the Port works with Mr. Roberts io connection with tideland management agreements. He then spoke about the Port Commissioners meeting mentioned earlier by Ms. Surber. He said that about anhour and a half was spent goiog through those chapters that pertain to the Port. He said that, although he had been briefing them all along, he had not distributed any draft copies. They had some questions for Ms. Surber and Ms. Wioters, and that it went very well. He plans to ask the Commissioners to formally endorse the draft SMP at the next meeting, and transmit that to the Council with a cover letter. . Mr. Crockett also commented on the HPC meeting. He said that he was not present; Mr. Toews and Ms. Winters attended for the Port. He expressed his opinion that the HPC members did not understand all the facts, with regard to certain issues that came up. He said he hadn't seen their written comments to the Council yet, and may decide to present a report to the Council, depending on what is contaioed in the HPC comments. Lastly, he said he had sent a letter to staff iodicating that, based on his participation all the way through the SAG and Planniog Commission process, the SMP document, with the Fiodings and Conclusions, is a weB-written docwnent that fairly represents the entire subject, as succinctly as possible. He said this body is to be commended for its time and the production of a workable document that will allow the community to move forward io a measured manner. It will allow protection of the enviromnent as well as a small community to grow io the right areas, at the right places, at the right speed. He thanked the Planniog Commission and offered to buy beverages for All involved when it is all over witb. Mr. Randels thanked Mr. Crockett for his generous comments. Tod Wexman. 611 Scott Street. Port Townsend Mr. Wexman said he had been io Port Townsend sioce 2001. He said that he is a planner and an architect, and thioks he can bring an ioteresting perspective because he is "sort of fresh, here." He said he has traveled a lot and seen what is going on io cities across the country. One of the things he is concerned about, as a planner and architect, and as a citizen of this town and state, is the failure of some of the Acts that were touted for many years to be enablers of "smart growth", or that idea. "You were talking here about smart shoreline. The State of Washington has the Growth Management Act, and you've got a shoreline act. I'm concerned that, in this particular city, we're failing io some ways to respond very well to the charge tbat those acts ptesent. And I have a question to ask, and I'd like to hear your response. The Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction encompasses lands within two hundred feet of the water. One of the policies of the Shoreline Master Program is to "protect and restore the natural enviromnep.t", so far so good. The project that is proposed for Indian Poiot is apparently well withio two hundred feet of the water. Wouldn't approval of the proposed Indian Poiot project be ioconsistent with the Shorelioe Master Program? . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 5 \ It is withio the two hundred foot boundary, and one of your aims is to protect and restore the natural environment; it's on its way to beiog built. How do you respond to that? How do you justify it?" . Mr. Randels: We will come back to that. I think that the process wonld have us wait, unless we want to change the process. We could engage io a dialog about this now, or hear the rest of our witnesses and do it in the ordinary course. When asked, Ms. Surber iodicated that either way was fine. Mr. Randels said that they would do it innnediately, with staff response fIrSt. Staff Response to Mr. Wexman: Ms. Surber said that it was privately owned land, so the City can't deny a reasonable use of that land. She stated that there were three tenets of the SMA: public access, protection of the natural environment and appropriate uses along the shorelioe. These objectives are not always compatible with one another, and so you have to look at the shorelioe as a whole. And, you have to realize that io granting reasonable nse of property, the owner must mitigate to meet the no-net-Ioss standard. So, for whatever development proposal there is at Indian Poio!, whatever impacts are identified must be mitigated. And, that's io terms of ecological functions or values. We also have a restoration plan as a chapter io our Shorelioe Master Program. The restoration plan is specifically aimed at lookiog at impaired ecological function, and trying to go for grant fundiog and other means to encourage restoration. Some of those ideas on how to encourage restoration of impaired ecological functions iovolve partuering with private' developers. We have specifically tried to iocorporate a restoration iocentive io the Indian Point section of the Shorelioe Master Program, which has been reviewed by the Planniog Commission and the Shorelioes Advisory Group, and we will soon be taIkiog about it with our early adopters ecology group, on the 19th . We have iovited Eric Lashever, who is an attorney who has written white papers on how to iocorporate restoration incentives into a shoreline master program, to get his comments on that. Mr. Randall said that the only thiog he would add is that Ms. Surber is right in how she is presenting this. The way it works is that the DOE (Department of Ecology) is charged with administering the Shorelioe Management Act and developiog regulations that give the local governments guidance on how to develop their plans. The DOE has been monitoring development in Washington State, along with cities and counties, . sioce back before 1975 or so. One of the goals was to avoid degradation, bnt it washappeniog. We have tons of proof that our shorelioes are degrading, the water qnality is degrading, the habitat is degrading, etc. That no-net-Ioss rule that Judy mentioned was, I think, the major regulatory step to say: the degradation must stop. It has to stop both on a project level for a specific parcel -- you must show that you will not have any loss, io anythiog, any ecosystem functions - as well as across our city shorelioe. We also have to have restoration that shows not only stoppiog loss, but also improvements. The law that applies to private property does, to an extent, limit what we can do. We have to allow reasonable use, as Judy said. We can't deny all use, without the public buying the property, so you do have that balance that we have to allow. He recalled that this group had gone through the process of consideriog and specifying the appropriate uses, which defines to some extent what is allowed. The interface where the water meets the land is where we have some flexibility to say: no development, buffers, types of public access, etc. Mr. Emery said that it was his understanding that for this project, the owners chose to submit their permit applications under the newer guidelioes rather than the existing ones. He asked staff if the existiog SMP or the updated SMP was more restrictive. Mr. Randall said it was more restrictive io terms of protecting the environment, and io requiring analysis, mitigation/restoration, and io protecting public access. There is some additional flexibility with regard to uses, as a tradeoff for the other goals, as appropriate. Ms. King said that she believed further discussion would not be appropriate, sioce there is not yet an application, the specific project is not before the Commission, and not on the agenda. . Mr. Wexman said he wished to add that, at a previous meetiog, the Commission had discussed the effect of 15 more feet from a pathway that was goiog along the shoreline. He said that he doesn't think that there is any way to mitigate the destruction of anythiog built on that property. He said that, as a planner and an architect, he conld see how eVen a three story buildiog along Sims Way, that new building that has gone up, . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 6 , . is a shock when you are comiog up from the forested area, a terrific shock, because everythiog else is set back, and is one story. He said, "When it comes up, I hope you will think about, and I hope the plans will allow you, the option of makiog a case agaiost any development on that site, no mattet what property rights exist." Mr. Randels thanked Mr. Wexman for his testimony. Eric Toews Port Townsend Mr. Toews said that he wished to thank each of the Commissioners for their good work, patience and care taken in deliberations. He said he thought that the product that will be forwarded on to Council reflects all the tremendous good work that they have put io on this project. He said he had a couple of brief substantive poiots. Mr. Toews said that one of them arose io the staff presentation regarding the change io development regulations, DR 5.13.5 and 5.13.6, where the language io 6.c was modified and included within DR-5.13.5 on page 60. He said it is his view that the language that would have created an ioconsistency with the Use Table is the stricken language in DR-5.13.6. The language that is in the Use classifications io the table for Poiot Hudson is accurate and entirely consistent with DR-5.l3.5, including the way restaurants are treated. "That is consistent with deliberations before the SAG, and I think with your prior deliberations, although it may not square ultimately with the Council's decision with the zoning text amendment, permittiog restaurants in the M-II(b). That is where the potential inconsistency comes io, but not necessarily with your prior deliberations on this draft, or the SAG." "Another brief poiot relates to the moved language, lookiog at page 55, lioes 27-30, based on the shift in the boundary between the Maritime Heritage Corridor and the Poiot Hudson East -- the boundary shifted eastwards to Hudson Street. The shift made this language no longer accurate, so it was moved to "a.' on page 56, line 6. As Judy pointed out in her staff report, the definitions and the use classifications for water-related uses render that kind of a mute point, in any event. It is permitted io both districts; to avoid confusion and people drawiog inaccurate ioference that this was the only place a use could go, it may be preferable to simply strike that lioe entirely. Those are my comments, and I'd like to thank you very much, agaio." . Mr. Randels thanked Mr. Toews for his generous comments. He asked for any further staff response. Mr. Randall said that DR-.5.l3.5 and DR-5.13.6 should not both be left io the text. He said that DR-5.l3.5 appears to have more recent language in terms of how it is defining a mixed use development. The major difference is that the one would have it be apennitted use, and the other would have it be a conditional use. 'He poioted out that recalling the origioal iotention would be very important. Zouing code does treat restaurants in Point Hudson as conditional. The Shoreline Master Program takes priority, however, and we have defmitely given more leeway in Point Hudson East. He said his recollection was that it had been a conditional use permit, but in the end, it may be necessary to go back to the minutes. Mr. Randels said that the fact that the Council addressed this issue came to the Commission in a certain way) and if we go with this, it seems to me we are, in effect, asking them to reconsider, and we ought to highlight that, not try to slip it through. Ms. Kiog asked for clarification: "They ruled it should be conditional?" Mr. Randels: Right, if we go with the language, as drafted, we would be sayiog io our draft SMP, that we do not think it should be conditional-- we think it should be permitted. Ms. Kiog: "Whereas, we, more or less) had it as both." Mr. Randels: \\'hat I don't remember is whether we made a conscious decision on that subject or not, and if so, which way we went. Ms. Kiog: If we went with that, then DR- 5.13.5 would just have an a. and b., and DR-5.l3.6 would have the a., b., c.? Basically, yes, - with adjustment of the numbering. Mr. Lizut said that he thought that the fact that the Council had already acted was important, and that it would not be productive to suggest a reversal. Ms. King said that she didn't think it was at all clear that the Planniog Commission had necessarily decided the other way, io the first place. . Ms. Surber poioted out, first, that before full deliberation, perhaps public testimony shonld be closed; Mr. Randels agreed. Secondly, she wished to poiot out that the mioutes on the SAG and the Council should be checked. She said she had heard another recollection of Council meetiog, sayiog restaurants would be conditional, not mixed use developments io Poiot Hudson. She said that this could be resolved at Council; it's not as if all 200 pages have to be perfect, and already lain out. Mr. Randels inteIj ected that, in his opinion, the Planniog Commission should try its best not to throw extraneous issues at them, because they Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 7 '. , are too minor, or for any other reason. Ms. Surber said she also wanted to advise to just consider what the implications are: this is one development, and lookiog at conditional use criteria, obviously you would have . a review at the local level, and it would have to comply with the SMP. It is a question of whether or not it elevates itself to go on to the DOE for final approval. Ms. King: Also, doesn't it have to do with public comment or not? I mean, public notice? Ms. Surber: No, you would still have public notice at the local level on a project of this size. Mr. Randels: So the major effect of it wonld be to bring our friends from the state ioto the process. Ms. Surber: Yes. Mr. Randels: Well, that gives me pause. Mr. Emery said that that was the conversation that the Commission had had -- conditional use would add another layer. Ms. Surber: If this was concerniog mixed use development throughout the entire city, and you wanted to look at cumnlative effects, then I would say, go to the conditional use criteria, sioce one of the criteria for conditional uses is analysis of cumnlative effects. But, io this case, it says one new mixed use development. Mr. Randels: Are there any other comments/responses to public testimony? Mr. Randall: Not on public testimony, but on that same section, I think there is a typo - Marioa subdistricts is listed as 'c' (Lioe 36 of page 60). I think that's supposed to be the header for the next section -- you would strike' c' and move it over to the left. Mr. Randels: Yes, good catch. Mr. RandeIs asked if any Commissioners had questions or comments. Mr. Emery: Maybe on the staff presentatiou. This is just as far as what HPC brought up about the parade ground. He recalled the "origioal" (1994) Poiot Hudson planniog document. He said they did not specify that the whole parade ground was to be left open. He said they did specify a view corridor and a commons. He began to make a statement with regard to their second point "about overnight accommodations". Mr. Lizut ioteIjected that, as a member of the HPC, he would like to pass around a draft of what the HPC is asking the Council, and then make a motion that would allow him (Mr. Lizut) to explaio the background and rationale of what they had to say. Mr. Randels said that perhaps this should wait until the actual . deliberations. Mr. Lizut agreed. Since there was no other question or comment, Mr. Randels closed the Public Testimony portion of the SMP Heariog. He announced that the Commission would move to delibemtion. Plannio~ Commission Delibemtion: Mr. Randels suggested startiog with Poiot Hudson issues. Ms. Surber ioteIjected that the Port had iodicated that they would have commented on the HPC as part of their testimony, had they known it would be part of the deliberations. Mr. Randels said that he was glad Ms. Surber had mentioned that poiot. Ms. Slabaugh asked if it was appropriate for the Commission to delibemte on the HPC comments, sioce the comments would be addressed to Council, not the PIanniog Commission. There was a brief discussion about the process and timing that led to the HPC commenting upon the SMP draft via letter to the Council, and a decision was made to proceed with Mr. Lizut's suggestion. Mr. Lizut gave a sunnnary of the background that led to the special public meeting of the HPC, attended by Ms. Surber, earlier io the week. He shared a one page draft statement of what the HPC would like to see io the SMP policy and regulations. He explaioed the reasoniog process. He said that the entire group would like to see the RVs gone from Poiot Hudson, and understands that RVs cannot be removed unless a replacement for the revenue they generate is found. However, io a nutshell, the idea ofbuildiog a mixed use facility on the parade ground is even more objectionable to the HPC than leaviog the R V s in place. The language of the memo is iotended to influence and ensure that, if a mixed use facility is ever approved, it could not be located on the parade ground because of its height and mass, and the negative effect on views, etc. Neither conld there be any expansion of existiog buildiogs that wonld detract from or be ioconsistent . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 8 ." , . . . with the overall historic character of the subdistrict, or that would have a negative impact on current view corridors. Ms. King said that it was entirely too late in the process for the Planning Connnission to try to reconsider its own position, and that the HPC should proceed on its own. Ms. Capron and Ms. Slabaugh agreed. Mr. Randels noted that perhaps the Commission could have been more proactive io seekiog HPC ioput, and that it would have been preferable to head off this situation, or to broker a compromise. Mr. Randall pointed out that the HPC members, likewise, could have initiated some dialog with the Planning Commission at any time during the long Public Hearing process. Mr. Emery again referred to the 1994 planniog document mentioned earlier, and noted that its iotentions with regard to views and the parade ground were apparently not as restrictive as the HPC's. Mr. Randall agaio remioded that, although fairly specific, the 1994 Point Hudson document was a draft plan that had never been adopted. Aside from the Port's Comprehensive Scheme, the City does not have a city plan that specifies either that the parade ground should be built upon, or precludes it. So, until the Council acts on the SMP update, it is an open issue. He said that the HPC, like any other ioterested party, has the opportunity to voice its position, and is doing SQ. Mr. Randels asked Mr. Lizut if he intended to make a motion, or to make further comment. Mr. Lizut said he had nothiog further to add. Mr. Randels then asked the Commission's indulgence to allow him to recognize Mr. Crockett. Mr. Crockett said that he had not intended to speak to this issue ( use of the parade ground) at this meetiog. Mr. Crockett: "Just to educate a few folks, historically, there was an eighty foot buildiog on the parade ground, 1942. It was a classroom, built by the Navy, and it was not demolished until the late 1950's, early 1960's. There was a dozen other buildiogs at Poiot Hudson, some of which had bigger footpriots than any of the buildings that are currently there now. He described the various buildiog, locations and uses, iocluding a WWII canteen out on the Poiot. He referred to a schematic drawiog from 1942, and an aerial photograph taken io the 1950's. The photograph shows the buildiogs io the area of the current Landfall restaurant, and the Sail Loft. He also referred to the 1994 Plan, page 16; the long term vision called for three buildings on the parade ground. He said Poiot Hudson was about 70% covered with buildings. Eric Toews said that he just wanted to make a broader point, for the record. "Views on what constitutes historic preservation differ. Those differences are found within the historic preservation community. And, it depends entirely on tbe site to be protected, and the context of the site. There are many iostances io which compatible, appropriately designed and conditioned iofill development can be entirely consistent with, and frankly, foster historic preservation, .. ..where it wonld generate additional revenues that would allow the rehabilitation and maiotenance of the existiog historic structures. Mr. Crockett added that Mr, Michael Sullivan, iovited here by City staff, has recommended iofill as a way to ... . [ioaudible ] our entire facility. Mr. Randels added that the Commons is an example. Mr. Randels moved to the topic ofPoiot Hudson, DR-5.13.5 and DR-5. 13.6. Ms. Surber asked if, for the record, the Public Testimony period was closed. Mr. Randels said that it had been closed for some time. Mr. Randels described the choices for the Poiot Hudson document (EXH. 2), pages 55 and 56: either, move the office/shower/laudromat, or delete it, because it is already covered io both subdistricts anyway. He said he thought that the latter was a much cleaner approach and would recommend it. Several commissioners iodicated their agreement. Mr. Randels asked staff if the deleted text on page 55, Jines 38 through 40, was related to this issue, or a different issue. Ms. Surber said it was a different issue. He said the motion would be to delete the added language on page 55, lines 6 through 9, and on page 56, lines 5 through 8. Mr. Lizut seconded. There was no discussion. All were in favor. So ordered. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 9 '. '\ Mr. Randels then asked Ms. Surber to state the purpose of the change to lioes on 38 through 40. She said it . clarifies that if the mixed use facility is built at the back forty, that it would be limited io size, as to the footprint and square footage, as if it were on the parade ground. Ms. Kiog asked if the language about 25,000 square feet was somewhere else. Ms. Surber said, yes, this is policy, and the other is a development regulation. Ms. Slabaugh asked if the a. on lioe 13, page 55, was supposed to be stricken. She said that later on the page, at lioe 41, there is an a. The edit should be: Page 55, at line 13, restore the a., line 41, a becomes b., page 56, b becomes c, and c becomes d. Mr. Randels moved that these changes on lines 38 through 40 of page 55 be approved. Mr. Emery seconded. All were infavor. Mr. Randels then moved to accept the change on page 58, adding the word 'development'. Mr. Lizut seconded. Ms. Slabaugh stated that this was just a clarification. All were in favor. There was a brief discussion about the next item, on page 60. Mr. Randels said it seemed likely that the Council would apply the same logic to mixed use developments that contaioed restaurants, as to stand alone restaurants, i.e. conditional use permits, and that it didn't seem logical to permit a mixed use facility outright, while making restaurants conditional use. Ms. Surber said that the latter would be logical. A mixed use development, as defmed by this Master Program, must combioe with a water-dependent or a water-related use, which is somethiog that you would prefer to see, rather than a stand-alone restaurant, io shorelioes. Mr. Randels: Their decision was on the zoniog changes io Poiot Hudson, correct? Ms. Surber. Yes, think agaio, too, that zoniog is a broader area than just shorelines jurisdiction. Mr. Randels: Yes, but io their miods, they were thinking about one specific development, and the possibility of a second one, correct? Ms. Surber: I was not present. I think you shonld make your best judgement and pass on what your best judgement is. Mr. Randels said he totally agreed. Mr. Emery raised the poiot that the other restaurant io the future was the small one at the Maritime Heritage Center. Mr. Randels: That's not the one I meant; I was thinking of the non-resort restaurant. He was told that that was io a different subdistrict. Ms. Surber: No, it's in the Maritime Heritage Corridor, you're right. Ms. King: The mixed use facility is io Poiot Hudson East; the mixed use development is io the Maritime Heritage Corridor. Mr. Randels asked if anyone had a strong preference that they would like to translate ioto a motion. Mr. Emery said that he would like to accept the change (language of EXH 2, page 60), as drafted, which prompted some conversation among the Commissioners. Ms. Surber then suggested splittiog the motion: First, do you like the way it has been combioed? Secondly, shonld it be under permitted or conditional use? Mr. Randels said that Mr. Emery's motion would be " I move that we leave it as drafted." Mr. Lizut seconded. Ms. King said she thought she was io favor, then read aloud from the definition of mixed use development, " Mixed use development can be a tool for iocreased water-dependent activities, civic revitalization, and public access to the shoreline. To encourage mixed use projects that achieve a public benefit, special provisions can be iocluded io a master program that offer a potential developer iocentives..." She said, "That sounds like somethiog we want to encourage, which would support not having it be a conditional use." She added that she was just lookiog for some clear basis for the decision. Statiog that he would have another motion if this one passed, Mr. Randels asked if there was any further discussion. He called the motion; all were infavor. . Mr. Randels: My motion is that, when we get to it, we amend the ftndings and conclusions appropriately to highlight this issue, so that Council knows it is in here and that it is facially inconsistent with what they decided on the zoning issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lizut. There was no further discussion. All were in favor. Findin~s and Conclusions fEXH. 1) Mr. Randels said that the Commission could proceed page by page, but first asked if anyone had identified any omissions or anythiog that would not lend itself to a page by page review. . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13,2005 Page 10 , r . Ms. Capron said that before startiog the process of edits and corrections, she wished to say to Ms. Surber that the draft was exceptionally well-written, substantive, thorougb, well-organized, and shows the extent of the work that's been done. Several others voiced their agreement. She praised Ms. Surber for carrying this through, not for just months, but for years. Mr. Randels said he found one omission reflected io the mioutes: the vote taken during the review of the Restoration chapter that resulted io a failure of a motion on a 3/3 tie. The motion was with regard to a passage on tax iocentives. He remioded that the Commission had decided that the issue would be highlighted for the Council, because of that division. He suggested that a paragraph be drafted and added. Ms. Surber asked ifhe thought it best to add that on page 13, under Restoration. Mr. Randels and others agreed that it should be ioserted there. Mr. Randels provided the exact reference location: draft minutes of Sept. 1, page 12, referring to Chapter 14, page 28, Tax Relief. He asked staff to draft verbiage, and e-mail it to Commissioners. Ms. Surber asked if this could be handled over the telephone, due to the urgency of submitting the final draft to City Council; all agreed. . Fiodiogs and Conclusions: Draft dated October 7, 2005 PAGE Line Edit/Correction Comments 1 Lioe 17 Drop 'wav of' from 'bv wav of 23 .. .review and update 22 .."has committed"... replaces "is reauired" 31 Insert "'a" before 'state' 34 Spell out SMAlGMA First time acronvm used 38 Add" The Commission wishes to extend its Chair Randels request - will heartfelt thanks to all members of that group provide written copy. for their significant service to the City and their fellow citizens." 2 7 No underline needed 13 ...1974. Subsequentlv, the ... 20 ... review and update 31 ... provisions of the ... Close UP space in of 38 ... workshop and a public heariog encomnassin[T eleven senarate sessions... 2 I .. .Mav 2004 and Julv 2005... 3 .. . agencies, Port of Port Townsend, marine.. . 25 ... center. In addition... Period missin2: 28 ..strike and before People for Pu~et Sound 43 ...Seattle, and Ecologv... Add comma 4 15 . .. amendments in accordance with the... 19 .add conuna after Port Townsend 24-28 Some e-mailed copies had long web site URL did not show on paper . reference that should be deleted copies from IS 29-37 Make auotes consistent stvle, 3 sets 33 Add s to water ~ ... the waters of the state... 5 18 Move was conducted, after shoreline 29 The Natural desil!nation provides. .. Add words 6 18 ..ESHB 1933 which ESBH..; delete which Ask Mr. Watts best way to cite; ESHB snell out? 23-25 Delete lines 24 -25; period after GMA on Since the terms and wording were pa~e 22 confusinQ:, sentence was dronned. 7 27 Delete 'of; . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 11 28-29 . ..consistent with the U.S. and state Add!amend for clarity constitutions along with other property regulations, ensuring all appropriate rights to property owners.... 36 Add comma: .... low tide, and are... 8 4 Change 'cities' to 'localities' 12 Add The before Planninl{ 13 Advisorv Grouv's . Add aoostroohe 30,32, Lower case for designation 35 9 17 ... .retain its small-scale character 24 ..Master Plan the Replace semi-colon with comma 36 Add the before U.S. Armv 10 9 Add: The draft SMP permits as a conditional use a new shoreline mixed use facility. .. 13 Add after ground.: The SMP specifically If not this language, OK to work requires removal of the R Vs at the parade out better phrasiog. "round with develoomenl of a new-facility. 22 .. . make the proposed redevelopment of the site viable. 24 ..water-related uses onlv are allowed II I OHWM spell out: ordinary high water mark If first use 9 Add: Although new marinas are permitted This recognizes both the along the City's shoreline under the draft expansion and the no new marinas SMP, the PIannioe Connnission ..... Dolicies. 14 Include somethiog about wetlands and OR suggested because the title is habitat, if possible, and relevant. broader than the text 28 Add: Prol!ram after Draft Master 31-33 Delete two sentences: In other words Redundant - omit ..... ...standards. 12 9-16 Add io some form: Over-water structures Check if this is true io all cases are subject to Conditional Use Permits and districts. io or except io 18 No change to text. Aquaculture, Brief discussion followiog up to Mr. Roberts visit earlier io the evenine 36 . .. at key locations. such as street ends. 13 12 Insert the Tax Relief issue here See oaral!faph orecedioe this table 19 Defmitions: Clarify; may need some Is it properly placed iotroductory statement or context or more under/entitled! ioformation. Definitions? 29 No change to text Questions about city limits; parallel or perpendicular to the shoreline? Distances? 14 3 Add comma after reorulations 6 ....amendments to the City ....... 23 ..Zoniog Map and zoniog code to ensure... Drop comma, add and, and use ensure not improve. 26 Determine, in coordination Add comma Mr. Emery moved that the SMP Findings and Conclusions Memorandum to City Council be approved. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 12 c , . . . r . . . Mr. Randels stated that a vote on this motion does two things: it approves the Fiodiogs and Conclusions as amended, and it approves the Shoreline Master Plan Update draft. Mr. Lizut seconded. Ms. Capron asked if Ms. Thayer would have a vote. Mr. Randels explained that since the Planning Commission does not have a proxy process, only those present have a vote. Vote on the motion: Ms. Capron, Mr. Emery, Ms. King, Mr. Lizut, Mr. Randels, and Ms. Slabaugh were all in favor of the motion. There were none opposed. Motion to approve the 8M? Update recommendations to City Council: Approved: 6/0/0 The vote was followed by a joyful round of applause, mutual congratulations, and bestowing of flowers. Chair Randels asked if any commissioners were able to remain for a review of the minutes. He determined that the review of the minutes would need to be postponed. Ms. Surber said that approved mioutes were needed for the City Council as part of the SMP package to be forwarded the followiog day. Mr. Randels suggested that, for those minutes not yet formally approved and signed, the draft copies should be sent now. He said that, based on his review of the draft copies received, they were in good order and contained no substantive omissions or errors. He and Ms. Surber agreed on a meeting time for a fmal check on the Findings and Conclusions. Mr. Randels, Ms, Surber, and Mr. Randall then discussed the upcomiog schedule and agreed on the slate for the remainder of the calendar year. VI. OW BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS 10/27/05: Public Workshop -- C-II Design Review Workshop 7:00 PM Public Workshop -- Adult Entertainment 7:00 PM 11/10105: Public Heariag -- Adnlt Entertainment 7:00 PM IX. ADJOURNMENT Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:44 PM /-1 <:;; /;yJL George Randels, Z I~J tll5t~:J Gail Bernhard, Meetiog Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2005 Page 13 " .. , - . .