Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082505 MinutesCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, August 25, 2005 Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Memorandum on Draft SMP, from Richazd Settle of Foster, Pepper & Shefehnan to John Watts dated August 5, 2005 EXH 2. Memorandum on Draft SMP, from David King of Townsend Bay Marine to Planning Commission dated August 12, 2005 EXH 3. Letter from Joseph Finnie of Rainshadow Properties, Inc, to Planning Commission dated August 4, 2005 EXH 4. Email from Judy Surber to Planning Commission dated August 19, 2005 with two attachments: Sections 5.6: 5.11 and Table 5 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses EXH 5. Excerpts from Section 4.105 Urban of the existing Shoreline Master Program EXH 6. Excerpt from Section 4.106, Performance Standazd #9 of the existing Shoreline Master Program and associated map of the Urban Waterfront Plan EXH 7. Excerpts from the Urban Waterfront Plan EXH 8. Figure 5 "Indian Point" from the Comprehensive Public Access Plan EXH 9. Table of Land Uses permitted at Indian Point EXH 10. Ordinance 2320 pertaining to shoreline management EXH 11. Staff Report, Draft Shoreline Master Program -Exhibits, August 25`" Hearing from Judy Surber to Planning Commission dated August 25, 2005 EXH 12. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for August 25, 2005 EXH 13. Planning Commission Meeting Guest List for August 25, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Randels. II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Hamer Capron, Steve Emery, Roger Lizut, Liesl Slabaugh and Cindy Thayer. Alice King was excused, and Jeff Kelety continues to be on leave of absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer moved that the agenda be approved, which was seconded and approved, all in favor. PJ. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 14, 2005: Corrections Page 2, line I under A.; drop the firs[ "be" "The background" paragraph: line 5, drop "the" before formula restaurants Page 3, # 4, should be "if there is, is [here ..." 11,500 versus 11,000 -leave as written Page 4, P3; 2nd line -insert space between be and difficult (printing error) Pazagmph beginning "Upon adoption...": add "the "before local level Page 5, 2nd to Last pazagraph; "and a Planning Commission representative" instead of Ms. Thayer s name Pazagraph above; make 1 word: wherever Page 6, P 6, NO. 1: defmitions aze specified in detail Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as amended; seconded by Mr. Emery. The minutes of July 14, 2005 were approve , as amended. July 28, 2005: Corrections Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 1 Page 1: Ms. Capron was inadvertently lefr off the Roll list. Pazagraph "The meeting began: the 'f on'the' is not readable (printing ) Page 3: Paragraph 2, "Mr. Randels added that [here was the psychological benefit, not psychic Page 4: Paragraph carried over: variety of the community, should be "in "the community Under Ted Labbe; 2nd to last line: So we will talk about the things that didn't go quite as well. (printing overstrike) Page 5: The Table number is'2' Page 6: Chapin paragraph: Boat Haven should be caps statuary should be statutory Page 8: 2nd pazagraph, line 4: add "number" before 1500 3rd paragraph, line 2, waterfront is one word Page 9, 1st paragraph, line 2; strike endnronmental 4th pazagraph, reword " versioning "sentence last paragraph: change Mr. Randels to Randall Ms. Thayer moved that the minutes be approved, as amended,' seconded by Mr. Emery. The minutes of July 28, 2005 were approved , as amended. V. NEW BUSINESS Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program Update Public Hearing ( Continued from August 11, 2005) Mr. Randels opened this portion of the meeting by stating that the public hearing was a 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 changed with regard to conflicts of interest or other relevant items. There were none. Staff Presentation Judy Surber, Senior Planner, said that she would give a brief overview on activities at the staff level since the last meeting. Eazlier in the day, the SAG Restoration subcommittee me[ for the second time. Attendees mentioned were: Richazd Brockhurst, Mazine Council, Heida Diefenderfer, Battel and SAG, Ted Labbe, Tribes and SAG, Jerry Gorsline with Washington Endvonmental Council, and Jim Stewazd, DOE. Paul Ingram and Judy Surber discussed the most recent drafr of the Restoration Element, i.e. Chapter 14 of the SMP. The discussion went very well; it appeazs that this chapter will require very minor modifications in order for the group to complete their work. Monitoring was discussed at length. Ms. Surber reported that there seemed [o be frustration across the boazd, that at all levels of government, there must be greater attention to ensure that conditions set on permits are actually carried out and that the intended goals aze accomplished. Paul Ingram added that there was also discussion at the subcommittee meeting of the possible need for prioritization of restoration opportunities. Terry Gorsline had brought up the Everett experience of building an elaborate and expensive indexing system for evaluating and weighting all their projects or opportunities. The group considered the possible viable and affordable methods for accomplishing some prioritization. One option is "opportunistic": "when you have access to the site, when it's feasible, and when you have money, you do it." Mr. Ingram said that some language reflecting the subcommittee's deliberation will be added to the text. Ms. Surber added that they aze also planning within the restoration element to reflect the linkage of the tinning of future updates to the SMP and the Comp Plan. Ms. Surber reported that she had met twice with Mr. Bill Woolcott, owner/developer of the Indian Point site. Mr. Woolcott's designer, Jim Rozatrslfl was present at the first meeting; his wife, Diana, was present at the second. Mr. Woolcott is interested in making changes to the Shoreline Master Program rules as they Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 2 apply to Indian Point She said that later in the meeting, preparatory to next week's SMP hearing, background information related to Indian Point would be covered. The determination ofnon-significance SEPA environmental review period is over. Only one comment letter was received, and the SEPA review can be finalized and turned over to the Planning Commission as a packet handout. New material: Ms. Surber distributed the packet for the evening including the material previously e-mailed, as well as some additional items. (See also Meeting Materials above.) The staff report, 082505, from J. Surber, lists all exhibits and outlines the issues related to Indian Point. EXH. 1. Memo, 080505, from Richard Settle to John Wa[[s offers legal environmental advice for the SMP Update. EXH. 2. Memo, 081205, from David King to Planning Commission: SMP comments. Ms. Surber clarified the rules relating to wetlands buffers. "We aze not saying that where we have a wetland we have a different buffer. We aze saying that if you restore a wetland, and the buffer ends up extending onto private property, that we are going to try [o come up with different buffets, or a[ least try to consider that, so that we don't discourage or present a disincentive to doing restoration projects. This is consistent with Eric Lashever's report." Ms. Thayer and Mr. Randels suggested talking with David King, as well. EXH.3. Memo, 080405, from Joseph Finnie to Planning Commission: SMP and zoning code revisions regazding building mass. Ms. Surber said there was neither a plan to change nor a proposed change to what is currently allowed. Design would require HPC review; noise etc. would be covered under the SEPA review; and the issue of a restaurant next to a hotel is not something you would restrict in a shorelines document. EXH. 4. E-mail, 081905, from J. Surber: SMP drafts of Chapter 5.7- 5.11 and Table of Uses for Chapter 5. She asked commissioners to be especially mindful of consistency and correspondence between the text and the table. Ms. Thayer asked when page numbers would be revised. Ms. Surber explained that when the additions and deletions are finalized, all the pagination will change. For Section 5.9, rewording will occur in Setbacks, page 23. After looking at the CAO and how it relates to shoreline residential setbacks, the buffers for geologically hazardous areas, and the vegetation protection information in Chapter 9, there is no change to the setback rules. There will be changes to organization and wording. Mr. Randall raised the question of how the SMP and the CAO were going to be made consistent and kept consistent with each other. Ms. Surber said that the textual changes would be in the Sept. 1 draft and could be examined then. She also suggested that they allow the changes to go through the entire process of approval, i.e. through City Council and DOE review. She also noted that there had been an appeal by Ms. Nancy Dorgan related to the CAO, and Mr, Watts would be providing more guidance on that. Mr. Randall, responding to Mr. Randels request for more information on the appeal, explained that the main issue was not using, not adopting, the 2005 Storm Water Manual, i.e. not using the best available science. She had also referenced, non-specifically, the failure to apply "no net loss" standazds. The appeal goes to a hearings board. He added that, although he had not duectly participated, he understood the City's position [o be that it had/has every intention of adopting the new Manual, but there had not been adequate time to review, amend and adopt it. Mr. Ingram noted that regazdless of the timing and outcome of the appeal, any inconsistencies in the CAO and SMP documents should and would be addressed, as Mr. Randels had urged. Indian Point - Ms. Surber pointed out the red colored azeas that carry the Urban designation, including the condominium, Tides Inn hotel, and the buildings on the opposite side towards the Boat Haven. Exhibits 5 through IO aze background and regulations pertinent to Indian Point Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 3 Exhibit 5, Urban Environment, page 29, 5.10.3 through 5.10.5 pertains to the Indian Point area and may need to be changed depending on what comes out of the Indian Point considerations. She said that the existing SMP folds in the Urban Waterfront plan from an earlier plan. There was recognition that citizens didn't want to see a continuation of transient accommodations and condominiums on the waterfront (referring to a survey taken as part of the ordinance document development process), and so they also looked at Ecology's (DOE'S) guidance on how to encourage water-oriented uses. Mixed use deveiopment is one of the strategies for encouraging waterfront development. So, these things got folded into the Shoreline Master Program and what you have here aze pertinent excerpts from the existing SMP: 4.105 Urban No. 1. She also pointed out 4.106 Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Specie] District Policy 1 A, which allows fot a mixture and variety of uses, especially public water enjoyment uses, and Perfomtance Standazd 9.b.iii which prohibits residential on the ground floor and specifies an exemption from the 50%water-oriented rule for a specific azea in the vicinity of Indian Point. In 2002, the previous owner o£ Indian Point requested the removal of the 50% ground floor rule; it was denied. The new owner, Bill Woolcott, is now also requesting that change. Ms. Surber explained that this must be considered in light of the new state guidelines, which allow flexibility for mixed use development as an incentive for restoration. Since the southern shoreline is one of the most heavily modified aeeas, this is a prime azea for restoration to occur. With new information and new goals, the Planning Commission will consider what, if any, flexibility might be appropriate and beneficial to achieve restoration (beyond mitigation required) and/or enhanced public access. She mentioned The Tides Inn walkway as an example of what might be considered typical mitigation, not enhanced public access. Discussions with Bill Woolcott aze reviewing what [he current requirements would be, and exploring what flexibility might be attractive to a developer. The process would also involve identification of possible restoration activities. The City would then need to work out some sort of compromise or exchange acceptable to all, assuming compliance with SMP and other regulations. Exhibit 8 is a citizen's survey asking what is most appropriate and least appropriate on the shoreline. Uses not thought appropriate were RV pazks, condominiums and apartments. She noted that the above materials and overview was intended to prepaze the commissioners for next week's presentation and discussion on the pros and cons of flexibility and incentives for developers to do restoration. Chapter 1: This was deferred last week, so it could be reviewed this evening. Chapter 5: There aze associated map revisions that you will want to take note of while you aze looking at the Natural, Conservancy and Shorelines Residential designations. Ms. Surber pointed out the circles on the map. At the Chinese Gardens, the SAG placed a Natural designation on the majority of Chinese Gardens where WA State Parks is in ownership. And the water bodies of Chinese Gardens and Kah Tai were both designated as Natural in recognition of the fact that these aze both prime aeeas for wildlife habitat. Natural is our most limited designation and really puts ecological functions and habitat to the forefront. So, it is cleaz that Natural is the designation that the advisory group wanted in these areas. What changed is that when Tyler Johnson [GPS Specialist] began to refine the maps, the shorelines jurisdiction expanded a bit, in both aeeas. In Chinese Gardens, it expanded so that it goes farther to the south, and is into aeeas that aze zoned residential and within private ownership. So, we aze recommending that that be a residential designation which would be consistent with the SAG recommendation for the (west) shoreline, which is also residentially zoned. SAG had decided on Shoreline Residential, and this would be consistent with their recommendations. "On Kah Tai Lagoon, the north boundary was pushed up, because of the vegetation in that azea (it is a little hard to see where the actual high water mark is). Again, you would not actually Imow until you did a site Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 4 specific study, but Tyler asswed us that it needed to be moved farther to the north, given his experience with GPS in the azea. Again, you are pushed into areas of private ownership zoned Residential, so we aze recommending Shoreline Residential be applied to those azeas. Where it clips off at the bottom of the golf course, it could stay Natwal because that comer is where there aze native seeds." At this point, Mr. Randels and Ms. Thayer interjected that the pertinent seed area was across the fairway, not on the edge. Mr. Randels also said that if it touches the fairway, then you have to be cazeful. Ms. Swber said it was definitely not on the fairway. Ms. Thayer said it was on the comer of San Juan and 19th St.; Mr. Randels identified the area as the Pea Patch, formerly a gazden. Ms. Surber: Then, on the eastern shore, the SAG asked that she contact a representative of Kah Tai Care Center. She said she e-mailed Mr. Black, who responded by phone, and they talked about the designations considered for the Kah Tai Caze Center. She said he would obviously like to see it zoned Urban, which is consistent with the underlying zoning and with the fact that it is privately owned. The SAG had not made a recommendation on that, pending contact with the Care Center. The final map revision is for the SMP boundary between the Urban and Historic Waterfront. Ms. Swber passed azound a map, showing the C-III historic commercial zoning in the color pink. She called attention to another line that defines the outline of the Landmark Historic District. She said that while working with the SAG, the boundary between the two districts followed the Landmark Historic District. There was a question about the building on the comer where the Pizza Factory shop and barbershop are located. When she checked the historical archives, she verified that it is indeed a historic structure, even though it is outside the Landmark Historic District. The SAG had said that if it is outside the Landmark Historic District, they would place it in Historic Waterfront. That would result in three different lines: Zoning Lme, Landmark Historic District Line, and the SMP division, based on this one building. Ms. Slabaugh asked, "Why not make the SMP match the Historic District?" Ms. Surber: "Yes, that is what it was originally, but this building was historic. Staff would prefer to be consistent with the zoning, the reason being that the historic design review within the C-III would be very complicated otherwise. To write it would involve getting into detail in both the Urban and the Historic in order to describe correctly how the historic design review would apply to certain properties, but not others. It would be admvtistratively difficult to follow the zoning rather than the SMP differentiation. So, you will need to look at the zoning boundazies and the maps in yow review of the related SMP sections. At the end of Ms. Barber's presentation, Mr. Randels opened the public testimony portion of the meeting Public Testimony: Larry Crockett 153 McCwdv Point Road Port Townsend Executive Director Port of Port Townsend Mr. Crockett said he wanted to touch on a couple of minor items he found within the latest SMP draft, and that he would go over them with Ms. Swber or Mr. Ingram at a later time. He said, "On page 13, it talks about restoring vegetation at Point Hudson and removing [he RV pazking area; then under restoration and monitoring activities, it states "Port of Port Townsend Comprehensive Scheme". I'm not swe what all that means -- because it isn't in ow Comp Scheme. I can get with you later on that." "A couple of other things, just to remind everybody, on the Restoration Plan, I was on the SAG as well. We did receive a Letter from the DOE, Sydney Donoghue and I've got a copy here. I'm just reminding all of us, with regazd to the Restoration Plan, of the significant bullets on the back of the letter, that we take credit for those activities that we've already accomplished in the recent past, or ongoing. For instance, we are totally redoing the Point Hudson Marina. There are hundreds and hundreds of creosote pilings in that Marina. We aze going to remove all of those as part of our restoration of that azea, and put in environmentally safe material, etc. So, we ought to take credit, you know, we are talking millions of dollazs worth of work here, so let's pat owselves on the back here where we can." Also, the lastbullet reminds us (to identify?) the list of restoration opportunities that can realistically be implemented. And I still think a cwsory review of the list of restoration opportunities in the draft plan (will show that) there are a few things there, that although we may all think they would be admirable objectives to accomplish, like moving the Point Wilson lighthouse, I'm not sure that's realistic. There are a few other things of that sort, you know, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 5 that due to enormous costs, legal issues, and _(inaudible). Also, there's one there to breach the break wall at the Boat Haven to allow salmon passing. Well, if you aze going to jeopazdize that whole big marina, that could have catastrophic effects if that's not engineered, and again, you're talking amulti-million dollar effort if you were to ever do that, affecting marine trades and other marine-related uses. So, we just need to make sure we are realistic, and we all want to restore, but just do it in a sensible manner. Also, just as I was leaving several weeks ago, there was some SAG a-mail about the trail that we just put in at Point Hudson -- that's a pedestrian walking trail. Just to reiterate, one of the primary goals of the SMP is to improve and increase public access to the shoreline. Well, you do that through environmentally sensitive trails; that was fully permitted, it went through the city's permitting process, Fish and Wildlife, DOE, all the state agencies were involved in it, and it was done to the permit code levels or standazds, if you will. And that trail is called for in the city's Urban Waterfront Plan, called for in the Port's Comprehensive Scheme of hazbor improvements, and even the 1994 Point Hudson Plan. Although it was never adopted by the City, the City conducted that plan, and it called for that same Vail. We see it, from the Port's perspective, as fulfilling what the community has told us to do for literally a decade or more. And lastly, Joe Finnie's letter. I'm a friend of Joe Finnie and all that, but again, I just read his letter. The restaurant's already there, and if you azen't familiaz with that azea, it almost sounds like this could be a brand new facility. Well, the Landfall's already there. So, it was already bacon grease smell in the morning, and caz traffic and bands playing. And, I'm just here to tell you that the Landfall is the least of the impacts in that immediate sector. When that Maritime Center starts being built, that's going to be a huge impact. And, by the way, Joe Finnie is wanting to build atwo-story addition to his hotel right along Water Street where it will have a bigger visual impact than the Landfall. Md I'm here to tell you that if you were to stand in the middle of Water Street, looking toward Point Hudson, once the Maritime Center is built, and Joe Finnie's two story addition, you won't even see the restaurant building. So, thank you. Mary Winters 213 Taylor St., Port Townsend ,Port Attorney We still can talk about anything m the plan, is that correct? Excuse me for jumping azound a bit, but I can't be here next week. So I just had four fairly minor issues that I wanted to address. The fvst is that I understand at the last public testimony, where I couldn't be here, there was some public comment about the shoreline mixed use at Point Hudson, and I'm not sure if that was on the term or the idea, but speaking to the term itself, I understand that there has been an entrance sign over the years, at Point Hudson, that says Point Hudson Resort. I wasn't sure if it was still there or not, but it has been there and the word resort can mean 6 cabins and some kayaks or it can mean something huge, so I just wanted to remind you that that word is a commonly used term. As for the idea that Judy talked about earlier, i.e. mixed use development as intended to encourage water-oriented uses, and in this case there's the second goal of replacing the transient accortuuodations such as RVs with another one, so when you get to that section, please look at i[ in the context of Point Hudson. The second issue is: Judy did send the Port an e-mail regazding the Boa[ Haven that there are two potential delis; the one at the Main Basin, which is the only water-enjoyment use in the SAG draft. That is limited to 1,500 square feet and we all know there is a deli there. There is also a reference to a deli in the North East Basin, and that doesdt have a size limitation. She asked whether the Port had a concern with a size limitation, and the answer is "No"-- we are Erne with the squaze foot limitation there also. And again, the idea there is that the two areas could develop differently, and this is a long term document. The deli at the Main Basin could go someday, and we are just trying to keep some flexibility. If people want to go to the Co-op and walk further, I would say the mazket should determine that, not the plan itself. Judy also went through the map, and that may have answered our concern. This isn't so much a Port concern as when we looked at the Kah Tai sections, when it defined Natural, it talked about the open water and the County/City-owned land. And then under Conservancy, it spoke of the south side of Kah Tai, and just when we read that, we thought about what are you doing with the north and the east sections. Well, I think the map makes it cleaz, but when I read the language about the map I thought there was a gap in the description, so that's maybe something to take a look at. So, if you think the map's enough, that's Erne. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 6 And then lastly, this is again in the Boat Haven section, on page 40, in the Northeast Boat Basin. It refers tc anew mixed-use development, so we are in this transition zone. And one of the Planning Commission members may bring this up, but I just didn't want it forgotten. The SAG drafr references the non-water- orienteduses as part of a new mixed use development, provided non-water-oriented uses do not exceed 20% of the mixed-use structure. I would suggest that instead of the word "structure", that that reference be to "development" because you might not want only one structure, it might be better environmentally or visually to have two small buildings. So, I just didn't want that forgotten, as you go through this, and that is on (my) page 40. That's all I have, thank you. Dave Thompson 2700 Jefferson Street PT I would like to speak against the idea. of changing the shoreline regulations to allow a hotel to be consttncted at Point Hudson. It seems that the property as it exists right now is generating quite a lot of revenue, and it's relatively undeveloped. I think that if you put a building there the revenues will increase, the costs for the Port will increase,. If they privatize it, they will be able to employ people, say at minimum wage level, so it doesn't add any to the economic development of the Port's properties, and it makes public access to the beach more difficult. I mean, people aze now being asked to leave pazking azeas at the beach by the staff, it seems that if pazking at Point Hudson is difficult now, it will be more difficult if there is a hotel there. Thank you. Mr. Randels: Thank you, that concludes the members of the public who have asked to speak, but I'll open it again if anyone has changed their mind. Apparently not, so we will close the public comment portion of the hearing and move to Planning Commission deliberation. Platmine Commission Deliberation We did not do chapter 1, as I understand it, so I suggest we take that up first unless anyone has any objections to that. Ms. Capron raised the question of whether others were prepared to review Chapter 1 during this session. After a brief discussion, the commissioners decided to resume review of Chapter 5 at the point where they had ended at the previous meeting, deferring Chapter 1 to a later date. is a new draft, with all the verb changes, dated August 19, 2005 l1 a,b,c,d should have periods after them Kine19- a; b; c; -- or should go after c 24 assigned to should be softened to "should be "considered for" 12 5.7.3 Verb: start with Allow the following uses in the 5.7.3 is this where we would need to say the northern ......, "but not including..... 5.7.1 Limit new uses.... do we need the phrase " to the extent feasible°, leave it the way it is changed by JS 13 5.7.4 Policy; leave it as JS has changed Line 2 Low intensity - is it defined? Yes, in Recreational facilities 14 5.7.3 Spelling of intensity Line 15 Add single family where ever it notes "one residential" --Not accepted 5.7.5 a Setbacks one word Discussion: the change is made because it gives discretion rather than mandates Printing comments changes the pagination; use the item number to refer to [he change No change - this is OK There was a brief discussion about whether this and related terms needed better definitions or clatification, but resulted with no changes to text. GR read AK notes; discussion about whether " one detached single (family) residential dwelling" or variation meets the constitutional test andlor improves language in draft. All agreed to leave as written. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 7 IS 15 16 17 19 Page 21 Page 22 Line 23 ESA and CAO consistency -- " is "should be "are" Line 42- If appealable, not final, so take out the phrase 43 or rewrite Paragrap E.g. and following ;font change should be h 1 . line waected a,b,c,d,e Add periods after letters Line 32 Reword consistent with Natural: Consider assigning the Conservancy environment designation to appropriate shoreline areas, that is, those areas planned for development that are compatible.....azea, and that are...... Line ] 0 Add a., b., c.,.....: change to "and in areas of Jefferson County..." Line 1 f. Non-water-oriented recreation Line 26 Correct the indent and numbering Also use the same language relating to constitutional issues DR-5.8.5 a. property, and that impacts... c. roads should be lower case DR-5.8.6 Delete "Unless appealed," DR-5.9.1 Should be 5,8.8, and also appear in 5.9.1 Does this incentivize as intended to minimize impervious surfaces? DR-5.9.2 Change & to and; delete "may be allowed" DR-5.9.3 DR-5.9.8 (DR- 5.7.8) DR-5.9.9 (DR- 5.7.9) Gene tal Page 5.9.1 23 5.9.6 5.9.7 - 10 Line 24 HC: questions entire policy; thinks it is misleading and needs [o clarify what the limits are, as well as specify under what wnditions this does and does not apply; also suggested adding "water-oriented" before public access..... LS: Noted that she approves of the rewriting and thinks it addressed her earlier concerns GR: Multi-lot developments,....Why are cottage developments specified; should it include multi-family ? LS: Interjected with question about the line by line review process, and asked whether more of the allotted time could be spent discussing substantive issues. Missing: check numbering SE: suggested adding Wind powered generators to the shall not apply list Setbacks GR: Advise writers to delete the Why? And Because... type of language Remove the "an" Reminder to check again Delete it. Check for "designation versus environment throughout, e.g. line 8 and line 28 JS: this is Richard's Settle s language; so check that other references throughout text are consistent Much discussion: JS will compare with CAO and zoning. GR spoke to goals and option of changing the strategy. Paul spoke about rationale for it as written: given range of lot sizes, need a rule; if lower density is required, need different changes. JR: This is a reasonable use issue, but may need minor revision. JS: recognizes the fact that there are sheet ends and other public areas within [his designation, and i[ urges city to find ways to encourage and support; add at end "provided that property rights are preserved", but not "water-oriented" because state does not recognize that distinction. GR; CT lR: Add if the intention is to allow it as an accessory to a home structure, not to allow commercial, e.g. private residential wind power generators... 1S advised to defer until later full discussion Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 8 Page Line 12 30 feet change to 30 inches 24 Line 44 Should or shall? Shall Page Line 13 Dele[e hyphens and "in height" 25 Page Line 12 HC: What does overlay district mean? 27 5.10.2 Encourage uses "[hat" (not which) Page 5.10.3 Check numbering 29 5.103 HC: why use the phrase "while not preferred"? Page Line All related to Indian Point will be discussed 30 22,23 separately later. Page l~' Add'some apps floor residential" 31 paragmp h Page Line 19 Change to critical areas 32 Line 42 Start b. with "Support and reinforce the design..." Line 23 Reword to refer to C-III zoning district Page Line 29 Change which to that 34 Page Historic Overlay District is correct 35 Line 43 Correct format, i.e. circle and square bullets Standazdize on "Downtown Historic Overlay District" JS: i[ is common in the shorelines regs to refer to non-water-oriented uses in this way After a five minute break at 8:10 PM, the commission took up the issues Ms. Swber had explained during the staff presentation regarding designations for Kah Tai and Chinese Gardens. After a very brief restatement of the issues by Ms. Swber, the commissioners approved the three staff recommendations. Ms. Thayer moved that Kah Tai Care Center be designated as Urban. The motion was seconded by Ms. Slabaugh. The motion was approved, all in favor: 6/0/0. Ms. Thayer moved that in the shoreline areas of Kah Tat; where zoned Residential, the SMP designation should be changed to Shoreline Residential, rather than Natural. Mr. Emery seconded the motion. The motion was approved, all in favor: 6/0/0. Ms. Thayer recommended the areas of Chinese Gardens indicated by circles on the refined map, be designated Shoreline Residential, rather than Natural; Mr. Emery seconded. The motion was approved, all in favor: 6/0/0. Before resuming the document review, Mr. Randels suggested that a meeting ending time of 10:00 PM be set. There were no objections. 33 Line 5 Add 2005 before M-lI(A) zoning district Line 5 Insert'states that it' is intended CT raised ET/MW edit 34 Change bullets to a., b., c., d. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 9 waste 33 Line 28-48 4Vhy include information referring to outside JR: The SMP is supposed to include the shorelinejurisdiction? relevant information even if not within the boundaries. 34 Line 34 Rewrite stating "Prohibit water enjoyment unrelated to public access, and non-water- oriented uses within the main boat basin." 35 Pol. 5.12.5 GR: asked for explanation of term "priority use" and how it actually works in practice 36 Line 17, Add'and zoning' after'intended use' 5.12.9 36 Line 7 Semi-colon after standards 36 CT wished to check on ET changes from several weeks ago. 36 LS asked about Liveaboard policy 37 Line 3 Add building' before spaces 37 Line 30 Add comma after'not limited to' 38 Line 3 Correct numbering type face and indent Line 7 Delete dash before feet Line 16 ff Convert bullets to appropriate numbering or lettering 39 Linea Delete dashes in 75 feet west and line 5, 4 acre Linea 13 Correct bullets on Line 36 subdistriot not sub-district 40 Line 1 Change structure to development 40 Check fonts, typefaces uid indents 40 Line 1 Add'not to exceed 1,500 s.f.' after employees, 40 Line 24 ...access, whichever (comma & one word) From AK notes; JS will consider when convening all policies to begin with verbs JS: usually directs whether it is permitted outright or conditional; in Boat Haven, the text reflects the Port subcommittee's rewrite/]anguage. CT referring to notes based on ET edits Clarification: JS has incorporated ET changes unless she noted otherwise in the Staff Presentation at this or previous meetings. They are allowed This was moved and seconded, and approved. At the completion of the Boat Haven text review, Mr. Randall said he had a few other issues to raise. Ms. Slabaugh returned to the issue of liveaboazds. She referred to Chapter 9, Specific Modifications, page S, under Docks, Piers and Floats, Policy 9.4.2. This appeazs to contradict the other references to liveaboazds in Chapter 5 and other chapters. The intention is that liveaboazds are allowed with certain conditions applied. Ms. Surber and Mr. Randall will investigate and address the Chapter 9 policy. Mr.Randal] and Ms. Surber returned to DR 5.12.b.iii * at the top of page 40, asking if there was agreement to add "not to exceed 1,500 s.f." to the deli item. Mr. Randels moved to add the language, which was seconded and approved by all. Next, Mr. Randall asked the Commission to verify that there was understanding and support for designating the two subdistricts in the Boat Haven: i.e. relaxing the water-dependent ruleslrequirements in the East Boat Basin, and recognizing that it is in a process of transforming as the fishing boats and fish processing business are phasing out. Mr. Emery asked if the Dos Okies bazbecue vendor was considered to be a restaurant. Mr. Randall said it was temporary use. He asked if there were any other issues. Ms Surber said that the Boat Haven and Point Hudson were the areas of most significance in terms of change and transition. There were no other issues for the Boat Haven, and Ms. Capron suggested that the Point Hudson issues would be dealt with the following week. Ms. Capron then made a motion for adjotunment. VI. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. VII. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Thayer said she wished to bring up one other item that was not on the agenda. She read a letter from Catherine McNabb, on behalf of the City of Port Townsend, inviting the Planning Commission to send a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 10 representative to a committee being formed to develop a community arts functional plan. Ms. Thayer expressed great interest in the project. Mr. Randels and other commission members were happy to have Ms. Thayer participate as the Planning Commission representative. Mr. Randall also had an announcement. He reported that Jean Walat would be leaving her full time position as a Planner far the City to take a position with the Marine Science Center. Her last day will be September 16, 2005. VIII. UPCOMING MEETINGS 09/01/05: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update to start at 6:00 PM 09/08/05: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update, to start at 6:00 PM IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Randels noted that the motion for adjournment was still on the table. He adjourned the meeting at 9:55 PM. Gail Bernhazd, Meeting Recorder Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2005 Page 11