Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090105 MinutesCITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP Thursday, September 1, 2005 Meeting Materials: EXH 1. Stat£Report,"Drafr SMP: Section 5.8 and 5.9 Impervious Surfaces from Judy Surber to Planning Commission dated Septemberl, 2005 EXH 2. SMP 5.9.1 Revisions to Residential Setbacks dated August 31, 2005 EXH 3. SMP Chapter 6 EnJuonmental Protection, Draft 3 August 30, 2005 EXH 4. SMP Chapter 14 Shoreline Restoration, Drafr 3 August 21,2005 (carves AUG 4 date in error) EXH 5. Chapter 7 Shoreline Public Access, Drafr 3 August 4, 2005 (for 9/8/05) EXH 6. SMP Section 5.12, Boat Have Marina Use Table, Drafr 3 August 30, 2005 EXH 7. SEPA Final Determination of Non-Significance EXH 8. Staff Report, Drafr SMP: ResidentialCI ransient uses in the Urban Designation from Judy Surber to Planning Commission dated Septemberl, 2005 EXH 9. Excerpts/Photos from Shoreline Spaces, Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay (Apri12005) EXH 10. Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for September 1, 2005 EXH 11. Planning Commission Meeting Guest List for September 1, 2005 EXH 12. Memorandum from Larry Crockett to Judy Surber, Comments on /Shoreline Master Program Section 8.7, dated August 31, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chair Randels. IL ROLL CALL Planning Commission members present were: George Randels, Steve Emery, Alice King, Roger Lizut, Liesl Slabaugh and Cindy Thayer. Harriet Capron was excused, and Jeff Kelety continues to be on leave of absence. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Randels asked if there were any proposed changes to the agenda. Ms. Thayer moved that the agenda be approved, as written. Mr. Randels said he wished to point out, informally, that while the agenda has a proposed order of review of the items, the Planning Commission is not bound by that and can choose to take topics in a different sequence, if they so choose. Ms. King said that she had no changes for this meeting, but had heazd a concern about the agenda for September 8. Ms. Surber said she would discuss that in her staff presentation. Mr. Lizat seconded; the agenda was approved, all in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. V. NEW BUSINESS Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program Update Public Hearing (Continued from August 25, 2005) 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 ef2'ect. He asked commission members to state if any circumstances had changed with regard to conflicts of interest or other relevant items. There were none. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 1 Staff Presentation Judy Surber, Senior Planner, said that she had a few information items to report before resuming the review of the SMP Update document. Submittal ofSMP draft typographical and non-substantive changes aut side ofpublic meeting times: Ms. Surber said she had spoken with John Watts, City Attorney, who indicated that it would be fine for individual commissioners to send their written edits and comments to Ms. Surber, in advance of the public review. The edits would be incorporated, tracked and shown on the draft being reviewed publicly. She asked for changes to Chapters 8 through 13 to be e-mailed to her by September 6 for the September 15 meeting. Press release and schedule: The press release was intended to inform the public that the hearings were still in progress, since the first notices indicated August 25 as a tentative end date. The targeted schedule was intended to inform those who may wish to attend for a particulaz topic or topics. The intention was not to restrict the Commission in any way from proceeding in the order they see as necessary and appropriate. In attempting to accommodate individual schedules for the Port representatives, aswell as the Commission, the Point Hudson section was moved to September 8. A letter was received from Dave Robison about the meeting conflicting with the Wooden Boat Festival. In an effort [o accommodate, the September 8 meeting will be videotaped and available for those who wish to view it. Members of the public may testify about any SMP topic at any of the SMP hearings. Written comments are also welcome at any time. Meetin~Materials Overview: Ms. Surber then identified various exhibits for this meeting and the upcoming meeting on'September 8 that had been e-mailed or distributed at the prior meeting, and provided extra paper copies as needed. (Please sae Meeting Materials above.) EXA 1. Staff Report on Impervious Sufaces: Ms. Surber referred to her staff report to address the question raised at the last meeting: Are the proposed impervious surface limits consistent with those of the critical areas ordinance and zoning? Ms. Surber explained the differences in the ways the CAO and zoning code deals with impervious surfaces. The CAO allows a range of 25-30% impervious surface depending on the slope of the lot, but there is no maximum square footage. Zoning does not address impervious surface directly; it limits lot coverage, which includes buildings and structures while specifically excluding driveways, pazking lots, decks and wallnvays. Her first recommendation was to carry over the CAO slope provisions and add maximum impervious surface limit of 5,000 square feet .The second reconunendation was to "Include a similaz regulation in the "Natural" Designation to address the potential for asingle- family residence under a "reasonable use exception". A limit of 20% is recommended in recognition of the sensitivity of azeas designated "Natural". Ms. Slabaugh: "Just to clarify, then, the 5.9.1 language was already in the text, and this is suggesting that it be in the table?" Mr. Randels said he still had reservations about imposing a maximum; he wondered whether a maximum was necessary, and he was concerned with inconsistency between the SMP and the CAO. He said he didn't think there were going to be many 2-acre lots, and if there are, we will have dealt with them in the CAO. He said he preferred leaving it at a consistent percentage across the board, and isn't certain he understands why this change is necessary. Ms. Surber: The maximum would be 3500 s.f. fora 10,000 s.f. lot; she cited the McMansion issue; and reminded that the SMP must be at least equal to and could be stricter than local code. EXA2. Shorelines Residential 5.5.9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Surber said she made a few clarifications to distinguish setback from buffer. Setbacks apply to buildings where buffer usually implies "no touch" azeas. Setback applies from the OHWM, where the buffer applies (is measwed) from the top of the bluff or the edge of the wetland. Mr. Randels asked "Where does this fall in the August 19 draft? Answer: page 21. Ms. Slabaugh: "So there was no prior heading that said setbacks before? Ms. Surber:Yes, it was on page 23, where we made a note to reword. Ms. Swber: All the markups and notes that were generated have been incorporated. Highlights show what has been added since then. EXA3: Chapter 6, Environmental Protection Paul Inghram gave an overview, since this chapter had not yet been discussed by the PC. "This chapter is a counterpart to CAO regulations, gives policies and regulations addressing shoreline standazd of no net loss. It also deals with some the environmental conditions that are specific to shoreline azeas, including saltwater habitats, flooding conditions, geologic hazazds that aze a little bit different in shoreline azeas. You'll see that in a variety of places it refers back to the CAO, where applicable. It has some stricter or potentially stricter requirements that go into detail about impacts and mitigation pollicies, and addresses some of the broader policies that aren't in the CAQ such as azcheological and historic sites. For example, if an azcheological site is discovered during development, it specifies what has to occw in those situations: use of chemicals, neaz the water; protection of views and aesthetics. A key one that has been revised, for marine bluffs, section 6.8, Geologically Hazazdous Areas page 16-17; and Bluffs: 6.7.1 When you are on a marine bluff, a geotechnical report is required when you aze within 50 feet of the crest of a marine bluff , or a distance equal to the height of the slope up to a max. of 100 feet. The intention is to relate the requirement to the geologic characteristics; i.e. the height of the slope has some factor in the degree of risk involved." He also pointed out pages 18-19, 6.7.4. describing that a minimum buffer of 50 feet shall be provided for marine bluffs, with provisions and conditions for increasing or reducing the buffers, as applicable. EXFI. 4: Chapter 14 Restoration Mr. Inghram continued: "In earlier chapters, we aze talking about a need for mitigation of impacts during development. There is a requirement for avoidance or mitigation to meet the no-net-loss standard. Chapter 14 is about how to restore the environment to a level above that no-net-loss standard. So, there is a base line established. Projects must not result in a negative impact to that base line, and we also need to plan, as a city and regionally, [o have a net improvement overall. Meetings with the Restoration Working Group, including SAG members, one advisor from Battelle, one from Tribes, WA Environmental Council, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, and others have provided input, and also updates to the August 4 draft, shown by underlines and strikeouts. Some key things were noted, such as "emphasis on restomtion as an iterative process, since not all actions and outcomes are exactly predictable. Monitoring, feedback and ongoing reassessment is necessary". "Then, potentially updating or revising the regulatory or the restoration aspects in response to that information is the process to be followed." "A Few changes have been suggested in an attempt to better reflect those concepts. They have also taken out references that did not appear to be relevant to this jurisdiction and azea." EXFI B. Staff Report on Residential/Transient Uses in the Urban Designation Ms. Swber: She said she was referring to Chapter 5; DR- 5.10.4, residential and transient accommodations.. In the materials from last week aze the requirements in the existing SMP for transient accommodations. One of the important things to note on that is that although non-water-oriented uses are allowed as a conditional use permit, as soon as you added residential or transient accommodations to the mix, you also have to provide 50 % of the ground floor being water-oriented uses. You would have a mixed use project, with residential only on the upper floors, and half of the ground floor dedicated to water uses. I spoke with Rick Sepler, who was lead planner when the Urban Waterfront Plan was done, he has some background on the 50% ground floor rule. He agreed that the regulations were a disincentive to residential use. There was a strong reaction to the Bay Vista condominium located on the waterfront, and a general desire to prevent more development of that nature. The C-II general commercial zoning also started out being just a commercial zone. But later it was amended to allow upper floor residential.. So, we aze also looking at the C-II underlying designation. In Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 3 talking to the previous and the current property owner and looking at the new guidelines, in staffs opinion, there should be more flexibility in the 50 % Bound floor rule. The issue of how much flexibility will be discussed tonight, and that is the subject of the staff report dated September 1, 2005 (EXAB). The intention is to work through an exercise that should help consider policy and regulation options. Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission consider, in particulaz, alternative 4.,"Consider new regulations that provide more flexibility on uses and their arrangement on the site." By arrangement, we refer to either a vertical or horizontal separation of uses, such as residential or commercial. Vertical is a side by side building/space arrangement, where horizontal differentiates uses by floors in the same building. She then read the questions to be considered in sequence, in order for the public to understand the process that would be followed, as well as the nature and scope of the issues to be deliberated by the commissioners later in the meeting. Ms. Surber also pointed out EXH 9, which visually depicts some of the ways in which these options can be implemented. She explained that, additionally, the Commission would consider whether of not it is appropriate to allow more flexibility if the project incorporates restoration or public access enhancements -- that is, if it goes beyond mitigation requirements to improve ecological functions, and also promotes public access. Ms. Surber recalled that the SAG had discussed the issue of whether or not the Urban Designation was really appropriate for water-oriented uses. The area does not have deep water, access to docks, marina enhanced haul outs, or facilities normally associated with awater-related use. The options for uses are limited. Furthermore, there are opportunities for restoration, i.e. the presence of hardening and creosote pilings. And, the water walk is drawn, in the Urban Waterfront Plan, from the downtown to the Boat Haven, through this area. After reviewing the major goals of the Shoreline Management Act and reminding that the policies in our Master Program must support those goals, Ms. Surber identified two specific concerns with allowing residentialltransient in the Urban Designation: 1. Public versus private separation -private space should not intmde on the public's enjoyment of public parks and walkways, etc. 2. Less space dedicated to water-oriented uses. She also reviewed the need for consistency with the stated purpose of the Urban Designation and with the general purpose and specific regulations of the underlying C-II zoning, both of which aze summarized in the staff report. Ms. Thayer called attention to a letter from Stig Waidelich, Dolce la Belle, dated August 29, 2005 regarding Indian Point that had found it's way into the packets for the meeting. [The letter was not mazked as an exhibit.] She said that she believed that the letter should wait for the quasi-judicial hearing the following week. Chair Randels interjected that he had intended to address that just prior to public testimony. He said, "Contrary to what you may have seen in the paper, we are not going to be reviewing a specific proposal tonight, with regard to specific development opportunities in the Urban designated azea, or specifically Indian Point. That is not our job, it is somebody else's job, and so to the extent that people have comments on specific proposals, they are free to make them, of course. But our review will be more general, it will be following along many of the points Judy has raised, and probably others that we will raise, but it won't be on that specific proposal, which I have never seen, and it's not in front of us. On that Cindy, I totally agree, we aze happy to see this kind of testimony, but it's not particularly relevant to what we are doing." Ms. Surber: Yes, and then finally, when we get through with this exercise, we need to be able to say if this applies to the entire Urban Designation, or if we aze going to create a subdistrict where this would apply, as we did with Boat Haven and Point Hudson, dividing them up into subdistricts. Mc Randels asked Ms. Surber if she had a recommendation on that. Ms. Surber said she that she did not, at least until the regulation is worked out. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Surber: Then the last topic that we aze expecting the group to discuss tonight is the Historic Waterfront. The Historic Waterfront pulls in the Urban Waterfront Plan, Uses, Height Overlay District in the Municipal Code, and others. The one important distinction between the old code and the proposed is the setback from the OHWM (ordinary high water mark). Previously there had been a zero setback requirement in the Historic Waterfront. We're proposing that development adhere to a 25 foot setback; again the setback applies to buildings and a deck or patio on the back of the building. One of the reasons we are recommending this for shorelines is not only For ecological functions, but also, if the building is sited right on the edge like that, you have maintenance issues (working off the beach). A deck winds up being an overwater deck; those things are contrary to best available science, and may also inhibit public access on the beach. Paul interjected that this applies to new buildings, not all buildings. Ms. Surber added another reminder to make certain that Table 5 is consistent with the text. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. Randels then welcomed the public and asked whether everyone who wished to testify had signed the Guest List. He said everyone would be given a chance to speak, after those who had signed in at the start of the meeting. He asked people to speak in the order called, per the sign up sheet, to state name and address, and to keep comments to 3 minutes or less. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend I'd like to comment on a memorandum that the PC received from Eric Toews in regazd to the Boat Haven, about two weeks ago. I had a chance to talk with him at the break about one of the assertions that he made in the memo, and to you in the testimony. That a little grocery store deli on the site of the New Day Fisheries would be awater-related use. Now, how in the world do you make that out to be awater-related use? Because in the testimony to you, he had pointed out that the use complied with the definition ofwater- related, but he didn't explain how that could possibly be. So, in my paperwork, getting ready for tonight, I found a section that had definitions ofwater-related use. I'm not sure if one of them came with this memo, or one of them was m your chapter, but I would ask you to carefully examine the interpretation the Port would give to that term, and also ask you to reconsider the use of a deli' in that area. I talked with the owner of the New Day Fisheries, and they said the Port's been trying to get them out of there for a long, long time. They're doing very well there. They are well sited there. There's a dock. I think that should remain awater- dependentuse. When I talked with Eric (Toews), I said "How can you call it awater-related use --maybe water-enjoyment, but it's not awater-related use." He said, "Well, it's because our customers aze coming in off of boats; the fact that the customers aze yachtsmen makes it awater-related use". I think that's absurd. There's a section in the definition ofwater-related that refers to a necessary service. And I would like you to look at that service in the context of do we need another deli in the neighborhood? You've got the Safeway store, the gas station right there, right down the street; a huge deli grocery store just across the street, from the light, at the Boat Haven; you've got Penny Saver, down two blocks, and you've got the Food Coop right down there. Is this the kind of extra deli/grocery store use that we want to use on a fragment of water property in the Boat Haven? I would suggest that's not a good use of limited land. Thank you. Joshua Bennum. Port Townsend I came into do exactly what you said we shouldn't do: comment on something you can't decide on . But, I will do it anyway for the entertainment value. (Mr. Randels: I'm sure your comments will be relevant to the general issues that we will be discussing.) The geneml issue is this: I believe in the need to keep the shoreline clean, safe, and accessible, more public and less private. If it is necessary or advisable to include the residential dwellings in any stretch of the shoreline, I am th full support of the staff recommendation that it should be a mixed project with the ground floor entirely commercial. And the reason is simple. If you allow or the City allows a purely residential dwelling , people by nature, home-owners, will try to restrict access to public areas next to their house. It happens all the time; they plant little bushes first. Then they put the little plants, and then they put a car here and there, and petty soon it becomes a private claim. W e know that -- there's no denying it. Now I'm going to say what I'm not supposed to say because you cannot decide. The way I see that, the developer is asking to build 90,000 s.f. of purely residential dwellings in the area instead of the compromise ofhalf-residential, half-commercial. Obviously, the motivation is personal profit, as opposed to the good of many. No question about it -money. Many of the azguments in the paper Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 5 aze completely misleading -taking credit for the clean up, the site (inaudible) has to be cleaned up regazdless. You are not doing anyone a favor. As far as [he adjectives called unobtmsive and quiet and what have you. A bigger project always causes density and parking problems. We Know. 90,000 s.f. of blocks?? (inaudible) and condominiums will cause a big problem. Now, as to the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes I give people the benefit of the doubt. I wish to remind the committee that this developer and his associates went ahead and destroyed many old trees without a pemilt or advance notice, when they were building along the Haller Fountain. They had the audacity to say "Oops , we didn't know we needed a permit". The City granted them a questionable authorization after the fact, and the next door neighbor, Dr. Nichols, took them to court and won his case. To date, I don't think the judgement is paid. Frankly, there is no doubt that the growth of business in this town, and the network of good old boys, do not care about public access, do not care about walking trails, parks or trees. In their minds, the City officials and committee members are trouble-makers, the rest of us are village idiots, and the beauty and character of this town is only a (inaudible) to fill their pockets with money. Do not be disffacted by smoke screens. The real motive of such requests from this and other builders is to shoe horn ?(inaudible) as many project units as they can along the shoreline, and privatize a good stretch of our common water Thank you. Lard Crockett 153 McCurdy Point Road Port Townsend. WA A couple of quick things: I'll have to get with Scott Kimball because he was offered a long term lease last month, and I 'm not sure we're trying to kick him out; we've never said that. I'll give this to Judy [Note: Mr. Crockett was referring to his Memorandum of August 31, 2005, Comments on Shoreline Master Program Section 8.7 which was subsequently labeled as EXH 12 for 9/1/05] "These are just some comments on section 8, for the record, on some of the policy issues for next week What I want to talk about tonight aze three items in Chapter 14, the Restoration chapter, two from a biological stand point, one from a political standpoint. First, on page 13, one of the proposed restoration opportunities is to open up the high grade wetland -next to Larry Scott Trail, next to the Boat Haven, to the saltwater. Biologically, (I have my degree and I'll defend it with anybody else) thafd be a foolish idea. That is an extremely high-grade wetland with enormous population of both flora and fauna, it's an outdoor classroom for the Marine Science Center, for the local high school, etc. That has fumed over in the past century into a fresh water high-grade wetland classified as a Class I wetland, which is the highest quality you can get. We have committed to preserving it, if you open it up to the salt water, yes, two hundred years ago it was open to the saltwater, but you are going to lose the diversity that you see there today. Ifll tum into an actual lower grade, in my opinion, you can look at it, but I would not recommend it. Let's cherish the wetland and leave it alone. Second one, page 14, Quincy Dock: the last six years, as Port duector, I've been in favor of getting rid of the dolphins and all the pilings at Quincy Dock. That used to be Ferry Terminal up into the 1980's, a state ferry; we condemned it six years ago, when we got here because the pilings underneath were so rotted, used to be pedestrian access, now its cordoned off totally. Well, politics make for strange bed fellows, I took three weeks vacation, came back to fmd out the City approached the Port, briefed the Port Commission, asking us topartner with the City to restore the dock, apparently there's DOT grant money available, my commissioners agreed, and so I signed a letter, applauding the City's effort to restore that section of the waterfront for public access, and part of it's for Quincy Dock. The last one is on page 15, it's another biological one, that I don't understand, I wasn't in on the drafting of that section. They say north and south, I think it really should be east and west, at the Boat Haven, it's recommending taking the sediment from the side where the drift from the mill it strikes the breakwater and is building a beach where the ffestle is, you know (inaudible) sediment there, well because of that, you now have eel grass there, and that beach has fumed into asand -(inaudible) or for fish feeding identified by the DOE, Fish and Wildlife, as such. So, taking the sand from there to nourish the other side of the Marina which doesn't get as much sediment, that's also sand land ? beach, I'm not sure what we're getting, we're actually going to destroy more habitat than create, because the drifts along the Marina there would go away, The drifr would continue to take that sediment on what it says the North side, should be the east side, away as fast as you put it in there. So you aze never going to accomplish anything other than killing eel grass and doing away with another sandbank?-feeding area. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 6 Bill Woolcott 709 Ga~eld Street. Port Townsend, WA I'm sort of in Joshua's (Bennum) shoes. I thought there was going to be a little bit more involved this evening, I thought it was going to be a little more site-speciSo, but since it's not, I will make it as brief as I can. I'd like to pass these down if I possibly could (marked as EXH 1 I). I am the owner of the Indian Point property, and essentially a project that we have proposed there, have asked the Ciry to work with us, actually to decrease the overall bulk and dimension of a possible development there. And contrary to Joshua's comment, it's not 90,000 sf, we're looking for about 20,000 sf and the site could accommodate under C-II about 60,000 sf. Also, the process that seems the most logical to us, given the site, is to eliminate the commercial on the ground floor, out on the point. If you look at ow site plan, we fully intend to place commercial along Water Street, a normal configwation, where there is good public access, but there is no other, than by trail, general public access to the point, it would be private access, even though there was commercial out there, we think that the chance of it being successful is extremely slim. So, basically, we'd be building that ground floor commercial oriented towazds the bay, simply to satisfy a specific regulation. Probably the most likely candidate for success out there would be a restawant which is awater-oriented use, I know in yow discussions, it's been noted by Joanne Saul, the restaurant business in PT is ah-eady under a little bit of stress -- the need for more and lazger restaurants is not necessarily a priority. Maybe it will be someday, but currently its not particulazly a priority. And as part of ow proposal, in order to downsize actually the site, if you look on the very last page you'll see our development of the point. We aze proposing to ,there are a couple of things that were pointed out, we do have certain requirements, there was an environmental cleanup there, there was a storage facility on the site for a about 40 years. To bring that up to state standazds, and we will also be doing a water walk ,from the Tides Inn to Scott Street If we can work with ow neighbors all the way to Gaines Street, which would pretty much complete the water walk from downtown to Boat Haven. We'll also do shoreline restoration, and cleanup the shoreline, that happens to be a great beach along there, it's a beautiful beach, its been tremendously degraded its got pilings laying in i[, it's got old concrete slabs all over it. So, that would be part of what we would like to attempt to do. There are going to be a lot of issues, I think in dealing with DOE, Fish and Wildlife, they all seem to have their own different opinions on how we'll proceed on this sort of thing, but that's all part of ow proposal I think that one of the issues that has come up ,one of the critical issues, seems to be public access. And whether or not this commercial presence would enhance this public access or not, in those situations. Our contention is that at that site, public access, that commercial would actually be a hindrance. Really, like I said before, the only potentially really viable business would be a restaurant So, what you are doing you are bringing a lot of people out to the point, you' re bringing a lot of noise, commotion that goes with a restawant, because if you 11 notice, on the faz south end of the point there, if you look at the last page, you'll see [hat that's actually in the Front Street right of way. And we aze proposing to complete that as a public pazk, so there would be access all the way azound from the beach, from the walkway to that site. That site, in my mind, would be, unduly affected by a commercial presence there, as opposed to having a quite, for lack of a better word, serene, waterfront experience, shoreline experience, as opposed to having a commercial presence out there. (Mr. Randels: Yow time is expired.) OK, thank you for yow time. Mr. Randels: That concludes the people who have signed up, but as I said eazlier, if anyone else has amved subsequent to that, and want to speak, now is yow change. Anyone? Appazently not. I also said that if anyone felt a need to speak again. Mr. Rozanski asked to speak Jim Rozanski. 1940 49`s Street. PT "Contrary to what was spoken eazlier (by) the first speaker: I'm Bill's azchitect, our office has been working with Bill and Diana, and I was also the architect for their project next to Haller Fountain; Bill and Diana caze very much about this community, and have, in my opinion, gone way out of their way, to create a positive presence in this community. And this proposed Indian Point project is kind of a continuation of the quality of work that they aze responsible for funding and building. This is an ideal place for a residential environment along with a park, and Bill is also working to pwchase a property, there's a city block to the west heading towazd the mill, that's basically an unbuildable pazcel, primarily to restore the shoreline there and enhance this point I'm speaking in favor of the (inaudible) that Bill and Diana have done. They aze making a positive contribution to the community. And, it's an ideal place for a residential envirotrtnent, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 7 because you can walk to the shopping and video stores and banks, and walk downtown. It's just an ideal location to bring people into downtown, to make it a more vital place to live. So, that's my part of is Thank yOU. Ms. Thayer: "Before we have any more discussion, I would like to reiterate to the Planning Commission Judy Swber's comment in regazds to Indian Point. "Please be advised that [he application for development of Indian Point will be quasi-judicial. Thus, discussion should be limited to legislative recommendations on appropriate uses and development regulations under the Shoreline Master Program. The Planning Commission should not deliberate on the specific merits of the proposal. Please refrain from any ex pane communications regarding the specifics of development at Indian Point. " And I think we need to make sure that we separate this, that [he testimony we are getting tonight is not testimony related to ow discussion. She added, I'm feeling very uncomfortable about the testimony we've had." Ms. Surber: I checked with John Watts today, and I noted how difficult it is to avoid being specific when you are talking about an azea that's ripe for development: He said that the main thing is that all discussion must take place here, in public. Mr. Randels: Right, it's not ex parte. Ms. Surber: And that we are talking about only one possibility that could happen if certain regulations were changed. We shouldn't be focusing on a particulaz building being here or there, or what particular uses you want to see. But, you aze talking in generalities of what kind of setback is appropriate to provide that private separation, what kinds of uses you want to see, and things of that nature. So, you can certainly look at this as an example of what potentially could happen, or what you like or you don't like about that potential. [Unidentified audience voice: "But don't communicate whether you would approve it or not."] Mr. Randels: We have no power to approve it or disapprove it, so that doesn't really matter. Ms. King: I think we should discuss the issue without even considering it ([he Indian Point proposal), because real) y anything could happen. We are going to make certain changes or not that are going to allow anything (an unknown), things that correspond to those changes --this project or a completely different project. This project is not before us. So, I think we will need to be very cazeful. Mr. Randels: Yes, and that's why I said what I said when we began. Freedom of speech does apply, but you should all realize that a lot of what's being said tonight we can't consider, and we won't. Ms. Slabaugh: In fact, isn't the current SMP that is in place what will determine _( inaudible)? Diana Woolcott: Well, we were asked by the staff to come and make a presentation, so.... Ms. Swber: The (Woolcott) presentation is to say "Here are the existing regulations, and here is the flexibility in regulations we would like to see so that we can do ow vision for this particular property." That's fine -- you can have that discussion. Mr. Randels: And if it takes the form of something more specific than we are allowed to consider that's okay you aze making yow points; [he points you are making are that you want more flexibility. Diana Woolcott, 709 Garfield Street, Port Townsend Bill and I aze intending to develop Salmon Point (Indian Point). Twenty four years ago, we drove up in a V W van, with all of ow belongings and camped on Salmon Point. Now, afer 24 years, we hope to make this ow home. It has taken us 24 years to get down to the waterfront. With that in mind, developing this as a community and as our home after living and remodeling and building, this is the spot we want to develop. The way the current regulations are, we don't want to cover it with cement; it could be such a spectaculaz place that could be used for a park that could be accessed by the whole community. Now, I think the point here is whether putting commercial on the ground floor -- is that going to be more accessible to the public? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 page 8 So, I think my position on that is "Do we really need another restaurant in town? And, if we don't need a restaurant, if we do a moteUhotel, how is walking by somebody's motel room any different than walking by somebody's residence? The difference is, if we put a residence there, we can have more park, we can have more green space, we don't need all of that pazking. So, in my mind, visually, it's a "no-brainer." I don't think we are asking for anything that isn't already there. There's residential on either side of Salmon Point, so its not asking for anything that's out of the ordinary. I guess, for me, I see it as a wonderful space. We could develop it with 80,000 s.f. If we don't develop it, someone else will come in and develop every last bit, every part -- they will build three stories. We're trying to do this tiny 24,000 s.f, or 19,000 s.f. really, downsizing it so we can keep open space. So, in considering this, I guess what I would be asking you is to think about changing the Shoreline Master Plan, specific to the site. We do have retail in town, but I don't think the Point is the place to have commercial. We have had experience with various rental, retail and other businesses here over the years, and that is just not the place to have commercial. Thank you. After offering those present another opportunity to speak, Mr. Randels announced the conclusion of the Public Testimony portion of the meeting. Staff Response Boat Haven deli: Ms. Surber first responded to the grocery store/deli issue mentioned by Ms. Dorgan. She said, "One of the factors is that the deli is being limited to 1500 s.f in size. If it were a larger grocery or deli, with a larger customer base, then it probably wouldn't qualify as water-related. Since it is small and a convenience to boatershnarina users, it is considered to be water-related." Restoration Opportunities: Regarding Quincy Dock, in the Restoration subcommittee, a policy was drafted that mentions consideration of the Quincy Street dock for passenger ferries. She noted its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan; it is also cited as a restoration opportunity. She and Mt. Inghram both stressed that the removal of old pilings could be in conjunction with replacement or restoration, and the 'opportunity' could be reworded to reflect that. They said there was no inherent conflict among the City's, the SMP's and the Port's goals. Regarding the other two items mentioned, the Larry Scott trail wetlands and the beach replenishment on one side of the marina, Ms. Surber and Mr. Inghram noted that these items had been identified in the Shoreline Inventory and, based on that, listed as restoration opportunities. They said they had no specific responses as to why they wouldn't be valid items; others with technical backgrounds have not expressed the same concerns that Mr. Crockett has. They said that the chapter suggests a method for selecting restoration projects, based on projected benefit, including a research step that should bring major issues or risks to light before embazking on such a project. Regarding Indian Point, Ms. Surber said she had encouraged the Woolcotts to come and testify; to describe their vision, to voice their opinions about regulation changes they would like to see; and to participate in looking at what might happen if certain regulations were modified. Ms. Thayer asked for clarification on the name Salmon Point versus Indian Point. Ms. Surber said that Indian Point is the correct name of the area, and Salmon Point is the potential name of the development by the Woolcotts there. Regarding the clean up, for commercial uses it is voluntary, for residential, it is compulsory. [Note: There was a 5-minute break at 7:40 PM] Planning Commission Deliberation: Ms. Thayer suggested that the order of topics to be discussed should follow that suggested ht Ms. Barber's in her a-mail: Impervious Surface recommendation, SMP edits, Residential a[ Indian Point, which was accepted by all. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 9 Ir~tpervious Surfaces (EXIT 1 Staff Reoortl Ms. Thayer began by stating that there were very few bluff properties in the area that were greater than 10,000 s.f. The group mentioned a few examples and Ms. Surber noted that there was also some unplatted land in the northwest quadrant. Ms. Thayer said she would recommend having a maximum; Ms Slabaugh agreed, stating that the shoreline is different and unique, that there aze valid, well-documented reasons, and regulations need not be consistent with every other area. Mr. Randels asked if it was correct that by having a special, greater restriction applying in the Natural Designation, that would then pertain only to situations where there is a constimtional issue. He expressed concern at whether that, in itself, might run into a constitutional problem. He suggested that if the SMP is lefr silent on that, the CAO would apply, allowing between 20 and 30% impervious surface, depending on the slope. Mr. Randall said that, no, those percentages would not apply on flat areas without slopes. When asked for his opinion as to the constitutional issue, Mr. Randall said it de£vtitely wasn't a takings issue. As to equal protection, he didn't think i[ was an issue for the Natural area, since [he private property there was already subject to conditional use, etc. Mr. Randels agreed, and asked if there was further discussion. Mr. Inghram added that as faz as he knew, for all private properties carrying the Natural Designation, the designation only applies to that (portion) which is already a critical azea. Ms. Thayer moved to adopt the Impervious Surface changes as drafted in the staff report/recommendations. Mr. Emery seconded. All were in favor. Ms. Dorgan interjected aquestion/point of order from the audience. She asked if the Commission was doing straw votes or actually voting/adopting recommendations. The response was that these were straw votes, and a way to track the issues as part of the record. At the end of the hearing process, the Commission will vote on the entire document. Shoreline Residential - Setbacks iEXH 21 The issue before the Commission was to approve or amend the proposed revisions to Section 5.9, Setbacks. Referring to EXH. 2 and Chapter 6, Mr. Randels suggested that DR-6.7.4, which addresses marine bluff buffers, was in contradiction with DR-5.9.3, Exceptions from the Shoreline Residential Setback. Mr. Inghram explained that portions of the shoreline do not have high bluffs, where only setbacks would apply. He and Ms. Surber pointed out cross-references in the proposed draft between Chapters 5 and 6, and the CAO Mr. Randels also noted that in 5.9.4, the last sentence: "Unless appealed, a setback deviation rendered by the City shall be considered final. ", should be deleted, as had been agreed at a previous meeting. Otherwise, the revisions were accepted, as drafted. Residential Transient Uses in Urban Desi nation: Ms. Surber and the Commissioners £ust reviewed the Urban Designation area on the map. Following the method outlined in her staff report (EXH. 8), they considered the first pot icy question: "Should the City allow Residential/Transient accommodations in all or a portion of the "Urban Designation of the Shoreline Master Program?" If yes, should regulations apply? (The underlying zoning and existing SMP allows it, just on the upper floors.) The tentative consensus seemed to be: yes, and as part ofa mixed use development. Furthermore, regulations should apply. 1. If it is mixed use, what is the other use? In terms of the choices, the group settled on a variation of option C, mixed use with public access. Ms. Surber suggested dropping the term non-water-oriented', so that the public access could include water-oriented, but not be restricted to it or from it. 2. What percentage of the project should be reserved for other uses? Discussion led to the need for explanations of'horizontal arrangement' and 'vertical arrangement. The dividing line between types of uses can be between floors (horizontal arrangement) or between sides of a building or between buildings within the same development (vertical arrangement). The commissioners agreed that they would prefer allowing either or both horizontal and vertical Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 10 arrangements, allowing greater flexibility in the design. (This is actually Question/issue 4, Option E on the staff report .) After considerable deliberation, the percentages specified were: SO% total floor area -residential/transient accommodations,' 50% total floor area either all water -oriented or a mix of water -oriented and certain non-water -oriented uses; At least 25% of total floor area -water-oriented,' Remaining 25%: non-water oriented open to public access; 3. Question 3: should there be a requirement that all or a portion ajthe ground floor waterfront space be dedicated to publicly accessible areas? Ultimately, the response was No. 5. Should spec fc regulations be applied to ensure that private space does not inhibit the public's use of public areas (parks, walkways, etc.? Commissioners selected some form of all three options: A. A general condition of approval such as "Public access is a primary design consideration" should apply. B. Increased setbacks from public space should apply; 25 feet was specifed. C Grade separations "should be/are required" was modified to "are encouraged ", and 3 feet was specified. Second Policy /Question: In support ofthe goals of the SMP, should specific incentives be included to encourage restoration or enhanced public access (beyond that which rs required for mitigation) within the Urban Designation? 1. The first decision was option C. Incentives should be included to promote both A -Restoration and B -Public Access above mitigation standards. 2. Next, the types of incentives that should be provided are allow a range of uses, and percentage of uses. (The Commissioners were not in favor of negotiable bulk, height and dimensional rules, as an incentive.) 3. Should the city consider restoration as awater-dependent use in a mixed-use project. The consensus was Yes, with provisions. 4. How much restoration is sufficient to warrantflexibility to standards? 5. When should enhanced public access be considered in exchange for more flexible standards? Restoration and/or public access constituting significant public benefit beyond that which would be required as mitigation for the development. tlfter a great deal more discussion concerning setbacks, vegetation, segazation techniques, Ms Surber suggested that staff take the ideas and preferences expressed by the Commissioners to prepaze a new draft for relevant sections of Chapter 5.10 Urban. All were in agreement Chair Randels asked that the group move on to Chapter 14 Restoration. Mr. Randall asked staff' if there were any major issues or questions before beginning the detailed edits. The commissioners preferred to proceed page by pages in order to refer to their notes. Suggested changes, edits and comments aze itemized in the table below. EXH 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 11 _ a. w _.~ . ~ - _ .., __. . 1 32 Master Program, not matter program 2 13 Add "or improvement" after restoration WAC language -- can't use 26 Delete semi-colon 29 '' Dele[e'a jurisdic[iod' 31 Restoration planning is not .... 34 Add past or upcoming Rejected 3 7,8 Caps for Ecology shoreline master program Rejected guidelines 12 Revegetation 19 Define "abiotic" 5 35 Add the before GeoEngineer's 6 16, 17 Explain "in terms of space and time" No change to text 38 X should be in quotes 13 Quilcene-Snow...., what is it? Add "This is Por[ Townsend's watershed. 41 Move also to before valuable 7 28 Objectives -plural Table is cut off 10 Table cut off at bottom 13 Table reference to Larry Scott Trail wetlands Table Remove or restore ..... (2x) 15 Sediments Feed more sediments to east side...... 21 24 The region, not Our region 24 43 Delete personal reference info for Iohn Cambalik 25 11 Delete Shared Strategy (redundant) 25 42 Change our to the 26 23 Take out local ; and/or not and 26 30 As an example for others 42 Eliminate the word govemment 27 13, 14 Add " in cooperation with the Count}' 27-38 Shoreline Administrator, not manager 36-38 Clarify the confusion of off site mitigation OR public access improvements 36-38 Reword to reflect that developer cannot do anything on his own; add "together"; don't use and/or 28 1 -27 Tax Relief as policy option; strong reservations on the part of Chair and others; other commissioners believed that topic should be left in the document. Retain the section: combine paragraphs one and two; change manager to Shoreline Administrator; ;line 19: City could establish; line 26-27: redundant sentence 37 Delete `they feel' and insert `it is found' 29 32 Take out reference to near hand dates or delete entirely; delete personal reference info. 31 5,6 Change may to will Discussion of Larry Crockett's criticism of this item as an opportunity; no action ;leave in to be evaluated as any other possible project Reword - do not specify moving from x to y; just correct the problem LS - if these aze the strategies, where is or how does [he city develop the plan? Brief discussion -- no changes to document Could coordinate with any entity, not just government Rework: suggest deleting public access improvements Chair Randels moved that the whole section Tax Relief should be deleted; motion failed on straw vote 3/3. Al] agreed that [his topic should be raised with City Council by inclusion in the Letter or Findings summary when SMP Update is passed to Council Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 12 32'6 6 Hyphenate three-prong 35 Add "at a minimum" after updates 45 Drop the word `the" at end of line 33 9 Processes plural 14-16 Change "and " to "at" 16-18 Delete the second and third sentences of the pazagraph. 25 Shoreline conditions. (plural) 28 Capitalize Information; demonstrate instead of help us learn 29 Delete "we know that" 35 Be should be "by" 36 Highest rates -plural; needs -plural 34 Add: Audabon and Bullet and Paul Allen Foundations 37 14 Orphaned bullet? 38 21 Mean lower (tide) low water - No change to text VI. VII. VIII. IX. No[ needed; covered in the Comp plan processes. Mr. Inghram attempted to explain the de£nition in the text; no better wording was agreed upon. Mc Randels summarized the progress to date: " We did the whole list, except Chapter 6" Mr. Randall asked about the order of topics for the next meetings. Mr. Randels proposed the following order: Chapter 5 -Point Hudson; Boat Haven Use Table; Table 5 Use Table; Chapter 6 -Environmental Protection; Chapter 7, Chapter 1, Chapter 8. Ms. Thayer then checked to see if a quorum would be present the following week, since she would not arrive until about 7:00 PM. This did not seem to be a problem. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. UPCOMING MEETINGS 09/08/05: Public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update, to start at 6:00 PM 09/15/05: public Hearing -- Shoreline Master Program Update, [o start at 6:00 PM ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thayer made a motion to adjourn. All were to favor. Chair Randels adjourned the meeting at 9:14 PM 1 `t-~-~/ Gail Bernhard, Meeting Recorder Plamting Commission Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2005 Page 13