Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10212004 CC/Shoreline Adv · · · JOINT CITY COUNCIL & SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP MEETING OCTOBER 21,2004 6:00 PM, FORT WORDEN BUILDING 204, UPPER NORTH Meeting Notes Jeff Randall welcomed the group and introduced the two consultants for the evening: Keith Gurnee, consultant for planning at Point Hudson; and Michael Sullivan, consultant for historic preservation and design, and president ofthe Washington Historic Trust. Council roll call: present were Benskin, Fenn, Kolff, Robinson; Medlicott arrived at 6:30; Masci and Sandoval were not present. Planning Commission members in attendance introduced themselves: Berg, Kelety, King, Thayer. Jeff reviewed the packet information available to those interested. The format for this meeting will be three speakers, 20 minutes each, and then a Q&A period following each speech. Jeff began by stating the shoreline master program (SMP) is the legal document required to be adopted by all jurisdictions with water. Port Townsend is one of 4 early adopters in the state, and must get our programs updated by 2005; others are not required until 2009; Jefferson County has until 2011. PT selected to go first because we had already identified much of our inventory and drafted policies; we received state funding of $197 ,000. We have a significant amount of local discretion in some areas, but strict science processes to assure no problems. The SMP is for land within 250 of water. Showed map of Point Hudson area; includes intertidal areas and associated wetlands. History: Point Hudson was a Native American habitation site; sawmill there, number of saloons; filled at times; dredged at times; heavily modified through he years. In 1934 the buildings we know today were built. Coast guard in 1939; US Navy used it too; 1947 army took it over for Korean war operations; 1953 surplussed and acquired by the Port of Port Townsend (POPT). 2002 POPT reassumed management of Point Hudson. Reviewed the adopted City and county programs that affected Point Hudson. The zoning code identifies it as MIIB manufacturing uses, but it refers to the shoreline plan for uses; the Urban Waterfront Plan has specific language regarding Point Hudson. A master plan can be very specific as to buildings and improvements; strategies; the shoreline program supercedes the zoning code but not as specific as far as specificity; includes policies and standards. We're not doing a master plan; that's done by the City. The adoption process is very clear; adoption is by DOE but it's a City policy. Point Hudson is significant; we don't have any buildings on the historic register except for Gary's building, #123 Fleet Marine, but they are old enough to qualify. Jeff referred to the maps on the wall that show the different zoning areas. Found 22 different activities in Point Hudson that qualify as water oriented uses. Point Hudson also anchors the east end of town; but only comprises 7% ofthe City's eight lineal miles of shoreline; just to remind you that 93% of the Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21,2004/ Notes / Page 1 . . . shorelines are outside of Point Hudson, and all of the shoreline needs to be addressed. In terms of issues per square foot, Point Hudson probably rules. The state allows a variety of programs to be approved but the community would want more specific plans; we can't take our community preferences and move them outside the program. The SMP includes a policy that recognizes issues of importance; and historic preservation is one of the issues. The shoreline inventory is complete; analyzing data from that to determine how it will affect policy. We are in the process of identifying land use and shoreline patterns; identifying policy and common threads. What staff and consultants come up with will be forwarded to SAG first for policies and regulations. The existing goals and policies were adopted by the City and Port in 1994; these are common threads; Point Hudson must be financially self-supporting, it's an issue. Protect the small-scale nature. There is a phrase in the comp plan has a statement that all uses in Point Hudson must be water oriented uses. There are several businesses there that are not. Have to look at that issue. If there are certain buildings suited to different uses should that be specified instead of enforcing water- oriented uses. Talked about residential use. Permanent residences are currently prohibited; should they be allowed? What about the Hudson Place properties? If we learned anything from the boat haven, sometimes residences next to marine trades don't mix; need to look at that. The SMP process that lies before us is that SAG has the ball; consultants and staff will work with them until they have a living, breathing document. Anticipating will complete work between December and February. Then PC OM will take up the review; they will pass on to Council and will hold at least one public hearing and will take final action. But even after that DOE still needs to approve it. Nov 4 next SAG meeting; Point Hudson will be on Nov. 9. Point Hudson makes Jeffthink of playful rebellious and immature and we don't want to lose it. When the weather's dreary and not a lot going on; issues come out of nowhere; the thing to remember is to not make meaningless battles of will; we have some serious work to do and the stakes are high. Decisions have not been made planning wise to make this happen. Q&A. Jeff was asked about SMP regulations that get put into place and the Port that owns the operation of it and nonconforming uses; what are the enforcement practices; the Port's responsibility and the plans? A. The Port is a property owner, like anyone else in town. In terms of nonconforming uses, the code allows that, but can't expand or change without code compliance. Larry Crocket added that the Port is a government entity that operates under its own RCWs so you have to keep that in mind. Jeff was asked what happens until you wait until DOE approves the new plan. A. The current SMP is in place until the new one is adopted. Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21, 2004 / Notes / Page 2 . Heida Diefendorfer from SAG asked what features of the buildings that are not suitable for water oriented uses? A. There are some office type uses that would qualify like the Port's marina office; the Puget Sound Express is moving into Pygmy Kayak building; needs to have an economic connection to be a water-oriented use; those buildings are fitted out for those types of uses, but there are not a lot ofthem. Getting close to full capacity. Nancy Dorgan asked if the master plan was ever formally brought to council for adoption? Jeff was not aware of it; there is a policy that talks about the master plan. Has personal perspective of why not. A City trying to catch up with regulations so it was probably overlooked. Keith Gurnee. He has fallen in love with PT since working on the project. He is with the RRM Design group, considered experts in dealing with waterfront designs; worked with a lot of Ports and cities. Timmons saw our presentation in Montreal and he liked it; brought him up. When City got a $20,000 SMP grant he was asked to work on it. Mentioned the award the NWMC got this summer. . The Port and City don't see eye-to-eye; that is not unusual. Showed a note from 1923 about the Port complaining about the City (laughter). Have tried to find common ground; very clear that Point Hudson is a source of magic to the City; cultural, and probably the most important piece of property that the citizens care about. In light of SMP update, there has always been way to resolve uses in the context of the plan and how they interact with each other; what uses are appropriate. Made a preferred recommendation that looked at a lot of issues; trust; over restrictive uses. You will have to work out what uses will be allowed in this unique facility. Port made it clear that the SMP be done first before they do any subarea plan. Put together an organization of uses to guide your decisions. There is fear by some of the tenants and the community about some leases being forced out. Keith referred to a map on the wall that broke Point Hudson into four different districts. Discussed the uses areas proposed. Hopefully this can help resolve those issues. Since there is reluctance by the Port to pursue a subarea plan, it is best for the Port and City that you see eye to eye. In the absence of a subarea, a binding site plan review could be done. It is best for the City to see that proper use is being done. Any questions? Howard Vernon. How have other entities resolved this issue? A. They have agreed to leave egos at the door and find common ground; even if it's very small. Q. Any specific city or town? A. Was hired by the Port of LA to end the 100 years war. . The towns of Wilmington and San Pedro sued the Ports when they ignored the towns. Brought them together, wasn't easy, a lot of bitterness, but it's working now. After the venting is done, then they got to work and worked through the issues. Q. Can you give us an example of a plan that works well in a community like ours and how it was achieved? A. In today's world you cannot get consensus without engaging the community as part of the process. Thinks top-down planning efforts are great when the site is huge and no controversy. The bottom-up planning efforts work best. . Q. Is it possible to tackle this project without doing a master plan? A. In an ideal world yes; but there is no money or time to do that now; your challenge is to try to open your minds and come Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21, 2004 / Notes / Page 3 . . . up with a flexible list of uses that protect the environment. The Port might be wiling to do a subarea plan after the SMP is done. Q. Aren't there risks to establish flexible uses? A. No if you have the controls in the SMP that would also be the case for doing a binding site plan (BSP), which is a detailed master plan for a certain section ofland. BSPs can also designate uses, what's allowed and not, but it can also be simple. Landscaping, public access, parking. Barbara Marseille asked how you find highest and best use; it doesn't seem to be an appropriate thing to apply to this area at all. The City is ephemeral, people come here because of Point Hudson's charm; it is important to keep marine trades here in a way they can afford it. A. Would never recommend a highest and best use for this property; this can be done with the 6 goals. Don't think it's difficult to capture the essence ofthat place. Once you get through the SMP update, hopefully that will happen. Thanked them for allowing him to help and wished them the best. Michael Sullivan. Had old pictures of the town, a PowerPoint presentation. Land use is like chess; in college was taught 3D chess; and Point Hudson is like that. Land use is one- dimensional; what goes on in Point Hudson: land, water and environment, and memory. What's going to happen, what do we build, how do we preserve the environment, hold the views, the natural resources; memory at this site is important historically. The marina is a floating waterway itself and is manmade like the buildings. Have been working on several urban waterfronts in areas that are active in development. Spoke to the Albers Mill project on Tacoma's waterfront, the Thea Foss waterway; they developed their own shoreline and guideline regulations. In the middle of what would be a nice clean old industrial site was a 1903 flourmill, Albers Mill. The idea of a geometric eyesore next to a million dollar glass museum was not popular. The City and agencies cooperated and it became clear it would be a 'clean' site. They all answered to the same public. There should be room for one or two elements of the past. Because the building was neglected and the elements were wearing it down, about $50,000 in public was used for a new roof to stop the demolition. It was a difficult decision but a wonderful one. The clear act of replacing the roof was a statement they wanted it preserved. Demolition through neglect is bad public policy. It may seem easy but it doesn't work well. In the end a private developer bought Albers mill for $IIM. Added some square footage and used tax credits and special valuation; now it has 25 apartments, a gallery is on the ground ,floor; adds more diversity to the waterfront than anyone could have added. All but the top floor is occupied. Balfour Dock, Thea Foss water way. Heavy timbered building and eastern third is entirely over water. The PDA had decided to remove the 300,000 sf building. Now they are going to stabilize and market it for development. The building is historic and no new construction will be allowed over the water. Reconstruction and restoration will be allowed. Breathtaking interior space with large Doug firs. An owner can take the tax credit in the building even ifthey don't own the land. All the land in the Thea Foss waterway was a superfund site. Still nasties in the ground, but once the site is cleared, there is an obligation to clean up the land. One of the major cost benefits to reusing the buildings is that you don't have the demolition and cleanup. In Point Hudson you're lucky with no history of heavy industry. Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21, 2004 / Notes / Page 4 . . . Georgia Pacific Mill site in Bellingham. The entire downtown is blocked from the waterfront from the site; closed down two years ago and Georgia Pacific came to the City with concerns of cleanup. It was offered to the Port of Bellingham for free. Buildings built in 30's and heavy brick buildings and girder steel frames in all; already seismically upgraded by 70%. The Port has not finally concluded it yet but he thinks they will do it; one of the factors is the investment tax credits and not having to clean up underneath; can open it up to developers to restore. The historic buildings offer an opportunity to get people on the site and using it. Have talked to kayak companies, artists, glass blowers, which attract human activity. 97-acre site. The pulp pond will become a marina. The timbered houses along the waterway has been zoned a craftsman district; his model for that was what goes on in Point Hudson. We have abundant space in serviceable buildings right on the way. Private uses can be entirely compatible with waterfront attraction. Enriches and enhances. When you master plan an area, use a common area pool for the greater good. Think big bucks first, and then come back with authenticity. Start with what you've got rather than clearing everything with a master plan. Port of Everett. Has a huge north marina site and have struck a deal with a New England urban development firm; they will develop a master plan and then sell it to one developer. They also have a craftsman zone. The original plan called for clearing the land and then rebuilding. They worked with the Port to save the building and it has been saved. Michael said these examples are similar in that they are immediately adjacent to the downtown areas and these are working; there are more common interests than differences. At Point Hudson, the assets you have are many. The fact that you don't have heavy industry there is an immense gift for no environmental cleanup. You have a clear, unified understandable vocabulary there that sets a reasonable tone for reconstruction on the site. You have abundant space and you don't have to worry about historic reconstruction. It will make the historic district strong. Good transportation access and immediate access downtown; driving all along water street and get to the end and be jolted by something too startlingly different you might want to think about. Your artisans and craftsman who are using the buildings already there don't produce big income, so it's hard if you're looking at highest and best use. The cost of trying to get back to that mix will be beyond measure. There will be a day when if it is lost that someone will say how can we get back to that. That's his opinion. Questions for Michael. Larry said that the Port has thought about maintaining the underlying ownership, own the land; will need public/private ownership to do that. Can only lease for 50 years at a time; how would it work to keep the land and sell the buildings? Michael told him to really think about it; the combination of investment tax credits and incentives can come close to 35-40% of the development cost. A Port can't get tax credits so it's something to think about. Preserve, though, the potential of that; some other entity may want to halt disintegration. Barbara Marseille. Heard said that infill would make it a better place; that there is really no value in Point Hudson. How did you get to that conclusion and information to support? Michael. In an active developing area, better to prepare for infill, plan for it, than not. The reality is that as uses change and upgrade in a historic district, sometimes those buildings don't Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21,2004/ Notes I Page 5 . meet all the needs. Sometimes you're better building a new structure. Other areas are trying to build what we have in Point Hudson. Brian. Has anyone looked at towns that have shot themselves in the foot? Why is it not making more money? How do we keep the area from being priced out. Michael. It's equally possible to have the people doing the valuing articulate the values in different ways. There is no rule that your primary value has to be in dollars and cents. The whole idea of historic preservation is not based on dollars and cents. Keith Gurnee. In his opinion, Point Hudson has enough land where, carefully scaled and conceived selective infill could occur. Should the entire site be covered, absolutely not. One of the uses could be another maritime use, expand the marine trades there. There is a lot of money to be invested to restore the buildings. If Portions of Point Hudson where nothing but marine trades were allowed, but other Portions where water enjoyment uses could be allowed, that should be considered. This City would blow it if the buildings were torn down and the site rebuilt. Can't think of any cities that have "blown it." Will look into it. Frieda Fenn. Disclosed her interest in Pygmy Boats and that no decisions are being made tonight. Thinks Point Hudson is a success as it is because it's survived and most working waterfronts are gone. Thanks the Port for that; blessed and lucky in that. Thinks we have common goals in spite of controversy because of the 6 goals. Have heard PDA's (Public Development Authority) mentioned a bunch of times, when it's time to work together, do you think a PDA model could fit some day. . Keith Gurnee responded. PDA was in the report and recommended as an option; City and Port together; to get major investments. The Port's initial reaction was negative, but over time it may become a powerful tool listening to Larry talk about holding on to the land. You're not too far off from that. Encourages talking about that over time. Get past the SMP and he thinks you'll see the relations between the City and Port improve. Michael. PDA's in Washington are unique creatures because of graft and corruption. Real problem in our state. One way to get away from the graft and corruption is through a PDA. Five years of free rent can be done, for example, where it couldn't be done otherwise. PDA's can receive real property from a parent. They are infinitely flexible. Can create one and have it only control the buildings or the members are majority appointed by the Port or all. There are a lot of things you can do. The valuable thing is they can be both public and private. Jeff introduced Paul Ingraham from Berryman and Henigar, another consultant working on the SMP, and senior planner Judy Surber. David King. Asked for more detail about the craftsman district in Bellingham. Michael replied it's not very far along. . Alex? Been involved with Point Hudson for a number of years, and he is concerned with the gradual erosion that occurs with the value of the artisan trade component. Glad we have the 6 goals but the ranking can determine how the direction will go. Sometimes small businesses get eliminated along the way or they can no longer maintain themselves even though the process continues on. How do we prevent that erosion and keep the healthy example of what we have? Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21,20041 Notes 1 Page 6 · · · Keith Gurnee answered that if you did a PDA there are things they can do that the Port can't in terms of subsidizing. It would be tragic to lose the artisans and hope can expand on them. You can develop an organization where only those kinds of uses are allowed, and this diagram has some areas for that. At the workshop asked the committee and participants to rank those goals. There was overall general community support for those goals. Give equal weight to all of them. Michael Sullivan. Infill and the investment can treat the historic buildings as a common area or transferable development rights. Or in exchange, contribute into the cost of maintaining the historic building and low cost of rent for the remaining buildings. Can plan for high investment activities, and they can maintain the lower costs. Those new activities will benefit the older activities. That will give a distinct sense of place ofthe site than any new risky design might do. Jeff Kelety. In our buildings, the older one, they have been viewed from don't touch them to old relics tear them down. Michael Sullivan. In a town that deals in wooden boats all the time, cannot imagine there is a good solution in maintaining that timber. Can see something to give credit for in new construction. Heavy Doug fir buildings are rock hard and we're ready to tear down after 90 years. Get your head around a different type of construction. Creosote can be removed. Heida. Did Michael and Keith work on that map (the layered one)? Only Keith did and he mentioned there were several areas for craftsman. Heida. All examples given were in highly contaminated areas and the inland sound is different. Michael. If he were to do a national register nomination, would include the marina because it's all manmade and he treats it as historic. Hasn't heard about tax credits for restoring a waterbody, but maybe it can. She asked if they all agreed that blocks should define Point Hudson. Michael said it could be wavier. Keith said his map is a starting point for discussion. Showed water related and water enjoyments in one area because of what's there; his areas are just suggestions but believes in having a rich mix of uses. Michael said let that be your map and the hard lines would be around the existing elements; establish a historic district for example and have more detailed guidelines for immediate infill; the rest can be narrative. Gary Jonientz. The PDA is curious and if it would be a management tool for Point Hudson; how would it deal with the properties - public and private? Jeff. Under the PDA, it owns the property; right now the Port is the owner and they would have to go to that. Michael indicated that there is a board that runs it, can be made of citizens, Port members, whatever. Gary. How does the PDA start? Regular citizens that throw their money in? Keith. It starts between the City and the Port and they need to become partners. Michael. It's a legally chartered entity. The Port would be the mother. And he thinks the Port could do it with the City. It would be within legal rights for the Port to do the PDA and turn over Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21,20041 Notes 1 Page 7 . . . the rights to the PDA. Filling in the blanks would be an entitlement ofthe Port. Launched by the Port, then it becomes a public entity, will have a board of directors and executive director. Dave Robison. The Port cannot establish a PDA; only a municipality. The City can do it in partnership with the Port. Larry Crocket said the Port's thought is to look at the '94 plan and what was the thinking then. Need to get the uses down, what do we want to see there, and then plan where we want them to be within the point. Appreciates the plans and the ideas. Kathy Grace. Given that other communities have been successful, do you ever recommend to adversarial positions? Keith. We have tried to recommend to the Port to playa positive energetic plan to do a sub area plan and they have chosen not to do that. They want to get the SMP behind them and then they might consider. If you do a PDA with the Port as a hostile partner, it won't be good. You have a framework here to resolve issues, but don't recommend throwing gas on the fire. Jeff. Thanked everyone. Appreciates the outside perspective. Easy to get a narrow focus. Told them about Jim Irvin. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. Respectfully, Penny Westerfield Note Taker Joint CC & SAG Meeting, October 21,20041 Notes 1 Page 8