HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1992
490
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 1, 1992, Cont.
Councilmember Jones made a motion that the Council adopt Resolution
No 92-68 which was seconded by Councilmember McCulloch and passed
unanimously by voice vote.
Fisheries Grant for Jackson Bequest.
RESOLUTION NO 92-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
FOR GRANT FUNDING.
Councilmember Jones made a motion that the Council adopt Resolution
No 92-69 which was seconded by Councilmember Camfield and passed
unanimously by voice vote.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Clise recessed the meeting into Executive Session to discuss
the acquisition of real estate including Dennis McLerran, David
Grove, Michael Hildt and Robert Wheeler at 11: 00 PM. The :meeting
was reconvened at 11:15 PM.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Clise declared the :meeting
adjourned at 11:15 PM.
Mayor
Attest:
~~
ClerK-Treasurer
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992
The City council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular
session this Fifteenth day of June, 1992, at 7:00 PM in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presiding.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present at Roll Call were Jean Camfield, Vern Jones,
Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Robert Sokol, Sheila Wester:man and
Cindy Wolpin. Also present were Clerk-Treasurer David Grove,
Director of Planning and Building Michael Hildt and Public Works
Director Robert Wheeler.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bonnie Poole was recognized and requested maintenance of the
portion of Sherman Street which was put in by Dr Carlson in 1991
and has a terrible dust problem. Mayor Clise responded that the
Public Works Department will look into the problem.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Jones made a motion to approve the following items on
the Consent Agenda which was seconded by Councilmember So]{ol and
passed unanimously by voice vote.
Approval of the Minutes for April 20, 1992, as written 'Nithout
reading.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Approval of the following Bills and Claims:
Current Expense $ 29,707.61
street 6,063.33
Library 659.51
Park 192.30
Emergency Medical Services 949.18
Capital Improvement 828.98
Community Development Block Grant 9,980.50
'92 W/W Treatment Plant Const 317,695.39
Water-Sewer 70,020.87
Storm and Surface Water 3,706.55
Equipment Rental 10,060.59
Firemen's Pension and Relief 1,008.12
Total $ 450,872.93
setting Hearings:
Garbage/Recycling Rate Increase for July 20, 1992
Environmentally Sensitive Ordinance for July 15,1992
Approval of Appointment:
Shirley Beard to the Tree and Brushing Committee
Adoption of Resolutions:
Resolution Authorizing Contract with Peninsula Tourism Council.
RESOLUTION NO 92-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING A TOURISM
PROMOTION AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA TOURISM
COUNCIL.
Resolution Authorizing Agreement on Kearney Street.
RESOLUTION NO 92-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN
A CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR RESERVING
FAUS FUNDS FOR THE KEARNEY STREET PROJECT.
Resolution Authorizing Application for Grant Funding.
RESOLUTION NO 92-74
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
AQUATIC LAND EDUCATION FUNDS FROM THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF WETLANDS.
Communications:
A letter dated May 29, 1992, from Graham E Johnson, ExE~cutive
Director, Public Disclosure Commission, to Mayor Clise reporting
that the Public disclosure Commission has completed action rE~quired
to bring Port Townsend elections under the Public Disclosure Law
for Campaign finance reporting purposes was copied for Council.
A memorandum dated May 29, 1992, from Mary Beth Lang, Information
Officer, Department of Agriculture, titled Asian Gypsy Moth Update
No 10 was copied for Council.
491
492
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JU:~E 15, 1992, Cont.
A letter dated June 2, 1992, from Michael H.Lldt, Director I Planning
and Building Department, to Edgar and Patricia Sullivan asking that
a proposal for a chain-link fence to enclo:;e the area between Port
Townsend Bay and the southeast wall of the Flagship Landing
Building be modified or a height variance be sought was copied for
Council.
A letter dated June 2, 1992, from Evan Jone:;, State Representative,
updating Council on future construction of rest stops in the
Olympic Peninsula was copied for Council.
A letter dated June 3, 1992, from Pat McCauley, President,
Peninsula Tourism Council, requesting continued support from the
city of Port Townsend in the amount of $1,500.00 and enclosing a
copy of their current position paper was copied for Council.
A letter dated June 4, 1992, from B.:lrt Phillips, Economic
Development Council, reporting that the EDC has been representing
the business community in the Chelan Agreement process and
requesting discussion of concerns about sufficient staff time to
apply to the issue was copied for Council.
A letter dated June 5, 1992, from Ron ::Iaworth, Chairman, Fire
Protection Policy Board, Department of Community Development,
urging cities and counties across the state to pass an emergency
ordinance that will restrict the use of fiJ~eworks to July 4 only or
restrict the use all together for the Summer of 1992 because of an
unusually dry winter and a possible hot summer was copied for
Council and referred to New Business late::- on the agenda.
A letter dated June 5, 1992, from Hiroko Dennis stating that the
blue and green color paint in the public toilets on Water Street is
a great improvement was copied for Council.
A letter dated June 5,1992, from Mayor Clise to Richard M Sepler,
Planner, on his resignation as of August, 21, 1992, was copied for
Council.
A letter dated June 9, 1992, to the Members of the Planning
Commission from Kathleen Mitchell request.ing that the city close
off the Winona Wetland to off-road vE!hicles and initiate a
revegetation plan for the altered city right-of-way was copied for
Council and referred to the Legislative/E:1vironmental Committee.
A letter dated June 9, 1992, from Michael Hildt, Director, Planning
and Building to Edgar and Patricia Sullivan stating that the
amended application for design review da'ted June 5, 1992, for a
chain link fence cannot be adequately und'~rstood and requesting a
revised plot plan or revised project description was copied for
Council.
A note from Mrs Nancy Graham in support of a carousel being place
at Pope Marine Park was copied to council on June 10, 1992, and
referred to the Parks/Property Committee.
A letter dated June 11, 1992, from Patricia Sullivan to Mr Hildt
regarding the proposed fence at 1001 Water Street stating that they
feel that the application for a fence and. the enclosed letter of
explanation would be self explanatory was copied for Council.
This concludes the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Street Vacation App -Port of Port Townsend (Cont from 5-4-92). Mr
Hildt reported that the utilities in Jefferson Street need to be
located before a conference can be set up with the applicant.
After this is done, a recommendation Céln be made for Council.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
Councilmember Jones made a motion that the hearing be con"tinued
until July 20,1992, which was seconded by Councilmember Sokol and
passed unanimously by voice vote.
Street Vacation App 9204-03 -Leinback. Mr Hildt reviewed Draft A
of the findings and conclusions recommending denial of the
vacation. Mr Hildt reported that Draft B was also prepared as a
beginning point for findings and conclusions recommending approval
of the vacation. Mayor Clise opened the hearing to the Public.
Paul Kaase, speaking for Susan Leinback was recognized and spoke in
favor of the vacation. There being no further testimony, Mayor
Clise closed the hearing to the Public and turned to the Council
for disposition. During discussion of the property triangles and
right-of-ways shown on the map marked exhibit A with Mr Kaase,
Karen Ericksen was recognized and pointed out her propert:y, the
streets and the triangle owned by Jefferson county and her
objections to the vacation. After further discussion,
Councilmember Westerman made a motion not to deny the vacation but
to suggest that the proponents, staff and the county see if a
workable solution can be found which was seconded by Councilmember
Sokol. After discussion, the motion and the second were withdrawn.
Councilmember Jones made a motion to continue the hearinq- until
August 17, 1992, which was seconded by Councilmember So](ol and
passed unanimously by voice vote.
Rezone App 9203-14 -Levy. Councilmember Jones left the Chambers.
Mr Hildt reviewed the findings, conclusions and conditions of the
Planning commission recommending approval of Rezone Application No
9203-14. Mayor Clise opened the hearing to the Public. Dr Bertram
Levy, the applicant, was recognized and explained the need for the
clinic to be near the hospital. Vie Dirksen, Jefferson General
Hospital Administrator, was recognized and spoke in support of the
project citing the need for office space for existing as well as
new physicians in Port Townsend. Vie D'Agostino, Hospital Board
Member, was recognized and spoke in favor of the project.. There
being no further testimony, Mayor Clise closed the hearinc~ to the
Public and turned to the Council for disposition. A question of
the height of the project was answered by Doug Rigby, Architect for
the project. A brief discussion of the parking and pedestrian
access, Councilmember Wolpin made a motion that the Council adopt
the following findings, conclusions and conditions and approve
Rezone Application 9203-14 which was seconded by Councilmember
McCulloch and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Findings of Fact
1.
Bertram Levy proposes to establish a 3,000 square fo01: medical
clinic with paved parking on Lots 5 and 6 of Block 2:n of the
Eisenbeis Addition in the R-II zoning district. The Port
Townsend Municipal Code does not allow medical clinics in the
R-II.zoni~g district. The applicant proposes a rezone to R-
III ln WhlCh the proposed clinic would be permitted.
When ~xam.ining a rezone, the Planning Commission and City
Councll wll1 evaluate, amon~ other factors, whether there is
a need for th~ propos~d zonlng change, whether the proposed
change lS ~onslstent wlth the goals and policies of the City's
Comprehenslve Plan and zoning code, and whether the proposed
change would be compatible with adjacent properties.
The site, which is currently undeveloped, is boundf:!d to the
south b~ 7th Stre?t, to the west by Grant Street, to the north
by a sl.ngle-faml.ly residence and to the east by duplex
apart~ents. The vicinity also includes the Ca8tle Hill
S(~oPPl.~g Center, Jeffe~son County Hospital, and ManrE!sa Castle
f r~nlsl.ent.acCo~odatl0n, restaurant and lounge) and multi-
aml. y resl.dentl.al apartments.
2.
3.
493
494
9.
10.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
4.
The subject block is currently zoned R-II¡ Block 209 to the
north is zoned R-III¡ blocks to the east of the site are zoned
P-I¡ the block to west is zoned R-I¡ and the area to the south
is zoned C-II.
5.
A 6-inch sewer main is available for use in adjacent 7th
Street. A 10-inch water line is locélted in Grant Street and
a 6-inch water line is located in 7ttl Street.
6.
The applicant has submitted a site plan, dated March 27,1992
for the proposed medical office. The total square footage of
the lot is 10,000 square feet. ThE! applicant proposes to
establish a two-story 3,000 square foot medical office and a
paved parking area for 15 cars. Approximately sixty-fi ve
percent of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces.
7.
section 17.16.010 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC)
outlines the purpose of each zoning district. The purpose of
an R-II zone, which is the current zoning of the subject
property, is as stated, "Primarily a single-family residence
district, and low density multip:Le residence district,
requiring five thousand square feet of building tract for each
single-family dwelling unit, but permitting four or less
single-family dwelling units to bE! contained within one
structure upon condition of sufficient tract size: ten
thousand square feet for a duplex, fifteen thousand square
feet for a triplex and twenty thousand square feet for a four-
plex." The purpose of an R-III zoning designation, which is
the proposed zoning for the site, is defined as, "primarily a
multiple-family residence district with adequate plot areas
required and including some single-family residences and the
customary accessory and secondary us ~s."
8.
section 17.16.010 of the Port TownSE:nd Municipal Code lists
the uses which are permitted in the various zoning districts.
The uses which are allowed in the R-.III zoning district, as
either permitted or conditional uses, which are not allowed in
the R-II zoning district are listed ¡is follows:
Permitted
. Apartment House
. Apothecary shop operated
physicians' office
Clinics
within a hospital, clinic or
.
Conditional
. Libraries, museums, art gal1eril3s
. Lodges, social organizations
The applicant states that a major po:rtion of Port Townsend's
population is over 65 years of age (23% of the total
population compared to 12% in Seattle) which has increased
needs and demands for medical servi~es. He has also stated
there has been some difficulty attracting a new orthopedist
because of the lack of office space. The applicant also
states that the community needs more specialists, and Port
Townsend is one of the few communiti,es where medical offices
are not concentrated in the area surrounding the hospital.
Hospital Administrator vic Dirksen has stated that based on a
three percent population growth, wttich he considers to be
conservative, the hospital will rE!quire three additional
primary care givers and one additional pediatrician in the
next three years. In addition, it will be necessary to
accommodate new doctors as those currently at the hospital
retire. Mr. Dirksen cites the lack cf available office space
as a necessity in recruiting new doctors to our community, and
stated the close proximity of office space to the hospital
would be a positive recruiting element.
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
Currently, there is very little undeveloped R-III zoned
property in Port Townsend. Three R-III areas are located in
the uptown district of Port Townsend and are largely built-
out. Other R-III zones in the city include a five block area
south of Sims Way between Thomas and McClellan Streets; a four
lot area south of Sims Way between Sheridan and Grant st:reets;
a one block area directly to the north of the subject site; a
one block area to the east of Sheridan Street and south of
10th Street; and a one block area north of Discovery Road and
west of Sherman Street. However, these areas are const:rained
for development by a steep ravine, which is designated an
environmentally sensitive area in the 1983 Comprehensiv43 Plan,
and by existing development. There does not appear to be any
available R-III sites to accommodate the proposed use within
adequate close proximity to the hospital.
The proposed use is also allowed outright in commercial and
industrial zones within the city. These commercially and
industrially zoned properties are also in demand within City
limits.
The goals and policies of the City's Comprehensiv,e Plan
provide policy guidance as to whether a rezone is needed and
in the public interest. As stated in the ComprehensivE:! Plan,
"Multifamily housing (R-II and R-III) should be permi1::ted in
the city if such housing meets the following performance and
locational standards:
a.
It should be compatible with surrounding
neighborhood residential character in scale,
height, mass and material.
It should be located to minimize traffic
generation and turning movements.
It should provide 100% on-site screened
parking.
It should be restricted from being used as a
buffer between other land uses as a
determinate of location.
It should be located and constructed in such a
manner as to preserve views of and from
adjacent and surrounding structures.
It should be restricted from designated
sensitive areas.
It should be located in areas with suitable
drainage, slopes, soils and utilities.
It should be located so as to have a minimum
negati ve impact on adjacent and surrounding
areas.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Block 221 was originally zoned R-I in 1971 with the adoption
of the original zoning map and rezoned in 1976 to R-II zoning.
Vehicle access to the site is from Sheridan street via either
7th or 8th Street to Grant Street. Currently, there are no
sidewalks or crosswalks adjacent to the proposed site..
The site plan submitted by the applicant indicates that
ingress to the site would be taken from Grant Street and
egress on to 7th Street. According to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development,
approximately 40 vehicle trips per day can be expectE~d from
this development.
The City Council has issued a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance, dated May 4, 1992, after review of the
Environmental Checklist submitted by the applicant pursuant to
the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 'rhis is
attached as Appendix 1 to this document.
495
496
4.
5.
6.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
Conclusions
1.
It is necessary to provide additional clinic space to provide
better service for residents and draw new doctors to the
community. The rezone, which will provide for necessary
medical services, is in the public interest.
2.
Because other multi-family residences, and commercial uses are
located within the general vicinity of the site, a medical
office is a compatible and logical use of the proposed site.
Because commercial and multi-family zoning is located within
the neighborhood the proposed zoning change would not single
out a small area for use that would be inconsistent with the
present zoning.
3.
While other properties which are ,~lready zoned for the
proposed use exist, it is logical tbat the proposed use be
located within a close proximity to the hospital and other
medical services. The proposed use 'N'ould not be consistent
with surrounding uses if located on industrially zoned
property.
4.
Because of an increase in population and demand for improved
medical services, a change of circumstances which justifies
the rezone exists.
In consideration of the aforementioned findings and conclusions,
the City Council approves the above-referenced application with the
following conditions:
1.
A drainage plan for the site shall be prepared by a civil
engineer. The plan shall include catch basins and a drainage
pipe along 7th Street from the top of the driveway to
Sheridan. This plan shall be completed and approved by the
Public Works Director prior to grading, clearing or building
permi t issuance. The plan shall include the following in
writing or diagrams:
0
0
0
Location of proposed building
Property lines
Details of terrain, including present contours
and proposed finished contours
Peak discharge and volume of su:rface water entering and
leaving subject property
Delineation of existing
impervious areas
Design and location of oi1\water
biofiltration and detention areas
0
0
and
proposed
0
separators,
2.
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. The
proponent shall utilize best mé.nagement practices as
identified in the puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA)
draft stormwater design manual.
3.
Construction areas shall be watered to suppress dust. In order
to reduce potential surface and gro'lnd water contamination,
chemical dust suppressants shall not be used.
Landscaping for the parking area shall meet the provisions of
17.30 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. The applicant is
encouraged to provide drought tolerant vegetation.
Construction shall be limited to bet~'een the hours of 7 AM and
6 PM Monday through Friday and prohibited on weekends.
All exterior lighting shall be hooded and direct light or
glare downward and away from adjoining properties.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
7.
Construction shall be halted if archeological materials are
discovered and the state Historic Preservation Officer shall
be contacted immediately.
8.
Full frontage pedestrian improvements shall be installed along
the north or south side of 7th Street between Grant and
Sheridan streets. Such plan shall be approved by the Public
Works Director upon the issuance of the. building permit.
The use of the subject property shall be restricted to a
medical clinic having nor more than 3,000 square feet of floor
area. The site shall be developed in general conformi t~y with
the site plan submitted by the applicant dated March 27 1992.
9.
Councilmember Jones returned to the Chambers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Forest Park PUD Documentation. Councilmember Wolpin left the
Chambers. Rick Sepler, City Planner, presented the findings,
conclusions and conditions prepared for the City Council a1: their
direction. Councilmember Camfield made a motion that the Council
adopt the following findings, conclusions and conditions which was
seconded by Councilmember Owsley and passed unanimously by voice
vote.
Findings of Fact
1.
The applicants propose to develop a Planned unit Development
(PUD) consisting of 24 residential units with 4 units per
building. Accessory development would include 2, six car
garage buildings and 22 carports. Also to be developed are a
screened garbage dumpster enclosure, an entry trellis and
landscaped open space. The applicant would provide all on-site
circulation, sidewalks, parking facilities, and utilities.
(Exhibit I - Forest Park site Plan dated 25 May 1992).
2.
The subject property is located in the southwestern portion of
the city on an irregularly-shaped, 3.10 acre parcel bounded on
the east by Grant Street, on the north by resldential
development and the Hendricks and Sherman street-ends, on the
west by an undeveloped ravine and on the south by residential
development which fronts on Vista Boulevard (Exhibit II -
Forest Park vicinity map dated 1 August 1992). The site is
more legally described as:
Lot 23, Plat of Island vista in the City of
Port Townsend (a portion of the NE Quarter of
the NW Quarter, Section 15, Township 30 North,
Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian; the County
tax parcel number is 963700023
3.
The Island vista Subdivision was approved by Jefferson County
in 1979. In 1986, the property was annexed by the City of
Port Townsend pursuant to Ordinances 2028 and 2023. Lot 23
and the adjacent Lot 24 were identified on the map att.ached to
Ordinance 2033 as a "future condominium site" at the time the
property was annexed.
4.
A ravine traverses the north-westerly and westerly portion of
the subject property. Portions of the ravine have steep
slopes which are twenty percent or greater. The remainder of
the subject property gently slopes to the south and ~l1est at 1
to 6 percent. Most of the subject property is cleared and
vacant, except for the ravine which is thickly vegetated with
madrone trees and various shrubs. Some vegetation has filled
in since the property was cleared.
497
498
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
5.
An environmental checklist pursuant to the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was submitted for review on
August 8, 1991. The environmental review indicated a
probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from
the proposal, which could be mitigatej. Recommendations were
agreed upon to mitigate adverse environmental impacts
disclosed during SEPA review (Exhibi1: III - Staff Amendments
to the environmental checklist and rE!commendations to permit
authorities dated 2 October 1992). A Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City Council on
October 1, 1991.
6.
The subject application is administered under Title 17 of the
Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC).
7.
The applicant has submitted a petition dated August 8, 1991
(Exhibit IV) to amend the zoning map by the overlaying of a
PUD pursuant to section 17.40 of the PTMC. These Findings and
Conclusions are based on this applica1:ion and the proposed PUD
map dated August 7, 1991.
8.
The land proposed to be used by the subject PUD is located in
an R-II Zoning District (Title 17, PTMC). The surrounding
property is zoned R-IA. The site is surrounded by single-
family residential development.
9.
A PUD was previously proposed by the applicants for the
subject property (for ease of reference this earlier PUD will
be referred to as "Island View"). /!fter review by the Port
Townsend City Council the Island View PUD petition was
approved on August 1, 1989. The Island View PUD was to be
financed by the Farm Home Administration, and was intended to
provide residences for a senior citi:~ens. Due to changes in
financing, Island Construction now sE~eks to construct market
rate condominiums for sale to the general population.
The proposed change of use from a senior facility to a market
rate residential development has been determined to
significantly alter the project. Consequently, a new pun
peti tion is necessary. A comparison between the previous
project (Island View) and the curren1: proposal (Forest Park)
has been prepared by the appl icant (E>:hibi t V and Exhibit VI) .
10.
The proposed land use for the Forest Park PUD is as follows:
Residential:
Buildings
(4) Bldgs. @ 1999 Bq. ft. = 7,996
(2) Bldg. @ 1830 f;q. ft. = 3.660
Total = 11,656 sq. ft.
Garages:
Carports:
2,400 sq. ft.
3,564 sq. ft.
Parking:
Required:
Provided:
(1.5 per Unit)
(2.33 per Unit)
36
56
Paved Areas:
Parking Lot:
Walks:
Patios:
29,886 sq. ft.
1,798 sq. ft.
1,280 sq. ft.
8,200 sq. ft.
87,068 sq. ft.
Landscaping:
Parking Lot:
Total Landscaping
and/or Natural Veget~:ion:
10.4 % Coverage by Bu:Lldings
24.4% Paved Areas
65.3% Open Space
Total site:
Total Square Footage Impervious Surface:
43,710 sq. ft.
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15,1992, Cont.
The applicants propose to construct 24 residential units: 16
two bedroom and 8 three bedroom. The proposed buildings would
have four units each and be approximately 24 feet high as
measured from the finished floor level. The height limit in
the R-II zoning district is 35 feet.
The residential density of the proposed development would be
approximately one dwelling unit per 5,631 square feet of lot
area. The R-II zoning district permits four or less single-
family dwelling units to be contained within one structure
providing that there be 5,000 square-feet of tract area per
unit (17.16.010 PTMC). Therefor the residential density of
the proposed development would be less than that permi 1:ted in
the underlying R-II zoning district.
A PUD allows a large site to be developed without the s1:andard
required division of land into individual lots, or without the
same compliance to the height, setback and density standards
required of individual lots in the various zoning dis1:ricts.
If the lots were to be further subdivided under the provisions
of the City's subdivision code, it would be possible to create
a maximum of 18 lots of 7,200 sq. ft. on the subject property.
It would also be possible to sub-divide the property into 13,
10,000 sq. ft. lots, which could be developed as duplexes
under the present zoning restrictions.
The applicant proposes 56 off-street parking spaces for the
development. The PTMC requires 1.5 parking spaces pE~r unit
for multi-family housing, or 36 spaces (17.28 PTMC). The
parking area would be located in the center of the site and
the front of each unit would be oriented to this area..
The proposed development is to be constructed in four phases
(Exhibi t VII - Phasing Plan). The number of homes to be
constructed during each phase is as follows:
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
8 units
4 units
8 units
4 units
The applicants propose to begin construction in the
Summer of 1992. Estimated completion of the project is
projected for the Spring of 1993.
The proposed PUD is projected to generate approximately 140.64
average daily trips (ADT) based on the Institute of ~rraffic
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition. This ADT
is based on Code 230 (Residential Condominiums and Townhouses)
of the ITE manual, which states that each unit would gEmerate
an estimated 5.86 trips daily.
The proposed PUD will contribute to cumulative impact:s upon
the transportation system which are documented in the Gibson
Traffic Consultants (GTC) Transportation Plan (Exhibit VIII).
The proposed project traffic is expected to increase travel on
Hancock, Sherman, and Sheridan Streets as well as on 3rd and
Grant Streets. Existing traffic hazards are present at the
intersections of Hancock, Sherman and Sheridan Street:s, and
Sims Way. These hazards will be further impacted by the
additional traffic generated by the proposal. Cumulative
impacts of the project and other development in the vicinity
has been documented by the GTC Study and the City's. Draft
Gateway Development Plan.
Trips generated by the proposed project will utilize existin9
routes to Sims Way through the adjacent street network. This
will impact the existing property owners by increasing 1:raffic
499
500
.,~
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15,1992, Cont.
noise levels, and the potential for accidents.
The Grant Street right-of-way between Sims Way and 3rd Street
is planned to be developed by the City in the immediate future
and will provide a more direct acceSE: route to the proposed
project, while reducing some of the an1;icipated impacts on the
adjacent street network.
The proposed PUD will increase the amount of pedestrian
activity along Grant Street, from the project site to Sims
Way. No pedestrian path, sidewalk or ~/alkway currently exists
along this corridor, causing neighborhood residents to walk in
the roadway.
The nearest access to the city's sanitary sewer system is in
the Vista Boulevard Right-of-way. The applicants propose to
connect to the underground sanitary sewer lines stubbed into
Lot 23 through an existing utL.i ty easement located
perpendicular to vista Boulevard.
The nearest access to the city's wateJ:' system is in the vista
Boulevard and 1st Street rights-of-way. The applicants propose
to connect to the existing lines stubbed into lot 23 through
an existing utility easement perpendicular to vista Boulevard,
and the Sherman .Street Right-of-way.
The anticipated sales price of the proposed residential units
are estimated to be f:r;-om $65,000 to $79,000. The average home
price in Port Townsend has been identified in the 1990 Census
as being $104,357. The median home price is approximately
$100,000. The proposed units can be c:msidered as "affordable
housing" by the following definition from Blueprint for
Affordable Housing, (King County Housing Partnership, 1991):
"Affordable housing may be defined as
adequate, appropriate shelter costing no more
(including utili ties) than 30% of the
household's gross monthly incomn"
The median household income in Port Townsend is'approximately
$28,000. Acknowledging the above-mentioned definition, a
potential homebuyer earning the Port. Townsend median income
could qualify for financing to purcha::;e a unit in the proposed
project.
significant housing demands exist in Port Townsend. The 1990
Census data indicates that the vacancy rate for Port Townsend
is 1.7%. This figure is further defined as a rental vacancy
rate of .5% and a for sale vacancy rate of 1.2%. A vacancy
rates of from 4 to 10% is considered appropriate for a
community.
The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan has specific performance
and locational standards for multi-family housing. Chapter 6
- Goals and Policies, Housing and Residential Development
states the following:
"13. Multi-family housing should bn permitted in the
ci ty if such housing mee.ts the following
performance and locational standards:
a. It should be compatible with surrounding
neighborhood residential characteristics in
scale, height, mass and material.
b. It should be located to minimize traffic
generation and turning movement.s.
c. It should provide 100% on-site screened
I
j
::1
"",
~"¡
.í
-,
~,"
I:>.
; "
..¡
..
"
I
I
I
I
.;
22.
23.
24.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
parking.
d. It should be restricted from being used as
a buffer between other land uses as a
determinant of location.
e. It should be located and constructed in
such a manner as to preserve views of and from
adjacent and surrounding structures.
f. It should be restricted from designated
sensitive areas.
g. It should be located in areas with suitable
drainage, slopes soils and utilities.
h. It should be located so as to have a
minimum negative impact on adjacent and
surrounding areas."
Resolution 86-08 of the Port Townsend City council extended
the Comprehensive Plan to include the Island Vista Plat. In
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the above-
referenced goals and policies, Ordinance 2028 established the
R-II zoning district in which the subject property is located.
Prior to the City Council hearing, during testimony taken by
the Planning Commission and in written communication,
residents located near the proposed PUD have expressed concern
over the density of the project. Specific reference was made
to the impact on neighborhood character from increased
vehicular traffic, and the concern that surrounding property
values might be reduced due to the proposed development.
During testimony taken by the City Council, the Jefferson
County Assessor addressed potential changes to surrounding
property values due to the construction of a multi--family
residential project. The Assessor stated that the stability
of surrounding property values were dependent on the both the
scale of a proposed project, and the maintenance of the
subject property. In addition I the Assessor cited three
comparable multi-family projects in Port Townsend that have
demonstrated a posi ti ve effect on surrounding property values.
During testimony taken at the 6 April 1992 City Council public
hearing on this application, the following additional
information was presented (Exhibit IX):
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Slide Presentation by the applicant
si te Plan Map with Overlay prepan:!d by
Janelle Weymiller
During testimony taken at the 11 May 1992 special meeting of
the City Council, the following additional information was
presented (Exhibit X):
Exhibit 3
Letter dated 7 May 1992 from NTI in
reference to the ravine setback
Letter dated 8 May 1992 from the Island
View Partnership in reference to
Homeowners Association management of the
proposed project .
Exhibit 4
Conclusions
1.
The proposed Planned unit Development is in conformi 1:y with
the general plans for community development qnd W9~ld not be
contrary to the general welfare and economic prosperity of the
city or of the immediate neighborhood.
1
2
8.
10.
11.
12.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
2.
The proposed project offers significant benefits which
justifies the variation from the normal requirements of the
zoning code (Title 17, PTMC) through the application of the
planned unit development overlay district. These benefits
include:
0
0
0
Preservation of existing open space
An increase in the affordable housing stock
Reduction of impervious surface areas as
compared to what would occur from permitted
multi-family and single-family development
A reduction in siltation as compared to what
would occur from permitted multi-family and
single-family development
Provision of a residential density that is
consistent with the intent of the R-II Zoning
District. This desired density would be
difficult to achieve at this location due to
the topography of the site.
0
0
3.
The proposed development will create an attractive residential
environment of sustained desirability and economic stability,
compatible with the character established for the area by the
comprehensive plan.
4.
The economic impact of the development in terms of income
levels, property values, and service demands is at least as
beneficial to the community as that which could be anticipated
under the existing basic zoning and comprehensive plan.
5.
The population composition of the development will not alter
adversely the impact upon school or other municipal service
requirements as anticipated under the existing basic zoning
and comprehensive plan.
6.
The project will not create traffic or parking demand
incompatible with that anticipated under the comprehensive
plan.
7.
In addition to the foregoing, the proposed planned unit
development is consistent in all other respects with the
requirements fo'r a planned unit development set forth in
Chapter 17.40 PTMC.
Under current designations on the Comprehensi ve Plan and
Zoning Map, the surrounding land will continue to be developed
for detached single family residences except for the
unbuildable areas of the ravine west of the subject site.
This surrounding development will be at a similar density to
that proposed by this PUD. As such, the proposed project will
be compatible with surrounding development.
Adequate vehicular access to the proposed PUD is dependent on
the improvement of the unopened portion of the Grant Street
Right-of-way. Failure to improve Grant street prior to the
development of the proposed PUD will adversely effect the
surrounding district.
Pedestrian access to and from the proposed PUD will be limited
unless adequate pathways are provided within the project and
along Grant Street.
The proposed phased construction schedule for this development
will be disruptive to the residents of both the project and
the neighborhood. Construction noise, dust and odors will
result over a far longer period of time due to the extended
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
construction schedule. The installation of all interior
roads, paths, utilities and landscaping at the outset of the
proposed project would reduce the disruption.
In consideration of the aforementioned findings and conclusions,
the City Council finds that the above-referenced application be
granted as conditioned:
1.
A pedestrian pathway shall be constructed parallel 1:0 the
proposed private access driveway serving the development.
Internal pedestrian pathways shall be constructed to connect
to the aforementioned path. The design of the pathway system
and specific construction plans shall be submitted 1:0 and
approved by the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
2.
A pedestrian pathway shall be constructed to provide access
from the proposed development along the Grant street Right-of-
way to 3rd Street. The design of the pathway systc3m and
specific construction plans shall be submitted to and approved
by the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
3.
The improvement of the unopened portion of the Grant Street
Right-of-way between Sims Way and 3rd Street shall be
completed by the City in conjunction with Phase I of the
proposed development. ~
4.
Construction of the proposed project shall begin wi'thin 2
years of approval of the Planned Unit Development Agreement
(PUDA) by the City Council. All construction shall be
completed wi thin 5 years of approval of the PUDA. The
applicant may petition the City Council for an extension to
this time requirement if circumstances beyond the cont,rol of
the applicant pose unavoidable delays. The City Council may
grant an extension by Findings of Fact and Conclusions if
there is reason to believe that construction will resume
imminently. .
5.
The applicant shall enter into an appropriate contract with
the city to guarantee the implementation of the ,development
according to the terms and conditions eS'tablished as a part of
the development plan approval. A Planned unit Development
Agreement shall be submitted by the applicant, and approved by
the City Council prior to the issuance of' any building
permits.
6.
All mitigation measures identified in the Mit:igated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued by the City
Council on October 1, 1991 (EXHIBIT A) shall be instituted
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase
I units.
7.
All roads, paths, and utilities shall be installed prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase I units.
8.
Pursuant to section 17.40.050(4), any subsequent substantial
change or addition to the plans or use shall first be
submitted for approval to the planning commission and if in
the opinion of the planning commission such change or addition
constitutes a substantial alteration of the original plan, a
public hearing shall be required.
9.
The proposed use shall comply with these Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Conditions. In case ot any conflict,
Condi tions shall prevail over Findings in interpreting or
applying the same.
4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
Councilmember Camfield made a motion that the Council adopt the
property use and development agreement for Forest Park Planned Unit
Development which was seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed
unanimously by voice vote.
Councilmember Wolpin returned to the Chambers.
BayVista II Shoreline CUP Findings & Conclusions. Mr Hildt
presented findings and conclusions as requested by Council for the
BayVista II Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. After a very lengthy
discussion of the findings, conclusions and conditions of Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit No CUP 9203-08 including questions to Mark
Johnson, proponent, after which councilmember Sokol made a motion
that the Council adopt the following findings, conclusions and
conditions and approve Shoreline Conditional Use Permit No CUP
9203-08 which was seconded by Councilmember Owsley. The motion
passed by hand vote with Councilmembers Sokol, McCulloch, Owsley
and Camfield voting in the affirmative and Councilmembers
Westerman, Wolpin and Jones voting against the motion.
Findings of Fact
i. The applicant proposes to redevelop the site of the existing
Les Schwab Tire store at 1633 Water Street to construct a multi-
family residential building of eleven condominium units, expand the
adjacent Bayview Restaurant and provide off-street parking and
public shoreline access amenities. The tire store would be
demolished and a remnant of the original bluff of approximately
3,200 yards of compacted earth would be removed. The restaurant
would be expanded from 1,370 square feet to a total of 3,200 square
feet, or from 53 to 90 seats. Access to the residential building
would be from Calhoun Street with parking for residents in an
underground garage. Expanded restaurant parking is to be provided
on a surface lot next to the residential building.
ii. The proposal includes a continuous public access walkway along
the property fronting Port Townsend Bay, which would connect to the
proposed "Waterwalk" described in the Urban Waterfront Plan. A
shoreline access point at the end of Calhoun Street and a pocket
park adjacent to the east side of the restaurant are also proposed.
The pocket park and access point would have a concrete stairway to
the beach.
iii. In addition to a shoreline conditional use permit, the
proposed project will require the following additional permit
approvals:
a) City Building Permit
b) City Clearing and Grading Permit
c) city Street Development Permit
d) City sign Permit
e)Washington Department of Fisheries
Approval
Hydraulic Project
iv. The applicant previously constructed Bay Vista I, a twelve-
unit residential building, located approximately 70 feet west of
the tire store.
v. The site, on Port Townsend Bay east of the Washington State
Ferry Terminal, is described as Lots 1-8 of Block 16, together with
the adjacent vacated portions of Benton Street, and Block 15, Lots
2,4,6,7, of the Hastings 1st Addition to the City of Port Townsend
within section 12, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, WH.
vi. The site is designated an environmentally sensitive area in
the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and, as it is within 200 feet
of Port Townsend Bay, is in the jurisdiction of the Jefferson-Port
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program (hereinafter, "Master
Program"). The property is zoned Community Commercial (C-III) in
the Port Townsend Municipal Code.
vii. Pursuant to the washington State Environmental Policy Act
(hereinafter, "SEPA"), a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(hereinafter, "MDNS") was issued for the Bay vista II proposal on
August 27, 1991 (see Exhibit 1). Seventeen mitigation mE!aSUres
were agreed to and incorporated into the proposal by the applicant.
viii. On November 20, 1991, the Jefferson - Port Townsend Shoreline
Management Advisory Commission (hereinafter, "Shoreline
Commission") recommended approval of the Shoreline Subst:antial
Development Permit Application (SDP9106-03) for the Bay vista II
proposal, subject to certain listed conditions. The application
was reviewed as a primary permitted use under the Master Program.
ix. At its meeting on January 7, 1992, the City Council, rE!ceived
public comments regarding new information on the Bay vista II
proposal which indicated the site plan submitted was erroneous,
that a small amount of fill would be necessary behind the proposed
bulkhead and that the setback of the proposed residential building
would be inconsistent with MDNS and the recommendations of the
Shoreline Commission.
x. On February 4, 1992, the City council, finding that an
omission on the applicant's environmental checklist failed to
indicate that fill would be needed, and that therE! were
inconsistencies regarding setbacks on the site plans, requested the
applicant prepare an addendum to the checklist addressing the
omission of information on the checklist and correct any
inconsistencies on the site plans (see Exhibit 2, staff analysis,
dated February 21, 1992, and SEPA addendum, dated February 4,
1992). In addition, the City Council remanded the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit Application to the Shoreline
Commission for review and a new recommendation based on t:he new
information to be prepared by the applicant.
xi. A certified survey was also requested by the Council to
precisely determine property lines and the ordinary high water mark
(see Exhibit 6, dated December 17, 1992). The survey revealed that
for the site to have sufficient area for the project, the location
of the proposed bulkhead must be constructed approximately eleven
feet waterward of the existing shoreline bank at the southeast
corner of the proposed residential building. The bulkhead is to be
located just inside the ordinary high water mark.
xii. Consequently, the applicant's revised site plan (see
Exhibit 7, dated February 26,1992) indicates the need for 16 cubic
yards of fill, behind the ordinary high water mark, to support a
portion of the public access path which would parallel the
shoreline bank under the deck of the residential development.
xiii. To have enough space on the site for the proposed residential
building and the associated parking area required for the Bayview
restaurant expansion, on the revised site plan (Exhibit 7) the
residential building has been shifted four feet to the north to
allow for the required fifteen foot setback from the ordinary high
water mark.
xiv. The deck of the residential building would extend waterward to
just inside of the ordinary high water mark (see Exhibit 8A, dated
December 18,1991). Approximately 75 linear feet of the propQsed
public access walkway would be located under the deck. . .
xv. The applicant voluntarily agreed at the original City Council
threshold determination (SEPA review) and the Shoreline Commission
public hearing that a fifteen (15) foot setback would be maintained
from the top of the existing shoreline bank. The updated site plan
5
6
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
(Exhibit 7) and certified survey (Exhibit 6) indicate that the 15
foot setback would actually be from the ordinary high water mark
rather than the top of the existing shoreline bank. The Master
Program requires setbacks only from the ordinary high water mark.
xvi. New information pertaining to the need for fill, shifting the
building four feet to the north, and having the setback from the
ordinary high water mark instead of the existing shoreline bank was
not documented in the applicant's original site plan, the
environmental checklist, or by presentations made by the applicant
during the City Council's original SEPA review or at the Shoreline
Commission public hearing on the project.
xvii. The Department of Ecology (DOE) and the Department of
Fisheries have both written letters to the city stating that the
filling of the area, as now proposed, which would be above the
ordinary high water mark, would not have a significant adverse
environmental impact (see Exhibit 9: letter from Don Bales,
Department of Ecology, dated January 17, 1992: letter from Tom
Nelson, Department of Fisheries, dated January 30, 1992).
xviii. On March 3, 1992, the city Council reviewed the SEPA
addendum (see Exhibit 3, dated February 4,1992) and staff analysis
of the addendum and issued a Modified MDNS (see Exhibit 3) with the
following modifications and additional mitigation measures:
(1) Prior to issuance of a certification of occupancy, the
applicant shall include in the covenants, conditions and
restrictions (CC&R's) for the condominiums, provisions for the
operation and maintenance and repair of stormwater facilities
and the shore defense work. The CC&R provisions shall be
reviewed for consistency with the mitigation measures by the
Director of Planning and Building before a certificate of
occupancy is issued.
(2) The applicant should attempt to preserve a remnant of the
existing shoreline bank by incorporating a portion of it into
the final landscaping plan as a landscape feature or amenity,
if feasible. The feasibility of this measure shall be
reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building before
grading occurs.
(3) This modified MDNS is contingent upon a site plan which
meets the City's off-street parking and loading requirements,
section 17.30 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code. The site
plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of
Planning and Building prior to the Shoreline Commission public
hearing on March 18, 1992.
( 4 ) Mi tigation Measure, o. Transportation ( 1 ), which was
required under the MDNS the City issued on August 27,1991, is
revised as follows (strikeouts indicates text deleted from the
mitigation measure): To miti~ate aàvcroe impacts to traffic
Gaiety and con~cGtiøn, thc Gitc plan Ghall be deGi~ned aa
øublftitted. IIowc"Jcr, al buildingo and par]tin~ atallG meGt be
located at leaGt 15 feet from the bluff'o cà~c, or the
ordiHary meaH lÜ~h watcr, waicftc"Jcr iG ~reatcr. The site plan
shall be amended as necessary to conform with building
setbacks, landscaping, parking or other requirements in the
Port Townsend Municipal Code and Urban Waterfront Plan.
(5) Prior to any grading of the subject property, a final
stormwater drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by
the Public Works Director. The final plan shall incorporate
recommendations from the preliminary plan prepared by Polaris
Engineering and any comments or conditions recommended by the
Department of Fisheries' review of the preliminary Drainage
Plan.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
(6) Prior to any grading of the subject property, final
design and engineering specifications for the shore defense
work (i.e. bulkhead) shall be submitted for approval by the
Public Works Director. The final specifications for the
bulkhead shall include recommendations prepared by Polaris
Engineering in the preliminary plan and any comments or
conditions recommended by the Department of Fisheries in its
review of the design and engineering specifications of the
bulkhead.
xix. By letter dated December 31, 1991, (see Exhibit 4a) the
Department of Ecology advised that the proposed residential
building should be reviewed as a conditional use rather that a
primary permitted use under the Master Program. This advice was
confirmed by the Port Townsend City Attorney (see Exhibit 4 b ,
letter dated 3/9/92). Consequently, the applicant submitted
Shoreline Conditional Use Application CUP9203-08.
xx. The proposed uses are permitted outright in the C-III zoning
district which allows buildings up to 50 feet in height. However,
the Master Program establishes a maximum building heiçrht of
thirty-five feet for residential structures.
xxi. The property is generally level, with an average slope of
about 2%. However, a steep earthen mound (a remnant of the
original shoreline bank) occupies about 10% of the project site
and is proposed to be removed. The rest of the site is largely
covered by buildings or impervious surfaces used for vehicle
parking or pedestrian walkways. There are no significant natural
or cultural features on the site.
Vehicular ingress to the restaurant is proposed from an existing
private driveway off of Water street. Access to the residential
building would be from the Calhoun Street right-of-way to an
underground parking area beneath the proposed residential building.
A one-way circulation pattern would direct all cars out via the
Calhoun street-end.
xxii. A traffic and internal circulation study, prepared by
Ki ttleson and Associates, projects that the proposal would gEmerate
less daily traffic than do existing uses. That is, the traffic
generated by the existing tire store (to be removed) is beliøved to
generate more traffic than would be generated by the residential
building plus the vehicle trips generated by the increase in
seating capacity of the restaurant. The study also indica1:ed the
parking area and internal circulation system would operate
effectively and provide adequate public safety.
xxiii. After the proposed remodeling and expansion of the
restaurant, the restaurant would total approximately 3,200 square
feet, excluding equipment rooms and storage areas. Chapter 17.30
of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and
Loading) requires one off-street parking space for each 100 square
feet of restaurant floor area. In compliance with this
requirement, the proposal provides for 32 off-street parking spaces
for the restaurant.
The residential building requires 1.5 off-street parking spaces per
unit, or 16.5 spaces. The underground parking area is desiqned to
accommodate 18 parking spaces. In addition, 3 on-street parking
spaces are provided in the Calhoun street right-of-way for public
use. The proposed project meets the minimum parking requirements
as well as the parking lot landscaping requirements of the Port
Townsend Municipal Code.
xxiv. The applicant proposes to construct a shoreline access
point at the Calhoun Street-end and a public pocket park adjacent
to the east side of the Bayview Restaurant. The Calhoun strE:!et-end
access point and the pocket park to the east would be connected by
7
8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
a continuous public access pathway along the entire shoreline bank
of the subject property (see Exhibit 5, dated September 27,1992).
xxv. A Preliminary Drainage Plan, prepared by Polaris Engineering
and Surveying Inc. (see Exhibit 10, dated February 6, 1992), was
submitted by the applicant as part of the SEPA addendum. This
preliminary drainage plan was accepted by the Public Works
Department, provided that the applicant complies with Polaris'
recommendations included within the drainage plan, and any comments
or conditions which may later be recommended by the Department of
Fisheries upon their review of the plans for incorporation into the
final drainage plan.
xxvi. Design and engineering specifications for the shore defense
work (i.e. bulkhead), also prepared by polaris Engineering (see
Exhibit 10), were submitted by the applicant as part of the SEPA
addendum. The design and engineering specifications for the
bulkhead were accepted by the Public Works Department, with the
provision that the applicant comply with Polaris' recommendations
included within the plan, and incorporate any comments or
condi tions which may later be recommended or required by the
Department of Fisheries upon their review.
xxvii. The applicant voluntarily agreed to design review of the
proposal by the Port Townsend Historic Preservation Committee
(HPC), even though the project was outside of the Port Townsend
Historic District. A number of design modifications were
incorporated by the applicant in response to suggestions received.
On October 8,1991, the HPC completed design review of the proposed
residential building, finding that the project "contributes as
conditioned" to the Port Townsend Historic District. The following
conditions were attached to the HPC approval:
(1) All exterior finishes and colors shall be specified by
the applicant and approved by the HPC prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy.
(2) All exterior signage shall be submitted to the HPC for
review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
(3) A Qetailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the HPC
for reV1ew and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permi t. Street trees that will reach a mature size in
approximately 5 years shall be installed along Water Street.
This will provide a unifying element for the project with the
Historic District, and "soften" the visual impact of parking
adjacent to the street.
(4) The following schedule of building materials shall be
submitted to the HPC for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit:
a.Roofing materials
b.Facia materials and gutter
c.Parapet cap
d.Wall materials (siding, shingles)
e.Windows - size of trim
f.Underside of porches
g.Doors
(5) No changes shall occur to the design of the proposed
parks without the review and approval of the HPC.
(6) Final railing design shall be submitted to the HPC for
review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permi t. A railing design which responds to the adjacent
building, and reinforces the scale and vertical modulation of
the Historic District is encouraged.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
xxviii. A number of citizens have submitted written testimony on
the application:
E. Zahn stated concerns about importance of restoration and
protection of natural shorelines and that development should
not be allowed in flood-prone areas.
Dan Waggoner, manager of Port Townsend Lumber, stated support
for the proposed project and waterfront walkway, which are
both important parts of the Urban Waterfront Plan.
Kate Jenks provided information that the "mound of earth" on
the site was an old remanent of the original bluff bordering
the shoreline. She also stated concerns over toxicity at the
site, impacts on wildlife and questioned use of the si1:e as a
parking lot.
Lowell Bogart also stated that the earthen mound is a natural
piece of the bluff that originally existed along the shoreline
and, due to the consolidated materials of the hillock,
excavation efforts would prove difficult.
Kay Goodhue indicated that the Audubon Society has identified
important sea grass beds and black brant migratory habitat
adjacent to the project area. She also stated concerns
regarding the development of waterfront property in Jefferson
County.
Larry and Shirley Browning, owners of the Bayview Restaurant,
described various policies contained in the Urban WatE!rfront
Plan which support their request to remove the earthen mound
on their property.
xxix. The Master Program requires that a shoreline conditional
use permit be issued for development of the proposal. In order to
issue this permits, the proposal should be in conformance with the
following applicable policies and performance standards of the
Master Program:
4.105,
4.106,
4.201,
4.202,
4.203,
5.50,
5.140,
5.160,
5.180,
5.200,
Urban Designation
Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District:
Primary Uses
Secondary Uses
Conditional Uses
Commercial Development
Parking Facilities
Residential Development
Shore Defense Works
utilities
A. section 4.105 describes an "Urban Designation" as an area
of high intensity land use, including residential and
commercial development. Development in this environmen1: shall
be limited to water-dependent, water-related, or water-
enjoyment uses. Non-water-development, such as the proposed
residential building, is not a preferred use, but :may be
allowed as a conditional use, if such development makes
provisions for public access. These developments shall
include provisions to enhance the public's use of the
shoreline, such as public access easements or enhancement of
a street-end or park, and be recorded with the County Auditor.
Any structure shall not be over 35 feet in height, shall be
designed not to block or interfere with the public's visual
and physical access, should be attractive from the watE!r, and
shall include measures to protect water quality. Unique
natural features in the urban shoreline area, such as bluffs,
dunes, and wetland areas, shall be preserved and protected.
9
10
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
B. section 4.106 outlines additional policies and standards
for the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront special District of the
Master Program. The proposal is located in this special
overlay district. Development in this district shall include
public access provisions; be setback a minimum of fifteen feet
from the ordinary high water mark; not exceed 35 feet in
building height; and not detract from the architectural
integrity of the Historic District.
C. Section 4.201 describes primary uses as those uses which
are found preferable and generally consistent in an urban
designation. The Bayview restaurant is classified as a
primary use under this section. Restaurants are also
considered a water-enjoyment use under the Master Program.
D. section 4.202, defines "Secondary Uses," are those uses
which are not deemed "preferable" within a particular
shoreline designation. The proposal incorporates parking
facilities and shore defense works which are secondary uses.
These uses should be found to be consistent with the policies
and standards of the Master Program, should not materially
interfere with the public use of public lands or waters, and
should not cause unnecessary adverse effects on the
environment or other properties.
E. Section 4.203, "Conditional Uses," are those uses deemed
least preferable in a particular shoreline designation. The
proposed residential building is a conditional use, and the
applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate the project
is in conformance with WAC 173-14-140, as amended, and all of
the following conditional use criteria of the Master Program:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the Master Program;
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal
public use of public shorelines;
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project
is compatible with other permitted uses within the area;
4. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse
effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be
located; and
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental
effect. In those limited instances where a conditional use is
proposed, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for similar actions in the area.
In addition, the Shoreline Management Act requires that
permits for variances and conditional uses must be submitted
to the Washington State Department of Ecology for final
approval.
In authorizing a conditional use permit, special conditions
may be required by Jefferson County, the City of Port
Townsend, or the Washington State Department of Ecology to
control or prevent adverse effects of a project or to further
the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master
Program.
F. section 5.50, "Commercial Development," sets pertinent
policies and performance standards which apply to the proposed
redevelopment of the restaurant. Under this section, the
restaurant should be consistent with, but not limited to,
enhancing public access by the establishment of a street-end
park or other public access provisions; be setback of a
minimum of 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark; should
not significantly obstruct views; should provide adequate
parking; and, should screen waste disposal and recycling
facilities, and propane tanks.
I
I
I
I.
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
G. section 5.140, "Parking Facilities," requires the applicant
locate parking facilities as far as practicable away from the
water's edge, provide adequate parking spaces for associated
uses, provide surface runoff and pollution controls, and
provide lighting which will not cause glare on adjacent
properties or water bodies.
H. Section 5.160, "Residential Development," establishes the
extent and nature of design considerations for residential
development, which includes: a project should not
significantly block views of adjacent residences or
properties; appurtenant structures such as decks shall meet
appropriate setbacks; public access to shorelines shall be
maintained; residential developments shall incorporate design
measures to prevent overflow usage of common areas; and,
development shall not be detrimental to geohydraulic
processes.
Performance standard 10 of this section states that the
shoreline setback for a proposed residential development
". . . shall be measured from the waterward most edge of the
structure, excluding decks, eaves, etcetera."
I. section 5.180, "Shore Defense Works," states that such
structures shall be designed and constructed to: minimize
wildlife habitat and shoreline processes alteration; be
compatible with the aesthetic characteristics of the area; and
avoid any filling behind the bulkhead for the purpose of
creating new land.
J. Section 5.200, "Utilities," includes policies and standards
which recommend that utili ties should be installed adjacent to
rights-of-way, and be placed underground wherever feasible;
should not affect water quality or marine habitat; prevent
siltation; and, that degraded areas should be replantE~d with
native species.
xxx. In addition, the City council is guided by the policies of the
State of Washington set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline
Management Act, and the goals and policies of the Master Program,
section 1.
xxxi. The 1990 Urban Waterfront Plan identifies the subject
property as being located in the Bluff Narrows District (From the
point at which the bluff face converges with Water Street about
one-half block southwest of Van Buren street, to the Walker Street
right-of-way). section 5.4 of the plan's Design Guidelines states
that "the close proximity of both the bluff and existing structures
to pedestrian and vehicular traffic discourages the develop)nent of
this district as a specific destination." Acknowledging this, the
plan lists that "encouraged uses" for this district are multi-
family residences and water-enjoyment uses such as restaurants.
Development guidelines for this district include modulation of
buildings, establishing a five-foot landscape buffer between a
parking lot and public right-of-way, undergrounding of utilities,
and maximizing public access provisions between buildings.
xxxii. On March 18, 1992, the Shoreline Commission, after hE~aring,
reviewed and considered the revised application and plans and other
information on the record for conformance with the Master Program
and recommended that the shoreline conditional use permit be
approved with certain listed conditions.
xxxiii. On May 4, 1992, the City Council, after hearing, reviewed
and considered the recommendations of the Shoreline Commission,
together with the other information on the record, considered a
motion to approve the application. The motion failed by a vote of
2-5. A subsequent motion was passed, requesting City planning
staff to prepare a draft of specific findings and conclusions for
11
12
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
consideration by the City Council to deny the application, and also
directing staff to meet with the proponent to determine whether or
not there was interest in presenting a modified proposal which more
acceptably addressed the specific shortcomings raised by the City
council with respect to the applicable Policies and Performance
Standards of the Master Program.
xxxiv. At the City Council meeting on June 1, 1992, the applicant
presented project revisions to CUP9203-09 and the following
additional documents:
(Note: The City Councilmembers had previously received in their
information packets copies of the draft findings and conclusions
prepared by staff which would support a decision to deny the
application.)
A. A revised site plan (see Exhibit 16, dated May 29, 1992),
illustrating project modifications and comparing existing
conditions with the proposed development.
B. A letter from JT Architecture, dated May 29, 1992,
comparing existing conditions with the proposed development
with respect to the area of impervious surfaces and
vegetation. (See Exhibit 17.)
C. An architectural rendering of the proposed residential
building and public access walkway from the east (see Exhibit
18, dated June 1, 1992).
D. An architectural rendering of the proposed residential
building from the west (see Exhibit 19, dated June 1, 1992).
E. A copy of a sketch of building line elevations showing the
degree of view obstruction from Water Street which had been
earlier presented to the Historic Preservation Commission (see
Exhibit 20).
xxxv. The modifications presented by the applicant are as follows:
A. The public access walkway which currently exists on the
concrete seawall of Bay vista I would be improved by
relocating the walkway onto the waterward face of the seawall
and approximately one foot below the surface of the existing
walkway. As the current public walkway transverses the outer
edge of private patios, the proposed modifications are
designed to reduce the intrusion into private property and
present a more inviting, less intimidating walkway for public
shoreline access. The specific design described would be a
wood planked walkway, cantilevered from the existing seawall
on galvanized brackets. Permission from the owners of Bay
Vista I would be required in order to implement this
modification.
B. The width of the landscaping area between the proposed
public access walkway of Bay Vista II and the proposed
residential building and parking lot would be expanded by
approximately three feet. This would allow this landscaping
area to vary from seven to ten feet in width. This
modification includes, and is made possible by, changing the
waterward slope of the proposed rip rap bulkhead from 1.5:1 to
1:1.
C. A public restroom would be constructed and maintained. The
restroom would be kept open the same hours as the Bayview
Restaurant. Maintenance would be assured by the condominium
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992~ont.
t3
I
I
I
I
:owners association and enforced through the Covl:mants,
!conditions and restrictions attached to each deed
I(hereinafter, "C, C & R's").
:D. An stairway would be added leading from the surface ]parking
lot down onto the public access walkway.
'E. The surface of the parking lot for the southeasterly ten
feet (adjacent to the landscaping next to the public shoreline
walkway) would be surfaced with grass block pavers and be
planted with Red Fescue grass (or other sui table, durable
grass) .
F. A wooden planked bench would be developed on the tO~1 of the
retaining wall on the upland side of the public access 'walkway
from the easternmost edge of the expanded restaurant to the
þublic access ramp at the westernmost edge of the residential
building. This bench would be continuous except wh43re the
retaining wall is interrupted by stairways, entrances or
rampways.
,
G. The planned asphalt surface of the public access 'walkway
will be replaced with architectural paving.
H. A small landscaped peninsula dividing the four parking
spaces facing Water Street closest to the northeast driveway
from the remaining eleven spaces also facing Water street
would be somewhat larger than originally proposed.
I. Adequate recycling collection stations at both the
restaurant and residential buildings, with appropriate
screening. (No specific design was presented.)
xxxvi. On June 1, 1992, the City council, after taking additional
public testimony, considered the modifications and additional
information presented and by a vote of 4 3 approved the
conditional use permit as modified, subject to consideration and
adoption of final findings and conclusions in support of the
decision.
Conclusions
1.
As documented in the Modi f ied MDNS ( see Exhibit :3 ), the
placement of approximately 16 cubic yards of fill above the
ordinary high water mark will not result in a significant
adverse environmental impact on the shoreline environment.
Many of the concerns expressed in written and oral tE!stimony
(see Exhibit 11) were addressed during SEPA review. Pcltential
impacts to black brant habitat were discussed and considered
during SEPA review. Potential impacts to shoreline processes
and marine habitat were addressed by requiring a properly
designed bulkhead to be reviewed by the Department of
Fisheries. No significant adverse environmental impacts to
the shoreline or shoreline habitat areas are created. by the
proposed development.
2.
3.
The earthen mound bluff remnant is not found to be culturally
or physically significant, and its removal would enhance
shoreline views from Water street. In addition, the hluff
4.
remnant is specifically found not to be a unique feature
because substantial portions of the original shoreline bluff
remain along Water Street and in other areas of the eity.
'rhe modified proposed bulkhead conforms to the policies and
performance standards of section 5.180, Shore Defense Works of
the Master Program. Policy 5 discourages use of bulkl'leads to
i't-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 19~2r-Cont.
5.
create land by filling behind the bulkhead. Here the fill is
located landward of the ordinary high water mark and does not
intrude into the surface of Port Townsend Bay. In addition
the proposed fill is minor in extent and, in addition t~
providi~g protec~ion to upland areas and facilities, creates
a superJ.or publJ.c access walkway along the shoreline than
would otherwise be possible, given the constraints of the
site. The small amount of fill allows the grade of the public
access walkway to be more uniform along its full length.
Consequently, this small amount of fill is permissible in this
case in support of the overriding goal of increasing" . . .
th~ amount and diversity of opportunity for the public to
enJoy the shorelines of the state while respecting the rights
of private ownership." (Master Program, subsection 1.20)
Pursuant to 4.106, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to
construct and dedicate public access improvements for hoth the
Calhoun street-end, a public pocket park adjacent to the
Báyview Restaurant, and the "Waterwalk" public access pathway
fronting Port Townsend Bay. These public access provi;sions
have been improved by the modified proposal, including ~eeded
improvements to the existing public access walkway frQnting
the adjacent Bay vista I project. While passage of the
proposed public accessway under the Bay vista II decks :for a
distance of approximately seventy-five feet could appear as an
intrusion and discourage public use, provision of a pubic
restroom would provide a welcome public facility and provide
a logical connection between the walkway and the pr:i vate
building. In addition, the deck does offer pedestrians, some
shade and weather protection. Also, there is a substantially
greater portion of public access area created under the
proposal which is open to the shoreline and consists of
walkways, benches and pocket park areas.
As modified, the proposed public access facilities exceed the
standards contained in the Master Program under section 4 '.106,
meet the public access directive of the Shoreline Managèment
Act and are commensurate with the degree of impact caused by
the development.
6.
Under the conditions prescribed below, the proposal meets the
public access provisions of section 4.106, Port Townsend Urban
Waterfront Special District, does not exceed the 35 foot
building height limit, and has been conditioned and approved
by the Historic Preservation commission to assure that the
proposal does not detract from the architectural integrity of
the nearby Historic District.
7.
Under the conditions prescribed below, the proposed restaurant
development is consistent with the applicable policies and
performance standards in section 5.50, commercial development.
The restaurant expansion is consistent hy ensuring ,that
adequate parking is provided, and by constructing the p~blic
access improvements which includes the dedication of a pocket
park.
The Preliminary Drainage Plan for the parking area and design
specifications for the shore defense work, documents that
these secondary uses, as designed and conditioned, will not
have a significant adverse environmental impact and are
8.
9.
consistent with the policies and standards in section 5.140,
Parking Facili ties, and 5.180, Shore Defense Works,
respectively.
The revised site plan is consistent with the City's parking
ordinance (17.30 Port Townsend Municipal Code). Parking
spaces are planned to be setback at least fifteen feet from
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SES~ION OF JU~E 15. 199~--Cant~
15
_u-- . --- --
I
I
I
10.
,
¡the ordinary high water mark. Traffic and internal vehicle
:circulation concerns have been addressed through SEPA n~view.
I
,The proposed residential building is consistent with the
conditional use policies, standards and criteria of the Master
:Program:
:( 1) Under the condi tions listed below, the proposed
~esidential building is consistent with the policies of RCW
~0.58.020, and the policies of the Master Program.
,( 2) The construction and dedication of the proposed pedE~strian
walkway and the two pocket parks would facilitate increased
public use of the shoreline. These proposed improvements
would enhance the normal public use of the public shoreline as
compared to the current land use, and would not interfeJre with
any existing public use of public shorelines.
In addition, to compensate for the fact that the proposed
residential development is allowed only as a conditional use,
the applicant has voluntarily proposed to add public access
improvements to the existing Bay vista I project adjacent to
the existing seawall and connection of the Bay vista I public
access with the adjoining Tides Motel property. WhilE~ these
proposals have been offered voluntarily by the applicant as
part of the proposal, they are viewed as an integral part of
the proposal by the City Council and are necessary to :justify
the granting of a conditional use permit for a non water-
related, water-dependent or water-enjoyment use. Should the
applicant be unable to perform with respect to any of the
proposed public access improvements, the permit shall be
required to be revised and additional public hearinç:rs held
regarding whether a permi t should be issued without the
element involved.
( 3) The proposed use of the site is compatible with othlar uses
wi thin the area ( i. e., the "Bluff Narrows District" from
southwest of the Ferry Terminal to the Walker Street riqht-of-
way). Immediately adjacent to the proposed site are a multi-
family residence, and a restaurant. Located southwestlarly of
the proposed development is the Bay vista I residential
building, the use of which is identical to that of the
proposed project. The Bayview Restaurant is located nOJrtherly
of the proposed site.
¡n general, restaurants are often incompatible~ wi th
residential development as they generate noise, odors and
vehicular traffic which can create off-site impacts. The
distance between the Bayview Restaurant and the proposed
residential development provides a suff icient buffE!r that
effecti vely mitigates these potential impacts, and contributes
to the compatibility of the restaurant with the proposed
project.
The design of the proposed project has been found by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to contribute to the
nearby Port Townsend Historic District. Designation by the
HPC as "contributing" represents consistency with established
district guidelines for exterior and site design. A key
aspect of the review was to evaluate the contextual
setting to the proposed design as compared to existing
structures and natural features. The design of the proposed
project was found to be appropriate in relation to the design
of the immediate area.
There are unique features of the immediate area whÜ::h make
development of traditional water-dependent or water-related
commercial development highly unlikely. Among these
ib
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15t 1992, Contd
conditions are the constrained area for development of
buildings, parking facilities and transportation facilities;
increased traffic on State Route 20 on Water street; increased
ferry traffic; and the physical inability to construct normal
intersections and turn lanes due to the constraint of the
bluff and shoreline.
(4) The proposed project will not cause unreasonable adverse
effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be
located. The probability of significant adverse environmental
impacts has been evaluated through the SEPA process. Specific
measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts
disclosed during SEPA review have been agreed upon, and a
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance has been issued.
(5) The proposed project would not have a substantial
detrimental effect on the public interest:
a. The proposed provision of improved public access to and
along the shoreline enhances the public use of the site as
compared to existing conditions.
b. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Urban
Waterfront Plan, which encourages multi-family residences and
water-enjoyment uses (e.g. restaurants) in this district.
c. The removal of the existing, non-conforming shoreline use
currently occupying the site (the Les Schwab Tire Store), and
the construction of the proposed project would make the site
more consistent with the provisions of the Master Program.
d. The City council is highly concerned with the cumulative
effects of additional residential developments along the urban
waterfront of the "Bluff Narrows District" from southwest of
the Ferry Terminal to the Walker Street right-of-way). While
this permit is being issued subject to conditions, the City
Council concludes that additional single purpose residential
development in this area of the shoreline would he
inappropriate due to the cumulative effects such additional
development would create. Specifically, the City Council is
concerned with the potential height, bulk and scale and
traffic generation of additional residential development and
concludes that such additional development of single purpose
residential uses would be inconsistent with the Master
Program.
e. The proposed residential building would be an infill
development between two established, compatible land uses' (the
Bayview Restaurant and the Bay vista I multi-family
residence) . The unique conditions present in the "Bluff
Narrows District" and on this infill site differ distinctly
and significantly from the conditions of any other site within
the urban environment of the Master program and, therefore,
the present proposal shall not set a precedent for approval of
any proposal within any other areas of the urban environment.
11.
The proposed residential building is consistent with the
policies, standards and criteria of the Master Program:
(1) The residential building is setback fifteen feet from the
ordinary high water mark. Section 4.106 allows developments
in the Special Waterfront District a minimum 15 foot setback
from the ordinary high water mark.
(2) As designed, approximately 70 feet of the residential
buildings's deck extends out over the public access path, to
just inside the ordinary high water mark (i.e. landward of
OHWM). Performance standard 10 of section 5.160 allows for
this setback variation by stating "All setbacks shall be
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15,1992, Cont.
just inside the ordinary high water mark (i. e. landT¡Jard of
OHWM). Performance standard 10 of Section 5.160 allows for
this setback variation by stating "All setbacks shall be
measured from the waterward most edge of the structure,
excluding decks. . . " Since the deck area at ground level would
be dedicated as a public access walkway, the deck overhang
would not interfere with the normal public use of the
shoreline.
(3) The proposed residential building may block some views of
the shoreline. The structure has incorporated modula1t:ion in
building design. Excavation of the earthen mound would
enhance the view to the east of the proposed residential
building, however, the view from Water street would be across
a parking lot. View and physical access to the shoreline
would be enhanced by the proposed publ ic access improvl:!ments.
The residential building and expansion of the restaurant would
not significantly impact views of adjacent properties and is
compatible with other permitted uses in the area.
Decision
In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions the City
Council of the City of Port Townsend approves the conditional use
permit, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The shoreline substantial permit shall include all Mitigation
Measures set forth in the Modified Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance, issued by the City Council on March 3,1992;
the conditions of the Historic Preservation Commission
approval dated October 8,1992; and the additional conditions
prescribed below. Those documents are attached as Exhibits A
and B to these Findings and Conclusions and the conditions
identified therein are incorporated in this document by
reference.
2.
The applicant has voluntarily included improvements in public
access to the Bay vista I project to compensate for the
conditional use of the shoreline by the Bay Vista II project.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit for approval of the Planning Director and the Public
Works Director, detailed design specifications and drawings of
the proposed reconstruction of the publ ic access walJcway on
the Bay vista I seawall. The design shall be preparE:!d by a
Washington certified structural engineer with special
expertise and" experience in such a facility in a marine
environment. The qualifications of the engineer shall first
be presented to the Public Works Director for accl~ptance
before commencing design work. In addition, the City A"t:torney
shall approve all necessary easement documents authorizing the
work and use and providing for maintenance thereof.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any portion of the
Bay vista II project, the reconstruction of the walkway on the
Bay vista I seawall shall be complete and satisfactorily
inspected in all respects.
In addition, an easement in form approved by the City At:torney
shall be recorded for connection of the public access in front
of Bay Vista I with the adjoining Tides Motel property prior
to the issuance of any building permits to Bay vista II.
Should any of the proposed public access elements not be
achievable, the permit shall require revision and a new public
hearing before the City Council to determine whether the
revised proposal continues to meet the requirements of the
Master Program.
3.
Pursuant to section 4.105, all structures, parking areas and
drives shall be setback at least fifteen feet from the
17
18
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
ordinary high water mark. This setback requirement excludes
the approximately 70 foot portion of the deck which is located
within fifteen feet of the ordinary high water mark.
4.
Pursuant to sections 4.105 and 5.140, all new or redeveloped
parking areas shall provide landscaping for the perimeter of
the parking area, between public access areas and parking
areas, and between the public access walkway and the
residential building. A detailed landscape plan will be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director
prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan
shall indicate species, methods of planting, irrigation system
design specifications, and maturity of plants at planting.
Landscaping adjacent to the public access walkway shall be
selected and developed to replicate both the soil types and
plant species which are indigenous to the Olympic Peninsula
shoreline. Landscaping species selected for placement within
view corridors shall be selected to screen parking areas
without obstructing views of the water.
5.
Pursuant to section 4.105 and 4.106, the owners of the subject
properties shall enter into a perpetual public access easement
in a form and manner approved by the City Attorney dedicating
a five-foot wide public access pathway and the two associated
pocket parks at the east and west ends of the Waterwalk. The
public access easement shall conform to the dimensions and
placement included on the site plan as Exhibit 16, be approved
by the City Attorney, and be recorded with the Jefferson
County Auditor prior to issuance of a building permit for the
restaurant or residential building.
6.
The pub 1 ic access easement granted by the owners of the
restaurant shall expressly provide for maintenance and repair
of landscaping, stormwater drainage facilities, public access
areas including the pocket park, benches or other facilities,
signs, lighting, and parking area.
7.
A residential building owners association shall be established
prior to the occupancy of the residential building. The
association will be bound by CC&R's which include provisions
for maintenance and repair of landscaping, drainage
facilities, benches or other facilities, signs, lighting and
parking areas. The CC&R's shall also prohibit parking on the
premises of recreational vehicles or boat trailers which are
owned or in use by any occupants of the residential building.
A separate agreement regarding maintenance and upkeep of the
public restrooms, public access walkway and park areas between
the Homeowners Association and the city shall be executed
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
residential building. The agreement shall contain standards
for maintenance and shall give the City the right to contract
for maintenance and assess the Association for payment if
maintenance standards are not being met.
8.
To assure consistency with section 4.106, the exterior of the
Bayview restaurant shall be designed to receive approval from
the HPC to be consistent with the Urban Waterfront Design
Guidelines (Section 17.28, Port Townsend Municipal Code) and
assure compatibility with the proposed residential building
and not detract from the design and architectural integrity of
the immediately adjacent National Historic District.
9.
Pursuant to Section 5.160, the residential building shall be
limited to a maximum height of thirty-five feet above the
existing grade.
10.
Both the residential building and the restaurant shall provide
screened areas on site for garbage collection, recycling
facilities and any surface-mounted propane tanks. Detailed
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont..
plans for the facilities shall be provided in the building
permit applications and shall be reviewed for adequacy by the
Director of Planning and Building before issuance of such
permits.
11.
Pursuant to public access provisions of the Master Program,
public access signs which meet the Washington State Department
of Ecology criteria for color, size, and design shall be
placed and maintained at the Calhoun and Water Street
intersection, the Calhoun street-end public access point, and
the pocket park to the east of the Bayview Restaurant.
Parking on Calhoun Street shall be signed as public parking
and be limited to a maximum of two hours.
12.
13.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public access plan
shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning
and Building and shall include construction details for
landscaping, paving materials, signage, public improvements
such as benches, the public access pathway, the pockE~t park
and the Calhoun Street public access area.
14.
No appurtenance to the residential building, such as decks,
eaves, etc., shall extend waterward of the ordinary high water
mark.
15.
Any propane tanks shall either be undergrounded or, if
surface-mounted, shall not be located within any of the public
park or shoreline access areas shown on the site plan (Exhibit
16) .
Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.200 and WAC 173-14-060, construction or
substantial progress toward construction of a project for ~Jhich a
substantial conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to the
Shoreline Management Act must be undertaken within two years after
date of approval. The project must be completed within fiv«~ years
and a one year extension may be considered.
Appeal to Shoreline Hearings Board
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 and WAC 173-14-174 any person ag9rieved
by the final decision on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit may
seek appeal to the State Shorelines Hearing Board. All requests
for review shall be concurrently filed with the Shoreline HE!arings
Board, the Department of Ecology, and State Attorney General within
30 days after action is taken by the Department of Ecology on the
final order of the city on the permit application. The requ«~st for
review must contain items required by WAC 461-08-055.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-20.
1. Original MDNS and Environmental Checklist
2. Staff Analysis and SEPA Addendum
3. Modified MDNS
4 . Letters from the Department of Ecology and tht3 City
Attorney
5. Pocket Park and Waterwalk site Plan
6. certified Survey
7. Revised Site Plan
8. Cross-section of Waterwalk and Residential Buildinçr
9. Letters from the Department of Ecology and Department of
Fisheries
10. Preliminary Drainage Plan and Specifications for the
Bulkhead
11. written Testimony
19
20
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15,1992, Cont.
12. Draft Public Access Easement Agreement
13. Minutes of the Shoreline commission Hearing on Bay vista
II
14. Previous project site plan, dated February 7, 1992,
presented earlier to the city Council at the time of the
environmental determination.
15. Letter from Nordland Construction Company to City Staff
Planner David Robison dated February 4,1992, concerning the
Environmental Checklist Addendum.
16. Revised site plan, dated May 29, 1992, illustrating
project modifications and comparing existing conditions with
the proposed development.
17. A letter from JT Architecture, dated May 29, 1992,
comparing existing conditions with the proposed development
with respect to the area of impervious surfaces and
vegetation.
18. An architectural rendering of the proposed residential
building and public access walkway from the east.
19. An architectural rendering of the proposed residential
building from the west.
20. A copy of a sketch of building line elevations showing the
degree of view obstruction from Water Street which had been
earlier presented to the Shoreline Commission.
Resolution Authorizing Contract for Free Bicycle Program.
RESOLUTION NO 92-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND RE-AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR
A FREE BICYCLE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN
THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE
DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION.
After a brief discussion of the insurance premium, Councilmember
McCulloch made a motion that the Council adopt Resolution No 92-70
which was seconded by Councilmember Westerman and passed
unanimously by voice vote.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Haller Fountain. Mayor Clise reported that the Kiwanis Club has
offered to take the lead in raising funds for and the overseeing of
the restoration of the Haller Fountain and that Chris Carson has
agreed to do the preliminary drawings at no cost. Mayor Clise
stated that the steps necessary are (1) fund raising (2) project
design and (3) the actual construction management and that the
Kiwanis Club has offered to oversee them all. Mayor Clise will
continue to coordinate from the standpoint of the city.
Budget Adjustment Update. Mayor Clise gave a report on the
progress made on the mid-year budget adjustments for 1992. Mayor
Clise stated that he thinks that while next year will probably be
a "tight year", we will be able to set in place the financial
planning and guidelines so that this type of situation does not
occur again. Mayor Clise explained the changes needed in the City
Attorney, Police, Library, Fire and EMS, Planning and Building
budgets. The net adjustments are about $90,000 which is not as
much as he desired ($200,000), but with careful management of
financial resources for the rest of the year, we will be in a
position that we will not have to face this situation next year.
COMMITTEE REPORTS/STAFF REPORTS
Parks/property ~ Councilmember Camfield made a motion that the
Council approve a sub-l~àse for the restaurant at the Golf Course
to Terri Stinson which was seconded by Councilmember Sokol and
passed unanimously by voice vote.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
Carousel Project. Councilmember Camfield reported that a meeting
was held with the Park Board and the Carousel Association and
requested direction from the Council for a process. It was the
consensus of the Council that the Parks/Property Commi ttE!e make
recommendations to Council for a site. Councilmember Camfield then
scheduled a Committee Report for the next Councilmeeting on ,July 6,
1992, on the Carousel Project.
Councilmember Camfield set a meeting of the Parks/Property
Committee for July 2, 1992, at 5:00 PM to discuss the Carousel
Project Report as well as the Triangle Park area parking.
Triangle Park. Councilmember Camfield reported she had mE~t with
Mary Hoffman regarding the status of the Triangle Park and the
progress toward the plan for the park and interim parking in the
area.
A discussion of the process required for the Carousel Project
ensued.
Police/Fire/Animal Control. Councilmember Sokol reported that the
Committee discussed 2 hour parking variances and street closures as
requested by Police Chief Newton. Discussion of a proposE~d list
ensued as well as procedures for road closures ensued.
Finance. Councilmember Owsley set a meeting of the Commi t1:ee for
June 23, 1992, at 5: 00 PM to discuss the proposed budget for
Tourism Committee.
Street/Storm Drainage/Light. Councilmember Jones set a mee'ting of
the Committee for July 13,1992, at 5:00 PM.
Legislative/Environmental. Councilmember Wolpin set a mee1:ing of
the Committee for July 9, 1992, at 5:00 PM to discuss the SEPA
checklist for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance .and the
letter from Kathleen Mitchell.
community Services. Councilmember Westerman reported that
Jefferson County is updating their solid waste management plan as
to waste reduction and recycling components and that she ~lill be
attending a meeting on June 18, 1992. Councilmember Westerman also
reported that there is a survey being conducted to find out what
people are doing on their own as well as participation in recycling
projects.
Transportation steering Committee. Councilmember Westerman
reported that the Transportation Steering Committee is still
meeting.
Avoidance of Filtration. Mr Wheeler reported that th,e City
received a draft compliance schedule from the Department of Health
on avoidance of filtration today that needs some negotiations
because it has a six month time frame which the City cannoi: meet.
Water Conservation & Consumption. Mr Wheeler reported thai: water
conservation and consumption notices in the Port Townsend Leader
will be continued on a weekly basis. The Parks Department has cut
back on water usage and a letter has been sent to the Port Townsend
Golf Course mentioning water conservation concerns and recommending
their participation.
Waste Water. Mr Wheeler reported that the Public Works Department
is working on the design of the Biosolids facility for composting
including septage.
Authorization for Out of State Travel. Councilmember We8terman
made a motion that out of state travel by Biosolids CO1'lIt\i ttee
members, city staff members and Larry Fay from the Health
21
22
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15,1992, Cont.
Department be authorized for a trip to Coer D'lane, Idaho, on June
19,1992, to observe a biosolids facility similar to the one being
designed which was seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed
unanimously by voice vote.
Waste Water Treatment Plant Progress Report. Mr Wheeler reported
that the Waste Water Treatment Plant is 11.6% Completed.
Forest Park PUD. Mr Hildt read the following paragraph to be added
to Finding 22 for the Forest Park PUD by Rick Sepler as requested
by Councilmember Westerman.
During testimony taken by the City council, the Jefferson
County Assessor addressed potential changes to
surrounding property values due to the construction of a
multi-family residential project. The Assessor stated
that the stability of surrounding property values were
dependent on the both the scale of a proposed project,
and the maintenance of the subject property. In
addition, the Assessor cited three comparable multi-
family projects in Port Townsend that have demonstrated
a positive effect on surrounding property values.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Mr Hildt reported that
the hearing on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance with
the Planning Commission has been scheduled for July 15, 1992, at
7:00 PM.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance Budget. Mr Hildt
reported that he is working on a memorandum for the Planning
Commission and Council regarding his best estimate of the
administrative costs of administering the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Draft Ordinance Adopting Uniform Codes. Mr Hildt reported that a
draft ordinance to adopt the Uniform Codes for 1991 will be in the
packets for the next meeting.
1992 Waste Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund Loan.
ORDINANCE NO 2301
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LOAN OF THE SUM
OF $310,000 FROM THE STORM AND SURFACE WATER
FUND TO THE 1992 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CONSTRUCTION FUND AND PROVIDING FOR REPAYMENT.
Mr Grove explained the ordinance and read it by title. Council-
member Owsley made a motion that the first reading be considered
the second and the third be by title only which was seconded by
Councilmember McCulloch and passed unanimously by voice vote. Mr
Grove again read the ordinance by title. Councilmember Owsley made
a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No 2301 which was
seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by roll call
vote.
Special Meeting. Mr Grove explained the need for a Special Council
Meeting for the sale of bonds. Councilmember Owsley made a motion
to set a Special Meeting of the Council for June 29, 1992, at 5:30
PM to authorize the sale of bonds and pass an ordinance for the
Waste Water Treatment Plant Construction which was seconded by
Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by voice vote.
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15, 1992, Cont.
NEW BUSINESS
Ordinance Averaging Sewer Bills.
ORDINANCE NO 2302
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE METHOD FOR
CALCULATING THE RATES FOR SEWAGE SERVICE IN
THE CITY BY ALLOWING AVERAGING OF THE CHARGES
WHERE WATER METER READINGS OCCUR ON A BI- .
MONTHLY BASIS OR WHERE METER READINGS CANNOT
BE OBTAINED UNDER A NORMAL SCHEDULE BY
AMENDING SECTION 13.04.030 OF THE PORT
TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1, 1992.
Mayor Clise explained the ordinance. Mr Grove read the ordinance
by title. Councilmember McCulloch made a motion that thE~ first
reading be considered the second and the third be by title only
which was seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by
voice vote. Mr Grove again read the ordinance by title.
Councilmember Jones made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance
No 2302 which was seconded by Councilmember McCulloch and passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
Ordinance Limiting Fireworks Displays.
ORDINANCE NO 2303
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FIREWORKS; LIMITING
THE DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS TO JULY 4 ONLY IN
CALENDAR YEAR 1992; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilmember Sokol explained the ordinance. After discussion,
including Fire Chief Scott, Mr Grove read the ordinance by title.
Councilmember Camfield made a motion that the first reading be
considered the second and the third be by title only which was
seconded by Councilmember Sokol and passed unanimously by voice
vote. Mr Grove read the ordinance by title. Councilmember Jones
made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No 2303 which was
seconded by Councilmember Camfield and passed unanimously by roll
call vote.
Ordinance on Levy Rezone.
Councilmember Jones left the Chambers.
ORDINANCE NO 2304
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 5 AND 6 OF BLOCK
221 OF THE EISENBEIS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
PORT TOWNSEND FROM R-II TO R-III; AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PORT
TOWNSEND; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr Hildt explained the ordinance. Mr Grove read the ordinance by
title. Councilmember Westerman made a motion that the first
reading be considered the second and the third be by title only
which was seconded by Councilmember Camfield and passed unanimously
by voice vote. Councilmember Westerman read the ordinance by title
and made a motion that the Council adopt Ordinance No 2304 which
was seconded by Councilmember Wolpin and passed unanimously by roll
call vote.
Councilmember Jones returned to the Chambers.
23
24
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JUNE 15,1992, Cont.
Resolution Authorizing Application for Grant Funds.
RESOLUTION NO 92-71
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PORT
TOWNSEND TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
. RECONSTRUCTION OF KEARNEY STREET.
Mr Hildt explained the resolution. Councilmember McCulloch made a
motion that the Council adopt Resolution No 92-71 which was
seconded by Councilmember Jones and passed unanimously by voice
vote.
COUNCILMEMBERS GENERAL DISCUSSION
Letter from EDC. A short discussion of the letter from the
Economic Development Council regarding funding for business
representation to the Chelan Agreement ensued.
Sullivan Fence. Councilmember Westerman reported that she has a
report from the Police Department stating that there has been a
total of seven cases of criminal activity in the area since 198L,
only one of which occurred in the area that would be behind the
fence and concluded that there is not a serious problem there. A
brief discussion of letters concerning controversial issues ensued.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Councilmember McCulloch made a
motion that the meeting be adjourne which was seconded by
Councilmember Jones and passed unanimous y boice vote at 11:38
PM.
Attest:
r
~kurer
. "
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JUNE 29, 1992
The City council of the City of Port Townsend met in special
session this Twenty-ninth day of June, 1992, at 5:40 PM in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor John M Clise presiding.
ROLL CALL
councilmembers present at Roll Call were Jean Camfield, Vern Jones,
Julie McCulloch, Norma Owsley, Robert Sokol, and Cindy Wolpin.
Councilmember Westerman was excused. Also present were Clerk-
Treasurer David Grove, City Attorney Dennis McLerran, and City
Engineer Randy Brackett.
I
I
I